I guess you skipped the other posts:

Nope. I read every one of them. However, averaging 2,000+ cars is a better measure than a couple carefully chosen comments for select owners. Averaging helps to minimise artifacts.

I could just as easily post comments from happy owners who are getting more than advertised milage, but that's just not objective evidence. Having excellent agreement between average milage for an average of 2,000+ cars and published ratings is the best evidence available.

SAVINGS GRAND TOTAL = $219 per 10k miles

That adds up to $3,285 for 150K miles, which is about the minimum milage acievable for the car. And that's a mid-size, roomy car with good cargo room vs, a cramped sub-compact.

When you consider that the "per mile" cost of any new car that costs about $25k is going to be something like 30 - 40 cents per mile over the first four years of its life (factoring in depreciation, insurance, maintenance, etc) that two cents per mile doesn't loom quite so large.

But when doing comparative costs, insurance, maintence, depreciation are factored into both cars, not just one. To do a proper analysis, all these costs are totaled for each car, and then the totals are compared. One thing to remember is the sticker price isn't the only part of buying a car, there is also resale, and the Prius has be at or near the top is resale value since its introduction. If you really want to make your point, show us a complete cost analysis between the Prius and another mid-size car with similar interior and cargo space. Include the cost of all the aforementioned cost items for both cars and show the result.

 

Here's an interesting approach for a 170 mpg hybrid car using all hydraulics with a unique, free-piston Diesel engine and total regenerative braking. Unfortunately they apparently can't get any money to fund a prototype.

Very interesting article and concept. Thanks for the link.

 

If you really want to make your point, show us a complete cost analysis between the Prius and another mid-size car with similar interior and cargo space. Include the cost of all the aforementioned cost items for both cars and show the result.

+1 It's the same as the old Mac vs PC arguments, trying to compare Apples and oranges (pun intended). I can bet that Toyota has studied this TCO (total cost of ownership) analysis in great detail. I'm sure they can name the 3 closest competitors.

I'm also willing to bet that they intentionally applied a carefully calculated premium on top of whatever the competitive analysis showed. I would. The market is NOT just anybody looking for the lowest TCO, it's the folks who will dabble with the technology just because. You're not going to sell to everyone so go after the market that is happy to pay the premium.

I guess my argument supports the idea that the Prius can not have a superior TCO. Toyota would have left money on the table if that was true. I have a feeling they don't do that very often.

 

Thank you. I never heard of their VVT-i called "Atkinson" before. A true Atkinson engine uses a totally different arrangement. Crankshaft at half speed and valves operated from the cranshaft
http://www.motor.com/article.asp?article_ID=1729

Perhaps the correct term is that it uses an Atkinson cycle, not the mechanics of the classic Atkinson engine. Not all VVT-i engines use the Atkinson cycle (value timing adjusted to give a longer effective expansion stroke then compression stroke), only those used in hybrids.

 

electric cars will be easy to make and 100% dominant in the market when carbon nanotube ultracapacitors become more refined and mass produced.

 

That adds up to $3,285 for 150K miles, which is about the minimum milage acievable for the car. And that's a mid-size, roomy car with good cargo room vs, a cramped sub-compact.

No sir. I hardly consider a Prius to be a roomy mid size,(ridden in them MANY times). That's my point: in the vast majority of cases, the price premium associated with the hybrid does not get returned to the owner over the life of the vehicle except in cases where the government is kicking in some taxpayer funded welfare. And the incremental mileage gain is small compared to a similar size vehicle when REAL mileage numbers are used.

The hybrid as a commercial product (stand alone) would not be feasible until gas gets A LOT higher than $4 a gallon, which it is in many foreign countries. Here, the government has to prop it up. And as I said: people are not good at math.

BTW: the public's appetite for the hybrid waxes and wanes with their level of anger each time big oil introduces a big fat price gouge. Not widely remembered: the Prius was selling so poorly in the US, that Toyota had already started to shut down some of the plants in the US when the gas "step" went from about $2 to $3. Then a few years later, we now have it stepped up to $4..... and hybrids anr in style again. And as the anger calms, people will go back to baseline.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/hybrid-car-prices-increase_n_1367983.html

Hybrid Car Prices Increasing Due To High Gas Prices

It's becoming almost an annual tradition: As fuel prices rise in the spring, so do the prices of hybrid cars. And that's the case even if the math involved doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"There's a little bit of irrational behavior going on," said Alec Gutierrez, senior market analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "As gas prices rise, consumers tend to believe it's a new reality, and they start to overreact."

////

Kelley Blue Book predicts that if that demand at auctions keeps up, hybrid prices will rise 20 percent in the next couple of months.

Gas prices have been climbing in the past few weeks, hitting a national average of $3.85 for a gallon of regular unleaded gas this week and topping $4 in many spots. It's the third time in four years that the average gas price has hovered at about $4 a gallon.

Fuel prices and fuel-efficient car prices seem to go hand in hand. In 2011, when gas prices approached $4 a gallon, fuel-efficient cars prices reached record highs, Kelley Blue Book said. Then as soon as gas prices fell, so did buyer appetite for fuel-efficient vehicles.

 

An independent opinion:

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/are-hybrid-vehicles-worth-the-extra-cost.aspx

Are Hybrid Vehicles Worth The Extra Cost?

April 26, 2012


Do They Save Money?
To answer this question, let's look at the 2012 Honda Civic Sedan and the Civic Hybrid. The Civic Sedan starts at $15,995 and, according to Honda, gets 28 miles per gallon in the city and 39 on the highway. The Civic Hybrid starts at $24,200 and gets 44 miles per gallon in both the city and the highway.

The average amount of miles driven by a person ages 20-34 is 15,098 a year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Let's round it down to 15,000. Next, let's assume that the average miles per gallon for the traditional Civic is 33. That would make the annual fuel cost $1,818 assuming gas is $4 per gallon. In the Civic Hybrid, the annual fuel cost would be $1,363. That's an annual savings of $455 if you own the hybrid.




But here's where the math isn't so consumer friendly. Since the cost of the hybrid was $8,205 more, it will take 18 years to recoup the extra cost of the hybrid. Asking a car to last 18 years or 270,000 miles isn't practical, so the only realistic way to recoup those costs is to drive more miles or capitalize on the fuel efficiency and receive a tax credit.

Plug-in Hybrids
The next generation in hybrid vehicles is the plug in-hybrid. Unlike the traditional hybrid, plug-ins only use the gasoline-powered engine once the batteries run out of charge. These vehicles have a range of around 40 miles using only electricity before the gasoline powered engine has to take over.

Depending on one's normal commute to work, some people can drive to and from work without using the gasoline powered engine. According to Consumer Reports, when these vehicles are running on electricity, they achieve a gasoline equivalent of 99 miles per gallon. It's more difficult to calculate the potential cost savings of a plug-in hybrid because the cost of electricity has to be factored in, but consider this: The 2012 Chevy Volt has a retail sticker price of $39,145, but with the $7,500 tax credit, the price comes down to $31,645. Compare that to the traditional Honda starting at half the price.

 

Notice the biggest "saving" in cost over five years (Saturn Vue) was $2500. Take away the government subsidies and the numbers all go red.


Wider range of models:

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/cars/T009-C004-S001-hybrids-worth-the-price.html

with some hybrid models, you won't even come close to getting back the premium you pay.

To reach that conclusion, we compared the five-year ownership costs of 13 hybrids with those of their gas-engine counterparts. Our math is based on actual transactions, rather than sticker prices, and assumes a 15% down payment, a five-year loan and 15,000 miles of driving a year -- 55% of those at city speeds. Vincentric supplied the data.

Besides sucking less gas, many hybrids save on taxes and fees because they qualify for a one-time tax credit, which we took into account. A factor that we couldn't include is a potential discount on your car insurance. Travelers, for example, offers a 10% discount for hybrids in most states.

Best and worst. At the top of the list for value is the 2008 Saturn Vue Hybrid, which is projected to cost $2,500 less over five years than the gas-engine Vue XE. The numbers also favor the Nissan Altima Hybrid ($2,100 less than the Altima S), the Lexus RX 400h ($1,100 less than the RX 350) and the Honda Civic Hybrid ($1,000 less than the Civic EX).

It's tough to justify buying a car at the bottom of the list. The Lexus LS 600h L costs $35,000 more in total costs than the LS 460 L, mainly because of its $32,000-higher sticker price. The Lexus GS 450h costs $16,900 more than the GS 350, and the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid costs $10,700 more than the Tahoe LT.

The middle group of hybrids has ownership costs that run from slightly to significantly higher. The Ford Escape Hybrid costs $200 more over five years than the Escape XLT four-cylinder; the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid costs $400 more than the Malibu LT; and the Saturn Aura Hybrid costs $1,700 more than the Aura XE.

The Toyota Highlander Hybrid (which has four-wheel drive) will cost $2,200 more to drive than the Highlander base four-wheel-drive model; the Toyota Camry Hybrid will set you back $2,700 compared with the Camry LE.

You could still come out ahead with these in-between hybrids if gasoline prices rise. For example, with the Ford Escape Hybrid, you'd erase the price premium if gas were to average $4.50 a gallon.

What about the Toyota Prius? For many Americans, the white-hot hybrid symbolizes green driving. Many dealers have months-long waiting lists and are charging $1,000 to $1,500 more than the $23,135 sticker.

Compared with what? Even so, if you look at the total ownership cost over five years, the Toyota Prius ties the Honda Civic Hybrid for least expensive ($39,780). The Nissan Altima Hybrid ($40,730) is next cheapest, followed by the Chevy Malibu ($44,810), Toyota Camry ($45,140), Ford Escape ($45,860) and Saturn Vue ($46,120) hybrids.

But hybrids aren't the cheapest rides. A number of nonhybrid gas sippers cost less to own over five years. One of the best values is the Honda Fit, which costs $35,650 to operate over five years. The Nissan Versa costs $36,520. If you want more room, consider the Toyota Matrix, which is projected to cost $39,680 over five years.
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2008

 

No sir. A prius is certainly not a mid size, it's a subcompact.

Nope. It's a midsize:


Vehicle Specification Data 2012 Toyota Prius EPA Size Class Midsize CarsDriveFront-Wheel DriveGas GuzzlerNoTurbochargerNoSuperchargerNoPassenger Volume94 ft3 (Hatchback)Luggage Volume22 ft3 (Hatchback)Engine Descriptor Transmission Descriptor

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31767

 

Nope. It's a midsize:


Vehicle Specification Data 2012 Toyota Prius EPA Size Class Midsize CarsDriveFront-Wheel DriveGas GuzzlerNoTurbochargerNoSuperchargerNoPassenger Volume94 ft3 (Hatchback)Luggage Volume22 ft3 (Hatchback)Engine Descriptor Transmission Descriptor

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31767

Sure, it's a midsize.

http://priuschat.com/threads/is-the-prius-a-compact-or-midsize-car.38838/


I was always under the impression the Prius was a midsize car. But a check on Edmunds.com classifies the Prius as a compact car. Which one is it?

In terms of outside dimensions (length and width), the Prius is definitely a compact. E.g., it's comparable (maybe even an inch or two shorter in length) to so called compacts like the Corolla and Civic. On the inside, because of the hatchback design among other things, the Prius is comparable to the smaller end of the spectrum of mid-sized cars.

​

 

I can't confirm what was said earlier about possible Atkinson cycle engine, I just don't know. But I think the CVT can let the car cruise at highway speed at an RPM that it closer to its most efficient RPM. But other cars have CVTs and can't get the same mileage as the prius. There IS something about it that makes it more efficient, even at highway speeds. Whether or not we can credit that to the electrics, I don't know.
...

The bulk of the difference is in the nature of the testing. They probably simulate "official freeway driving" as a mix of constant speed driving with some percentage events of high speed overtaking and hills etc. Since the high speed overtaking uses a lot of fuel that is one area the hybrids can fudge the numbers, as the electrics can help a lot during those short peak loads.

However you don't have to do high speed overtaking, especially if concerned with economy. If you eliminated those type of events and quantified a good technology non-hybrid on a flat steady freeway speed it would get similar economy to the hybrid under those conditions.

The total cost of ownership and fuel savings just don't really make sense at this point in time. Maybe if hybrids were much cheaper, and worked much better, it would be worth it.

Hybrids are like putting solar panels on your home. They are just not quite cheap enough, and don't save quite enough, to be worth the high initial cost.

I have a 20 year old car that I paid $3000 for a couple years back and can still sell for $3000 now, and it gets maybe 5000 miles a year of usage on flat empty roads, so fuel costs are very low since it gets about 30 MPG anyway. There's no way in hell you could get a Prius to give such superbly low costs of ownership as I get from my 20 year old car.

 

I was always under the impression the Prius was a midsize car. But a check on Edmunds.com classifies the Prius as a compact car. Which one is it?

In terms of outside dimensions (length and width), the Prius is definitely a compact. E.g., it's comparable (maybe even an inch or two shorter in length) to so called compacts like the Corolla and Civic. On the inside, because of the hatchback design among other things, the Prius is comparable to the smaller end of the spectrum of mid-sized cars.

The Prius has 114 Cu ft of passenger and cargo space. Anything over 110 is a midsize. I don't care what a classified ad says.

For example, the Prius has 97 cu ft of passenger space compared to 83 for the Civic
The Prius has 21.6 cu ft of cargo space compared to 12.5 for the Civic.

The Civic has 95.5 total making it a compact. The prius as 114 making it a midsize. This according to the offical rating criteria.

 

This discussion has strayed a bit; it wasn't about whether or not the existing hybrids are cost effective compared to all-gas alternatives. Anyone who has crunched the numbers comparing compact hybrids to compact non-hybrids knows that they aren't cost effective. And anyone who has compared the prius (not a compact) to compact non-hybrids has a strong opinion one way or another - I started a different thread to kick that dead horse a few weeks ago.

This was about ways that hybrid technology could be improved, hopefully to make them cost effective in the future.

 

This was about ways that hybrid technology could be improved, hopefully to make them cost effective in the future.

Time and technology will take care of that. The price of gas has more than doubled over the last 10 years, and every ten years before that. In my short 50 years, gas prices have increased 15 fold. Shortages are sure to occur. Also in the last 10 years, the price of replacement battery packs are down 75%, as performance improves. Hybrids will dominate in the future, but because they still use gas, they will also become obsolete. The car of the future is all-electric, or all-something-else.

 

If they had doubled every ten years for 50 years they would have gone up by a factor of 32, not 15.

Over the last 50 years, CPI (all urban consumers) has gone up by a factor 7.5 (4.11%/yr). Gasoline prices when up by a factor of 11.3 (4.97%). So while gasoline outpaced inflation, it didn't do so by a huge about and many other items outpaced it by quite a bit more (and, of course, many others didn't).

From 1932 until 1974, gas prices decreased steadily in inflation adjusted dollars from $2.51 to $1.74 (in 2011 dollars). They then rose sharply to $2.68 in 1982, where they peaked. So they basically got back to where they had been 50 years previously. They then rose and fell in fits until they bottomed at $1.40 in 1998. Not that this is lower than they were (again, in inflation adjusted dollars) in 1974 at the beginning of the "oil shortage". It is then that they started climbing very sharply, peaking in 2008 at $3.41 and crashing to $2.43 the next year, significantly less then they were in 1982. In 2011 they were back up to $3.51, the all-time peak, and have come down somewhat since then.

It took 15 years (1974 to 1989) for the gas-price hike to disappear completely. There is little reason to believe that this one won't go away in time, as well. Almost every year when the gas prices do their seasonal spike we hear the Chicken Littles tell us how gas is going to be $5 or $6 by the end of summer and every year the gas prices pull back to more or less where they were.

Are they volatile? Hell yes. But if the oil companies are doing all this price fixing, they aren't doing a very competent job of it. Over the past 82 years, the averal annual increase in the price of gas has been less than 3.5%. Over the same period, CPI has averaged just over 3.2%. They need to close their oil operations and become public universities, who have learned how to make a real killing year after year after year, at least since 1981. Before that college tuition/fees tracked CPI pretty closely.

 

Regarding Capacitors.

That relates to the original post where capacitors are an important design element.

With better efficiency and lower leakage capacitors could improve efficiency compared to batteries, but they need to have higher power density first. That would mean they need to allow higher voltages and capacitance. Those are inversely proportional characteristics for most capacitor types.


Similar designs have been proposed but always lose strength based on compounding conversion losses. Direct mechanical connection is more efficient than combustion to electricity generation to battery storage and electric drive.

You had it right with the comment about the lawnmower engine.

My version of this design would be one or two small (roughly 350cc) ultra efficient turbodiesels. The turbine component would be excessive by current standards. It would run the diesel with at least 15 standard atmospheres of boost. Instead of intercooling the engine would use reverse flow to capture nearly all of the exhaust heat in the intake air. The only engine cooling would be from the intake air. It would basically be a turbine engine fed through pistons.

You should only engage direct drive when there is a good match to their narrow efficiency band. CVT's are applicable but they have a mechanical inefficiency that ends up being compounded.

Since we will have an electric drive use a hub plus electric motor. Your direct drive spins an axle and the electric drive rotor is wrapped around that axle hub. The direct drive is constant or varied by CVT. When at a stop or coasting the electric drive will pull power out of the spinning rotor and generate electricity for storage.

When you are at the target efficient speed the electric motors axle-rotor, and wheel-field windings will lock. You have direct drive. You can slip or stutter the electric motor as speeds fall below or rise above the efficiency band of the combustion engine(s).

There is one problem with this design. Electric motors have amazing torque. The directly stacked drives would result in a huge backdrive on the combustion engine that would kill its efficiency, stall it, or break it.

This can be fixed with multiple stages of electric motors in a planetary housing. The torque is contained in the gearing with most force driven against the gear housings. It is a type of design best seen in some electronic CVTs.

So now you have a nearly constant run highly efficient combustion engine.

Using two combustion engines comes in handy because you might want to balance this out and run it at both front and rear axles.

Dual engines allow more efficiency because you can run one most of the time or both when you can use more reserve power. They also add reliability because running on one engine is possible when one of two has a problem. For a bleeding edge engine that is an advantage. You can do things like run at a ridiculous temperature and pressure, and just shut it down when that becomes a problem for an engine.

Because you have two engines they can be smaller. These 350cc Turbo diesels would be a plug and play module. An alloy system that weighs just over 50kgs. At time of service you pull the engine and swap in a tested recertified component. Disconnect the fuel, air breather, control/sensor loom, and exhaust pipes; then pull the motor out like a heavy suitcase.

Other factors that I believe should be part of this design. No lawnmower wheels. The wheels and tires should be at least as large in diameter as those on freight hauler trucks. A lightweight wheel of large diameter carries a vehicle with much improved rolling efficiency, and with greater comfort. Those big wheels when they are properly aerodynamically encased are also helpful fins for literally flying around corners.

A better car needs to be at least a little bit of an airplane. Smaller frontal area. Better streamlining. Aerodynamics need to be active. For cornering we have use of fins as well as increased groundforce. For straightline driving we add enough lift to reduce rolling resistance. It is possible we could move towards glidepaths within our lifetimes. I don't suggest that we will have or want fully flying cars but how much infrastructure cost could be eliminated if on ramps were only a virtual construct.

Okay now it is probably getting too weird for people to take seriously.

 

Now we're cooking with Crisco! Give me few days to ponder all that.

 

If they had doubled every ten years for 50 years they would have gone up by a factor of 32, not 15.

What I wrote was, gas doubles every 10 years and is up 15 fold during my 50 year lifetime ( well, 50+ to be more accurate ) When I was about 10 years old, my parents were paying about $.25 for a gallon of gas. Now I pay $3.75+. That's 15 fold in 40 years, or quite nearly doubling ever 10 years. I don't remember what gas prices was when I was zero years old, I was just too young. But I am aware that gas price was stable during my first decade of life.

Gas prices rose very little in 50 years form 1919 - 1969 because of favorable price and supply. However, the story has been very different ever since. In the US, the gas industry changed from domestic supply and export to net import. About that time, US reserve capacity peaked, and domestic production began to fall. That changed the calculus of of the price of energy. Wildly volatile prices have almost all occurred in the last 50 years. Pump prices outpaced inflation by 1.5 times, and I certainly consider that a significant amount. It's irrelevant what other commodities rose faster, the bottom line is energy prices put a strain on family's budgets. Energy isn't a luxury, it's a necessity in a modern society, so it' s not like people can just do without it like they can skip the ivy league college. People need energy to get to work, for comfort, to cook, to be productive, etc. When energy goes up, people usually have to cut somewhere else.

There is every reason to believe gas prices aren't going back down. Aside from the new calculus already mentioned, supplies are showing signs of reaching peak values. There is just so much in the world, and as supply get tighter, prices will soar. The fantasy of cheap and plentiful energy is over, and new sources will be needed.

 

There is every reason to believe gas prices aren't going back down.

Wanna bet? Gas prices - in constant dollars - have trended down over the last hundred years and will continue to do so, of course with occasional disruptions. Prices go up, but that's more about the dollar going down that about the gas going up.

With natural gas coming on line as a viable, commodity competitor, gasoline is unlikely to enjoy a future of fat prices. Or, a change in energy policy could quickly reverse the self-imposed penalty we now pay. There's no market-based supply issue, it's purely a political one. The current administration has said they favor $5/gal (or more) gas as a means to promote alternatives, but that thinking may not last past the 2014 midterm election.

 

Sure I'll take that bet. It took 50 years for gas prices to break the $1.00 point, and in the next 40 years, prices jumped to almost $4.00. We'll never see $1.00 prices again.