Manley confirms Nov 28-29 LA show reveal and talks hybrid / electric Wrangler

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,097
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
I think you're confusing Hybrids with plug-in EVs, hybrids make their own electricity from the same source that generates mechanical propulsion energy. What Hybrids allow for is smoother delivery of that power making it more efficient, and allowing for methods like regenerative braking to recover power. Hybrids can improve MPGs it just depends on if the system works well for the vehicle and also driving type. Some systems offer less benefit especially if they are very efficient designs to begin with, but in general they are a gain over traditional generation by avoiding major spike to the system, and smoothing out delivery trying to always stay in the most efficient power band.

If we were trying to make the most effective system, we'd move to LNG Hybrids, the new engine are actually quite advance and better than the conversions of the past, even Cummins has a nice new models based on their diesel platforms, including their small displacement, but even those are a bit big for hybrids.

Plug-in EVs rely on the efficiency of the ppwer source, but even with transmission loss, Hydro and wind generation are a much cleaner method than gasoline or diesel, and solar can be owner produced fairly easily and again more efficiently. Alot of the early production in-efficiencies are now in favour of new production solar as it improves and as storage improves.

For generation at a regional level, it's a local government issue, if a region produces electricity with coal or bunker fuel, that's that region's issue, not the car companies, so you focus on the industry that needs improving, and the answer to that is to focus on the power generation companies.

However just like most things it's usually not the generation that offers the most improvement, it's usually more efficient consumption. Like moving from incadescent bulbs to led offers more benefit in a home equation than chainging the generation type for that light, the problem is a Wrangler is a very in-efficient platform, and the best methods to improve that inherently ruin it's 'Wrangler-ness', but some imrpovements like added windshield rake, or angled rear, or materials improvements add up, and are not a traditional trade-off, just a more subtle aesthetic one.

As for the cost of maintenance etc, I don't think you've used a modern EV, their maintenance costs are a fraction of traditional fuel vehicles.

Everything has a trade-off you can find negative in anything (flooding for hydro, bird-strikes for wind) but there are also benefits, even atomic power which is better than the headlines The thing is finding a good balance, and hybrids and plug-in EVs are definitely that, and are the inevitable future. Thankfully they are also good for torque, so there are Wrangler benefits in that transition.





Advertisement

 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,097
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Solar is far better than the old systems, it's not your father's solar, the only true issue nowadays is battery and that tech is also improving leaps and bounds. Oil is also no longer just being taken from easy wells, there are a lot of negatives associated there, especially when you don't hide the negatives, of transmission, transportation, and even final distribution. I have worked in the patch here in Alberta, yeah, it's far from clean, and the investment in research is far from efficient per dollar. As for 'opportunity cost' you want to go that road then do som real-world accounting for the environmental cost, not just of the abandoned wells, but of the pollution at the site and of the product, and the health impacts. Wind, Hydro, and Solar will win out.

If these technologies were more efficient over-all you wouldn't need the government to put these MPG targets into law as companies would be able to generate more profit implementing them on their own.
Or properly stated "if the traditional sources were so clean, we wouldn't need to use governments to clean them up" (especially after the comoanies weasel out of their liability). How much does it cost to recover a dead lake / estuary / water table due to spills, or due to acid rain (having canoed many crystal clear acid lakes in NW Ontario killed of in the 70s and 80s by US coal, yeah the true 'opportunity costs' are rarely paid by anyone but the collective 'other' to hide those costs of traditional sources... for rich owners. Yeah, if there were true accounting, coal wouldn't be used anymore , and oil would become way more costly.

The government is only good for putting into law those things which no one in their right mind would do on their own. I am not saying there aren't some benefits, but those benefits have out-weigh ALL of the costs, and they obviously do not.
The government puts into laws the things that no company does because they skirt all responsability with bankruptcy and arms-length liability structures. The issue remains, being accountable and responsible, it's certainly not an American ethos, but it should be from a country that built things for the bigger picture and the greater good, not just the quick-buck and F the other guy.
 

Demonic

Well-Known Member
First Name
Austin
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
433
Reaction score
525
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR 4xe
Even though the overall environmental impact of something like a hybrid or electric vehicle may not matter across the grand spectrum today, we still need to move in that direction and buying into that technology is what helps push it forward. By the same reasoning look where we'd be today if the Wright brothers ditched flight because the first airplanes weren't any more useful than a car, or if Edison ditched light bulbs and electrical advances simply because the first light bulbs weren't any more practical than a candle. The technology must move in the direction of electric incorporation, and consumers buying into that helps the technology progress, regardless of the motives behind government incentives.
 

Bearded_Dragon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
1,121
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mojito! Rubicon
Both UK and France have passed laws banning sales of new gasoline and diesel cars starting 2040. Hybrids and EV are excluded in that ban so expect these laws to spread to other countries, and expect them to be in your life more and more.
 

Spank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
2,465
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon, 2020 Dodge Challenger RT Scat Pack
I don't see a hybrid/electric Wrangler happening anytime soon, regardless of their "plans" or "future proofing" the platform. It ain't enough to just slap an EV powertrain into a Wrangler and call it a day. It'll need to be designed to handle the offroad abuse the Wrangler name calls for and that's going to require the kind of serious R&D that Chrysler isn't known for. The EV JK mule they had in '08 was an absolute mess and Chrysler's subsequent bankruptcy killed that and all their other hybrid vehicles real quick. FCA claims most of their vehicles will be EV by 2025. That's laughably doubtful.

Our best chance for a Wrangler with any kind of decent gas mileage, range, and torque will be the diesel and it'll likely remain that way throughout the JL cycle. I want to believe it'll happen, but FCAs return to EV is incredibly late and it took Fiat to make it happen.
 
Last edited:

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,097
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
VS Coal and Gas, there are far more 'hidden environmental costs' there than in Solar, and it's Americans doing it to themselves... well to your poor, who are disposables anyways.

they are not more efficient or environmentally friendly.
Yes, they are.

It is easy to point at a clearly visible oil-spill and say "OMG! look at the environmental destruction."
VS the Us production facilities that make us Canucks shake our heads at your practices, bury waste byproduct instead of treating it. Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma are full of poorly run production facilities and abandoned sites, especially now that oil is low. The US never does a proper accounting of the impact of its industry because they want energy independance. It also makes those of us who've seen US production laugh when Hollywood comes and whines about the Tar sands vs your own backyard which is far worse.. and never makes the front page, unlike those visible and undeniable spills.

It is more difficult to understand all the environmental damage caused throughout the entire production chain and maintenance of a solar panel because it is spread-out over many industrial sectors.
And oil production/transmission isn't, get real!

Fortunately, because of the greatest technology in human history, i.e., "money", knowing the details isn't required since we have the "pricing mechanism" to figure it out for us;
Nice theory if you have proper accounting for those cost, and don't limit company liability and offload responsibility onto the state/govt/general population.

You can apply your HS Economics to supply and demand, but when there are mechanisms to remove environmental imoact from production, then the supply curve is warped.
Also production costs are low when the companies receive $450 Billion dollars a year in subsidies... yeah that tiny amount US solar got is laughable in comparison, and the reason the US got crushed was because China did invest 10 times more... but that big Chinese number is still 10% of what the US subsidises Petroleum and about 1% of what it gets from the G20 for fossil fuels;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies-450b-1.3314291

That HS economics model doesn't fit reality, either of the production costs, or of real-world accounting.

Reality is that until the 'talking point' coalition in the US can show the demonstrable benefit of burning more fossil fuels than necessary, without relying on BS, it's a moot point.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,097
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Which without proper liability, and real-world accounting is a false narrative.
What's the opportunity cost of that money being re-directed from other activities, you argument is one sided, ignoring the activities that tilt the scales in favour of the fossil fuel companies, and focuses solely onthe alternative fuel activities that pale in comparison.

Your examples also ignore the multiplier effect of those investments and the multiplier effect of technological advancements on future advancements.

Opportunity cost is such a blunt tool in this arena, whereas the techonological superiority of existing option is easily provable.
Even without your fear of the future missed opportunity, it would be easy to chose the more efficient method if it weren't for all the exogenous inputs and influences. It's that lack of proper accounting that makes the general assumptions far from reality.
 

AWD

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
83
Reaction score
19
Location
Fort Lee, NJ
Vehicle(s)
Grand Cherokee
Personally I welcome some electrification for the Wrangler down the line. Check out what the Bollinger B1 is supposed to be able to do with its all electric powertrain - good performance numbers and even more storage space.

 

Advertisement




Extreme Terrain
 



Advertisement
Top