digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at ecogeek.org

Honda Re-Captures Lost Heat, Blows Highway Hybrids Away

ecogeek.org — Honda just dropped a bit of a bombshell on the world with it's announcement that their heat-harnessing hybrids recapture more lost energy than even Toyota's hybrid drive during highway driving.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sketec, on 02/19/2008, -20/+30Nice, if only they would put a hybrid in the Fit here the US. I love my Fit, but the fuel millage isn't as advertised. Still worth owning it, very fun car to drive.
    • neodorian, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4Not sure why you're being buried. The Fit is a great car. A hybrid would get amazing mileage.
      • roberto_deneero, on 02/20/2008, -2/+2If you like riding in a death chamber. Forget that thing! You're toast if so much as a hamster jumps out at you.
        • sketec, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1The Fit has one of the highest crash test ratings and 8 airbags. I feel safe.
    • neiltc13, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4The Fit is known as the Jazz elsewhere.
      • bowe, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1who names these things?
        • iofthestorm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Probably the same people who named Transformers. (well, for Jazz anyway)
        • unknownsoldierX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2It was originally going to be called the "Fitta". Not long before the launch, they discovered that "Fitta" is Swedish for vagina. True story, look it up.
      • twigboy, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Honda.
    • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3They don't need a hybrid, they just need the same engine and transmission the European's get. Their versions of the car with the 7 speed CVT manages about 50 MPG.

      You're more likely to see a diesel version before a hybrid version. Next year Honda is releasing their new diesel technology to the US which is far better than any hybrid and it's horribly environmentally destructive battery technology.
      • peestandingup, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Just so you know, Europeans use Imperial Gallons for heir MPG measurements. Not the same as what we use here in the US.
        • bowe, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Usually they measure in km/L . I think you're confusing the British with the rest of Europe.
        • ScottKeeler, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1The numbers I gave were US MPG.
      • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Also it requires about 25% more oil to create a gallon of diesel, which is important if you're looking at it from a conservation standpoint. Diesel is more expensive now, too, offsetting some of the cost benefits.
      • VSLOATHE, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Also FYI, it's a different engine and requires premium fuel. European Regular Unleaded is 95 octane, higher than US Premium Unleaded.
        • mustafya, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1That is because the Europeans use a different method for determining the octane level of their fuel. I believe 95 octane in Europe equals 89 in the US method.
      • xtrememotion, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1edit
    • prisoner24601, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2"fuel millage isn't as advertised"

      The estimates that the EPA makes (which, by law, are the only ones manufacturers are allowed to advertise in the US) are so insanely optimistic I've always wondered how they could possibly come up with them. My guess is that they hire a select set of grandmothers and those guys who like to get in the fast lane and go exactly the same speed as the guy immediately on their right. Maybe we can get Mythbusters to do an episode on this.
      • sketec, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1I love Mythbusters. Remember that episode when they tailgated a semi to get better millage! I should try that.
      • MrMongoose, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0The EPA ratings were recently revised to be much less "optimistic."

        That being said, I've beaten the old EPA estimates for a 3.5L V6 Altima on the highway. Just depends on how "optimistic" your right foot is.
      • madvulcan, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Really? My 2004 Civic was advertised as 33/38 MPG city/highway. I consistently get 35MPG on average for city commuting to/from school. On highway travel, I can get up to 40MPG. A lot depends on how you keep the car condition, your driving style, etc.
        • sketec, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I average around 24 MPG which isn't too far off. But, that's 50-55 MPH highway driving m-f and city driving on the weekends, go figure. My morning commute is very short though at around 10 minutes to and from work. I typically use a full tank of gas a week. I mind the "maintenance minder", lol, and change the oil's when it tells me too. I also use synthetic so I actually could (theoretically) ignore the minder once, I don't though. I've also installed a K&N air filter which is suppose to improve things. It does make it sound a bit more throaty at certain RPM's, but don't see any fuel millage change. Mine is the base model and I immediately bought 15" wheels and 205/50-15 tires (maybe a factor). My last car was a 2001 S2000 and I averaged 19 MPG in it, which was normal for that car. I guess being used to the high revving nature of the S2000, I tend to drive about the same in the Fit. Actually, for a while I kept hitting the 6,500 RPM rev limiter until I got used to the quieter Fit. Anyway, I didn't expect to get so many comment replies and +12 diggs, thanks!
    • provost, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1the mpg that they advertise for all cars is not mandated from real world driving conditions. They run them on indoor treadmills which will typically add another 10-15%. There has been legislation put forward a few times that would require the numbers to include a disclaimer or be brought from real world tests, but it has always been gunned down by sellouts to auto industry lobbyists.

      Point is, when you buy a car subtract 10-15% of the mileage to get your real world numbers.
      Also, the fit is go.
    • sporg, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Pardon me if I require proof that it works as claimed outside of Honda's laboratory conditions.
  • ThinkBox, on 02/19/2008, -38/+21On road trips, as a kid, I would have LOVED a vehicle that could somehow re-capture the lost heat that consistently escaped my dad after stopping at Taco Bell.
    • theworldisflat, on 02/19/2008, -3/+18404 Funny not found
    • sanman, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Now all they have to do is capture police radar beams, and we're set
  • brentinkc, on 02/19/2008, -20/+45Or we could all just start using more efficient diesel engines
    • eambabo, on 02/19/2008, -6/+7Here here!
    • rancemo, on 02/19/2008, -2/+30Why not put this tech on an already efficient diesel?
      • mateo60, on 02/19/2008, -5/+6Almost no new diesel automobiles pass emissions tests in the US. It's BS.
        • shortyjacobs, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3Mr. Bush, is that you?
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10It was the environmental movement that put the screws to diesel cars, especially here in California. They of course did not think about "clean diesel" (low/no sulfur) or even "bio diesel"; they just wanted diesel banned and busses switched to natural gas. So don't blame Mr. Bush for it, Shortyjacobs, blame the same NIMBY crowd that reflexively opposes nuclear fission reactors based upon gut feelings and not actual science.
      • inkyblue2, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2didn't anyone read the article?

        "Honda has decided that, at current efficiencies (and gas prices), it will not be cost-effective to include heat-capturing devices in production cars. Similar projects have come to the same conclusion."

        really, the only things that honda did in this study were (a) confirm that this approach is still not worth the effort, and (b) make regenerative braking look like an even worse deal by comparison. both are interesting in theory but in practice they're not worth the cost and complexity except in special applications.
        • jhaks, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1This is not the correct way to look at innovation. Nothing is worth it if you look at it from that perspective. Something is "worth the effort" not because of price or immediate payback but because people think it is of value. Nothing new and innovative is ever cost effective but that is not the point. You do it because you believe it has inherent value and these efficiency technologies definitely have a lot of value.
    • notic, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4the cleanest diesel still emits much more pollutants than a gas hybrid. we'll have to see what advance are made with the new "bluetec" diesels first.
      • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2That's not counting "clean diesel" or "bio diesel". You are counting dirty sulfur filled regular diesel.
      • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The cleanest diesels release absolutely zero emissions. It's called SVO or B100. Hybrid technology makes a huge negative environmental impact because of the huge resources it takes to build the car.
        • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Batteries of the size needed for an electric car (not a stinking rip off hybrid) will OUTLAST the gasoline engine in most cars. The RAV 4 EV's with the NIMH packs are now exceeding 150,000 miles with ZERO degradation in battery performance so far. and in that 150,000 miles it used NO oil NO Anti Freeze etc.. etc.. and off course NO gasoline while producing 1/5th to 1/6th the pollution and thats IF the power was from a coal plant. This also ignores the Electricity saved by NOT having to produce refine transport and pump the Gasoline it WOULD have used in that 150,000 miles if it was a gas car.
      • inkyblue2, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1BS. back your points up if you're going to make statements like this.
        • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Or you could just go to Google and look up the basic facts yourself.
      • twigboy, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1i for one only hate diesel only because of the smell it emits.
    • cha5e, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Yep - my 1999 Jetta still gets in the mid-40s. Imagine what a diesel hybrid would get.
      • Mootabolife, on 02/19/2008, -0/+30-60 in 20 seconds
      • trogdor282, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2A gallon of diesel has more carbon in it than a gallon of gas. Though it is slightly more efficient on the balance.
        • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Slightly ? a 1.6l TDI Jetta gets 52mpg at 75mph with the air on. A Gasoline Hybrid Prius an not even EQUAL that. And you wonder why they won't sell them here :-)
    • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1California is trying to increase fuel economy by requiring all gasoline powered cars sold to have turbo and superchargers standard on them. The projected extra cost is $3k per car, and the automotive companies are fighting it. I believe the target year is 2020, or maybe 2015.
      • trogdor282, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I don't get that. Can't they just raise the MPG requirement and let the nerds figure out the right way to accomplish it?
      • XFDRaven, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Bolt on a turbo and your NOx emissions go up. Additionally CARB is a giant pain in the ass with respect to such systems. The car companies are fighting it because it's a stupid burden to place on them. Cali doesn't really "get" the constraints on reality. Additionally, a proper turbo/supercharged system consumes much more fuel under acceleration than the normally aspirated engine.

        Where did you hear this?
      • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Thanks for your BS Lynx. Turbo's and superchargers REDUCE GAS MILEAGE 100% of the time, they don't increase it. The whole point of a turbo is to allow the engine to burn more fuel at a faster rate.
        • MrMongoose, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2No, the point of a turbo is to increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine, increased fuel consumption is a byproduct of this. Also, turbos only spool up and require more fuel when the engine is sufficiently loaded. Mandating a turbo means that the manufacturers are forced to use a smaller engine to achieve their power goals, and that theoretically improves fuel economy and emissions when cruising.
          • Lynxpro, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1...which is why California is trying to mandate them. And I got buried for accurately stating what is currently going on in the Legislature on the subject.
        • XFDRaven, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1This is correct. A 1.3L engine behaves like a 1.3L engine at idle, and assuming it has the power to sustain the car's near-constant velocity outside of boost, behaves like a 1.3L engine at cruise. Under acceleration it will act like a much larger engine. My 240SX which has a "horribly awful and terroristic" imported engine from Japanoland is a 2.0L turbo. I get 34MPG highway cruising and 250WHP. This engine would never pass CARB though as turbo'd engines produce more NOx than they tolerate.
    • XFDRaven, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Unlike Toyota's hybrid, this is a much more viable research project. I would actually consider buying one of these Honda's since this technology uses existing waste to generate power. The battery idea is *****, this is not. Though I do recall BMW working on a similar project.

      As for Diesel, there isn't any reason you couldn't bolt this technology onto a Diesel as well. Both systems generate a lot of waste heat that this would recuperate into usable energy.
    • lilrabbit129, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1here comes the diesel brigade. ...
    • jhaks, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1These comments don't really show an understanding of what these technologies attempt to do. Diesel engines are not in the same category as regenerative breaking and heat conversion. In any system there is the initial input of energy. All system will lose energy usually through heat. With a car you start off with chemical energy, which converts to the kinetic energy of moving the car. The engine loses energy through friction and the heat of the combustion. The car now has kinetic energy but once we break this energy has to go somewhere. It goes into friction which turns all that energy into heat. If we could reduce or recapture the energy lost to heat then the car would be making better use of the chemical energy it started off with.

      Imagine the car as a spring or pendulum. A very good spring or pendulum will keep oscillating back and forth because it recaptures its energy very efficiently converting it from one form of energy to another. So when you say "why not use diesel instead" you don't really understand what this technology is all about. Both regenerative breaking (current hybrid tech) and this heat recapturing tech could be applied to all vehicles and make them more efficient.
  • TheSwagger, on 02/19/2008, -13/+17BMW has similar technology using Steam. Check it out, its really cool.
    http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2006-02/bmwacut ...
    • Peavey, on 02/19/2008, -7/+1Spam is not cool.
      • MacEnvy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5That isn't spam. It's a link to another related article on another site. And it's a good article, too.
        • Peavey, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Yes, but if you want to put on article on Digg, shouldn't you click the big submit link?
      • shoover, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Since when was Popular Science spam???
    • neiltc13, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I'm preloading it now.
    • aegis9975, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4The use of the rankine cycle has been around before BMW or Honda. The use of exhaust heat to recapture power has also been studied by the Dept of Energy for decades. What is new about the Honda system is the use in generating electricity to charge batteries for Hybrids, which makes a lot more sense then trying to directly convert the captured energy into mechanical energy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
      • obliviousfool, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I have a question about this. If you are using waste heat from the engine, you don't need a radiator, right?
  • Topher06, on 02/19/2008, -4/+60Its amazing what can happen when you invest in research and development.
    • robbob, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Its BS until it sells in the market.
      BTW, 2 Honda ads on this page------------------------->
    • JQP123, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3You generate technical solutions that are economically non-viable?
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1This is just a steam turbine added to a car engine. It is hardly new, or high tech. The reason it has never been done is because it is not cost effective because the waste heat of an engine is simply not hot enough to provide enough power to make this system worthwhile.
  • SpaceDreamer, on 02/19/2008, -13/+6an engine that generates power from steam?
    that's an exciting new concept, quick, patent it!
  • swaddict, on 02/19/2008, -6/+110As the American auto companies cry, "More than 35 mpg can't be done, wahhhhh"
    • Satanael, on 02/19/2008, -3/+36They know it can be done. They just openly claim that it is unnecessary and that global warming doesn't exist.
      • cactus476, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1See, It's not that I don't give a ***** about global warming, it's just I care about how much cash is in my wallet a little more.
        • WorLord, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Which is why you should be buying a car that A) costs less to fill up, and B) can go longer stretches between tank-ups.

          Efficiency wins either way.
        • girlpirate, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1@warlord.If you do your research you will probably find that buying a hybrid really isnt that much of a money saver. better mileage yes, more money in my pocket no.
          • WorLord, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I didn't suggest buying a hybrid; I suggested buying a fuel-efficient vehicle.

            I have a standard gas engine vehicle that gets 37mpg highway. Non-hybrid. Cost me 13,5k _new_, costs $25.00 to fill up, and that lasts anywhere from 5-8 days.

            I think you're right about Hybrids. They're a poor interim solution that costs more up front than they would save you in the long term.
          • girlpirate, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1ah, fair enough then. It's nice when we can both be right.
        • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1WHo said a hybrid was cheaper? not me. Hybrids are a CON!!! If you compare a $24,000 Prius to a $10,000 run of the mill 35mpg sedan you would have to drive the Prius for over 11 YEARS just to BREAK EVEN in gasoline savings IE you have yet to save a single penny.

          NOW a $10,000 Electric car would PAY for itself in under 5 years for most people (2 years for me with the miles I drive)

          add $2100 to an electric car (Grid Tie in $1600 Solar Panel $500) and the car is now 100% free to drive and 100% pollution free.

          Electric cars ARE the answer. All we need is the batteries WHICH btw were developed by ovonics for the GM EV1 over 10 years ago and are currently being buried by Chevron until the patent expires in 2015. Go Figure.
        • rossisdead, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1@Nerys: Most people aren't buying $10,000 35mpg sedans when they're buying new cars, they're buying $24,000 ones. Also, where is this 11 year figure coming from? You gave no math indicating the amount of driving being done, or at what gas price.

          I don't disagree with you about electric cars being a good idea, but when you're throwing out facts you should probably back them up.
    • dfranks, on 02/19/2008, -3/+11That always kills me when I know my Ford Festiva manual got around 52 mpg in 1996. Not a cool car but damn cheap to drive.
      • megaton, on 02/19/2008, -8/+1Yeah...no. You weren't getting much more than 32mpg, I assure you.
        • razrielle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Are you saying my Geo dosnt get around 42 if i drive it right? damn my math mush be off from dividing miles by gallons
        • sparr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Whatever. I still get 49 in my 94 Geo Metro, and I am pretty sure the Festiva was in the same class, economy-wise, as the Metro.
      • noahhoward, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4Folk are bigger now. The EPA ratings are calculated for a driver of average weight. To put it bluntly your Festiva wouldn't survive a 300 pound lump in the drivers seat.
        • algo, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1don't weight 300 pounds! save fuel!
          • noahhoward, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Thank you Algo, that was the point.
        • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Driver mass is irrelevant. every 100 pounds you add only costs you about 1/10th of a mile per gallon. so a 200 pound person only gains 2 tents of a mile per gallon over a 400 pound person.
      • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Safety requirements have also become more stringent since the 1996 models. That's why the fuel economy is dropping on current cars.
        • acrodev, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Safety requirements? Try bigger and more powerful engines. Nascar nation won't stand for a car that can't do 0-60 in under 10 seconds.
        • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1It's more than that, horsepower and vehicle size have been steadily rising as well. By example my 1989 Ford Escort had 90hp. The original Focus, which replaced the Escort had 100hp. The 2008 Focus has a minimum 140hp engine.
          • noahhoward, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I'm going to guess that that is a consumer trend. A lot of us don't want a big huge car but still need to be able to drive highway speeds over mountains. I would say variable displacement engines are the solution to that but Dodge has the patent on it and dosen't seem to be using it as much as they should.
        • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Nah they just manipulated consumers into thinking bigger is better.
      • CamelToad, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You, sir, are a classic virgin Digger.
    • skyshock1, on 02/19/2008, -7/+5Nah, they just know that they don't have the $$$ to throw at R&D for things like this when they're too busy paying over inflated wages to their sub-standard unionized work force.
      • cornelje, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Somebody's never had a union job before...
      • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4...don't forget the executive stock options and other lavish bennies, since you felt the need to pick on the laborers. I can guarantee you that Ford and GM management have better executive compensation packages than their Japanese counterparts. Let's also not forget that the German auto industry is far more unionized than here in the States and they make better cars than us and their employees have more vacation time and higher pay too.
        • cornelje, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I agree with everything you said except that German cars are better built.

          Maybe designed better, but have you seen their recent reliability ratings? Terrible.
      • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Oddly enough Honda and Toyota are both able to manage their American plants on a super efficient and profitable way, while building a vehicle exponentially better in quality than anything ever rolled out by the big three.

        You blame labor for doing exactly what management tells them to do. Typical egotistical American attitude. Maybe you should do a little research on W. Edwards Deming if you want to find out the REAL reason American car companies suck ass when compared to the Japanese.

        The problem is the people running businesses in America are far too egotistical to ever listen to anyone but themselves, no matter how obvious the truth is.
      • JQP123, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2"... sub-standard unionized work force"

        Time to update your rhetoric. Toyota, Honda and Nissan are proving your attitude wrong by building high quality cars with US labor.

        The biggest difference between the above and their US counterparts is management. American companies tend to emphasize sales and marketing above all. Upper management in US companies is often dominated by sales and marketing types.

        According to Toyota, building cars is about 2 things --- engineering and manufacturing.

        According to GM, building cars is about 2 things --- sales and marketing.

        Who would you rather buy a car from?
    • trevorjez, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5let's not forget the GM EV1 which i'm pretty sure was produced in the US...
    • mrASSMAN, on 02/19/2008, -1/+14They'll do it if we force them to, our congress is just pathetically useless. Wow, 35mpg by 2020, very ambitious guys!

      Innovation is what prepares the economy for the future, we are falling far behind now.
      • UMDWei, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Seriously... let's set a deadline for 2010. Maybe they'll shape up or buy some companies that have brains.

        For those of you who cry foul and that it can't be done... I'm pretty sure we fixed all the Y2K issues in record time because we HAD to. I'm sure all vehicles could hit the 35 mpg or even the 50 mpg mark if it HAD to. Necessity creates innovation.
        • provost, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1profit and self interest stifles innovation more than necessity creates it. thats why they we are in the position we are in. They have a monopoly on a product that they can reliably reproduce.. why put r&d into something new and cut back on profit?
      • cornelje, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Auto companies want to make money. If there was more of a demand for efficient vehicles, they would make them. The truth is, Hummers and Escalades sell, Aveo's don't.
      • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1If you only sell hummers and escalades and you only promote hummers and escalades and if you constantly shove the percieves safetly of hummers and escalades and all the actors and starts push hummers and excalades and you wonder why this is what the consumers want ?

        I WANT an electric car. Your never going to see that come up in any statistics because they REFUSE TO MAKE an electric car.
    • KeepSwinging, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3My 94 Accord EX got 35 mpg, American car companies need to re-think the way they do things.
      • drlha, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2My '89 Accord LX got about 36 mpg. Its not like there's some fancy new technology needed to get 35 mpg, you just need to make sure people don't drive tanks or cars with way more powerful engines than they need.
      • keimel, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You accord 'got' 35MPG? You got rid of it? Damn.
        Still got mine, coming up to 300,000 miles now. And it usually gets low 30s, but it's a wagon too.

        • KeepSwinging, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1A UPS semi-truck changed lanes into it, so I upgraded to a 98. Same great gas milage with a nicer interior and a little bit faster. Honda FTW
      • cornelje, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Chevette, Aveo, Tracker, Samurai, Escort, Metro, Festiva, Cavalier....
        All these American cars are capable of 35+.
        But being a fan of american cars isn't cool anymore so lets just forget those.
        • razrielle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1some of those are just suzuki rebadges though
        • MrMongoose, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Also, none of those would pass current crash safety standards, so they are irrelevant to bring up. Unless you want to make the point that manufacturers have to keep adding weight to pass crash safety standards because of the prevalence of larger vehicles on the road, thereby requiring more power to maintain performance levels, which leads to lower mpg.
      • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Great point, all these American cars built 20-30 years ago got great gas mileage. Wait, that's not a very good point is it?
    • Manchowder, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2No No, you got it all wrong.
      WAAHHH It is the unions! The unions are keeping our mileage too low! We can't compete cause the unions killed all of our engineers and scientists! WAAA

      But don't develop a universal healthcare plan that shifts health care costs away from corporate america. Noooo. Don't do that.
    • lucutus, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2My 85 Fiero 4cyl w 4 speed manual got over 30 MPG on a regular basis. I could get 40 by driving for economy.
      • ScottKeeler, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Ah yes, the Fiero. Famous for using almost all it's parts from other GM vehicle's and catching on fire while driving.
    • BionicPimp, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0don't forget the "Parntership for a New Generation of Vehicles"
      http://www.commondreams.org/views/061900-104.htm

      Billions of taxpayer dollars in partnership with the automotive industry to develop super-efficient hybrid technology. Who comes out with hybrids first...the japanese...because they actually believed that detroit could develop hybrid technology, and they didn't want to be left behind. If they only knew it was pure corporate welfare...
    • lucutus, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Think maybe the American can companies are going in the wrong direction?
      "the EPA found that "model year 2006 cars and light trucks are the fastest and heaviest since 1975" and, at 21.0 miles-per-gallon, are about 5 percent less fuel efficient than the fleet-average fuel economy peak value of 22.1 mpg achieved in 1987-1988"
    • pinchduck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You have a real source for that quote from any time after 1990?
  • halobender, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Site seems to be down.
    • Zandarrr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Yup, page gets stuck while loading. Ugh.
  • krnldmp, on 02/19/2008, -2/+8Needs a lower latent heat working fluid than water, but otherwise braindead technology that should have been widespread fifty years ago.
  • megaton, on 02/19/2008, -9/+19So they invented a...steam engine?
    • megaton, on 02/19/2008, -5/+5Folks digging me down: Did you RTFA? Did you see the little diagram? The one that says "STEAM" on it?
    • trogdor282, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3So can I download Portal off it?
  • everfalling, on 02/19/2008, -11/+5*cough* http://www.aptera.com/ *cough*
    • FredFredrickson, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Aptera isn't going to take off until it looks like a normal car, and not something you'd find in the Jetsons' garage.
    • songfire, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't heard about it. I looked all over their site for pricing, but initially didn't find it. Therefore, I thought they were hiding it and were going to charge 60K plus or something ludicrous. Turns out the price is listed on their reservation page, and the hybrid version costs less than 30K, quite reasonable.

      If you drive 12K miles a year, @25 mpg and $3/gallon you spend about $1400/year. Over 5 years that's $7K. With the hybrid version of an aptera, you get ~200 mpg, or 1/8th the amount you will spend on an ordinary vehicle for gas: ~$900 over 5 years. So you can recoup the difference between the aptera and a decently loaded honda accord (non-hybrid). Of course, this doesn't take into account maintenance, insurance, etc--god knows where you will be able to get this thing serviced and how much it will cost to insure. But the baseline numbers do work. I won't be getting on line to get one of the first, but I will hope for their success.
    • whatwhatwhoa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't drive an Aptera until the roads are 4,000lbs SUVs-Free.
    • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1It's important to point out the Aptera's MPG claim are pretty bogus as well, because they don't factor in the energy used charging the batteries. Without precharging the vehicle it gets 130mpg according to Aptera--that's impressive, but well short of their claims.
      • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1you do realize a fraction of the change on the floor of your car will pay for the charge for your electric car right ? its about $1 per 100 miles (LESS for the aptera since its splitting the cost with the gasoline) I would only want the PURE EV model. as long as it has heat air and can go a minimum of 75 miles on a charge I would be super happy.

        Insurance? I am pretty sure its classed motorcycle so VERY cheap to insure :-)

        Jetsons styling? thats a BONUS to me ie a positive selling point. Its also very safe.
        • EtherGnat, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Actually the cost to charge it is significant. I crunched the numbers in a previous post on the Aptera. I like the vehicle, I'm just not a fan of throwing around bogus MPG claims.
  • austenw, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3aaaand it's down
  • sublimemm, on 02/19/2008, -13/+5*Comment removed by the Church of Scientology*
    • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Why...do extra thetans increase fuel economy? Praise Xenu!
  • DiggzDE, on 02/19/2008, -14/+1http://www.diggmirror.com
    • DiggzDE, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Damn you Digg and your retarded comment functionality. If I could, I'd digg my own comment down.
    • Peavey, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1Epic Fail.
      • FredFredrickson, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't go that far... it's a pretty common mistake.
        • Peavey, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You're right, epic might have been a little strong.

          But I don't say that because it's common, merely because it is relatively simple. What can I say, I don't always look at the proximity of keys when I critique spelling errors.

          Fail on my part.
  • jax9999, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6wait... so its steam powered! steampunk car ftw!
  • saska, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Great news, if only they run better than the Insights did.
  • ivandir, on 02/19/2008, -5/+7This is just plain "hot air", pun intended. Honda, how about you invent a new universal engine that blows the competition instead of mini additions providing 3.8% engine efficiency.

    source : http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/honda-rese ...
    • halobender, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4You do it.
      • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Give me there budget and I will have an EV on the road inside 2 years for under $10k with a 200+ mile range.
    • maddskillz, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Your link goes to a 404, so not sure what you are intending to say..
      I am sure if they could create a new engine that blows away they competition they would do it, who wouldn't. Problem is they can't, so they provide a small increase in efficiency. The funny thing is, once you start adding a bunch of small increases together, they can really add up
    • kingmanic, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1This is just plain "hot air", pun intended. Ivandir, how about you state a logical comments instead of asking for a company to do a extremely difficult job right away.

      Revolutionary takes more then just money, even just incremental innovation takes a lot of ingenuity. If Honda could snap their fingers and make a engine that did 6660 MPG, produced 500 hp, and could be made from recycled tin cans for $50 and lasted 20-30 years they'd do it because they'd bury the competition. However They do what they can with the resources they have.
    • ivandir, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/honda-rese ...
    • whatwhatwhoa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You can only combust fuel in so many ways. The only other viable alternative is the Wankel engine, which is actually less efficient (in its current state) because it must burn oil to keep itself lubricated (in RX-8 at least, because that is currently the only production wankel engine). But Honda did popularize the use of Variable Valve Timing.
  • bbart3d, on 02/19/2008, -0/+13"Recapturing the heat" sounds like relationship advice.
  • gstep, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Why not just focus on electric? This doesn't eliminate the fossil fuel dependency.
    • FredFredrickson, on 02/19/2008, -6/+4Because you have to make electricity with coal plants, and coal ain't exactly a non-polluting form of energy.
      • zephc, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Really? You HAVE to?
      • ApokalypseNow, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7Or, you know, we could make it with hydro-electric plants, wind farms, geothermal plants, tidal generators, solar panels, or nuclear fission.
        • javajockey, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Or Nuclear, Since you would mostly charge the car at night. That energy goes largely wasted anyway
      • carpespasm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2hell, even if you did use a coal fire plant you'd wind up with a more efficient system. The extra energy required to keep the plant running under non-peak loads (at night) is when people would charge their cars. The single power plant is also much more efficient in making power than millions of individual engines each running about
      • girlpirate, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1hmmm. Hydro bill, Gas bill, coal bill...coal bill...nope, no coal bill. either coal is free or we don't rely solely on it for our electrical needs.
    • mrbro, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4neither does electric
    • whatwhatwhoa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Battery technology cannot keep up. Lithium is the batter of choice, but it is expensive, and is a harmful substance. Two technologies that should be improved are batteries and solar panels.
      • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1The needed battery tech is already here whatwhatwhoa It was funded for by GM for the EV1 invented by Ovonics over 10 years ago. Its currently held by ECD Ebasys (70% Chevron plus a Chevron Veto power on any license of the tech) They just REFUSE to license it for EV usage or ANY usage where a EV retrofit is possible. Its a CONTROLLING patent meaning no one can make a similar one without violating the patent and its enforceable till 2015 - also no other "willing" party has the finances to do the R&D to bypass the patent with any other tech. Anyone WITH the funding has no desire and or has every reason NOT to develop it.

        The Large Format Nimh tech has enough range is cheap and low cost (10 years ago the battery pack was only $4500!!! and that was LOW quantities!!!)

        It would be easy to build a sub $10,000 Electric car with an over 100 mile range with todays tech and the battery from a decade ago mass produced. $12-$14k would get you 200+ range and thats to start. HALF that one you really ramp up production.
  • dorkino, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1The heat is on! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-mU-YSk32I

  • tb0r, on 02/19/2008, -1/+15 Honda Re-Captures Lost Heat, Blows Highway Hybrids Away
    Written by Hank Green
    Monday, 18 February 2008

    Honda just dropped a bit of a bombshell on the world with it's announcement that their heat-harnessing hybrids recapture more lost energy than even Toyota's hybrid drive during highway driving. This is fantastic news, since about half of American passenger vehicle driving happens at 65 MPH or faster and mileage at those speeds has been almost completely unaffected by hybrid engines thus far.

    The project uses Rankine cycle engine to capture waste heat from the car's exhaust and turn it into work. The system is fairly simple, though the thermodynamics are not. Basically water is heated, converted to steam, and the steam's expansion is used to turn a generator. Of course, that's a very basic explanation. For a more technical analysis, Green Car Congress always has the scoop.

    The system was installed in a hybridized Honda Stream (only available in Japan.) It is currently about 13% efficient, and generates 3 times as much energy as a regenerative braking system in the EPA highway cycle. While highway mileages have been largely unaffected by regenerative braking, heat capture could assist in mileage increases in both highway and city driving.

    Honda has decided that, at current efficiencies (and gas prices) it will not be cost-effective to include heat-capturing devices in production cars. Similar projects have come to the same conclusion. But with rising energy costs, and better engine designs, this could be a huge possible source of energy as more than 30% of a fuel's energy is immediately lost as heat in an internal combustion engine.

    It's a promising new frontier, one with applications beyond vehicles everywhere from large-scale power generation to microprocessor cooling. Way to go Honda.
  • FaceCage, on 02/19/2008, -5/+5I may just be ignorant about this, but what will the impact be when millions of people start plugging their cars in every night to recharge? Most US power still comes from coal, meaning your car is still powered by fossil fuel. How does this play out in the global scheme?
    • siblbombs, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I believe that there is less environmental impact from running your car off of the grid as opposed to gas. While coal still pollutes, it requires less overall emissions to run the car. Also, energy tends to be cheaper at night because the relative load on the grid is lower than during the day.
    • neodorian, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6I guess if you read the article you would know this isn't anything about plugging in a car. It's about making gasoline engines more efficient by reclaiming energy lost to heat in this case or to friction in the case of the Prius (which I guess is kind of similar since it ends up as heat).
      • jhaks, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1YES! Thank you. It seems people don't get this. Now what we need is to combine both technologies.
      • FaceCage, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0yeah, my comment was supposed to be in reply to gstep's comment regarding electric vehicles. I fail at repliage, my fingers are too fat.

    • Lari, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6Face, this article is not about plugging cars in at night. BUT... Plug in hybrids will in fact be charged off of our power grid. While that grid is majority coal, the efficiency of a major power plant is much grater than the extremely inefficient internal combustion engine. In addition, our power grid is constantly being expanded to include wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc. So, once our cars move to the more efficient grid we can focus our attention on how to make the grid itself cleaner.
    • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I'm more concerned with the mercury and uranium issue with burning coal than the "global warming" aspect to the fuel. Perhaps the government should invest in stripping mercury and uranium elements from the coal before it is burned. The oceans and the fish themselves would be far healthier then...not to mention those of us that do eat seafood.
  • sKiLLa182, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2another article about honda's system: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/honda-rese ...

    and: http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9873148-54.html
  • fahrvergnuugen, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1BWM built a heat scavenging system that could be retrofitted to any 3 series. The idea is to suck as much heat as possible from the exhaust & cooling system (over half the energy in a modern combustion engine is lost as heat) and then turn that back into mechanical power.
  • bigtrouble777, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5Funny thing is I bought my Honda Insight hybrid in 2001. It was the most fuel efficient mas prod. car then and it still is today. I have a 150k mile on it and my battery is still going very strong. I have a lifetime efficiency of 56mpg- and that's taking traffic, storms and other crap into account. The only mechanical part that needed to be fixed was the CVT after 130k miles. Hybrids do work and Honda's tech is still pretty good.
  • lenninct, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1WOW more mileage per gallon FTW. it is still a Honda. :)
  • Ranvier, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2Damn you Digg, you are so bittersweet!

    "Hey user, here's a bunch of article you'll love, and their only a click away!"
    "Oh wow, that's so convienant!"
    *clicks article*
    "..."
    "***** you digg"
  • lexington86, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2The Honda ads on this digg page are epic.
  • fudgebrown, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Honda ftw.
  • SwedishNinja, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Yay thermodynamics :)
  • katorga, on 02/19/2008, -5/+0Why not just put a small wind tunnel turbine on the car to generate power from the car moving through the air? It is more simple to implement than a complex liquid heat exchange system. What happens to the water in one of these cars in cold climates like the US, Europe, Northern Japan? Either way, when can get get a Fit diesel or hybrid? The current mpg on a Fit is insanely bad for such a small car.
    • otakushark, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4You can't get something for nothing. A turbine would increase drag and reduce mileage more than it would recoup.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I would guess that the energy gains from a wind tunnel turbine would be negated by the increase in drag that such a system would cause, unless they can be made to be very efficient. Just a guess though.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The drag produced by the turbine would negate any extra milage produced, possibly even making things worse. This works by taking previously wasted heat and extracts energy from it. In any case, it would be better to make a pure electric vehicle and toss a small ICE engine attached to a generator in it to make it a hybrid. Less weight from fewer components needed (no bulky drivetrain or transmission system), and the same efficiency as hybrids out now. Make the ICE engine run on bio-diesel, and you'll be on your way to 100+ MPG...
    • Buelldozer, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I'll tell you why we don't. Because in THIS universe we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
    • IronDonut, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Are you kidding man? Did you sleep though all of your highschool science classes?

      This is why so many people buy into *****. They don't understand basic technology.
    • Oneiric3885, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0thermodynamics, it's the law!
  • orangetiki, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2HAs anyone ever thought of putting a little turbine on the two tires in the back that don't turn or provide thrust? All I am saying is that those tires turn all the time. Sure a shame to waste all that kinetic energy
    • otakushark, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1A turbine would increase drag and reduce mileage more than it would recoup.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1A turbine like that would increase drag and decrease efficiency of the system as a whole. Unless the energy gained from such a turbine was more than that lost by having it there, pulling energy away from forward motion (by way of causing resistance on the rear axle), it would not be a worthwhile endeavor.
    • stilesja, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Think about it, what makes those wheels turn? Right, the engine turning the other wheels. Adding a turbine adds resistance and so to go the same speed will require more energy output. Through the law of conservation of energy, the energy you gain at the rear wheels will not equal the energy you lost by having to work harder to go the same speed. The same is true for wind turbines, any turbine producing a significant amount of energy will also create even more drag.
    • Buelldozer, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I thought that this was started out as a geek site? Where did all these people who don't understand basic physics come from?
    • gi0rgi0s, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3It is a geek site. The dude was joking and you geeks missed it.
  • Phenix454, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Anybody find it strange that there is 3 Honda Ads on this story...I know tags but c'mon!
  • boxoman, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Unfortunately, Electricity is produced mainly in coal power plants (coal is a commodity as well), and it is not very clean. So unless we turn to nuclear power, electricity is not any better of a fuel. The problem is that the government turns to the first fuel it can find that will satisfy the crying hippies that want to clean up, and the dependency to be gone. So instead of picking a fuel that makes sense and has a good energy input/output ratio, they just pick whatever is the quickest. Energy has to come from some where, be it coal, oil, nuclear, water, wind, so having a good energy ratio is very important.

    You cant eliminate the need for oil. a barrel of oil is 42 gallons. 19.4 of which is made into gasoline. The rest of the barrel goes into many other things (over 6000, http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Pet ... So without oil, you can't make a lot of stuff. And Ethanol (out of corn) is pretty much worthless, I dont understand why our govt is even bothering. It takes about 1BTU of energy to make 1.4BTU's worth of ethanol out of corn (worthless). Gasoline is 1BTU to about 8BTU, Bio-diesel is like 1BTU to 5 BTU. It would be much better to make Ethanol out of sugar cane (more like 1BTU to 5BTU). Also, for those who think Ethanol is cleaner, you need to look at the whole story. Distilling Ethanol takes Power, and Power is mostly made in coal power plants (just in case you didn't know, coal is not very clean)

    Also, for the same volume, a 90% Ethanol, 10% Gasoline blend, will give you only 23mpg in a 30mpg car (I have calculated this myself, Ethanol has less energy than gasoline). This might be ok if it were a lot cheaper, but you only save a few cents (mainly because the gas stations would rather make more profit than cut the price). The subsidies the govt. gives to oil companies for Ethanol never make it to the consumer...

    Hope this helps clear things up a little.
    • jackmon, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1It's true that electric cars will likely get most of their energy from coal power plants. Two things though:
      1) If you install solar panels, you might be able to get most of your power from the sun.
      2) Even if all you end up doing by going electric is shifting carbon emissions to a central location, that's still a positive. It will be easier to prevent carbon emissions at 1 source than it will be to do it for each car on the road.
    • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Electric car. Automatically 6 times more efficient than a Gas car right out of the gate. This means even if 100% of your power comes from COAL (only 54% of our power is coal BTW) you are instantly producing 1/6th the amount of pollution. Keep in mind this IGNORES the fact that an electric car uses NO power while stopped or slowing down and ignores regenerative braking and ignores alternative power.

      SO even if we switched to electric and did nothing else we would produce 1/6th the pollution OR LESS

      OH but wait it gets even better. HOW exactly does that Gasoline get INTO your cars tank? Fairies ? Why With electricity off course. I am betting if we compared the amount of US electricity needed to GET that gallon of gasoline into you car it would be GREATER than the same amount of electricity used to move your electric car (same meaning MILES driven)

      It costs about $1 in electricity to drive an electric car 100 miles (this is factual data from GM EV1 Drivers not estimates) $1.5 or slightly more in areas with higher E costs such as Cali etc..

      I bet it costs MORE than $1 in electricity to get 5 gallons of gasoline into your car. this means our NET electrical usage would actually GO DOWN by switching to EV's NOT go up as opponents imply. This ON TOP OF them being 6 times more efficient.

      OH and theres MORE. How much NON electric pollution is created in getting that gasoline around the country in trucks etc.. In refineries (they have there own power plants usually)

      All that goes away. There simply is no downside to an electric car. (the battery issue is a MANUFACTURED problem not a REAL problem Chevron is sitting on the ovonics LF NIMH patent that GM developed for electric cars and refuses to license it) Sadly this patent does not expire till 2015

      NOW lets go EVEN FURTHER yes friends theres MORE. Nano Solar just shipped there first order of solar panels to Germany at 90cents a watt !! once they can get those panels to CONSUMERS at that price point consider this.

      $1600 for a Grid Tie in. $500 for a solar panel and you will produce MORE POWER each month (sold back to the Electric Company) than your Electric Car will use each month.

      This means switching to Electric Cars would not only LOWER electric usage in this country NOT increase it and not only dramatically reduce pollution right out of the gate but combined with AFFORDABLE solar panels would create cars that are absolutely FREE to drive and absolutely 100% pollution free NO MATTER WHAT source of power your utility uses.

      ON TOP OF THAT. OH YES folks theres MORE. Electric Cars are SOOO simple I mean RIDICULOUSLY simple. Your talking about going from hundreds of movings parts in an ICE engine and tranny to precisely ONE moving part in an EV drive train. there are basically 4 Components to an electric car.

      The Controller. Solid State. The Charger. Solid State. The Battery Solid State (IE all these have ZERO moving parts) and the Electric Motor which has a SINGLE moving part that WILL outlive you and probably your kids too.

      Electric cars are virtually everlasting and virtually maintenance free. THIS is why GM "killed" the electric car. NOT OIL. (thats why Texaco bought the patent for the batteries)

      54% of GM's profit in 1997 era came from AFTER sales parts and labor IE fixing your car. Almost 100% of this goes POOF with an electric car.

      ON TOP of that a properly designed Electric car is Faster off the line faster to 60mph and faster and more responsive all around and SAFER than any car YOU AND ME are likely to get behind the wheel of. A properly designed regular electric car will even outperform most low to mid level SPORTS cars and even some low end super cars.

      There is simply ZERO downside to an electric car to the mass majority of the population. There is huge downside to the top few percent of the population who profits from current ICE cars and oil.
  • xdevit, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Not really a new idea being this same basic concept is used for your heater and for the good old manifold ovens. But its good to see someone using wasted energy for something.
  • roflbrothel, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Looks like my next car will be a Honda.

    Heh, it was going to be a Honda anyways.
  • Slovenian6474, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2sounds very similar to the six cycle engine. Biggest obstacle is the added weight on the car from the steam components

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke
  • Alphapsi12, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Not sure how many MPG my Camry Hybrid is getting but I've been driving that car for close to three weeks now and still have 1/4 of a tank left driving back and to work (~30 minutes round trip). I wish the big three could make something that could go toe to toe with a hybrid civic/camry/accord/etc.
  • MadOgre, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1So Honda stole BMW's idea? BMW had a few working prototypes... and now Honda is doing it. Nice.
    • whatwhatwhoa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1So? The faster the technology can be mass marketed to the lower end of the market, where 90% of the people are, the better.
    • roberto_deneero, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1The difference is that Honda wont charge an arm and a leg for it and it will last forever without requiring Hans Moneywrench touching it every 3k miles.
  • robbob, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1What I read from this is there is an obvious perception that Honda is playing catch up to Toyota in the hybrid market.
    This story only give PR to what they can do, not what they will do.
    Spoke-hole nonsense.
  • BikerDude69, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Any internal combustion engine can be ran on hydrogen with the on-demand hydrogen generator system. http://www.preignitioncc.com/mmhi/index.htm
    This kit is guaranteed to improve your gas mileage by 50% or more. I have seen home built ones,and yes, they work. This system uses several technologies like electrolysys on demand hydrogen generator, fuel heater, fuel additives and engine timing controls. The same company will soon be releasting a new catalytic convertor that will further increase fuel efficincy by up to 5x. I don't work for this company, but I do care about the environment and eliminating our dependence on foreign oil.
    • Buelldozer, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What total bunkum.
    • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Its bunk because the AMOUNT of hydrogen you would NEED to produce on demand is beyond our affordable means right now. First the IDEA is sound there is simply no execution yet. PLUS any system that DID have a large enough battery pack to actually improve your fuel economy would be LESS efficient than just powering an electric motor with that battery. Our problem is NOT the motor its the battery (chevron patent) so this hydrogen system WILL run into the same problem an ELECTRIC CAR runs into. We can not make an affordable usable battery pack yet without violating chevron's patent which they refuse to license.
  • bincoder, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I've always wondered why waste heat isn't used to run the AC system on a vehicle the way that gas refrigerators work using ammonia as the working fluid and no moving parts. Have you ever sat in traffic on a 110 degree summer day in arizona? Massive amounts of waste heat are available for use in some manner. Turning the AC compressor on can nearly stall the engine and requires lots of gasoline to spin.
  • kimgh, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1So, this doesn't "blow" anything away. It's not in production and it's not for sale. And I think it sounds like lots of extra complication for a very small return in energy savings. From the comments, it doesn't even sound like anything new.

    Whatever the flaws, the current hybrid technologies still seem to be the best bet until plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fueled vehicles are widespread.

    Claimer: I own a Prius; best car I've ever driven.
    • sponeil, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0From TFA, it sounds like it does but the extra equipment is too expensive. That was a problem with the first Prius as well.
  • Medisha, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1
    This is just plain "hot air", pun intended. Honda, how about you invent a new universal engine that blows the competition instead of mini additions providing 3.8% engine efficiency.
    source : http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/honda-rese ...
  • sponeil, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I have a (perhaps not so) stupid question. TFA says they capture waste heat from the exhaust. Wouldn't they get a lot more heat from the radiator?
    • MrMongoose, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than that of the cooling system. My car's thermostat is fully open about 20 degrees F below the boiling point of water, whereas exhaust temps right out of the head can range from 300-400 C at idle to 700 C and up when driving.
    • scamper22, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Definitely not a stupid question. MrMongoose gives the answer.
      But worthy of an entertaining answer.

      Which is hotter? your sweat or the exhaust from from your bum

    • IronDonut, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Engine coolent is typically below the boiling point of water 180-190f. In some rare cases when the coolent is above the boiling point of water it's not significantly above the boiling point (230-240f) to extract enough energy where a heat exchanger could produce steam.

      Exhaust gasses regularly exceed 1200-1500f which is ideal to producing a lot of high pressure steam.
  • jun2san, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I know I will probably get dugg down for this (there's no such thing as a stupid question....except on digg) but why won't a magnetic generator put on the car's axle work as a way to charge the battery?
    • jackmon, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1I think that's essentially the idea behind regenerative breaking.
    • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2OK first we have learned that conservation of mass and energy means you can never get more out than you put in IE all transactions are lossy. IE always less than 100%

      SO when you put that magnet on the axle you are going to INCREASE the energy needed to spin that axle. Conservation of Mass and Energy says the energy increase the spin the axle with the magnets on it WILL be greater than the energy recovered with the magnets on the axle. See the problem here ?

      NOW if the magnets were OFF (eletroc magnet) and only turned on when you WANTED to slow down (regenerative braking basically does just this) NOW what your doing is recovering energy you normally would have just lost as heat in the brake pads.

      This might work but short of an electric car how would you capture and USE this recovered energy? ie it only really makes sense in an ELECTRIC vehicle where its easy to change momentum into electricity. Its not so easy to "store" momentum without a battery IE mechanically such as with flywheel.
  • liuite, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1*deleted*
  • Sackula, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1This is why I invest in excellence
  • OnlineAddict, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1This is a great breakthrough but we all know it has been around for awhile now. The government and large corporations should stop withholding technology so they can make huge profits. If they continue to wait then the earth will simply burn.
    • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1That is minor. The problem is Chevron. GM developed the LF NIMH battery (ovonics) for electric cars. Sold it to texaco bought by chevron. They refuse to allow anyone to license it in any format that can or even might be used for electric cars. This controlling patent will not expire till 2015.
  • zdiggler, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I don't really cares about MPG, I only care about what I pay for insurance and how much monthly payments.
    I have a $5000 used car which i have for more then 5 years. Only cost me $120 /month to operate. including oil change.
    If I get a new cars, Full Coverage insurance nearly $200 , monthly payment $300+ and probably about $80 on gas /month. No thanks.
    • Nerys, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1I currently spend $4000 a year or more on gasoline. I spend $600 a year on Car Insurance. While I think that $600 is a rip off (I exceed my coverage if I so much as look in the direction of an emergency room) its still small fries compared to my gasoline consumption. An electric car would immediately save me $3000 a year in gasoline if it had a 70mile range on a charge. $3600 a year if it had a 200mile range.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.