Car That Can Park Itself Put on Sale by Toyota

I'd love to know where the myth that "all turbines are more efficient than piston engines" got started.

Yes, HUGE turbines that run at constant speed are more efficient than other systems, but to get to that level you're talking about 30,000 and up horsepower- typical jumbo jet turbofan cores and the like, whether used in stationary powerplants, ships, or the like. Below somewhere around 10,000 horsepower, its almost impossible to get a turbine as efficient as a turbocharged diesel, and absolutely impossible if its an application that requires frequent throttle-up/throttle-down. Thats EXACTLY why the railroads (who are immensely interested in fuel efficiency) use 4400 and 6000 HP turbo-diesel engines in locomotives.

And do you believe that the production and disposal of the batteries used by the Prius won't have any negative effect on the enviroment?

Does the Pirus work the same as any particular current vehicle?

If you really believe that gasoline is destroying the enviroment, I say demand higher gasoline taxes and have the revenue devoted to cleaning up the environment (instead of being diverted to the latest pork barrel project). Also, work to have your community develop decent and affordable mass transit.

Frankly the list of things that are worse for the environment than modern automobiles is a long one. You probably should start with old coal fired power plants first, then work on nucelar plants, then city sewage being dumped in to streams, etc., etc., etc.

Modern cars are a fun item for environmentalist to attack, but they are not the worst offenders on the planet, just one of the most obvious.

Ed

Thanks for supporting my position. Like I said, hybrids are for those rich people that want to, and can afford to, save us from that evil global warming, not the average buyer who can't afford to do that. One more point don't fall for that, If we burn less gas we will be less dependent on foreign oil, crap. Gas is only a byproduct of each barrel of crud oil from which it was derived. We will still need the crude whether we consume the gasoline produced in the distilling process or burn it off, as was the case before the automobile. In any event we will still import oil and we will do it most likely as a LARGER percentage of our total consumption. Mideast oil is so much less expensive to produce than our domestic crude.

mike hunt

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

how so? doesnt this count as "city mileage"?

btw, if youre just making a short trip and dont require more than 3-4 bags of groceries, a scooter would work well.

google for "honda helix" or "suzuki burgman". i often take my helix to costco or sams club and bungie a banana box full of groceries to the back seat. another half that amount easily fits in the helix's trunk. helixes in mint shape with under 5k miles (the 250cc engine with automatic CVT is good for at least 60k with proper care) can be had for $2500 or less.

even in The Peoples Republic Of Kalifornia, my yearly registration and insurance are less than $100, total. 60mpg, and a 72 mph top speed make it freeway legal.

Well, considering that the thing is the size of an alternator, the muffler and such shouldn't be too large. As for the warmup time, the car could handle 20-30 minutes of battery only use, so there's plenty of time to warm up.

Most of your points are valid, but warm-up time is not. Turbines have essentially zero warm-up time. Airliners regularly start one engine at the gate, taxi to the end of the runway on one engine, and then start the second engine when they're about "#2 for takeoff." The engine goes from shut off to full takeoff power in less than a minute.

It will. A true hybrid that ran on 1-2 batteries run off of a generator would be hardly any worse than a modern car with its single battery.

So use one of those tiny 2-stroke turbo diesels they have prototypes of. Nice, small, efficient engines.

40hp engine(or less) charging batteries at a constant optimal speed. 100mpg should be easily obtainable.

Check again, you're not even CLOSE.

A big electric plant with a gas turbine prime mover and a full co-generation system (where the hot exhaust of the turbine is used to boil water which then provides heating or more electricity through steam turbines) can approach 70-80% efficiency because you're re-capturing the turbine's waste heat. But the turbine engine ITSELF (fuel power input to shaft power out) doesn't do any better than the best diesels, often quite a bit worse.

And even worse, turbines don't scale down well. Very small turbines are orders of magnitude less efficient than huge turbines, which is why you don't see turbine engines much under 500 HP. And those 500 HP ones you do see are helicopter and turboprop engines where the small size is more important than efficiency- a 500 HP piston engine would actually be more fuel-efficient in many cases. The crossover region is wide, but turbocharged diesels at 4000-6000 HP are more efficient than similar-power gas turbines, which is why stationary power, ship power, and locomotive power in that range is almost universally turbo-diesel.

Well at least they're trying. Maybe when the battery packs come down in price and the fuel costs double, it'll make more sense. At that point Toyota, due to its pioneering work, will have a lock on the market. GM will still be making the Hummer though. Got to give them that. Wonder how that'll do when gas is $3.00 a gallon?

You're right, it is obtainable. But not and meet emissions standards.

Floyd

The price difference between a 2004 Prius and a comparably equipped traditional vehicle of similar size (in other words, right between a Camry & Corolla, termed "Camrolla" for easier comparisons) is about $3000.

All summer long (4,741 miles of driving in June, July, August), my classic Prius (a 2001) delivered a average of 50 MPG. My lifetime calculation after driving 57,350 miles in Minnesota (where the cold absolutely kills efficiency) over the last 3 years has yielded an average of 45.2 MPG.

The 2004 is much improved in efficiency design (it's bigger & cleaner too). So we can guestimate that it will deliver a real-world average (in the hostile conditions of Minnesota) of about 49 MPG.

In the same conditions, a "Camrolla" could only deliver a real-world average (in MN) of 28 MPG. (Remember, Prius shuts off its engine when dealing with extra heavy winter traffic caused by fresh snow on the roads. Traditional vehicles just keep running, which kills their efficiency.)

4,286 gallons is how much gas the "Camrolla" would consume for 120,000 miles of driving. At $1.65 per gallon, it would calculate to a total cost of $7,072.

2,449 gallons is how much a 2004 Prius would consume in the same

120,000 miles. At $1.65 per gallon, that comes to $4,041.

There's your $3,000 difference. And that's just in respect to gas savings, at what might become an unrealistically low price. At $1.85 per gallon, the difference grow to $3,398. At $2.00, it's $3,674. At $2.25, it's $4,133. And if you drive further than 120,000 miles, the difference grows even greater.

The battery-pack has proven to make it past 200,000 miles for one owner already. At that point, the ownership costs of traditional vehicles has added up. The Planetary-CVT design (and simplicity) should help to avoid the costs traditional automatic transmission ususally incur at that price. And the motor goes way out of its way to protect the engine from ever getting overworked. So basically, when all up all the costs, the difference between hybrid & traditional is a wash... for now. With spikes in gas prices and the expected lower costs of rechargable battery technology, hybrids will eventually show an economical advantage.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that they also reduce SMOG related emissions and our dependency on oil, which has to be worth something. (In fact, right now you get a tax deduction.) It also ignores the pleasure many have expressed from the sensation of driving using only electricity. The smooth & quiet nature is a benefit that warrants acknowledgement.

Arguments about "savings" are becoming weak now. Hybrids will win. Just wait until you see the first hybrid SUV owners celebrating about the incredible MPG they get. The appeal will attract many.

JOHN

According to AAA figures, August was the most traveled month of 2003. I guess fuel costs don't really have the effect one might think, for a lot of people. Don't' forget at the current unemployment rate, over 94% of the people are working. I'll bet more people buy Hummers than buy the Prius, curious ;)

mike hunt

Brian wrote:

What kind was that?

Joseph.... you're making really silly noises now. Still picking figures out of thin air.

Agree with you, Ed.

Ban VOLCANOES!!

You ARE correct we must stick to the facts here, the Prius is NOT a five speed. I took another look, it is listed in the EPA Guide as A(AV) but my quoted mileage of 52/45 city/highway MPG, with an annually fuel cost of $484 was correct. As to the correctness of the numbers, the EPA says your mileage may vary depending on options, driving conditions, and etc....which means the Corolla could be higher as well. The EPA figures are for comparison only, and that was my point. I'm not here to debate just to point out a fact. Personally I don't have a preference for either one, I would not consider a small car and I don't buy imports any more. It's your money spend it where you wish, I could not care less

mike hunt

"P.J. Harman" wrote:

will buy ALL OF THE FUEL for the Corolla for 10.5 years and no expense battery to replace t some point. It will take 38 years to save any money on the difference. Hybrids are for those rich people that want to, and can afford to, save us from that evil global warming, IMO.

For you lazy guys that insist that someone else do you research for you, here is the source of my information

which is updated regularly. I used the printed version of the guide, available free at any new car dealership or you local public library. I'm sure someone will still want the last word anyway. Be my guest I'm outta here ;)

Mike you KNOW you are NOT outa here

Scott in Florida