raspyrx7

Just checked out the specs on the 2007 hybrid Camry coming soon.... 43 city 37 hwy... wowza for a full size car. Then I tempted myself and droooled over the Lexus GS450H... couldn't find mileage specs but I would guess 35ish city 30hwy seeings its a powerful combo. Tho I could have 2 RX8's for the price of the GS450H... lol

therm8

43/37? I highly doubt it. Particularly the 37. Hybrids don't do well on the highway. I'd think a full size car would fall prey to this moreso than the little ones. My guess is 25-30 hwy.

terrypk1

i don't trust their stupid fuel milege thing at all. according to many magazines, in the end of their tests, they all find the hybirds to be inmature technology. Even though many of them do save fuel(just not as good as stated by the manifactures), it will take 3 to 4 years before you can get the money back, since the cars are just more expensive than normal engine cars.

zaglo6204

people who actually dish out the dough for a hybrid are either stupid thinking that they will save money, or they are actually buying them for the sake of the environment, knowing they will not save money. or they just want to be 'unique'.

raspyrx7

well I'm not sure that 43/37 is all that off... my bud gets 30/38 with his current camry

UFGator12

Yeah, I saw the commercial for the 2007 Camry. Looks pretty good too if I might say so.

Roaddemon

The hybrid accord boasted high mpg too, but in street test driving only got 25 mpg average. Hybids are only a temporary fix untill hydrogen cars are fully developed. The 4 cylinder accord still gets 38mpg. If I want economy I'll buy that.

globi

Hydrogen powered fuel cell cars won't displace hybrids.

Assuming a hydrogen fuel cell car would cost $50,000 instead of $1 Million (what they do cost now).
Assuming a hydrogen delivery infrastructure for $500 billion was actually safe and already in place.

There's still one huge problem left:
So far a technology to produce hydrogen environmentally friendly in a large scale has not even been invented. (Keep in mind the internal combustion engine was invented 150 years ago).
Hydrogen is currently produced from carbon based fossil fuels, this procedure produces almost the same amount of greenhouse gases as a hybrid. Why take the complicated detour and not burn carbon based fossil fuels directly as we do now anyway.

raspyrx7

just listened to a podcast bit on a Civic sedan hybrid test drive... some flogging, some hwy, some city (w/traffic) that resulted 47mpg.... and if the price tag stays around $20g, I think I know what my wife's next car will be.... and it'll offset my desires for an RX8 and its mpg.

brillo

each generation of hybrids have gotten better in terms of actual mileage, forgetting the EPA for a second.

Honda's hybrid system can't drive the car on battery alone like toyota, hence, the accords lower mileage.

This version seems to be more economy than performance, so I would bet in city (which to me is the most important) it gets in the very high 30's, which for a sedan of that size, its pretty freaken amazing

raspyrx7

what they need is a Hybrid with a motor for each wheel.

BaronVonBigmeat

I think you will be proven 100% correct.

I think what we will probably see is hybrids at first, then plug-in hybrids soon after. Once there are enough plug-in hybrids, gas station owners will start offering plug-in stations. Consumers will be looking for them once they realize that plugging in is substantially cheaper on a per mile basis. And this would actually be practical what with the newest 5-minute charging lithium batteries. Plus, there is already a massive manufacturing/distribution network for electricity--not so for hydrogen. Then eventually, battery tech keeps advancing (europositron?) to the point that the gasoline engine is rarely used, and viewed as an increasingly unnecessary extra expense (and maintenance headache) for most people. Carmakers will offer engine delete options, replacing the space with more batteries and offering nearly the same range. Eventually, carmakers stop selling gas models alltogether, and future generations look back on all today's hydrogen fuel-cell blabbering in the same amused way that we look at early attempts at steam-powered cars of 100 years ago.

Roaddemon

No to that, Hydrogen will be the future and there is extensive research, backed by our goverment, right now, to assure it. Hydrogen fuel cells will take the place of combustion engines. Just a matter of time. Hydrogen cars are being developed my Mazda and other manufacturers. I suppose alot of people never thought the the automobile would replace the horse in 1903. It will happen in my life time.

On another note. My loaded $20g 2000 Mazda 626 gets average 22 mpg. and is a very nice car. I drive 6000 miles per year. A hybrid averaging 45mpg would save me a wopping(sarcasim) $350 per year at $2.50/gal and give me car payments again. My car will last me another 8 years and it's paid for 2 years ago. So economically a hybrid means nothing to me but added expenses. I do think it would be nice to have a car that gets 650 miles/tank. Especially when fleeing a huricane or when there's a gas shortage. If I lived near New Orleans I'd go buy one today.

BaronVonBigmeat

The fact that the government has spent money researching it means nothing, they did the same in the 70's and nothing came of it. If anything, it's a sign that a certain technology is an unworkable boondoggle which needs government support to prop it up.

Not that hybrids are really all that much better. They really don't make financial sense unless gas remains fairly expensive, and you keep the car for a good while. But if enough people buy them, the price difference is bound to drop...as opposed to a fuel cell car, in which you've got to pay for the new car tech AND the new hydrogen generation and distribution network. Really, the only reason for the fuss about hydrogen is because the battery-powered cars California tried to push off on people were so totally impractical. Hydrogen cars can be quickly refueled, so all the hype switched to hydrogen cars. But in the meantime, battery tech has quietly improved to the point where you can have 120-mile range and 5-minute recharges (!). If that's possible...why bother with hydrogen?

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...eavy_suba.html

Also, comparing a 5 year old car to a new hybrid is kinda silly. They make more sense when you're comparing a new hybrid to a new conventional car (or a new hydrogen car and it's related expenses). Also you forgot about plug-in hybrids just over the horizon, which for someone who doesn't drive very far could mean much bigger savings than just $350 a year. Depending on your local electricity costs, of course.

bascho

I think the first escape from fossil fuels is Ethanol. I just read an article about Brazil and how 83% of the vehicles sold there are flex fuel capable. They are the largest producer of Ethanol from Suger Cane crop and save something like $62 Billion USD a year on fuel. That is $62 Billion USD staying in their country, going to their citizens and creating jobs on farms on their land. All of the 35,000 gas stations in Brazil have Ethanol tanks and pump either Ethanol only, plain gas, and various mixtures of both such as E85. Currently this is not an option for most of the world as Suger Cane is not an easily adopted crop. Corn is easily adopted to many climates.....but it's a lousy source of Ethanol. There are several companies working under government grants to develop enymes capable of breaking down compost into Ethanol Cellulose (which is the best source of Ethanol).....but this is a few years away from being implemented in mass production on Ethanol.

Minnesota is the only state that is really pushing Ethanol here in the US. E85 is available at most of the gas stations throughout the state and flex-fuel vehicles have seen as sales spike because of it. More states need to get on board with this transformation to optional fuels to help build an infrastructure that is decades away from being stable.

Hydrogen will be the next alternative to fossil fuels...but I think we are a decade away from making that viable. I did see a special on National Geographic about a research team working under a government grant has identified a micro organism in sea water that is capable of releasing Hydrogen from the H2O through photo synthesis. He predicts that gas stations will be able to pump Hydrogen from tanks that sitting in the sun behind the station just bubbling away producing Hydrogen biologically emitting only oxygen into the air.

Roaddemon

I read somewhere our space progam is using fuel cells in our spacecraft. The usa wants to spend 100 billion to send people to Mars In 10 years. Fuel cells would play a roll in such a distant trip. Things will open up for hydrogen fuel. It wil take alot of little inventions and planning, not one big break through.

Natural gas is also being experimented for fuel cells and alternate energy in China. They have huge natural gas reserves and want to capitalize since they consume huge quantities of the worlds oil.

As you mention ethanol is another resource but I thought is was expensive to produce.

Roaddemon

Yes the plug-ins might be nice. They would probably be bubbly little bug cars with no luxury or room for comfort. And then you have to worry about traveling any distance. You just know it's going to happen. 10miles from home and a dead car. Lets say there's a power outage and your plug-in does'nt get the full charge. How would I get to work the next day. I think they would be novelty cars for a few. Would they still be operational if they loose charge? Could be nerve racking owning one. I don't know much about them.

bascho

It is and it isn't. Currently it costs $.17 per gallon to refine ethanol. The high cost is the % of corn crop that would be needed to support an ethanol only fuel source. I read that if all the worlds corn crop were used to extract ethanol, we would barely cover only the US demand for automotive use. To be able to meet the needs of the world, the only viable source of ethanol is from ethanol cellulose. Ethanol cellulose is the most abundant source for ethanol in the world because it can be extracted from tree bark, grass, woodchips, and other plant material. Unfortunately, it's also the hardest source to refine......but that will change in the very near future.

For countries like Brazil, suger cane and soybeans are very inexpensive to grow and refine.....in fact, sugar cane can go from crop to fuel in one complex. The farm on one side and the refinery on the other. It takes very little energy to extract the ethanol and the process is clean.

Here is a link to a great article on MSNBC about Brazil's world leading ethanol economy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/

Roaddemon

Bascho
Thanks, I read it. Ethanol looks like a good alternative in this country. it's a matter of greedy American oil companies stepping aside and goverment intervention to let it happen. We can't afford another disaster in the gulf. I watched gas prices go fron $2.25 to $3.50 overnight in Milwaukee, Wi. on the eve of Katrina. Stop the gouging Exxon. We really need an alternative. Hybrids won't stop exxon from gouging us again. Even 43mpg means nothing when gas prices reach $3.50 or $5.oo/gal. Who can afford it? The real solution is alternate fuel.

How is it gas can go up 25cents over night and then take 3 weeks to drop back down to where it was? We're being gouged even now. Too much politics at our expense. Hybrids will just make us move further away from our jobs and buy even more gas. Adding fuel to the fire so to speak. We have to break our dependancy on oil period. That's my view.

zoom44

thought you meant the oil industry there for a moment.

Japan8

The Hybrid and electric people seem to be forgetting a couple important things...

Um... Batteries have a limited number of charge/discharge cycles that they can do. Li batteries in particular have problems with "memory"... that if they are recharged before being fully discharged, over time they will lose that difference in capacity. Don't forget that all batteries are toxic waste. Where do you plan to dispose of them? The more people use them, the more waste and they'll likely need to change batteries at some point in time as well. Even more waste!

Charging stations? And just where will they be getting power from? The power grid... fossil fuel powered power plants. If fuel costs are high, so will be power. Yep, we really solved the problem there.

All you've done is created more toxic waste (batteries) and just transferred the the fossil fuel issue (pollution and cost) to power plants (which pollute worse than current brand new cars anyway). Opps... we also forgot about diesel trucks and airplanes...

Hydrogen WILL become the fuel... one day. Be it internal combustion or fuel cell. It won't be tomorrow, but I bet you'll be seeing it within the next 100 years. As they say... necessity is the mother of invention. It isn't so necessary yet... so it hasn't come about, but that day is coming. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. Why the hell WOULDN'T you use it?

BaronVonBigmeat

I was under the impression that the newest Lithium batteries are fairly nontoxic and didn't have memory problems. Hmmm.

Yes, a lot of the power would come from fossil fuel electricity plants (the same is true for hydrogen generation). That's why we need to get over our irrational fear of nuclear power. But even with a conventional power plant, it still works out to be significantly cheaper per mile than burning gasoline, if you're looking at fuel costs. And pollution is much easier to control at a central location than at thousands of individual cars. Modern power plants are cleaner than cars.

The reason you wouldn't use hydrogen is because you can't drill a hole in the ground and pump out liquid H2 of course. It's just an energy storage medium, like a battery. If hydrogen generation/distribution/fuel cell tech advances enough, it will be the fuel of the future. If batteries prove better, they will win instead. My money's on the batteries, but we'll see.

http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html

Because of the hurricane. Refining capacity was tight before, so it took a while to catch up with where they were.

Remember too that Brazil is somewhat unique in that they can grow sugar cane for their ethanol. Even then, ethanol production had to be subsidized. Seriously, any time you see a story on ethanol, hit CTRL + F and then type in the word "subsidy". You'll never ever be disappointed.

bascho

Spikes in gas prices are directly related to the absense of a competitive alternative. Some people think that individual gas companys are the competition to each other......but that is bull ****. If Ethanol became a REAL alternative, in that you could purchase E85 or pure Ethanol at a refueling station in every town, then the prices for gas would be stable. The oil companies are not raising prices to cover increased costs......its all a big game. Make the public 'think' costs have risen and they will pay the increased price. Of course when the oil company reports a QUARTERLY PROFIT of over a hundred billion USD, well, that just proves the costs of drilling and refining are still very low in relation to price at the pump. Guess what you get for that Hundred Bil.....a lot of politicians in your pocket making sure that a change to alternative fuel is a lengthy one.

bascho

What's wrong with a government subsidizing fuel production. The goal for any country should be reducing it's dependence on the Middle East. Our own government subsidizes many ventures......unfortunately most are not progressive to the well being of the citizens of this country.....except for military use. I think the only way the US could ever change infrastructure to alternative fuels would be through the government. The oil companies are never going to assist in this change.....they make hundreds of billions of dollars every year off fossil fuel dependence. In fact, they probably spend billions every year lobbying any proposals for government money spent in research of alternate fuel sources.

Do you really think that if the US government put half the money spent in Iraq into alternate fuel research that we wouldn't have a viable alternate fuel source tomorrow. Right now the total money spent in research is in the millions.....and probably not even the hundred millions. We've spent something like $500 billion in Iraq......imagine what $250 billion in research grants would have discovered.

Roaddemon

I agree totally, Right now we are so fragile. Oil companies are a monopoly and playing it to thier advantage. Recently there was a price spike in gas. The newspapers reported oil companies used the excuse of unrest in Iran and Iraq. It's almost like the stock market. Any little disturbance or fear immidiately brings gouging to the pumps(overnight).

What would happen if a terrorist got in a little boat and fired a hand held Sam missle hitting one major oil platform. Gas prices would skyrocket.

If we all got 45mpg with hybrids, Exxon would produce less oil to keep the prices high. They could get by with less, control supply and demand and make even larger profits then present. Competition through alternative fuels is the only way to secure our economic future. Oil giants will economically neutalize any technology gains(Hybrids) based on fossil fuel. More nulcear power plants, electric and hydrogen cars, and Ethanol, are a must for our future economic health. They would also clean up our enviroment. We have to somehow competetivley sidestep oil companies for our future fuel needs. Right now we are at thier mercy.