The Drive-a-Toyota Act
in [Toyota]
|
From: Jeff on 6 Jul 2007 11:58 Mike Hunter wrote: > As one might expect you have it wrong because you did not do proper > research. If you did you would discover Ford had a hybrid Escape ready for > market when they purchased Volvo. Volvo was partnered in a joint venture > in Japan with Toyota, a Japanese electronics company and another Japanese > company that was developing a more advanced system. Ford held off the > hybrid Escape for a year or more in deference to the newer more efficient > system. ALL of the companies in the joint venture are cross licensed, to > all of the resulting technology. Subsequently Toyota bought the Electronics > company. > > mike For once, you're correct, except Ford held off because of software difficulties. http://www.auto-careers.org/ford_escape_transaxle_made_by_ai.htm Jeff > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:NQdji.7135$4e5.2880(a)trndny07... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Actually both Toyota and Ford are likened to each others technology, >>> since it was developed under a joint venture, via Volvo. >> Actually, this article implies that Toyota developed the technology, and >> Ford licensed the technology, apparently after working independently. That >> is not a joint venture. It sounds like Ford and Toyota developed similar >> technology and crossed licensed the technology to avoid legal problems. >> >> This paragraph supports this idea: "Ford also licensed Toyota hybrids >> patents after its engineers realized that the system Ford had developed >> had features similar to ones patented by Toyota. (Honda developed a >> different hybrid system.)" >> > >
From: DH on 6 Jul 2007 11:59 "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)mailcity.com> wrote in message news:ccadnbrM79q2_hPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d(a)ptd.net... > As one might expect you have it wrong because you did not do proper > research. If you did you would discover Ford had a hybrid Escape ready > for market when they purchased Volvo. Really? Either you have a very curious notion of "ready for market" or Ford wasted quite a lot of time not marketing something that was "ready for market." Ford bought Volvo in 1999. The hybrid Escape made its debut as a 2005 model. Toyota introduced a hybrid in the Japanese market in 1997. Volvo still offers no hybrids. If this was a "joint" venture, it's remarkable how Toyota managed to deliver hybrids so far ahead of Ford (7 years) or Volvo (still not there). > Volvo was partnered in a joint venture in Japan with Toyota, a Japanese > electronics company and another Japanese company that was developing a > more advanced system. Ford held off the hybrid Escape for a year or more > in deference to the newer more efficient system. ALL of the companies in > the joint venture are cross licensed, to all of the resulting technology. > Subsequently Toyota bought the Electronics company. > > mike > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:NQdji.7135$4e5.2880(a)trndny07... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Actually both Toyota and Ford are likened to each others technology, >>> since it was developed under a joint venture, via Volvo. >> >> Actually, this article implies that Toyota developed the technology, and >> Ford licensed the technology, apparently after working independently. >> That is not a joint venture. It sounds like Ford and Toyota developed >> similar technology and crossed licensed the technology to avoid legal >> problems. >> >> This paragraph supports this idea: "Ford also licensed Toyota hybrids >> patents after its engineers realized that the system Ford had developed >> had features similar to ones patented by Toyota. (Honda developed a >> different hybrid system.)" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Jul 2007 12:09 In general hybrid use a small engine to move the vehicle when not much torques is required and to generate electricity when required. The electric motor is used when torque is required to get the vehicle going and to keep it going on a grade. We hear of the great mileage while driving at slower speeds in a hybrid but one can not continue to do so for long before the engine will need to run to recharge the batteries, provide heat and AC Seems to me we should be looking to improve the newer technology, that permits several of the cylinders to be disengaged when torque is not required. That is a better solution to lowering ones average fuel consumption since the majority is mileage is accumulated where torque is not required. Several manufacturers are offing that technology and obtaining well over 30 mpg, with V8 engines, on the highway and still offering the larger, safer, more powerful vehicles that the buyers prefer. Cylinder deactivation does not add much to the price of the vehicle as apposed to hybrids that cost much more to build and add to the wealth of batteries to be build and recycled. mike "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message news:5f59k4F35r4qqU1(a)mid.individual.net... >B A R R Y wrote: > >> who wrote: >> >>> In article <VzZii.7981$7k7.3835(a)trnddc01>, >>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> There is no indication that the life of the batteries are a limiting >>>> factor to the life of the car. All indications are that the batteries >>>> do not wear out. >>> >>> >>> Dream on. >>> Currently rechargeable batteries start going down hill at about 3 years. >>> The fact that they are much weaker between 5 and the 8 yr guarantee >>> point would not be that noticeable as the Prius battery is very large. >>> A Prius might then be running as a mild hybrid, not going so far on >>> battery only. >> >> >> Which would cause the gas mileage to drop. >> >> My in-laws are still driving a first generation Prius, a 2002, with over >> 100k. The MPG is the same as it ever was. > > > Ha ha! But Toyota slipped up by uncluding in that article that it would > not even go a mile on battery only. That says that the battery is a small > factor in its overall economy. And in most driving situations, > regenerative braking probably barely (or doesn't quite) make up for the > extra weight of batteries and controls it is carrying around. (IOW - the > economy is from a small, optimized-for-efficiency IC engine.) > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x')
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Jul 2007 12:11 One should know by now that our fried Jeff likes prefers others do his homework. ;) mike "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:CEfji.7467$fw2.4379(a)trnddc04... > Bill Putney wrote: >> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> >>> In article <5f5catF3bdrnjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You know - I find it particularly and disgustingly dishonest for a >>>> person to ask me specifically why I don't give some authoritative >>>> information (in this case on NiMH battery life), and then when I do >>>> exactly that, that same individual says I (therefore) am a know-it-all >>>> and that his part in the discussion is essentially over. >> >>> I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention: what authoritative information >>> did you give? >> >>> And what authoritative sources did you cite? >> >> More dishonest tactics. The jig is up. > > Yeah, you've got that right. > > You claimed that you cited authoritative sources, yet you can say what > they are. > > Jeff > >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x')
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Jul 2007 12:18
My Lexus LSs and Lincoln LSs had that bottom heater. mike "DH" <dh(a)stargate.com> wrote in message news:468e4ff9$0$20568 > > Reminds me of a feature that Chrysler once offered on their minivans, a > windshield heating element located where the windshield wipers park to > help keep the bottom of the windshield de-iced and wipers free (I can't > believe no one has copied this feature, nor that Chrysler seems to have > abandoned it). >> Ed > > > > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > |