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
> > 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
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
Not from a performance and efficiency standpoint.