Performance hybrids?

[txchamps]

I recently answered a post regarding the efficacy of buying a Q50s Hybrid. It got me thinking about the whole question of hybrids, and more specifically, the screwy idea of "performance hybrids".

Let's consider the financial aspects of a Q50s.

The hybrid version costs $4500 more than the conventionally powered version, plus the eventual cost of the replacement battery of roughly $7000 -- a total of $11,500.

If you drive the industry average 15K miles per year, the 35% fuel cost reduction (23MPG combined versus 31MPG) amounts to $600 annually, at a price per gallon of $2.50. Meaning you would have to drive the car for 19 years before you recovered the additional costs of ownership. Of course, you might have to replace the battery more than once during that period -- I estimate 2 times, so there is an additional $14000 at current prices..... Bottom line is, you will never recover the additional costs with fuel savings. So what is the point?

If you want a performance, car, then buy it -- but not a hybrid version. It makes no sense financially.

And it makes no sense from a standpoint of your carbon footprint. If you really cared about that, you wouldn't be buying a performance car anyway. You'd be buying a *gasp* Prius. Horrors!! Or maybe an electric. Tesla, anyone?

Thoughts?

[darylzero]

You will get a tax incentive of thousands of dollars if you by a hybrid, up to $7,500.

http://www.plugincars.com/federal-and-l ... -cars.html

[Bubba1]

I agree, the ecomonics of hybrids doesn't add up, yet people still seem to be infatuated with 'em. We Americans are so gullible as a group.. Hybrid performance cars are becoming increasingly popular especially with the newest exotic performance cars (Porche 918, LaFerrari, etc). Manufacturers also like building them as they can not only keep up with increasing CAFE standards, but people seem willing to pay a premium for them. But the reality is exotic buyers don't mind the complexity or significantly more outrageous repair costs, even after the warranty expires. The same cannot be said for more mainstream cars, and few folks ever bother to think about those costs until something breaks and they're shocked how pricey it is to fix. I'd personally stay away from any performance hybrid, even if I planned to dump it before the warranty expires. Makes no sense financially. But I wouldn't stop a fool...er I mean customer who wants to overpay for hybrid performance car because Motor Trend says with a professional driver, it's 1/10th of a second faster 0-60 than a non-hybrid. insert facepalm

[OriginalWheelman]

Hybrids are a waste of time. It's hard to make anything a performance car when it's hauling around two engines. They need to be spectacular on their own to be anything good together. The McLaren for example has an electric engine up front, and the more or less traditional engine in the back with a generator strapped on. It's easier to make a performance electric, or a performance gas car. Hybrids are a fad. They are a technological band-aid to cover the lack of batteries.

In fact, in 1992 when General Motors ended the EV1 project, the engineer in charge cited he wanted to use a turbine gasoline powered generator on board to solve this problem, but California law prohibits turbine engines. Had that law not been on the books, the face of Hybrid cars and electric cars would be drastically different. An electric car with an on-board generator is the only thing that makes sense, as a generator is fuel efficient. Generators are not subjected to varying loads, rpms, and throttle positions like hybrid engines are. Hybrids are a waste of time, money, and effort that were only created because of bad government.

[OriginalWheelman]

See also White Zombie, the electric Datsun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cf89tawZX8
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cf89tawZX8[/youtube]

[txchamps]

You will get a tax incentive of thousands of dollars if you by a hybrid, up to $7,500.

http://www.plugincars.com/federal-and-l ... -cars.html

You understand that the link you cited refers to plug-ins and electrics, right, just like it says on the link itself? The Q50s, and all other non-plug-in hybrids are no longer subject to these credits.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/do-all-hy ... redits.htm.

[darylzero]

You will get a tax incentive of thousands of dollars if you by a hybrid, up to $7,500.

http://www.plugincars.com/federal-and-l ... -cars.html

You understand that the link you cited refers to plug-ins and electrics, right, just like it says on the link itself? The Q50s, and all other non-plug-in hybrids are no longer subject to these credits.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/do-all-hy ... redits.htm.

Ha, no. I must of been drunk

[Fezzik]

Problem with hybrids is they will be expensive to fix. I mean the nissan pathfinder only had a hybrid for one year as well as the JX35. If you bought one then maybe 5-6 years later, you may be out of luck.

[Bubba1]

I imagine uninformed buyers of older hybrids, or electric cars for that matter, are gonna freak when they find out how much the batteries will cost when the OEM finally need replacement.

[Dattebayo]

Around here, where traffic is bad, hybrid and electric vehicles get access to the HOV lanes regardless of how many passengers are in them.
That can really help, especially on I-66. So I think people buy them here because of that.

Also, electrics get their own parking/charging spot right up in front of the garages downtown.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Performance hybrids are a great IDEA.
Batteries still suck.
No amount of futzing around with the rest of the car overcomes point #2 here. Batteries suck, and there's no sign of meaningful improvement on the horizon. None. They don't charge quickly, they don't handle charge/discharge cycles well (especially repeatedly and rapidly), they don't discharge rapidly, they "seep" energy, they have horrendous energy density, they have to be powered from an outside source (i.e. not green, and extremely inefficient initially), and a billion other issues everyone is just ignoring because despite all this we still need to start moving the tech forward.

Hydrogen is better. Superior energy density, none of the charge or capacity problems, but a whole host of other complexities and unjustified scare-factor.

Fusion would be the fix-all except that even compact reactors would be insanely heavy.

Hybrids were a great solution to a baby-step problem, though: how do we start driving Electric tech forward when most of the foundational tech and infrastructure is completely nonexistent? Simple: combine it with Internal Combustion to eliminate most of the drawbacks.

Hybrids still have a sort of purpose, but at this point we should be shifting toward one of two things:
FULL separate-drive hybrids (a la Volt or diesel locomotives) with gas as full-time ultra-efficient generators mixing the energy density of gasoline with the efficiency of electric.
Full electrics with no internal combustion engine.

The new Volt (post Lutz, who didn't quite get the whole full-hybrid thing and ruined the operating modes the engineers had planned in favor of "PZEV" and extended-range functionality) has much improved operating modes that get a little closer to the ideal of an electric car with a tiny little piston engine always cranking away at low rpm making more electricity but using almost no gas. It's not there yet, because a lot of the legislation and incentives around electric cars actually makes that unappealing (GTFO feds, we can advance science without your meddling, thanks).

Eventually, we'll get there, though. Imagine a midsize sedan with a half-liter turbodiesel 3-cylinder that makes ~150 ft-lb at 750 rpm providing ~1000 miles of range from a car that needs 8 gallons of fuel a month under heavy use. All made up numbers, but they all sound achievable to me. If we can just get away from legislating progress and move toward researching it.

Around here, where traffic is bad, hybrid and electric vehicles get access to the HOV lanes regardless of how many passengers are in them.
That can really help, especially on I-66. So I think people buy them here because of that.

This is how it works here, and it's BS.

Not only are HOV lanes by default functionally broken on pretty much every level (how can what is effectively a separate 1-lane highway IMPROVE traffic flow??? YOU CAN'T PASS!) but the people who use them tend to NOT be in a hurry, so they end up more prone to congestion than the lanes around them. Not only that, but when they're not being used to capacity (most of the day) they are a wasted full lane that COULD be carrying other traffic and thinning normal traffic coverage. They also cause millions of other problems, like the fact that exit ramps are on the right side of the road while HOV lanes are the far left. Some places have dedicated HOV exits but that's even MORE messy and hilariously wasteful (spend big $$$$ so a few Prius drivers don't have to change lanes to exit!!!!). If every HOV lane was converted to a full REAL lane (or two, given the extra division space between them and normal lanes on many highways) you'd gain vastly more benefit.

Anyone responsible for the addition of HOV lanes should have their driver's license revoked for life. And get punched in the balls. With a jar of mercury.

[Looneybomber]

I think the perfect example of a failed performance hybrid is the Honda CRZ. It has similar performance and fuel economy as a Ford Focus, but only seats 2 and adds the extra cost and complexity of being a hybrid.

[Fezzik]

Performance hybrids are a great IDEA.
Batteries still suck.
No amount of futzing around with the rest of the car overcomes point #2 here. Batteries suck, and there's no sign of meaningful improvement on the horizon. None. They don't charge quickly, they don't handle charge/discharge cycles well (especially repeatedly and rapidly), they don't discharge rapidly, they "seep" energy, they have horrendous energy density, they have to be powered from an outside source (i.e. not green, and extremely inefficient initially), and a billion other issues everyone is just ignoring because despite all this we still need to start moving the tech forward.

Hydrogen is better. Superior energy density, none of the charge or capacity problems, but a whole host of other complexities and unjustified scare-factor.

F

I think batteries have come a long way. Telsa's charge up in 30 mins for what I need, or on long trips 45 mins. Also with the supercharger network throughout the US you can just about go anywhere with the car. They are building more everyday. There is also the Gigafactory being built that is going to crank out batteries like crazy. I feel electric cars are going to be the way and not hydrogen. The process of hydrogen is too expensive. If they can get it cheaper maybe but there is no way you will get a infrastructure like the tesla supercharger if it cost too much to build one station and they cant even keep the stations they have open filled. Electricity is abundant and cheap. If you have solar at your home you can charge your car for free.

[OriginalWheelman]

I am so envious of the Supercharger network. I admittedly only bought the Focus cause I can't afford a Tesla.

[Bubba1]

I'm not convinced pure electric cars going to take off as much as many think for a few reasons
1. limited range of the current generation batteries. Tesla has certainly been ahead of the others in this department.
2. replacement battery costs that new buyers need to think about if they plan to keep the cars more than 6-7 years.
3. And if you're selling a 7 yr old electric car with OEM batteries, don't expect much $$ as the next owner knows he'll need to spend a few grand on batteries.
4. Supercharging stations are wonderful as long as they located near your route, and are available when you need them. If you find one and it's occupied, you're pretty much S.O.O.L. until they free up. Or if you use too many accessories and your range dips to where you can't reach a charging point on the charge you have, you're also hosed.

I think MoD is right on target. I think there will be a place for pure eletrics but only under the right set of circumstances, like using it locally for shorter jaunts in areas with options already in place for recharging. The Volt's hybrid design makes much more sense to extend the range, as many Americans expect their vehicles to be more flexible for longer trips as well as short jaunts, thus justifying the cost premium of an electric vehicle.

I know a selling point of electics/hybrids is use of the HOV lanes. But if you apply common sense, if their popularity makes traction, don't expect those rules to remain that way. If they become common enough, HOV lanes will fill up too, resulting in HOV's reverting back to filled multi-passenger vehicles or bus only lanes (as was the original design for them), to make them viable.

[OriginalWheelman]

In my experience the type of people sharing those chargers are car community like any other. They help each other. At Pam's office they have a mailing list, and people come and move their cars when they are charged. People don't tend to hog them. When Tesla puts in superchargers, they usually put in 10. Don't forget 45 mins is from dead to full. 25%-75% is only about, what, 20 minutes? And the Tesla range is insane compared to the others. They go 250 miles on a charge.

[Fezzik]

The range of mine is 250 miles. The 90D is even more. The new roaster will be 300-400 miles. Mine is with a/c blasting and radio going and charging all the phones. You'd be surprised at how little the accessories drain the main battery. I've never had an issue with all the spots taken while going to superchargers. IF anything then the wait would be a about 20 mins even if that. There is also plugshare where there are multiple of thousands of plug ins for electric cars. Lots of hotels have the Tesla wall charger which will charge the car for a 250 mile trip in a couple of hours. Batteries are not how they used to be. The Tesla has an unlimited mile 8 year warranty. There are people who have gone almost 150k miles in one and they maybe lost 2 miles of range. Battery degradation is real, but not significant as it used to be.

I also charge my car at home. I ran a 100amp line to my car and it charges pretty quick. But i can go to just about anyplace that has a 220 welder and charge there too. Campgrounds have tons of 220 plug ins.

Now you may say cost is a factor. Right now it is, but what about the 250-300 mile tesla for 20-30k when the model 3 comes out in 2017

[OriginalWheelman]

I got a 10 year warranty on my batteries. Tesla is slacking.

Now you may say cost is a factor. Right now it is, but what about the 250-300 mile tesla for 20-30k when the model 3 comes out in 2017

Gee, it's almost like that's when my lease ends...

[Fezzik]

And think if the government incentives are still going too!

[MinisterofDOOM]

I think batteries have come a long way. Telsa's charge up in 30 mins for what I need, or on long trips 45 mins.

The problem is that's still nowhere near acceptable. It FEELs like a big improvement because they were so much worse, but really batteries are so bad that a 10x improvement would still not be very meaningful.

The threshold of "tolerable convenient usability" is still so far off. We're maybe 50% of the way there, optimistically, and the science of batteries is NOT advancing. Look into the billions of dollars that countless companies in countless industries are pouring into joint ventures and then compare the return on that money in terms of advancement. Maybe a fraction of a percent at best. And it's one of the most-invested and most-researched technologies in the world.

The simple fact of physics is that STORING electricity is a terrible methodology. That's why we don't do it, on any kind of even moderately not-tiny scale. Handheld items and transportation are about it. Even industrial-scale back-up batteries are generally solely used to cover the time between generator kick-in and loss of primary power.

The only way to make electricity practical is to generate on-demand. That way, you avoid the massive, massive drawbacks of storing electricity as well as the significant efficiency losses inherent in multiple energy conversions (e.g. storage).

Simply put: no matter how much BETTER batteries have gotten, they are still utterly horrible at everything they do.

You're absolutely right about hydrogen's cost up-front. Generation is highly inefficient and wasteful, but in reality what you're doing is trading costs in use for costs in generation. Considering the application (vehicles) the sacrifice makes a certain amount of sense. Rather than fighting with battery drawbacks in each individual vehicle, you have to overcome disadvantages before distribution. It's a similar usage arrangement to gasoline, except that gasoline returns far more energy than is required to extract and refine it where hydrogen is the opposite.

Physics-wise, there are simply no materials that accept, hold, and release an electric charge efficiently, with reasonable longevity and durability, that are not immensely heavy and bulky or unfeasibly expensive to manufacture. We can't change that. Our understanding of chemistry and electricity is not exactly fledgeling. What advances in battery tech have occurred has simply been due to mass-production efficiencies reducing cost, and scope of use broadening the value of investment. Neither of those resources can really stretch much further. We're not on the verge of some dramatic microprocessor-scale battery revolution. We've hit the ceiling and are milking it for extra thousandths of percent gains to make it sort of almost an acceptable technology.

As for Superchargers (both in automobiles and elsewhere) you'll note that even the manufacturers caution the impact such rapid charges have on battery longevity and capacity over time.

Batteries are garbage.

We need a method of generation on-vehicle. Which is what internal combustion does. It just sucks at other things, like conversion efficiency and emissions cleanliness. The factor that is difficult to overlook is that gasoline is such a fantstically energy-dense and easy-to-store medium that even the monumental inefficiencies of internal combustion make it still the best choice in practice.
Hydrogen is a great middle ground.
Nuclear (not necessarily radioactive!) is wonderful for larger applications but doesn't scale downward well (maybe it will but I have a feeling for a long time it'll be like battery tech where we just can't actually do it in practice).

We need a little bit of each. None of them are perfect but all of them together dilute each-other's drawbacks.