The Hybrid has the same 2.4L engine as the other 4-cyl Camrys, only detuned from 158HP to 147 (atkinson cycle). The traction motor kicks in another 40HP for a net of 187HP. I think the Camry Hybrid is more “tuned” for the highway than the Prius I used to own. Like the Prius, though, it will stay “all electric” (on a level road) below 40 mph.

Think of the money it would save them. Think of the internationally cost-competitive jobs they would be creating! Think of the….

Oh, but oh dear. They’d make enemies of the oil boys. Couldn’t have that, now could they….

Company, name, price, mpg and pecularities

Hybrid efficiency comes from maximizing the efficiency of the gas engine. The software and transmission allow it to run at the most efficient speed, even during acceleration, and to charge the battery for use when extra power (particularly torque) is needed (i.e. acceleration from stop) or very little power is needed (steady speed up to 40 mph in the Prius) and running the gas engine creates more power than can be used. So, in stop and go and/or driving below 50 mph or so, the hybrid is at its best.

However, at steady freeway speeds over time the power required is more than can be supplied by the gas engine at max efficiency, because the mfrs have judged that it’s more important to be good at city and all-round demands than just at freeway demands. The battery can’t supply useful power for more than a few minutes, so, at those freeway speeds, the car is running as though it were a very efficient but normal car. I can watch the meter and see that at a steady 55 I get close to 55 mpg. At a steady 75 I get in the low 40s. Wind resistance does it, as it does to all cars. If I had a 70 hp streamlined Saturn, I’d probably get the same mileage at 75 – but you can’t get a 70-hp Saturn. In your case, what’s the hp of the gas engine in the Camry hybrid? I’m guessing it’s less than the all-gas models (hp and torque), and that’s where your freeway speed advantage lies. Of course an ordinary 4-cyl Camry already does pretty well.

Yes, the downhill capture of energy helps, but that dang wind resistance can’t be beat.

(SNIP)
Whew. Just about done. BHD, you’re right about driving conditions making a difference. At highway speeds the hybrid has no advantage other than a lower powered engine. The question is, how do people drive? OK, now about maintenance costs: so far, I have seen nothing different from my previous cars. One hopes that in time independent mechs will be good at servicing hybrids so you are not prisoner to the dealers. When it’s a monopoly, you lose. Unfortunately for the dealers, the Prius seems to be very reliable and low-maintenance. Win some, lose some.

Um, about highway mileage, not true. I have the Camry Hybrid in Northern New England, up and down hills on the interstates. I’m getting around 38-40 MPG cruising between 65-75MPH (using a “light” foot, however). Remember that going downhill, the motor-generators pump power back into the hybrid battery, and the engine swiftly goes to idle when headed downhill. Also, the Camry engine is an “atkinson” cycle (rather than “otto” cycle), with higher overall efficiency. I also don’t believe the hybrid system is maintenance heavy (and if so, it’s g’teed for 10 years anyway), since it’s a lot of clever solid-state stuff (the inverter), computers and the “powersplit” device is a thing of truly alien beauty, with no clutches, belts or any of that crap.

I hope they use something other than lithium ion. L-I batteries lose about 20% capacity per year, regardless of use, and more as the temperatures increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion

You’d probably have to buy a new 10K battery pack a year.

Grousefinder at 13 writes, “You can imagine that with a little tweaking you could burn ethanol and probably get 70 MPG on the same car (venturi carb. perhaps).” Bad news, GF. Ethanol has a lot less energy per gallon than gasoline: 77,000 Btus to 114,400. Plus it takes 131,000 BTUs to *make* a gallon of ethanol. You might also want to check the pollution numbers on a 1980 car before buying another. GM’s Monstro Green SUV is probably less polluting.

Hpsch at 19 sez, “How about solars cells on the roof charging the battery as a standard option.” Bad news, HP. Figure ten watts per square foot of solar array. One horsepower is 746 watts. So, if you leave, say, 20 square feet of solar cell out for 8 hours, you’ll have 8 x 10 x 20 = 1600 watt hours (cost at home for the toaster, 15-20 cents) = 2 horsepower hours stored up (this is very optimistic). That will get you out of the parking lot and a few hundred feet down the street. Practical value: nil.

P J Evans at 24 sez, “Plug-in is only a good option for those who have a garage with an outlet; the rest of us won’t be able to use it.” Sounds like you already have a Prius, PJ. Good on yer. However, the way the Prius is able to make the battery last virtually forever (no failures yet and a 150,000 tester at the factory on the original battery) is to make absolutely sure that the charge never gets above or below a safety threshold. I think it’s 80% charged and 20% charged. That’s why the warranty is voided for the kits that force battery-only operation. If people run down the charge on their plugins, or overcharge, they’re killing the battery.

TeddySanFran at 54 sez, “Looming also: Toxic battery disposal at vehicle end-of-life.” NiMh batteries, such as used in the Prius, contain no heavy metals. They are much more benign than lead-acid batteries, and even those are recycled in the billions.

Encephalopath at 81 sez, “I wouldn’t want to get a hybrid anyway. The mechanical complexity introduced by the hybird systems isn’t justified by the increase in fuel efficiency.” The only question is, does it work? They have been ultra-reliable. If mechanical simplicity was what we wanted, we’d all be driving turbine engines. Ever looked at the exploded diagram of an Otto cycle engine? Nobody in his right mind would make one, but we’ve been making them for so long it seems simple.

Calscientist at 87 sez, “2) Plug in hybrids make a lot of sense. You get the option. There is really no compelling reason NOT to do plug in hybrids.” The one objection is making the battery big enough to store this energy. A hybrid doesn’t really use the battery for more than peak power requirements. If the battery drives the car for more and a few minutes, it has to get a lot bigger.

Mrs. K8 at 95 sez, “Just wanna pop in and say that we absolutely love, love, love our Prius.” Yup. Me too.

Caradoc at 104 sez, “I’d love to have one, but car makers seem to think efficient cars are only for people under 6 feet.” My wife and I are both over 6’ tall. The Prius works for us, and there is more legroom in the back than in the front.

Thomas at 117 sez, “Not being an electrical genuis, I will venture that a 220 plug-in would cost half as much to charge.” Bad news, Thomas. They charge you for kilowatt hours. You could have a one zillion volt service and it would cost the same.

Baldheadeddork at 119 sez, “I’m a skeptic of the current generation of hybrids. In certain situations (most notably stop and go city driving) they do provide a great increase over conventional models. But the economics do not work for most drivers. The fuel economy advantage of a Prius over a Scion xB at highway speeds is going to be about ten mpg. You would have to drive the Prius for more than a quarter-million miles to recover just the higher sticker price of the Prius. When you factor in the higher maintenance cost for the hybrid drive system it becomes impossible to actually save any money.”

Whew. Just about done. BHD, you’re right about driving conditions making a difference. At highway speeds the hybrid has no advantage other than a lower powered engine. The question is, how do people drive? OK, now about maintenance costs: so far, I have seen nothing different from my previous cars. One hopes that in time independent mechs will be good at servicing hybrids so you are not prisoner to the dealers. When it’s a monopoly, you lose. Unfortunately for the dealers, the Prius seems to be very reliable and low-maintenance. Win some, lose some.

Mrs. K8 @ 110

Markinsanfran @ 108

Hydrogen is nothing but hype. An excellent way for companies to run beautiful ads about the bright hydrogen future while doing not much now.

Speaking as a physicist doing R&D on high-temperature fuel cells, the future may belong to Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, fuel cells that can run on hydrocarbon fuels (soybean oil, biodiesel, as well as petroleum derivatives) as well as hydrogen.

Batteries for electric vehicles will be ready for prime time long before a hydrogen infrastructure is implemented (due to the very low density and very high kinematic viscosity of hydrogen). See the book The Hype About Hydrogen” for more info.

Very interesting. That was my suspicion (that hydrogen was way hyped), but I wasn’t sure. Do you work for some sort of independent organization, or is your R&D work on behalf of a specific auto company or other corporation?

(Not trying to be nosy about specifics, just curious about the objectives of whoever sponsors research. I’d like to think that there are corporations who really want to solve our problems rather than merely stuff the execs’ pockets by steering us into some blind alleys. For instance, I think ethanol is a scam for big agra like ADM.)

I am an independent consulting physicist. My SOFC work is funded by a public/private research lab in Canada. I do hope that the new democratic congress will expand funding for R&D in the US, as that would pay huge dividends (as well as help me pay my bills :-)

Totally agree that hydrogen is over-hyped, and anyone who’s reality based and analyzed it would draw the same conclusion.

From my analysis, big oil is foundational in driving the hype. Their strategy appears purposeful, offering hydrogen as a false alternative to delay implementing lower CO2 emission alternatives (ie, greater fuel efficiency) based on EXISTING technologies and on horizon technologies that are far more feasible than hydrogen-based fuels.