The Drive-a-Toyota Act
in [Toyota]
|
From: RapidRonnie on 18 Jul 2007 01:03 On Jul 5, 2:21 am, "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote: > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:VzZii.7981$7k7.3835(a)trnddc01... > > > > > Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: > >> In article <_mZii.3427$bO2.2057(a)trnddc05>, > >> Jeff <kidsdoc2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>> And the batteries, according to the testing by Toyota, should be good > >>> for the life of the car. > > >> I hate hearing statements like that. > > >> What that tells me is that Toyota says that when the batteries go out, by > >> definition you've reached the end of life of the car. > > >> That does NOT tell me that the batteries last a long time. > > > Perhaps you should read the referenced article before commenting on one > > sentence about the article. > > > 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. > > > Jeff > > Conventional wisdom says that batteries have a fairly limited life, as most > people experience with UPS devices, cell phones, and re-chargeable > batteries. The charge controller in the Prius is programmed to prevent the > battery pack from discharging or charging past the optimal range. There are > Prius in taxi service with over 200,000 miles, and Toyota has yet to sell a > replacement battery pack other than for defects during warranty coverage or > for collisions. The correct answer is "yes, the Prius battery pack has a > finite life, but none of the Prius vehicles sold has reached the end of its > useful life yet." > Calendar life, not miles or cycles will probably determine battery life in these applications. If no aftermarket develops, the price will be prohibitive, but JDM may be a source like on everything else.
From: RapidRonnie on 18 Jul 2007 01:04 > > mike > > The Honda system is just not as good as Toyotas. > And neither is as good as a TRUE hybrid vehicle: one with a pure electric motor and independent gen set.
From: RapidRonnie on 18 Jul 2007 01:08 " > > Umm - what does that tell you about the efficiency of the car? That it > is mostly due to an extremely efficient IC engine. I submit that the > regenerative braking is a small part of the efficiency to the degree > that the extra weight of the batteries and added complexity of the > electrical system is beyond the point of diminishing returns. IOW - it > would be interesting to not only disable, but to uninstall the batteries > and their controls (i.e., convert in the opposite direction) to see what > the operational characteristics and fuel economy are with the lower > weight - even without regen. braking. The results might be extremely > telling. It's actually no where near as efficient as it could be if it were a constant speed pure generator engine. If one were to use a purpose designed diesel for that bsfc could be in the .28 range. I doubt bsfc on the Prius engine is better than .35. True, you gain a little efficiency with the direct lockup under power. But not enough to make it worthwhile.
From: RapidRonnie on 18 Jul 2007 01:09 On Jul 5, 5:21 pm, Bill Putney <b...(a)kinez.net> wrote: > who wrote: > > ...A Prius might then be running as a mild hybrid, not going so far on > > battery only. > > According to the Toyota article, the car would go less than a mile on > battery alone at low speed. What does that tell you about where the car > gets most of its fuel efficiency from? (hint: a very efficient IC > engine) As I said in another post, it would be interesting for someone > to rip out the batteries and control electronics and see what the > economy would be with just the IC engine. It might be found that the > savings due to lower weight might just about offset the gains from > regenerative braking. > It's nonsense because with minor mods the car can be driven 15+ miles on a full charge of battery, without firing the engine up.
From: RapidRonnie on 18 Jul 2007 01:14
> > > 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. > > Don't mention "Fluid Drive" as prone to failure. My 1940 Chrysler has > it and it is bulletproof! That was perhaps the best transmission > produced. > Not from a performance and efficiency standpoint. |