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

zgn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
776
Reaction score
413
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler TJ (2001)
Claiming that hybrids increase MPGs is just a way to skirt EPA regulations since they don't factor what goes in to producing the electricity to begin with. I mean, you pay for the electricity, its generation created waste likely by burning something, then the waste when it traveled the power lines, and all the materials needed to create them and the power plant and the battery and electrical plug, etc., along with the costs of replacing and maintaining those things, etc.





Advertisement

 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,096
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Claiming that hybrids increase MPGs is just a way to skirt EPA regulations since they don't factor what goes in to producing the electricity to begin with. I mean, you pay for the electricity, its generation created waste likely by burning something, then the waste when it traveled the power lines, and all the materials needed to create them and the power plant and the battery and electrical plug, etc., along with the costs of replacing and maintaining those things, etc.
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.
 

zgn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
776
Reaction score
413
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler TJ (2001)
I get what you are saying about the smoother delivery, but regenerative braking doesn't add that much and when factoring in the cost of those systems it isn't really saving anything. People don't report the actual claimed gains from them. We are seeing a bunch of crap tech contrived to get around EPA regulations.

"Plug-in EVs rely on the efficiency of the power 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. A lot of the early production inefficiencies are now in favor of new production solar as it improves and as storage improves."

Solar etc. are cleaner when you don't factor in the manufacture of the panels and the costs associated. It isn't a closed system, you have to look at the entire production chain from raw materials all the way to delivery of the system and maintenance. Also not factoring in the losses due to having to spend money on research where that research money would have gone somewhere else, and forgoing the economic gains due to those investments. So we are talking "opportunity cost".

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. 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.
 
Last edited:

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,096
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Solar etc. are cleaner when you don't factor in the manufacture of the panels and the costs associated. It isn't a closed system, you have to look at the entire production chain from raw materials all the way to delivery of the system and maintenance. Also not factoring in the losses due to having to spend money on research where that research money would have gone somewhere else, and forgoing the economic gains due to those investments. So we are talking "opportunity cost".
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.
 

zgn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
776
Reaction score
413
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler TJ (2001)
Solar is far better than the old systems
It doesn't matter whether it is better or not. The price of those systems vs coal/gas/etc. reveals the hidden environmental costs; they are not more efficient or environmentally friendly. If they were the cost would be lower - they would be more efficient technologies overall than coal/gas/etc. It is easy to point at a clearly visible oil-spill and say "OMG! look at the environmental destruction." 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. 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; a simple number we can all understand. If the market sets demands for Qualities: A, B, and C in a product; and there are two competing technologies: 1) gas, 2) electric; then whichever can meet those demands at the lower cost is the best, not only for the consumer and the producer, but also the environment as a whole, because the lower cost implies that that tech can meet all the requirements with lower resource utilization. If it can do that, then for some initial set quantity of resources that leaves more resources to meet other demands, whereas, with the other tech we are required to obtain a greater amount of resources to meet the same amount of demands, as resources are limited. Hence, greater environmental impact overall - that is the opportunity cost.

especially after the companies weasel out of their liability
Because governments allow them to via the court system, bankruptcy, and "liability structures". But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea for government to start claiming it knows what techs we should use to meet consumer demands. I agree that all of these industries, i.e., gas/solar/electric are getting their props from the government in various ways, and that should not be the case as it clouds judgement as to the best means.

The government puts into laws the things that no company does because they skirt all responsibility with bankruptcy and arms-length liability structures.
Not necessarily true. The government puts these things into law to appease voters who believe they know how to do it better. There is no way for government to know what the best technology is for a given market, to meet a given ends at the lowest environmental impact. They have no way to know that electric power is better, or whether CFLs are better than incandescent. Its just far too complicated of a problem; again, it is easy to point at the things which are seen, but much more difficult to point at the impacts which are not. The best way to determine is through price, i.e., the price for implementing these technologies. Price is not just a way to determine how much money "the greedy capitalist" is going to make, it is also the best means we have to effectively calculate environmental impact. If both the consumer and the automaker determine that gas is the better option than electric, then they are making an assessment (not necessarily even consciously) of the environmental impact as it relates to resource utilization and efficiency to meet a given ends. There is no government who possess the tools necessary to determine, "NO! The market has this one wrong, its actually electric that is better. This tech is for the greater good." If that was the case, we would never need private business to begin with.

Anyway, you can respond, but I will end here cause I didn't intend to get into an economic debate on the Jeep forum.
 

Demonic

Well-Known Member
First Name
Austin
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
430
Reaction score
522
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR 4xe
It doesn't matter whether it is better or not. The price of those systems vs coal/gas/etc. reveals the hidden environmental costs; they are not more efficient or environmentally friendly. If they were the cost would be lower - they would be more efficient technologies overall than coal/gas/etc. It is easy to point at a clearly visible oil-spill and say "OMG! look at the environmental destruction." 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.
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
1,012
Reaction score
1,112
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.
 

zgn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
776
Reaction score
413
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler TJ (2001)
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.
This misses the big picture, and it is exactly what most people miss because, again, it is easy to see the immediate and obvious results, but not see those things we don't have because we chose to develop electric motors. Resources are limited, and that which goes into electric motors, etc. can't go toward something else, something the market demanded more, something that billions of people and businesses determined was more important. The market may have said, "No, we don't need to invest $100 million in electric now, we should only be investing $10 million, the other $90 million is best used over here or there." There is some equilibrium between what we do now and what we may do in the future that government has no way of knowing - the market figures it out through "economic calculation". It absolutely matters if the government is forcing a technology before the market has reached the optimal point at which to develop and market it. Businesses perform opportunity cost analyses to determine what percentage of their research budget should be going to electric tech, how far off in the future it will be viable option, where to use the tech, etc. When government forces the development before the market would have had it do so it burdens the economy, slowing (or even reversing) economic growth. Those valuable resources which went into electric motors, back-up cameras, regenerative-braking, etc. would have been better utilized meeting some other demand (maybe having nothing explicitly to do with automobiles). They could have maximized society's productive capacity, thereby increasing the ratio of goods/services to money in the economy, thereby increasing living standards. Instead, we blew our load going for electric too early or at all. It is all about meeting demands with fewer resources, not singling-out some tech that might be useful at some point in the future at the expense of everything else that we actually need now. If resources were unlimited, this wouldn't be a problem.

The government could develop interstellar travel for $100 trillion. Lets say we get it and build a ship. In the process we probably killed half the world population from starvation and now have a ship that can't do anything to benefit society except fly a few cosmonauts to another star system. But, we developed interstellar travel... Yay!!! Who gives a crap if it doesn't benefit us more than the alternate uses of the $100 trillion? What does it matter if we find some new particle for $500 billion, but won't have any way to use that knowledge to improve society for another 100 years. When if we waited 95 years, we would have only spent $5 million (because the $500 billion we didn't spend went to growing the productive capacity of society) to find the same particle and had a useful tech based on it 5-10 years later. Timing matters, resource usage optimization matters. Not spending money on government gimmicks matters. Don't blow your load before it is time.

That is as best I can put it without sitting down and writing out something more formal.
 
Last edited:

zgn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
776
Reaction score
413
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler TJ (2001)
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.
Yeah, I know. It sucks and is absolute BS. These laws need to be stopped; they are at pandemic level. Its no different than when the government/FED created conditions for the housing bubble and tech bubble.

The idea that government can somehow legislate us to a better place by forcing hybrids and EV's is no more sane than the Mayans thinking they could feed the Sun god by offering-up the heart of a sacrificial virgin.
 
Last edited:

Spank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
2,398
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
4,096
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
It doesn't matter whether it is better or not. The price of those systems vs coal/gas/etc. reveals the hidden environmental costs;
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
4,096
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
This misses the big picture...
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




Clayton Offroad
 



Advertisement
Top