6.9 MPG hybrid BUS

[user removed]

Green Car Congress: Demonstration series hydraulic hybrid transit bus yields fuel economy of 6.9 mpg, 110% better than conventional diesel, 30% better than electric hybrids

regards
Mech

[niky]

Too bad there's no indicated price estimate for the system, or info on how easily it can be retrofitted. And it would be nice to know the assumptions used for calculating lifetime costs.

EDIT: Found it.

http://www.altairbusolutions.com/BUS_Market.htm

The LCO-140H Series Hybrid Hydraulic bus more than doubles the fuel economy of today's diesel powered buses and offers transit authorities the opportunity to reduce fleet costs by 20% while dramatically lowering emissions.

With a purchase price over $100k lower and 30% better fuel economy and lower emissions, the lifetime cost to own a LCO-140H Series Hybrid Hydraulic bus is estimated to be 30% less than hybrid electrics.

* Compressed
Natural Gas Ultra Low
Sulfur Diesel Diesel Electric
Hybrid BUSolutions
Diesel Hydraulic Hybrid
*Compression Electricity $19,003 $0 $0 $0
*Facility Maintenance $24,433 $20,723 $17,470 $17,470
*Propulsion-related Maintenance $62,588 $66,394 $63,589 $63,589
*Battery or Bladder replacement $0 $0 $67,500 $0
*Fuel Costs $444,145 $488,979 $305,612 $233,961
*Emmissions Equipment $0 $1,434 $0 $0
*Depot Modification $8,750 $0 $1,400 $0
*Refueling station $20,000 $0 $0 $0
*Vehicle Cost $342,366 $319,709 $531,605 $410,000
*Life Cycle Cost $921,285 $897,239 $987,176 $725,020
Data source:
Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation (FTA-WV-26-7004.2007.1.)
Fuel cost data updated to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010 report.
Electric hybrid fuel economy updated to recent best-in-class 60% improvement for a fair comparison.
Delta cost estimates made for Hybrid Hydraulic with similar assumptions.

Seems based on a 100,000 to 150,000 mile life expectancy for a typical city bus? How many years is that? Also, I've seen electric buses for less than that, though they're Chinese. The estimated premium seems a bit high, but then I'm not familiar with US or European bus prices. Ours cost half as much.

[Flakbadger]

It kills me that 6.9 MPG is something to gloat about. Yeah, I understand, start-and-stop with a heavy load and high acceleration for something that big... But 6.9 MPG?

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

It kills me that 6.9 MPG is something to gloat about. Yeah, I understand, start-and-stop with a heavy load and high acceleration for something that big... But 6.9 MPG?

If it's displacing 20 to 40 people at a time who would otherwise be driving a car then that's great! even if you have 3 people on the bus it's over 20mpg, better mileage then most SUV's are getting!

[user removed]

A 40 foot bus can carry a whole lot of passenger which lowers traffic congestion. 40 passengers equals close to 280 MPG per passenger as well as the congestion eliminated when the same 40 passengers are commuting individually. This would be in routes where congestion would otherwise be highest and it saves other commuters the fuel wasted in higher congestion.

The cost per mile comparison goes to the HH bus and it could use other fuel types like CNG which is pruduced in country.

I am suprised at the use of the bent axis pump for the hydraulic drive. I guess that ancient tech is still best for the application. Also no battery life to consider in overall cost of operation. I think eventually they will go with electric as the primary power source and hydraulic as the energy recovery system, but the battery technology still has a way to go before it becomes cost competitive.

regards
Mech

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Ryland

If it's displacing 20 to 40 people at a time who would otherwise be driving a car then that's great! even if you have 3 people on the bus it's over 20mpg, better mileage then most SUV's are getting!

That low a passenger count means they have made poor route selections, either the route or the time they run that route. That is not the issue of the design of the bus itself but more poor choices by beaurocrats, of which we have infinite examples.

regards
Mech

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

That low a passenger count means they have made poor route selections, either the route or the time they run that route. That is not the issue of the design of the bus itself but more poor choices by beaurocrats, of which we have infinite examples.

Right, but my point was that you ONLY have to have 3 people on the bus before it's using less fuel then an SUV and 6 people before it's less fuel then any new non hybrid car that is on the market, 9 people and it's better then any new hybrid car on the market!
On top of that is the reduced number of parking spaces needed allowing for buildings to be closer together or more green space.

[Flakbadger]

I'm totally with you guys on the efficiency of buses and why they're better than individual cars---and thank you for some tangible examples... I had just never considered how thirsty such a vehicle would be.

[niky]

Our school uses buses, and I can vouch for the 3 mpg. Can get better on the highway, but the planned route for this thing is all city.

But buses are big, comfortable, and can carry ten to twelve cars' worth of passengers and around seven vans' worth. If they're all goong one place, it's a cost effective way of getting around.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Hybrids are not my cup of tea at all, but at least the hydraulic system provides a better cost-effectiveness.