Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DIY Hybrid Car Kit

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:15 PM
from the elbow-grease-doesn't-pollute-but-may-cause-cancer dept.
Hybride And The Groom writes "Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Ship the parts of a hybrid individually and get your customers to put the car together themselves. That's exactly what Robert Q Riley Enterprises is doing, according to a story on CNet today, with its XR-3 hybrid. It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope. Better yet, cough up $200 for the blueprints and schematics and even build the parts yourself. It's no secret that many hybrid drivers are smug enough as it is. Allow them to brag about having built the damn cars themselves and we might be entering obscenely smug territory."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Neat idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KGIII (973947) * on Monday September 08 2008, @12:17PM (#24921737) Homepage Journal

    At least that one looks cool but, really, who has the time to do this? If they have the time then do they have the interest or the money?

    • One could buy a new one of these [smartusa.com] for half of $25,000 for an even more smug satisfaction.

      Or, one could buy 10 or more easy-to-DIY-fix old VW beetles with enough spare parts and earth-frendliness to last a lifetime.
      • by zmollusc (763634) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:42PM (#24922131)

        Crimeny, having had a VW Beetle I would estimate that you would have to factor in the cost of a barn to keep enough spare exhausts, wings, sills, filler, primer, welding rods etc to keep 10 of the damn things operative (at least in the UK).

      • Re:Neat idea... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rei (128717) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:48PM (#24922235) Homepage

        Smarts aren't actually that fuel efficient -- 35mpg hwy/31mpg city if I remember correctly. It's not even a regular hybrid, let alone a *plug-in hybrid*, like this vehicle. Of course, for this vehicle, ignore the BS mileage figures; most EV and PHEV manufacturers come up with fake "mpg" figures that assume you drive X miles on electricity and Y miles on gasoline, where X is much greater than Y, and then ignore the electricity. Still, it's hugely beneficial. Even from our current grid, according to a DOE study, due to the greater efficiency of power plants, you get a third lower CO2 emissions by going electric.

        For those who are interested in going electric, and aren't into novelty kit cars, here's a list of 33 upcoming EVs and PHEVs [dailykos.com], excluding motorcycles and commercial vans/semis, not counting concept cars, and not counting cars from new companies that haven't shown compelling evidence of working toward production.

          • by Rei (128717) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:23PM (#24924577) Homepage

            Right, only two are available today. But the rest are coming out in the next couple years. Even if some (or even a large chunk of them) were cancelled or delayed, that'd still be a huge number of vehicles. And while perhaps a third of them are luxury or performance machines well beyond an ordinary person's price range, most are not. More expensive than a gasoline car, sure, but nothing that you can't make up in reduced operations costs.

      • Re:Neat idea... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Paranatural (661514) on Monday September 08 2008, @02:31PM (#24923837)

        As an aside, I've never actually encountered a hybrid owner who was smug about it. A few of my friends own them and it has never even actually been mentioned other than when I was thinking of getting one and asked how it had been running.

        • Re:Neat idea... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Bearpaw (13080) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:29PM (#24925617)

          I hear you.

          I have friends and acquaintances who own hybrids, I live in an area where they seem to be fairly common, and I have never, ever encountered anyone being smug about it. I have, however, gotten seriously tired of self-righteous people complaining about these supposed hordes of smug hybrid drivers.

          It seems to have become a requirement: "Any mention of hybrid vehicles must by law be accompanied by a reference to their smug owners."

          Want smug? Try talking to a Hummer owner.

    • by Bob-taro (996889) on Monday September 08 2008, @02:42PM (#24923999)

      At least that one looks cool but, really, who has the time to do this? If they have the time then do they have the interest or the money?

      Right, I mean, we all have time for slashdot, but you can't exactly build a car in your cubicle without people noticing!

  • by scarbelly (56894) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:18PM (#24921743)

    there are plenty of people doing nice electric S10's for under $10k including the donor car. The 40 miles round trip per charge is almost twice what I need.

    • by rhpenguin (655576) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:00PM (#24922391)
      Heck yes! I'm actually building an EV S-10 right now.. I'm coming in at around $7K total build costs after selling the ICE and other ICE related objects I don't need. However, my range is going to be around 150 miles.
        • by rhpenguin (655576) on Monday September 08 2008, @02:18PM (#24923669)
          Well, I only paid $200 for the truck.

          To get costs at that $7K number I completely rebuilt the ICE motor with some performance goodies that I had kicking around the garage and sold it for a pretty penny to someone who didn't know any better, sold the entire interior, box, ECU and wiring harness, etc. To get the weight down and make the truck get the range I'm shooting for I chopped a lot of the body away, tubbed and tubed with a full FIA approved safety cage the truck, replaced the dash with a lightweight aluminum dash, fiberglass race seats, and hand fabbed a lot of the new body from fiberglass. Basically the kind of prep work that goes into a race car to make it really light is the kind of stuff I've done. Two guys can lift the rolling chassis up with ease.

          Of course, having all the tools, knowhow and patience to do everything myself DRASTICALLY brings the cost down. .
    • by StCredZero (169093) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:13PM (#24922587)

      If you sacrifice the bed, you can get a 92 mile range commuter vehicle out of an old S10.

      http://www.austinev.org/evinfo/build/eva-selectingavehicle.html [austinev.org]
      http://www.evalbum.com/037 [evalbum.com]

      That may be much more than what you need, but the less you draw down your batteries, the longer your batteries will last. If you never let your batteries drain below 95%, they will last much, much longer than if you're draining them halfway down every day. In the long run, this may save you a lot of money, as battery replacement is the majority of the cost per mile for running an electric vehicle.

  • by Mononoke (88668) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:19PM (#24921767) Homepage Journal

    It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope.

    Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

    • by pecosdave (536896) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:23PM (#24921841) Homepage Journal

      I know some people like that. Unfortunately, since there time is actually worth close to zero dollars asking them to build it for me would get me close to zero progress wouldn't it? Actually my guess is they would screw it up so bad I would have to throw it all out and buy another kit if I tried to get them to build it for me.

    • by Qzukk (229616) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:41PM (#24922121) Journal

      Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

      Or the entertainment you receive from putting together your own toys is greater than the cost of your time, in which case you might even "profit".

    • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:46PM (#24922203)

      It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope.

      Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

      So just like Open Source Software, then.

      It should go over very well here.

      For the record, if my car wasn't under a very comprehensive warranty for the next five years, I'd order the parts and do the conversion just so I could say that I'd done it.

    • Spare time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phorm (591458) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:56PM (#24922353) Homepage Journal

      Well, if you enjoy tinkering with stuff and would otherwise have the time free anyhow, then it might even be that the time is of a negative cost.

      That is to say, if you spend $25k for the unit, but spend 200 hours being rather entertained by putting it together, then you've just spend $25k on the parts and saved $x on whatever else you might have spend that money on (movies, video games, trips, etc).

      I do a lot of the additions/repairs around the house. If might cost *more* than a plumber/carpenter/etc if you count what my day job's hourly rate is, but for me the cost of supplies is paying for both the renos and the entertainment of doing them.

      One man's burden is another man's leisure, I'd rather be working on neat projects around the house than baking under a hot sun swinging a stick at a dimpled white ball.

      • by Shotgun (30919) on Monday September 08 2008, @02:30PM (#24923815)

        Having nearly completed building a one-off airplane, I can attest to the fact that a one-off greatly increases the amount of 'stuff' going into the waste stream. It seems that each part made for the airplane requires a mold, jig or custom clamp to hold it in place. Buy the time I finish, I will have built the equivalent of 2.5 airplanes, and none of those molds, jigs or clamps will be useful to anyone else.

        Let there be no doubt. Massive manufacturing operations really do decrease the waste-stream volume on a per unit basis.

        • by Rei (128717) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:18PM (#24922701) Homepage

          Not exactly. Exercise increases the rate of burning calories (that's why people who want to lose weight do it). The human body is inefficient about turning food calories into kinetic energy, and plants are inefficient at turning sunlight into calories (photosynthesis is fairly efficient, but most of the energy doesn't end up stored in a way we can recover through digestion -- usually somewhere between a fraction of one percent and a few percent is). And there's all of the energy involved in growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting that food, which is often greater than the energy contained in the food.

          Lastly, there's a value to time. The person could instead, for example, be building wind turbines or installing solar arrays. The biggest reason why this is a kit car is almost certainly because the maker didn't want to have to work out a cost-effective mass production system, not because it's somehow better for the environment that way.

          • by Dare nMc (468959) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:57PM (#24923353)

            The biggest reason why this is a kit car is almost certainly because

            my guess would be so they don't have to pass all the crash and safety laws and regulations. much like kit airplanes, kit cars do not have to pass the same safety standards (which I understand involves destroying many cars = bad for the environment)
            I am sure their are lots of other savings as well (shipping, licensing, financing, etc.) Also lots less warranty, because it will be on average years before many make any use of their cars.

  • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:19PM (#24921769)

    Like so many of these things, it's a motorcycle - not a car. It only has 3 wheels so that they don't have to meet safety standards.

    Who knew you could lighten up a car if you stripped out all of the safety equipment?

    • ...getting it insured. Just ask anyone who's ever built one of those DIY motorcycle kits or a custom shop (like OCC).

    • by DigitalReverend (901909) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:49PM (#24922251)

      It depends upon the regulations of the state or province. In British Columbia, Canada, a three-wheeled vehicle with an enclosed passenger compartment is considered an automobile. Some states call vehicles with 2 front wheels and 1 rear wheel cars, while others call the motorcycles. Some places it's a matter of engine displacement, body styles, etc.

  • by Smidge204 (605297) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:19PM (#24921773)

    Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Don't build anything!

    That said, though, I looked up what would be required to build an all-electric vehicle and it was about $10k not including a vehicle to convert. Not a cheap hobby, unfortunately :/
    =Smidge=

    • by Brigadier (12956) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:28PM (#24921937)

      most hybrids (GM) at least basically have a motor wedged between the engine and transmission. The engine and drive line are exactly the same as the non hybrid versions.

      This being said I recently purchased a trusty 92 Corolla which after a little tweaking and cleaning up gives me over 40 mpg. how hard would it be to mfg a adapter kit between the transmission and engine similar to what GM does.

      a big part of the problem is we keep building unnecessary crap. I know in our economy this is not beneficial but why not take cars we already have and update them.

  • by pecosdave (536896) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:19PM (#24921797) Homepage Journal

    By providing prints and the ability to build parts/put the damned thing together to begin with it's not to give smug yuppies something to be conceded about. It's to give hotrodders the ability to make supped up hybrid! Seriously, I would love to get most of one of these kits, put two kits into a car if possible for the extra kick, throw in a powerful V6 instead of a four (or even three) banger, then put it all in the body of a Dodge Charger.

    The electric part could actually take it off the line better than a gas engine, the gas engine would add the power, something like that should kick ass on the quarter mile then do a relatively slow victory lap without using any gas.

    • "The electric part could actually take it off the line better than a gas engine,"

      THIS.

      The best part about that is you wouldn't need a bank of batteries to do the job. A large capacitor bank (or super-capacitors once they're available) would work great. Just enough juice to break the inertia of the car and lug it off the line is all you really need.

  • by earthforce_1 (454968) <earthforce_1&yahoo,com> on Monday September 08 2008, @12:21PM (#24921811) Journal

    Why not design the car yourself - using bits and pieces found at your local junkyard? Better yet - smelt the metal in your garage and take up blacksmithing to make all the bits. Sort of like building your own computer from discrete transistors.

    • Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:49PM (#24922257)

      Why not design the car yourself - using bits and pieces found at your local junkyard? Better yet - smelt the metal in your garage and take up blacksmithing to make all the bits. Sort of like building your own computer from discrete transistors.

      If you haven't built a small computer from discrete components, I'd say that you may have some gaps in your understanding.

      It's a real pain, but there is a certain satisfaction of manually triggering the cycles and watching it read and write.

  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:22PM (#24921825)

    Uh, building a hybrid at home probably makes more pollution than making it in a factory.

    The reason they sell it as a kit is to avoid all the federal vehicle rules. By passing on assembly to the end-user, it becomes THEIR problem to get the car licensed.

    Also I don't quite get the "zero dollars to manufacture". Lots of the steps involve lots of time, welding, painting, trips to the hardware store. That all costs many $$$.

    • by thered2001 (1257950) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:32PM (#24921999) Journal
      I agree completely. The first part of this article makes an assumption which doesn't seem too solid: that automotive machinery pollutes. If this is a reference to the byproducts of the power generated to run the machines, then I fail to see how running smaller machines in your home will improve the situation. Plus, power (and pollution?) is still needed to make the parts for a car no matter who puts it together. Sounds like someone is just trying to appear 'green' and cash in on the hybrid craze with kit 'car' (actually a motorcycle as an astute reader notes above).
  • Safety (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HalAtWork (926717) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:29PM (#24921951)
    So has this thing been crash tested? Do you have to get the car certified after you build it, so that you can drive it on the road? Are you any more liable if anything happens to a passenger, motorist, or pedestrian, in such a car?
  • by superdave80 (1226592) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:31PM (#24921985)

    So, what happens when I build this thing, and try to get it registered at my local DMV?

    DMV Drone: Make?
    Me: Me
    DMV Drone: No, who is the manufacturer?
    Me: Me
    DMV Drone: (sigh). Model?
    Me: Mostly done in Solidworks.
    DMV Drone: NEXT!

    • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:48PM (#24922231) Journal

      Dude, you've got it all wrong. Let me help you fix it:

      Me: *walks into DMV office*
      DMV Drone #1: (on personal phone call) Yeah, like whatever!
      DMV Drone #1: Yeah, totally!
      DMV Drone #1: Oh, she needs to dump that loser!
      DMV Drone #2: (just finishing up with guy ahead of you in line) Well, it's about lunch time! I'll be back in two hours. (puts up "next window" sign with an arrow pointing to drone #1)
      Me: Can you help me?
      DMV Drone #1: Ugh, can you hang on a minute? WHAT?!?!?!

    • Re:Registration? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Migraineman (632203) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:49PM (#24922259)
      First, it's a motorcycle in the US, so that eliminates most of the headaches. Second, it's a lot like registering a self-built trailer from a kit. You put it together, grab all your receipts, and head down to the State Sherrif's office for a safety inspection. Some states allow third-party inspections, so you might go that route. As you're not a "vehicle manufacturer," you aren't permitted to issue VIN numbers, and you don't have a title yet, so you use something called a "certificate of origin" to get your local DMV to create a title for you. AFAIK, the certificate of origin allows the DMV to tax you appropriately ... how else would they know how to value your custom-built creation? I built a trailer from a kit (Haulin' flatbed [haulin.com] from the local Home Despot.) It came with a certificate of origin. I took that, the purchase receipt, and a gas-station inspection to the local DMV, and all was well.

      Cars are a completely different matter, as the auto manufacturers have lobbied to make sure it's illegal for you to make your own car. Think of the children, etc. There are special categories for Antique and Street Rod cars, but there are restrictions against using them as daily drivers. However, trailers and motorcycles are still viable.
  • RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ritchie70 (860516) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:33PM (#24922017) Journal

    From the web site:

    Although the XR-3 can be built just as the prototype was built, kits are on the agenda. Information will appear on this page as it becomes available. But the XR3 can be constructed using the same techniques used to build Tri-Magnum. Click on FRP/foam composite for a document that shows the composite system used to build the body for the XR3.
                        A knocked-down body kit consisting of pre-molded panels provides the greatest benefit at the least cost. So body kits will be supplied as unassembled panels that builders can bond together. In addition to enabling the lowest price, this type of kit also reduces packaging and shipping costs. Frame kits will consist of a welded-together assembly, which turns the project into mostly a bolt-together operation. The goal is to deliver the greatest benefit at the lowest possible price, and avoid supplying parts that you can purchase locally.
                        The price of kits has not been established.

    So the $25,000 is a guess at what you might be able to buy parts to build it for. It isn't an offer to sell a kit.

  • by acon1modm (1009947) * on Monday September 08 2008, @12:34PM (#24922019)
    All I want is a light, very efficient hybrid/electric vehicle, that doesn't look ridiculous. Even if its stripped down for weight, add a plastic body that has the same rough shape as a "real" car. I hope every innovation doesn't have to look like something brought here by Mork from Ork.
  • by Ritchie70 (860516) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:39PM (#24922091) Journal
    The "tractor engine" spec'd for the diesel propulsion is the Kubota D902. Here's some information about that, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3241283/Three-new-models-for-Kubota.html [ecnext.com]

    The D902, a three-cylinder version of the Z602, has a displacement of 0.898 L and an output of 20.6 hp at 3200 rpm. A 3600 rpm version, due for introduction next year, will be rated 23.5 hp.

    I also looked for a price on this engine. The first I saw was about $2800 for a remanufactured unit, with a $700 core charge. It's used in bobcats and similar. If you're building this "car," you won't have a core, so it's going to cost you $3500.

  • Genious! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spectro (80839) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:42PM (#24922139) Homepage

    I think this guy is pure genius.

    Instead of creating his own auto factory and taking years of research, development, marketing, and infrastructure, he just sells out the blueprints so you can build it yourself.

    He doesn't have to worry about competing with other auto manufacturers, pressure from Oil companies or ambulance chasers suing him because of some manufacturing flaw.

    How long until somebody else takes his design and builds something much better? I would love to see the mythbusters guys building one of these.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday September 08 2008, @12:54PM (#24922327) Homepage

    rqriley has been selling "plans" for decades. they have been trying to get people to build the tri-magnum for 30 years without success...

    http://www.rqriley.com/tri-mag.html [rqriley.com]

    anyone with an ounce of mechnaical skill can do that without the "plans" and a regular car in less time with less cost.

    Hell go get a smashed prius, a light car you want to make a hybrid and simply put the drivetrain in the car. All done, really easy and not rocket science.

    Hell it's not hard to replace the ECM for the prius with something that is more hackable if you really wanted to.

    • Re:oh well (Score:4, Insightful)

      by roc97007 (608802) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:11PM (#24922535) Journal

      > At least that way repair shops won't have to be all confused about fixing the new technology [...]

      Yeah, they can be all confused trying to figure out what the user has done to the thing.

      Let's take an example we can relate to. A company advertises that they can send you the parts to a PC and directions on putting it together. Many of the unwashed public take advantage of this. Local nerdshops are inundated with half-assed assembly jobs, and the natives get really unfriendly when they're told that the best thing to do is junk it as a bad investment and buy an assembled car, er, PC off the lot, er shelf.

      One could argue that this deal is for people who know what they're doing. I submit that this is not exactly true -- it's for people with $25,000 who *think* they know what they're doing.

      • Re:oh well (Score:5, Funny)

        by kalirion (728907) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:57PM (#24923341)

        Hmm, could you put this in terms of a car analogy?

      • Re:oh well (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Shotgun (30919) on Monday September 08 2008, @02:25PM (#24923751)

        You built it yourself. Why would you be taking it to a repair shop?

        And what is with the can't do attitude? A constant theme on /. is the "anti-science" or "anti-intelligence" attitude in the US. Why is an "anti-ability to bolt a few parts together" attitude any better?

        • Re:oh well (Score:5, Interesting)

          by roc97007 (608802) on Monday September 08 2008, @03:23PM (#24924567) Journal

          > You built it yourself. Why would you be taking it to a repair shop?

          Because... it doesn't work? Because you've botched the ignition or torqued the steering improperly or pinched a wire somewhere?

          > And what is with the can't do attitude? A constant theme on /. is the "anti-science" or "anti-intelligence" attitude in the US. Why is an "anti-ability to bolt a few parts together" attitude any better?

          Oh, there's obviously going to be many successes. Lots of people have successfully built kit cars -- the AC Cobra replicas, Lotus Seven, etc. I'm not disputing that people who put together kit cars couldn't do this. I'm wondering aloud if this is a way to solve the carbon footprint of construction. I'm having a difficult time believing that the kind of person who wants to build a car to reduce their carbon footprint is the same kind of person who builds a Pagano in his garage.

          • Re:oh well (Score:4, Funny)

            by AnotherUsername (966110) on Monday September 08 2008, @02:58PM (#24924219)
            Hey, everyone knows you always have parts left over when you do it yourself. You must be one of those 'safety' people who want to take power from the people. Enjoy your time in hell, communist!

            Er, what I meant to say was,

            I agree.
            • Re:oh well (Score:5, Interesting)

              by mollymoo (202721) on Monday September 08 2008, @04:01PM (#24925169) Journal
              It happens all the time in the UK. There's a healthy market for kit cars (well, car kits) and some people design and build the entire thing themselves. You build it, the man from the VOSA comes round, makes sure the brakes work and so on, gives you your SVA (Single Vehicle Approval) certificate and you're good to go. The requirements are lower than for production cars (eg. no crash testing, for obvious reasons), but as long as the brakes and steering work and the wheels won't fall off it won't be a danger to other road users - the safety of the driver/builder is their own problem.
            • Re:oh well (Score:4, Informative)

              by couchslug (175151) on Monday September 08 2008, @05:43PM (#24926507)

              "I can't imagine a DIY vehicle getting approved over road safety."

              All that is required in my state is to document a reasonable number of the major parts (to answer any questions like "how do I know they aren't stolen?") and coordinate with DMV to send an officer by to inspect it. Upon his approval title will be issued. Also works with antique vehicles from states that didn't require titles for transfer.

    • by Rei (128717) on Monday September 08 2008, @01:38PM (#24923079) Homepage

      Several things wrong with this.

      1) The amount of energy needed to produce a modern battery generally only measures a few charge cycles worth. Virtually every peer-reviewed study of cars shows exactly what you'd expect: that far more energy is consumed during their lifetimes than during their construction. Your average car will burn a couple times it's own weight in fuel over its lifespan, and none of that is "recycled" like most of the car's body.

      2) Yes, EVs cost more to buy than diesel cars currently. They also consume electricity which averages $0.10/kWh in the US instead of diesel which averages, what, $4.30/gal? Your average 40mpg-diesel sedan would take about 250Wh/mi electric, which equates to 9.3 cents per mile diesel and 2.5 cents per mile electric. Assuming reasonable battery longevity (i.e., either NiMH, zebra, or automotive li-ions, not lead-acid or traditional li-ions), the total cost of ownership for EVs is very favorable to them over their lifespans. This allows all sorts of methods to work around sticker shock for those who are concerned, such as longer loans, leases, surcharges on electricity fillups or battery swaps, battery rental, or so forth -- all of which give you a normal up-front cost and monthly operations costs that are still lower than what the average driver would spend on gas or diesel. And this is just with current battery costs; they're falling fast. Ener1 (parent company of battery maker EnerDel), for example, expects their cell prices to be cut in half over the next few years. Most automotive li-ion aren't even close to being limited by raw material costs.

      3) Most diesel numbers are quite distorted to boot. Yes, diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines. No, they're not *that* much more efficient. Most people will look at some european diesel and lament that they're getting 50mpg or so and we can't get it here.

      A) Diesel is simply a more dense fuel -- about 15% denser. Gasoline mpg != diesel mpg. Just ethanol mpgs are going to be inherently lower than gasoline due to its lower density, diesel is inherently going to get an artificial 15% boost that isn't representative of, say, it's CO2 footprint or how much oil it represents.
      B) The european drive cycle is more lax than the revised EPA drivecycle, and is more similar to the old EPA drivecycle. Remember how much nicer the official numbers used to look in the US? Remember how they worked out in the real world? Same issue.
      C) Sometimes the "gallons" you see on mpg numbers for european cars are imperial gallons, not US gallons. Imperial gallons are larger.

      In general, a diesel car will emit around 80% as much CO2 per mile and consume about 80% as much oil chemical energy. It's a difference, and even a relevant one, but not as big of a difference as it at first appears.