Tow cars and trailers

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If it's not peer reviewed - and this certainly wasn't - it's junk.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

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If it's not peer reviewed - and this certainly wasn't - it's junk.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 |

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

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.

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...

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

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?

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/...dtaxcredit.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

On 5/20/07 6:24 AM, in article
, "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?

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/...dtaxcredit.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

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/...dtaxcredit.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/...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

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