Looks like the Aura and Vue Green Line may not be able to use HOV lanes..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/hov.hybrids.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/hov.hybrids.ap/index.html
darknight9
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
None of them should use the HOV lanes. One person driving a hybrid in a HOV does not replace 3 people in a regular car. Don't think just gas prices. Think tires, oil changes, brakes, etc. The idea behind HOV was to get cars off the road. Efficiency is an after affect. How does allowing Hybrids to use the HOV lessen traffic?
None of them should use the HOV lanes. One person driving a hybrid in a HOV does not replace 3 people in a regular car. Don't think just gas prices. Think tires, oil changes, brakes, etc. The idea behind HOV was to get cars off the road. Efficiency is an after affect. How does allowing Hybrids to use the HOV lessen traffic?
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
I agree psece. Keep the HOV lanes restricted for HOV use. Besides, as has been pointed out before both here and elsewhere, the vehicles that benefit most from the reduced stop and go of the HOV lane are NOT hybrids. The hybrids (at least current ones, and pretty much ALL of those in the list in that article using some version of HSD or other single mode system) get their biggest boost in low speed stop and go traffic. To truly reduce emmissions and fuel use by the maximum amount, only non-hybrids carring two or more people should be in the HOV lanes, allowing them to operate at their peak efficiency as well as for the least amount of engine idle time. Meanwhile the hybrids should be restricted to the non-HOV, regardless of passengers, since they operate ONLY THE ELECTRICS while sitting still or creeping along (in other words, operate in their most efficient modes too).
People should use some common sense. Then again, I suppose the luster would wear off of the hybrids a bit quicker if people were told to use them the best way to maximize their potential rather than for looks.
This comes down to pretty much the same issue I have with all the folks that gripe about the fuel economy of pretty much any vehicle out there. If you're not driving a vehicle to achieve the maximum economy possible for your driving conditions and the vehicle you're in, you shouldn't be bitching about it being a gas guzzler and the EPA ratings being lies. Take responsibility for your own contribution to the problem before laying the blame on the car or truck. And if you're not willing to sacrifice higher speeds, faster takeoffs, sudden stops, some comfort without the A/C or windows down (you don't have to go to extremes in any of these areas to easily achieve the old EPA ratings, let alone the new), then you have no business complaining, because you're just talking the talk and not walking the walk.
I agree psece. Keep the HOV lanes restricted for HOV use. Besides, as has been pointed out before both here and elsewhere, the vehicles that benefit most from the reduced stop and go of the HOV lane are NOT hybrids. The hybrids (at least current ones, and pretty much ALL of those in the list in that article using some version of HSD or other single mode system) get their biggest boost in low speed stop and go traffic. To truly reduce emmissions and fuel use by the maximum amount, only non-hybrids carring two or more people should be in the HOV lanes, allowing them to operate at their peak efficiency as well as for the least amount of engine idle time. Meanwhile the hybrids should be restricted to the non-HOV, regardless of passengers, since they operate ONLY THE ELECTRICS while sitting still or creeping along (in other words, operate in their most efficient modes too).
People should use some common sense. Then again, I suppose the luster would wear off of the hybrids a bit quicker if people were told to use them the best way to maximize their potential rather than for looks.
This comes down to pretty much the same issue I have with all the folks that gripe about the fuel economy of pretty much any vehicle out there. If you're not driving a vehicle to achieve the maximum economy possible for your driving conditions and the vehicle you're in, you shouldn't be bitching about it being a gas guzzler and the EPA ratings being lies. Take responsibility for your own contribution to the problem before laying the blame on the car or truck. And if you're not willing to sacrifice higher speeds, faster takeoffs, sudden stops, some comfort without the A/C or windows down (you don't have to go to extremes in any of these areas to easily achieve the old EPA ratings, let alone the new), then you have no business complaining, because you're just talking the talk and not walking the walk.
The hybrid car thing is the biggest red herring I have ever seen. What a complete joke that you can even drive on the HOV.
So someone in a Lexus RX400h that gets 25 mpg can use the HOV lane, but a Cobalt driver that get 30 mpg can't. ???
I guess its those battery packs. I hear they're really good for the environment when they need to be thrown away.
If they're going to do something like this, it shouldn't be based on hybrid technology -- it should be based on fuel efficiency. While its dumb to allow any solo driver in the HOV lane, a target of 40 mpg would do a lot more than 25%. Hell, GM should make a dual mode hybrid Hummer so even if it gets 10 mpg it can ride in the HOV lane.
I guess its those battery packs. I hear they're really good for the environment when they need to be thrown away.
If they're going to do something like this, it shouldn't be based on hybrid technology -- it should be based on fuel efficiency. While its dumb to allow any solo driver in the HOV lane, a target of 40 mpg would do a lot more than 25%. Hell, GM should make a dual mode hybrid Hummer so even if it gets 10 mpg it can ride in the HOV lane.
The whole thing never made much sense.....they should have left it as the "carpool lane".Masospaghetti said:
I've started to see shopping centers pop up with Hybrid Only parking spaces, some of which seemed better placed than the Handicaped spaces..............
I think in California, it's only the Prius and Civic that can get the HOV sticker (which allows passage in the HOV lane without passengers), and now they aren't giving any more stickers out to anyone. It has actually created a kind of "black market" for Priuses that already have the sticker. They are going for about $4000 more than regular market value according to a few news stories I have read.
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
-------
However, it does expose an underlining purpose stimulating the popular "full" hybrid sales right now. People desire an efficiency improvement better than the 4-cylinder option for what their favorite vehicle offers... not 6-cylinder performance with 4-cylinder efficiency.
GM will end up getting a black eye if they don't offer a 4-cylinder option using Two-Mode. The "full" hybrid design is a huge improvement over the basic "assist" from BAS, as somewhat confirmed by the GreenLine exclusion.
JOHN
Since I want as many "full" hybrids to be sold as quickly as possible, any HOV benefit would be lost in no time from crowding. So I don't waste time on the consideration.darknight9 said:
-------
However, it does expose an underlining purpose stimulating the popular "full" hybrid sales right now. People desire an efficiency improvement better than the 4-cylinder option for what their favorite vehicle offers... not 6-cylinder performance with 4-cylinder efficiency.
GM will end up getting a black eye if they don't offer a 4-cylinder option using Two-Mode. The "full" hybrid design is a huge improvement over the basic "assist" from BAS, as somewhat confirmed by the GreenLine exclusion.
JOHN
I think that everyone who chooses to increase their fuel economy (no matter what method) should get a break on taxes.
When I switched from a large sedan to a compact car, all I got was a higher registration fee. I'm glad I use less fuel (and other items) and that's the satisfaction I need. However other folks might need a little incentive.
I seek to get the largest number of people in to more efficient whatevers, whether they're SUV's, trucks, or cars. You go from a 12 MPG SUV to a 18 MPG SUV you get a tax break. You still have a SUV to fill your needs and you help out the fuel situation. Maybe the tax break isn't a huge one, but hopefully enough that one could justify the cost of new financing or whatever it takes to economize. Maybe we could deduct the interest paid on the car loans like we used to...
If you could get enough folks to do that, the savings could be substantial. I couldn't hazard a guess to what it could be, because some folks would only buy a somewhat more efficient vehicle, and other would find a way to drive a diesel powered bicycle, it could go all over the spectrum.
When I switched from a large sedan to a compact car, all I got was a higher registration fee. I'm glad I use less fuel (and other items) and that's the satisfaction I need. However other folks might need a little incentive.
I seek to get the largest number of people in to more efficient whatevers, whether they're SUV's, trucks, or cars. You go from a 12 MPG SUV to a 18 MPG SUV you get a tax break. You still have a SUV to fill your needs and you help out the fuel situation. Maybe the tax break isn't a huge one, but hopefully enough that one could justify the cost of new financing or whatever it takes to economize. Maybe we could deduct the interest paid on the car loans like we used to...
If you could get enough folks to do that, the savings could be substantial. I couldn't hazard a guess to what it could be, because some folks would only buy a somewhat more efficient vehicle, and other would find a way to drive a diesel powered bicycle, it could go all over the spectrum.
Those of us who practiced transportation planning professionally simply CRINGE at the thought of allowing single-occupancy vehicles using HOV lanes. Once again, local politicians, the very idiots that you, the public, put in office with your schoolboy politics, subterfuge good planning practices for politics.
If anyone wonders why I quit the planning profession....
If anyone wonders why I quit the planning profession....
they shouldn't be in the HOV lane anyways. the HOV is just an express lane in disguise. i've almost run over some priuses that way.
A hybrid car - even a "full" hybrid - should not be allowed into the HOV lane unless it doubles the efficiency of a comparable non-hybrid car. I'm not talking a 25 or even 40% improvement. Otherwise, you save much more energy by putting two people into a regular car (twice as efficient right off the bat because it's removing an entire car from the road).
But yes, this is a black eye on GM's hybrid efforts to date. The truth is, they conserve some resources, but aren't really saving that much fuel compared to their non-hybrid relatives.
But yes, this is a black eye on GM's hybrid efforts to date. The truth is, they conserve some resources, but aren't really saving that much fuel compared to their non-hybrid relatives.
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
GM will need to offer something to directly compete with.
JOHN
IMA is not the same as BAS.Jonnycat26 said:
GM will need to offer something to directly compete with.
JOHN
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
Honda IMA
It sounds dead on BAS. In fact, I say it is a little weaker than BAS as the BAS can be added to any engine without worrying about a specifically designed drive train. The IMA is mounted between the engine and the transmission.
It's made by Honda?Jonnycat26 said:
Honda IMA
It sounds dead on BAS. In fact, I say it is a little weaker than BAS as the BAS can be added to any engine without worrying about a specifically designed drive train. The IMA is mounted between the engine and the transmission.
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
JOHN
You just answered your own question... "Two-Mode is another story altogether, as it's much more efficient than any existing system, and in a much smaller package."Jonnycat26 said:
JOHN
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
Long story short, people will be happy to pay extra for the advantage provided by the "full" hybrids.
JOHN
I give up! You make a BAS to Two-Mode comparison. I ask for clarification. You respond by switching to HSD. Whatever. The point is revealed anyway, since HSD is still more efficient than BAS.Jonnycat26 said:
Long story short, people will be happy to pay extra for the advantage provided by the "full" hybrids.
JOHN
Re: A black eye for GM Hybrids
John, I understand you're out to promote HSD, and that's fine. I also understand you're not a technical guy, which is also fine. But there's a concept of diminishing returns, which is what you start to run into with smaller engines mated to a hybrid system. You just don't need a full hybrid system with a 4 cylinder engine.. the cost benefit just isn't there, as we both know.
I agree, they will, when the advantage is great enough.john1701a said:
John, I understand you're out to promote HSD, and that's fine. I also understand you're not a technical guy, which is also fine. But there's a concept of diminishing returns, which is what you start to run into with smaller engines mated to a hybrid system. You just don't need a full hybrid system with a 4 cylinder engine.. the cost benefit just isn't there, as we both know.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
