Do Hybrids Really Make Sense?

[jcp123]

My reticence to getting a hybrid is more, err, traditional.

I don't really care for the hybrid "stigma" - I don't want to be lumped into the long-haired, stoned out, Eco-freak segment of society. A "normal" hybrid might gets around that, those being the TCH, etc.

I initially figured that the complexity of hybrid-drives would eventually be a nightmare of cost. Toyota proved that wrong-headed; others have not.

Lastly, I am just plain old-school - I like the feeling of managing, hearing, and feeling something which burns dead dinosaurs. I also like stick, which eliminates most of your hybrid choices. I refuse to buy another automatic when the time comes.

What I would be interested in is something like a Prius V with stick and a drivetrain more along the lines of a Volt - primarily electric with the ICE as a range-extender. That would work well enough for me to consider joining the club.

[Xist]

As Metro said, yes, Otto versus Attkinson cycle.

As someone on here told me, regenerative braking is still braking. This kind of gets us into the debate between coasting in-gear (DFCO) versus EOC. For my normal commute to work, I know that if I maintain the speed limit (40 mph, although my GPS shows 37), I need to start coasting two blocks before the intersection or I will need to brake. I can EOC or stay in-gear a little longer and hope DFCO kicks in. In a hybrid, the DFCO would regenerate, but also slow down faster, but isn't it more economical to time the light and never brake, regenerative or otherwise?

I actually do not think that hybrids are cost-effective long-term, but I want one anyway. I am not able to drive up to Mom's house regularly, but there are a few mountains in between. When people say things like

Originally Posted by Atilla the Fun

Rip that junk off and trash it, before you kill somebody.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post370353, we execute a Palm Face maneuver and explain downshifting. I rarely need to use my brakes driving down mountains, but only if I stay below the speed limit; otherwise, engine braking drives revs to very high RPMs.

I only want a hybrid for mountain and canyon driving. Let me quietly use regenerative braking to give me a boost back up the hill. The rest of the time I will just try to plan well and avoid braking.

[RedDevil]

When it is about whatever you like everything changes, including the subject.

The OP question is if they make sense, not whether you like them.
If you don't like hybrids, fine. Nobody forces you to buy one.
Do they make sense, hell yes. To me at last.

I saw my Insight struggle when I blew the fuse that controls the IMA battery.
Unlike the Prius the Insight can run without the hybrid system just like an ordinary car.
Well, a rather sluggish and not very economical car.
The relief of getting that fuse back in... It makes such a difference!
I cannot believe there should even be a debate about it.

[EVmetro]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I saw my Insight struggle when I blew the fuse that controls the IMA battery.
Unlike the Prius the Insight can run without the hybrid system just like an ordinary car.
Well, a rather sluggish and not very economical car.
The relief of getting that fuse back in... It makes such a difference!
I cannot believe there should even be a debate about it.

Although I do not know enough about your insight to know for sure how yours runs, it sounds like the ICE and the electric motor work as a system. If you lost either the electric part or the ICE part, I would expect that your car would not perform as well as either a pure ICE, or a pure EV.

Having the ICE and the electric motor integrated as a system in a hybrid is what is making it hard for me to see if the technology really does add up. Apparently, the ICE is being used to charge the battery for the electric motor, but it is doing it at an an advantageous time. I don't know this for sure, but I do know that there is not enough regen energy available to supply enough energy to supplement the ICE enough to make up for what the ICE lacks in power. Using the ICE to supply energy for the electric motor does not make sense, but I am speculating that this is what is happening, and that it is happening at an advantageous time to minimize the penalty for doing it.

[cowmeat]

Lol, a lot of you guys who have never driven a Hybrid sure have some strong opinions and misconceptions about them!

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

When it is about whatever you like everything changes, including the subject.

The OP question is if they make sense, not whether you like them.
If you don't like hybrids, fine. Nobody forces you to buy one.
Do they make sense, hell yes. To me at last.

I saw my Insight struggle when I blew the fuse that controls the IMA battery.
Unlike the Prius the Insight can run without the hybrid system just like an ordinary car.
Well, a rather sluggish and not very economical car.
The relief of getting that fuse back in... It makes such a difference!
I cannot believe there should even be a debate about it.

Sorry...didn't mean to offend you?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

...isn't it more economical to time the light and never brake, regenerative or otherwise?

Yes, it's more economical to time the light and not brake. That said, we all use the brakes sometimes, and it's better to get 1/4 of the energy back than to waste it as heat.

I actually do not think that hybrids are cost-effective long-term

You don't need to purely speculate, you can use the Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator linked in my signature to run hypothetical numbers.

A hybrid probably wouldn't be cost-effective if you buy a new car every 2 years, but then again, anyone buying a car every 2 years isn't concerned about cost-effectiveness.

I guarantee that an equivalent hybrid saves more money over a longer term. Try plugging in the numbers for a new Camry, and a new Camry hybrid into the spreadsheet, and you will probably find that in 5 years, you will spend less on the hybrid.

Of course, the most economical way to travel is to walk, followed by bicycle, followed by mass transit, followed by an old used car...

Hybrid technology is an investment, just like wall insulation, or a high efficiency furnace. If you purchase wall insulation and a high efficiency furnace for the home, and then move out 6 months later, you will never recover the initial investment. Spending extra for higher efficiency is a long term strategy.

[EVmetro]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Hybrid technology is an investment, just like wall insulation, or a high efficiency furnace. If you purchase wall insulation and a high efficiency furnace for the home, and then move out 6 months later, you will never recover the initial investment. Spending extra for higher efficiency is a long term strategy.

I still don't know if hybrid technology is an investment yet, but I am studying pretty hard. I am more optimistic after reading all the great information on this thread, but I have to see exactly how and why hybrids use less energy than an ICE only, especially since they are very difficult to compare with an ICE only version of the same car. It would be a lot easier if faith in such things would work for me.

I strongly agree with this longer term investment concept, and this is what I base my reasoning on with my EV conversions. When one buys a new car, regardless of if it is full ICE, hybrid, or full EV, the value of the vehicle after a decade is usually about 10% of what it sold for new. With EVs, the battery pack has an expected life expectancy of ten years, and the replacement battery pack will exceed the book value of the car, rendering it totaled. The critical EV components are very proprietary, and do not work on other EVs the same way universal ones do. When I do an EV conversion, I start with a chassis that has already fully depreciated to junk value, and then use components that can be used in any conversion, so the major components become assets that are not related to the cars value. My finished conversions will always have a book value comparable to junk, but the assets inside of them can always be liquidated or used in other conversions. These assets are the difference after a decade between going with a conversion or buying a new EV from the local automall.

[user removed]

My $300 car is a statement to the manufacturers.

Some people need a hybrid.

Some don't want the complexity since it makes driving a car into the ground a daunting proposition. Look at 10 year old hybrid prices, especially those with over 200 k miles.
The lithium battery in my computer is toast at less than 4 years. The electric cooling fan is rattling like crazy, and the charger had to be replaced.

MY PERSPECTIVE is since I am building my own design and eventually my own powertrain design, why would I want another car bleeding money (depreciating) on the garage floor, when that same money can do so much more building the last car I will ever need.

One thing about hydrids that is not easily understood. Most of the difference in mileage is due to the ability of the hybrid to save the 13% of fuel consumed that is wasted idling and not moving.

To me start-stop is more important and energy recovery needs to be;

A heck of a lot more efficient
A heck of a lot more simple

The whole car needs 25% fewer manufactured components, while exceeding the regenerative efficiency of 80% wheel to wheel. Current designs will simply never reach that level of simple design AND extraordinary efficiency.

regards
mech

[Baltothewolf]

Also, you can limp the hybrid battery in the insight with a daily/weekly/monthly charge to save up the money for a new battery. My insight throws the IMA light if it sits for more than 4 days, and I have to charge it once a month to keep it from losing capacity. However, I have a feeling it will last me another year like this, and I should be able to save the money up for a new battery by then. 1875$. The new battery will probably last about 10 years and save me somewhere in the ballpark of 5-6k on fuel (compared to 30mpg in a Camry at 20k miles a year or something).