James Sutton

iTrader: (2)

Have you seen this, an electric that does 0-62 in 2.8 sec?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/tech/i...tml?hpt=hp_bn5

Mirror Image

iTrader: (2)

yeah things are changing it was hard for some guys to accept fuel injection and a computer way back in the old days

91interceptorZ

iTrader: (3)

electric motors make full power from 0 rpm all the way up, they don't have to build power like our gassers do. my friend owns a tesla, and it's crazy fast on acceleration. A friend of mine also owns a four runner hybrid which is actually crazy fast too, but they don't have that cool sound....actually no sound at all. lol

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

I'd think i'd hold my own

Dakota W.

I'll stick with my turtle, I don't find pleasure in driving unless my eardrums are being assaulted.

sailtexas186548

iTrader: (2)

until batteries can match the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels, I'll keep my noise maker

James Sutton

iTrader: (2)

My wife has a Volt. The acceleration is terrific, and it has dynamic brakes, recharging the engine when slowing down. For short-hop driving, it's ideal; 40 miles without engine assist. So far, 90 miles per gallon. Battery guaranteed for seven years. $7,500 tax credit and zero percent interest from GM. Cost: four cents per mile to charge. This is the future, and when it hits, car repair places will be fewer and smaller.

Has anyone put batteries in a 3rd Gen? It's inevitable.

James Sutton

iTrader: (2)

I think you're right!

Dakota W.

Optima batteries have a 10 year warranty.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

I think the costs and amount of energy used to produce those electric cars make them not a viable alternative yet. Its taking more energy to make them than they save. I believe gm lost its rear end when it came to producing those volts. The potential is there just not quite effective yet.

paul_huryk

The problem with electric cars is the batteries. For the amount of weight they add into a vehicle, the power capacity is pretty **** poor. Manufacturers are goint to have to use batteries that weigh 1/2 as much (as present packs), and have at least 2x the power capacity to make sense.

People love the Tesla, which is an almost 5000lb car as it sits. If they could drop that weight to 3500lbs and double the battery power, then it makes more sense. Ditto for the Volt or anything else looking for max economy - gas, diesel, hybrid, or electric.

sailtexas186548

iTrader: (2)

Exactly, but the average person cannot comprehend anything other than what they experience as the end user. It would horrify the "green" type person who drives one if they saw the actual amount of waste and pollutants produced from the battery manufacturing process.

James Sutton

iTrader: (2)

When correctly viewed, everything is a net user of energy; that's "Entropy," Nature's way of telling the Universe to slow down. So the question isn't whether an electric uses more energy than it saves; it's whether it uses less than other process chains.

Yes, the Volt isn't cost effective; GM is losing money on each one, which is why it doesn't advertise the Volt. The tax incentive makes it viable; in other words, Washington is subsidizing GM's and Tesla's R&D, in a way that doesn't violate international trade treaties, because it's gambling the investment will pay off in the long run. I wouldn't bet against it, though the battle may be won by someone tinkering in his garage, as usual.

sailtexas186548

iTrader: (2)

Yes, an currently EV's and hybrids use more net energy than IC. Sadly many do not grasp that.

I do think electric, especially hybrid electrics, will come close to IC stuff, and pass it in some categories (trains already have!), but IC will be extremely relevant as long there is still oil in the ground. Short of the Rankin cycle, an IC engine burning hydrocarbons is hard to beat for efficiently producing shaft work.

Dakota W.

So if your typical v8 is only 20% efficient, what percentage would the electric motors be?

sailtexas186548

iTrader: (2)

a would not say a "typical" v8 is only 20% "efficient". The figure 33% works for most 4-stroke gasoline engines if your talking about % of fuel energy converted to shaft work, but it really depends on the exact engine.

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to compare between electric motors and IC engines when you say "efficiency", but I'll assume you mean converting available energy [electricity or fuel] into shaft work [HP]. The electric motor is going to be way more efficient that the IC engine, but you have to consider the whole package to make it a worth while comparison. That gets very complicated, and it's not easy to do a direct comparison, you really have to consider the life span of the vehicle, production requirements, etc. to make it accurate.

It's not the motor technology, but the battery technology and the whole converting chemical energy into heat energy into shaft work into electricity into stored energy and then into shaft work again, rather than just converting chemical energy into heat energy and then into shaft work like IC engine, that make EV's so difficult. Every time you change the quality of energy, you have losses.

Then again, thats the reason that hybrids like trains work so well, store tons of energy in a energy dense fuel, convert it to electricity, and then use high TQ electric motors to convert it to shaft work. Its heavy but doesn't need to be fast, so it works. It's all about optimizing really

transamws6

but theres scientist always searching for new fuels...we will find the right one soon

((Mike))

iTrader: (1)

I commute 180 miles a day in a CNG Honda Civic. The gas is $1.85 a Gallon equivalent and I get 40mpg. It only costs me 10 bucks to drive round trip. I'll take that over electric any day.