🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:59:06 -0700, Joerg
> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Quite a few people think it's worthwhile.  One of the conversion
>>> sites:
>>> <http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html>
>>> lists the costs of converting a Prius to various plug-in power options
>>> at:
>>> -  $6,000-10,000 for lead acid batteries
>>> -  $8,000 for NiMH
>>> - $10,000 and up for Li-Ion
> 
>> I wonder whether they all did a sober calculation including the rather 
>> finite number of charge cycles. I've seen lots of enviro-fans get 
>> carried away.
> 
> Probably just ballpark guesses.  Since such conversions are not in
> quantity production, estimating costs is tricky.
> 

True. But Li-Ion charge cycles are pretty well researched out by now. I 
doubt one can ever get to 200k miles with one set. But one can on the 
first engine, and then some.


>> Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that 
>> was with labor and not DYI:
>> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6174
> 
> Nice article.  (I use a few Freewave data radios).  Did you notice the
> update at the end of the article?
> <http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/05/hymotion_launches_more_afforda.html>
> <http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender>
> Hymotion plug in conversion for $10,000.  Add a 2nd battery pack (as
> was done in original article), and it will be perhaps $15,000.  The
> plug-in installation doesn't seem to be a major project and shouldn't
> add much to the cost.  The site says it only takes "a few hours" to
> install.  Anyway, it's much less than the original $32,000.  I guess
> it costs $$$$ to be a pioneer.
> 
>>> Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer).
>> That would be nice. We (have to) use propane for water heating. Used to 
>> be $35/mo. Now it's about $80/mo. I'd call that hyper-inflationary.
> 
> A friends son and former juvenile delinquent is building a hot water
> boiling solar generator.  Central boiler on a 50ft Rohn 25 tower (so
> the intensified sunlight doesn't cook the neighbors) with some
> tracking mirrors.  So far, he hasn't produced much steam, but has
> produced enough hot water to warrant serious consideration.  So,
> visualize your hot water heater sitting on top of a pole or tower with
> squeaky reflectors all over the roof.  It's not nuclear, but it's sure
> better than $80/month.  Otherwise, look into tankless flash water
> heaters.  They have a rather high initial cost, but pay for themselves
> in about 2-3 years (depending on consumption) in reduced energy costs.
> 

I am not a fan of those. My sister has instant heaters and often you 
either get pelted with an arctic shower or boiling water. Ok, that's an 
exaggeration but it ain't comfy.


>>> Let's play with the numbers.  A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg.  An
>>> economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg.  If I drive 15,000 miles per
>>> year, at $4/gallon for regular, the gas costs are:
>>>   $4,300 /year for the 14mpg gas hog SUV
>>>   $2,100 /year for the 28mpg econo SUV
>>> That's $2,200/year difference.  If the economy SUV costs MORE than the
>>> gas hog (due to dealer discounts and difference in demand), a customer
>>> might be willing to pay the extra $2,100/year just to drive the bigger
>>> SUV.  I've been looking for a new vehicle and found that I can buy a
>>> 2003 gas hog SUV for about $5,000 and an economy mini-SUV for about
>>> $12,000.  If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even.  A
>>> bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money.
>  
>> Ok, my calcs are way different. I tend to keep cars for much longer than 
>> a decade. Heck, my trusty Mitsubishi econo SUV is 11 years old now and 
>> looks like new. I could imagine driving it another 10 years easily. Same 
>> for my wife's 1995 Toyota, looks like new, runs like new.
> 
> Same here.  My previous 1983 Dodge D50 diesel went for 285,000 miles
> and 23 years.  I still have it an plan to rebuild it some day.
> However, my numbers and bad guesses are an effort to explain why the
> US manufactories continue to produce gas hogs.  The discounted gas
> hogs continue to sell, while the overpriced economy cars just sit.  It
> would be nice to be proven wrong and therefore restore my faith in the
> GUM (great unwashed masses).
> 
> My current 15mpg gas hog 1993 Isuzu Trooper SUV was purchased for
> about $2,000 with 150,000 miles.  Before that was a 14mpg 1970 Land
> Rover Series IIa which I drove for about 135,000 miles.  That was
> preceeded by a 9mpg 1972 International 1210 3/4t 4x4 monster service
> truck, which I bought new and drove for 140,000 miles.  The plan was
> to run the current Isuzu for "a few years" until I could afford
> something better.  Well, I'm now looking.
> 
> "New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"?
> <http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm>
> 

The rationale in that article is a bit on the naive side IMHO. One has 
to factor in the pitfalls of used cars. What if the previous owner drove 
it sans oil to reach a gas station but never told you? What if he never 
slowed down at speed bumps?


>> If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use 
>> to drive back at the university. This one:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citroen2cvtff.jpg
> 
> You don't drive a 2CV.  You wear it.
> 
> The modern versions of shrink to fit automobiles is the Smart Car:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo>
> <http://www.smartusa.com>
> About 50mpg for gas.  80mpg for the diesel hybrid version.  There's a
> rather large waiting list for one.  I did a test drive in San Jose
> about 2 weeks ago, but decided it wasn't for me.  It's like riding an
> enclosed motorcycle.
> 

I saw lots of the in Germany. They call them "elephant shoes".


>> It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition 
>> to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they 
>> really did later was up the horsepower once in a while.
> 
> That was before smog was an issue.  For example, when it was new, my
> 1983 Dodge D50 diesel got 35 mpg.  In the 1984 model, the same engine
> was smogged to reduce soot emissions.  The gas mileage dropped to
> about 28 mpg.  Kinda like dragging an anchor.  
> 

It's like oxygenation. I get 25mpg on California gas and 28mpg on Nevada 
gas.


> If you need some entertainment value, try calculating the REDUCTION in
> CO2 emissions that would be produced by removing all the smog junk
> from infernal combustion engines.  The official rate is 8.8kg (19.4
> lbs) of CO2 produced for each gallon of gasoline.  If we suddenly used
> perhaps 25% less gasoline, that would correspond to a reduction of
> about a 1/4th of the 5 metric tons of CO2 produced by each car
> annually.
> <http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm>
> 

We all need to drive less. It's possible. I reduced from 10k+ miles per 
year to under 3k miles per year and more than half of that is for 
business. That's it. I often do oil changes based on age, not miles driven.


>>> So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz
>>> the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling
>>> equally as well.
> 
>> Not out here. There is a reason why Toyota does so well and we can see 
>> that reason in driveways every day when we take our dogs for a long 
>> walk. Remember when the guys at Buick and other places scoffed and 
>> laughed once they saw an ad for the VW Beetle? Pretty soon after they 
>> were heard syaing things like "Oh s..t!". Anyhow, at the end of the day 
>> the bottomline at the individual automaker speaks the truth. And that 
>> truth is painfully clear.
> 
> In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted
> the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot.


The NUMMI plant? They also produce Toyotas there, such as my wife's 1995 
Corolla. I don't think it's onwed by GM but could be wrong.


> In my recent search for a new vehicle, I ran a spreadsheet and graph
> of the resale value history for various prospective vehicles. American
> cars loose value much faster than imported cars.  My guess is that if
> American manufacturers will ever learn to make a reliable automobile,
> that actually has some backing and support by the factory, then
> perhaps they have a chance.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're
> generally correct.
> 

It takes many, many years to build a reputation for reliability but less 
than a year to destroy it.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.