I agree, hysteresis does exist in rechargeable batteries - again, won't argue with you there. But, the effect of hysteresis or battery memory or whatever effect you want to call it can be controlled and IS very well controlled by the computer system in these cars. The battery pack (330 volts in the Escape) is programmed to only operate within a narrow range - 45 to 65% are numbers I have heard. The damage to batteries is done at the extremes - 0% and 100% (like running your cellphone until it is dead and then charging it until it is 100%). The computer won't allow the batteries to operate in the extremes. But, even within that narrow range of operation, the Escape is still capable of travelling well over a mile at 40 mph using all electric power.

If battery hysteresis was as bad as you think it is, why is the mileage not decreasing in my cars? It has been improving since I got it.

 

I saw where a train has a deisel engine to power electric motors and gets great fuel milage, A train can move 1 ton of weight over 200 miles on one gallon of fuel when a truck can move one ton of weight less than 60 miles on a gallon of fuel. why dont they just make cars like little trains and forget about the batterys?

 

Oh come on, that concept will never work. Everyone knows that the losses in converting the power of the diesel motor to electricity would be so bad as to make the whole thing highly inefficient. Something about physics.

 

I would say that figure is a bit off, ever seen how big those motors are? I would say that is downhill, as I see those motors smoke pretty hard too. The motors are bigger than most semi truck motors, so 200 miles on one gallon is not very realistic. To get an accurate idea, you need to also consider what it takes to get the train moving as well. The motion alone of the train will make it a bit more efficient, once it is rolling. Getting it rolling is another story...

 

I would like to see this ton hauling truck that approaches 60mpg so I may go buy a couple of them...

Who said the physics of a locomotive do not work? On a super-large scale, it works perfectly, since it is not being asked to accelerate and brake every few seconds, the worst part of every trip does not exist - its all gravy. (how many prii would be required to move 14400 tons? - the average weight of any one of the 2-3 trains a large power plant needs every day)

BTW, VW has a 1.3 turbo and supercharged engine that develops north of 150hp, passes emissions and gets 70mpg in real world situations. Currently in product test in Golfs and the like.

Europe has had gas 3x as expensive as ours for decades. They wont buy hybrids there - too inefficient

 

The numbers quoted for train fuel efficiency are for moving one ton of freight. A 100 car train is carrying roughly 10,000 tons of freight or more. Rolling steel on steel is one of the most efficient ways of moving material. For short trips, getting a train moving may be inefficient but for long distances, that fuel burned for startup is just a blip on the radar.

Nope, they'll never buy them in Europe.

Old but was just the first thing I found. With gas 3x what we pay, they'll make up the so-called hybrid premium three times faster.

 

That is accurate. they are hauling anywhere from 10000 to 18000 tons at a time. that stat was that 1 ton of the CARGO was going 200miles on one gallon.

doing math: on a light TOFC train, 10000 tons of train (cargo+equipment) means that 10000 gallons moved it 200 miles. Thats 50 gallons per mile. If the cargo was half the weight, it took 25 gallons per mile to move the cargo - but in any mode we need to consider the equipment weight as well. Lets say it was a load of prii, and the load was half the weight. 5000 tons, divide by 1.5 (a prii is 2960ish pounds) thats 3333 prii going 1 mile using 25 gallons.

Each prii 8 thousanth of one gallon per mile.
Each prii would therefore be getting 133mpg at highway speeds - about 4 times more than if you actually drove it. (why do you think I no longer want to see long distance trucks on the road?)

btw - train efficiency climbs as weight climbs as rolling resistance is barely affected by weight - hence the switch 40 years ago to super long freight cars - wheels = resistance.

All you need to do is provide helper engines to push the engines pulling up a grade and the formula to climb a certain weight up a certain grade around certain curves is over 100 years old and dead on ***** accurate.

 

yeah, I can see how an entire continent buying 46000 of something would be 'significant'


And these are people who have greater need to be efficient than we do, dollar for dollar.

 

The comment about how efficient the motor/generator system is accurate in light of the amount, but when you consider it in a different light, since not everyone is going to move that much weight around, the efficiency would drop off. Apples to apples, they would not be as efficient. Don't see many road vehicles that can haul that much, or need to...
I would like to see a diesel hybrid though, as that should help out on the efficiency, since a diesel tends to be more efficient.

 

The ford fusion hybrid will soon be out as well. There you could have a hybrid car that actually looks good.

 

I forgot to comment on this before:

I think it is great that someone, anyone has come up with a high performance, clean burning diesel that gets great fuel mileage. I hope they get them to market soon and I hope the technology spreads like a wildfire. And I hope the hell they put something like it in a small SUV since a Golf-sized vehicle won't fit my needs.

I don't care what the technology is. Whether it be hybrids, all electric, diesel, fuel cell, magic pixie dust. If it can be mass produced, cost effective and practical, and gets us off foreign oil, I will buy it and support the manufacturer if I am pleased with it. I see the current hybrids as the best available technology to get me through until that happens.

 

Actually its a *gas* engine, and the final displacement settled on is 1.4L at 158hp, the 1.3L is 120ish hp now. it is coming out in europe first of course and I think the EU 'urban cycle' mileage is 40+ mpg - they of course not having highways like we do. Now this 40mpg was reported by a test mag who likely thrashed it - Id like to see this on a US city-city interstate.

 

Depends where you stand if there is highways or not, not all the country is a city. The don't have nearly as many open miles, but they do have them.