Hybrid cars are a complicated waste.

if I'm still in need of my pickup when the engine reaches the end of it's lifespan an electric conversion would be good option, as long as the rest of truck is in good condition...I'd like to do it now but it doesn't make financial sense...

 

It's only been in the last 2 years that DPF's have improved to the point they achieve 100% filtration, far in excess of federal standards. These trucks are even clean-air certified by the California EPA. Again, this is something that should be celebrated.

 

Please show proof that they've gotten 100% filtration. IMHO, that is probably impossible. 99.9% may be possible, but 100% is probably impossible. I agree the great reductions are to be celebrated, I just don't believe in overstating claims about technology.

 

Considering you don't know anything about this technology, it's quite brazen to assert that I'm overstating claims because you don't want to believe it. This is one of the newest DPF systems on the market that achieves 100% particulate removal. http://www.hjs.com/aftermarket/products/diesel-particulate-filters.html It's similar to the system in the Kenworth's and Freightliner's I've been driving lately.

 

I stand corrected. Still doesn't take out the NO.

 

Which you believe is more than before DPF's? Truck exhaust also contains 10% oxygen, part of the breakdown of the DEF used in filtration (water and urea). All in all, a much improved system compared to the massive amounts of soot that used to be associated with trucks. What gases are produced as byproduct make for controversy in perceived harm since they are naturally occurring gases. You can believe that CO2 is harmful to the earth, but contrary to popular opinion, the science isn't settled on that.

Meanwhile, we can celebrate the fact that due to reduced emissions from cars and trucks, we don't suffer smoggy skies like we used to and the health problems associated with that.

I think that the problem with GW is that it's been tied inextricably to environmentalism, as if one cannot be a defender of environmental responsibility without believing in GW. The danger I see in that is that when GW is fully discredited, and that day swiftly approaches, then it will hurt the environmental movement. I think there are plenty of VERY GOOD reasons to protect our environment without believing in mythical creatures such as GW. Therefore I celebrate advancements in technology that reduce the amount of pollutants we put into the air and the water. And if we can reduce the amount to zero, which some trucks are now achieving, all the better. I don't have to believe in GW to celebrate that.

 

I have a Hylander hybrid I inherited. All wheel drive, 6 cyl. 23 mph. For its size, not bad gas mileage however, that's not what I like about it. The electric motors kick in when you put the pedal to the metal and you take off like a bat out of he!!. Just like a turbo. Got over 100K on it. Anti skid good in the mountains (where I live) handles snow pretty well.

Nuclear energy had virtually 0 emissions while coal spews pollutants and radioactivity into the atmosphere. Natural gas could be a viable alternative to gasoline and emits less CO2 yet, both of these alternative energy sources are being blocked by the anti-nuke and anti-fracking environmental whackos.

 

Natural gas isn't being blocked. We have been increasinly using it for electricity, as it's cheaper.

 

Fracking Across the United States (map)

 

90% of today's producing wells were stimulated by fracking which started in the 1890's. This is not new it is just demonized by environmental whackos today.

 

"The mechanical principles of fracking have not changed since the first brave shooter dropped an explosive charge down a well in the 1860s. Then as now, the task is to deliver a powerful force to a designated depth underground, rubblizing the hard rock formations around the well to stimulate the release oil or gas trapped within. Modern methods use high-pressure jets of water, chemicals, and sand to break up formations. Acting as a proppant the sand seeps into the resulting cracks and keeps them open. Oil and gas permeate the sand en route to the well casing."

https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/fossil-power/fracking-a-look-back

 

Geo's, sprints and crx hf's all get around 50 mpg, I dont know why we dont have new versions of those

- - - Updated - - -

My lifted 2000 f250 crew cab gets 21 mpg, diesel baby! In town it gets 15, it also gets 15 towing, so its too damn bad

 

I miss my 3/4 ton GMC crew-cab turbo-diesel. Sold it when I got rid of the hay burners. Shoulda kep it.

 

I ride a bike mainly, im in cali, weather is pretty much set for year round riding, I bought the diesel to tow a drag car im now selling lol. Its got 165k on it now, but if i take care of it, it should make 800k before a total rebuild, i dont plan on getting rid of it ever. Too much use for a big truck, never know when you are going to need it.

 

Infinite range is a bit of hyperbole, but compared to an all electric that requires hours to recharge a quick stop at a gas station makes a gasoline engine infinite as far as im concerned. And as was the point of my earlier post, all electrics cant touch hybrids in range... Its a fact.

 

My first car was a Chevy Sprint with a 3 cyl. 1.0 Suzuki engine, the same one as they put in Metros. I never got near 50 miles to the gallon. At best I got 35. At that time, the only things that got 50 MPG were motorcycles.

 

I have over 140,000 miles on my Prius.

It is a full, four passenger car, and has storage capacity as large as most compact SUV's.

It gets 48 mpg day in and day out, whether it's in urban driving or on the interstate at 85 mph.

In 140,000 miles, I have been through one set of tires, and am getting ready to replace my first set of brake pads. A new battery for it can be bought on the aftermarket for a little over $500, and I can install it myself quite easily.

My car emits maybe 1/4 of the emissions of the Suzuki (Geo Metro).

The proof is in the pudding. Hybrids are no longer some sort of experimental technology. They've been around or about 15 years now, and at least four million of them are on the road in daily use all over the world.

My dealer has told me that they have several customers with 300,000 miles on their cars, and one with 500,000. I know that cab drivers get 300,0000 miles out of Prius batteries, because I did the research before I bought the car.

There is no comparison between this car, any of the other modern hybrids, and a twenty year old bottom of the line Suzuki (which is what the Geo Metro was).

The idea is ridiculous!

Someone on this thread commented that 85% of Prius drivers are smug dicks.

Of course, calling someone a name doesn't count for much.

But maybe the ones that are know something that the guys driving around in 12 mpg suv's don;t!

 

I agree. Don't know where people got the idea that the Suzuki 1.0 liter got 50 MPG.

 

Because they were deathtraps. They wouldn't meet today's safety standards.

 

You really don't understand that safety standards are decreasing, not increasing. Sure we got more airbags, but because of the Left's flamboyant CAFE standards, cars are being made lighter and lighter, their frames less able to protect the occupants. CAFE standards are progressive, requiring staged improvements in fuel economy that don't necessarily coincide with what can be achieved through advances in fuel system technology, vehicle manufacturers are forced to hollow out the chassis more and more. That's less metal protecting you in the event of a car accident. I would take the safety standards of yesteryear over what we have today any day.

 

Yet automobile death rates per million miles have been going down. Believe it or not, the new cars that crumple ARE safer. Yes, they are more easily totaled, but they save the occupants (which, IMHO, is more important). In the 1950s, our car death rate per million miles was around 6. In the 1960s, it was down to around 5. In the 1970s, it came down to 3.5. In the 80s, it was about 2.5. In the 1990s, down to 1.7. In 2000s, below 1.4. Now it's about 1.1. Give me a car that disintegrates, which dissipates energy, over the metal car that transfers that energy to me.

 

We are on our third Prius. I'm happy. We pay about $22,000 for a new one and keep it 3 years. We get maybe 40+ miles in town and 50 on the highway. In the summer.
As with other cars, the mileage drops drastically in the winter, if I'm not mistaken. (maybe 35/42 in the winter)

 

You're omitting automobile deaths specifically attributed to vehicle design which isn't decreasing, it's increasing:

CAFE standards are killing people, that's a proven fact. But who cares about human life when we can save a few more miles per gallon?

 

Yet, I was criticizing the Metro, CRX, etc. for safety, when the reason they are so unsafe is because they are so small and save gas. Back a few posts, do you think a Geo Metro or Honda CRX are safe cars? My point about them not meeting car safety standards is that they are dangerous cars. Do you disagree? Would you allow your children in either of those vehicles?