Re: Corolla v Civic v Hyundai/Nissan moeds



My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12 years so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will the batteries become a nightmare or just another expense? Just something to be factored in for the total cost of driving over the years. I keep hearing about a five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car that long.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Based on other rechargeable batteries I would expect a significant drop off in capacity after 3 to 5 years. Since the Prius will still run anyway I'm sure the batteries will be run into the ground before replacement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Josh S wrote:

This is true, but the way Toyota does battery discharging, the _usable_ capacity will be about the same. They don't take full advantage of the battery, especially on the U.S. models (in other countries there's an option to do deeper discharge). All they have to do to get ten years of identical capacity is to slowly increase the discharge level to compensate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range. They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries, ;)
Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the generator module.
Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the prorated prices.
Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a system many times more complex...
With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way to go.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AS wrote:

Yet, the individual cells can be replaced.

Yet, the technology has been proven and has been in use for over ten years (although not in the US during the first few years).

Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel still results in CO2 being produced).
Fuel cells have been used for year. In fact, the O2 tank that exploded on Apollo 13 when I was about four was used in two different types of fuel cells (mitochondria in the astronaut's bodies and the fuel cells that supplied electricity to the Aquarius and Odyssey).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mental Health Care professionals call this "a statement posed as a question". What he meant to say was, "You, Sir, are completely delusional!" to which I am able to respond. This "question" is meant to confound. Emotionally challenged people pose their statements as questions in order to provide themselves "cover" from more intelligent, more aggressive or perhaps more nearly sane people. This is passive/aggressive behavior. I believe the most energy we need to expend as a species is the novel, creative human energy it will take to make our planet a garden instead of a garbage dump. I believe all humans are served poorly by their "leaders". I also believe that each person awakens each day with the intention of making their lives, and their children's lives, as prosperous, comfortable and happy as their circumstances allow. We'll be OK unless the nukes fly. Then it'll be 'They are on their way in and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. My boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now. So let's get going. There's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.' Then he hung up. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph. That's not a legal speed anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That depends on where you are. There are a few states with speed limits of 75, which means 80 would be a pretty normal speed. In some parts of Texas, the posted limit is 80.
I'd agree, though, that the engine would be able to provide enough torque to keep the car going 80 @ 2000 RPM. Just not a big enough engine.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, those batteries are expensive as well as being dangerous in an accident.

In spite of the weight hybrids do very well. There are many reasons for this, and some of the technology can be applied to mild hybrids to get much of the fuel savings, without having a huge battery.

I live 1km from Ballard, a fuel cell developer. A few years ago a tanker delivering H to their plant developed a leak and fire at the hose fitting. The area 0.5km around was shut down for 12+ hrs until it burned off. Fuel cells need much further development and then there is the high cost, plus a required refueling network for this dangerous fuel.
IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them. The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would have agreed with you in the past, but diesel is selling for $1 a gallon more than regular right now. At current prices, a gas engine at 40 mpg costs the same in fuel per mile as a diesel at 50 mpg. I don't know if it has changed in Europe, but gas and diesel were just pennies apart per liter last year, diesel was 1.16 Euro gas was 1.22 per liter.
Fuel oil cost was exactly the same as diesel too. In milder climates it is not uncommon for homeowners to buy 5 or 10 gallons at a time at the filling station as needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with you that if diesel is selling for too high premium, using diesel doesn't make sense. Here in Canada diesel has recently crept a bit higher than regular gasoline, but I believe it's more of a supply situation as diesel use is increasing. In the USA you seem to be facing more variability in fuel pricing than here in Canada.
For urban driving a properly sized diesel gets about 30% more MPG than an equivalent performance gasoline engine. The Jeep Cherokee 2 wd EPA figures are: Gas 3.7L- 15/20 Gas 5.7L- 13/19 Diesel 3L- 18/23 Performance is close to the gas 5.7L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.