TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:45 am

Foxx wrote: smart car gets 33mpg?
i get 30 with my "new" 89 Nissan
cost me a whopping 500 bucks and the AC works

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I DARE you to try and kill that thing- YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!

I beat the ever loving snot out of my Dad's silver '87 2 door Sentra, and it STILL made it to 14 years of age with the original clutch in it! :shock: Granted the body had rusted away from around the engine, but if I'd had another body, no doubt that thing would have happily gone another 230k miles before dying.

Speaking of rust, who's idea was it to use a company called 'Rusty Jones' to rust proof the body? Maybe the meaning got lost in translation over in Japan. :? One day we got a check from the company right after it went under, saying how all the cars they treated were falling apart. :roll:

Over all though, the Sentra ended up being a remarkably economical way to spend $7,500 at a dealership.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:56 am

Vintage Split wrote: Somethings wrong if there hasn't be much improvement (MPG wise) in 20 years.
1989 Honda CRX HF:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml

No kidding. My daughters 89 CRX automatic, with 210,000 miles still passes smog check and gets in the low 40s per gallon.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:35 am

GeorgeL wrote: Wow, a True Believer :shock: even willing to ignore conservation of energy!

Nowhere do I do this. You lack an understanding of how a hybrid system gains it's efficiency. It's far more than "use the brakes to recharge batteries," and even that you misunderstand as I described above. It also operates the gas engine in its optimal power band almost all the time. When less power is needed for propulsion, the otherwise wasted power is used to recharge the battery. By varying valve timing and the transmission ratio continuously, the engine can be far more efficient than even a 5 speed manual box.

GeorgeL wrote: While you so eloquently accuse me of making "More new madeup $hit" you still have not explained why the percentage drops in hybrid EPA mileage under the new tests are so much _greater_ than the percentage drops of conventional cars.

Interesting "logic." You imply that your made up $hit must be accepted as fact unless I prove otherwise? Pretty funny!

The reason it appears the hybrids do more poorly is the mathematics of MPG versus consumption. The meaningful metric for gas consumption is gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. Other than in the US, consumption (in litres/100km), for example) is used to measure efficiency, not mpg.

The meanigful question is, "Which class of vehicles had the largest increase in consumption under the new rules?" The answer is that hybrids did better than most. For those who can't tell the numerator from the denominator, this may not make sense, but for those who passed 3rd grade arithmetic, here goes:

For example: The new rating system drops the 2006 Chevy Suburban 1500 2wd from 17 mpg to 16. This looks trivial compared with the Prius' 9 mpg plunge from 55 mpg to 46. But what this actually means is that the average Suburban uses .0625 gallons per mile instead of .0588 - an increase of .0037 gallons per mile. Meanwhile, the average Prius now uses .0217 gallons per mile instead of .0181 - a slightly smaller increase of .0036 gallons per mile.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:03 pm

The only thing that makes me nervous about hybrids is the complexity of the entire car. I imagine that if you fried one wire under the dash, it'd cost you upwards of a thousand bucks to get it fixed, or if water ever got under there*shudder*. And how about replacing those batteries? I simply prefer cars that I can work on, plain and simple. Theoretically, my friend's '97 Honda Civic is more economical anyways, as it's gone 110k trouble free miles and still gets 37mpg. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:07 pm

The Prius is not greatly more complex. The transmission system is simpler than an automatic and has no friction elements or valves to wear out. The gas engine is out of the Echo, save for the induction system. Consumer Reports rates it beter than average for reliability.

What makes it complex is all the gadgets, though these are becoming common to others cars as well. Navigation systems, touch screen, computer controlled sound and climate systems, air bags, HID lamps... these are the reasons why I bought the extended warranty, not the hybrid system. Batteries last at least 300,000 miles.

But it was an act of faith in Toyota, and so far it has paid off. I would not have bought this type of car from any other maker.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:58 pm

KTPhil wrote: You lack an understanding of how a hybrid system gains it's efficiency. It's far more than "use the brakes to recharge batteries," and even that you misunderstand as I described above. It also operates the gas engine in its optimal power band almost all the time. When less power is needed for propulsion, the otherwise wasted power is used to recharge the battery. By varying valve timing and the transmission ratio continuously, the engine can be far more efficient than even a 5 speed manual box.

GeorgeL wrote: While you so eloquently accuse me of making "More new madeup $hit" you still have not explained why the percentage drops in hybrid EPA mileage under the new tests are so much _greater_ than the percentage drops of conventional cars.

Interesting "logic." You imply that your made up $hit must be accepted as fact unless I prove otherwise? Pretty funny!

The reason it appears the hybrids do more poorly is the mathematics of MPG versus consumption. The meaningful metric for gas consumption is gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. Other than in the US, consumption (in litres/100km), for example) is used to measure efficiency, not mpg.

I have quite a good understanding of how a Prius functions, but even without intimate knowledge of the mechanicals it isn't difficult to evaluate the efficiency of any vehicle. Model it as a thermodynamic system with inputs (fuel), desirable outputs (work) and undesirable outputs (engine heat, brake heat, aerodynamic drag, emissions). Considered as a system, anything you can do to divert energy from the undesirable outputs to the desired output is a good thing.

The Prius attacks the problem from three aspects. As you have said, the engine runs in a more efficient range, reducing its engine heat output. Brake heat output is also reduced through regenerative braking. Finally, aerodynamic drag is reduced through the shape of the vehicle.

I have no argument with any of these points, I just list them to show that I'm not as uninformed as you assert. Hybrids are good, just not as fantastically good as the EPA and Toyota wanted us to believe in 2004. Since Prius customers tended to be better-educated and better communicators than average, the EPA and Toyota could no longer sweep the discrepancies under the "your mileage may vary" rug. The EPA was forced to alter their tests to better reflect the real world. The new tests weren't implemented due to complaints from SUV owners!

KTPhil wrote: The meanigful question is, "Which class of vehicles had the largest increase in consumption under the new rules?" The answer is that hybrids did better than most. For those who can't tell the numerator from the denominator, this may not make sense, but for those who passed 3rd grade arithmetic, here goes:

For example: The new rating system drops the 2006 Chevy Suburban 1500 2wd from 17 mpg to 16. This looks trivial compared with the Prius' 9 mpg plunge from 55 mpg to 46. But what this actually means is that the average Suburban uses .0625 gallons per mile instead of .0588 - an increase of .0037 gallons per mile. Meanwhile, the average Prius now uses .0217 gallons per mile instead of .0181 - a slightly smaller increase of .0036 gallons per mile.

Now, about your fun with statistics. You want to nit-pick the definition of efficiency and then pull out the statistics on a Suburban to show parity with the Prius. The flaw with this is that transportation efficiency is properly measured not in gallons/mile, but in gallons per ton-mile. The actual unit used in industry is dollars per ton-mile, but since each gallon costs the same for both vehicles I'll use gallons. We also have to consider the definition of mass. The only way that your numbers work is if you consider a cargo that can be carried by either a Prius or a Suburban and ignore the perceived intrinsic value of being transported in the larger vehicle. Fill the Suburban's seats and the Prius comes out with twice the efficiency loss between the new test and the old in terms of gallons per ton-mile. Consider the mass of the vehicle itself (since Suburban drivers apparently see an intrinsic value in being surrounded by a massive rolling condominium) and the Prius comes out with three times the drop between the new test and the old.

That's a far larger difference than the percentage change in mi/gal, but that's what happens when comparing apples and oranges (or, rather, watermelons) as you chose to do.

I've accepted your use of the EPA values above, but are you aware that using the 1mi/gal difference between 17mi/gal and 16mi/gal is very dangerous in terms of accuracy? Since the EPA only reports integer values, the real difference might be vanishingly small if the accurate numbers were 16.501 and 16.499 mi/gal. OTOH, the difference might be nearly twice that stated if the accurate numbers were 17.499 and 15.501. Your calculations of gallons/mile to three significant digits with only two significant digit of input accuracy is also questionable. Calculating differences involving the second and third significant digits of those numbers is _very_ questionable.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I got a chance to sit in a Smart today and was quite impressed. It feels remarkably like a _really_ lowered bus, since you have the same feeling of sitting on the front porch without being able to see much of the exterior of the vehicle ahead of you. Interior space was pretty good for 6-footers. If the price were as small as its exterior size I'd consider one.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:13 pm

66busman wrote: The only thing that makes me nervous about hybrids is the complexity of the entire car. I imagine that if you fried one wire under the dash, it'd cost you upwards of a thousand bucks to get it fixed, or if water ever got under there*shudder*. And how about replacing those batteries? I simply prefer cars that I can work on, plain and simple. Theoretically, my friend's '97 Honda Civic is more economical anyways, as it's gone 110k trouble free miles and still gets 37mpg. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Well, it happened to my friend with an '04 Prius. He was driving across the San Fernando Valley last year when every light on the dash lit up and the engine stopped. He had it towed to a dealer where they diagnosed a CPU failure. Luckily, it was under warranty.

In the course of replacing the CPU the battery pack was somehow damaged so it was replaced as well. My buddy came out smelling like a rose with a brand new battery pack with the cost being two weeks of downtime. Toyota treats their Prius customers very well indeed if the vehicle is within warranty.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:48 pm

Warranty (regular or extended) or no, if the dealer ruined the battery after the "CPU failure" (more on that in a minute), the dealer pays, and you can't fault the battery for the abuse by an ignorant mechanic.

Now, there have been VERY few CPU failures. There was a recall to reprogram the CPU as a result of cases where the engine took too long to restart (about .6 seconds instead of .5), and the CPU concluded there was a fault and shut down to prevent further damage. The reprogramming was simply to allow the gas engine a fraction of a second more time to restart, and the problem was solved. This is what your frien's case sounds like--the gas engine doesn't come on, so it seems to stall or lose power (operating solely on the electric motor), then the warning lights come on (the "big red triangle") and the car refuses to restart.

I do not minimize the seriousness to the driver of this fault! Stalling on a bridge or other area where you can't pull over is very dangerous. There were cases where this happened, and the complaints were loud and justified. But that is not the same as a reliability problem with the hybrid system, and the fix was fast and free at the dealer.

However, there WAS a goof... not of the system, but of the mechanics. They often skipped steps in the reprogramming, resulting in an ECU that could not be further repgorammed, so they were replaced. Embarassed, the mechanics blamed the CPU and told the customer IT had failed, not them. CYA. Again, this wasn't a warranty issue, it was a recall and training issue and the owner did not pay anything.

Toyota sent out a Service Bulletin to clarify the process, and there have been no problems since. Mine was repgrammed even though it never stalled, but to be safe I had the work done (for free).

Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:53 pm

Sigh... I wouldn't have to post all this Prius stuff if it wasn't for yet MORE misinformation being pushed here.

The EPA did not redefine the test cycle because of hybrids. So yes, it wasn't SUV compliants, but it wasn't hybrid complaints, either. EVERYONE knew the test cycle was artificial.

Toyota did not game the old cycle. As posted, the Prius was invented as a low-emissions solution, which just happened to get better mileage. It was marketed in 1997 as a "green" car in the era of $1 gas, not as a mileage champ, which was not an important marketing issue at the time. Furthermore, the EPA test hadn't changed until this year, but gas tripled in price and so the mpg figures became important. The hybrid system had already been designed when the issue of the obsolete testing cycle came up in relation to rated mpg. There was no attempt to benefit, and no changes to the HSD system. So to claim or even imply that Toyota was "cheating" the test is just plain fiction--at least ignorant, and possibly malicious.

And now you are bring up an entirely new topic--vehicle capacity as a measure of efficiency. Besides having nothing to do with this thread, it is meaningless when 90% of the time those high capacity vehicles are used for solo commuting.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:28 pm

http://www.aptera.com

Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:26 pm

KTPhil wrote: Sigh... I wouldn't have to post all this Prius stuff if it wasn't for yet MORE misinformation being pushed here.

The EPA did not redefine the test cycle because of hybrids. So yes, it wasn't SUV compliants, but it wasn't hybrid complaints, either. EVERYONE knew the test cycle was artificial.

Toyota did not game the old cycle. As posted, the Prius was invented as a low-emissions solution, which just happened to get better mileage. It was marketed in 1997 as a "green" car in the era of $1 gas, not as a mileage champ, which was not an important marketing issue at the time. Furthermore, the EPA test hadn't changed until this year, but gas tripled in price and so the mpg figures became important. The hybrid system had already been designed when the issue of the obsolete testing cycle came up in relation to rated mpg. There was no attempt to benefit, and no changes to the HSD system. So to claim or even imply that Toyota was "cheating" the test is just plain fiction--at least ignorant, and possibly malicious.

And now you are bring up an entirely new topic--vehicle capacity as a measure of efficiency. Besides having nothing to do with this thread, it is meaningless when 90% of the time those high capacity vehicles are used for solo commuting.

Your points above are spot on as I see it. Aside from some of the banter I've also learned alot from the different perspectives presented.

The initial marketing hook with the Prius is that it was positioned as a low emissions green car, its why you see a leaf integrated into the badging, which I believe was added with the second generation Prius. That badging and marketing campaign snagged our interest in doing our research on the various hybrids, and then we selected the Prius, as it was also really a midsize car that didn't mean sacrificing space and comfort.

Our primary objective is trying to do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint, the extra mileage is great of course but the threat of global warming is a much more daunting problem, and since we're fortunate to afford to purchase/drive almost anything we want, we made a conscious choice, the better choice. We'll also have our 6 mw solar PV system up and running at the shop and house shortly, and we're only looking at an 6-8 year payback with all the rebates. Over the life of the system the cost savings will be over $75K, not something any hybrid will ever be able to do, which is also give you a 200% return on your investment.

But wow, vehicle capacity as a measure of efficiency, or gallons per ton-mile, that indeed is an eye opener measurement. Sure its one thing if we're talking about school busses, but unfortunately most SUVs and vehicles of the like are usually nothing but a display of social hierarchy, or we've been conned into them as a measure of safety. Frankly I can't recall ever seeing one even half full with people, usually all I see are these apparently cloned under 5 foot tall blond women driving the big surburban while talking on their cell phones, and usually I observe these same types parked for an hour at a time chatting away while the engine is left running.

Often enough nomatter what lengths I may be inclined to go to trying to do my part, it just seems that we're still doomed as a species. All the statistics and fuzzy math meaurements in the world I don't think will curb the bulk of human nature. I'm hopeful but without real and major cultural shifts in conservation practices and green energy transition programs the stage is set for the perfect storm.

Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:31 pm

Foxx wrote: smart car gets 33mpg?
i get 30 with my "new" 89 Nissan
cost me a whopping 500 bucks and the AC works

:lol:

My carbureted 91 Mazda pickup with 190K burns oil like a SOB. All loaded down with stuff for work, including ladders, it gets 25mpg.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:24 pm

KTPhil wrote: Warranty (regular or extended) or no, if the dealer ruined the battery after the "CPU failure" (more on that in a minute), the dealer pays, and you can't fault the battery for the abuse by an ignorant mechanic.

Now, there have been VERY few CPU failures. There was a recall to reprogram the CPU as a result of cases where the engine took too long to restart (about .6 seconds instead of .5), and the CPU concluded there was a fault and shut down to prevent further damage. The reprogramming was simply to allow the gas engine a fraction of a second more time to restart, and the problem was solved. This is what your frien's case sounds like--the gas engine doesn't come on, so it seems to stall or lose power (operating solely on the electric motor), then the warning lights come on (the "big red triangle") and the car refuses to restart.

No, it doesn't sound like this at all. He was driving at constant speed around 35MPH when the car lit up _all_ the warning lights and shut itself down completely. No gas engine or electric motor. This wasn't a stalling issue. The car was completely dead and had to be towed to the dealer. This seems to be a rare instance of a true failure.

What happened with the battery pack is unknown, since the dealer simply said that it was defective and replaced it. Considering that it only had 40K miles on it, it's likely that it was damaged by the service.

It's amazing that the CPU can be irreparably damaged by misprogramming. I didn't know about that issue. It's not an problem if the vehicle is under warranty, but after the warranty runs out it'll be a vehicle killer, and for no good reason.

I am impressed by Toyota's treatment of its Prius customers. The level of service is certainly much better that that given to their conventional vehicle customers.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:36 pm

Actually, it still may have been a stall. The car, if under light load, will operate in electric mode (or switch to it) at speeds up to 43mph. Let up on the gas and you are coasting or gliding with the electric motor, with the gas engine off. Get back on the throttle and the gas engine is restarted. At that point, if it doesn't restart right away, the ECU shuts it off for good and flashes all those lights. Drivers are often unaware how often they are not using the gas engine around town. It's not just when you start from a dead stop.

The problem of ruining the ECU is common to all programmable electronic devices (EEPROMs). The flash memory has to be given the right sequence of signals or it can be damaged in the sense that it won't take reprogramming. The chip can be swapped out, so the whole ECU won't be scrapped, but the dealers are not equipped to do this, so they install a whole new ECU. Toyota then replaces the bum chip and can reinstall the ECU in another car that needs a replacement ECU.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:38 pm

KTPhil wrote: Sigh... I wouldn't have to post all this Prius stuff if it wasn't for yet MORE misinformation being pushed here.

The EPA did not redefine the test cycle because of hybrids. So yes, it wasn't SUV compliants, but it wasn't hybrid complaints, either. EVERYONE knew the test cycle was artificial.

Toyota did not game the old cycle. As posted, the Prius was invented as a low-emissions solution, which just happened to get better mileage. It was marketed in 1997 as a "green" car.

Yeah, that's why the dealer had "60MPG!" painted on its windows in 5-foot-high orange letters in 2004. Not a word about emissions, though.

You are right that everyone knew that the EPA numbers were optimistic and that everyone had to subtract 5% to 10% to get the real-world mileage. Folks were quite used to that. Then the Prius came along and owners found that their real-world mileage wasn't 10% less, but 25% less and they weren't happy about it! The EPA, being big hybrid supporters, will never directly admit what prompted the change, but it's clear to everyone except those who choose to ignore events.

Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:58 pm

KTPhil wrote: Actually, it still may have been a stall. The car, if under light load, will operate in electric mode (or switch to it) at speeds up to 43mph. Let up on the gas and you are coasting or gliding with the electric motor, with the gas engine off. Get back on the throttle and the gas engine is restarted. At that point, if it doesn't restart right away, the ECU shuts it off for good and flashes all those lights. Drivers are often unaware how often they are not using the gas engine around town. It's not just when you start from a dead stop.

Regardless of the exact cause, the car was dead and experienced two weeks of downtime. It wasn't because the owner didn't understand the car. It was because the car malfunctioned.

KTPhil wrote: The problem of ruining the ECU is common to all programmable electronic devices (EEPROMs). The flash memory has to be given the right sequence of signals or it can be damaged in the sense that it won't take reprogramming. The chip can be swapped out, so the whole ECU won't be scrapped, but the dealers are not equipped to do this, so they install a whole new ECU. Toyota then replaces the bum chip and can reinstall the ECU in another car that needs a replacement ECU.

I've never heard of a similar problem in another car.

Using technology of this sort seems dangerous to everyone but Toyota, since all it takes is one little electronic "oops" by a dealer mechanic to change a customer's usable used car into one that is too expensive to fix. No evidence, either. :(

Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:03 pm

Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:21 pm

GeorgeL wrote: Regardless of the exact cause, the car was dead and experienced two weeks of downtime. It wasn't because the owner didn't understand the car. It was because the car malfunctioned.

Where did I say it was caused by the owner? I said the the problem can be wrongly identified by owners by attributing it to "stalling," when it was actually a "no restart" condition.

GeorgeL wrote:
I've never heard of a similar problem in another car.

Using technology of this sort seems dangerous to everyone but Toyota, since all it takes is one little electronic "oops" by a dealer mechanic to change a customer's usable used car into one that is too expensive to fix. No evidence, either. :(

Actually, this is a real benefit to the owner. A field programmable ECU means upgrades or corrections can be made at the dealer, with only a labor expense to the customer. Instead, on other cars, module replacement (parts AND labor) is required. This is a feature that can lower life cycle ownership costs for the owner.

It was the poorly-trained mechanics early on that made the problem into a 2-week fix. Mine was reprogrammed in about an hour.

Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:23 pm

RAMZROD wrote:

Smart car.

Stupid owner.

Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:49 pm

Screw this thread up until this point. What will save everyone money, no matter what car they drive is to slow the freak down. National oil demand will drop heavily if all highway speed limits were dropped to 55, like they did to slow demand in the 70s. And it worked.

I owned an 89 CRX HF... got 40 mpg and I drove the hell out of it, until someone ran into me. Now as a family man, my main vehicle is on 05 Pacifica. If I drive 60 on the interstate, it pulls 25 mpg... and thats a 4500lb vehicle with a fwd 3.5 liter that's fairly aerodynamically challenged with 17" wheels vehicle. If I drive 75... it drops to about 18 mpg. Big difference. And on state roads, it pulls around 26mpg at 55mph