From: Mike Hunter on
You are free to believe whatever you choose, I could not care less what you
choose to believe. Do a bit of research before you choose to comment on
subjects of which you obviously have little or no knowledge, WBMA or at
least say in my opinion, you are entitle to you own opinion but not your own
facts. Perhaps if you did you would not look so foolish so often.

If you knew anything about auto manufacturing you would know vehicles are
ready for market four to five years before they are actually brought to
market. The 1997 Pruis did not use the technology, jointly licensed, that
they use today in any event


"DH" <dh(a)> wrote in message
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)> wrote in message
> news:ccadnbrM79q2_hPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d(a)
>> 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)> 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

From: Tomes on
"Bill Putney" ...
> Jeff wrote:
>> Cars can also have electrically powered water pumps, power steering
>> pumps, valves, and compressors for the air conditioners, although I
>> don't know if any do, yet.
> An honest question: All those things suck energy whether mechanically or
> electricaly powered (and the power has to ultimately come from the IC
> engine). For each one, is the electrical version inherently more
> efficient than a mechanically powered (belt or gear driven) one?

Hi Bill,
The thing with the Prius is that it generates more energy than it uses
electrically, overall. There is a screen that shows the state of the
battery charge at all times. In my Prius, it is near the top most of the
time (at maybe ~60-70% of charge [the top being 80% and the bottom being
20%]), and I have seen it near the low point only in rare and special
cases (such as using the AC in a traffic jam where regeneration is not
happening), It even has a mode where it will just spin the engine
(without any gas used) to get rid of excess electricity as waste heat. I
have wanted some manner of adjustment to make it use electricity moreso
because of this.

From: Tomes on
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" ...
> Jeff :
>> > It's not even what I call a transmission, although obviously it
>> > performs
>> > the task of one.
>> CVTs are transmissions.
> I put the traditional CVT on par with the traditional fluid drive
> automatic transmission with respect to complexity and number of failure
> points, as well as its proclivity to fail.
> The Toyota PSD is way, way, way, WAY different.

Yep, agree with all of this. These new transmissions are indeed
transmissions in that they transmit power from the power source(s) to the
wheels. We are just now getting used to the all new stuff that we never
had to consider in production cars before. Sure is fun.

From: dh on
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)> wrote in message
> 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

Uh-huh. And then, reality strikes...

Over at, where they log real-world fuel economy, the two DoD
equipped Impalas reporting are getting 17.5 and 19.4 mpg. The Camry hybrid
reporting gets 39mpg.

Over on, the one DoD-equipped Chevy that's reporting gets
20.5mpg in 90% highway driving and the 50 Camry hybrids are reporting 36mpg
in a wide variety of conditions.

Yeah, that DoD trick, that's just the bee's knees.

> "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)> wrote in message
> news:5f59k4F35r4qqU1(a)
>>B A R R Y wrote:
>>> who wrote:
>>>> In article <VzZii.7981$7k7.3835(a)trnddc01>,
>>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000(a)> 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')

Posted via a free Usenet account from

From: dh on
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)> wrote in message
> Next time do a trade through. By not doing a trade through, when you sell
> your old clunker, you are paying higher taxes than needed, dummy
> mike

A small amount of tax, which is, itself, tax-deductible.

> "DH" <dh(a)> wrote in message
> news:468e5710$0$16353$88260bb3(a)
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)> wrote in message
>> news:seKdne_fGqw6wxPbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d(a)
>>> Are you really that slow witted? Of course the dealership can screw
>>> you. How do you think you could screw the dealership?
>> If I want a new car, then the dealership will get the opportunity to make
>> a profit on the sale. But, since I own highly desireable cars that
>> resell well, I'll sell them privately and avoid getting taken on the
>> trade.

Posted via a free Usenet account from