Tow cars and trailers

[Bill Daniels]

Well, gas is $3.50/Gal in many parts of the US and who is to say it won't be
$4/gal next summer. This is starting to hurt - and getting me to think of a
more economical vehicle.

Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise choose simply to
pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time, we could be driving,
say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg. The problem isn't the
gas milage when towing a glider trailer. We don't do that often enough for
it to impact out annual fuel budget. The problem is a big SUV as a daily
driver.

So, are there any tricks here? One is to simply own two cars. One to pull
a trailer and another for a daily driver that gets good milage. Paying
license fees, insurance and other fixed costs for a vehicle driven 1% of the
time seems outrageous though.

The other thread about surge brakes got me thinking WAY outside the box. Is
there a way for the trailer to be self-propelled? If one were to install a
load sensor in the trailer tongue that could sense the pull of the tow
vehicle as well as the push of an over-running trailer, could that control a
small power plant in the trailer that drove the trailer's wheels? If done
perfectly, a light towing vehicle might not feel the trailer at all.

If the trailer power were electric, you would have a parallel, plug-in
hybrid. The car engine would charge the trailer batteries when they were
not needed for propulsion and the electrics would kick in on the hills.
Downhill regenerative braking would also charge the trailer batteries as
could large solar panels on the trailer.

It might work fine for a short commute to the glider field and maybe not so
well on a cross country trip but it's fun thinking about.

Bill Daniels

[anonymous]

Bill Daniels schrieb:

> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise choose simply to
> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time, we could be driving,
> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg.

The Volkswagen Passat TDI is a fairly common tow vehicle in Europe. No
need for a SUV. But then, this has been discussed here many times.

[Bill Daniels]

"anonymous" <no.email@spamfree> wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels schrieb:
>
>> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise choose simply to
>> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time, we could be driving,
>> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg.
>
> The Volkswagen Passat TDI is a fairly common tow vehicle in Europe. No
> need for a SUV. But then, this has been discussed here many times.

Yes, I know that. However, it's not common in the US bacause of the higher,
hotter, longer trip conditions here. Almost any trip in the western US will
include at least one long, steep grade starting with temperatures above 40C
that may climb to 3600 meters ASL. I know of one VW that arrived as
essentially junk after one trip. The next time I saw that pilot, he was
driving a much bigger tow vehicle.

If you prefer the manufacturer's position, here's a comment from USA Today's
James R. Healey::
"Back to the Passat towing spec question: VW just called to say towing's not
recommended with the Passat and that's why no towing spec is provided. Would
towing void the warranty? Uh, um, well, probably not, VW says, as long as
you tow light loads with a proper hitch installed and used per the
aftermarket supplier's recommendations. Unless, of course, some damage is
the obvious result of towing. Sounds to me as if anybody who wants to tow
should choose a different car. Too much 'maybe' factor with Passat. "

The VW Passat TDI diesel is a great car. I just wouldn't abuse it by towing
a glider trailer.

Bill Daniels

[Dan G]

On May 18, 12:48 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Yes, I know that. However, it's not common in the US bacause of the higher,
> hotter, longer trip conditions here. Almost any trip in the western US will
> include at least one long, steep grade starting with temperatures above 40C
> that may climb to 3600 meters ASL. I know of one VW that arrived as
> essentially junk after one trip. The next time I saw that pilot, he was
> driving a much bigger tow vehicle.

I can only think that it was very old or not maintained. Gliders are
light; a modern European TDi would barely notice the load even over
the roads you describe (which are common in the Alps).


Dan

[Ed Winchester]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "anonymous" <no.email@spamfree> wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Daniels schrieb:
>>
>>> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise choose simply to
>>> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time, we could be driving,
>>> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg.
>> The Volkswagen Passat TDI is a fairly common tow vehicle in Europe. No
>> need for a SUV. But then, this has been discussed here many times.
>
> Yes, I know that. However, it's not common in the US bacause of the higher,
> hotter, longer trip conditions here. Almost any trip in the western US will
> include at least one long, steep grade starting with temperatures above 40C
> that may climb to 3600 meters ASL. I know of one VW that arrived as
> essentially junk after one trip. The next time I saw that pilot, he was
> driving a much bigger tow vehicle.
>
> If you prefer the manufacturer's position, here's a comment from USA Today's
> James R. Healey::
> "Back to the Passat towing spec question: VW just called to say towing's not
> recommended with the Passat and that's why no towing spec is provided. Would
> towing void the warranty? Uh, um, well, probably not, VW says, as long as
> you tow light loads with a proper hitch installed and used per the
> aftermarket supplier's recommendations. Unless, of course, some damage is
> the obvious result of towing. Sounds to me as if anybody who wants to tow
> should choose a different car. Too much 'maybe' factor with Passat. "
>
> The VW Passat TDI diesel is a great car. I just wouldn't abuse it by towing
> a glider trailer.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
Bill,

I have to agree with Dan. With the TDI (turbocharged diesel injection)
the elevation would have almost no effect. Yes, pulling up the hills
would work the engine a bit, but gearing down and watching the temps
should cover that.

Ed

[Paul Hanson]

At 00:48 18 May 2007, Ed Winchester wrote:
>Bill Daniels wrote:
>> 'anonymous' wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bill Daniels schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise
>>>>choose simply to
>>>> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time,
>>>>we could be driving,
>>>> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg.
>>> The Volkswagen Passat TDI is a fairly common tow vehicle
>>>in Europe. No
>>> need for a SUV. But then, this has been discussed
>>>here many times.
>>
>> Yes, I know that. However, it's not common in the
>>US bacause of the higher,
>> hotter, longer trip conditions here. Almost any trip
>>in the western US will
>> include at least one long, steep grade starting with
>>temperatures above 40C
>> that may climb to 3600 meters ASL. I know of one
>>VW that arrived as
>> essentially junk after one trip. The next time I
>>saw that pilot, he was
>> driving a much bigger tow vehicle.
>>
>> If you prefer the manufacturer's position, here's
>>a comment from USA Today's
>> James R. Healey::
>> 'Back to the Passat towing spec question: VW just
>>called to say towing's not
>> recommended with the Passat and that's why no towing
>>spec is provided. Would
>> towing void the warranty? Uh, um, well, probably not,
>>VW says, as long as
>> you tow light loads with a proper hitch installed
>>and used per the
>> aftermarket supplier's recommendations. Unless, of
>>course, some damage is
>> the obvious result of towing. Sounds to me as if anybody
>>who wants to tow
>> should choose a different car. Too much 'maybe' factor
>>with Passat. '
>>
>> The VW Passat TDI diesel is a great car. I just wouldn't
>>abuse it by towing
>> a glider trailer.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>Bill,
>
>I have to agree with Dan. With the TDI (turbocharged
>diesel injection)
>the elevation would have almost no effect. Yes, pulling
>up the hills
>would work the engine a bit, but gearing down and watching
>the temps
>should cover that.
>
>Ed
>
I think we must be careful not to use too light of
a vehicle to tow our glider trailers with. Although
the 2:1 ratio some trailer rental companies use ('U-Haul
used to require 2:1 ratio between the towing vehicle
and the trailer. Stated differently, the towing vehicle
must weigh twice as much as the trailer and its contents.
To increase rentals, U-Haul lowered that ratio from
2:1 to 1:1. This change decreased stability and increased
accidents'.--from http://www.beasleyallen.com) may
be suitable for short coupled trailers, our glider
trailers although admittedly light in weight, have
much greater moments due to the longer arm, so for
me at least, that unfortunately rules out small, lightweight
super efficient vehicles, due to safety concerns. I
did find this in another thread though, talking about
glider towing with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid:
'I'll add my two cents to this thread. I towed my glider
trailer last weekend with a HH 4wd. Glider trailers
are tricky to tow because of their length (28') and
the fact that they have a lot of sail area. Weight
is about 1800 lbs. The rig was rock solid in mountainous
terrain with a 25 mph crosswind. Was at least as good
as my previous vehicle, a Grand Cherokee. I am quite
pleased with the performance. Overall, I am getting
about 26-27 MPG'.
found in:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0daea6

I like the idea of good gas mileage, since I tow mine
enough for that to be a major budget concern, for me.
(Ca to Memphis last Feb, Ca to Oshkosh later, plus
several milk runs...ouch) I currently tow with a Chevy
Astro Van, and get around 18-19mpg, doing normal interstate
speeds (70-80mph), so 26-27mpg does not sound too bad,
although I would need a motel when I got where I was
going because the Highlander Hybrid does not sound
big enough for me to camp in with my dog while on site.
It does sound like a good possible solution for some
of you though.

I do really like the idea of some sort of drive-assist
system in the trailer though, an idea I've considered
before, although my gas mileage without the trailer
is near the same in the Astro. Somebody needs to develop
a hybrid van, with good towing capacity, coupled to
a trailer that assists and then we would be on to something.
Although, the excessive cost of this combo would probably
outweigh the extra money that would be saved on gas,
it seems like a step in the right direction none the
less.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 3:14 pm, Paul Hanson
> wrote:
> At 00:48 18 May 2007, Ed Winchester wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bill Daniels wrote:
> >> 'anonymous' wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Bill Daniels schrieb:
>
> >>>> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise
> >>>>choose simply to
> >>>> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time,
> >>>>we could be driving,
> >>>> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg.
> >>> The Volkswagen Passat TDI is a fairly common tow vehicle
> >>>in Europe. No
> >>> need for a SUV. But then, this has been discussed
> >>>here many times.
>
> >> Yes, I know that. However, it's not common in the
> >>US bacause of the higher,
> >> hotter, longer trip conditions here. Almost any trip
> >>in the western US will
> >> include at least one long, steep grade starting with
> >>temperatures above 40C
> >> that may climb to 3600 meters ASL. I know of one
> >>VW that arrived as
> >> essentially junk after one trip. The next time I
> >>saw that pilot, he was
> >> driving a much bigger tow vehicle.
>
> >> If you prefer the manufacturer's position, here's
> >>a comment from USA Today's
> >> James R. Healey::
> >> 'Back to the Passat towing spec question: VW just
> >>called to say towing's not
> >> recommended with the Passat and that's why no towing
> >>spec is provided. Would
> >> towing void the warranty? Uh, um, well, probably not,
> >>VW says, as long as
> >> you tow light loads with a proper hitch installed
> >>and used per the
> >> aftermarket supplier's recommendations. Unless, of
> >>course, some damage is
> >> the obvious result of towing. Sounds to me as if anybody
> >>who wants to tow
> >> should choose a different car. Too much 'maybe' factor
> >>with Passat. '
>
> >> The VW Passat TDI diesel is a great car. I just wouldn't
> >>abuse it by towing
> >> a glider trailer.
>
> >> Bill Daniels
>
> >Bill,
>
> >I have to agree with Dan. With the TDI (turbocharged
> >diesel injection)
> >the elevation would have almost no effect. Yes, pulling
> >up the hills
> >would work the engine a bit, but gearing down and watching
> >the temps
> >should cover that.
>
> >Ed
>
> I think we must be careful not to use too light of
> a vehicle to tow our glider trailers with. Although
> the 2:1 ratio some trailer rental companies use ('U-Haul
> used to require 2:1 ratio between the towing vehicle
> and the trailer. Stated differently, the towing vehicle
> must weigh twice as much as the trailer and its contents.
> To increase rentals, U-Haul lowered that ratio from
> 2:1 to 1:1. This change decreased stability and increased
> accidents'.--fromhttp://www.beasleyallen.com) may
> be suitable for short coupled trailers, our glider
> trailers although admittedly light in weight, have
> much greater moments due to the longer arm, so for
> me at least, that unfortunately rules out small, lightweight
> super efficient vehicles, due to safety concerns. I
> did find this in another thread though, talking about
> glider towing with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid:
> 'I'll add my two cents to this thread. I towed my glider
> trailer last weekend with a HH 4wd. Glider trailers
> are tricky to tow because of their length (28') and
> the fact that they have a lot of sail area. Weight
> is about 1800 lbs. The rig was rock solid in mountainous
> terrain with a 25 mph crosswind. Was at least as good
> as my previous vehicle, a Grand Cherokee. I am quite
> pleased with the performance. Overall, I am getting
> about 26-27 MPG'.
> found in:http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0daea6
>
> I like the idea of good gas mileage, since I tow mine
> enough for that to be a major budget concern, for me.
> (Ca to Memphis last Feb, Ca to Oshkosh later, plus
> several milk runs...ouch) I currently tow with a Chevy
> Astro Van, and get around 18-19mpg, doing normal interstate
> speeds (70-80mph), so 26-27mpg does not sound too bad,
> although I would need a motel when I got where I was
> going because the Highlander Hybrid does not sound
> big enough for me to camp in with my dog while on site.
> It does sound like a good possible solution for some
> of you though.
>
> I do really like the idea of some sort of drive-assist
> system in the trailer though, an idea I've considered
> before, although my gas mileage without the trailer
> is near the same in the Astro. Somebody needs to develop
> a hybrid van, with good towing capacity, coupled to
> a trailer that assists and then we would be on to something.
> Although, the excessive cost of this combo would probably
> outweigh the extra money that would be saved on gas,
> it seems like a step in the right direction none the
> less.
>
> Paul Hanson
> "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A little sideways on this thread ,how does a Chevy Blazer 4.3 litre,
handle the towing loads as I am considering one as a tow
vehicle ,pulling
a tube type of trailer for a Ventus b or Nimbus 2 model. Any bad
reports or known problems I should be aware of .
gary

[Dan G]

I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
comfortably.

*85% kerbweight - with 7% of the trailer's weight on the hitch or the
tow car's maximum, whichever is lower - is the maximum safe weight for
good stability, arrived at by the University of Bath in the 1990s when
they did instrumented testing and model simulation of tow cars and
trailer combinations.


Dan

[Bruce]

Dan G wrote:
> I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
> Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
> of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
> of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
> capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
> comfortably.
>
> *85% kerbweight - with 7% of the trailer's weight on the hitch or the
> tow car's maximum, whichever is lower - is the maximum safe weight for
> good stability, arrived at by the University of Bath in the 1990s when
> they did instrumented testing and model simulation of tow cars and
> trailer combinations.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
Closed Trailer with a Std Cirrus in it is 680kg (54% is easily inside the
85%)The sail effect is a bigger decider for me - the trailer can push a smaller
car around when you are exposed to gusts at speed.

Hatchback weight is 1250Kg. Tows happily at the national speed limit, although
it does get a bit hard work in the mountains. Tops of our passes are around
2,300m MSL Nothing too bad for the small car to tow. Then I got into a Kestrel
T59D with one piece wings. It's trailer is unaerodynamic, heavy (>900Kg) and
just plain huge.
The stability issue is in a different class. With nearly 2 tons of Wales' best
(XC70 is made in Wales not Sweden) and a really big polar moment on such a long
vehicle, the disturbance from trucks and wind is a lot lower. Fuel consumption
is not that different towing the trailer between the two - unless you get
irresponsible/inattentive with the speed. The control reserve is generally
bigger with the bigger car.
So stability is the primary towing reason for getting the barge - the other
reasons are indefensible. (It's hard making a logical case for something that
comes down to - "I like it".)In town the hatchback is the place to be - on the
open road or dirt roads the Volvo is a far nicer ride.

Cost - @ 2l/100km additional fuel is around 400litres per year. (roughly 100US
gallons)At ~R7/l (4USD/US gallon) that is quite a lot of money. In South Africa
the cost of my vehicular extravagance is equivalent to at least one tow per
month. I winch launch so the extra fuel for the trip to the airfield is close to
the cost of a winch launch.

[mattm]

On May 17, 11:14 pm, Paul Hanson
> wrote:
>
> I think we must be careful not to use too light of
> a vehicle to tow our glider trailers with. Although
> the 2:1 ratio some trailer rental companies use ('U-Haul
> used to require 2:1 ratio between the towing vehicle
> and the trailer. Stated differently, the towing vehicle
> must weigh twice as much as the trailer and its contents.
> To increase rentals, U-Haul lowered that ratio from
> 2:1 to 1:1. This change decreased stability and increased
> accidents'.--fromhttp://www.beasleyallen.com) may
> be suitable for short coupled trailers, our glider
> trailers although admittedly light in weight, have
> much greater moments due to the longer arm, so for
> me at least, that unfortunately rules out small, lightweight
> super efficient vehicles, due to safety concerns. I
> did find this in another thread though, talking about
> glider towing with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid:
> 'I'll add my two cents to this thread. I towed my glider
> trailer last weekend with a HH 4wd. Glider trailers
> are tricky to tow because of their length (28') and
> the fact that they have a lot of sail area. Weight
> is about 1800 lbs. The rig was rock solid in mountainous
> terrain with a 25 mph crosswind. Was at least as good
> as my previous vehicle, a Grand Cherokee. I am quite
> pleased with the performance. Overall, I am getting
> about 26-27 MPG'.
> found in:http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0daea6
>
> I like the idea of good gas mileage, since I tow mine
> enough for that to be a major budget concern, for me.
> (Ca to Memphis last Feb, Ca to Oshkosh later, plus
> several milk runs...ouch) I currently tow with a Chevy
> Astro Van, and get around 18-19mpg, doing normal interstate
> speeds (70-80mph), so 26-27mpg does not sound too bad,
> although I would need a motel when I got where I was
> going because the Highlander Hybrid does not sound
> big enough for me to camp in with my dog while on site.
> It does sound like a good possible solution for some
> of you though.
>
> I do really like the idea of some sort of drive-assist
> system in the trailer though, an idea I've considered
> before, although my gas mileage without the trailer
> is near the same in the Astro. Somebody needs to develop
> a hybrid van, with good towing capacity, coupled to
> a trailer that assists and then we would be on to something.
> Although, the excessive cost of this combo would probably
> outweigh the extra money that would be saved on gas,
> it seems like a step in the right direction none the
> less.
>
> Paul Hanson
> "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Also consider the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner hybrids (aka FEH or
MMH). Curb weight 3800lbs,
35-40mpg with good driving techniques. Supposedly there's a Toyota
hybrid minivan coming one
of these days (it's been available in Japan for several years now)
that includes electric drive on the
rear wheels (like the HyHi). Personally I have a Prius as my wife's
car, which I love except for the
fact that it can't tow anything.

One additional consideration is to think further outside the box.
What about using public transportation,
bicycling, or telecommuting for your daily grind? You can keep the
gashog around for the weekends.
When I was riding the bus every day to work my gas usage in my truck
dropped to around 1 tank a month
(300 miles or so), which is enough to keep it running well but not
enough to be a financial drag. I also
got a break on car insurance because I wasn't using it for daily
commute.

[[email protected]]

FWIW, my tow car is an ancient Volvo wagon that got 23 mpg on the
mountain grade tow mentioned in my last post. The Volvo has a long
overhang, which means I don't tow above 70, but that's fine by me
(I've been busted twice in Calfironia for high speed towing), and I
can sleep in it. Not elegant but a mostly reliable efficient road
warier.

[anonymous]

> One additional consideration is to think further outside the box.
> What about using public transportation,
> bicycling, or telecommuting for your daily grind?

Where I live, this is not outside, but pretty much in the center of the
box. But we're getting OT.

[Adam]

On May 17, 6:07 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Well, gas is $3.50/Gal in many parts of the US and who is to say it won't be
> $4/gal next summer. This is starting to hurt - and getting me to think of a
> more economical vehicle.
>
Yes, go for a more economical car. As others mention, the Passat and
Volvo XC wagon both make good tow vehicles. A few members from my club
use them to tow from the midwest out to Utah every year. One reported
that his Passat 1.8 T tiptronic with a Cobra trailer averaged 25-27
mpg at 75 mph, AC on. They get 32-34 mpg without the trailer.

My Audi A6 quatto wagon with 2.8 gas V-6 will get 20 mpg with a boxy
Minden-fab trailer, 27 mpg without at 75 mph. Not great, but not too
bad either.

I will consider a TDI for my next vehicle. The torque is massive and
the economy unsurpassed. If you ever drive the autobahn you will soon
notice that TDI's are typically going faster than gas. They work just
fine at high load and speed. Hybrids only pay-off around town.

One small note on the Passats: the older 1998-2005 model years used a
wonderful 4 link front suspension, the same as found on the Audi A4
and A6. The ride and handling is far superior to a MacPherson strut
design, IMO. The new 2006+ Passats went back to MacPhersons.....too
bad.

Good luck to you,
Adam

[JS]

> Closed Trailer with a Std Cirrus in it is 680kg (54% is easily inside the
> 85%)The sail effect is a bigger decider for me - the trailer can push a smaller
> car around when you are exposed to gusts at speed.
>
I have towed one of those lightweight Nimbus 3 jobbies in a Pfeiffer
trailer with the 2.5L Subaru Outback. It handled better than towing it
with a slightly older (97) Chevy Tahoe 5.7L , ESPECIALLY in side wind
gusts. I imagine this is due to suspension tuning, or lack thereof on
the Chevy's part.
Currently towing a longer and equally light Cobra AS-H26E trailer
with the same car. The biggest towing problem has been "citations of
excessive cross-country progress" awarded by the Highway Patrol.
Both Paul Bikle and Bob Harris' long standing World altitude records
were set within 50km of home, to put the hill and wind situation in
perspective.
Jim

[Ramy]

On May 18, 2:59 am, " > wrote:
> On May 18, 3:14 pm, Paul Hanson
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > At 00:48 18 May 2007, Ed Winchester wrote:
>
> > >Bill Daniels wrote:
> > >> 'anonymous' wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> Bill Daniels schrieb:
>
> > >>>> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise
> > >>>>choose simply to
> > >>>> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time,
> > >>>>we could be driving,
> > >>>> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg.
> > >>> The Volkswagen Passat TDI is a fairly common tow vehicle
> > >>>in Europe. No
> > >>> need for a SUV. But then, this has been discussed
> > >>>here many times.
>
> > >> Yes, I know that. However, it's not common in the
> > >>US bacause of the higher,
> > >> hotter, longer trip conditions here. Almost any trip
> > >>in the western US will
> > >> include at least one long, steep grade starting with
> > >>temperatures above 40C
> > >> that may climb to 3600 meters ASL. I know of one
> > >>VW that arrived as
> > >> essentially junk after one trip. The next time I
> > >>saw that pilot, he was
> > >> driving a much bigger tow vehicle.
>
> > >> If you prefer the manufacturer's position, here's
> > >>a comment from USA Today's
> > >> James R. Healey::
> > >> 'Back to the Passat towing spec question: VW just
> > >>called to say towing's not
> > >> recommended with the Passat and that's why no towing
> > >>spec is provided. Would
> > >> towing void the warranty? Uh, um, well, probably not,
> > >>VW says, as long as
> > >> you tow light loads with a proper hitch installed
> > >>and used per the
> > >> aftermarket supplier's recommendations. Unless, of
> > >>course, some damage is
> > >> the obvious result of towing. Sounds to me as if anybody
> > >>who wants to tow
> > >> should choose a different car. Too much 'maybe' factor
> > >>with Passat. '
>
> > >> The VW Passat TDI diesel is a great car. I just wouldn't
> > >>abuse it by towing
> > >> a glider trailer.
>
> > >> Bill Daniels
>
> > >Bill,
>
> > >I have to agree with Dan. With the TDI (turbocharged
> > >diesel injection)
> > >the elevation would have almost no effect. Yes, pulling
> > >up the hills
> > >would work the engine a bit, but gearing down and watching
> > >the temps
> > >should cover that.
>
> > >Ed
>
> > I think we must be careful not to use too light of
> > a vehicle to tow our glider trailers with. Although
> > the 2:1 ratio some trailer rental companies use ('U-Haul
> > used to require 2:1 ratio between the towing vehicle
> > and the trailer. Stated differently, the towing vehicle
> > must weigh twice as much as the trailer and its contents.
> > To increase rentals, U-Haul lowered that ratio from
> > 2:1 to 1:1. This change decreased stability and increased
> > accidents'.--fromhttp://www.beasleyallen.com) may
> > be suitable for short coupled trailers, our glider
> > trailers although admittedly light in weight, have
> > much greater moments due to the longer arm, so for
> > me at least, that unfortunately rules out small, lightweight
> > super efficient vehicles, due to safety concerns. I
> > did find this in another thread though, talking about
> > glider towing with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid:
> > 'I'll add my two cents to this thread. I towed my glider
> > trailer last weekend with a HH 4wd. Glider trailers
> > are tricky to tow because of their length (28') and
> > the fact that they have a lot of sail area. Weight
> > is about 1800 lbs. The rig was rock solid in mountainous
> > terrain with a 25 mph crosswind. Was at least as good
> > as my previous vehicle, a Grand Cherokee. I am quite
> > pleased with the performance. Overall, I am getting
> > about 26-27 MPG'.
> > found in:http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0daea6
>
> > I like the idea of good gas mileage, since I tow mine
> > enough for that to be a major budget concern, for me.
> > (Ca to Memphis last Feb, Ca to Oshkosh later, plus
> > several milk runs...ouch) I currently tow with a Chevy
> > Astro Van, and get around 18-19mpg, doing normal interstate
> > speeds (70-80mph), so 26-27mpg does not sound too bad,
> > although I would need a motel when I got where I was
> > going because the Highlander Hybrid does not sound
> > big enough for me to camp in with my dog while on site.
> > It does sound like a good possible solution for some
> > of you though.
>
> > I do really like the idea of some sort of drive-assist
> > system in the trailer though, an idea I've considered
> > before, although my gas mileage without the trailer
> > is near the same in the Astro. Somebody needs to develop
> > a hybrid van, with good towing capacity, coupled to
> > a trailer that assists and then we would be on to something.
> > Although, the excessive cost of this combo would probably
> > outweigh the extra money that would be saved on gas,
> > it seems like a step in the right direction none the
> > less.
>
While we're on the subject, any comments on the Lexus RX hybrid as a
tow vehicle?

Ramy

> > Paul Hanson
> > "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A little sideways on this thread ,how does a Chevy Blazer 4.3 litre,
> handle the towing loads as I am considering one as a tow
> vehicle ,pulling
> a tube type of trailer for a Ventus b or Nimbus 2 model. Any bad
> reports or known problems I should be aware of .
> gary- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Ramy wrote:
> While we're on the subject, any comments on the Lexus RX hybrid as a
> tow vehicle?
>
Don't be taken in by the hype. If you consider whole of life energy
costs then hybrids are not very green at all. See

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy

and download the "Dust to Dust" report for details.

The problem is that, while hybrids may give better fuel economy, that's
easily outweighed by the extra energy costs in building and recycling
them. For example, the Ford Focus I drive has a lifetime energy cost of
under 25% that of a Prius despite a 1:1.6 ratio of gas burnt per mile.

On topic: my Focus, a 2 litre automatic estate, has shown itself to be a
good tow car for a Std Libelle in a closed trailer though mileage does
suffer while towing.



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Dan G]

On May 18, 8:18 pm, Adam > wrote:

> One small note on the Passats: the older 1998-2005 model years used a
> wonderful 4 link front suspension, the same as found on the Audi A4
> and A6. The ride and handling is far superior to a MacPherson strut
> design, IMO. The new 2006+ Passats went back to MacPhersons.....too
> bad.

Way O/T... the new Passat is a distinct "downgrade" from the previous
model, as it was taking sales away from the Audi A4. The engines are
still identical between the two brands.

Back O/T, don't underestimate the effect that noseweight has on
stability. I've been a passenger in tow car where a K21 was actually
lifting up the hitch, rather than pushing down. Not good. Conversely,
a trip with a Janus (slightly long trailer, and actually with a
smaller and lighter towcar) was much pleasanter experience because it
had a proper noseweight.


Dan

[bagmaker]

Volkswagon, Ford, Mercedes and Fiat (and others) all make great small vans, diesel powered that will tow large trailers easily. Nowadays they drive like a large family sedan!
There is tons of space for extra gear in the back, they run on the sniff of fuel, pull like a 14 year old and you can sleep in the back very comfortably if you need to.

Go try one!


Bagger

[Ray Lovinggood]

Consider the third generation (in America) Toyota RAV4.
It's got a 268 h.p.(!) V-6 that gets about 27 mpg
with four wheel drive (not towing).

When my 2000 Accord has to be replaced, I will definitely
consider this vehicle.

On a recent trek with trailers in tow, me with my Accord
and a friend with his RAV4, we started the trip with
full tanks of gas and we ended the trip a few hundred
miles later and tanked up. His Toyota used less fuel
than my Honda did. SUV vs. sedan and the SUV wins.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

bagmaker wrote:
> Volkswagon, Ford, Mercedes and Fiat (and others) all make great small
> vans, diesel powered that will tow large trailers easily. Nowadays they
> drive like a large family sedan!
> There is tons of space for extra gear in the back, they run on the
> sniff of fuel, pull like a 14 year old and you can sleep in the back
> very comfortably if you need to.

Unfortunately, none of these small vans are available in the US...

Marc

[Dan G]

On May 18, 11:36 pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > While we're on the subject, any comments on the Lexus RX hybrid as a
> > tow vehicle?
>
> Don't be taken in by the hype. If you consider whole of life energy
> costs then hybrids are not very green at all. See
>
> http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy
>
> and download the "Dust to Dust" report for details.

Disappointed to see that spectacular piece of FUD linked to here.

The "study" is riddled with strange unexplained arbitary assumptions
in order to arrive at their conclusions such as the idea that a Prius
lasts only 100,000 miles and that a Hummer lasts 379,000(!). Reverse
those numbers to get a true picture of what taxi firms are seeing.

Another cracker: "The typical hybrid small vehicle such as the Prius
is driven far fewer miles each year than a comparably sized budget
car. And for good reason... these are generally secondary vehicles in
a household OR they are driven in restricted or short range
environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods. "
Erm, what? The only hybrid owners I know are long-distance business
drivers - they either bought the hybrid themselves or, increasingly
commonly, have been given them as company cars because they're so
cheap to run (assisted by tax breaks).

A priceless "I've not done my homework" section is claiming that the
factory that produces the nickel for the Prius's battery has reduced
the local area to "a moonscape". Originally the factory did - in the
1960s. Since then the factory and area has been cleaned up and in 1992
was given an award by the UN for environmental rehabilitation.

Over 120 pages of the report is made up of photos of cars, editorial
cartoons and SONG LYRICS.

Funnily enough CNW is entirely funded by the North American car
industry.

If it's not peer reviewed - and this certainly wasn't - it's junk. I
speak has someone who studied product whole-life-cost estimation for
my degree.


Dan

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Dan G wrote:
> Funnily enough CNW is entirely funded by the North American car
> industry.
>
I didn't know that. I checked when I first saw the reference but could
not determine their allegiance. I thought the original (spreadsheet)
report looked OK and conveyed more information than the current one,
though I must say I was surprised that "Ford Focus" only gets one
mention considering the range of different models and engines sold under
that label.

Thanks for the info: opinions adjusted accordingly.

> If it's not peer reviewed - and this certainly wasn't - it's junk. I
> speak has someone who studied product whole-life-cost estimation for
> my degree.
>
...but nor are many other sites that survey a range of equipment. For
instance http://www.hybridcars.com/ also appears not to be peer
reviewed, though the hype on it is more obvious.

Can you supply the URL(s) for more reputable site(s) that look at the
same area? Its an area I'd like to know more about.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Tuno]

Ray, did you have trouble getting a classs III hitch on your Accord?
(I assume the dealer wouldn't touch this?)

[Bruce]

JS wrote:
>>Closed Trailer with a Std Cirrus in it is 680kg (54% is easily inside the
>>85%)The sail effect is a bigger decider for me - the trailer can push a smaller
>>car around when you are exposed to gusts at speed.
>>
>
> I have towed one of those lightweight Nimbus 3 jobbies in a Pfeiffer
> trailer with the 2.5L Subaru Outback. It handled better than towing it
> with a slightly older (97) Chevy Tahoe 5.7L , ESPECIALLY in side wind
> gusts. I imagine this is due to suspension tuning, or lack thereof on
> the Chevy's part.
> Currently towing a longer and equally light Cobra AS-H26E trailer
> with the same car. The biggest towing problem has been "citations of
> excessive cross-country progress" awarded by the Highway Patrol.
> Both Paul Bikle and Bob Harris' long standing World altitude records
> were set within 50km of home, to put the hill and wind situation in
> perspective.
> Jim
>
Perfect agreement - the Outback is direct competition for the XC70 - Roughly the
same size and weight. Seriously considered it, but I prefer the relaxed nature
of the Volvo. Then there is the small problem of just about no Subaru dealers in
a large country.
Conversely, I cannot understand why people would want to drive something the
size of a Tahoe, or Suburban or whatever on a daily basis. Most of these are
simply marketing exercises to improve profits. Cheap, relatively unsophisticated
light truck design. Add massive body (to cart sprung bendy chassis) - way up
high so the CG gets even worse, and market it as a lifestyle. Give it slab sides
to look macho - Very good for profits, even if the roll over accident rate
soars...

As I said - the extra wheelbase, and weight make it safer and easier to tow a
substantial trailer. I should have added the corollary - if and only if - the
car has the attributes of a good tow vehicle.
One of those attributes is good aerodynamic stability - which many SUVs lack.
Also the lateral compliance built into real 4x4s suspension allows for way too
much lateral swaying for good towing. I only towed my glider behind one of these
once - I could see the body flexing as we drove. It was unstable at anything
above 100km/h. With the hatchback it was happy at 110km/h and the Volvo cruises
at 120 without a tremor. I don't care to try faster - as the "excessive XC
achievement awards" are undesirable.

[Stewart Kissel]

Your diatribe reminded me of a line from a long forgotten
movie from the '70's called 'Rancho Deluxe'. I clipped
the quote below from a review of that movie. Oversized
SUV's rate right up there with Coca-Cola and MacDonalds
as proof what clever marketing combined with US tastes
can produce :( And I happen to drive a F150-great
tow vehicle, lousy gas mileage.


'I've seen more of this state's poor cowboys, miners,
railroaders and Indians go broke buyin' pickup trucks.
The poor people of this state are dope fiends for pickup
trucks. As soon's they get ten cents ahead they trade
in on a new pickup truck. The families, homesteads,
schools, hospitals and happiness of Montana have been
sold down the river to buy pickup trucks!... And there's
a sickness here worse than alcohol and dope. It is
the pickup truck death! And there's no cure in sight.'


>Conversely, I cannot understand why people would want
>to drive something the >size of a Tahoe, or Suburban
>or whatever on a daily basis. Most of these are >simply
>marketing exercises to improve profits. Cheap, relatively
unsophisticated >light truck design. Add massive body
>(to cart sprung bendy chassis) - way up
>high so the CG gets even worse, and market it as a
>lifestyle. Give it slab sides >to look macho - Very
>good for profits, even if the roll over accident rate
>soars...

[Dan G]

On May 19, 12:40 pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> Can you supply the URL(s) for more reputable site(s) that look at the
> same area? Its an area I'd like to know more about.

All the hard data is proprietary and so the truth is no-one knows
_exactly_ what the costs of each technology are. CNW's report is
purely a guess with a rather obvious bias.

What's without doubt is that a hybrid's batteries are more energy
intensive to construct than a conventional car of the same size.
What's also without doubt is that right now no car of similar size
approaches the mileage of the Toyota and Honda hybrids, and they also
get a lot of tax breaks which are likely to only getter bigger as
governments try to get "green". Only Toyota really knows hows much
energy is needed to build the battery, and how that compares to how
much energy is saved in fuel. However, using the back of an
envelope...

Let's assume that over 100,000 miles a hybrid saves 10% fuel. That's
enough fuel for 10,000 miles, or (at 45mpg, which is about typical for
a current hybrid) 222 gallons of petrol. 222 gallons of petrol is
about 1,000l and at 35MJ/l that liberates 35,000MJ. Reduce that by two-
thirds to allow for the inefficiency of oil-fuelled power stations
(yeah I'm skipping the different energy density of petrol vs. whatever
an oil station really burns) and that gives you a conservative energy
saving of around 12,000MJ, which is enough to produce 50kg of virgin
(not cast, which is mainly recycled thus much cheaper) aluminium,
which as you may know is *incredibly* energy instensive to produce
(most al smelters are sited next to hydro dams or nuclear
powerstations, or both!). I don't know how much energy is needed to
build a Prius battery (mass around 100kg) but I imagine it must be
less than it takes to make aluminium. Yellow Cab of Vancouver have
taken their Priuses to 200,000 on the original batteries, and afaik
are still going. Therefore I personally reckon the whole-life cycle
cost of a hybrid is beneficial, and the only way to claim otherwise is
to pretend that the alternatives will last three times longer, which
is what CNW did, which is bull.

However the context has to be understood. The future of the automobile
is hydrogen as oil is a finite resource - all the car companies are
developing hydrogen-powered cars for the very long term (who says
capitalism is only about a quick buck?). Where hybrids fit in is the
short-term - the next decade or two where oil prices will rise, but
not so much that hydrogen is competitive. The alternative to the
hybrid is the diesel, which is what the Germans and French are
developing. A few companies are introducing "mild" hybrids for
marketing purposes. (There were also electric cars. I haven't seen
that film about the scrapping of the GM EV1, which is probably some
great big conspiracy theory, but at a guess the reality is probably
that battery technology simply doesn't have the fundemental potential
to be competitive with the fuel cell.)

Bottom line: hybrids get the best gas mileage at present. Diesels are
close behind and may always be a bit cheaper to buy, but not quite as
good for mileage, and also have issues with pollution. Ultimately -
decades ahead - hydrogen is the future. Where the energy to produce
the hydrogen comes from is a whole other ball game :-).

*Personally* I drive a medium-size petrol as the low mileage I do -
about 5,000 a year - means that the extra purchase cost of a diesel
isn't economical. To save the planet (and my heart) I cycle where-ever
possible.


Dan

[Doug Hoffman]

On May 18, 7:05 am, Dan G > wrote:
> I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
> Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
> of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
> of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
> capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
> comfortably.

The maximum towing capacity is specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
The Passat TDi may or may not be rated for up to 3,000lbs.

My Neon 2.0L with manual transmission (less than $14,000 new)
routinely gave me 33-38 mpg depending on driving cycle. It could
easily pull my 15m glider with its 2,000lb towing rating. I wonder
how much a Prius is rated for towing?

Re: gasoline-elctric hybrids

The Prius stickers at around $24,000. The full government rebate is
limited to the first 60,000 Prius per model year (about $3,000):

http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/a/hybridtaxcredit.htm

If I miss out on the full government rebate then I would pay up to
$10,000 more than the Neon to drive a vehicle which I doubt will tow
my glider. Let's not even consider the extra cost for maintenance and
repairs or battery replacement costs.

For $10,000 I can drive my conventional technology Neon over 87,000
miles, assuming gasoline is $4/gal and 35mpg. And still tow my glider
most places (albeit less than 35mpg while towing).

Btw, I think vehicles like the Prius are great. But they are no
silver bullet (I know you didn't claim they were).

(Going a bit further OT):
If we truly believe what Al Gore is saying, then we would all
immediately stop using anything that creates CO2 and other greenhouse
gases (I guess we should still allow ourselves to breath as our bodies
do create CO2 and water vapor, both GHGs). Park all cars and trucks
permanently. Ground all airplanes and so forth. As far as
inconvenience to daily life, so what? We are talking about saving the
planet, right (at least according to Gore and some others)? Maybe
even if Gore believed what he is saying he would stop living in a huge
house that consumes many times the energy of the average US house. Or
is that four houses he owns?

Regards,

-Doug

[Bullwinkle]

On 5/20/07 6:24 AM, in article
om, "Doug Hoffman"
> wrote:

> On May 18, 7:05 am, Dan G > wrote:
>> I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
>> Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
>> of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
>> of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
>> capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
>> comfortably.
>
> The maximum towing capacity is specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
> The Passat TDi may or may not be rated for up to 3,000lbs.
>
> My Neon 2.0L with manual transmission (less than $14,000 new)
> routinely gave me 33-38 mpg depending on driving cycle. It could
> easily pull my 15m glider with its 2,000lb towing rating. I wonder
> how much a Prius is rated for towing?
>
> Re: gasoline-elctric hybrids
>
> The Prius stickers at around $24,000. The full government rebate is
> limited to the first 60,000 Prius per model year (about $3,000):
>
> http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/a/hybridtaxcredit.htm
>
> If I miss out on the full government rebate then I would pay up to
> $10,000 more than the Neon to drive a vehicle which I doubt will tow
> my glider. Let's not even consider the extra cost for maintenance and
> repairs or battery replacement costs.
>
> For $10,000 I can drive my conventional technology Neon over 87,000
> miles, assuming gasoline is $4/gal and 35mpg. And still tow my glider
> most places (albeit less than 35mpg while towing).
>
> Btw, I think vehicles like the Prius are great. But they are no
> silver bullet (I know you didn't claim they were).
>
> (Going a bit further OT):
> If we truly believe what Al Gore is saying, then we would all
> immediately stop using anything that creates CO2 and other greenhouse
> gases (I guess we should still allow ourselves to breath as our bodies
> do create CO2 and water vapor, both GHGs). Park all cars and trucks
> permanently. Ground all airplanes and so forth. As far as
> inconvenience to daily life, so what? We are talking about saving the
> planet, right (at least according to Gore and some others)? Maybe
> even if Gore believed what he is saying he would stop living in a huge
> house that consumes many times the energy of the average US house. Or
> is that four houses he owns?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug
>
>

Apologize if I missed this elsewhere in the thread, but FYI the Prius is
prohibited from towing, per the owner's manual.

The Highlander Hybrid is OK for towing, per its owner's manual.

Regards,
Bullwinkle

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> The Prius stickers at around $24,000. The full government rebate is
> limited to the first 60,000 Prius per model year (about $3,000):
>
> http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/a/hybridtaxcredit.htm

The credit for Toyota hybrids will phase out completely as of October 1,
2007, and will not return for future model years. All Toyota/Lexus
hybrid rebates are limited to a few hundred dollars at this point:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=162562,00.html

Ford, GM, Honda, and Nissan hybrids aren't scheduled for the phase out
at the moment, as they've yet to hit their 60000 hybrid thresholds.
Some of these companies started building hybrids somewhat later than
Toyota, but many don't sell well for good reasons. Hybrids are not a
silver bullet, as you state. And, most can't tow a glider trailer. The
Escape and Mariner hybrids, for example, have a towing capacity of only
1000 lbs.

I will again remind everyone that hybrids provide the bulk of their
improvement in local stop and go driving. On the highway, there are
comparable gasoline and diesel engined vehicles that provide better
mileage (hybrids will generally have better controlled emissions).

> (Going a bit further OT):
> If we truly believe what Al Gore is saying, then we would all
> immediately stop using anything that creates CO2 and other greenhouse
> gases (I guess we should still allow ourselves to breath as our bodies
> do create CO2 and water vapor, both GHGs). Park all cars and trucks
> permanently. Ground all airplanes and so forth. As far as
> inconvenience to daily life, so what? We are talking about saving the
> planet, right (at least according to Gore and some others)? Maybe
> even if Gore believed what he is saying he would stop living in a huge
> house that consumes many times the energy of the average US house. Or
> is that four houses he owns?

You are confusing the message with the messenger. If Al Gore lived in
one 500 sq ft house and traveled around only by bicycle, many would this
frugal lifestyle further reason for ridicule.

The point is that, if the message is correct (and I personally find the
"qualifications" of the dissenters rather unconvincing), we will all
suffer the consequences. There are many good reasons to communally
reduce our energy footprint, beyond concerns about greenhouse gases.

Or, we can collectively bury our heads, and wonder why the whole dung
heap is collapsing on top of us 20 or 30 years down the line...

Marc

[Bruce]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> Your diatribe reminded me of a line from a long forgotten
> movie from the '70's called 'Rancho Deluxe'. I clipped
> the quote below from a review of that movie. Oversized
> SUV's rate right up there with Coca-Cola and MacDonalds
> as proof what clever marketing combined with US tastes
> can produce :( And I happen to drive a F150-great
> tow vehicle, lousy gas mileage.
>
>
> 'I've seen more of this state's poor cowboys, miners,
> railroaders and Indians go broke buyin' pickup trucks.
> The poor people of this state are dope fiends for pickup
> trucks. As soon's they get ten cents ahead they trade
> in on a new pickup truck. The families, homesteads,
> schools, hospitals and happiness of Montana have been
> sold down the river to buy pickup trucks!... And there's
> a sickness here worse than alcohol and dope. It is
> the pickup truck death! And there's no cure in sight.'
>
>
>
>>Conversely, I cannot understand why people would want
>>to drive something the >size of a Tahoe, or Suburban
>>or whatever on a daily basis. Most of these are >simply
>>marketing exercises to improve profits. Cheap, relatively
>
> unsophisticated >light truck design. Add massive body
>
>>(to cart sprung bendy chassis) - way up
>>high so the CG gets even worse, and market it as a
>>lifestyle. Give it slab sides >to look macho - Very
>>good for profits, even if the roll over accident rate
>>soars...
>
>
>
>
Was that a diatribe? - Blush

[Jack]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> You are confusing the message with the messenger. If Al Gore lived in
> one 500 sq ft house and traveled around only by bicycle, many would this
> frugal lifestyle further reason for ridicule.


Al Gore is his own reason for ridicule. His message is tainted,
undeniably, by the fact he has yet to demonstrate that he is _not_
one of those who says, "Do as I say, and not as I do." Until then we
will ignore him and others like him.

As long as we insist on being warm in the winter and also believe
that the earth can sustain increasing billions of human inhabitants
the problem will continue to grow -- only the rate might be changed
imperceptibly by anything we may try to do about it. It makes no
sense at all for 300,000,000 Americans to become tree-huggers if
5,000,000,000 Asians, Africans, and others are doing all they can to
increase their own material comforts, and with little or no regard
for the pollution that results.

Nature will take care of the problem, one way or the other. It is
our obligation only to see that we are the beneficiaries of the
natural course of events, and not its victims. That requires much
more science and far less dogma.


Jack

[Shawn[_3_]]

Jack wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> You are confusing the message with the messenger. If Al Gore lived in
>> one 500 sq ft house and traveled around only by bicycle, many would
>> this frugal lifestyle further reason for ridicule.
>
>
> Al Gore is his own reason for ridicule. His message is tainted,
> undeniably, by the fact he has yet to demonstrate that he is _not_ one
> of those who says, "Do as I say, and not as I do." Until then we will
> ignore him and others like him.
>
> As long as we insist on being warm in the winter and also believe that
> the earth can sustain increasing billions of human inhabitants the
> problem will continue to grow -- only the rate might be changed
> imperceptibly by anything we may try to do about it. It makes no sense
> at all for 300,000,000 Americans to become tree-huggers if 5,000,000,000
> Asians, Africans, and others are doing all they can to increase their
> own material comforts, and with little or no regard for the pollution
> that results.

Stop consuming like a high schooler drinks beer at his first kegger.
Also, the notion that the only way to improve a product is to make it
less expensive is killing US manufacturing capacity and fueling Asian
expansion. We are in the process of jump-starting their middle class
with our demand. If/when we've gone to far and that machine can run
without our demand, we lose all control of world economics including the
oil market, labor markets, and international banking. Forget Fed
control of interest rates (may already be happening). Not to mention
melamine concentration in our food!
The only way to fix things now is through protectionism (yeah, yeah,
**** your economics prof, mine too ;-) ). Consumers and business don't
have the balls to be responsible. Probably too late anyway.

> Nature will take care of the problem, one way or the other. It is our
> obligation only to see that we are the beneficiaries of the natural
> course of events, and not its victims. That requires much more science
> and far less dogma.

True, but when really good science is so strong it looks like dogma
(e.g. evolutionary science, or plate tectonics), it serves no purpose to
condemn it *just* because it's the status quo. Climate science seems to
be headed this way.


Shawn

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Jack wrote:
> As long as we insist on being warm in the winter and also believe that
> the earth can sustain increasing billions of human inhabitants the
> problem will continue to grow -- only the rate might be changed
> imperceptibly by anything we may try to do about it. It makes no sense
> at all for 300,000,000 Americans to become tree-huggers if 5,000,000,000
> Asians, Africans, and others are doing all they can to increase their
> own material comforts, and with little or no regard for the pollution
> that results.

Americans consumes nearly 30 times as much energy as Africans, 10 times
as much as East Asians, 5 times the world average. Some (all
treehugggers, no doubt) would like to see us meet the developing world
somewhere in the middle. But, I suspect you are among those Americans
who believe the only solution is superior firepower...

Marc

[Stewart Kissel]

>Americans consumes nearly 30 times as much energy as
>Africans, 10 times as much as East Asians, 5 times
the world average.

So much for Americans giving up on their behemoths...I
clipped the following from today SanFranChron.


Gas prices don't scare buyers of big SUVs
After 2-year slump, demand rebounds

Michael Taylor, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, May 20, 2007

In these days of nearly $4-a-gallon gasoline, a
three-ton SUV that practically requires a bank loan
to fill 'er up would seem to be a tough sell.

Americans, however, are not shunning these beasts.
Far from it. Auto industry figures show that after
a two-year slump, sales of the gas guzzlers are up
over 2006 -- in some cases, way up.

The numbers for large SUVs rose nearly 6 percent in
the first quarter of 2007, and the April figures were
up 25 percent from April 2006, according to automakers'
statistics provided by Edmunds.com, an automotive research
Web site.

The bigger the guzzler, the better the numbers. Sales
of GMC's Yukon XL were up a whopping 72 percent last
month, and the totals for its Chevrolet sister, the
Suburban, rose 38 percent. Topping off the tank on
either one can cost as much as $120.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dan G" > wrote in message
ups.com...
<...>>
> Bottom line: hybrids get the best gas mileage at present. Diesels are
> close behind and may always be a bit cheaper to buy, but not quite as
> good for mileage, and also have issues with pollution. Ultimately -
> decades ahead - hydrogen is the future. Where the energy to produce
> the hydrogen comes from is a whole other ball game :-).
>

If we don't have the energy to extract the hydrogen, then what makes it "the
future"? I've never understood that angle - "we will need hydrogen for when
we run out of oil" - but we need oil to extract the hygrogen, eh?

Seems to me like we need "something" as an energy source for when we run out
of oil, and what kind of fuel one would generate for transportation would
depend a lot on what that "something" is. Might be H2, very possibly won't.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Shawn[_3_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Dan G" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> <...>>
>> Bottom line: hybrids get the best gas mileage at present. Diesels are
>> close behind and may always be a bit cheaper to buy, but not quite as
>> good for mileage, and also have issues with pollution. Ultimately -
>> decades ahead - hydrogen is the future. Where the energy to produce
>> the hydrogen comes from is a whole other ball game :-).
>>
>
> If we don't have the energy to extract the hydrogen, then what makes it "the
> future"? I've never understood that angle - "we will need hydrogen for when
> we run out of oil" - but we need oil to extract the hygrogen, eh?
>
> Seems to me like we need "something" as an energy source for when we run out
> of oil, and what kind of fuel one would generate for transportation would
> depend a lot on what that "something" is. Might be H2, very possibly won't.

Yes! Kind of like the E85 push, the big boosters never bother to
mention that it takes nearly as much energy to make the ethanol as you
get out, meanwhile driving up corn (and beef) prices, and any other crop
that isn't planted so that corn can be.
I wouldn't be surprised if battery technology develops so thoroughly
that fuel cells (i.e. H2) never takes off.
Look at the Antares for example :-)


Shawn

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> If we don't have the energy to extract the hydrogen, then what makes it "the
> future"? I've never understood that angle - "we will need hydrogen for when
> we run out of oil" - but we need oil to extract the hygrogen, eh?
>
> Seems to me like we need "something" as an energy source for when we run out
> of oil, and what kind of fuel one would generate for transportation would
> depend a lot on what that "something" is. Might be H2, very possibly won't.
>
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, just a way of storing energy in a
transportable form, same as battery or biofuel.

It has a few disadvantages too - when you combine electrolysis to get H2
with fuel cell efficiency the overall efficiency is around 66%. Thats
good compared with an IC engine's typical 25-35%, but other storage
methods, e.g. Li-poly batteries, which have a charge/discharge
efficiency of around 85%. The proof of this is that direct drive (no
storage) solar electric UAVs and those using Li-poly storage have
already flown successfully but no solar fuel cell system has, AFAIK, yet
flown.

Now consider that liquid H2, which is what cars will probably run on.
This needs cryogenic storage (if you don't cool it to liquid you either
need heavy HP gas cylinders or you adsorb it in a carrier and that
material isn't all that light either). In practice cryogenic tanks boil
off hydrogen to cool the remainder, which reduces the overall efficiency
by 15% if you immediately drive until the tank is empty and by up to
100% if you just park the car.

I think some other liquid fuel, such as ethanol, would be a lot less
hassle, but, like hydrogen, it needs to be manufactured industrially
using solar or nuclear power if enough is to be produced to entirely
replace fossil vehicle fuels.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Bill Daniels]

If you want to look at alternative liguid fuels for the existing fleet
consider Butanol (Butyl alcohol). It has about the same energy content as
gasolene, burns at the same air-fuel mixture and has an octane rating of 94.
It can be made from biomass at better net energy yeld than ethanol. Since
you can mix it with gasolene at any ratio with no changes needed in the
engines, it looks better to me than ethanol.

Bill Daniels


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> If we don't have the energy to extract the hydrogen, then what makes it
>> "the future"? I've never understood that angle - "we will need hydrogen
>> for when we run out of oil" - but we need oil to extract the hygrogen,
>> eh?
>>
>> Seems to me like we need "something" as an energy source for when we run
>> out of oil, and what kind of fuel one would generate for transportation
>> would depend a lot on what that "something" is. Might be H2, very
>> possibly won't.
>>
> Hydrogen isn't an energy source, just a way of storing energy in a
> transportable form, same as battery or biofuel.
>
> It has a few disadvantages too - when you combine electrolysis to get H2
> with fuel cell efficiency the overall efficiency is around 66%. Thats good
> compared with an IC engine's typical 25-35%, but other storage methods,
> e.g. Li-poly batteries, which have a charge/discharge efficiency of around
> 85%. The proof of this is that direct drive (no storage) solar electric
> UAVs and those using Li-poly storage have already flown successfully but
> no solar fuel cell system has, AFAIK, yet flown.
>
> Now consider that liquid H2, which is what cars will probably run on. This
> needs cryogenic storage (if you don't cool it to liquid you either need
> heavy HP gas cylinders or you adsorb it in a carrier and that material
> isn't all that light either). In practice cryogenic tanks boil off
> hydrogen to cool the remainder, which reduces the overall efficiency by
> 15% if you immediately drive until the tank is empty and by up to 100% if
> you just park the car.
>
> I think some other liquid fuel, such as ethanol, would be a lot less
> hassle, but, like hydrogen, it needs to be manufactured industrially using
> solar or nuclear power if enough is to be produced to entirely replace
> fossil vehicle fuels.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Jack]

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

> Currently, the 300M Americans emits more CO2 and consumes more oil
> than the next four countries together, including the 1B+ Chinese and
> 1B+ Indians. 23% of the total CO2 emission in the world comes the US.


Today is not the problem. Demand increases as population increases
and as international interactions increase.

Resentments are not solutions.


Jack

[Jack]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Americans consumes nearly 30 times as much energy as Africans, 10 times
> as much as East Asians, 5 times the world average. Some (all
> treehugggers, no doubt) would like to see us meet the developing world
> somewhere in the middle.


Have you yet reduced your energy consumption by 80%? We await your
example.



> But, I suspect you are among those Americans
> who believe the only solution is superior firepower.


And I suspect you have your own notion of when that might be useful.
I also suspect we can agree that it's too expensive -- until nothing
else is sufficient.


Jack

[flying_monkey]

> 2.5L Subaru Outback. It handled better than towing it
> with a slightly older (97) Chevy Tahoe 5.7L

While we're comparing tow vehicles, I currently have a Standard class
glider, with a typical fiberglass tube trailer. Tows fine up to as
fast as I want to go behind my '95 Dodge Dakote 4-cyl pickup. But
sometime in the future, that will wear out or I'll get tired of the
standard shift, and it'll be replaced. 2 vehicles interest me: the
Honda Ridgeline pickup, and the Subaru Baja (either at least 3 years
old, I'm done with new vehicles). Does anyone have any experience
with either of these for towing gliders?

tia,
Ed

[Ray Lovinggood]

It's a Class I hitch, with the 1-1/4' bar.

Sad story here. I just had the hitch replaced. Another
'School of Hard Knocks' diploma for my wall. I need
a larger wall.

The first hitch just about tore off the bottom of my
trunk. The hitch bolted to the central rear tie down
loop and also through the 'Oh Too Thin' sheet metal
of the bottom of the trunk. I recently found the bottom
of the trunk severely cracked with the spare tire about
to fall out. I think the damage was not from towing,
but from the times I was jacking up the front of the
trailer to release it from the hitch, but the connection
not releasing. So, I was just jacking up the rear
of the car and the front of the trailer. To get it
to release, I had to step on the draw bar (glad my
shoe is small enough to fit) and put a bit of weight
on it. I've since found keeping the ball and hitch
wiped clean before connecting allows them to separate
easily. Putting oil on the ball works, too, but attracts
dirt and then leaves this big ol' greasy spot on my
shin.

The trunk got welded up and a new style hitch installed.
This new hitch attaches to the same central tow loop
but instead of going into the thin (very, very thin)
sheet metal of the bottom of the trunk, the two arms
reach more forward where they can bolt into the 'frame
rails'. Holes already exist in the frame rails, so
no drilling was required for this hitch.

A couple of months ago, I also had a transmission oil
cooler added.

Neither the hitch nor the tranny cooler are supplied
by Honda.

I just returned from a 900 mile round trip of towing
the trailer to Cordele, Georgia and back. I haven't
noted a problem with the new hitch.

The only problem I have now after a week of flying
is that I'm back into the drudgery of work :-(

Ray


At 15:36 19 May 2007, Tuno wrote:
>Ray, did you have trouble getting a classs III hitch
>on your Accord?
>(I assume the dealer wouldn't touch this?)
>
>

[SAM 303a]

Jeep Liberty CRD
2.8L diesel. At 80 mph, I get 24 mpg running petroleum diesel; 22 mpg
running 100% biodiesel.
Not a bad compromise.

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
> Well, gas is $3.50/Gal in many parts of the US and who is to say it won't
> be $4/gal next summer. This is starting to hurt - and getting me to think
> of a more economical vehicle.
>
> Many of us drive larger vehicles than we might otherwise choose simply to
> pull our trailers 1% of the time. 99% of the time, we could be driving,
> say, a Volkswagen Passat TDI diesel getting 45mpg. The problem isn't the
> gas milage when towing a glider trailer. We don't do that often enough
> for it to impact out annual fuel budget. The problem is a big SUV as a
> daily driver.
>
> So, are there any tricks here? One is to simply own two cars. One to
> pull a trailer and another for a daily driver that gets good milage.
> Paying license fees, insurance and other fixed costs for a vehicle driven
> 1% of the time seems outrageous though.
>
> The other thread about surge brakes got me thinking WAY outside the box.
> Is there a way for the trailer to be self-propelled? If one were to
> install a load sensor in the trailer tongue that could sense the pull of
> the tow vehicle as well as the push of an over-running trailer, could that
> control a small power plant in the trailer that drove the trailer's
> wheels? If done perfectly, a light towing vehicle might not feel the
> trailer at all.
>
> If the trailer power were electric, you would have a parallel, plug-in
> hybrid. The car engine would charge the trailer batteries when they were
> not needed for propulsion and the electrics would kick in on the hills.
> Downhill regenerative braking would also charge the trailer batteries as
> could large solar panels on the trailer.
>
> It might work fine for a short commute to the glider field and maybe not
> so well on a cross country trip but it's fun thinking about.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

[Vsoars]

On May 18, 8:50 am, Bruce > wrote:
> Dan G wrote:
> > I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
> > Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
> > of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
> > of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
> > capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
> > comfortably.
>
> > *85% kerbweight - with 7% of the trailer's weight on the hitch or the
> > tow car's maximum, whichever is lower - is the maximum safe weight for
> > good stability, arrived at by the University of Bath in the 1990s when
> > they did instrumented testing and model simulation of tow cars and
> > trailer combinations.
>
> > Dan
>
> Closed Trailer with a Std Cirrus in it is 680kg (54% is easily inside the
> 85%)The sail effect is a bigger decider for me - the trailer can push a smaller
> car around when you are exposed to gusts at speed.
>
> Hatchback weight is 1250Kg. Tows happily at the national speed limit, although
> it does get a bit hard work in the mountains. Tops of our passes are around
> 2,300m MSL Nothing too bad for the small car to tow. Then I got into a Kestrel
> T59D with one piece wings. It's trailer is unaerodynamic, heavy (>900Kg) and
> just plain huge.
> The stability issue is in a different class. With nearly 2 tons of Wales' best
> (XC70 is made in Wales not Sweden) and a really big polar moment on such a long
> vehicle, the disturbance from trucks and wind is a lot lower. Fuel consumption
> is not that different towing the trailer between the two - unless you get
> irresponsible/inattentive with the speed. The control reserve is generally
> bigger with the bigger car.
> So stability is the primary towing reason for getting the barge - the other
> reasons are indefensible. (It's hard making a logical case for something that
> comes down to - "I like it".)In town the hatchback is the place to be - on the
> open road or dirt roads the Volvo is a far nicer ride.
>
> Cost - @ 2l/100km additional fuel is around 400litres per year. (roughly 100US
> gallons)At ~R7/l (4USD/US gallon) that is quite a lot of money. In South Africa
> the cost of my vehicular extravagance is equivalent to at least one tow per
> month. I winch launch so the extra fuel for the trip to the airfield is close to
> the cost of a winch launch.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A BMW Z3 is a great tow vehicle for light-weight trailers- it does not
sway and consumes little gas. When I got a heavier trailer, I decied
to give my Z3 a rest. Towing with a sedan was a constant battle, so I
didn't consider buyng a new vehicle with a hitch far beynd the
wheels. I found the idea vehicle - a V6 Rav 4. Great gas milage -24+
and around 20 MPG at 75 MPH with the trailer. Mounain passes are no
problem. It's is uneffected by trucks and strong cross-winds. The
tow package makes set-up easy and is certified for a much haevier tow
weight than we require. It doesn't beat the Z3's gas milage nor the
3's surprise factor, but the Rav is a real winner.

[Nyal Williams]

It's ok, Ray; keep paying into that social security
fund -- I need the money!

At 13:30 21 May 2007, Ray Lovinggood wrote:
>It's a Class I hitch, with the 1-1/4' bar.
>
>Sad story here. I just had the hitch replaced. Another
>'School of Hard Knocks' diploma for my wall. I need
>a larger wall.
>
>The first hitch just about tore off the bottom of my
>trunk. The hitch bolted to the central rear tie down
>loop and also through the 'Oh Too Thin' sheet metal
>of the bottom of the trunk. I recently found the bottom
>of the trunk severely cracked with the spare tire about
>to fall out. I think the damage was not from towing,
>but from the times I was jacking up the front of the
>trailer to release it from the hitch, but the connection
>not releasing. So, I was just jacking up the rear
>of the car and the front of the trailer. To get it
>to release, I had to step on the draw bar (glad my
>shoe is small enough to fit) and put a bit of weight
>on it. I've since found keeping the ball and hitch
>wiped clean before connecting allows them to separate
>easily. Putting oil on the ball works, too, but attracts
>dirt and then leaves this big ol' greasy spot on my
>shin.
>
>The trunk got welded up and a new style hitch installed.
> This new hitch attaches to the same central tow loop
>but instead of going into the thin (very, very thin)
>sheet metal of the bottom of the trunk, the two arms
>reach more forward where they can bolt into the 'frame
>rails'. Holes already exist in the frame rails, so
>no drilling was required for this hitch.
>
>A couple of months ago, I also had a transmission oil
>cooler added.
>
>Neither the hitch nor the tranny cooler are supplied
>by Honda.
>
>I just returned from a 900 mile round trip of towing
>the trailer to Cordele, Georgia and back. I haven't
>noted a problem with the new hitch.
>
>The only problem I have now after a week of flying
>is that I'm back into the drudgery of work :-(
>
>Ray
>
>
>At 15:36 19 May 2007, Tuno wrote:
>>Ray, did you have trouble getting a classs III hitch
>>on your Accord?
>>(I assume the dealer wouldn't touch this?)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[flying_monkey]

> Jeep Liberty CRD
> 2.8L diesel. At 80 mph, I get 24 mpg running petroleum diesel; 22 mpg
> running 100% biodiesel.
> Not a bad compromise.
>
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message

Bill,

I'd agree, that sounds good. I looked into one of those a couple of
years ago, but ended up not doing anything about it. How do you like
the way it drives, and how big of a guy are you? How much diesel
noise do you have when driving it? I've owned several diesels, most
recently a 1982 MB 300SD. Shot it due to old age and too many things
broken, too bad, it was among the best cars I've ever driven. My
attraction to the Jeep is somewhat reduced by the experience I had
once with a rental Cherokee, maybe in about 1987. Biggest pos I ever
drove. Have they gotten it better in the Liberty? I know that the
engine will last forever, but will the car? What's the mpg with the
general mix of everyday city and country driving?

Thanks,
Ed

[Bill Daniels]

"flying_monkey" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Jeep Liberty CRD
>> 2.8L diesel. At 80 mph, I get 24 mpg running petroleum diesel; 22 mpg
>> running 100% biodiesel.
>> Not a bad compromise.
>>
>> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>
> Bill,
>
> I'd agree, that sounds good. I looked into one of those a couple of
> years ago, but ended up not doing anything about it. How do you like
> the way it drives, and how big of a guy are you? How much diesel
> noise do you have when driving it? I've owned several diesels, most
> recently a 1982 MB 300SD. Shot it due to old age and too many things
> broken, too bad, it was among the best cars I've ever driven. My
> attraction to the Jeep is somewhat reduced by the experience I had
> once with a rental Cherokee, maybe in about 1987. Biggest pos I ever
> drove. Have they gotten it better in the Liberty? I know that the
> engine will last forever, but will the car? What's the mpg with the
> general mix of everyday city and country driving?
>
> Thanks,
> Ed
>

The Jeep Liberty post wasn't from me but I can add a comment. My '94 Jeep
Grand Cherokee Ltd. turned 250,000 miles a couple of months ago. The engine
and transmission have never been touched. All the body, electronics and
suspension systems still work perfectly. It doesn't even rattle. The
leather seats look new. It consumes 1 Qt of oil in 4000 miles. Although it
has required some maintenance, it's still the most reliable vehicle I've
ever owned.

In fact, there's a lot of electronic systems in the vehicle and none have
ever failed or required any maintenance. Where maintenance has been
required is in the mechanical systems. The bearings in the front and rear
axles just wore out at about 225K miles ($1200). I replaced the water pump
($45) once and the radiator ($100) three times. In-tank fuel pumps are a
real pain but I replaced that with a $100 aftermarket in-line pump that I
can change on the roadside with a screwdriver in 15 minutes.

Even with extremely capable 4WD and a 5.2L V8, I get 24 MPG (10L/100km) on
the highway. Add a heavy trailer and hot mountain roads and it drops to
19MPG.

With the optional diesel engine, the Liberty looks great. A local pilot
bought one to tow a ASK-21 trailer. I'm watching to see how it works out.

Bill Daniels

[SAM 303a]

I like it a lot.
I'm 6', 180 lb--plenty of leftover headroom, hip room and shoulder room.
City mpg is 2-3 mpg lower.
I liked the Cherokee I had a few years back--put about 140k miles on that
one and sold it for a lot more than I expected to. Pretty happy w/Jeep
products.

"flying_monkey" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Jeep Liberty CRD
>> 2.8L diesel. At 80 mph, I get 24 mpg running petroleum diesel; 22 mpg
>> running 100% biodiesel.
>> Not a bad compromise.
>>
>> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>
> Bill,
>
> I'd agree, that sounds good. I looked into one of those a couple of
> years ago, but ended up not doing anything about it. How do you like
> the way it drives, and how big of a guy are you? How much diesel
> noise do you have when driving it? I've owned several diesels, most
> recently a 1982 MB 300SD. Shot it due to old age and too many things
> broken, too bad, it was among the best cars I've ever driven. My
> attraction to the Jeep is somewhat reduced by the experience I had
> once with a rental Cherokee, maybe in about 1987. Biggest pos I ever
> drove. Have they gotten it better in the Liberty? I know that the
> engine will last forever, but will the car? What's the mpg with the
> general mix of everyday city and country driving?
>
> Thanks,
> Ed
>

[mattm]

On May 20, 9:37 am, Bullwinkle > wrote:
> On 5/20/07 6:24 AM, in article
> om, "Doug Hoffman"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 18, 7:05 am, Dan G > wrote:
> >> I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
> >> Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
> >> of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
> >> of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
> >> capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
> >> comfortably.
>
> > The maximum towing capacity is specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
> > The Passat TDi may or may not be rated for up to 3,000lbs.
>
> > My Neon 2.0L with manual transmission (less than $14,000 new)
> > routinely gave me 33-38 mpg depending on driving cycle. It could
> > easily pull my 15m glider with its 2,000lb towing rating. I wonder
> > how much a Prius is rated for towing?
>
> > Re: gasoline-elctric hybrids
>
> > The Prius stickers at around $24,000. The full government rebate is
> > limited to the first 60,000 Prius per model year (about $3,000):
>
> >http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/a/hybridtaxcredit.htm
>
> > If I miss out on the full government rebate then I would pay up to
> > $10,000 more than the Neon to drive a vehicle which I doubt will tow
> > my glider. Let's not even consider the extra cost for maintenance and
> > repairs or battery replacement costs.
>
> > For $10,000 I can drive my conventional technology Neon over 87,000
> > miles, assuming gasoline is $4/gal and 35mpg. And still tow my glider
> > most places (albeit less than 35mpg while towing).
>
> > Btw, I think vehicles like the Prius are great. But they are no
> > silver bullet (I know you didn't claim they were).
>
> > (Going a bit further OT):
> > If we truly believe what Al Gore is saying, then we would all
> > immediately stop using anything that creates CO2 and other greenhouse
> > gases (I guess we should still allow ourselves to breath as our bodies
> > do create CO2 and water vapor, both GHGs). Park all cars and trucks
> > permanently. Ground all airplanes and so forth. As far as
> > inconvenience to daily life, so what? We are talking about saving the
> > planet, right (at least according to Gore and some others)? Maybe
> > even if Gore believed what he is saying he would stop living in a huge
> > house that consumes many times the energy of the average US house. Or
> > is that four houses he owns?
>
> > Regards,
>
> > -Doug
>
> Apologize if I missed this elsewhere in the thread, but FYI the Prius is
> prohibited from towing, per the owner's manual.
>
> The Highlander Hybrid is OK for towing, per its owner's manual.
>
> Regards,
> Bullwinkle

Actually the biggest advantage of the hybrids (for towing) is that the
electric drive gets its best
torque at 0 rpm. This allows you to get a good start without
overtaxing your
engine or transmission. This also improves the highway mileage
because a smaller
gas engine can power the car -- most of the power in a conventional
car is used
for low speed torque and power, and only around 15% is needed for
maintaining your
highway speed.

The hybrids wind up wearing much more slowly as a result. When I
did my first oil change at 5K miles on mine the oil looked unused.
I've also seen
picture of the brake pads on a hybrid that showed no wear after 110K
miles, since
most of the braking effort comes from electrical generation. The
brake pads only
get used once your speed drops to around 6mph or less.

[mattm]

On May 21, 9:24 am, Ray Lovinggood
> wrote:
> It's a Class I hitch, with the 1-1/4' bar.
>
> Sad story here. I just had the hitch replaced. Another
> 'School of Hard Knocks' diploma for my wall. I need
> a larger wall.
>
> The first hitch just about tore off the bottom of my
> trunk. The hitch bolted to the central rear tie down
> loop and also through the 'Oh Too Thin' sheet metal
> of the bottom of the trunk. I recently found the bottom
> of the trunk severely cracked with the spare tire about
> to fall out. I think the damage was not from towing,
> but from the times I was jacking up the front of the
> trailer to release it from the hitch, but the connection
> not releasing. So, I was just jacking up the rear
> of the car and the front of the trailer. To get it
> to release, I had to step on the draw bar (glad my
> shoe is small enough to fit) and put a bit of weight
> on it. I've since found keeping the ball and hitch
> wiped clean before connecting allows them to separate
> easily. Putting oil on the ball works, too, but attracts
> dirt and then leaves this big ol' greasy spot on my
> shin.
>
> The trunk got welded up and a new style hitch installed.
> This new hitch attaches to the same central tow loop
> but instead of going into the thin (very, very thin)
> sheet metal of the bottom of the trunk, the two arms
> reach more forward where they can bolt into the 'frame
> rails'. Holes already exist in the frame rails, so
> no drilling was required for this hitch.
>
> A couple of months ago, I also had a transmission oil
> cooler added.
>
> Neither the hitch nor the tranny cooler are supplied
> by Honda.
>
> I just returned from a 900 mile round trip of towing
> the trailer to Cordele, Georgia and back. I haven't
> noted a problem with the new hitch.
>
> The only problem I have now after a week of flying
> is that I'm back into the drudgery of work :-(
>
> Ray
>
> At 15:36 19 May 2007, Tuno wrote:
>
> >Ray, did you have trouble getting a classs III hitch
> >on your Accord?
> >(I assume the dealer wouldn't touch this?)

Ray, I tried taking your minivan remark from the other day to heart
(note to others: this was spoken at the airfield, so don't try to find
it on RAS!)
and fixed up my wife's old Voyager. It didn't hurt to see Frank
Paynter's
setup when he was at Perry, either.

However, my efforts at being nice to its transmission have resulted in
a small river of transmission fluid flowing away from it in the
parking lot
this afternoon. I'm still sticking to the Toyota pickup for now...

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> If you want to look at alternative liguid fuels for the existing fleet
> consider Butanol (Butyl alcohol). It has about the same energy content as
> gasolene, burns at the same air-fuel mixture and has an octane rating of 94.
> It can be made from biomass at better net energy yeld than ethanol. Since
> you can mix it with gasolene at any ratio with no changes needed in the
> engines, it looks better to me than ethanol.
>
Butanol sounds like a good idea. I've seen puffs for methanol and
ethanol but no mention of butanol. I wonder why.

I mentioned solar or nuke driven industrial sources for any such fuel
(and quoted ethyl as an example) because I think that biofuel is too
limited by the availability of both arable land and water to replace
oil-based fuels.

Possibly irrelevant, but I remember seeing a Scientific American article
back in the late 60s/early 70s on this topic. I forget what triggered it
(possibly a comment on a back to nature movement) but it pointed out
that even then it would be impossible to replace America's oil-powered
transport systems with horses because there wasn't the farm land in the
USA to feed the horses, let alone produce anything else. OK, horses are
not exactly efficient energy sources. Replace them with something more
efficient (biodiesel powered engines?) and factor in the increased
energy consumption after 40 years of economic growth and I think the
argument still holds.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Jack wrote:
> Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>
>> Currently, the 300M Americans emits more CO2 and consumes more oil
>> than the next four countries together, including the 1B+ Chinese and
>> 1B+ Indians. 23% of the total CO2 emission in the world comes the US.
>
>
> Today is not the problem. Demand increases as population increases and
> as international interactions increase.
>
America does sometimes seem to be trying to breed its way to parity with
one of the highest birth rates of any developed country.

> Resentments are not solutions.
>
Of course.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
>
> The first hitch just about tore off the bottom of my
> trunk. The hitch bolted to the central rear tie down
> loop and also through the 'Oh Too Thin' sheet metal
> of the bottom of the trunk.
>

Never forget the two magic phrases:

"Never let a gorilla near your engine"

and

"Gorillas live in garages"

This sound advice was offered by one Brigadier Prendergast (Ret.), who
wrote one of the best guides to the overland route from London to Delhi.
I forgot it once. My transmission suffered from the resulting TLC.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Bill Daniels]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> If you want to look at alternative liguid fuels for the existing fleet
>> consider Butanol (Butyl alcohol). It has about the same energy content
>> as gasolene, burns at the same air-fuel mixture and has an octane rating
>> of 94. It can be made from biomass at better net energy yeld than
>> ethanol. Since you can mix it with gasolene at any ratio with no changes
>> needed in the engines, it looks better to me than ethanol.
>>
> Butanol sounds like a good idea. I've seen puffs for methanol and ethanol
> but no mention of butanol. I wonder why.
>
> I mentioned solar or nuke driven industrial sources for any such fuel (and
> quoted ethyl as an example) because I think that biofuel is too limited by
> the availability of both arable land and water to replace oil-based fuels.
>
> Possibly irrelevant, but I remember seeing a Scientific American article
> back in the late 60s/early 70s on this topic. I forget what triggered it
> (possibly a comment on a back to nature movement) but it pointed out that
> even then it would be impossible to replace America's oil-powered
> transport systems with horses because there wasn't the farm land in the
> USA to feed the horses, let alone produce anything else. OK, horses are
> not exactly efficient energy sources. Replace them with something more
> efficient (biodiesel powered engines?) and factor in the increased energy
> consumption after 40 years of economic growth and I think the argument
> still holds.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org

I actually think that GM has a good idea in the "Volt". It's an electric
car with a bay into which you (or GM) can install an electricity source like
a genset (diesel or spark), a fuel cell stack or even more batteries. The
flexibility is the value added.

Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge time.
Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged in
less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time is
just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For serious
"off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.

The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
electricity can come from almost any source.

My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer if
the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead and
behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle just
guides it.

Bill Daniels

[Paul Hanson]

>I actually think that GM has a good idea in the 'Volt'.
> It's an electric
>car with a bay into which you (or GM) can install an
>electricity source like
>a genset (diesel or spark), a fuel cell stack or even
>more batteries. The
>flexibility is the value added.
>
>Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite
>possibly the final
>answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of
>lithium ion battery
>technology advancements in the key areas of energy
>density and charge time.
>Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that
>can be fully charged in
>less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge
>cycles. Charge time is
>just as important as driving range with electrics with
>one offsetting the
>other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes
>at convienient
>locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between
>charges. For serious
>'off grid' driving, the Volt approach looks good.
>
>The so called 'hydrogen economy' is just bafflegab
>from the Bush
>administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not
>likely to be part of
>the solution. An 'electric economy' however is easy
>to imagine.
>Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle
>can be slowly
>recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging
>station. The
>electricity can come from almost any source.
>
>My original thought is that even an electric could
>tow a glider trailer if
>the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine
>side boxes ahead and
>behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and
>wheels containing
>electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and
>the 'tow' vehicle just
>guides it.
>
>Bill Daniels
>


To add some hope to this situation, albeit down the
road, and some fuel to this debate, check out this
bit of emerging technology:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5192/

It is a carbon nanotube capacitor, and the article
I linked does a much better and fuller job of explaining
it than I should here. If this technology is 'allowed'
to develop and be distributed, the future does not
look so bleak.
BTW, for those of you who don't already, spend some
time navigating around the parent site the article
is from, www.gizmag.com , with it's many sections (including
aero gizmo). There is a LOT of info there, with wonderful
(and of course some lame ones) new inventions and emerging
technology, updated often. It actually feels like it
is 2007, like the future IS here, when you check out
some of these things, instead of the year 'nineteen
ninety seventeen' we seem stuck in presently. This
site is everything Popular Science and Popular Mechanics
ever wished it could be.

Paul Hanson

"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

[Doug Hoffman]

On May 21, 10:55 am, "SAM 303a" <brentDAHTsullivanATgmailDAHTcom>
wrote:
> Jeep Liberty CRD
> 2.8L diesel. At 80 mph, I get 24 mpg running petroleum diesel; 22 mpg
> running 100% biodiesel.
> Not a bad compromise.

Yes. The Liberty CRD is a *very* nice package.

Now the Grand Cherokee comes with a 3.0L V-6 turbodiesel. The engine
is a Mercedes. Check your local Jeep dealership as they should just
now be coming in. This should be an excellent package for those with
heavier gliders to tow.

Regards,

-Doug

[Dan G]

On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
> answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
> technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge time.
> Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged in
> less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time is
> just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
> other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
> locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For serious
> "off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.
>
> The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
> administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
> the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
> Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
> recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
> electricity can come from almost any source.
>
> My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer if
> the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead and
> behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
> electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle just
> guides it.
>
> Bill Daniels

Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
a considerable weight and space saving.

No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
potential:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/jm/News/HotPalomino.asp

It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.


Dan

[Bill Daniels]

"Dan G" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
>> answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
>> technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge
>> time.
>> Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged
>> in
>> less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time
>> is
>> just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
>> other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
>> locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For
>> serious
>> "off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.
>>
>> The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
>> administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
>> the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
>> Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
>> recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
>> electricity can come from almost any source.
>>
>> My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer
>> if
>> the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead
>> and
>> behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
>> electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle
>> just
>> guides it.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
> Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
> over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
> it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
> promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
> batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
> regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
> countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
> going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
> be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
> a considerable weight and space saving.
>
> No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
> huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
> storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
> mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
> while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
> potential:
>
> http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/jm/News/HotPalomino.asp
>
> It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
> been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.
>
>
> Dan
>

Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:

Fuel Cells - a Reality Check
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730

It says the likely effeciency of fuel cells is 14 - 28% which doesn't take
into account the hydrogen production losses which are considerable. More
than one person has suggested that the whole "hydrogen economy" thing is a
stalking horse for the nuclear industry since the only way to produce enough
hydrogen to replace petroleum based motor vehicle fuels is with about 1500
new nuclear power plants. Even with those, building a hydrogen distribution
and storage system would be a formidable undertaking. I smell pork barrel
politics.

In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
eliminating thermal runaway. The electric power industry has stated that
the existing power grid can recharge electric cars whithout problems even if
85% of the existing cars were electric. Again with an existing distribution
system and fast charge batteries giving a 300 mile range, it's going to be
hard to beat simple electrics.

Bill Daniels

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 21, 6:37 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Dan G" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> >> Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
> >> answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
> >> technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge
> >> time.
> >> Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged
> >> in
> >> less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time
> >> is
> >> just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
> >> other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
> >> locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For
> >> serious
> >> "off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.
>
> >> The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
> >> administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
> >> the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
> >> Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
> >> recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
> >> electricity can come from almost any source.
>
> >> My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer
> >> if
> >> the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead
> >> and
> >> behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
> >> electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle
> >> just
> >> guides it.
>
> >> Bill Daniels
>
> > Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
> > over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
> > it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
> > promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
> > batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
> > regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
> > countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
> > going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
> > be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
> > a considerable weight and space saving.
>
> > No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
> > huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
> > storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
> > mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
> > while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
> > potential:
>
> >http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/jm/News/HotPalomino.asp
>
> > It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
> > been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.
>
> > Dan
>
> Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:
>
> Fuel Cells - a Reality Checkhttp://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730
>
> It says the likely effeciency of fuel cells is 14 - 28% which doesn't take
> into account the hydrogen production losses which are considerable. More
> than one person has suggested that the whole "hydrogen economy" thing is a
> stalking horse for the nuclear industry since the only way to produce enough
> hydrogen to replace petroleum based motor vehicle fuels is with about 1500
> new nuclear power plants. Even with those, building a hydrogen distribution
> and storage system would be a formidable undertaking. I smell pork barrel
> politics.
>
> In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
> doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
> eliminating thermal runaway. The electric power industry has stated that
> the existing power grid can recharge electric cars whithout problems even if
> 85% of the existing cars were electric. Again with an existing distribution
> system and fast charge batteries giving a 300 mile range, it's going to be
> hard to beat simple electrics.
>
> Bill Daniels

http://www.physorg.com/news97255464.html

Never know where a major paradigm shift might show up.

Say by throwing cheap H2 in here
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4828

Or here, thinking outside the box, something different here
http://www.physorg.com/news94144517.html

Cheap is a relative number, but without the platinum.....

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 21, 9:55 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On May 21, 6:37 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dan G" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > > On May 21, 7:42 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> > >> Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
> > >> answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
> > >> technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge
> > >> time.
> > >> Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged
> > >> in
> > >> less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time
> > >> is
> > >> just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
> > >> other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
> > >> locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For
> > >> serious
> > >> "off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.
>
> > >> The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
> > >> administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
> > >> the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
> > >> Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
> > >> recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
> > >> electricity can come from almost any source.
>
> > >> My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer
> > >> if
> > >> the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead
> > >> and
> > >> behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
> > >> electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle
> > >> just
> > >> guides it.
>
> > >> Bill Daniels
>
> > > Disagree wholesale. Li battery technology development has plateaued
> > > over the last few years. Sony's Nexelion is as good as it gets and
> > > it's not good enough. Li-polymer didn't give the better energy density
> > > promised and suffers equally from the one of the problem of all li
> > > batteries - ageing. All lithium batteries die within a few years
> > > regardless of how they are used (li-ion batteries can be cycled
> > > countless times). Just ask any iPod owner. All the current research is
> > > going into sustaining high discharge rates, and the first results will
> > > be seen in the 2009 Prius which will drop nickel batteries for li with
> > > a considerable weight and space saving.
>
> > > No, there's a reason why all the R&D money is going into fuel cells -
> > > huge potential. Fuel cell efficiency is improving rapidly and hydrogen
> > > storage via simple compression is already practical (witness the 300
> > > mile drive on a single tank by a couple of GM fuel cars last week)
> > > while hydrogen adsorption has (again that magic feature) huge
> > > potential:
>
> > >http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/jm/News/HotPalomino.asp
>
> > > It's that "low-hanging fruit" thing. Battery technology's has already
> > > been picked while fuel cell's are still hanging.
>
> > > Dan
>
> > Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:
>
> > Fuel Cells - a Reality Checkhttp://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730
>
> > It says the likely effeciency of fuel cells is 14 - 28% which doesn't take
> > into account the hydrogen production losses which are considerable. More
> > than one person has suggested that the whole "hydrogen economy" thing is a
> > stalking horse for the nuclear industry since the only way to produce enough
> > hydrogen to replace petroleum based motor vehicle fuels is with about 1500
> > new nuclear power plants. Even with those, building a hydrogen distribution
> > and storage system would be a formidable undertaking. I smell pork barrel
> > politics.
>
> > In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
> > doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
> > eliminating thermal runaway. The electric power industry has stated that
> > the existing power grid can recharge electric cars whithout problems even if
> > 85% of the existing cars were electric. Again with an existing distribution
> > system and fast charge batteries giving a 300 mile range, it's going to be
> > hard to beat simple electrics.
>
> > Bill Daniels
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news97255464.html
>
> Never know where a major paradigm shift might show up.
>
> Say by throwing cheap H2 in herehttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4828
>
> Or here, thinking outside the box, something different herehttp://www.physorg.com/news94144517.html
>
> Cheap is a relative number, but without the platinum.....
>
> Frank Whiteley

Now here's a hybrid tow vehicle
http://tinyurl.com/yskkk9

Frank

[bagmaker]

Bill,
the most efficient diesel engines (large, like container ship large) are only thirty-something % effecient. Noise, jacket and exhaust temperature increase make up the rest of the power otherwise put in. Small engines, like those even in your american supersize cars, are pitifully inefficient in comparison to a ship size diesel.
Low 20s % is pretty good for new technology.
But hey! Someone wants to re-power a self-launcher with hydrogen, LI batteries (more than 2 birds needed!) nuke - I dont care, bring it on!
The best place for a rotax is on a lawnmower


Bagger (diving, rolling for cover)
:-)

[Bill Daniels]

Actually, the enormous Sulzer 2-stroke diesels used in container ships get
more than 50% thermal efficiency and produce more than100,000 HP at ~100
RPM. In general, the bigger they are, the higher the efficiency. See:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

The much maligned American V8 actually can top 40% effeciency if operated
carefully. That number results from recovery of reject heat energy inherent
in the V8 concept. As they are normally operated, they get more like 25%
thermal effeciency, however. If I run my 5.2L V8 at 1500RPM (45mph) on a
straight and level road it gets 37 MPG.

As for electrics, one of the really far out ideas under vigorous research
right now is "Beta Voltaics". It is a device that captures the energy of
beta electrons from the radioactive decay of tritium much like a solar cell
captures energy from photons. Combine this with Lithium cells and you have
a "self charging" battery.

Bill Daniels


"bagmaker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bill,
> the most efficient diesel engines (large, like container ship large)
> are only thirty-something % effecient. Noise, jacket and exhaust
> temperature increase make up the rest of the power otherwise put in.
> Small engines, like those even in your american supersize cars, are
> pitifully inefficient in comparison to a ship size diesel.
> Low 20s % is pretty good for new technology.
> But hey! Someone wants to re-power a self-launcher with hydrogen, LI
> batteries (more than 2 birds needed!) nuke - I dont care, bring it on!
> The best place for a rotax is on a lawnmower
>
>
> Bagger (diving, rolling for cover)
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> --
> bagmaker

[st4s03]

Can you imagine the change that would occur in our atmosphere if
millions of vehicles around the world would be burning Hydrogen and
producing water vapor as a by-product? This vapor will be condensed at
some point and most likely just when you want to fly. Over-developing
sky and increase precipitation. The clouds would reflect the suns
energy and we would enter a new ice age. Maybe it is an antidote to
global warming.

[Dan G]

On May 22, 1:37 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:
>
> Fuel Cells - a Reality Checkhttp://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730

That article is three years old - as I said, fuel cells are getting
the funding because of their *potential*. Three years later usable
fuel cars exist:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/16/two-chevy-sequels-go-over-300-miles-on-real-roads-with-hydrogen

OK, they're $35m each, but it shows what is feasible :-).

> In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
> doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
> eliminating thermal runaway.

Yes, the manganese electrode from Argonne. Quite an interesting
development, not least as the researchers didn't expect that level of
success and don't know how come it worked! Currently has severe issues
with the manganese being consumed and excessive oxygen production
(lithium+oxygen=bang). Still, could lead to some interesting
developments. But laptop fuel cell batteries already have 20 hour
endurances, so even a doubling of capacity wouldn't bring li batteries
close to the same level of performance.

Re your efficient V8 - is your engine one which shuts down a bank at
low load? I believe quite a few US V8s do that nowadays, so you were
actually getting 37mpg from a 2.7l I4 :-). Also I can't say I fancy
driving at 45mph everywhere - I measured my European petrol car at
39mpg last year after a 200 mile drive at 90mph.


Dan

[Bill Daniels]

> Re your efficient V8 - is your engine one which shuts down a bank at
> low load? I believe quite a few US V8s do that nowadays, so you were
> actually getting 37mpg from a 2.7l I4 :-). Also I can't say I fancy
> driving at 45mph everywhere - I measured my European petrol car at
> 39mpg last year after a 200 mile drive at 90mph.
>
>
> Dan

Nothing that fancy. It runs on 8 all the time. My point that the roughly
round shape of a V8 has minimum surface area for heat leakage and has some
low tech but effective heat redistribution passages that increase
efficiency. Henry Ford figgured that out back in the 1930's.

The biggest problem with a V8 isn't the number of cylinders which have the
advantage of increasing the total piston area and decreasing pumping losses.
The real problem is internal friction from all those moving parts. A
somewhat plausable comparison is a 4 cylinder Lycoming 360 Cu In airplane
engine which can be easilly turned over by hand - something that is
impossible with my 318 Cu In V8. There are low friction thin films that can
be vapor deposited onto engine parts. Motorcycle racers use them to get 8 -
10% more efficiency. I'd like to see what that would do for the venerable
V8.

Combining our two ideas it seems that what you get with a more fuel
efficient car is the ability to drive it faster while using about the same
amount of fuel. I can get good economy by just slowing down while retaining
the capability of towing a heavy trailer.

Bill Daniels

[Dan G]

If this appears twice, it's cos I'm having trouble posting (anyone
else?)

On May 22, 1:37 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Hmm... I'd suggest reading this article by no less than EV Weekly:
>
> Fuel Cells - a Reality Checkhttp://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=730

That article is four years old - as I said fuel cell's promise is in
the potential, and now there are (proper, not lightweight specials)
cars capable of 300 miles on a single fill of hydrogen:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/16/two-chevy-sequels-go-over-300-miles-on-real-roads-with-hydrogen

> In the last few days, one of the national labs, Los Alamos I think, reported
> doubling the energy density of lithium ion batteries while virtually
> eliminating thermal runaway.

T'was Argonne using manganese electrodes. It's interesting as the
researchers neither expected the results nor can explain them! Still
plenty of issues - limited life cycles and excessive production of
oxygen (lithium+oxygen+heat=BANG).

Even with a doubling of capacity li batteries can't match fuel cells
though - Panasonic has a fuel cell laptop battery with a 20 hour
endurance. Much more expensive to produce of course but demonstrates
the much greater performance possible with FCs.

Re your efficient V8 - is yours one of those new ones which shuts down
a bank at light loads? If so you got 37mpg from a 2.7l I4, not a 5.2l
V8 :-). Mind you I don't fancy driving everywhere at 45mph - I
measured 39mpg from my Euro petrol over a 200 mile 90mph drive last
year.


Dan

[Bill Daniels]

I absolutely agree and I admire those European diesels. Unfortunately few
of them are available in the US. Until very recently the only passenger car
available with a diesel was the VW Passat. Id love to trade my V8 for a
diesel.

Bill Daniels


"Asbjorn Hojmark" > wrote in message
t...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:17:04 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
> <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>> If I run my 5.2L V8 at 1500RPM (45mph) on a straight and level road
>> it gets 37 MPG.
>
> Many European cars rutinely do 35-45 MPG *on average* and close to 50
> MPG on a straight and level road. That's running on diesel, but with
> only e.g. 150 g/km CO2 emission. Your 5,2L is likely more than double.
>
> -A
> --
> http://www.hojmark.org/soaring.html

[bikensoar]

On May 19, 2:06 pm, Stewart Kissel
> wrote:
> Your diatribe reminded me of a line from a long forgotten
> movie from the '70's called 'Rancho Deluxe'. I clipped
> the quote below from a review of that movie. Oversized
> SUV's rate right up there with Coca-Cola and MacDonalds
> as proof what clever marketing combined with US tastes
> can produce :( And I happen to drive a F150-great
> tow vehicle, lousy gas mileage.
>
> 'I've seen more of this state's poor cowboys, miners,
> railroaders and Indians go broke buyin' pickup trucks.
> The poor people of this state are dope fiends for pickup
> trucks. As soon's they get ten cents ahead they trade
> in on a new pickup truck. The families, homesteads,
> schools, hospitals and happiness of Montana have been
> sold down the river to buy pickup trucks!... And there's
> a sickness here worse than alcohol and dope. It is
> the pickup truck death! And there's no cure in sight.'
>
> >Conversely, I cannot understand why people would want
> >to drive something the >size of a Tahoe, or Suburban
> >or whatever on a daily basis. Most of these are >simply
> >marketing exercises to improve profits. Cheap, relatively
>
> unsophisticated >light truck design. Add massive body
>
>
>
> >(to cart sprung bendy chassis) - way up
> >high so the CG gets even worse, and market it as a
> >lifestyle. Give it slab sides >to look macho - Very
> >good for profits, even if the roll over accident rate
> >soars...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I own a 2001 VW Eurovan camper. It has the Passat engine (6 cyl, 24
valve) and 16 " wheels. It tows like a dream
and gets near 20 mpg. They quit importing to the US in 2003 and now
are in high demand. I paid a little over
30k for mine. A year later for the exact same vehicle the price went
to 40k and now people are paying
up to 50k for a low mileage version of the 2001-2003 models.

It also doubles as a good around town vehicle (unlike most RVs) It
seats six and drives and parks like any
midsize car.

George

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

bikensoar wrote:
> I own a 2001 VW Eurovan camper. It has the Passat engine (6 cyl, 24
> valve) and 16 " wheels. It tows like a dream
> and gets near 20 mpg. They quit importing to the US in 2003 and now
> are in high demand. I paid a little over
> 30k for mine. A year later for the exact same vehicle the price went
> to 40k and now people are paying
> up to 50k for a low mileage version of the 2001-2003 models.

I've had a '97 Eurovan Camper for 10 years and 100,000 miles. It still
gets over 20 MPG on the highway, tows beautifully, and had no trouble
pulling our Duo over the steepest mountain passes in California, Nevada,
and Utah...

Marc

[Tom Gardner]

Don't forget that in the US you are shortchanged whenever you
buy a gallon of fuel:
1 gallon = 4.54 litres
1 US gallon = 3.78 litres
this can make US prices and mpg ratings appear artifically low.
Similarly 1 pint = 16/20 fluid ounces.

In the US you are also shortchanged in weight: their
"short ton" = 2000lb whereas the "long ton" is 2240lbs.
Similarly 1cwt = 100/112lbs.

The next lessons will discuss the difference between the rod/pole/
perch,
plus the relationship between the acre, the length of a cricket
pitch,
a (statute) mile and the amount of land that can be ploughed by two
horses in one day.

On May 22, 9:13 pm, Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:17:04 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
>
> <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> > If I run my 5.2L V8 at 1500RPM (45mph) on a straight and level road
> > it gets 37 MPG.
>
> Many European cars rutinely do 35-45 MPG *on average* and close to 50
> MPG on a straight and level road. That's running on diesel, but with
> only e.g. 150 g/km CO2 emission. Your 5,2L is likely more than double.
>
> -A
> --http://www.hojmark.org/soaring.html

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On 22 May 2007 10:24:05 -0700, st4s03 > wrote:

>Can you imagine the change that would occur in our atmosphere if
>millions of vehicles around the world would be burning Hydrogen and
>producing water vapor as a by-product?

You mean like the millions of vehicles that are burning gasoline and
producing both water and CO2 right now? Water is the nicest combustion
product possible.

> This vapor will be condensed at
>some point and most likely just when you want to fly. Over-developing
>sky and increase precipitation.

Yes, if you import the hydrogen from Mars. If you get it from this
planet, you extract it from compounds (like, say, water) and when you
burn it it goes back into compounds. Like, say, water.

Furthermore, we have about fity-four million square miles of ocean
surface evaporating water into the atmosphere...

rj

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:47:48 +0100, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
[snip]

>
>Possibly irrelevant, but I remember seeing a Scientific American article
>back in the late 60s/early 70s on this topic. I forget what triggered it
>(possibly a comment on a back to nature movement) but it pointed out
>that even then it would be impossible to replace America's oil-powered
>transport systems with horses because there wasn't the farm land in the
>USA to feed the horses, let alone produce anything else.

That's not the only reason. The city of San Francisco spent a load of
money to install a cable-car transit system in the early 1870s. They
knew electric cars would be available in ten years, but SF couldn't
wait. Its horse population had grown to the point of depositing 55,000
gallons of horse **** on the streets per day, along with the
proportionate quantity of road apples. The constant wheel and foot
traffic mixed it up into a ghastly morass that lubricated the
cobblestones, causing the horses to slip and break legs. At one point
the city was shooting an average of one horse per day.

Other major cities were able to hold out until they could get electric
cars, because they didn't have San Francisco's steep hills, but they
still had stink and disease to deal with. Horse transport simply
becomes intolerable past a certain traffic density.

rj

[st4s03]

Ralph,
Just having fun!
Tounge in cheek ;-)

On May 24, 9:01 am, Ralph Jones > wrote:
> On 22 May 2007 10:24:05 -0700, st4s03 > wrote:
>
> >Can you imagine the change that would occur in our atmosphere if
> >millions of vehicles around the world would be burning Hydrogen and
> >producing water vapor as a by-product?
>
> You mean like the millions of vehicles that are burning gasoline and
> producing both water and CO2 right now? Water is the nicest combustion
> product possible.
>
> > This vapor will be condensed at
> >some point and most likely just when you want to fly. Over-developing
> >sky and increase precipitation.
>
> Yes, if you import the hydrogen from Mars. If you get it from this
> planet, you extract it from compounds (like, say, water) and when you
> burn it it goes back into compounds. Like, say, water.
>
> Furthermore, we have about fity-four million square miles of ocean
> surface evaporating water into the atmosphere...
>
> rj

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On 24 May 2007 09:18:38 -0700, st4s03 > wrote:

>Ralph,
>Just having fun!
>Tounge in cheek ;-)
>
Glad to hear that...mighty lot of folks out here would say that in all
seriousness...;-)

The Denver Post pnce printed a guest editorial by a guy claiming to be
a mechanical engineer who wanted to make H2-powered cars with an
auxiliary generator to produce current to electrolyze water to get the
H2, with O2 as a byproduct that would replenish the atmosphere.

rj

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 11:42 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill Daniels wrote:
> >> If you want to look at alternative liguid fuels for the existing fleet
> >> consider Butanol (Butyl alcohol). It has about the same energy content
> >> as gasolene, burns at the same air-fuel mixture and has an octane rating
> >> of 94. It can be made from biomass at better net energy yeld than
> >> ethanol. Since you can mix it with gasolene at any ratio with no changes
> >> needed in the engines, it looks better to me than ethanol.
>
> > Butanol sounds like a good idea. I've seen puffs for methanol and ethanol
> > but no mention of butanol. I wonder why.
>
> > I mentioned solar or nuke driven industrial sources for any such fuel (and
> > quoted ethyl as an example) because I think that biofuel is too limited by
> > the availability of both arable land and water to replace oil-based fuels.
>
> > Possibly irrelevant, but I remember seeing a Scientific American article
> > back in the late 60s/early 70s on this topic. I forget what triggered it
> > (possibly a comment on a back to nature movement) but it pointed out that
> > even then it would be impossible to replace America's oil-powered
> > transport systems with horses because there wasn't the farm land in the
> > USA to feed the horses, let alone produce anything else. OK, horses are
> > not exactly efficient energy sources. Replace them with something more
> > efficient (biodiesel powered engines?) and factor in the increased energy
> > consumption after 40 years of economic growth and I think the argument
> > still holds.
>
> > --
> > martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org
>
> I actually think that GM has a good idea in the "Volt". It's an electric
> car with a bay into which you (or GM) can install an electricity source like
> a genset (diesel or spark), a fuel cell stack or even more batteries. The
> flexibility is the value added.
>
> Pure electric vehicles are slowly emerging as quite possibly the final
> answer. There has been rapid fire announcements of lithium ion battery
> technology advancements in the key areas of energy density and charge time.
> Toshiba and others have Lithium Polymer cells that can be fully charged in
> less than 5 minutes and still last 20,000 recharge cycles. Charge time is
> just as important as driving range with electrics with one offsetting the
> other. If the vehicle can be recharged in 5 minutes at convienient
> locations, who cares if it only goes 150 miles between charges. For serious
> "off grid" driving, the Volt approach looks good.
>
> The so called "hydrogen economy" is just bafflegab from the Bush
> administration to delay any action. Hydrogen is not likely to be part of
> the solution. An "electric economy" however is easy to imagine.
> Electricity is extremely flexible. An electric vehicle can be slowly
> recharged overnight at home or quickly at a charging station. The
> electricity can come from almost any source.
>
> My original thought is that even an electric could tow a glider trailer if
> the trailer itself supplied some of the power. Imagine side boxes ahead and
> behind each trailer wheel containing batteries and wheels containing
> electric motors. The trailer then powers itself and the "tow" vehicle just
> guides it.
>
> Bill Daniels- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You might as well tow your trailer with horses as with an electric tow
vehicle (at least one that doesn't generate its own electricity), you
will get to your destination quicker. The energy density simply is not
there to do the job, and it won't be there in the far distant future.
Even a pure electric car with a 20 mile range is problematic:
1. A mid-size vehicle uses 0.2 - 0.4 KWhr per mile driven (not towing
anything!).
2. The average hybrid car's battery is 1.7KWhr.
3. A 20 mile range (boy, that will get you way down the road!)
requires a battery 6 times this size, with a weight of 200-300 lbs, a
200 mile range ups this to 2000-3000 lbs (the weight of the vehicle).
4. The additional weight requires more battery capacity to go the same
distance.
5. The cost of a 20-mile battery pack is $5000-7000, a 200-mile pack
is $50,000, but you need 3-4 of them do to the extra weight and having
some towing capacity (why not just buy a 2nd glider and leave it at
the destination - then you could bicycle there and not use any
electricity).

Check out http://www.advancedautobat.com/ for more information.

Tom

[Doug Hoffman]

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

> Many European cars rutinely do 35-45 MPG *on average* and
> close to 50
> MPG on a straight and level road. That's running on diesel,

Currently California and 4 other states
have emission standards that essentially
preclude diesel cars and light trucks.
That is going to change in the next few
years with advanced (and more expensive)
diesel technology.

--
Doug



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Marc Ramsey]

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:43:54 GMT+5, (Doug
> Hoffman) wrote:
>
>>> Many European cars rutinely do 35-45 MPG *on average* and close to
>>> 50 MPG on a straight and level road. That's running on diesel,
>
>> Currently California and 4 other states have emission standards that
>> essentially preclude diesel cars and light trucks.
>
> What emission are they measuring? Surely not CO2, which is typically
> much lower than with gasoline for the same power. (At least on the
> kind of diesel cars we use over here).

Particulate emissions. There are some new filters that should allow
some diesel cars to meet California standards in a year or two...

Marc

[Doug Hoffman]

On May 24, 5:33 pm, Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:43:54 GMT+5, (Doug
>
> Hoffman) wrote:
> >> Many European cars rutinely do 35-45 MPG *on average* and close to
> >> 50 MPG on a straight and level road. That's running on diesel,
> > Currently California and 4 other states have emission standards that
> > essentially preclude diesel cars and light trucks.
>
> What emission are they measuring? Surely not CO2, which is typically
> much lower than with gasoline for the same power. (At least on the
> kind of diesel cars we use over here).

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) is the problem compound for diesels. New
catalytic aftertreatment technology will address that.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_12_178/ai_53476149

Effective diesel particulate filters (DPFs) already exist.


Actually, the state of California has tried to regulate CO2 emissions
(and may still be trying, I'm not sure):

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/12/automakers_chal.html

Regards,

-doug

[Nyal Williams]

What are the smallest reliable diesels being offered
in USA/Europe and not necessarily capable of towing?


At 20:24 25 May 2007, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:47:14 -0700, Marc Ramsey
> wrote:
>
>>> What emission are they measuring? Surely not CO2,
>>>which is typically
>>> much lower than with gasoline for the same power.
>>>(At least on the
>>> kind of diesel cars we use over here).
>
>> Particulate emissions. There are some new filters
>>that should allow
>> some diesel cars to meet California standards in a
>>year or two...
>
>Oh, many (most?) European diesel cars have that too.
>I believe it'll
>be a requirement in all of EU soon (?), but at least
>here in Denmark
>it's still an option.
>
>-A
>--
>http://www.hojmark.org/soaring.html
>

[Ray Lovinggood]

Nyal,

I think the smallest diesels in America are the ones
from VW. I'm not sure if NEW ones are being shipped
at this time, but used Beetles, Golfs, Jettas, and,
I think, Passats, can be found with the TDI (Turbo
Diesel Injection??) four cylinder diesel engine. I
know one person with a four door Golf and another with
a Jetta and they both like them.

For a while, Jeep did offer a turbo diesel in their
Liberty. It was a Mercedes 4 cylinder turbo diesel,
I think.

I think Honda will offer their in-house designed four
cylinder turbo diesel in a couple of years. It's available
now in Europe where you can buy it in an Accord. It
would be very interesting if they would offer it in
the Accord and CR-V here in America.

My current Accord, which serves as my everyday car
and crew car (it's the only car I have) has 193,000
miles on it now. I hope it lasts until the diesels
get here!

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 21:36 25 May 2007, Nyal Williams wrote:
>What are the smallest reliable diesels being offered
>in USA/Europe and not necessarily capable of towing?
>
>
>At 20:24 25 May 2007, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:47:14 -0700, Marc Ramsey
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> What emission are they measuring? Surely not CO2,
>>>>which is typically
>>>> much lower than with gasoline for the same power.
>>>>(At least on the
>>>> kind of diesel cars we use over here).
>>
>>> Particulate emissions. There are some new filters
>>>that should allow
>>> some diesel cars to meet California standards in a
>>>year or two...
>>
>>Oh, many (most?) European diesel cars have that too.
>>I believe it'll
>>be a requirement in all of EU soon (?), but at least
>>here in Denmark
>>it's still an option.
>>
>>-A
>>--
>>http://www.hojmark.org/soaring.html
>>
>
>
>
>

[Doug Hoffman]

On May 25, 7:05 pm, Ray Lovinggood
> wrote:

> For a while, Jeep did offer a turbo diesel in their
> Liberty. It was a Mercedes 4 cylinder turbo diesel,
> I think.

That is correct. Except it was a VMI (Italian) engine. 2.8L
turbodiesel. It is still offered in parts of Europe, but only in the
US (not California) in 2005 and 2006. An excellent package.

Jeep has just released a Mercedes-built 3.0L V6 turbodiesel in the
Grand Cherokee. Overall it is an *outstanding* vehicle, IMO.
(disclosure: I am a Chrysler engineer and so may be biased)

Regards,

-Doug

[Ray Lovinggood]

Nyal,

I think the smallest diesels in America are the ones
from VW. I'm not sure if NEW ones are being shipped
at this time, but used Beetles, Golfs, Jettas, and,
I think, Passats, can be found with the TDI (Turbo
Diesel Injection??) four cylinder diesel engine. I
know one person with a four door Golf and another with
a Jetta and they both like them.

For a while, Jeep did offer a turbo diesel in their
Liberty. It was a Mercedes 4 cylinder turbo diesel,
I think.

I think Honda will offer their in-house designed four
cylinder turbo diesel in a couple of years. It's available
now in Europe where you can buy it in an Accord. It
would be very interesting if they would offer it in
the Accord and CR-V here in America.

My current Accord, which serves as my everyday car
and crew car (it's the only car I have) has 193,000
miles on it now. I hope it lasts until the diesels
get here!

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 21:36 25 May 2007, Nyal Williams wrote:
>What are the smallest reliable diesels being offered
>in USA/Europe and not necessarily capable of towing?
>
>
>At 20:24 25 May 2007, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:47:14 -0700, Marc Ramsey
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> What emission are they measuring? Surely not CO2,
>>>>which is typically
>>>> much lower than with gasoline for the same power.
>>>>(At least on the
>>>> kind of diesel cars we use over here).
>>
>>> Particulate emissions. There are some new filters
>>>that should allow
>>> some diesel cars to meet California standards in a
>>>year or two...
>>
>>Oh, many (most?) European diesel cars have that too.
>>I believe it'll
>>be a requirement in all of EU soon (?), but at least
>>here in Denmark
>>it's still an option.
>>
>>-A
>>--
>>http://www.hojmark.org/soaring.html
>>
>
>
>
>

[Sally W]

At 21:36 25 May 2007, Nyal Williams wrote:
>What are the smallest reliable diesels being offered
>in USA/Europe and not necessarily capable of towing?
>
Not sure if you are asking about the car or the engine!
However, the good small diesel engines are common
rail engines, which apparently allows for better control
over the fuel injection than conventional injectors
- or so Wikipedia says.

My Laguna has one and drives pretty much like a petrol
car (and will cruise all to easily at 90mph in 6th!),
unlike the truely awful diesel I had quite a few years
back. The Laguna also has an 18,000 mile service interval,
and get 45mpg - that's imperial miles & gallons of
course.