I think the new civic is rated lower than the old one because on average, it sucks more, but the hypermiling potential it has is much greater. So, though average FE will go down, it will go up for certain people. *shrug*
I thought it was the 'US auto industry' obtaining a ruling that the Prius' EV mode violated antitrust laws or was anti-competitive.
Mind you, I just tried to look it up so I could link to some evidence of same, and couldn't find anything. Maybe Google is part of the conspiracy.
This from one who has a Shove-Vette for an avatar? Irony is my favorite mineral.
Then again, you've got a point. I own a Polar White Prius: We call it "The Fridge," which fits both its beauty and its driving excitement, and even speaks volumes of its utilitarian nature. Odd thing is, it doesn't seem to "use" anything. Uses no oil, needs no timing belt, (almost) no gas, and it appears the tires and brake parts will rot off before they wear out. I'm an American, dangit! I'm supposed to be a consumer! I feel so un-patriotic.
BOLD STATEMENT OF THE DAY:
The Prius is a mass conspiracy AGAINST the American way of life, perpetrated BY the Japanese.
My other car's a Smart, and this leaves NO doubt that the Axis powers have arisen from the ashes! Now whaddoo I do when Lee Greenwood starts singin' on July the 4th? Is it hat-over-heart time? ...or do I click my heels, salute towards der Vaterland and chant, 'Banzai!"
I'm so confused, nearly to the point of befuddlement, but not quite.
What a mess I've made.
ADiF (my first post here, and with tongue implanted firmly in cheek)
What is a "battery".
A device for storing energy, generally assumed to be chemical in nature.
What is an "accumulator".
A device for storing energy hydromechanically.
What is the difference?
One system has the capability of recovering 30% of regeneration energy. The other has the capability of storing 78% of regeneration energy.
One has a definite life expectancy. The other has an almost unlimited life expectancy, certainly longer than the life of the vehicle itself, and is easily repariable.
One system still requires a powertrain. The other IS the powertrain, and eliminates most of the conventional powertrain components.
Why has at least 20 billion dollars been spent in development of one system, while virtually nothing been spent on the other?
In my humble and somewhat biased opinion, the reason is the space programs require long term storage, which is unnecessary in our cars.
Much has been developed in space exploration that has been used in auto technology, but long term storage is not essential in cars. The ability to plug in your car and drive it without fuel is a very tempting possibility. Chemical storage systems have been under development for centuries, and as of today they simply are not practical for the average persons daily transportation.
Hybrids require the recovery and application of hundreds of horsepower seconds of energy to eliminate the huge losses when you must change the inertial state of your vehicle.
My Insight at 40 MPH without having to stop and accelerate will run more than 2 hours on a gallon of fuel. The above link is a direct comparison between a Diesel powered BMW sedan weighing over 3000 pounds that gets 37 MPG on the European test cycle.
Changing only the powertrain to a hydraulic hybrid, doubles the mileage to 75 MPG, without any other changes. This is a scientific direct comparison of a fairly efficient vehicle under identical test processes.
Notice in the data the fact that the engine only ran 12% of the time the vehicle was in motion during that cycle, and only ran at it's highest BSFC state.
In the INNAS design they use "transformers" and fixed displacement pumps in each wheel. My design uses variable displacement pump-motors in the wheels themselves, and eleiminates the transformers that control pressure and flow in the INNAS design.
Maybe one day the battery will reach a level of development where it can replace the IC engine that currently powers 99.9% of the motor vehicles on the planet. Maybe current developments will increase the IC engine efficiency to 60%, which is what Argonne Labs is working on today (see Green Car Congress article).
States like California, are requiring vehicle manufacturers to warrantee battteries for 10 years to protect consumers from catastrophic battery replacement costs. Manufacturers must cover this warranty period by considering the inevitable battery replacement as a part of the initial vehicle sales price.
Lok at the resale values of battery electric hybrids that are facing the cost of a battery replacement.
This is one of the main reasons why Lithium batteries are only available in a few cars today, and it is an expensive car to say the least. Deep cycling a Lithium battery can significantly reduce it's life expectancy.
Europe and the US are very different driving environments. Short range electric vehicles can provide an alternative to IC vehicles in Europe, but the cost factor calculations are completely different from the US, and average trip distances are much greater in the US compared to Europe. Fuel is much more costly in Europe.
I believe parallel development of both electric and hydraulic systems are warranted. At this stage of development the battery advocates reject hydraulic options.
Because it might be the end of the highly funded battery development R&D efforts. This is shortsighted in the extreme and is costing us dearly due to the greed factor.
Is it a conspiracy? Maybe, maybe not, but the evidence, if you consider only the research funding available to both options, would certainly point towards at least a conspiracy of ignorance.