> Paul,
 >
 > Maybe this is old news, maybe not.  I was reading about the
 > new GM Volt
 > and there was an interesting link where they state that Mazda is
 > hard at
 > work on an extended-range electric vehicle called the E-
 > REV.  Here is
 > what they said that caught my attention.
 >
 > "Mazda engineers are hard at work trying to develop a rival to the
 > Chevrolet Volt." Inside sources claim that prototype trials are
 > alreadyunderway using MPV bodyshells *that use a rotary engine
 > to charge the
 > battery.*
 >
 > The link is
 > http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/28/volt-competition-mazdas-secret-e-
 > rev-program-toyota-forwards-plug-in-fleet-to-2009/
 >
 >
 >
 > Maybe that is where the 16B is destined.  Might turn out to
 > be a good
 > source of engines for years to come.
 >
 > Mark S.
 >
 > The Volt is far from a foregone conclusion. Using a engine to
 > charge a battery
 > and then using the battery to run a motor to move the car is not
 > a good idea.
 > eff.1 X eff.2 X eff.3 X eff.4 equals low efficiency (eff.) overall.
 > The only thing in favor of this heavy approach is if you recover
 > the braking
 > energy. The current hybrids are marginally cost effective for
 > highway use in all
 > climates. Here in LA most people spend most of the time on the
 > freeway at 80 MPH
 > or above. Hybrids are hauling around useless extra weight in
 > that mode of
 > driving. The hybrid's piston engine is doing all the work. Flat
 > city use of
 > current hybrids is cost effective in moderate climates due to
 > the recovery of
 > the braking energy.
 >
 > A friend of mine has a hybrid and he lives on the top of a hill.
 > Going up the
 > hill his car gets bad MPG because he is hauling the extra weight
 > of motors,
 > generators and batteries. The only way he can mitigate that is
 > to coast down the
 > hill.
 >
 > Another factor is Toyota hybrids are very carefully stream
 > lined. The typical
 > drag factor (C sub d) for a non hybrid car is .3 or above. A
 > Prius is .26. Why
 > doesn't Toyota design all their cars with a .26 drag factor?
 >
 > A third factor is light weight. The Prius uses extensive use of
 > expensive
 > aluminum and light composite body parts. Why doesn't Toyota
 > build all their cars
 > out of aluminum and light composite body parts?
 >
 > A fourth factor is the use low rolling resistance, hard rubber
 > tires pumped up
 > to high pressure on the Prius.
 >
 > Same question. The answer is people won't buy them. They will
 > buy low cost,
 > style and a good ride. Style and good aerodynamics are mutually
 > incompatible.Take a look at some of the box cars being bought.
 >
 > The truth is the Prius is a phony car designed as a PR exercise.
 > Part of the extra cost of building the Prius is chalked up to
 > advertisingand improving the green image of Toyota.  As far
 > as I can tell the Volt is in
 > the same category. IMHO it is a mistake for Mazda to fall into
 > that trap.
 > It is also not much of a secret as here is a picture of the
 > Mazda device at the
 > 2005 Tokyo Motor Show.
 >
 > I am not saying that recovering the braking energy is a bad idea.
 > What I am saying is using an electric solution to recover
 > braking energy IS a
 > bad idea.
 >
 > The new KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) used in next years
 > Formula 1 cars
 > is probably a much more efficient way of doing it as  it is
 > not going to add
 > that much weight. It will use a high speed small flywheel
 > rotating in a vacuum.
 > This is far better from an energy storage per pound of weight
 > point of view than
 > any battery/generator system. If you want to convert mechanical
 > energy from one
 > form to another there is no beating a set of gears. That is why
 > manual gear box
 > cars get better MPG than traditional torque converter auto
 > transmission cars.
 > The new automatic shift manual transmissions is an exception and
 > is the wave of
 > the future.
 >
 > The most effective thing to do is focus on improving the basic
 > conversion of
 > fuel to mechanical energy in the first place. Combined cycle gas
 > turbine power
 > plants are showing the way with efficiency's over 50%. These
 > units are purely
 > rotational with nothing reciprocating. A gas turbine followed by
 > a steam turbine
 > using the waste heat from the gas turbine is how it is done.
 > Rotating internal
 > combustion engines, like the turbine and the rotary engine, are
 > intrinsically
 > light weight devices. Engine weight and overall empty weight is
 > everything when
 > it comes to efficiently moving a vehicle. Less empty weight
 > generally means (but
 > not always) there was less energy used to manufacture the
 > materials. The
 > solution is marry the rotary to the turbine to recovery some of
 > the waste heat
 > and use KERS to recover some of the braking energy. Once the
 > local overall
 > vehicle efficiency approaches a remote electric power plant
 > there is no point to
 > an electric car or hybrid.
 >
 > That is of course unless we convert to nuclear power like the
 > rest of civilized
 > world.
 >
 > Paul Lamar


Paul and group,

Well said Paul.  The cost of a new battery for an Hybrid car is $5,000 U.S..
The warrenty for the battery do NOT exceed 5 years, for Honda models.

Marc Joseph


Just think, nickel as in nickel metal hydride, is made in wonderful Sudbury Ontario Canada everything downwind of which is dead. Ever been to Sudbury? :)

Paul Lamar