« US Sales of Hybrids Drop in September | Main | Alberta Commits C$239 Million to Bioenergy Sector »
Nissan Altima Hybrid Debuts at Orange County Auto Show
4 October 2006
 |
| Altima Hybrid. |
Nissan’s first hybrid, the 2007 Altima Hybrid, made its debut at the 2007-Model Orange County Auto Show in Anaheim, California.
Based on Toyota technology, the Altima Hybrid’s powertrain mates a version of the QR25 2.5-liter 4-cylinder engine and electronic Continuously Variable Transmission (eCVT) with a 30 kW (40 hp) electric motor/generator that can develop 199 lb-ft (270 Nm) of torque. The Altima Hybrid’s hybrid system is rated at a net power of 198 horsepower (148 kW) with fuel economy estimated at 41 mpg city/36 mpg highway (39 mpg combined).
Combined with Altima’s standard 20-gallon fuel tank, the Altima Hybrid has a projected driving range of up to 700 miles between fill-ups.
The Altima Hybrid utilizes regenerative braking technology to sustain the charge in 244-volt NiMH battery pack.
Nissan modified the QR25 4-cylinder engine for the hybrid with a larger intake manifold, slightly increased the compression ratio (9.6:1 compared to 9.5:1 in the standard engine) and reduced friction characteristics. The engine also features Nissan’s Continuously Variable Timing Control System (CVTCS) for continuously variable valve timing, modular engine design, microfinished crank journals and cam lobes, molybdenum-coated lightweight pistons and electronically controlled throttle.
The hybrid system-specific eCVT works in conjunction with the Hybrid Vehicle-Electric Control Unit (HV-ECU) to determine which power source or combination of power sources will turn the wheels.
The Altima Hybrid’s electric motor produces high torque at low rpm, allowing it to utilize its all-electric mode (Electric Vehicle—EV mode) to power the car from a standing idle and through initial acceleration without the assistance of the gasoline engine.
After the electric motor provides initial acceleration, the gasoline engine quietly starts and assumes the load of powering the vehicle. The gasoline engine works independently through cruising speeds until the vehicle reaches speeds at which fuel efficiency declines.
When loads require, the electric motor starts again and aids the gasoline engine in powering the Altima Hybrid. This allows the gasoline engine to remain in its ideal rpm range while the axle rpm simultaneously increases due to the extra power being contributed by the electric motor.
A digital display on the speedometer indicates when the Altima Hybrid is running solely on electric power. The Altima Hybrid’s available DVD navigation system also features a real-time display showing how the hybrid system directs the flow of energy.
Classified as an Advanced Technology-Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (AT-PZEV), the new Altima Hybrid will be available in eight states. The vehicle has been certified to meet California emissions requirements and will be sold beginning in early 2007 in those states that have adopted California emissions regulations: California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine and New Jersey. These states are among the strongest markets for hybrid vehicles.
The new Altima Hybrid is the sixth model in the 2007 Altima lineup, joining the Altima 2.5, 2.5 S, 2.5 S with SL Package and two 3.5-liter V6-powered models, the Altima 3.5 SE and 3.5 SL. The 2007 Altima Hybrid will be available in early 2007, following the November 2006 introduction of the 2007 Altima 2.5-liter 4-cylinder and 3.5-liter V6 gasoline-powered models.
(A hat-tip to Dave Thomas at cars.com!)
October 4, 2006 in Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (76) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6275921
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nissan Altima Hybrid Debuts at Orange County Auto Show:
Comments
wow, could they pick a more obscure venue to debut the model? no wonder it's only being sold in 8 states...
Posted by: lensovet | Oct 4, 2006 7:55:43 PM
Dear Nissan:
Well, that's pretty nice,
39 mpg? I personally can't possibly reach that mileage-- [downward]. I can't recall ever getting less than 43 mpg, even driving like a maniac. (My car is a 2003 Beetle, TDI.) On my last tank of biodiesel, I got 66 mpg.
Maybe if you could get the government to go along with a little more modest transportation, like you guys used to make back in the 70s, I'm sure you could come up with something as good as my humble Beetle.
Posted by: Ernie Rogers | Oct 4, 2006 8:31:17 PM
On my last tank of biodiesel, I got 66 mpg.
Please.
Posted by: noonan | Oct 4, 2006 9:19:50 PM
39mpg is better than probably 95% of Americans are getting. So, although 66>39, at least its a huge improvement over the average vehicle. Kudos to Nissan.
Posted by: Realist | Oct 4, 2006 9:44:46 PM
Dear Ernie,
The Beetle has HALF as much power and no usable back seat for full size adults. You also have about one third the trunkspace and your EPA rating is 34/44 with an automatic transmission, 38 combined, thus worse than the Altima. Your EPA Air Polution score on a scale of 0 to 10 is 0. Yes, ZERO. The polution from an '03 TDI is about 20 times as high as a PZEV car. Thanks for trying though.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Oct 4, 2006 11:49:36 PM
On a scale of 0 to 10 I give the EPA ratings system a 0.
Before we use the EPA to settle arguments we have to agree that they know what they are doing.
Cheers,
JRod.
Posted by: JRod | Oct 5, 2006 1:16:28 AM
Why would this offering be ridiculed? Nissan produces a sporty, roomy and well-equipped sedan that will likely go 0-60 in a touch over 7 seconds AND get 39 mpg combined? How is that a bad thing?
It cracks me up - some people on this site will never be satisfied until 100% of the public is commuting in Smart cars, Segways, and bicycles.
Posted by: Angelo | Oct 5, 2006 3:49:07 AM
I wish I could have purchased one of these things two and a half years ago.
On the other hand, I already get upwards of 700 miles on a tank (18.4 gallons, 40+ MPG, 2004 Passat TDI).
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Oct 5, 2006 4:41:45 AM
See this should have come about instead of the Prius. It should have been family car from the get go.
Nissan living up to the name as the conservative second who learns from other's mistakes.
Posted by: Noogums | Oct 5, 2006 5:30:24 AM
See this should have come about instead of the Prius. It should have been family car from the get go.
Nissan living up to the name as the conservative second who learns from other's mistakes.
Posted by: Noogums | Oct 5, 2006 5:30:54 AM
See this should have come about instead of the Prius. It should have been family car from the get go.
Nissan living up to the name as the conservative second who learns from other's mistakes.
Posted by: Noogums | Oct 5, 2006 5:31:38 AM
We have to keep the big picture in mind here, I believe. We've just entered the age of no-longer-cheap oil, and all parts of the economy, including companies and consumers at all levels, are just beginning to adjust.
Sure, I'd love to see the average US passenger car get 60 MPG (or more), but a lot of technological and cultural change has to take place to get us there. The good news is we're definitely on our way.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Oct 5, 2006 6:31:44 AM
I think the key to this vehicle, and the Toyota Camry Hybrid, is that they have the potential to replace six cylinder vehicles in the future. I've never owned a 6 banger myself, but it seems that 200 HP is a fair amount of juice. I can't imagine a use for a mid size family sedan where 200 HP just will not get the job done. The hybrid version gets 39 MPG, the 2006 6 cylinder version gets 24 MPG. That is an efficiency gain of 62%. With a slight tweak in the american consumer's mindset, we could see these type of hybrid vehicles start to replace the more inefficelt segments of the auto industry (possible, hopefully, well probably not, but it's nice to hope...)
Peace,
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Oct 5, 2006 7:21:19 AM
Noogums- Syntax error -unitelligible x 3
"See this should have come about instead of the Prius. It should have been family car from the get go."
At least Nissan will contribute to the hybrid market offering, improve the avg. market fuel economy and reducing avg. vehicle emissions, not to mention the cloud of emissions from TDIs.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Oct 5, 2006 7:51:01 AM
Lets run the numbers on this one.
Over the V6 version, assuming 39mpg combined and 10,000 miles/year, then you’ll save $400 a year at $2.50 gal gas.
Over 5 years that’s $2,000.
If gas is $5/gal, or you drive 20,000miles a year then this becomes $4,000
So to my mind the hybrid can only charge between $2,000, and $4,000 premium over the regular V6 model.
There may be other benefits, such as reduced brake wear, but this may be offset by more complexity, which may in the long term increase warranty/repair costs.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | Oct 5, 2006 8:00:55 AM
This car is a very good thing. You have to start the ball rolling with a more extreme car such as the prius to make the point about hybrids, then you can ease off with larger cars with similar effeciency gains, but lower milage rates (because the cars are larger and heavier).
So well done to Nissan.
- JM
Posted by: mahonj | Oct 5, 2006 8:10:02 AM
Over the V6 version, assuming 39mpg combined and 10,000 miles/year, then you’ll save $400 a year at $2.50 gal gas.
The V6 version is rated at 23 mpg, so over 10,000 miles you'd save 178.4 gallons, which comes to $445.93 at $2.50/gal.
You can make up any kind of scenario, number of years, whatever, but the rule of thumb is a $4K premium for hybrid technology (which goes down over time) and 15K miles/year driving. You could get more precise by using National Personal Transportation Survey data, then assume it takes 10 years to drive 133,900 miles, and put on 10,000 miles thereafter, with a rule of thumb that a vehicle will last 200,000 miles (conservatively).
Then all you do is just calculate the payback period in miles, or in time, if you like. And since the value of fuel savings persists regardless of who owns it, the fuel savings annuity value is embedded in any resale premium a hybrid will have over its conventional counterpart.
Average gas price in 2006 has been $2.72.
Given those assumptions, payback comes at 82,445 miles, or a shade over 5 years. The tax credit will of course reduce the payback period, and of course there are other possible incentives to value as well (eg, less time fueling, free parking, reduced insurance, enhanced prestige, and so forth). Plus, some people would prefer a dollar go to Japan instead of to the Middle East.
This is a perennial argument against hybrids, one which the naysayers ever win.
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 5, 2006 8:20:17 AM
clarification:
put on 10,000 miles per year thereafter
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 5, 2006 8:21:46 AM
I hope this model does very well for Nissan. That would change Carlos Ghosn's mind a bit and give the opportunity for further hybrid developments at Nissan.
This year hybrid Altima with 39mpg combined.
2 years from now with strong sales? Perhaps then we'd see a hybrid Sentra with 50mpg combined.
Passat and Altima are probably the best two to compare as far as size goes.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2006 8:32:17 AM
Pizmo -
your ROI calculation suggests a $4000 premium on the purchase price can be earned back in 5 years (more like 7 if you drive just 12000 miles a year).
However, the manufacturing delta for a hybrid system is that much or more - unless your name is Toyota and you've already spent the big bucks to drive that cost down.
Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn has suggested that hybrids make financial sense for the manufacturer mostly in markets subject to ZEV legislation. In other words, if the choice is between losing money on hybrids or paying fines for missing the ZEV quota, hybrids are the lesser of the two evils. This is probably why Nissan is unveiling this product at the Orange County Auto Show and limiting distribution to just a handful of states.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Oct 5, 2006 8:32:45 AM
Pizmo -- You forgot to factor in the expense of maintaing two engines (yes there are two engines in this vehicle and they will both certianly incur and need maintenance)and the expense of replacing the batteries two times (if the vehicle is kept for 200,000 miles then one can expect to replace the twice AND if the vehicle is then resold after 200K and it is still in good shape then the next owner will have to replace them for yet a 3rd time -- not exactly cheap either).
Posted by: JJ | Oct 5, 2006 8:33:50 AM
Pizmo -- You forgot to factor in the expense of maintaing two engines (yes there are two engines in this vehicle and they will both certianly incur and need maintenance)and the expense of replacing the batteries two times (if the vehicle is kept for 200,000 miles then one can expect to replace the twice AND if the vehicle is then resold after 200K and it is still in good shape then the next owner will have to replace them for yet a 3rd time -- not exactly cheap either).
Show one example of someone buying a new battery pack for a hybrid. Just one will suffice.
This is a tired set of objections, repeated over and over. You want the simple model, and the simple model indicates it makes financial sense. Then the next step is to go for a complex model. But when you make a complex calculation, the number of uncertainties (and unlimited variations based on specific individuals and their specific situation), then you essentially reach a point where no certain answer can be made that can be applied in all cases.
It's a fundamentally disingenuous argument to begin with, since there isn't a single option on a car that has a positive ROI, yet somehow we never hear debates about the ROI of 20" rims, leather seats, air conditioning, HEMI engines, and so forth. In fact, one really never hears that diesels carry a price premium.
But somehow hybrids are supposed to be microanalyzed down to the penny, while in the real world, people are out dropping $40-50K on tricked-out Yukons and the like. Yet no one speaks of "Yukon Hype".
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 5, 2006 8:49:53 AM
Not to mention gas won't be $2.50/gal cheap much longer..
Not to mention the savings in external costs, e.g. pollution
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Oct 5, 2006 9:38:47 AM
ROI SHMAROI.
A Car Is Not An Investment. A Car Purchase Is A Money-Losing Venture Regardless.
So since you are losing money ANYWAY, you might as well buy a car with hybrid technology to "hedge your bet" in regard to future oil prices.
The Altima Hybrid seems like a fine addition to the Hybrid Herd. I own a 2007 TCH and I love it. I go about a month between fillups. My last fillup was September 4th.
Get Thyself a Hybrid !!!
Posted by: Larry S. Singleton | Oct 5, 2006 10:05:00 AM
One note:
The hybrid credit is large for the first x thousand models sold for any company. The credit for the Prius has now dropped in half. Since this is Nissan's first hybrid, it will be eligible for the full credit. That's around 3 thousand dollars. That alone makes the Altima hybrid more attractive than the Camry hybrid and covers most of the cost for the "hybrid upgrade".
I do want to know how the pricing compares to the Camry hybrid. Anybody?
Posted by: tim | Oct 5, 2006 10:30:17 AM
Keep in mind that there is a six cylinder premium relative to the 4 cylinder. The 2006 Altima V6 costs approximately $3000 more then the 4 cylinder with the SE package. The point is, people seem to be willing to pay $3000 more for the extra power. I didn't check the package difference between the 4 and 6 cylinder versions, but since the 4 cylinder comes with the SE package, I'll assume they are fairly close as far as accessories are concerned.
The Hybrid version is the 4 cylinder with the hybrid components, so lets assume it will cost $4000 more then the standard 4 cylinder version. That is only $1000 more then the V6 version. Of course, I'm just guessing about the pricing of the hybrid version. I think if manufacturers can get the cost of the hybrid with 1-2K of the 6 cylinder, people would be enticed by that. Sure oil prices are down, but gee, what are the chances that the middle east will fall to pieces (nothing EVER goes wrong in the middle east).
I don't see these midsize hybrids replacing the 4 cylinder versions. Most 4 cylinders are fairly efficient to begin with, and the price premium is too high. Relative to the V6 versions of most mid size cars, the hybrids seem to make a lot of sense.
Peace,
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Oct 5, 2006 10:42:51 AM
Since this is Nissan's first hybrid, it will be eligible for the full credit. That's around 3 thousand dollars.
The amount of the credit varies by vehicle, dependent on emissions. Hybridcars.com pegs the estimated credit for the Altima at $1,300 and the Camry at double that. The Camry's credit is now at 50% until March 31, 2007, so it's the same as the Altima's estimated credit.
http://hybridcars.com/tax-deductions-credits.html
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml
I do want to know how the pricing compares to the Camry hybrid. Anybody?
Couldn't find it, but the Altima generally has an MSRP similar to the Camry, with the Camry (at least in 2006) coming in about $1,000 cheaper in terms of real prices. Ownership costs on the Camry are about 3 cents less per mile. See Edmunds.com for details.
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 5, 2006 10:46:00 AM
Not to mention gas won't be $2.50/gal cheap much longer.
Right; prices that high are not sustainable. It's already well below that at most places in the US. Even at $60/barrel, the price of oil is unsustainably high, given the alternative fuel sources that are massively profitable when oil is that expensive.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 5, 2006 12:01:44 PM
Cosmo - I agree with you. I think with the ROI people are often comparing apples and oranges.
Note in the the article this car gets .5 seconds faster 0-60. That is a big difference. The Lexus 450H has stunning acceleration. So it saves money with gas, and has better performance.
Another is smoother acceleration as the electric motor assists during the dips as the ICE gears up.
And it has a price disadvantage so customrs can decide what they want ot spend their money on. I agree with you also that in the super economy 4 cylinder cars the hybrid isn't a competitive option right now.
Posted by: aa2 | Oct 5, 2006 3:06:21 PM
"Even at $60/barrel, the price of oil is unsustainably high, given the alternative fuel sources that are massively profitable when oil is that expensive."
For example?
Posted by: richard schumacher | Oct 5, 2006 5:40:57 PM
What's the ROI on that six cylinder version, over the four? How many miles until those two extra pistons start to pay for themselves? I guess they must have decent ROI, otherwise nobody would buy a six, would they?
Posted by: Hal | Oct 5, 2006 6:23:29 PM
If we ever wise up and implement a carbon tax in the US then the benefits of hybrids will make more financial sense. Improved MPG also results in lower emissions. Ergo, you drive a gas guzzling spewer, you pay a higher tax for the privledge of dumping those extra emissions .
Posted by: john galt | Oct 5, 2006 7:36:48 PM
Hal,
Great comment. The "return" on the V6 is the joy they get when they push their foot down on the gas pedel. So the return in this case might be cleaner air and less imported oil.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 5, 2006 8:35:04 PM
" Even at $60/barrel, the price of oil is unsustainably high, given the alternative fuel sources that are massively profitable when oil is that expensive."
Agreed but it will take years to ramp up enough production. In the meantime, oil could easily bounce up to $100 and higher.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Oct 5, 2006 11:33:35 PM
Looking at the financial caluclations, why don't they launch this in Europe?
If the vehicle does 10,000 miles per year, 178 Gallons is saved. That's about 750 litres and at 90p per litre, that's abpit GPB 670, or perhaps $1,200.
There's would be another £100 or saving on Road Tax, so total savings about $1300 - 1500 per year. That should justify a premium of $7,000 over the V6 model.
Posted by: Alexander Terrell | Oct 6, 2006 4:47:28 AM
About the ROI calculation,
Unfortunately, it seems that for hybrids to sell in this country, they will need to "pay for themselves" if they are to find a broad audience in the US.
It seems to me that there are three reasons to buy a hybrid: 1)Save the environment 2)Geopolitical Security 3) Save money. Lets look at all three:
1) Talk to most people, and they will say they are environmentalists, but few actually do things to improve the environment. Think about it as talking the talk vs. walking the walk. I'm willing and fortunately able to shell out a couple grand extra to buy a car that is better for the environment (Prius), but unfortunaltely, most people in this country are not willing to incur cost to do so. Hell, you should hear the conversations I have with very intelligent people trying to convince then to use compact flourescent bulbs in their house. They absolutely refuse to spend $6 on a bulb. Never mind they pay for themselves in the long run. It's absolutely madening. So for arguments sake, lets just say that the "save the environment" mantra will not compell enough americans to purchase enough hybrids to lift this type of vehicle above a niche product.
2) The "We need to ween ourselves of of foreign oil" argument seems to be gathereing some stregnth, and has become a more compelling argument for most americans since 911. I see the same hurdles relative to the environmental argument with this one as well. How many people are going to spend more money, or give up performance to make sure that the Uber-Nutjob Hugo Chavez is unable to use American dollars to fund more anti-american poiticians in Latin America? Probably very few. Most americans believe it is there god given right to use as much oil as possible without considering where that oil comes from. As with the environmental argument, the "boiled frog" phemomenon is in effect. The anti-american, fascist and Islamo-fascist forces that control large quantities of oil are slowly gathering stregnth, and I don't think most people in this country really think that American hegemony really is threatened by the non-aligned states or Islamists.
3) Save money. Fr most people, this is the strongest argument for buying a hybrid. If the typical consumer can see a vehicle that will give him/her near V6 performance AND be better for the environment AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil, only then can hybrids become more economically viable for auto execs to fund and produce.
The point is, none of us on this forum like the ROI argument. Most of us that frequent this website do so because we are interested in fixing problems 1 and/or 2. But until the majority of americans feel this way, giving them more cash in their wallet is the most effective way to sell these vehicles.
I should've been working instead of writing this,
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Oct 6, 2006 6:52:16 AM
Oops, under 3) in my last post,, I forgot to add:
AND save money in the log run...
Looks like I ommited my key point. My bad.
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Oct 6, 2006 6:55:43 AM
Cosmo, I love the ROI notion. Unfortunately, the people who often wish to bash hybrids by bringing it up usually don't the first thing about finance. Pretty much every hybrid I've ever run the numbers on pays for the hybrid premium in time, even without tax considerations. And those are straight gas savings considerations, not including issues like risk (ie, the value of being protected from rising energy prices), prestige (eg, a real estate agent whose target market is environmentally-concsious clients), HOV lane access, free parking, discounted insurance, as well as the value of feeling good about what you're doing with respect to the first two things you mentioned - the environment and energy security.
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 6, 2006 7:31:50 AM
For example?
Fischer-Tropsch liquids (or syngas-derived methanol, ethanol, dimethyl ether, etc.) from natural gas or coal. These are competitive even with oil at $40/barrel, and the profit grows rapidly as oil goes beyond that. At the peak oil price, the IRR of a mine-mouth CTL plant in Wyoming was estimated to be greater than 100%/year.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 6, 2006 9:06:19 AM
Fischer-Tropsch liquids (or syngas-derived methanol, ethanol, dimethyl ether, etc.) from natural gas or coal. These are competitive even with oil at $40/barrel, and the profit grows rapidly as oil goes beyond that. At the peak oil price, the IRR of a mine-mouth CTL plant in Wyoming was estimated to be greater than 100%/year.
So, how much market share do these "wildly profitable" fuels have? At those ratesof return, it makes no sense to sell gasoline from oil.
Might want to check your numbers.
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 6, 2006 9:51:23 AM
Pizmo,
You've just done a great service for me today. I completely forgot to call my insurance company and get the available hybrid 10% discount. It's been available in my state for a coulpe months now, and it totally slipped my mind. Thanks dude....
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Oct 6, 2006 10:37:36 AM
So, how much market share do these "wildly profitable" fuels have? At those ratesof return, it makes no sense to sell gasoline from oil.
Might want to check your numbers.
You might want to check your logic, pizmo. These plants don't spring into existence overnight; the people building them need confidence that prices will remain high enough for long enough in the future to recoup the investment. The longer oil stays high, the greater this confidence becomes. These plants are a demonstration that high oil prices cannot be sustained, since eventually they would be built and force the price down again -- if something else didn't force the price down first.
GCC has had a growing number of stories on xTL plants being discussed, planned, and moved forward on. Expect more such stories if oil prices remain high.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 6, 2006 10:39:02 AM
You might want to check your logic, pizmo. These plants don't spring into existence overnight; the people building them need confidence that prices will remain high enough for long enough in the future to recoup the investment.
Still doesn't add up - not with those kind of numbers.
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 6, 2006 4:09:49 PM
"These plants don't spring into existence overnight; the people building them need confidence that prices will remain high enough for long enough in the future to recoup the investment."
Good analysis. I would guess that it will take at least ten years to replace a large percentage of the liquid fossils with bio.
Posted by: Freedom_First | Oct 6, 2006 9:24:48 PM
At the peak oil price, the IRR of a mine-mouth CTL plant in Wyoming was estimated to be greater than 100%/year.
Care to provide a link to the detailed financials behind that number?
Posted by: pizmo | Oct 6, 2006 10:24:17 PM
Hello, I think we should all be glad that there will be yet another hybrid on the road of the eight states. This would also tell something to the visitors of those eight states coming from the remaining 52 ;) Regards, --Michael
Posted by: Mikee | Oct 9, 2006 3:27:56 PM
Seems like i have a math problem when it comes to counting states :) I ment to say that visitors of the eight states from the remeining forty two should come to the conclusion that maybe thir governors are not doing something for them and for their children. After all I think expecting a regular Joe to dump his V8 Suburban can either be done by $6 per gallon or by a government.
Posted by: Mikee | Oct 9, 2006 3:32:31 PM
Nah, I want regular joe to keep his V8 Suburban if he wants to make that choice. But definitely have him *pay* for that choice with some heavy gas taxes ($6/gallon would be scary...but almost necessary to convince people to make a change).
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 3:40:25 PM
I hope it doesn't cost a fortune. My Mom wants one and she doesn't have a lot of money.
Posted by: pialwtaafi | Oct 9, 2006 6:18:32 PM
It seems to me that with limited oil production and refinery capacity, sucking up twice the gas in a large SUV just to go get a bag of groceries is a problem for all of us. So, why not a gas guzzler tax when they buy them and a larger registration fee every year. If you are going to be wealthy enough to be wasteful, you should pay the price.
Posted by: SJC | Oct 9, 2006 7:45:18 PM
Exactly my sentiments.
I kind of like the idea of a gas guzzler tax dependant upon the amount of gas you actually use though. You can buy your V8 Suburban with 4x4 but if you use more than x amount of gas in a year then you start to pay at a higher rate for each additional gallon. There is no penalty for buying any specific car just for being wasteful. Therefore if Mr. Prius drives 50,000 miles in a year he too could become a victim of a "gross-overuse" taxation hitting...while Mr. super-Suburban hits that limit quite a bit sooner just because he won't get as far on the same amount of gas.
If oil prices stay high enough they might start tapping the US oil shale. I know, first hand knowledge, that Schlumberger is all settled in around the big oil shale deposits in the US (around Wyoming and areas of the Rockies) and just waiting for the signal to go. The oil shale deposit is expected to be equal in size to Canada's oil sands but just as expensive (if not more so) to get out.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 11:38:24 PM
Care to provide a link to the detailed financials behind that number?
See the latter part of this slide presentation. The IRR quoted is around 75%/year (for various detailed scenarios) with oil at $63/bbl. At the peak of $78/bbl it would be considerably better.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 10, 2006 7:15:00 AM
One correction: that $63/bbl is the assumed market price of diesel, which trades for a premium over crude oil. So the economics are even better than I suggested.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Oct 10, 2006 8:21:10 AM
With prices sustained at those levels for the long term it also becomes profitable for the oil companies to go after the huge oil shale reserves under the rockies.
I was with Schlumberger for a brief period of time at the end of last year and they were ramping up their services to go after the oil shale.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 10, 2006 12:07:48 PM
The very expensive to extract oil shale reserves are estimated to be in the 1 trillion barrel range.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 10, 2006 12:08:59 PM
Oil has many uses. Shale is hard.
Posted by: pialwtaafi | Oct 10, 2006 5:46:17 PM
The ROI discussion in my opinion is secondary to the economics of the leasing market. When I last shopped for a car in 2004, the Toyota and Honda salesmen said the leasing companies were leery of hybrids bc the resale value and maintenance issues were great unknowns. Since then I'm not aware of major maintenance problems, and I DK if hybrids have good resale value. My perception is that buyers in the hybrid market are looking for the best and newest technology, and are unlikely to choose a Used hybrid, at least not for the same reasons they'd buy a new one. I think leasing accounts for about 30% of the sedan market and notable that leasing customers are either going for low monthly payments or seriously looking at cost/benefit calculations for business use of the cars.
Posted by: Tom G | Oct 11, 2006 5:44:18 AM
I think a used hybrid would be a great way to go if your plan is to convert it to a PHEV. Especially since some of those "kits" involve pulling the old battery pack.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 11, 2006 9:06:33 AM
A used hybrid would be very nice. A new one, too.
Posted by: pialwtaafi | Oct 11, 2006 9:29:39 AM
I think a used hybrid would be a great way to go if your plan is to convert it to a PHEV. Especially since some of those "kits" involve pulling the old battery pack.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 11, 2006 9:06:33 AM
Patrick, that's exactly my father's attitude. I couldn't entice him to buy a Prius, even though he loves mine. But suddenly he's talking about buying a used one, and doing a PHEV conversion. I understand his concern. I too would feel anxious, voiding the warranty on a >$21,000 car immediately after buying it.
I just had a peek at eBay Motors. Alas, the resale value of the Prius is rather high. Blue Book values are referenced by some sellers, and they are pretty much in line with the bids. 2001 and 2002 Prius sedans will run from $13,000 to $16,000. The earliest hatchback model year, 2004, costs up to $20,000.
Maybe in another two years?
Posted by: John | Oct 23, 2006 6:28:34 PM
Dear Nissan,
My 1991 Nissan NX got 53 mpg on the highway crossing Canada when I bought it new 15 years ago. I checked it last spring on a long highway trip and it still averaged 44 mpg, better than most new cars, even hybrids! Hence, I hold on to it, despite its rain leaks.
What gives?? Why no progress in gas savings??
I am waiting to buy a totally electric car.
As you know the world is in VERY GRIM condition from Global Climate Change. Car GHG emissions are what got us into this dire trouble. Scientists say that we may not survive this, many species are already doomed to extinction because of the car. It is an Emergency - we MUST get out of fossil fuel use NOW.
Cathy MSc (Biol) LLB (envir)
Posted by: Cathy | Oct 25, 2006 5:43:06 PM
"Car GHG emissions are what got us into this dire trouble. Scientists say that we may not survive this, many species are already doomed to extinction because of the car."
This scientist calls BS on that particular quote. The car is actually NOT the primary source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce it to an issue of cars is to miss the point entirely; it is far more systemic and pervasive, encompassing our society's entire paradigm of energy and material consumption. Global warming is a deadly reality...but to paint it as a problem that can be reduced to one discrete source of GHG emissions, or that could be solved if people would just drive cars that get better gas mileage, is laughable. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than that.
Also, just a note on your NX...the Altima weighs a good 1200lbs more than it, has better crash performance, four doors, more power, and has more of the luxury and safety features that buyers expect (8 airbags, 5 star crash protection, in-car entertainment, etc). To denigrate the mid-size Altima sedan for getting mileage equivalent to a knackered 15-year-old compact fastback is to compare apples and guavas at best. I imagine that if Nissan made a vehicle of the weight and specification of your NX today, you'd see a commensurate increase in efficiency - and the fact that they're matching it with a vastly larger and heavier vehicle is grounds for praise, not insult.
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 26, 2006 8:23:38 AM
Also, the NX was specified at 38mpg highway, so it's actually worse - and unless you're REALLY miscalculating, I also wonder at the validity of that "53mpg" quote.
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 26, 2006 9:29:02 AM
Good news. One more Toyota Hybrid offshoot on the road soon. Let's hope that it will sell as well as the Escape (the other offshoot by Ford) and others will follow. The 3rd generation Prius should get 60+ mpg + better performance by 2008.
To make Hybrids cost effective, gas guzzlers could be taxed more at the time of purchase,($1000+ or $1/lb above 3000 lbs); extra yearly registration fees ($500+ or $0.25/lb above 3000 lbs) and a progressive variable gas tax to maintain the price at the pump between $4 to $5+/gal within 2 to 3 years + enough direct financial incentives to offset 100% of the extra cost after 4 years and about 60 000 miles on the road.
Of course, purchase tax and registration fees could be progressively reduced for all vehicles with 40+ mpg and down to near zero for vehicles with 60+ mpg.
This Hybrid cost equalization plan could remain cost neutral by adjusting the gas tax as required.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Oct 27, 2006 3:45:59 PM
Gas prices will climb back above $3/gal after November elections.
Posted by: nekola | Oct 27, 2006 11:32:18 PM
This Technology seem to work for Yellow Cab in NYC with their Gas/Electric Hybrid Taxicabs....
Furthermore YellowCab Runs PRIUS in Ottowa... and after 500,000 miles NO PROBLEMS!!!
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2006 5:09:51 PM
Diesel causes premature deaths in thousands of American ederly and children every year. Hybrids don't kill and recycle energy.
Posted by: John Acheson | Nov 6, 2006 11:51:34 PM
Man, what a great forum, first time I've been in here and I read the whole thing from the start. It is good to find other people that realize the dire situation our world is in with regards to our energy crisis and looming climate change problem. I love to see people that actually make decisions and take action to prevent problems or make change for the good of society. I'm a strong voice in my local network of friends, but they are hard to win over. I will stay strong though and this forum provides good encouragement and discussion for future conversations with others. Make a great day!
The Wrangler
(Chris)
Posted by: Chris | Nov 7, 2006 9:02:04 AM
The dire situation the world is in ...is REAL ...as far as alternative fuel and cleaner FUEL ....Natural Gas is the coming FUEL OF THE FUTURE ..No Doubt about it ......
IF ANYONE comes to the New Car Show in LA Dec 1 to the 11th ....I will be Proud to SHOW YOU THE AMERICAN ROADSTER....First Hand; 70 mpg Estimated
I Am Utterly overwhemled with EXCITEMENT to be a Represenatative for SAVING OUR World.
Thanks For Reading....
Ron Rowland
Oregon Sales Team
Posted by: Ron Rowland | Nov 25, 2006 8:40:35 PM
Good to read that you guys over there in America are finally starting to realise that you can drive a comfortable car over a long distance and still return over 40miles to the gallon. I know many americans living here in northern italy , and when the subject of why most american cars return less than 20mpg comes up in converstation , the answer is always that "we have to drive such large distances" I know America is a big country , but this arguement does not make any sense, I myself drive a Rover with a BMW 2 litre diesel engine , and make the trip between here in italy and southern spain on a regular basis a round trip of some 4000km
the car is quiet , comfortable , reliable, and above all safe , and on a trip like this will return 45 mpg cruising at 130k per hour.
Even so I will be the first in the queue to buy a true electric car if they ever become a reality, its not just the cost saving , I have children and I do not want to contribute to leaving them in the poo in years to come . I have recently installed solar water heaters and stripped the roof off the house to place 8cms of natural cork insulation , the first question that people ask is "how long will it take to pay back" this is not the reason why I carried out the works, the reason is it feels good not to be so dependant on imported energy, 80 per cent of our natural gas comes from Russia, another unstable source.
America and my home country the UK are engaged in an unsustanable war in the middle east , which is at the moment going from bad to worse, and for what peace and democracy , I dont think so , its for the oil . The oil that the Uk has been dependant on for some 25 years is running out , and I understand the same is true in the USA , we have to change our ways , and fast, time is running out!
We have to stop thinking only of the cost to our pocket , and think of the cost to our planet , beacause we are not carring a spare , when its all gone its gone !
and lets face it its a long way to the next piece of rock , and if your only getting sub 20mpg you wont make it!
Posted by: andrichrose | Nov 27, 2006 1:51:59 PM
Concerning Coal to liquids, oil from shale, tar sands:
It doesn't matter if this is wildly profitable on a small scale, if it can't scale up to replace an appreciable fraction of oil demand. The world uses about 84 million barrels of oil per day; tar sands in Alberta, Canada are producing about 2 million barrels per day. The bottleneck is fresh water, they are already diverting most of the Athabasca river to process the sticky black sand. Just because it is profitable at 2 mbpd, doesn't mean they can scale up to 4, 8, 16 mbpd just because they want to. Even if there ARE 175 billion barrels oil-equivalent, the RATE at which you can get it out is limited by regional resources. Same problem with the huge reserves of 'extra-heavy oil' in the Orinoco belt of Venezuela. Even if there are an estimated 200 billion barrels, or 300 billion, whatever the current experts say, what is the RATE at which they can get at it ? Current production is only 500,000 barrels/day. Again, there is a HUGE difference between easily pumped crude oil (like in Iraq, the easiest, cheapest to pump oil in the world) and trying to scale up mining black sand in the frozen wastes of Canada. People who think that if oil hits $100/barrel (maybe 82 million barrels/day pumped) will cause the 2-3 million barrels/day of natural gas to liquids, or oil sands, or coal to liquids production to jump to 85 million barrels/day to replace the easy crude oil, will be sorely disappointed.
Remember, what is the possible production/day ? It can be very profitable playing at the margins, replacing a few million barrels of $60 or $80/barrel crude oil with biofuels or synthetic crude from oil sands, etc. But the price of a barrel is still set by crude oil - if you CANNOT replace that 80 million barrels/day with your process, then you do not change the pricing pressure. Every year demand for oil goes up a few percent, and these replacements for crude oil do not grow fast enough.
That $100/barrel crude oil equivalent is coming. Don't kid yourself about 10 trillion barrels of bitumen here and there around the world...
Posted by: Bob | Dec 16, 2006 1:58:12 AM
I drive a 2003 Toyota Prius, which averages about 45 mpg.
Posted by: Justin Soutar | Jan 5, 2007 2:15:59 PM
I have one. Drove them all Hard choice but the Altima driability swung me over the Camry. I would love to convert it to Ethanol and add a Plur and an extra batter. Please don't give me the standard replies about anything I know it I am a EE/ME and will do it my self it it makes sense. With The Atkinson cycle the ethanol may not work correctly if so, I woun't do it. Can't wait to buy a new one with LI-Po batteries.
Posted by: Don | Jun 26, 2007 8:11:22 PM
Well I owe a Altma Hybrid abd it just as good or bad as a standard non hybrid Altima as a car. AS a Hybrid it stinks, The electric motor will not get you going from start as the engine starts to warm up that catalyst in the exhaust line. Even after warmup there is no way to accellerate to 30 every one would shoot you for the walking speed acceleration.
MPG Lousy I am barely breaking 29mpg
Can't wait to dump it. Sure wish the new Prius with the Diesel and the Li-Po batteries were ready, Sounds like a real hybrid.
Posted by: Don | Jul 12, 2007 6:06:55 PM
Anyone got a plan for a plug mod for the Nisan Altima Hybrid?
Posted by: Don | Jul 30, 2007 11:00:27 PM
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. Climate Change A few weeks ago we posed a challenge to both parties involved in the so- called "hockey stick" debate to explain why the rest of us ought to care about the debate. We asked, "so what?" We received responses from Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick while everyone on the other side declined to participate, though a few showed up in the comments. Here I'd like to offer a few assorted reflections on the responses and the subsequent discussion. 1. First, thanks to...
Posted by: het Stratumseind in Eindhoven | Mar 26, 2008 4:02:49 AM
