...and all of this without the cost and complexity of hybrid technology!
Really interested in the Peugeot air hybrid system. Simpler energy storage device no software.bumonbox said:As Dave said, Hybrids have their place. As do Diesels. A Hybrid would be an absolute waste of many for me, but I live out in the country. If I lived in NYC driving a car, where I'd spend more time stopped than moving, the stop / start alone would be a big benefit. Hybrids, I would expect will remain in existence, but a niche for the foreseeable future. So long as it is neither pushed as the answer to all ills by some political elements - and absolutely useless by others, I think that is fine.
Dave: I'll contest that from engineering standpoint that I understand. Mind you this is on the hypothetical side. The disadvantage of internal combustion engines are fuel consumption while accelerating (hence the disparity of city/highway mpg). So, it they went to a hybrid where the internal combustion engine is optimized for operating at a speed where it will recharge the batteries, that leaves the other stuff to the electric motor, where I suspect it is more efficient. Granted a droning exhaust note will thrill the Hemi & Jeep folks here as much as the CVT, but if I'm right, I think that will be where we are headed. I'm willing to listen to rational arguments against that.DaveAdmin said:No, it has the cost and complexity of diesel technology, and gets rubbish mileage on the city cycle, you'll notice.
Hybrids are for stop and go driving.
Well if electric hybrid is too expensive, and hydraulic hybrid isn't light what about compressed air with start stop system?suzq044 said:.. hybrid diesel? Combine them for the best of both worlds? .. or maybe the worst of them? lol
To be more accurate:guyver[this word has been banned due to its use as a pointless flame tool said:y]23/33 2WD 21/30 4WD for Grand Cherokee?
19/30 2WD 17/25 4WD
All very good numbers! Now if only I had the money for a diesel Grand Cherokee... :thumbsup:
You weren't using imperial MPG, which would be 27/40 since the imperial gallon is about 20% more than the US gallon.mentalicca said:To be more accurate:
Canadian converted mpgs for 2WD are 23/33 and 19/30
US Mileage is:
2WD 3.6: 17/25
4WD 3.6: 17/24
2WD Hemi: 15/21
4WD Hemi: 14/20
The US mileage comes from actual window stickers. Don't have the diesel ones since neither fueleconomy.gov has them, nor do any dealers (since it's a late availability option). The MPG difference is surprisingly low in my mind regarding the difference between the 5 speed and the 8 speed. Makes me wonder why the MPG is such an improvement in the Ram vs the GC. Is it the active shutters or something else.
DaveAdmin said:The table carries direct conversions (imperial to US) as well as US EPA figures which are from a different testing set.
This was incorrect because 17/25 MPG is the US EPA 2WD fuel consumption rating, and the 19/30 is the canadian rating converted to US gallons.guyver[this word has been banned due to its use as a pointless flame tool said:y]23/33 2WD 21/30 4WD for Grand Cherokee?
19/30 2WD 17/25 4WD
That you for pointing that out.mentalicca said:Right, that is what I was pointing out. I was just correcting the statement (and adding the 4WD mileage ratings for the Hemi and 3.6):
This was incorrect because 17/25 MPG is the US EPA 2WD fuel consumption rating, and the 19/30 is the canadian rating converted to US gallons.