Saturn Aura Hybrid

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 13 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]422930[/snapback]</div>

GM's problem is that they don't know how to talk about what they've done.

For example, a lot of their (GM) V6 engines are SULEV, including the 3800 series V6, arguably the most produced V6 around. But other than a blurb on some GM corporate site, you don't hear about it. Toyota has *YET* to produce a non-hybrid SULEV V6, and honestly I'm not sure if they can. But yet, nobody mentions anything positive about GM doing this... and really it's because they haven't figured out how to tell anyone.

Toyota is like the slick salesman who makes you feel good about what you bought, without realizing that they're really selling stolen goods off the back dock of the warehouse. GM is the salesman with a stutter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 8 2007, 09:51 AM) [snapback]419863[/snapback]</div>

I don't think so. Jevon's Paradox

Just saving some is not the same as aggressively trying not to use it to begin with. A is gradual, evolutionary and patchwork, B is designed and as a goal. Also, A is anachronistic if B exists mainstream. IMHO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Apr 13 2007, 06:28 PM) [snapback]422998[/snapback]</div>

You're on a slightly different level with that.

I just look at the Chevy Impala V8 vs the Lexus GS450h. The Impala V8 isn't a hybrid, so it wasn't designed for efficiency, but it was improved using cylinder-shutdown. The GS450h was designed for efficiency. The Impala (and these cars are roughly the same size and weight) gets nearly the same highway mileage(18/27) that the GS450h (27/28) gets.

This means that either HSD can't pull it's weight on the highway (so to speak), or that cylinder shutdown mileage gain== hybrid mileage gain at highway speeds. In that case, a simple mild hybrid on the impala could really swing it over what HSD can do. And two mode should knock it out of the park.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 13 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]422958[/snapback]</div>

On the other hand, the Prius was exactly what I wanted. GM had absolutely nothing in its lineup that interested me.

Today what I want is an EV, which would be my primary car. The Prius would be my gas-guzzler for road trips. GM could make it. Toyota could make it. Honda could make it. Ford could probably figure out how to make one that would explode, so I'll leave them out. But none of them is willing to make it. So I'll drive a Xebra (once it arrives) until something better comes out. I dislike GM more than I dislike Toyota, but I'm mad at all of them for not building the car I want. I'm not mad at Honda, though. Even though they, too, could and don't build the car I want, they did treat me like royalty when I bought my little Civic, and for all the time I drove it, and that gets them a lot of points in my book.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 13 2007, 08:15 PM) [snapback]423041[/snapback]</div>

I don't know why... GM sells more PZEV cars (hybrid and non-hybrid) than Toyota. Period.

It's hard to admit it, but GM is doing more for the environment than Toyota.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 13 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]423044[/snapback]</div>

If a car shuts off its gas engine at a stoplight, it gets to call itself PZEV. I honestly think PZEV is a crock. If we are talking environment, I'd say total fleet average mpg and total fleet average emissions are the two figures that matter.

ANY car company that markets SUVs to people who will use them for grocery shopping, or who will transport fewer than 5 people in them, is damaging the environment.

Please note that I have never touted Toyota as environmental. I like Toyota because they produce HIGH-QUALITY cars, and because they were willing to design and build the car I wanted to drive. But they will lose me if they don't build the car I want now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 13 2007, 09:48 PM) [snapback]423072[/snapback]</div>

That is not true. PZEV is higher rated than SULEV, and has to meet emissions output. PZEV is not a crock, because it is a cleaner car than a SULEV car.

You're thinking of AT-PZEV, which is PZEV but with the 'advanced technology'. Again, cleaner than SULEV.

You have been corrected.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 13 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]423079[/snapback]</div>

Okay. According to Wikipedia, a PZEV car is merely a SULEV car that also has no evaporative emissions and has an extended warranty on its emission-control components. AT-PZEV is just as clean as PZEV but gets better fuel mileage, which means less carbon, and of course, less demand for non-renewable gasoline.

So, while I was mistaken that PZEV is meaningless, it is cleaner than SULEV only with respect to evaporation from the fuel system.

And I still contend that GM's high-powered marketing of gas-guzzlers to people who have no use for them puts GM in a special class of irresponsible greed. Because you cannot ignore the deleterious effects of simply consuming more gasoline. I do not let Toyota off the hook on this. But I think GM is worse. Toyota at least gives consumers the choice of driving a 50-mpg car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 14 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]423198[/snapback]</div>

Toyota is worse than GM in terms of marketing... I mean, have you seen their pickup truck commercials? You can almost smell the desperation to move the things (well, the commercials + the huge incentives spell desperation). And let's not forget Toyota's famous "adrenelitis" commercial, which will go down in the annals of marketing desperation.

Fact is, GM sells 8 PZEV cars. Toyota sells two. We're not talking SULEV, just PZEV here (which is, as you mentioned, slightly better). Toyota needs to step it up and stop suing CARB.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 14 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]423260[/snapback]</div>

My advice to the entire auto industry is to take the money spent on suing to get standards overturned and invest it in improving your product so it meets the standards. If CARB standards are the toughest, build the entire fleet to the standard all sell the stuff all over the USA. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that no company is going to improve its product unless it is forced to.

 

Hi All,

Jevon's Paradox probably does not apply to the present ConvetionalCar/EnhancedEfficiency Car (Hybrid) situation.

What were the competing sources of mechanical power during the Jevon's Paradox period? In competiion with the Newcombe and Watt engines were horse/hay, water wheel/river and wind/sail.

On land, the horse/hay mechanical energy was dominant. It takes some work to deliver coal and an iron engine to its functional location. A Horse/Hay and the draft mechanism were somewhat easier to deliver to the functional location. The Horse/Hay had to be outdone in some operational parameter before a new power method would become dominant. Power level per man-hour was probably that parameter. A 12 hp engine took one man to operate and so many to mine and deliver coal. 12 draft Horses takes 3 men to operate, and to care for the animals off-hours (including farming a field of hay for each animal). At some point, the mining and delivering is going to drop below two men. This was the Newcombe/Watt change. Non-stop winter operation in northern Europe was probably part of this balance. Waste heat from the engine probably was put to good use in the winter as well.

The waterwheel/river situation required that raw material be delivered to the mechanical power location. So, any process that has problematic recuring raw material transportation, with easier finished goods transportation had a probability to be converted to engine power, from water wheel. As populations grew, there was insufficient water wheel resource, as well.

What parallels do we have with the present Hybrid car situation. The people that drive cars generally do not have at this time, alternatives to an engine powered vehicle. GM made damn sure of that (crushing the EV1's!!). Cities are at pretty high ocupancies, and sprawl is near its daily time permitting maximum. There are really none, at this time. People are fully untilizing transportation, for the hours of the day they have. Improve efficiency, and there still are no more hours in a day. Most people would prefer to operate their vehicles fewer hours in a day. Very unlike the 18 th century buisnesman buying a Watt steam engine! There is no reason to more generally utilize the conventional vehicle by the typical owner. The vehicles are already fully utilized. This is very unlike the Horse/Hay Watt engine situation. The Watt engine freed up hours in the day (that one did not have to care for the horse, or the extra man to feed the engine coal), which made more productivity, or proffit for the owners.

Saying that Jevon's Paradox is a reason not to improve conventional vehicle technology is a smoke screen. This is like saying a vehicle owner is going to drive 4 hours a day, insteady of the usual 2, just because his car now gets 50 mpg, instead of 25. Or the cross country trucker is going to drive 20 hours a day, rather than 16, just because his 18 wheeler now gets 10 mpg, rather than 8. Not going to happen.







What in the future might be a Jevon's Paradox? I think the electric car/power plant is such a situation. The electric car does not require trips to a gas station. Energy delivery to the vehicle is more efficient, and the vehicle itself uses dramatically less energy. It will take less workers at the power plant, and electric company than it does at the pipeline company/ refinery / fuel delivery buisness / vehicle maintenance buisness / power plant / electric company (yea it takes electricity to make gas) . Besides, it will take less workers to make the car's themselves. There is the real Jevon's Paradox.


Jevon's Paradox may apply to electric power generation with the adoption of electric cars and a shift to low-cost batteries however. Which is why its very important to get power plants to be refurbished to better emissions and efficiency standards. In this situaion, the horse analog (conventional cars) is replaced with the Watt steam engine analog (the electric car with cost effective batteries). The owner does not have to change his activity level for more onwer's to join him and increase the demand for electric power. That is the more cost effective battery is like the Watt engine, in comparison to the less cost effective battery being like the Newcombe engine.

Electric car supporter's are fond of saying that the electricty used to make one gallon of gas is about the same amount of electricty that an electric car can travel for the same distance a convetional car can on a gallon of gas. If this is so, even with Jevon's Paradoxical effect, the total energy usage may still be less, even with the enhanced activity level. Saying this another way: Not making the gas, saves enough electricity that the electricity usage does not go up, as the electric car only needs that amount of electricity, and no more. The enhanced economic activity level then results in energy usage that is less than the otherwised traditional energy inputs into refining, fuel transportation and vehicle maintenance. There is linkage here unlike during the Jevon's Paradox period, where horses did not eat coal, or engine's hay.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(loveit @ Apr 5 2007, 06:17 PM) [snapback]418497[/snapback]</div>

I would have to agree with you!!! When I heard what the unions did at the Detroit Auto Show (harassed Toyota into not choosing MI for a manufacturing site which would have brought 5000 jobs over 5 years) I made a committment to not buy (new or used) any GM, Ford, or Chrysler product. I will not support such anti-American sentiment.
Their lack of planning for the future (the Big 3) and their use of union labor has destroyed MI's economy and Toyota was poised to help with a huge influx of jobs, but the unions (even though a bunch were out of jobs) didn't want a non-unionized labor force to compete with. Sounds stupid, but I guess they thought no jobs were better than non-union jobs!!!

 

keep in mind, used cars have a completely different impact on the economy than new cars. Used cars don't add to gross domestic product, and don't have a bit of effect on the automaker overall.

Your best value in cars is either a new Japanese car, or a two year old Ford/GM/Chrysler. And you can buy the two year old Ford/GM/Chrysler without a penny of that money going to Ford/GM/Chrysler in any way, shape, or form.

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists calls the 2007 crop of Mild Hybrids "Hollow Hybrids", since they aren't hybrids at all; just marketing crap from GM.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Apr 13 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]422958[/snapback]</div>

Johnnycat26 youre my hero!!!! Where are you getting all these facts I?? I need to have access to them to use in my pro-GM (or pro-reality) arguments!

I also notice the 3800 series V6 is SULEV??? Thats awesome.. my car is a SULEV!!! (and it just had its 140k birthday btw.. party at my house for the 150k).

PS: did anyone else notice we have a battle of the kitty-cats going on?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Apr 15 2007, 07:37 AM) [snapback]423611[/snapback]</div>

The paradox has been linked to other modern conveniences. Such as it took a rich household to afford an old refrigerator type unit that wasn't very power-saving. Now that such devices are more inexpensive and energy-saving, most people have one or more and end up using more electrical energy; bottom-line.

Or switching to florescent light bulbs induces some to just leave the lights on all the time possibly reversing the savings. Btw, this applies to all those Prius drivers that drive with their non-DRL headlights on during the day.

How else would this apply to hybrids? Single-occupant driving instead of carpooling, taking/making more trips because gas is "cheap(er by mile)" instead of consolidating or eliminating, owning multiple hybrids when fewer would've been plenty, inefficient driving techniques maintained (or maxing out A/C for instance), policy choosing individual/truck vehicle usage over improved mass transit/trains, and so forth.

The paradox is not about not improving technology. It's that we should be careful about the trend that improvements actually lead to reduced savings because if people can spend and waste without much cost, they will.

 

Gosh, all of this talk of GM and technically advanced powerplants is making me wish I'd kept my Vega, or my 5.7 liter Diesel...or my very favorite of all, the V-8-6-4 in my beloved 1983 Cadillac Seville!

When I think of cutting-edge, fully proven technology, GM doesn't exactly spring immediately to mind.

Bullying suppliers is more their baliwick.

Here's a question: whose sells more vehicles with a live rear axle (the crudest, heaviest, and least space-efficient form of rear suspension available today). It ain't Toyota.

As was stated earlier, it's the overall fuel economy and overall cleanliness of the ENTIRE fleet which best reflects an auto manufacturer's environmental impact. Not if some pushrod V6 with its architecture going back decades happens to qualify as a SULEV.

So, whose fleet of vehicles (cars, trucks, whatever, sold to individuals for light duty passenger use) gets better MPG overall? And which outputs fewer emissions?

Clue: not GM's.