Talk:Hybrid electric vehicle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Transmission-less hybrid?

There isn't much material on the Internet about transmissionless hybrids. I'm thinking an ICE with a wide torque band could drive rear wheels through a differential but without a transmission at highway speeds, let's say 35mph @ 1,500 rpm up to 90 mpg @ 4,000 rpm. Electric motors could be used on front wheels for low-speed driving, acceleration, hill climbing, reverse, and regenerative braking. The ICE could also drive a generator as charging needs and power demands dictated.

The supplemental wheel motors ought to be substantially cheaper, more reliable and lighter than automatic transmissions typically used in hybrids, and they would render a transmission and front wheel brakes superfluous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.26.121 (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

There is nothing to be gained by forcing an engine to work across the RPM and MPH ranges you note there. All you will do is have the engine spend needless amounts of time outside its optimal RPM range. While yes the engine could operate across that range in one gear, for much of it it would not be producing optimal power, and would be running at far less than optimal efficiency. This would make the car sluggish, and reduce its fuel efficiency. The RPM/MPH range you note is about equivalent to 5th gear in a 5-spd manual vehicle. If you have access to a car with a 5-spd, try driving it around at the speed range you noted, keeping the transmission in 5th gear. You'll quickly see that below 55-60 the car will be extremely slow, and unresponsive. And since the car is operating outside its optimal RPM range the fuel economy will suffer dramatically.
If you take a closer look at the design of the Prius, (and several smaller non-hybrid cars) you'll see a movement to Continuously variable transmissions . These transmission are constantly adjusting the relative gearing to keep the engine in the optimal range as much as possible. These transmissions optimize power and/or efficiency output of the engine.
Lastly, even if the issues with running an engine were not there, there is no way your design would be cheaper than using a transmission. A normal car just needs the engine, transmission and differential. Your design requires an engine, differential, electric motors (multiple), battery pack, a clutch to disengage the engine when the motors are running, multiple clutches to disengage the motors while the engine is running, wiring and electronics to control the electric motors, the regenerative braking and switch between the engine and motors. This is far more complex, which would end up making it more expensive to produce and maintain than the standard system. Transmission and front brakes are known technology and can be produced (relatively) cheaply, at least when compared to the all new technology of much greater complexity that you are proposing. Improbcat 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

production statistics

For the section labelled "production statistics" (I renamed it from just "hybrids" which was totally uninformative) does anyone have a source of where that came from? I inserted that the 2010 and 2015 numbers were projections but I'd like to mention what that projection is based on - is it actual plans by the vehicle manufacturers, some sort of curve-fit extrapolation based on past data, or just wishful thinking of some hybrid advocacy group? I think it would be useful to know. Plymouths 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a source. For one thing, the gas mileage ratings are real low. How about a row for number of hybrids produced, which is much more informative than number of hybrid models compared to number of all car models. Nerfer 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, reviewing Wikipedia guidelines I feel comfortable removing it from the article, and copying it here. If the original author wants to keep it and can provide sources (like why is the Honda Insight apparently shown as getting 25 mpg???), then it can be put back in the main article. Nerfer 17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Production Statistics
Year 1995 2000 2005 2007 2010(projected) 2015(projected)
Hybrid models in production 0 1 5 10 20 50
Best gas mileage of Hybrid Models in production 22 25 32 42 62 96
Percentage of cars on the road that are Hybrids 0 0 0.01 0.5 2 10
Percentage of car Models in production that are Hybrids 0 0 0 0.01 2 10
Some interesting statistics reported today by the AP: "Consumers bought 254,545 hybrids last year as gasoline prices hit $3 per gallon or more for much of the year. That is up from 199,148 in 2005, according to nationwide auto registration data compiled by R.L. Polk & Co. and released on Monday...Hybrids accounted for about 1.5 percent of U.S. vehicle sales last year, with Toyota's Prius leading the segment with 42.8 percent of registrations, R.L. Polk said. A hybrid version of Toyota's Highlander sport utility vehicle ranked second." Nerfer 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid car redirect

I think hybrid car should redirect here. Some people apparently think it should redirect to hybrid vehicle (someone reversed my redirect without comment). The hybrid vehicle page has stuff about bicycles and sailboats and other stuff completely irrelevant to cars and this page has a lot of car related stuff (although it does also have train and bus stuff) and I think it's the kind of thing that people searching for hybrid car want to see. Opinions? Plymouths 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This reads like a sales pitch from someone who is pro-hybrid, rather than a honest analysis. The "trade-offs" section is very weak in this regard - it mentions a couple of issues and then tries to gloss over them in a postive spin for why folks should buy a hybrid.

Not sure when the above (unsigned) comment was made, but I updated the trade-offs section significantly this weekend. The Toyota Prius page was getting too long, and most of this is relevant to hybrids in general, so I added it here. (You think this is pro-hybrid, read the Prius page). For the record, I own a Prius, but I understand some of its environmental limitations and tried to keep this NPOV. Regarding the first comment, I was expecting all of this under the Hybrid-Electric Vehicle (HEV) page, which is also a redirect. Not sure what is best, but I tentatively agree with Plymouths. Nerfer 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I see someone added a note "citation needed", to my discussion on Consumer Reports. Good point, but I don't know how to correct it. Their print issue contains the error, as did their initial online version. The online version was quietly fixed, I don't know that there is any official source admitting this error, but it definitely existed and still exists in the print edition. That's a year ago now, maybe it could just be taken out, although it still comes up every now and again. Nerfer 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Energy related development by Civilizations (category)

I don't like it. Just makes the article longer and more complicated. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

PEHV? overall name?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This term is only found 11 times on google (and almost all of those clones of this WP article), though PHEV (Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) is found 21,000 times. Given the that acronyms are so close, as are the definitions, it doesn't make encyclopedic sense to use such a rarely use acronym. Indeed, the name itself is problematic when the first E85 (or ethanol or biodiesel) hybrid comes out. I'd like to see if someone has solid justification for passing WP:Naming conventions, especially "article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) is found 106,000 times versus the 11 above for PEHV, which itself is skewed by this article. --Skyemoor 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. I'm not 100% sure of the reason for the current name. I do know it was an effort to get away from "hybrid vehicles" as that name can fit so many different types of vehicles. I could see moving to Hybrid electric vehicle making a lot of sense. And does put this article more in line with hybrid vehicle drivetrains and List of hybrid vehicles. Improbcat 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, in the US alone, HEV is the name used by the Department of Energy [1], National Renewable Energy Labs [2], National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA) [3], fueleconomy.gov [4], and many states[5],[6]. --Skyemoor 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue with HEV is that it can refer to a bicycle, sailboat, motorcycle, hydrogen fuel source, train, etc... If someone searches for hybrid electric vehicle, they get taken to the general article and are loudly shown this more specialized article. So in other words, wikipedia is using the correct naming conventions but to limit article length, this more specialized article was created. Would you suggest something else? Daniel.Cardenas 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to perform a scientific classification, this is an encyclopedia. Again, WP:Naming conventions:"article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". And based on the above evidence, HEVs are what people (and government organizations) use to describe hybrid cars/trucks. If you have supporting evidence of even 1/10th as much for electric bikes, sailboats, motorcycles, etc. By your definition, motorcycles and diesel trains could fit into "PEHV" as well, so that doesn't solve anything and is confusing to the reader. At some point, subarticles might be spun out for automobiles, light trucks, etc. In the meantime, we can use this one article (HEV)to reflect common knowledge.--Skyemoor 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hybrid electric vehicle seems best to me. Is there a "hybrid car" userbox, btw? --JayHenry 01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we should rename this article to Hybrid electric vehicle per (HEV) argument and lack of nearly any use of PEHV WP:SET. Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle is a very poor name. Just to be clear a HEV and a PHEV are different types of vehicles, the difference is important, and they both need their own articles, IMHO. --D0li0 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle is a somewhat clumsy name but strongly disagree merging it back into the more general article Hybrid electric vehicle which would become far too long. It is the original length which initiated the fork. Hybrid_car is what most people are looking for and it redirects here. This could be reversed. Hybrid electric vehicle is the generic term not just for hybrid cars and trucks. However this redirects to Hybrid_vehicle which is even more generic. So maybe "Hybrid vehicle" should become a forking page or portal. --Theosch 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting merging PEHV with HV but rather leaving Hybrid vehicle (HV) as the most generic/forking/portal article. Then renaming this PEHV article as Hybrid electric vehicle to replace the redirect which is currently there. Then Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle, Hybrid car, etc can redirects to this article having been renamed HEV, which as was mentioned at the beginning seems to be the most common term used to describe these hybrid electric passenger vehicles.
The first line of the HV article might then read For the common automotive use of "hybrid vehicle", see Hybrid electric vehicle.
This would reflect the most common way that I hear people refer to these cars which is not "Hybrid car" but simply "Hybrid", in automotive terms.
As to the awkwardness of the current title, my Insight is badged "Gasoline-Electric Hybrid" and the AT-PZEV sticker in my Prius reads "Gasoline/Electric Hybrid", so even that would seem more appropriate. Though getting back to the petroleum vs potential future bio/flex fuel evolution of these vehicles perhaps an even better name would be "Combustion Electric Hybrid"? Though it seems to me that the Combustion (gasoline, diesel, petroleum, bio-diesle, ethanol, hydrogen, etc) can simple be dropped as a given, bringing us back to the most common official term used for these vehicles which is Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV). --D0li0 09:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with gasoline electric hybrid, except gasoline is a U.S. word, not used by the Europeans. If you go with Hybrid electric vehicle, then what are you going to do when someone adds information about bicycles with electric motors? There are other examples that show how generic a term it is. Daniel.Cardenas 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the standard practice on wikipedia is to simply note at the top of the page "This article is about X, for Y see Z." If people start adding information about bicycles we gently direct them to the correct page, hybrid bicycle. Easy. It seems to me that since these vehicles are commonly known as Hybrid Electric Vehicles we should use that. Maybe we also need a hybrid vehicles (disambiguation) to link to at the top of these articles. We already have Hybrid (disambiguation) but people seem to think that's not sufficient. --JayHenry 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jay, name it HEV and simply link to the existing Hybrid (disambiguation)#Transportation at the top of each of the articles about Hybrids in the automotive relm. Daniel, I think that HEV-Bicycles and other HEV vehicles such as sailboats are mentioned in the more generic HV article. So a disambiguation link at the top should take care of any confusion and get folks to what they are looking for quickly. I've gone ahead and updated the disambiguation page and added the {{For|x see z links to the top of the various Hybrid Transportation articles. Is it time to rename this article to Hybrid electric vehicle and fix all the links yet? --D0li0 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so we have Hybrid (disambiguation)#Transportation, then Hybrid_vehicle which should contain the relatively generic content of what is now still Hybrid_electric_vehicle, with the contents of the present Petroleum_electric_hybrid_vehicle article moved to Hybrid_electric_vehicle and its old name deleted. Seems OK as long as there is a notice back to Hybrid_vehicle for other types.--Theosch 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would create a section in Hybrid_electric_vehicle for the old type of this vehicle, this is, the petroleum hybrid electric vehicle (the hybrid_electric_vehicle which internal combustion engine is only based on petroleum)--Altermike 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Okay, there seems to be consensus that Hybrid electric vehicle would be a better name for this article. Since there's been no further discussion for a couple of days, I'm going to go ahead and rename. --JayHenry 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from petroleum electric hybrid vehicle to hybrid electric vehicle as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Heavy reorg work

Right, I'm done for now. Still a ton of work to do, but the article has some semblance of coherence now. Chris Cunningham 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Move locomotives out altogether?

Hybrid locomotives are really pretty different to hybrid cars. Should we just split this out entirely and leave it to a seealso? It's allow us to combine the fuel-types and vehicle-types sections more neatly. Chris Cunningham 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm going to roll these back:

  1. The intro section should of course compare hybrids to all-electrics, but doing so in a positive way is probably a better idea (to show why people use hybrids and not all-electrics). I'm editing this accordingly.
  2. We're a little long in the tooth for section-stubs at the point. If the legislative section expands enough by itself to warrant these sections and subsections it should be rolled into its own article and linked. This kind of listy material of current legislature is important for some, I suppose, but not so important to this article that it needs a framework like this in place.
  3. In my mind, legislature includes incentives. So there's no need to expand the section title.

Chris Cunningham 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

History

I corrected the history section. The Mixte was Porsche's series-hybrid, and was built in 1901. It was only used for racing and never sold to the public. The "System Lohner-Porsche" was a pure-electric vehicle without a gasoline motor. Improbcat 15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hybrids vs. all-electric vehicles

This section was removed electric vehicle&diff=137929719&oldid=prev, apparently it needs more/better references so perhaps it can be fixed here and then replaced. Not sure how much of this section is useful, perhaps some of the references. It may be worthwhile to point out some of the differences between a gas fueled hybrid and an electric fueled BEV, perhaps this can be done elsewhere in the article... --D0li0 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Battery powered all-electric cars (BEVs) are more popular in Europe than in the U.S. Most European electric vehicles are purchased from manufacturers, while due to unavailability of manufactured vehicles, most U.S. vehicles are owner-built conversions of older conventional vehicles. The major U.S. automobile manufacturers argue that customer demand for pure electric cars is small. In addition, the long suburban commutes common in the U.S. make range an important criterion for electric vehicle design. However, if advances in battery technology allow increased range at comparable cost to gasoline-powered vehicles, manufacturers will likely mass-market electric vehicles. The relative cost of gasoline to an equivalent amount of electrical energy will also be a critical factor in the electric vehicle market.

Another relevant factor is the ultimate source of power for the electric vehicles. In areas where older coal-fired generators are the source of electrical power, a pure electric vehicle will be responsible for more of some types of pollution — namely sulfates and particulates — than a hybrid vehicle, while less of other types of pollution, such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.[1] Whether greenhouse gas emissions will be lower in such a case is still under debate.[2][3] In any event, the local pollution effects would be lessened by a fleet of electric cars, because the sources of the pollution would be outside of urban areas.

In areas that sources from renewable energy (solar energy), electric vehicles are the cleaner option.

A possible advantage of the hybrid vehicle is in not requiring any upgrades to the electric power transmission grid. Since it can't be scaled larger and smaller at will, the grid is sized so as to carry almost the maximum load (i.e. summer air conditioning) with only occasional failures, and thus has much of its capacity idle most of the time. For the electric utilities, it would be advantageous to utilize that excess capacity and thereby generate a greater revenue for their fixed investment, by selling power to consumers to recharge their vehicles. However, this vision very pointedly does not allow for recharging of vehicles during peak usage times; to do so would require substantial upgrades to the capacity of the grid, and again leave the utilities with excess capacity most of the time. On the other hand, to require consumers to refrain from recharging their vehicles during certain times may not be an easy idea to sell to them.

For now, car manufacturers are focusing on fuel cell-based cars and hybrids. Fuel cell vehicles are being developed in a long-term research environment, rather than with expectations of production at any definite time.

References

  1. ^ (Table 1)
  2. ^ http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html#2
  3. ^ http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html

Do hybrids really need batteries?

hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) is a vehicle which combines a conventional propulsion system with an on-board rechargeable energy storage system (RESS)

At the very least, we need a citation. The word "hybrid" makes me think that any propulsion system that isn't either purely combustion or purely electric, but uses both, would be a hybrid electric vehicle. 171.71.37.103 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, analysis

The content under CNW Marketing reports contains considerable analysis and original research - I've copied it (with credit) to Appropedia: Hybrid vehicles, as Appropedia (the sustainability wiki) happily accepts such material.

I'll leave it to someone else to trim unsuitable material from the Wikipedia article, and perhaps reference the Appropedia article. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Diesel-electric HEVs use a diesel engine for power generation. Diesels have advantages when delivering constant power for long periods of time, suffering less wear while operating at higher efficiency. The diesel engine's high torque, combined with hybrid technology, may offer substantially improved mileage. Most diesel vehicles can use 100% pure biofuels (biodiesel), so they can use but do not need petroleum at all for fuel (although mixes of biofuel and petroleum are more common, and petroleum may be needed for lubrication). If diesel-electric HEVs were in use, this benefit would likely also apply. Diesel-

I feel compelled to comment on this. "Most diesel vehicles can use 100% pure biofuels (biodiesel)" This is true but only anecdotally as I know of no comprehensive study concluding that use of 100% biodiesel is a drop-in substitute for regular diesel. I have about 30k miles of 100% biodiesel on by VW with no problems but I think that it is important that readers understand that the user must be aware that the risks and the effects of long-term use of 100% bio at this point is unknown. In short: "Most diesel vehicles can use 100% pure biofuels (biodiesel)" and "do not need petroleum at all for fuel" are not only used without citation but to the best of my knowledge, there is no such broadly accepted study to cite. Tegtmeye 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm so confused

Back in the spring of '74, I took a transportation engineering course (civil eng) and the professor covered hybrids in a lot of detail. Parallel, series, regenerative braking, gas/diesel/alt fuels, Otto/Diesel/Stirling and other cycle engines, auto/CVT/alternative transmissions, battery and flywheel storage systems etc. However, almost everything in this article suggests those ideas came up later in time - in the late '70s or in the '80s. I associate most hybrid ideas as being from the '60s. Have folks been focussing on the more famous engineers/developments or have I been living in a timewarp? :) --Michael Daly 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparison table

This table implies that not all of the energy a Toyota Prius uses comes from the petrol in the tank. This is nearly false. All of a Prius' energy comes from the petrol, except for a small amount that represents the initial charge of the batteries at the factory. Grassynoel (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I removed the 'Hybrid fever' section as all of its contenet was copied from the cited references. This was in clear contravention of the WP:COPYVIO policy. -- de Facto (talk). 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why is there no section outlining popular criticism of hevs, both automotive and environmental in nature? --NEMT 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be lots of criticism, because there is certainly a lot to be found in the motoring press, and even from institutions such as the BBC "Consumer tests have shown that the current generation of petrol electric hybrids are little more efficient than a top of the range diesel." - BBC News Online, 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7437245.stm).
Out of the city, hybrids are useless. Because they have to use their combustion engines continuously at speed, the electric motors and batteries just become extra weight for the engine to lug about.
86.145.219.253 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely so. The batteries allow a smaller engine to be used, and this smaller engine is therefore lighter and running at a more efficient powerband when on the highway. Granted, a typical hybrid gets better mpg when driven below 50mph, but so does a standard vehicle. And the weight is only really an issue for accelerating and braking, not while the vehicle is maintaining speed (compared to factors like aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance). Not that I'm opposed to a NPOV criticism section. Nerfer (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese contribution in history section

I find the History section to be very US and Europe (Audi) centric - it seems that intro of the first practical vehicles by Honda and Toyota would argue that much of the development work took place in those two companies and possibly with Japanese government support. I recall seeing a number of technical papers by these companies in IEEE publications. Yet there is nothing covering this important development work here.

IMHO this needs to be added if we are to have a balanced article covering this subject. Perhaps Japanese contributors to Wikipedia could add some content? 24.13.34.10 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For your reference here's machine translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article.
Why would Japanese government support be needed? Toyota's profits in 2006 were $11 billion according to its article, for example, so they're not strapped for cash.
A quick Google Scholar search on ieee hybrid vehicle gives overwhelmingly non-Japanese results, but maybe you can refine it to dig up the papers you saw. --JWB (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Just seems rather ironic that according to this history, the U.S. and Europe did all the research, yet the Japanese are the ones who actually went out there and brought a product to market (some might say it was prompted by the U.S. government's PNGV program, which excluded Toyota, making them nervous). Obviously Toyota and Honda did important design work on their own to make commercially successful cars. It's pretty safe to say the hybrid market wouldn't exist today without Japan. Even now, Toyota by itself controls 75% of the hybrid market, next is Honda, and the Big-3 and Audi are negligible. Hopefully that will change with the Volt and some other products in the pipeline. Nerfer (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
dear all, I am a student of Rama Krishna Missiona Shilpapitha, Belgharia, kol-56. Last year i was completing my project on auto-mobile engineering on basis of Hybrid Electrical Vehicals (H.E.V). I am very pleased to completing my project on this upcoming technology & wish to all very happy ending. From Pijush Kanti Roy 9338466455 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.129.157 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Diesel electric drive contributor experts needed

Diesel electric drive contributor experts needed Wdl1961 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Production impact

production costs, what is the environmental impact of creating a nickel hydride battery?

  • I think this information is essential to the article because the end use of the HEV is to reduce humanity's detrimental environmental impact, however, if HEV production is more hazardous to the environment than the production or end use of its predecessors, then the HEV completely negates justification for its existence. -- 63.103.4.4 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. In the case of the Prius, the nickel for the battery is taken from Canada to Europe and then only to Japan from where the Prius is shipped all over the world. I'm not sure if Priuses are made at any of Toyota's international plants (they have one here in South Africa, for example), but if that's the case then the Prius has probably done more damage to the enviroment before the end user even starts driving it than many cars will in their entire lives. I think what also needs to be taken into account is the environmental impact of disposal of the batteries in such vehicles. (04 October 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been thoroughly debunked but the rumor is still circulating - see the Prius article and talk page.
Also if you simply use common sense the claim is patently ridiculous - all vehicles, appliances, etc. contain lots of steel which includes nickel and other ferrous metals. The amount of nickel in the Prius battery is a tiny part of total usage. --JWB (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

fuel consumption

I fail to see how these cars can have lower fuel consumption, since they need to use more petrol to lug around the batteries and motors. You also need to use electricity (generated in a power station) to charge it up. As shown by "Top Gear", (BBC2), the fuel consumption figures are apparently WORSE than many diesels, and some petrol cars. At low speed, in towns, say, there should be lower emissions, but any other claims appear to be bogus. Some figures and comparisons for consumption maybe? A brief look at the site at the bottom of this article, (www.fueleconomy.gov) appears to show the petrol only variant of one of the cars doing nearly TWICE the mileage of the hybrid. The other hybrids shown all have poor mpg figures compared to many petrol only cars, and certainly diesels. Peter M. 81.145.240.179 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific about what you are comparing, where the results are apparently worse in particular? Having lower mileage than diesels is a well understood issue.--Gregalton 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

From fueleconomy.gov, I tried to get info on all the hybrids I am aware of that have comparable petrol versions to allow a like-to-like comparison.

The results are below. If someone would like to make this into a pretty table and add any that they know of, that would be a good contribution to the article. Any errors or omissions are mine. Whenever possible, I took the least-thirsty petrol engine to compare to the hybrid, and didn't compare horsepower etc. All figures are combined mileage - city/highway differences between hybrid and regular may be different (in particular, the city mileage differential may be larger). Percentage figure is MPG increase for hybrid engine compared to regular. 2007 Highlander 2WD 2.4L manual vs hybrid: 24; 29; 20.8%

2007 Toyota Highlander 4WD 2.4L manual vs hybrid: 22; 29; 31.8%

2007 Toyota Camry manual 2.4L vs hybrid: 28; 39; 39.3%

2007 GMC Sierra C15 2WD 4.3L-six cylinder vs hybrid: 18; 19; 5.6%

2007 Honda Accord (2.4L manual) vs hybrid: 29; 31; 6.9%

2007 Honda Civic 1.8L manual vs hybrid: 33; 50; 51.5%

2007 Lexus GS 430 vs GS450h: 21; 26; 23.8%

2007 Lexus RX 350 2WD vs RX400h: 22; 29; 31.8%

2007 Saturn Vue FWD 2.2L manual vs hybrid: 25; 29; 16%.

So, two cars show very little change: GMC Sierra and Honda Accord. The Sierra is a "light" hybrid if I'm not mistaken. The Accord hybrid is known as having used the hybridization to increase horsepower; the Accord variant with a larger engine has mileage figure of 24, so the hybrid version has a 30% improvement over that version (discussion can ensue which comparison is valid). Aside from these two low-level outliers, and excluding the Civic hybrid as an outlier on the high side, all of the other hybrid versions show an improvement of 16% to 40%.

Clearly there are engineering choices going on here, and variables that have not been controlled for. That said, to say a 25% increase in mileage is conservatively achievable would seem to be reasonable. For city mileage, the hybrids tend to have even larger improvements. Granted, most diesels would probably achieve a similar improvement, but the facts don't support the argument above that there is little improvement in mileage.

I don't see any hybrid with one-half the mileage of its petrol equivalent. That seems to be a mistake.--Gregalton 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for comparison, I got the similar difference for the 2006 Jetta gasoline/diesel and MB E320/350.

2006 Volkswagen Jetta 2L 6sp manual w/turbocharger (premium gas) vs 1.9L turbodiesel: 27; 38; 40.7%

2006 Volkswagen Jetta 2.5L 5sp manual (regular gas) vs 1.9L turbodiesel: 25; 38; 52%

2007 Mercedes-Benz E350 vs 2007 Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec (diesel): 21; 30; 42.9%

So clearly substantial gains to be had from diesel vs petrol. Of course, no reason that a diesel-electric hybrid couldn't be made and combine these gains (cost considerations aside).--Gregalton 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to remember that diesel contains 25% more energy per gallon than petrol/gasoline (25% more hydrocarbons as well) so that must be remembered when comparing mileage and CO2 emissions. Secondly, some of these hybrid cars have been designed more for performance (extra HP) than for mileage, like the Accord, so you also need to compare the 0-60 mph (0-100 kph) times between hybrids, their gas-only counterparts, and the listed diesel vehicles. 67.184.254.37 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Going by the above table (which is consistent with my own research I have changed "often appearing and performing identically to their non-hybrid counterparts while delivering 50% better fuel efficiency" to "40%". The 50% claim is just ridiculous and is only achieved by hybrids with lower power than their counterparts. The civic hybrid for instance has an EPA ~50% higher but that's with the hybrid being significantly less powerful. Also, according to fueleconomy.gov the EPA score for hte hybrid is more overrated than the regular version. Not to mention the fact that people who drive the hybrid almost definitely drive it more conservatively than the average civic drive. So I think 40%. Wagsbags Feb 7 2007

If there is no reference for the statement then it should be removed. Daniel.Cardenas 06:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking directly to Peter M's questions:

First, a hybrid does not have to be plugged in; the on-board petroleum fueled engine runs a generator or alternator to charge the batteries. Should the petroleum-fueled engine fail, the batteries can be charged from the power network to allow short trips.

Second, a hybrid saves the most energy in stop-and-go city traffic, in which the vehicle starts and stops frequently and travels at a variety of speeds. Also assumed is that the vehicle must be capable of traveling at high (freeway) speeds.

The petroleum-only vehicle has an efficiency advantage when the engine runs at the constant throttle setting and load at which its engine runs at peak efficiency. Typically this would be constant speed on a level freeway. This is why hybrid vehicles are not being considered to replace diesel interstate trucks, which spend much of their time on the freeway at a constant speed and thus mostly run near peak efficiency.

In a petroleum-only vehicle, the engine must be large enough to provide the required peak power and generally must run all the time when the vehicle is being driven. The large engine is heavy and requires a large cooling system which is also heavy. It takes power to keep the engine turning, due to friction and air-pumping losses. Air-pumping losses are the energy spent sucking air into the intake, through internal passages, and pushing it out the exhaust, like an air compressor. Air-pumping losses vary with throttle setting and engine speed.

In a hybrid vehicle, the engine is smaller and does not have to run all the time. This smaller engine is lighter and can use a smaller and lighter cooling system, which partially offsets the weight of the other components. It takes less power to keep the engine turning, since it is both smaller and not always running. Thus the friction and air-pumping losses are much lower.

In a petroleum-only vehicle, engine efficiency changes drastically according to the throttle setting and output power. The best efficiency is found at some particular engine speed / throttle / load combination, and the efficiency drops off away from that combination. E.g. when you take your foot off the gas pedal and brake toward a stop, the engine is still using fuel but not doing any useful work. In fact the engine can perform "engine braking", providing negative power output, in which the friction and air-pumping losses allow the engine to absorb the vehicles' kinetic energy and slow it. This absorbed energy is dissipated as heat and wasted.

In a hybrid vehicle, the engine's operation is mostly independent of the throttle setting, and can be alternately run at its best efficiency point or shut off. The electric motor efficiently provides a variable amount of power for acceleration. When regenerative braking is used, the electric motor can also provide deceleration by acting as a generator, putting the energy into storage for later use instead of wasting it as heat. Needexercise 05:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I take on board all of these considerations, but the fact remains that overall, more fuel and more reasources appear to be necessary to produce something that isn't really much more (if at all) effective than the original. I agree that hybrids produce less polluted urban zones, but overall, the impact is worse than an "ordinary" car. A lot also depends on how it is driven, and this has quite a large effect on a simple single fuel/drivetrain vehicle. Certainly, more than a few concepts are being transferred across, such as regenerative braking, which can only be beneficial. As far as the engine needing to be kept running continuously in traffic, this is only true with certain lengths of stoppage, as it may actually be more efficient in some instances to switch off, and don't forget, more cars are coming out with technology enabling saving through kinetic storage which is used to effectively idle without using fuel.85.158.137.195 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Peter M.

Canadian made hybrid

I'm pretty sure that the car mentioned in the history section (A Canadian company produced a hybrid car for sale in 1915) is the Galt gas-electric. There's one in the Canadian Automobile museum in Oshawa, and it's labelled that way. I've looked it up, and there's an article about it at http://www.autonet.ca/autos/search/usedmodels/2008/04/03/5185831.html, and they say it's the only one of two ever produced, so I'm not 100% sure it's the one, but it does fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.157.111 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Types

Include these types and the pictures (rework to cgi).

Thanks, KVDP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.151.170 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. You will find these diagrams in the article Hybrid vehicle drivetrain, already referenced in this article, so I do think there is no need to repeat the images here as the article is already too long.--Mariordo (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Terms like "Power Assist" Hybrid, "Hollow" Hybrid and "Muscle" Hybrid:

These terms are either "marketing" slang or in the case of terms like "muscle" and "hollow" hybrids they are more "special interest" teminology (as in Union of Concerned Scientists) and as such are not recognized hybrid vehicle nomenclature used by the automotive industry in any way (or as per SAE J1715 defining hybrid technology) and therefore should be avoided. I also suggest the widely recognized term "Mild hybrid" be used to encompass ALL of the various hybrid technologies that are unable to propel the vehicle in "all-electric" mode (ie FAS, BAS, Honda Eco-Assist etc) WopOnTour (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi WopOnTour. I believe your latest edits were very constructive, as the section now reads better with less technical jargon, and interested readers can always go to hybrid vehicle drivetrain for more details and technical in-depth discussion of the topic. As I have been cleaning, reorganizing, and updating this article in the last weeks, I expanded the terminology section with the objective of providing readers with a brief understanding of these technical terms, and also, to include other popular terms, used mainly by environmentalist advocates. As most automakers discontinue "hollow" hybrids, the term has fallen in disuse, so I agree with your deletion. However, the popular term "muscle hybrid" is still in use and now is more relevant, as several automakers are launching muscle performance hybrids, and even some high-end concept cars as you might be aware. As Wikipedia is not a technical manual, popular terms have always had a space here (in fact, the naming policies even recommend to give priority to the popular names instead of the most technicals), I really see no reason to insist in deleting the definition of "muscle" hybrids, which clearly stated that was a term coined by an advocate group (and USC has always been considered a RS in Wikipedia). Furthermore, google a bit, and you will find that motor vehicle magazines and websites are using the term in the same sense as the UCS, hybrid tecnology to boost performance not to increase fuel economy significantly. I request that you reconsider you deletion and reversal of my edit, but in any case, I would like to hear the opinion of other regulars before proceeding either way.--Mariordo (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I totaly disagree.Terms like hollow hybrid and muscle hybrid are meant soley as down-the-nose, demeaning eco-slang and nothing more. These terms were created by a single "special interest" entity (UCS) and designed to influence attitudes and political agenda- NOT provide any real technical reference and therefore not encyclopedic. Even should one discount the obvious political connotations of these terms themselves are extremely vague with no clear cut definition, or relevance in automotive technology and such should not be included in any pure "reference" material.
My point is that the content does not have to be limited to strictly technical stuff, and for a long time, the environmental movement and its advocates are no longer considered a fringe group (are you familiar with Wiki policies?). All points of view have to reflected in Wikipedia. Examples abound in the encyclopedia, see greenwash, green politics and green transport. The latter is my favorite, as a transportation planning professional, I know for a fact that the concept sustainable transport has existed for at least three decades (it was born after the first oil crisis), but a few years back it became green transport! Furthermore, special interest or not, the fact is that most hollow hybrids were discontinue because some automakers were simply greenwashing HEVs, and now there seems to be the beginning of a new wave of muscle hybrids. One option to satisfy both points of view is to create a sub-section under terminology to shortly define the terms used by environmental advocates. However, I would like to hear other opinions.--Mariordo (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, would you be so kind to refrain from imposing your point of view as you did in hybrid vehicle drivetrain. You did some good contributions there but now that you open this discussion, please wait until it ends before continuing "sanitizing" the use of less technical hybrid but popular terms throughout Wikipedia. That is not very civil, and even though I do not intend to begin an edit war with you I will reverse your edits in this regard if you continue the sanitizing without waiting for this discussion to end (you are doing lots of edits without providing reliable sources, so that is enough ground to reverse your edits, play by the rules!).--Mariordo (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just how is adding technical details "sanitizing" in your opinion? You keep saying that something you call "hollow hybrids" have been discontinued. Which hybrid systems exactly would you be referring to? (just curious) It's very simple there are strong or full hybrids, those that implement the entire gamut of hybrid enabling features (auto stop/start, regenerative braking, ICE assist, all-electric EV drive, and plug-in features) and there are those with LESS than full implementation, those that might only use 1 or more of these features- these are mild hybrids. There are numerous textbooks published indicating as such as well as SAE codes of practice with respect to the use of these terms. ICE assist or Power assist is a hybrid feature that almost all current hybrid technologies utilize NOT a "type" of hybrid. The terms and rewrites I performed today were merely to implement more technically recognized language and terms. What these terms are NOT, is intentional weasel words like hollow-hybrid and muscle hybrid coined by special interest with a political agenda.In fact the terms I used are merely simplifications of engineering terms designed to make the confusing arena of hybrid technology, somewhat less so for the reader.I'll continue to talk about it with you if you wish, (and will have a more refined RS document once the revised SAE J1715 is officially republished after next month SAE World Congress) but I cant see how the simplification of hybrid terminology and the elimination of marketing terms and weasel words could be misconstrued as a bad thing or sanitizing... WopOnTour (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not providing a single RS to support your POV, it is just your opinion, your interpretation. Please point to the Wiki policy stating that content is strictly technical and above all, that popular terms are prohibited. And what about the other "weasel" green terms I used as an example? I would like to hear your interpretation. Wiki works by following policies and consensus, not imposing one opinion.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Answer my questions, and I'll gladly answer yours.In the wiki I merely expanded on the topics based on the previously quoted sources, and reorganized headings to permit better conformation to recognized SAE nomenclature (also with RS) but feel free to mark "Citation Needed" wherever you feel there is a need. As previously mentioned any added references to SAE J1715 would be based on somewhat antiquated terminology as that document was originally authored in 1998 and has been in rewrite status for the last 24 months.The only terms and vague definitions I've removed included weasel words like hollow-hybrid and muscle-hybrid as clearly there is little rationale for their use other than a political statement that is hardly conforming to a neutral POV (see NPOV) WopOnTour (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

IRS

Why is there a link to the IRS website? How is it relavent to the topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Break "Hydrogen" out of "Fossil Fuels" section?

Hi all. I see that hydrogen is listed as one subsection in the fossil fuels section. Since hydrogen is not technically a fossil fuel, should we break it out of this section and give it a section of its very own? I know that most hydrogen made today comes from processing fossil fuels, so I could see an argument for leaving it where it is. Thoughts? Ebikeguy (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I think this page is biased. It doesn't have any criticism of the technology. For example, a car with a small diesel engine can get better mileage per litre or gallon than hybrid vehicles. Or, a car with a small petrol engine can receive good mileage as well. This article doesn't speak of the problem of having two production lines for making cars, or how to dispose of the batteries when the car is scrapped. The article isn't wrong, but I think it needs work from someone who is an expert on the downsides of the technology. 68.100.194.216 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I own two cars. One is a 1995 Vauxhall Astra Estate (1600 Automatic)and the other a 1993 Peugeot 306 XNd (1900 Diesel). The Astra has half of one of its inlet cam lobes missing on No. 3 cylinder, (don't ask, they gave it to me for nothing) and gets better mileage than some of the mid-range hybrids listed, in the low 30s mpg. My old diesel STILL beats 60 mpg with MIXED driving, and better again on long motorway journeys. The bonus with this is that I can also run it on a mixture of diesel and cooking oil, straight from the bottle. (It will run on pure cooking oil, but the viscosity is such that the injector pump will blow after a while. I did it once as I hadn't actually topped up my 50:50 mix with any diesel) This has the added advantage of releasing little or no sulphur into the atmosphere as opposed to "low sulphur" diesels. Both of these cars used less exotic materials in their manufacture too. So much for the low pollution aspct of hybrids, although they are good at RELOCATING their pollution from city centres. I also have a motorbike in my dining room which, when on the road gets around the 50s mpg. This has had a leaking base gasket since I got it in 1997, and it is now twenty seven years old.85.158.137.195 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

i quite agree and being an owner of a hybrid vechel and a small petrol run around i find the small run around does better milage than the other. this needs to be expressed somehow in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.70.201 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Microhybrids

When one searches for a microhybrid in wikipedia search it is redirected to the Hyprid page ... Microhybrids are not Hybrids ... - "conventional cars with the same kind of start-stop technology that’s already on most hybrids. At stoplights, the micro-hybrid’s gas engine shuts off to save fuel, and then is rapidly restarted" [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by YordanGeorgiev (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bnet.com/blog/electric-cars/a-million-european-micro-hybrids-with-ultracaps-and-the-us-market-is-next/2500

Engine type

This article is incomplete or not up to date as it fails to include microturbines as a power unit to recharge the batteries. Actual application has been demonstrated in a standard Ford Motor model modified by Langford Performance Engineering in the UK under the name Whisper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.245.210 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can add information backed up by reliable sources, please feel free to do so. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your are kidding. I did try to do so. My addition was promptly removed as spam! Funny though when you look at the page. It is nothing but names dropping of corporations and it amounts to sheer advertising. I suppose, many self-called wikipedia editors are standing watch to protect the richly established players. Wikipedia is failing to objectively inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.137.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference you added was to a corporate website. Such links are not considered reliable sources under Wikipedia policy. Please read the description of reliable sources and feel free to add information supported by references that conform to Wikipedia policies. Also, your recent addition to this discussion could be interpreted as an attack on other editors. Please refrain from such language, or you may be blocked from editing. I have left information on your talk page (assuming you have been editing from two IP addresses) regarding Wikipedia policies. I urge you to read this information and act accordingly. Finally, I assure you I am not a shill for any automotive corporation(s), and I have no reason to believe any of the other editors involved in these discussions are connected to any of the companies in this article. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block me from editing for an organization I do not recommend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.170.123 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Content fork ???

The articles Hybrid vehicle and Hybrid electric vehicle have almost same information. The article on Hybrid vehicle (though supposed to be more generic) focusses only on the hybrid-electric topology, giving it undue weight. Either the article could be rewritten or merged here. Any comments? --Tinpisa (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Military vehicles

Under section 6.7 of this article, there's a list of military hybrid prototypes: "Other military hybrid prototypes include the Millenworks Light Utility Vehicle, the International FTTS, HEMTT model A3,and the Shadow RST-V." Article should add the Ground Combat Vehicle to this list [1] Jricker26 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Jricker

References

  1. ^ http://wot.motortrend.com/bae-systems-gcv-is-140000-pounds-of-hybrid-military-might-178805.html#axzz2RP2irf7V

Overall structure of electric articles

I notice that there are huge overlaps between hybrid vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid vehicle drivetrain (and probably a few more). As a new reader I can see it's good information but it's difficult to read, highly repetitive, and doesn't lead me effectively. My hunch is that there'd be a lot to gain from shortening some sections in multiple articles so that they give an excellent summary and link to a single source of good detail. I'm not qualified to say "this is better" of course, as I don't have a detailed understanding of the layout, but it's a comment that can only come from a new reader and naturally once I've read it all a few times I'll lose that perspective. Greg (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup Terminology

Trying to clean up the terminology. Mariordo reverted, so discussion :)

  1. Braking can regenerate moved to end ("Parallel hybrids are capable of regenerative braking". Serial "battery pack can be recharged through regen braking"), since all the hybrids can do this and it thus doesn't clarify, just adds words.
  2. "Parallel hybrids are more efficient than non-hybrid vehicles.... during highway operation." The reference doesn't say that. It says it's more efficient than serial hybrids which is absolutely true. (I even think we should emphasise these differences)
  3. Parallel ICE can act as a generator for supplemental recharging. It is possible, but it's a feature some parallels have, not what a parallel does by definition (unlike serial/series drives), which is the goal of the definition bit of this article right?
  4. "Series hybrids usually have a smaller combustion engine" - simplified, by removing sentence and adding word "smaller" to "a smaller ICE acts as a generator".
  5. "This configuration makes series hybrids more efficient in city driving" changed to "the small combustion engine can generate power at its optimum settings at all times, making them more efficient in extensive city driving."
  6. Chevy Volt moved to "series-parallel hybrid". Seriously interesting way the Chevy can act in parallel or series. Good example of where each technology works best, might even be a good way of clarifying terminology. I can't find many examples of Series hybrids though - the BMW i3 and Fisker Karma. (Series is better for long distance in-city driving generally, so not a typical car use, perhaps that's why?)

Comments? BTW I'm waiting 24hrs for a password reset, then will use my account (GregA) 59.167.172.39 (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your edits is that you are making changes without providing reliable sources (see WP:RS), and worst, changing definitions, such as saying the Volt is a parallel-series hybrids. I respect your opinion, but this is an encyclopedia, so content has to be supported by reliable sources, otherwise, this become a blog, and here it is considered original research (see WP:OR). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried not to change much at all actually. #1 is the same. #2 used to generalise 2 comments into 1 and misquoted it's reference, but I agree it would be good to find a reference that supported what was written before my change. #3 wasn't referenced at all, and the definition of parallel should be about what being a parallel actually means, not what some parallel cars have then taken a step further. #4 is a shorter sentence but yes I am saying a serial hybrid DOES have a smaller ICE (rather than CAN have), so I'll start looking for a reference. #5 adds the reason to the efficiency, I'll reference it too.

Chevy Volt is a weird one. I originally came here to try to find some serial hybrid cars to lookup, and was enthused to see the Volt. Then the reviews all said the engine is used in parallel or series, so it was a contradiction. Their website says that the engine is a range extending generator though, you're right about that. Older reviews all say it's parallel, but the more recent ones aren't saying much to refer to - the recent review I've found says that the engine directly drives the wheels in certain situations but then contradicts it later by saying it never does that. I'd guess that it only does that at highway speeds, which is the exact time that a parallel use is more efficient, so quite a neat trick and should work very effectively (complex but efficient). I'll try to find references - but in terms of trying to explain different car types, a more clear example might be worthwhile too.

Still no password reset. Weird. (GregA) 203.206.178.113 (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/chevy-volt-sparks-a-series-of-plugin-hybrids Shows the debate of what the Volt is (search for "parallel"). Again may be more relevant as a debate, not a shining example of series vs parallel vs both. 203.206.178.113 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Found a quote that series hybrids have a drastically smaller ICE. http://serieshybrid.com/FreedomFormula/images/Drivetrain_Comparison.pdf The same article says that the ICE engine runs at it's most efficient point - which now covers the 3 changes I'd made. I need to work out how to add references again, it's been a long time since I edited. I also see that parallel hybrids often have a smaller ICE since the electric motor provides some extra power. Greg (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand you are doing your edits in WP:Good faith, but one thing is WP:Copyedit and modifying content without providing a reliable source is original research. Read the policies. Your explanation confirms that you indeed did OR. The Volt operates as a series hybrid most of the time, the Prius PHEV is a good example of parallel-series, just check how the EPA rates both. To avoid an endless discussion, I removed the Volt as an example. Please fix the OR you introduced in the article, before someone else remove/revert it. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You've confused me Mariordo. You said I did OR, discussed the Volt, agreed it was best removed and removed it, then told me to remove my OR... so I assume you're not talking about the Volt, but you didn't say what you considered OR. Looking up a reference to something I know is confirmation, not research. I agree that the parallel hybrid charging the battery has some odd facts about it... is that what you're talking about? Let me know what you're after. Greg (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edit in Hybrid electric vehicle

Message imported from Mariordo talk page:

I am not clear on why you reverted my edit on Hybrid electric vehicle. In your edit summary, you claimed that neither of my contributions is necessary. That may be true, but what is the harm in having them? In my experience, it is helpful to introduce syntactic consistency between articles. You may not see the benefit, but other editors and I do. So, I ask, why revert? Are you claiming ownership over the article? The history page makes that appear to be the case. With all due respect, please keep in mind that reverting the edits of others is inappropriate unless the article is clearly worse off. Thank you. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 04:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
My edit summary was very clear, there is no MoS recommendation as you claimed about bolding acronyms in the lead, just the article title. In addition, you introduced the old format for ref names. Now you are claiming a different reason for these changes. Would you be so kind to point where in Wikipedia policies states, as you claim, that "reverting the edits of others is inappropriate unless the article is clearly worse off." I will like to hear what other editors have to say.--Mariordo (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Please keep this line to separate the discussions from the references below which belong to the previous discussion "Hybrids vs. all-electric vehicles"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What kind of batteries are used?

For example, in the Toyota hybrid. I don't think they all use Lithium batteries. Batteries have a maximum number of charge/discharge cycles, which is one reason many buses store pressurized nitrogen instead, since buses stop a lot.

Does any car or bus maker use two sets of batteries to increase their life? I mean one set is charged while the other set is discharged, and after a while they change places.

In the San Francisco Bay Area experiments are being conducted with buses. Can any of this be found out?

Garfield Garfield

As for the lifetime of hybrid batteries read Hybrid taxi, over 300K miles have been reported on hybrids on duty as taxis. And Toyota has used nickel-cadmium batteries, read about it in Toyota Prius.--Mariordo (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

coucou les coupains x)

coucou les coupains :* x)

Lingon's boy !!!!

gougouttes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.146.253 (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hybrid electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Plug-in electric vehicle into Battery electric vehicle

If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hybrid_electric_vehicle/Archive_1&oldid=1168159722"