"Despite promises that the Chevy Volt will operate as an electric car at all times, it will in fact at times be directly driven in part by its internal combustion engine."
http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/gm-lied-chevy-volt-is-not-a-true-ev.html
Interesting that it works in reality nothing like it was advertised to work like.... there is a fairly big difference between a run of the mill plungin hybrid and a full out ev with a gas backup generator...
But it the end of the day, its the same functionality to the end consumer...
I had high hopes for this thing, but kept forgetting it was GM.
Quote from: r0tor on October 11, 2010, 10:53:11 AM
Interesting that it works in reality nothing like it was advertised to work like.... there is a fairly big difference between a run of the mill plungin hybrid and a full out ev with a gas backup generator...
But it the end of the day, its the same functionality to the end consumer...
It does work just like an EV with a backup generator, until you go over 70.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on October 11, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
I had high hopes for this thing, but kept forgetting it was GM.
Huh? Aside from the pricetag, the entire system blows other hybrids out of the water.
Reading into it some more, this actually makes a lot more sense to have the gas motor power the wheels. It takes over where efficency of the electric motor falls off; speeds above 70MPH.
In normal driving (and perhaps freeway speeds 65MPH and down) the car will be electrically driven entirely.
How is this a "Lie"?
Quote from: 2o6 on October 11, 2010, 01:16:08 PM
Reading into it some more, this actually makes a lot more sense to have the gas motor power the wheels. It takes over where efficency of the electric motor falls off; speeds above 70MPH.
In normal driving (and perhaps freeway speeds 65MPH and down) the car will be electrically driven entirely.
How is this a "Lie"?
It's not a full electric vehicle as they originally claimed. Originally, they said the only thing the ICE would do is generate electricity.
Popular mechanics review
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/hybrid-electric/volt-reliability-report-test (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/hybrid-electric/volt-reliability-report-test)
They got a average range of 33 miles on a 11ish hour charge.
"In addition to measuring EV range, we also recorded the fuel use when the car was in its ?charge sustaining" mode. In other words, we computed the fuel economy after the battery was depleted, both on our city loop and the highway trip. In the city, we recorded 31.67 mpg and achieved 36.0 mpg on the highway. If we factor in the distance traveled on the battery's energy the fuel economy jumps to 37.5 mpg city and 38.15 mpg highway"
Mid 30's combined when in "extended" mode.
Hot dog, someone hold them back. Gm better leave some room for the next gen volt, with such stunning figures they really backed themselves into a corner. Going to be pretty tough to top that.
That's with the battery depleted.
When charged, that figure doubles.
This car makes me want a Prius.
I think it's too little, too late.
I'm so glad we as taxpayers helped pay for the R&D on this revolutionary groundbreaking vehicle, the Plug-in Prius With A Bigger Battery.
MT averaged 120+mpg in their test.
Quote from: 68_427 on October 11, 2010, 08:22:47 PM
MT averaged 120+mpg in their test.
Is that using some kind of ridiculous "MPG-equivalent" calculation?
http://redirectingat.com/?id=673X542464&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motortrend.com%2Froadtests%2Falternative%2F1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test%2Findex.html&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fapexforums.freeforums.org%2Fm-trend-s-first-test-of-the-volt-t6368.html
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9744/volttest.jpg)
It has a tank capacity of 9.3 gallons. 120mpg*9.3 should mean it has a range of 1116 miles, right? Obviously MT is doing a lot of weird math to arrive at that number, or their drives were too short to engage the ICE.
So what happens if I want to take my Volt on vacation? Can I average 126 mpg from Pittsburgh to Florida?
Or will my more usable, more functional, older, 37 mpg in 80/20 mixed driving Saturn largely yield better numbers than the vaunted Volt?
There should be two mileage figures here
1) miles per KwH (or whatever electrical figure) just using the thing as an EV (commuting, not using gas)
2) mpg with batteries depleted (road tripping)
Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 11, 2010, 08:37:40 PM
There should be two mileage figures here
1) miles per KwH (or whatever electrical figure) just using the thing as an EV (commuting, not using gas)
2) mpg with batteries depleted (road tripping)
No, there should be only one number, computed by a function that can be continuously manipulated by GM PR and politicians to fool the public.
(http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/230-mpg-chevy-volt-500x379.jpg)
Look at this fucking moron. Jesus, GM pisses me off.
So the Ford Fusion Hybrid gets better mileage and it's a bigger car. The only thing this car does better than anything else on the market is be a commuter car. A $40,000 commuter car.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 11, 2010, 08:45:39 PM
So the Ford Fusion Hybrid gets better mileage and it's a bigger car. The only thing this car does better than anything else on the market is be a commuter car. A $40,000 commuter car.
Kinda defeats the point, doesn't it? Hopefully, Elon Musk can bring out the Model S close to the $50k estimated price so this car will truly be outclassed by an apples-to-apples car. Who knows, GM might still claim victory because this thing is still more functional than a Leaf.
Why I think this is a major FAIL is because I know that your typical American family owns multiple cars. My boyfriend and I could purchase both a SUV/wagon and a pure EV, and commute to work in both. No range anxiety there. When we take longer trips, we take the conventionally powered car instead. Still no range anxiety? So where does the Volt come into the picture?
The Volt is an expensive shorter-distance car, and it's simply an OK longer-distance car. We can afford to specialize in this country, there's no reason to pick a car that's a jack of all trades and master of none.
What if you need to make a swing by the hospital after work or the family calls during the day for something thats out of your way on the normal commute?
In my case, that's never happened. Everything I need to access is within 25mi tops.
Nissan is offering free car rentals to Leaf buyers who occasionally need to drive beyond the range of their cars.
Quote from: Laconian on October 11, 2010, 08:22:10 PM
I'm so glad we as taxpayers helped pay for the R&D on this revolutionary groundbreaking vehicle, the Plug-in Prius With A Bigger Battery.
Lest we not forget: The Prius was subsidized almost entirely by the Japanese government. It too was pretty impractical in it's first iteration.
Quote from: Laconian on October 11, 2010, 08:24:16 PM
Is that using some kind of ridiculous "MPG-equivalent" calculation?
No, by driving their test loop. Until the battery goes below a certain mark (~40 miles BEFORE the gas motor kicks in) the car is on electric power only.
The Volt is going to make a lot of people happy, and piss a lot of people off. The technology and application of the car means that MPG's may be stellar for one person, and average for another.
For example, If I worked in Cleveland (which is a ~60 mile drive). I'd make it most of the way in theoretical infinte MPG. Then, near Cleveland, the gas motor would cut on to recharge the batteries. This would cause my theroetical MPG's to drop significantly. However, when I'm navigating the city streets, the Electric motor is using less power (going slower, cuts off at traffic lights) but the gas motor is recharging the batteries. This would cause my average MPG's to swing upward, drastically.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 11, 2010, 09:04:09 PM
What if you need to make a swing by the hospital after work or the family calls during the day for something thats out of your way on the normal commute?
Depends on what the route is.
Quote from: Laconian on October 11, 2010, 08:41:56 PM
No, there should be only one number, computed by a function that can be continuously manipulated by GM PR and politicians to fool the public.
(http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/230-mpg-chevy-volt-500x379.jpg)
Look at this fucking moron. Jesus, GM pisses me off.
On an entirely city loop, it will achieve that. The gas motor only chimes in a tiny bit to recharge the batteries.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 11, 2010, 08:35:56 PM
So what happens if I want to take my Volt on vacation? Can I average 126 mpg from Pittsburgh to Florida?
Or will my more usable, more functional, older, 37 mpg in 80/20 mixed driving Saturn largely yield better numbers than the vaunted Volt?
That isn't (nor has always ever been) the purpose of this car, or any hybrid for that matter.
My commute would require a charge once I get to work.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 11, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
My commute would require a charge once I get to work.
Unless you don't navigate any city streets, the motor would likely recharge the entire system by the time you got to work. (Or, you have a freakishly long freeway commute)
If you were recharging by the time you got to work, you'd likely get a super-high, triple digit MPG figure.
I love how a range of 40 miles suddenly became "25-40 miles". I love how that number dropped drastically, too.
We have no idea how much worse this thing will do in cold weather, either.
hey genius (2o6), the engine doesn't replenish the batteries
Yeah. This thing would suck balls in winter. It's "optimal" temperature range is 32-90some degrees F, IIRC. It'd be useless in winter in a large area of the country.
Last winter in Pittsburgh, it got down to -2F. Couple that with high-friction snow tires, and this thing will likely suck donkey testicles.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 11, 2010, 09:40:29 PM
I love how a range of 40 miles suddenly became "25-40 miles".
Depends on how you drive, and how your commute is.
This car would be great for those who drive in slit-your-wrists stop-and-go freeway traffic. By the time you start to run out of the electric range, you stop (no electric motor used) and the gas motor is charging the battery while you wait.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on October 11, 2010, 09:42:26 PM
hey genius (2o6), the engine doesn't replenish the batteries
Yes it does.That throws my entire idea about the Volt out of the window.
For me, assuming I got 35 mpg for every mile over 30 miles in a given day, I would have used about 90 gallons of fuel the whole year. Considering I drove about 5600 miles, I would have averaged about 62 mpg. I would have spent about $325 on gas for the whole year. Subtract out the highway trips I took for the hell of it and it would have dramatically lowered the cost.
I don't know about you guys, but in my opinion lowering my operating costs by about 70% would kick all sorts of ass.
Would I buy one? Nope. But I think the idea, whether or not you think it's revolutionary or just a slightly improved Prius, is awesome.
Okay -- here's my deal. If someone wants to figure this out for me, that'd help.
A Corolla will likely average 35 mpg per tank. It costs $17k for a decent model, and it seats 5 people with a folding rear seat. It's likely one of the closest progressions of what I drive now that's still on the road.
I drive 30 miles a day -- 15 miles there, 15 miles back, mostly highway.
When will the Volt start making itself cost-effective?
Quote from: 93JC on October 11, 2010, 09:52:17 PM
For me, assuming I got 35 mpg for every mile over 30 miles in a given day, I would have used about 90 gallons of fuel the whole year. Considering I drove about 5600 miles, I would have averaged about 62 mpg. I would have spent about $325 on gas for the whole year. Subtract out the highway trips I took for the hell of it and it would have dramatically lowered the cost.
I don't know about you guys, but in my opinion lowering my operating costs by about 70% would kick all sorts of ass.
Would I buy one? Nope. But I think the idea, whether or not you think it's revolutionary or just a slightly improved Prius, is awesome.
:clap:
And it should get interesting when the plug in Prius comes out next year too. Hopefully people snap them up and drive down the cost of gas
Quote from: the Teuton on October 11, 2010, 09:58:05 PM
Okay -- here's my deal. If someone wants to figure this out for me, that'd help.
A Corolla will likely average 35 mpg per tank. It costs $17k for a decent model, and it seats 5 people with a folding rear seat. It's likely one of the closest progressions of what I drive now that's still on the road.
I drive 30 miles a day -- 15 miles there, 15 miles back, mostly highway.
When will the Volt start making itself cost-effective?
This point is irrelevant; you can argue this for any hybrid.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 11, 2010, 10:01:22 PM
This point is irrelevant; you can argue this for any hybrid.
I can get a Prius for $23k. That's only a $6k spread, and it looks like nothing else on the road. It's trendy and very functional.
The Volt makes no sense to me.
I don't dislike the Volt, but the amount of hype GM built up for this car over the years does not seem even close to being well deserved. You can't build up how "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" a car will be and then deliver a watered-down version of what you originally promised and expect no one to notice. This seems better than a traditional hybrid for the city-bound driver, albeit at a higher purchase price. I'm not sure how long it would take for it to pay off the difference in cost, but it seems like it would be quite a while. This car would work for me on a daily basis most likely, but considering the frequency of longer trips, it would be a pain-in-the-ass as a primary car. Wouldn't make my shopping list, anyway.
Add it to the list of not-so-great fuel-savers that "green" and "I wanna make a statement!" phonies purchase and drive.
:huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 11, 2010, 10:30:02 PM
Add it to the list of not-so-great fuel-savers that "green" and "I wanna make a statement!" phonies purchase and drive.
:huh:
I'd rather have phonies drive self righteous fuel sippers than gas guzzling urban cowboy pickups.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 11, 2010, 10:33:34 PM
I'd rather have phonies drive self righteous fuel sippers than gas guzzling urban cowboy pickups.
Sure. Not exactly the point I was making, but that works, too.
I don't suppose the EV tax credit is in danger?
I love how people are complaining that this car isn't for them when they knew it wouldn't be from the start.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 11, 2010, 09:58:05 PM
Okay -- here's my deal. If someone wants to figure this out for me, that'd help.
A Corolla will likely average 35 mpg per tank. It costs $17k for a decent model, and it seats 5 people with a folding rear seat. It's likely one of the closest progressions of what I drive now that's still on the road.
I drive 30 miles a day -- 15 miles there, 15 miles back, mostly highway.
When will the Volt start making itself cost-effective?
I was just thinking along the same lines when I heard a discussion about the Nissan Leaf on NPR this morning.
I filled the tank on the Mazda3 last night and drove it to work today. Commute is 6 miles of city streets, followed by 17 miles of freeway, and then another 5 miles of city streets. I averaged 39.6 MPG going the speed limits or keeping up with the flow of traffic (usually 65-70 on the freeway). I go about 450-500 miles between fillups. The car cost us $15,600 + TTL in Feb 2006. I could pick up a 2011 model for probably 17-18K today.
I don't have to carry my own gas powered battery charger around unlike a volt owner.
I don't worry about battery charge life and being stranded like a leaf owner does. Very limited charging infrastructure currently exists.
I don't have to invest $2,500 in a 220V charging station for my house, like a leaf owner does if they want a full charge in under something like 16 hours.
I could buy two Mazda3s for the price of one Volt or a new Mazda3 and a good used Miata for the price of a Leaf.
I wouldn't be deluding myself about no pollution from a Leaf or green footprint from the Volt if I bought and drove the Kazda3 Electricity generation pollutes as does battery production.
I woulden't be transferring some of my ownership costs to the U.S. taxpayer like Leaf and Volt owners do.
I have one vehicle that can be used efficiently for both commuting and longer trips, unlike the Leaf.
Now someone explain to my why anyone would buy one of these things other than to feel good about "saving the planet" or other silly reasons.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 11, 2010, 09:36:26 PM
Lest we not forget: The Prius was subsidized almost entirely by the Japanese government. It too was pretty impractical in it's first iteration.
How was the first Prius impractical? It's expensive and overpriced for the size, yes, but impractical? It's a Corolla sized car with a battery? You're mistaken it for the Insight, which I believe is still a great commuter car.
Quote
No, by driving their test loop. Until the battery goes below a certain mark (~40 miles BEFORE the gas motor kicks in) the car is on electric power only.
Test loops are typically not the best indicators of real life MPG. You can usually see a huge difference between the MPG in the magazine tests and their long term vehicles.
Quote
On an entirely city loop, it will achieve that. The gas motor only chimes in a tiny bit to recharge the batteries.
My understanding is, from the original explaination anyways, that ICE maintains the battery charge, not fully recharge it.
Quote
That isn't (nor has always ever been) the purpose of this car, or any hybrid for that matter.
What's a purpose of a city only car that's not good at anything.. even at having good gas mileage?
Quote from: NomisR on October 12, 2010, 08:30:53 AM
What's a purpose of a city only car that's not good at anything.. even at having good gas mileage?
It is good in the city. It's excellent in the city.
Also, the first gen Prius and Insight were hard to take seriously (in the US).
Slow, funny looking, small....
(http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/toyotaprius500.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on October 12, 2010, 09:16:40 AM
It is good in the city. It's excellent in the city.
Also, the first gen Prius and Insight were hard to take seriously (in the US).
Slow, funny looking, small....
(http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/toyotaprius500.jpg)
It was hard for people to take seriously because gas was at $1.00/gal... not because of the way it looks.
I think the biggest problem is not that the Volt has some mechanical connections, it's that the fuel economy once the battery runs empty is not that impressive. Sure 35mpg is nothing to sneeze at, but in the end other -more conventional- cars can beat it. This is disappointing.
Another government funded win!
As we already knew, it's a good commuter car for those with <30 mile total commutes. The average commute is about 16 miles (or 32 total), so for a considerable number of Americans it does work out. Otherwise, it becomes less practical as the number of miles traveled increases. Let us not forget the simple trips to the grocery store, where you will likely use zero gasoline if fully charged. I think it's getting a little more criticism here than deserved.
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on October 12, 2010, 10:24:46 AM
Let us not forget the simple trips to the grocery store, where you will likely use zero gasoline if fully charged. I think it's getting a little more criticism here than deserved.
But to charge it coal and/or natural gas must be burned, and, it has to be plugged into an already overly taxed system.
How is that better than burning a gallon of gas to run to the store?
I wonder; what is the fossil fuel usage difference to produce the electricity over the course of a year vs. the amount of gas used during that same time?
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on October 12, 2010, 10:24:46 AM
As we already knew, it's a good commuter car for those with <30 mile total commutes. The average commute is about 16 miles (or 32 total), so for a considerable number of Americans it does work out. Otherwise, it becomes less practical as the number of miles traveled increases. Let us not forget the simple trips to the grocery store, where you will likely use zero gasoline if fully charged. I think it's getting a little more criticism here than deserved.
If all one ever does is short trips then electric cars like the Leaf and Volt make a little more sense. Sure if you are going a short distance you need never buy gasoline and won't have a problem running out of charge where there is no charging station. However, how practical is it to pay that kind of a premium for a car that receives that kind of limited use? Looking a the overall value proposition these things make little sense.
Say one commutes 16 miles each way five days a week and racks up another 40 miles a week shopping. That's 200 miles a week, or 10,400 miles a year. Further say I could buy a regular car that gets 28 MPG in that use. That's 371 gallons a year, or about $1,100 in gasoline at close to $3 a gallon. So I'm paying a premium of $8,000 to $15,000 up front for a vehicle with range limitations and less flexibility in order to save about $1,100 a year in gas. Say you pay an $8,000 premium, that works out to a payback period of about 7.25 years if one ignores the time value of money.
I like the concept of an electric vehicle, but the value propsition isn't there. Take away the government subsidies and these thing would never have reached production.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 12, 2010, 10:42:28 AM
If all one ever does is short trips then electric cars like the Leaf and Volt make a little more sense. Sure if you are going a short distance you need never buy gasoline and won't have a problem running out of charge where there is no charging station. However, how practical is it to pay that kind of a premium for a car that receives that kind of limited use? Looking a the overall value proposition these things make little sense.
Say one commutes 16 miles each way five days a week and racks up another 40 miles a week shopping. That's 200 miles a week, or 10,400 miles a year. Further say I could buy a regular car that gets 28 MPG in that use. That's 371 gallons a year, or about $1,100 in gasoline at close to $3 a gallon. So I'm paying a premium of $8,000 to $15,000 up front for a vehicle with range limitations and less flexibility in order to save about $1,100 a year in gas. Say you pay an $8,000 premium, that works out to a payback period of about 7.25 years if one ignores the time value of money.
I like the concept of an electric vehicle, but the value propsition isn't there. Take away the government subsidies and these thing would never have reached production.
This is pretty much the same arguement against regular hybrids, at about 1/2 of the premium paid. I would rather get myself a diesel, at least with that, I get gobs of torque to play with.
But diesels are so noisy and smelly and they all sound like buses! :wtf:
Why don't they put small diesel engines in these friggin' things? They'd get wayyyyy better mileage. A torquey diesel engine is much more akin to powering a vehicle at low speeds and/or spinning a generator (a la diesel-electric trains). Durrrrrrrrrrrr.
I could probably do a whole week's worth of commuting to work in the Volt without using a drop of gasoline...only if I had somewhere to plug it in to.
So you live, what, 3 miles from work? :confused:
Quote from: hounddog on October 12, 2010, 10:34:07 AM
But to charge it coal and/or natural gas must be burned
Not for all of us
(http://www.florenceal.org/Community_Arts/Local_Attractions/newdam.jpg)
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 12, 2010, 11:20:50 AM
So you live, what, 3 miles from work? :confused:
2 miles! :praise:
I'm actually riding a bicycle to work, so buying a $40k commuter appliance is hardly justifiable for me, but the Volt would still be suitable to run errands and making those weeknd visits to my parents' house down the freeway.
Quote from: NomisR on October 11, 2010, 01:21:04 PM
It's not a full electric vehicle as they originally claimed. Originally, they said the only thing the ICE would do is generate electricity.
Ice generates electricity? They why doesn't my freezer pay for itself?
Quote from: Vinsanity on October 12, 2010, 11:19:14 AM
I could probably do a whole week's worth of commuting to work in the Volt without using a drop of gasoline...only if I had somewhere to plug it in to.
I could do nearly 10% of my daily commute without using a drop of gasoline!
Quote from: Raza link=topic=23335.msg1410978#msg1410978 date=1286907683
Ice generates electricity? They why doesn't my freezer pay for itself?
"Ice" as in "rapper jewelry". ICE engines convert bling energy into electricity.
Quote from: Raza on October 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM
I could do nearly 10% of my daily commute without using a drop of gasoline!
So by the time a year has gone by, you'd have saved about 25 commutes' worth of gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 12, 2010, 11:11:51 AM
But diesels are so noisy and smelly and they all sound like buses! :wtf:
Why don't they put small diesel engines in these friggin' things? They'd get wayyyyy better mileage. A torquey diesel engine is much more akin to powering a vehicle at low speeds and/or spinning a generator (a la diesel-electric trains). Durrrrrrrrrrrr.
Most people cannot stand the deafening clatter of a TDi Jetta.
Besides, the hipster crowd is far better suited to free trade bicycles and Prius's with ethnically balanced Nickel batteries than genocidal diesel killing machines and the capitalist gas stations that fuel them on the backs of slave labor.
Quote from: Submariner on October 12, 2010, 12:48:28 PM
Most people cannot stand the deafening clatter of a TDi Jetta.
Whatever, the piston slap of a GM gas engine is worse.
Quote from: Vinsanity on October 12, 2010, 11:29:43 AM
2 miles! :praise:
I'm actually riding a bicycle to work, so buying a $40k commuter appliance is hardly justifiable for me, but the Volt would still be suitable to run errands and making those weeknd visits to my parents' house down the freeway.
You could do the same thing in an economy car and pocket $20K plus.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 12, 2010, 01:23:27 PM
You could do the same thing in an economy car and pocket $20K plus.
Exactly. Even my 6-year-old car now worth $14k to a generous buyer is a bit much for what I use it for. The catch-22 with the Volt is that the people it's seemingly intended for (urban commuters) will either find it unsuitable because they don't have anywhere to plug it into in their high-rise condos, or as you point out, they don't drive enough miles to justifty the higher buy-in cost.
I have a paper handout of the slide show presentation from the SAE World Congress from this past year on the history of the electric car.
I think it's about time to post it. Some misinformation here is perturbing me slightly.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on October 12, 2010, 11:26:02 AM
Not for all of us
(http://www.florenceal.org/Community_Arts/Local_Attractions/newdam.jpg)
True.
But, do not be fooled into believing your electricity comes completely from a hydro source just because you live close.
Michigan has nuclear power plants, but a large portion of it goes to Chicago as I understand.
Quote from: Submariner on October 12, 2010, 12:48:28 PM
Most people cannot stand the deafening clatter of a TDi Jetta.
Besides, the hipster crowd is far better suited to free trade bicycles and Prius's with ethnically balanced Nickel batteries than genocidal diesel killing machines and the capitalist gas stations that fuel them on the backs of slave labor.
LOL
Poetry.
Truth is, diesels are still cleaner than a Prius.
As for the noise, my dad recently bought a 3/4 ton Dodge with the big Cummins. It is nearly actually little quieter than my Hemi inside the vehicle.
Oh, I wish Katharine had not gotten rid of my truck. Silly silly woman. :facepalm:
Quote from: hounddog on October 12, 2010, 04:41:46 PM
True.
But, do not be fooled into believing your electricity comes completely from a hydro source just because you live close.
Michigan has nuclear power plants, but a large portion of it goes to Chicago as I understand.
Well maybe or maybe not but the Tennessee River does have a lot of hydro electric dams.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on October 12, 2010, 04:57:28 PM
Well maybe or maybe not but the Tennessee River does have a lot of hydro electric dams.
Mountain Home has two large hydroelectric dams next to it, from which it apparently receives none of its power. It was a bit disappointing to find that out after I'd been there several years and had just assumed part of that power must surely go to the nearby area.
Is there anyone here who is more familiar with power distribution?
A little insight here could be of some value, although, more for entertainment sake than anything.
Quote from: thewizard16 on October 12, 2010, 06:49:19 PM
Mountain Home has two large hydroelectric dams next to it, from which it apparently receives none of its power. It was a bit disappointing to find that out after I'd been there several years and had just assumed part of that power must surely go to the nearby area.
The continental US is on interconnected power grids. The two major ones are the eastern interconnection and the western interconnection. Texas has its own interconnection. Your nearby dams may deliver power to you and as far as half a continent away depending on who needs how much power where. Power is transferred between the interconnects when necessary. If your nearby power plant is down for maintenence you will still get electicity from other power plants on the grid in your interconnect or perhaps from outside it.
google INTERCONNECTIONS for a wealth of information.
Better yet see: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=12527&DID=206424
From looking at the power distribution map here at work, Tennessee has about 8 hydro plants of a small small size and one good sized plant that is larger then all the others combined. Most look to be on tba's relatively low voltage lines so they should be sort of localish in delivery
Quote from: hounddog on October 12, 2010, 07:20:39 PM
Is there anyone here who is more familiar with power distribution?
A little insight here could be of some value, although, more for entertainment sake than anything.
The great irony of plug in hybrids is that the urban cities that they'd make sense in cannot handle charging them. The commute would have to be short enough that they could make a round trip off of one charge, since they could not be charged at work. If you're that close to work you can prob carpool or use PT. The whole thing is a joke.
Plus hybrids only make sense for extreme stop n go driving. America is not a stop n go country
Well, I must say there's a lot of information here to digest!
As is the case with any new technology, the "early adopters" will, in effect, become unpaid beta-testers for the company which produces it. The "Real World" information gleaned from the early adopters will be used to make subsequent models more efficient, practical and better overall. Once these improvements occur and the new technology gains more acceptance, the economies of scale brought about by increased prodution will cause prices to tumble downward.
The horseless carriage didn't replace the horse overnight. Early cars were expensive curiosities bought by the well-off early adopters of the time. On the way to perfecting the horseless carriage, engineers went up numerous blind alleys (steam power, for example) before settling on a format that worked the best (the internal combustion gasoline engine) with the technology available at the time.
We are in the early days of hybrid powertrain technology. It remains to be seen if, like steam, hybrids turn out to be another engineering cul-de-sac. On the other hand, hybrids may become a stepping stone on the way to some other yet-to-be-developed technology. One thing is for certain; as imperfect as cars like the Volt, Prius and Insight are (and they are FAR from being perfect), we can not afford to discourage or stifle innovation which has the potential to free us from the shackles of fossil fuels.
Alas, I am not an early adopter. I only succumb to new technology when the world forces me to do so by not supporting the outdated format. For example, in the mid-'90s I reluctantly bought a CD player only because the record shops stopped selling cassette tapes. Just a few years ago, I had to practically be forced at gunpoint to buy a CD player because VHS tapes were going the way of the Dodo bird.
It's safe to say I won't be buying a Chevy Volt (or anything like it) for a very, very, VERY long time.
I believe that GM deserves a good amount of praise for pursuing plug-in technology and evolving it to a level whereby it's now available for public consumption. That is, I think they done a good job :ohyeah:.
Considering the benefits to those who fit the demographic...
- can run up to 40 miles without the I/C engine (range extender) kicking in
- can run up to 70 mph without the I/C engine (range extender) kicking in
- can use up to 1/2 the battery capacity (8kwh) without the I/C engine (range extender) kicking in
- can be fully recharged in about 6 hours
- can be plugged into a residencial outlet (with appropriate adapter which, I assume, comes with the car)
- will cost less than $1.00 for a recharge (that will get you about 40 miles of transportation)
...it sounds pretty good.
As previously mentioned, new technology is seldom cheap and never perfect. Imo, battery technology is the key and the advances in the last 3 years alone have likely surpassed all the efforts in the entire 20th century to improve size, weight, storage capacity and recharge time. It will take time and trials to improve it and volume to reduce the associated costs. However, it must start somewhere and someone must make the leap to get it off and running. As well, it is a long-term investment; something which is an anathema to the present fiscal mind-set who think only in short-term, quick buck, bottom-line concepts. Indeed, GM deserves much praise for its efforts - if only they were able to procure the battery development from a locally owned company rather than having to go to a local outlet of a Korean owned firm :nutty:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 13, 2010, 08:27:09 AM
- can run up to 70 mph without the I/C engine (range extender) kicking in
If the battery is drained. If you have a full charge the battery will power the electric motor all the way up to the electronically-limited 100 mph top speed, completed unassisted.
Quote from: 93JC on October 13, 2010, 08:49:02 AM
If the battery is drained. If you have a full charge the battery will power the electric motor all the way up to the electronically-limited 100 mph top speed, completed unassisted.
That's even better.
Quote from: 93JC on October 13, 2010, 08:49:02 AM
If the battery is drained. If you have a full charge the battery will power the electric motor all the way up to the electronically-limited 100 mph top speed, completed unassisted.
Wait, that was the original claim.
If I understand this correctly, at 70mph the combustion engine will always kick in to
mechanically assist the e- engines.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 12, 2010, 07:01:52 AM
I was just thinking along the same lines when I heard a discussion about the Nissan Leaf on NPR this morning.
I filled the tank on the Mazda3 last night and drove it to work today. Commute is 6 miles of city streets, followed by 17 miles of freeway, and then another 5 miles of city streets. I averaged 39.6 MPG going the speed limits or keeping up with the flow of traffic (usually 65-70 on the freeway). I go about 450-500 miles between fillups. The car cost us $15,600 + TTL in Feb 2006. I could pick up a 2011 model for probably 17-18K today.
I don't have to carry my own gas powered battery charger around unlike a volt owner.
I don't worry about battery charge life and being stranded like a leaf owner does. Very limited charging infrastructure currently exists.
I don't have to invest $2,500 in a 220V charging station for my house, like a leaf owner does if they want a full charge in under something like 16 hours.
I could buy two Mazda3s for the price of one Volt or a new Mazda3 and a good used Miata for the price of a Leaf.
I wouldn't be deluding myself about no pollution from a Leaf or green footprint from the Volt if I bought and drove the Kazda3 Electricity generation pollutes as does battery production.
I woulden't be transferring some of my ownership costs to the U.S. taxpayer like Leaf and Volt owners do.
I have one vehicle that can be used efficiently for both commuting and longer trips, unlike the Leaf.
Now someone explain to my why anyone would buy one of these things other than to feel good about "saving the planet" or other silly reasons.
Once again, EtypeJohn enumerates the issues concisely and objectively.
Fundamentally, the Volt offers the performance of a Malibu for the price of a CTS.
Gasoline would hafta be about $11.00/gallon for this to make economic sense. Even when gasoline costs less than that, there are more economical alternatives. In fact, If gasoline costs about $111.00/gallon, there are STILL more economical alternatives.
I fear that Volt purchasers will be the butt of EcoJokes for many years to come. Just like the hideous Corvair and the putrid Vega, the auto rags will rave about Volts at first (although that's tempering with every new revelation about the true capabilities and functioning of the Dolt--I mean Volt), and then laugh at the Volt a decade down the road and talk like everyone was fooled by GM but them.
Woe be the early owners of the Volt--the new Camaro contained nothing new and had a myriad of warranty issues not seen since the intro of those rebadged GM Euro minivans which had the worst reliability issues of any newly-introduced vehicle since Consumer Reports began keeping records (the Chevy Venture, I believe it was...). Now add the Volt's complexity into the mix and you cannot avoid asking yourself "Is this the vehicle that will do in an already weakened General Motors?" Of course the taxpayers will be called upon to save The General's ass again, so I reckon there's nothing to worry about. Maybe a Volt buy-back program called Cash for Flunkers will be instituted "for the welfare and benefit of the American people."
Wiser would be to withdraw the Volt before it hits the dealerships and rework it into a vehicle that is reliable plus able to travel a REAL one hundred miles on a charge (as opposed to a Marketing Department one hundred miles on a charge). Anything less than one hundred miles on a charge makes the Volt a celebrity's third or fourth four-wheeled EcoToy to be seen in when arriving at rallies and fund-raisers. Of course, there is the possibility of a taxpayer reVOLT about any further funding of such an underachieving first effort (typical day-to-day situations seem to yield an electricity-only range in the low thirties in flat country--San Francisco may present a whole 'nother set of issues, but at least in SF they have public transportation readily available). Has the Tea Party weighed in on this?
It's not that the idea of a hybrid (and since the Volt actually does have drive wheels that can be turned by its internal combustion engine, it is just a plug-in hybrid) with a decent range is bad, it's just that any hybrid--or any of the actual truly electric vehicles--with a range under one hundred miles electrically cannot realistically be considered to have a decent range for any one-vehicle owner.
GM would be smart to delay that IPO stock offering for a long, long time...
Quote from: Galaxy on October 13, 2010, 09:22:56 AM
Wait, that was the original claim.
If I understand this correctly, at 70mph the combustion engine will always kick in to mechanically assist the e- engines.
That's what the article said.
"However, under certain circumstances ? speeds near or above 70 mph ? the engine will directly drive the front wheels in conjunction with the electric motors.""
Does this mean the electric motors don't have the capacity to handle speeds above 70? Or above those speeds the battery is drained too quickly if it's the sole provider of motive force?
GM's responded as reported in USA today
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
General Motors has shifted into damage-control mode -- just like its bad ol' days -- as it fights media blasts about the new Chevrolet Volt "extended-range electric." Several news outlets charge that they were misled about Volt's powertrain and that it isn't as unconventional or gas-mileage thrifty as billed.
For the past couple of years, GM has insisted that the powertrain of its breakthrough car wasn't like a plug-in hybrid. The auxiliary gas engine in the car never directly drove the wheels, but only ran as needed to recharge the car's battery, which drives the wheels. That's why all, including Drive On, have called it an extended-range electric instead of a plug-in.
But with an embargo on driving impressions on the Volt having lifted, several say that the car's wheels are in effect -- if not directly-- driven by the engine when speeds exceed 70 miles per hour and the battery is depleted. Edmunds.com's Inside Line wrote a piece headlined "GM lied: Chevy Volt not a true EV." Popular Mechanics and Motor Trend both question GM's 230 mile-a-gallon claim, saying they received real-world mileage from the 20s to the 40s. Writes Ray Wert, editor-in-chief of Jalopnik.com:
It's enough for us to wonder why GM pushed the 230-mpg number in the first place and why they didn't just come clean on the powertrain this summer when asked a straightforward question.
As a result, GM has posted a full-throated defense on its media website. It says:
The engineering of the Voltec electric drive unit is very sophisticated. As part of the media launch, we're diving deeper into how the system works than we have in the past. We did not share all the details until now because the information was competitive and we awaited patent approvals. Following a small number of inaccurate media reports, we want to clarify a few points.
The Volt has an innovative electric drive system that can deliver power in both pure electric and extended range driving. The Voltec electric drive cannot operate without power from the electric motors. If the traction motor is disabled, the range-extending internal combustion engine cannot drive the vehicle by itself.
There is no direct mechanical connection (fixed gear ratio) between the Volt's extended-range 1.4L engine and the drive wheels. In extended-range driving, the engine generates power that is fed through the drive unit and is balanced by the generator and traction motor. The resulting power flow provides a 10 to 15 percent improvement in highway fuel economy.
Our overriding objective in developing the Voltec electric drive was to deliver the most efficient, yet fun-to-drive experience in both pure electric and extended-range driving. We think our unique technology lives up to its most important promise: delivering our customers with the only EV that can be their primary vehicle, with EV operation for normal daily driving, and extended range driving for weekends, holidays, and longer trips ? all with no range anxiety.
Note what I put in bold. In extended-range driving, the engine generates power that is fed through the drive unit and is balanced by the generator and traction motor. What does that mean? is the gas engine sometimes connected to the electric motors that are also being powered fgrom the battery (no direct connection to the drive wheels). However it works GM would be well served by coming out with a clear concise explanation.
It looks like it's exactly what Edmunds is stating, the engine provides help powers the front wheel over 70mph. In a way, this isn't really that much different from the standard hybrids like GM claimed. It's just a hybrid with a bigger battery, which a lot of people have already achieved by modifying their existing hybrid vehicles. Well, they tried.. they're better off covering the damn thing with solar panels and claim that the solar panels would help recharge the battery to extend the range....
This article Motor Trend Explains the Volt?s Powertrain (http://www.gm-volt.com/index.php?s=drivetrain) explains it quite well.
Some key points...Here?s how it works.
The drivetrain has a bit in common with the Prius and Ford hybrids. It consist of a single planetary gearset, two electric motors, and one gas engine. Motor Trend thinks the design is superior and more efficient than Toyota?s, and according to GM engineers with whom I spoke, is on the verge of patented.
There is a large central sun gear turned by the 149 horsepower electric motor at all times. Around it is a planetary carrier which turns the wheels. When the car is in charge depleting mode, an outer ring is locked to the case. The engine and generator are disengaged.
When the car reaches 70 mph the main motor spins too fast to be maximally efficient, and a clutch disengages the ring from the case. This allows the second electric motor to participate and both motors act in parallel to reach speeds of 101 mph with adequate power.
In charge sustaining mode, the gas engine goes on and clutches to the generator causing it to produce electricity to continue powering the main motor.
However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself, but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent.
Some other good info in the article as well.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 13, 2010, 10:36:42 AM
GM's responded as reported in USA today
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no direct mechanical connection (fixed gear ratio) between the Volt's extended-range 1.4L engine and the drive wheels.
If they define "direct mechanical connection" as a fixed gear ratio then none of the cars on the market today with a transmission have a mechanical connection. Which is of course silly.
Tards.
I could care less how it is actually powered. The 30-40mpg compared to 200+ mpg touted earlier is crazy.
This is actually really cool, and calling it noting more than a Plug-in Prius is a gross oversimplification on how the technology works.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 13, 2010, 08:24:15 PM
Tards.
I could care less how it is actually powered. The 30-40mpg compared to 200+ mpg touted earlier is crazy.
They never said the gas engine was that efficient. The 230 they were quoting is a compromise between the infinite miles per gallon you get if you stay on short drives vs. the 30-40 mpg you'd get if you never plugged it in.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 12, 2010, 07:01:52 AM
I was just thinking along the same lines when I heard a discussion about the Nissan Leaf on NPR this morning.
I filled the tank on the Mazda3 last night and drove it to work today. Commute is 6 miles of city streets, followed by 17 miles of freeway, and then another 5 miles of city streets. I averaged 39.6 MPG going the speed limits or keeping up with the flow of traffic (usually 65-70 on the freeway). I go about 450-500 miles between fillups. The car cost us $15,600 + TTL in Feb 2006. I could pick up a 2011 model for probably 17-18K today.
I don't have to carry my own gas powered battery charger around unlike a volt owner.
I don't worry about battery charge life and being stranded like a leaf owner does. Very limited charging infrastructure currently exists.
I don't have to invest $2,500 in a 220V charging station for my house, like a leaf owner does if they want a full charge in under something like 16 hours.
I could buy two Mazda3s for the price of one Volt or a new Mazda3 and a good used Miata for the price of a Leaf.
I wouldn't be deluding myself about no pollution from a Leaf or green footprint from the Volt if I bought and drove the Kazda3 Electricity generation pollutes as does battery production.
I woulden't be transferring some of my ownership costs to the U.S. taxpayer like Leaf and Volt owners do.
I have one vehicle that can be used efficiently for both commuting and longer trips, unlike the Leaf.
Now someone explain to my why anyone would buy one of these things other than to feel good about "saving the planet" or other silly reasons.
John, you're looking for rationality, that most rare and precious of all commodities. One rational way of forcing people to use less gas would be to ditch all the efficiency standards, regulations & tax incentives and create instead a national $10/gal gasoline & diesel sales tax. Trouble is, that would conflict with politicians' (entirely rational) self-interest in staying elected until they die of old age.
Quote from: ifcar on October 14, 2010, 07:29:54 AM
They never said the gas engine was that efficient. The 230 they were quoting is a compromise between the infinite miles per gallon you get if you stay on short drives vs. the 30-40 mpg you'd get if you never plugged it in.
This simply points out the problem of comparing electrric vehicles to gas and diesel powered vehicles. There need to be consensus on an energy unit that is applicable to both. Perhaps BTU, since the btu's required to generate the electricity that charges the Volt at home can be compared to the BTU content of the fuel in a regular vehicle.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 14, 2010, 12:01:01 PM
This simply points out the problem of comparing electrric vehicles to gas and diesel powered vehicles. There need to be consensus on an energy unit that is applicable to both. Perhaps BTU, since the btu's required to generate the electricity that charges the Volt at home can be compared to the BTU content of the fuel in a regular vehicle.
I did this calc before a while ago, I forget the details but overall it didn't pay off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-9wXTbAs8
I'm about halfway into Top Gear season 11 on Netflix.
They ran a new Prius 10 laps around their test track as fast as it would go (handling= teh suX). An M3 followed, for a boring ride.
The BMW got twice the gas mileage for that exercise.
M3>Prius.
The Prius doesn't "pay off" but has sold incredibly well? Explain this to me...
Does the equation miss the non-cash components, rendering it inaccurate? :mask:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 15, 2010, 08:07:40 AM
I'm about halfway into Top Gear season 11 on Netflix.
They ran a new Prius 10 laps around their test track as fast as it would go (handling= teh suX). An M3 followed, for a boring ride.
The BMW got twice the gas mileage for that exercise.
Well, duh, the Prius motor was being stressed and the BMW was barely breaking a sweat. Small engines waste fuel under heavy loads, just like every other motor.
Quote from: Laconian on October 15, 2010, 11:03:41 AM
Well, duh, the Prius motor was being stressed and the BMW was barely breaking a sweat. Small engines waste fuel under heavy loads, just like every other motor.
tell that to Wimmer next time he tries to crack a joke about Americans and our eleventy billion hp motors.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on October 13, 2010, 10:30:34 AM
That's what the article said. "However, under certain circumstances — speeds near or above 70 mph — the engine will directly drive the front wheels in conjunction with the electric motors.""
Does this mean the electric motors don't have the capacity to handle speeds above 70? Or above those speeds the battery is drained too quickly if it's the sole provider of motive force?
it says:
"when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode" i.e. when the generator is on, not when the batteries are charged. So if the batteries are charged and it['s running on pure electricity, the gas engine is NOT helping it get from 70-100 mph. It only does so after the batteries are depleted.
One thing I've wondered about is why they use such large engines simply as generators. Wouldn't a much smaller engine suffice as a generator to charge the batteries? A 3-cylinder? A 250-cc 4-stroke generating 1,000 watts?
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 27, 2010, 04:33:19 PM
One thing I've wondered about is why they use such large engines simply as generators. Wouldn't a much smaller engine suffice as a generator to charge the batteries? A 3-cylinder? A 250-cc 4-stroke generating 1,000 watts?
I'm guessing it's because the smaller generator would need to run harder to provide the same charge to the battery? Lesser amount of NVH and whatever...
Quote from: Vinsanity on October 27, 2010, 04:36:59 PM
I'm guessing it's because the smaller generator would need to run harder to provide the same charge to the battery? Lesser amount of NVH and whatever...
That is probably true, but a 1.4L 4-cyl. Ecotec seems like a bit of overkill when its "sole" purpose is to spin a friggin' reverse electric motor. An engine that can provide propulsion for an entire vehicle does not need to be used to simply spin a shaft.
It's generating a lot of electricity. It's all fine and dandy to say "Just put a two-cylinder turbodiesel in there!" but it needs a lot of power to generate that electricity.
Plus the 1.4 L engine is shared with other GM vehicles, which makes this a hell of a lot cheaper than designing some rinky-dink special-purpose engine.
Just how much electricity does it need, though? And when the engine is running, is it only putting power to the batteries or is its generator directly connected to the drive motor as well?
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 27, 2010, 05:35:35 PM
Just how much electricity does it need, though? And when the engine is running, is it only putting power to the batteries or is its generator directly connected to the drive motor as well?
Well, a 100 HP electric motor is going to need a generator a bit more then 100hp to keep running....
Quote from: r0tor on October 27, 2010, 05:46:23 PM
Well, a 100 HP electric motor is going to need a generator a bit more then 100hp to keep running....
No way! ;)
Is that the power of the Volt's electric motor?
Quote from: r0tor on October 27, 2010, 05:46:23 PM
Well, a 100 HP electric motor is going to need a generator a bit more then 100hp to keep running....
The Volt's generator is only 70HP.
The Volt's electric motor is 149HP. Its generator is 74HP. And its 1.4L 4-cyl. generates how much power? Is it detuned?
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 27, 2010, 06:13:30 PM
The Volt's electric motor is 149HP. Its generator is 74HP. And its 1.4L 4-cyl. generates how much power? Is it detuned?
It's tuned for only a certain range of output, and it's also the Cruze's 1.4T without the turbo.
Seems like a 1.4L 4-cyl. producing 80HP is a bit of a...waste. But, whatevs.
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 27, 2010, 06:16:33 PM
Seems like a 1.4L 4-cyl. producing 80HP is a bit of a...waste. But, whatevs.
Atkinson cycle, perhaps? I know those engines produce less hp in favor of greater efficiency
Generator hp is totally different than car hp.
Car hp has to go to different revs, the generator is on a fixed output.
:huh:
Quote from: Vinsanity on October 27, 2010, 06:21:43 PM
Atkinson cycle, perhaps? I know those engines produce less hp in favor of greater efficiency
Nope. Otto Cycle.
Does anyone else think a diesel generator would have made more sense for the Volt?
Quote from: the Teuton on October 27, 2010, 06:38:30 PM
Does anyone else think a diesel generator would have made more sense for the Volt?
\o
Quote from: the Teuton on October 27, 2010, 06:38:30 PM
Does anyone else think a diesel generator would have made more sense for the Volt?
I do. But 299,999,999 other Americans probably would freak out at DIESEL!>!>!!! ! ! ! 111!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 27, 2010, 07:13:55 PM
I do. But 299,999,999 other Americans probably would freak out at DIESEL!>!>!!! ! ! ! 111!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Volt is already quite expensive due to the battery and hybrid technology. Bringing a Diesel into the question only drives the price up more. GM doesn't make a Diesel motor small enough (New GM Diesels are now Fiat JTD motors, or motors from VM Motori) and not only that but since those small diesels aren't sold in ANY car in the US (Neither Fiat or VM Motori have any engines in any cars sold in the US) they have to pass regulations, not to mention the cost for repairs and such.
Hybrids should have used diesel engines since day one, IMO. Greater efficiency on both sides. But, like SHO said, Americans think all diesels sound like semi-trucks.
Why diesels are not used in hybrids:
1.) Cost. Diesel engines cost more than their gasoline counterparts in these emissions-regulative times but also on a $/hp basis owing for the need for F/I.
2.) Durability. Diesel engines are much harder to start so the starter motor and related hardware would be much more robust. Plus, with the auto-start cycle coming into vogue diesels are incapable of doing so without additional hardware.
3.) Emissions. The goal of a hybrid is to reduce emissions, and "clean" diesels are still pretty bad.
4.) Weight. Diesel engines typically weigh more per unit of power owing to the stronger block needed for the much higher compression ratios.
5.) NVH+smell. Diesels still noticeable lag their gasoline counterparts.