• news
  • MONDAY AUGUST 15 2005 12:35 PM

Hybrid Owners Taking Mileage Increase Into Their Own Hands

Submitted by jake_lex

Edited by Shal

If you listen to the government and to executives of auto manufacturers and oil companies, there's nothing we can do to really reduce our dependence on oil until hydrogen-cell cars can be introduced, which is probably a good twenty years away. An increasing number of owners of existing hybrid cars beg to differ, modifying their own cars to boost the mileage of those cars to 80 or 90 MPG -- and even as much as 250 MPG in some experimental models.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret — a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

[Ron] Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb — all for about a quarter.


The cars do require being plugged in to an external source of electricity, which concerns Toyota and other current manufacturers of hybrid automobiles, since one of the big selling points of hybrid cars had been that unlike older electric cars, they do not require being plugged in. Still, though, this is superior technology to older electric cars, since these cars will go back to the standard hybrid engine once the supplemental batteries run out, still getting 45 MPG like non-modified hybrids.

And some other experimental cars have gotten much better mileage than that, even using cars that weren't hybrids to begin with.

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.

Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.


The big lesson here is that car manufacturers should not be allowed to just say "Well, there's nothing we can do, just wait until hydrogen cells come out" when confronted with a demand that the improve gas mileage. Of course, having a government that doesn't belong fully to the gas companies might help, too...

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 12:47 PM

Wow, they've successfully increased the number of batteries that will eventually wind up in dumps, while simultaneously moving their fossil fuel polution from the tailpipe of their car to the coal burning electric plant a few hundred miles away.
Amazing!

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 12:49 PM

jake_lex said:
The big lesson here is that car manufacturers should not be allowed to just say "Well, there's nothing we can do, just wait until hydrogen cells come out" when confronted with a demand that the improve gas mileage. Of course, having a government that doesn't belong fully to the gas companies might help, too...



They didn't really do that though. We've had cars that could be plugged in for years, and the market overwhelmingly denied them.
This is a novel trick, that a few hundred people will be delighted with until they start having to replace the huge bank of batteries every few years, and get tired of plugging their car in every night.

Bastardo

Bastardo

Boston, MA
January 2005

AUG 15, 2005 12:51 PM

Helter said:
Wow, they've successfully increased the number of batteries that will eventually wind up in dumps, while simultaneously moving their fossil fuel polution from the tailpipe of their car to the coal burning electric plant a few hundred miles away.
Amazing!


Not one of those silver-lining sorta guys are ya?

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 12:56 PM

TheBastard said:

Helter said:
Wow, they've successfully increased the number of batteries that will eventually wind up in dumps, while simultaneously moving their fossil fuel polution from the tailpipe of their car to the coal burning electric plant a few hundred miles away.
Amazing!


Not one of those silver-lining sorta guys are ya?



hey man, they can jerk off all they want, just don't expect me to open wide and swallow it.

adjunct

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA
July 2002

AUG 15, 2005 01:00 PM

I can't imagine how anybody would think that lithium ion batteries are a good replacement. It's like they haven't had a latptop battery die on them in the past- you get a few years, they start losing any ability to hold a charge, and then they're paperweights. Not a good solution, IMHO.

FrankMask

FrankMask

Saint Paul, MN
June 2003

AUG 15, 2005 01:00 PM

I've always said that before I died I wanted a Suburban with the '89 body that could do two hundred miles on a gallon of fuel.

Smart people who understand this sort of thing, are they really reducing fuel consumption and pollution, or are they just shifting it to another area and creating new problems with the batteries?

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 01:01 PM

Frank said:
I've always said that before I died I wanted a Suburban with the '89 body that could do two hundred miles on a gallon of fuel.

Smart people who understand this sort of thing, are they really reducing fuel consumption and pollution, or are they just shifting it to another area and creating new problems with the batteries?


the second thing.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

AUG 15, 2005 01:08 PM

Helter said:
Wow, they've successfully increased the number of batteries that will eventually wind up in dumps, while simultaneously moving their fossil fuel polution from the tailpipe of their car to the coal burning electric plant a few hundred miles away.
Amazing!



but here's the thing, there's no requirement that the electricity comes from a coal burning plant. someone with solar panels or their own wind turbines (or a local utility that provides electricity from renewables) wouldn't be polluting.

as for the batteries, battery technology only ever gets better. who is to say that we won't have higher capacity, longer lasting batteries that can be completely recycled within the next few years?

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 01:12 PM

s5 said:
but here's the thing, there's no requirement that the electricity comes from a coal burning plant. someone with solar panels or their own wind turbines (or a local utility that provides electricity from renewables) wouldn't be polluting.



Except for the hundreds of pounds of batteries that they'll be replacing every few years.


as for the batteries, battery technology only ever gets better. who is to say that we won't have higher capacity, longer lasting batteries that can be completely recycled within the next few years?



Maybe, and when that comes along, you'll see a near 180 degree change in my attitude towards this sort of thing.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

AUG 15, 2005 01:13 PM

Helter said:
They didn't really do that though. We've had cars that could be plugged in for years, and the market overwhelmingly denied them.



the market denied them because battery technology wasn't so great, and because the cars were goofy looking.

if someone had produced a car that looked identical to an average toyota corolla, had a range of 400-500 miles, was able to do 130 mph, and could be charged in minutes, people would have bought them. indeed, if the infrastructure problems of fuel cell cars continue to be difficult to handle, that's what we might end up with.

dAHMER

dahmer

South Vienna, OH
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 01:15 PM

Remember the episode of "The Lone Gunmen" where they went looking for that car that could run on water (or some thing in that vein)? They made a really interesting thought at the end of the show. If we could make a car like that, it would result in more drivers, more cars, more roads...in the end things could be just as bad, if not worse.

That isn't to say we shouldn't do some thing to better our current state, but we need to look at the possible out come before we jump on a bandwagon. The point that this will make more of a different kind of waste is a valid point to me.

Now what we really need is a car that runs on peoples sense of selfworth, like on the Simpsons. tongue

[Edited on Aug 15, 2005 4:17PM]

FridgeMagnet

FridgeMagnet

Chicago, IL
November 2004

AUG 15, 2005 01:32 PM



Buildings are more polluting than cars.

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 01:33 PM

s5 said:
the market denied them because battery technology wasn't so great, and because the cars were goofy looking.



Battery technology hasn't improved all that much, and there were relatively normal looking electric cars.


if someone had produced a car that looked identical to an average toyota corolla, had a range of 400-500 miles, was able to do 130 mph, and could be charged in minutes, people would have bought them.



400-500 mile range, 130 top speed, and you want it to be charged in minutes? yeah, I'm sure people would have bought that. Given that we currently can't produce that, and the time that we can isn't within sight, I don't really see your point. If I made a car that could fly, was easy to drive, cost $200 and made snow cones in the summer and hot soup in the winter I'm sure people would buy that too.
I can sit here and list all sorts of fantasic and currently impossible things that people would buy. That doesn't change the fact that the current best we can do with battery powered "plug in" cars was attempted, and rejected. People don't want them, and given that they *dont'* decrease polution in much of a meaninful way, there's no real reason to use them anyway.

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 15, 2005 01:34 PM

FridgeMagnet said:


Buildings are more polluting than cars.



slower too.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

AUG 15, 2005 01:39 PM

Helter said:

FridgeMagnet said:


Buildings are more polluting than cars.



slower too.


BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! biggrin

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews