This magical material is commonly known as…. gasoline.”

Classic! Im using it in my courses!

Folks please keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between all electric and plug-ins, which are charge depleting, and the currently commercial hybrids which are charge sustaining. The current systems (charge sustaining) are warranted to 150 k miles as they are considered part of the emissions system. The OEMs seem to have figured out the battery lifetime issue for charge sustaining but are on the rocks for the battery lifetime regarding the charge depleting systems as can be read about earlier in the comments. The stabs at the Prius and other charge sustaining hybrids fall flat. The charge sustaining systems are quite reliable with little to no battery lifetime issues that I am aware of. Anthony can perhaps comment here regarding his experience as well as others. Hopefully the Chevy Volt (plug in) will prove out lifetime issues with charge depleting sytems but I’m waiting to see.

Battery lifetime is likely a factor in the decision by Chrysler Fiat. It certainly was in the EV-1. When people ask me “who killed the electric car?” I tell them that the Electric car was suicidal. ie it was oversold with out having the technology to back it up regarding battery lifetime.

BTW the turbines didnt “flunk out” in the 1968 Indy race nor in chryslers last run at commercialization of them. It was the fuel pumps (lap 190 of 200) in the 68 race for both entries in the 500. The Lotus 4WD sytem and the turbine were outlawed from future races but they still had the best qualifying time in the 1968 race. If I remember correctly the Govt loan (bailout) of chrysler in 1975? required that they stop all foreseeable non-performing (not profitable) projects and the turbine was one that fit that mold. Funny how history repeats itself!

IMHO the charge sustaining hybrid is the way to go for the next foreseeable future. It allows a relatively small IC for the average power (bigger than 10 hp folks, the Prius uses a 67 hp IC on the atkinson cycle at roughly 37% thermal efficiency) and the electric system picks up the transient load. Could be done with air pressure but 10ksi air isnt exactly mechanically safe. If batteries progress significantly with regards to lifetime the plug-in hybrid may allow potential increased use of base load electricity (considering night time charging) and perhaps allows use of stranded wind and maybe solar (although I wouldnt count on it esp for night charging). The driver with the plug in is 50 Cents/gallon equivalent when charging but it isn’t worth it if the battery lifetime suffers. Another problem with charge depleting electrics is that if every one used them peak grid load shifts to the night time (talk about being upside down). Darn laws of thermo keep getting in the way. We should just repeal them ;)

APE

Curmudgeon Geographer (15:50:49) :
Give me a Jeep with a Scuderi air-hybrid engine! Come on!

http://www.scuderiengine.com/blog/

Pretty neat. Has this company gone public yet? Might be a good investment.

Re HoosierHawk (10:38:24), I think I just read on the Scuderi website that their (external) valves are air-controlled.

/Mr Lynn

Ron de Haan (13:42:14) :
…
Because of the higher combustion temperature there will be no particles in the emission.

Ahh, but what of NOx?
.
.

What would help is a dual fuel application based on a diesel engine running on a mix of diesel and LPG.
More power, lower fuel consumption, clean exhaust emissions, no particle filter needed. http://www.tinleytech.co.uk/lpgsys.html

It’s very easy to adapt any diesel to this sytem because only a single injector is needed to introduce the LPG into the fuel pump. Because of the higher combustion temperature there will be no particles in the emission.
Ideal for the air quality in the cities.
I estimate the costs for a small 10 gallon LPG tank, the injector and electronics around six or seven hundred dollar.

For gasoline cars there is a liquid LPG injection system available which delivers a comparable output when the engine is driven with gasoline.
This dual fuels system allows you to drive the car on gasoline or lpg.
The fuel tanks can be installed under the car or an UFO tank replacing the spare wheel. I don’t know the gallon price for LPG compared to gasoline but it should be around 1/3 of the gasoline price. Those sequential injection systems cost arounf 3.200 euro’s http://www.vialle.nl/home.html?L=1&cHash=42f430268f

I will try to do some research what has become of the idea.

I know, it’s not computer actuated valves, which would be VERY cool, but essentially there is a computer actuated offsetter called a “phaser” on each of the intake and exhaust cams that allows it to lengthen or shorten the duration of both intake and exhaust. Chrysler was the first to market with this particular tech, which has wide degrees of adjustment to both intake and exhaust while still using a fairly conventional 2-camshaft-in-head layout.

The result is very real. The engine breathes fire on demand, and pulls the less-than-aerodynamic slug along the highway at close to 35MPG. This engine is the GEMA “world” engine, it’s a 2.4l turbo, apparently one of the most advanced engines out there. Just saying :)

Behind the engineering lab were several dynometer rooms, one of which was dedicated to a unique project – variable valve timed engines. They had patented (since expired I’m sure) every conceivable way to open and close valves without using a cam, the idea was to put the valve timing under computer control. They had settled on the best way to fire as being pneumatic. The thought process was that everything else else about an engine was being controlled by computer, why not the valve timing?

The results were very impressive, the control system could regulate fuel injection, ignition timing, and Valve timing depending on what the electronic accelerator pedal determined the driver was after. Being able to control the “cam profile” electronically allowed realtime adjustments to the power curve. One minute the engine could be pumping out horsepower like a hot rod, and the next minute sipping fuel like an econo-box. You want low end torque? No problem.

They had built a few prototype engines up for demo purposes, and pitched the idea to the Big Three (later the Detriot Three, still later government motors). They all loved the concept, but didn’t like the fact that it added quite a few moving parts, which adds cost and reduces reliability. It never went anywhere.

I can’t help but wonder if this is an Idea whose time has come. I can tell you that it would allow a small engine to perform quite a bit bigger, and then use gas like it’s still smaller. You could have high end horsepower, low end torque and great economy when you wanted it. In my mind, it made a lot more sense than these engines that “turn off” cylinders to save gas.

Nationally, 135% of one-years’ residential inventory is on the path to foreclosure.

In 10 months of this year 120 banks have failed. Next year will see double that number.

Got to see the two biggest windfarms in MN on that and another recent trip to WI. More expensive than nuclear for 20 year life-span.

At current rates of growth(debt, revenues, taxbase), US finance payments on outstanding debt will equal GDP in just a couple decades.

America, are you there? Mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.

I bought a Caliber SRT4 on August 29, 2 days later it was formally dropped for the 2010 model year. A month later we discovered that Fiat was dropping the entire Caliber platform after 2012. Now it appears the production on the car for two model years is as low as 2000. While that might be “cool” for the rarity factor, it also means parts will be almost impossible to get… not a good proposition for a 300HP turbo 4.

I have an 87 Daytona Shelby Z that I bought new in 87, and it has been exceptionally good for me. They made 15,000 of them over their 2 year run, which is a very tiny number. Good mileage, good power, fun to drive, and easy parts availability (except for the Shelby-specific parts, which have been gone since 1989). Now, however, I’m seriously wondering if this new Chrysler turbo car was a good decision.

My point is… I know firsthand the problems (translation: cost out of pocket) of owning a very low production vehicle. And since there is no REAL alternative to gasoline powered IC engines, anything else will just be an expensive toy anyway.

Oh yeah, and I can’t even imagine what an electric vehicle would be like when it’s -30 or -40 in the middle of winter. Good luck with that.

Hmmm …

Air conditioning requires a power-plant that isn’t idle at stops as the prime mover in most electric vehicle seems to be designed to do.
*******

Good questions. In fact, except in the mildest of climates, these points should show that pure electric cars are almost useless at times. They’d work for in mild periods in my E US climate, but what about winter? You can’t run electric-powered heat (or A/C) from batteries — it’ll drain them almost immediately.

The only solution I can see is an additional, small (say 10 HP) IC engine to provide heat &/or air-conditioning.

That being the case, why bother — just run the whole car from a small IC engine.

Not *all* of us are retired…

[Reply: Sometimes moderator coverage is sparse between around midnight and 4 a.m., U.S. Pacific Coast time [GMT -8. I think.] Your comment is posted now. ~dbstealey, moderator]