Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Email from Hertz:

     

[img width=642.667 alt=Your chance to save when you buy an EV]https://image.emails.hertz.com/lib/fe8b13727063027b76/m/1/3d2898e3-27c3-4336-b1d9-e2729345111b.png[/img][/font]   Your chance to save when you buy an EV   You can buy a Tesla from Hertz Car Sales at an average price of just $27,556!1 Discover what millions of Tesla owners around the world already know. Quick, quiet, and zero emissions   Enjoy fast acceleration, excellent handling, and a smooth ride.    Low cost to own   EV owners can expect to spend half on car maintenance and repair vs. gas-powered vehicles.    Charge up at home   Charge while you sleep, work, or at a growing number of charging stations.     Shop EVs

swapping them out because of high mileage I suppose

No, low demand, very low demand, selling them at a major loss not to be replaced.

I saw this article a while ago and this has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time now:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/350382/gas-mileage-fuel-economy-mpg-gphm-gas-guzzlers

Basically this is Vox's push for using "Gallons per 100 miles" instead of the traditional "MPG" that we are all familiar with.  Gallons per mile is a MUCH more useful figure mathematically than MPG but GPM ends up being a tiny fraction and people seem to have trouble understanding those so they get around that issue by making it "Gallons per 100 Miles".  

Obviously you can convert back-and-forth mathematically.  

I just bought a Suburban.  According to the EPA it gets 15/22 City/Highway.  We also own a Honda Odyssey which gets 19/28.  

Pop quiz, what saves more gas:

• Driving the Odyssey instead of the Suburban on a highway trip, or
• Driving a car that gets 38 MPG Highway instead of the Odyssey?

If you picked #2 you got tricked by the MPG issue.  It seems like getting an extra 10 MPG is better than getting an extra 6 MPG so it *SEEMS* like getting 38 vs 28 is a bigger deal than getting 28 vs 22 but it isn't because you don't drive further.  You are going to drive the same distance so the relevant figure you need is "GPM" or some derivative (like Gallons per 100 mi) not MPG.  

For another example:
Lets say I am going on a trip with my wife, our four kids, our nephew, and his wife.  That makes eight people.  Suppose that we can all fit in the Suburban but NOT the  Odyssey so our choices are:

• Take the Suburban, or
• Take the Odyssey AND a Toyota Prius that gets 57/56 City/Highway.  

Mathematically, MPG's aren't useful.  Here they are (highway since I said this was a trip):

• Option #1, the Suburban gets 22 MPG.  
• Option #2, the Odyssey gets 28 MPG and the Prius gets 56 MPG.  

So which is better?  You can't tell from MPG's but you CAN tell from GPM, here are the Highway Gallons per Mile:

• Option #1, the Suburban uses 4.5 Gallons per 100 miles.  
• Option #2, the Odyssey uses 3.5 Gallons per 100 miles and the Prius uses 1.8 Gallons per 100 miles for a combined total of 5.3 Gallons per 100 miles.  

Taking the Suburban instead of the Odyssey AND the Prius would save us almost a gallon of gas per 100 miles.  

The biggest problem, as the article explains, is that the focus on MPG's tends to lead to a focus on getting improvements that, in reality, are basically irrelevant.  For example, if you could redesign that Prius to get 86 MPG Highway instead of 56 MPG Highway that sounds like a REALLY big deal but frankly, it isn't:

• Improving the Prius' MPG's from 56 to 86 saves 0.62 Gallons per 100 miles.  
• Improving the Suburban's MPG's from 22 to 26 saves 0.70 Gallons per 100 miles.  

For a while GMC offered a hybrid Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade.  At the time I thought that was a GREAT idea and the data says that it was but the consumers didn't care so they didn't sell and GM quit offering it.  

Part of the problem, IMHO was that GM screwed up by putting a BIGGER engine in the Hybrid which minimized the gas savings.  For 2013 they offered it in the Tahoe and in a 4x4 Tahoe there were two options for drivetrain:

• 6.0L Gas V8 Hybrid that got 20/23 and
• 5.3L Gas V8 that got 15/21

Even with the larger engine in the Hybrid, that still is a significant improvement especially around town but it doesn't look like a significant improvement until you convert to GPM:

• Hybrid used 5.0 Gallons per 100 miles City and 4.3 Gallons per 100 miles Highway.  
• Non-hybrid used 6.7 Gallons per 100 miles City and 4.8 Gallons per 100 miles Highway.  

IMHO, the smarter play would have been to offer the Hybrid with a SMALLER engine using the electric as a "helper" when needed.  In that case the gap would have been much larger but it *STILL* would have "looked" minor when viewed in MPG's.  

Nice analysis.

Thank you.  

Some of have discussed a hybrid with a Diesel that is fully electric on power and the Diesel just runs at constant RPM when needed to turn a generator.

Trains.

Trains don't run at a constant RPM because they don't (or at least traditional diesel-electric locomotives do not) have any storage capacity (batteries) on board.  The diesel still has to operate at a wide range of RPM because the power is generated when used.  

Also, this basic method of power delivery was utilized by the Navy 100 years ago.  It was steam-electric not diesel-electric.  They called it "Turbo Electric" and the advantage was that it eliminated the need for bulky and heavy propeller shafts running the length of the ship.  It also eliminated the need for the steam engines to be located on the aforementioned propeller shafts and aligned with them.  Instead, the steam engines could be located anywhere and in any alignment then you just needed to run comparatively lightweight power cables from the steam-powered generators to the electric motors that actually spun the shafts.  

This matters a LOT to the Navy and if you want to know why look up the HMS Prince of Wales.  They took Torpedo damage but had stabilized the situation and *PROBABLY* could have survived but the Captain ordered the outboard propeller restarted and the bent Propeller shaft destroyed the bulkheads from the stern all the way forward to the foremost engine thus allowing progressive flooding from the already flooded stern compartments all the way to the bow and PoW rests on the bottom of the sea as a result.  

Back to cars.  I REALLY like the idea of a hybrid Diesel where the Diesel runs at a constant RPM (and resistance) to turn a generator.  Benefits:

• The Diesel engine can be designed to be both cheaper and more efficient because it does not need to be able to function at the wide range of various RPM and resistance situations encountered with a traditional ICE set-up.  Instead, it only needs to function at one RPM/resistance situation to charge the battery and the battery can handle the fact that this will sometimes be too much and other times too little charge.  
• Architecture of the vehicle is much more flexible.  With no direct mechanical link between the ICE and the drive wheels you don't HAVE to mount the engine in such a way as to facilitate that mechanical link.  The engine/generator can be mounted anywhere and in any alignment.  
• You don't have the range anxiety problem that exists with a pure electric.  
• You could offer a cord and make this a PHEV where it effectively functions as a pure EV for short trips but can still handle longer trips without issues.  

'Murica!

'Murica!
[img width=274.381 height=377]https://i.imgur.com/niXUqAG.png[/img]

According to @Cincydawg 's link:

Built in Canada, eh!