From: dh on
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)> wrote in message
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> 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.
> I have to disagree with you on this one.
> To me, it seems that no running an engine at its most efficient speeds, as
> the hybrids do, and storing energy as electricity and using that in such a
> way the efficiency is maximized will make a better combination than
> cutting off cylinders.

GM disagrees with "mike hunter," too. This efficiency improvement is at the
heart of the Volt concept.

> Even buses in NYC use hybrid technology rather than disengaging cylinders
> (or in addition to it). And the Swedes are working on hybrid garbage
> trucks.
> Plus, but using a hybrid design, you can have a smaller and lighter engine
> than with an engine that has a variable number of cylinders. Of course,
> the technologies are not mutually incompatible.
>> 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.
> What manufacturer offers a V8 that gets well over 30 mpg?
> OK, some V8 get close to 30 mpg highway, but none get even 30 mpg highway,
> at least in the 2007 or 2008 model years:
>> 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.
> It's a trade-off. Some people prefer a bigger car, some prefer one with a
> smaller environmental footprint, which hybrids may or may not have (I
> haven't seen a good accounting of the environmental costs of the batteries
> and other technology).
> Jeff
>> mike
>> "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: Jeff on
Mike Hunter wrote:
> 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

First, Mike, there is no need to call people, "dummy." That is not even
a good tactic for someone in kindergarten. I would have thought that you
are above name-calling.

Second, by doing a trade, you save 6% (in PA or whatever the state tax
is where you live). If you are able to get more than 6% more by doing a
trade yourself, you come out ahead.

So if you would sell a car you can sell yourself for $10,000 to a dealer
for $9,000, you still come out $400 ahead. Of course, whether it is
worth the trouble of selling a car for $400 extra is up to the seller to
decide. There is also a risk that you won't get as much as you want and
the cost of advertising.

It is certainly worth considering a trade, but, if one does his homework
first, he should have a good estimate of what he can get for his car
selling it himself, and use that to determine whether he is better off
trading in the car or trying to sell it himself.

(A 2005 Ford 400 AWD has a trade in value of $12,950 and a retail value
of $15,325, so a private sale value should be about $10

And, if you happen to do the trade in Delaware, where the state tax is
0%, you come out $1000 ahead.


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

A "ready to market" that involves another 4 or 5 years of development is a
meaningless phrase. A car is ready to market when the manufacturer is ready
to trade finished copies of it for cash.

By that measure, the Volt and all of GM's previous vaporware hybrid, fuel
cell and whatnot cars and even the Ford Nucleon were "ready to market."

As usual, you're full of bullshit.

> "DH" <dh(a)> wrote in message
> news:468e5aa1$0$22967$88260bb3(a)
>> "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: B A R R Y on
Tomes wrote:
> Prius owner since January 1 here. The heater does indeed use the engine
> heat as the heat source, no electric augmentation. We had plenty of heat,
> and the heat came on as quickly as it does in my Jeep, which is considered
> to be rather fast and strong. It does lower the gas mileage
> significantly.

Be aware that most vehicles get lower mileage in the winter, so not all
of the MPG drop you've seen might not be due to the heater.
From: B A R R Y on
B A R R Y wrote:
> Tomes wrote:
>> Prius owner since January 1 here. The heater does indeed use the
>> engine heat as the heat source, no electric augmentation. We had
>> plenty of heat, and the heat came on as quickly as it does in my Jeep,
>> which is considered to be rather fast and strong. It does lower the
>> gas mileage significantly.
> Be aware that most vehicles get lower mileage in the winter, so not all
> of the MPG drop you've seen might not be due to the heater.

Please drop the second "not" from my comment quoted above. <G>