The E-Flex Auto Revolution

Ok, several points are obvious from this article:

1. Detroit knows how to build a 50 mpg vehicle!
2. Where/when is it going to be in the market?
3. This story supports 0.40 kw hours per mile as the energy requirement for this class of vehicle (also consistent with the Prius numbers).
4. The discussion about energy/mile and vehicle range will be RADICALLY reduced with the addition of load ("0.5" kw?) of "collision avoidance systems, ... increasingly capable modes of autopilot", navigation, sound system, et. al.. Consider that a built in cell phone is about 1% of the drive load.
5. A charge for a 40 mile run requires 16 kWh of stored energy (57.6 mega joules).
6. Storage of 57.6 mega joules requires at least 110 (possibly as high as 150) mega joules input into the typical power generating plant.
7. If the vehicle mpg performance described in the article is based on gasoline IC, then a properly matched NEW clean diesel should raise the mpg performance above 70 mpg highway.
8. And this, then, raises the question why the batteries (except for the cases of high density polluted areas)? Maybe "batteries not included" option should exist (for both weight and cost savings).

At least these are the thoughts that comes to me.

Final thought: Maybe CR4 should design a car. We might come up with something other than a "tank" or "bicycle".

The figures given are for an either/or case, not a "both in conjunction" scenario.

The reason IC engines need to be so large is that the power output is used directly it is produced. By using these engines to produce electricity at a steady rate, and the batteries as a buffer store, the engine can be much smaller as an average charge level is needed, with the batteries supplying the extra for accelleration. Thus a 1.5l could give the same - or better - performance than a 3.5l.

I generally agree with your premise. The electric "buffer" you refer to is generally under 30 kw (40 hp) currently in the market.

How much "boost" is actually needed?

If you exclude "heavy load" towing, the only reason I see left for such "high power" is very high acceleration rates (dv/dt and jerk). If this is the key, then "limited" hybridization (hydraulic, pneumatic, or electric depending on the engine to wheel coupling method) could accomplish the same thing with a significantly SMALLER engine! If this type of system is properly optimized, it should yield superior over all mpg and more than adequate acceleration.

This could lead to a "HIGH G" option package for those that want high acceleration and are willing to pay the price (initial purchase and continued fuel).

And that brings us back to the 70 mpg(US) or 3.3 L/100 km combined average with a small "clean" diesel (hybrid?).

I would not be surprised if a "Low G" car could get 100+

Personally, I'd be happy with 0-60 mph in around 12 seconds in a 4 to 6 passenger 5 door vehicle that has reasonable luggage capacity.

The DiamlerBenz "Bionic Car" (also called the "Box Fish") with an automatic transmission (possibly hydraulic hybrid?) and a 140 hp diesel was reported to achieve 85 mpg average ... even if that is UK Imperial gallon ... that is a still impressive 70 mpg(US). This vehicle achieved 0-60 mph in around 8.6 seconds. This vehicle is a 4 passenger 3 door design.

Just give me 2 more doors and put it in my price range and I'll take it.

Maybe you are missing the point. the big benefit in Hybrid vehicles isn't in continuous operation but stop start operation or where you have big variations in load.

Best example is city traffic in peak hour - Petrol Engine stays off and you dawdle around on batteries when you are moving or use no power while you are stopped - noneed for Idling in traffic. OR you use your 40 hp engine for cruise applications and when you need the extra grunt for hills or big braking effort you add in the battery power. So the engine stays in its best operating conditions. The battery system smooths the load curve out.

The benefit of plugging in is pretty obvious for city drivers who may well get several hundred miles per gallon that way.

Finally, the possibility is raised of using unusual power plants such as Gas Turbines, Rotaries, Nuclear isotope power etc.

Your point I believe is that plug-in moves any potential pollution away from the point of use and I agree with that.

You further suggest alternative power sources and I agree with for NON COMBUSTION generating sources.

For the combustion sources, my estimates indicate the resulting emissions COULD EXCEED EASILY exceed those of a PRIUS by a factor of 3 or 4.

You can't convince me that it wouldn't be simpler just to reduce the particulate emissions of diesel engines, than to try to reinvent the mousetrap...It may be as simple as producing our diesel fuel from biowaste materials....Which are currently a major source of pollution, sort of killing two birds with one stone...Fast pyrolysis and gasification methods can produce bio-oil from any organic source, including plastics, vinyls, polyethelene etc., this bio-oil can be refined to several different fuel grades including diesel fuel...You can't convince me this wouldn't be cost effective, if the end result quadruples gas milage....Biodiesel hybrids would match or beat the mpg potential of any other concept designs that I have seen...The bio-oil produced diesel fuel, is very clean burning, almost considered pollution free...

50 miles to the gallon is nothing to brag about.Hell we had a 1980s VW Rabbit diesel that got us 60mpg on nearly every tank of fuel. GMs R&D VP needs to get out into the real world and see what us peons are doing, instead of paying a bunch of think tank engineers millions to come up with medioker results. My next suggestion is to set someone to figureing out how Nikkola Tesla ran his Pieace Arrow on ambient energy. BUILD THAT and the whole world (except the oil companies) will beat a path to your door. Then price it so John Q. Public could afford it. Unload the extra trinkets (make them options) and make it useable to people who don't have engineering degrees. This might require the top brass to take a % or two cut in wages but then maybe they would be earning their pay or at least a greater part of it.