Jeep Compass Forum

Jeep Compass Forum (https://www.myjeepcompass.com/forums/)
-   Jeep Compass News, Rumors and Updates (https://www.myjeepcompass.com/forums/jeep-compass-news-rumors-updates/)
-   -   Electricity.... (https://www.myjeepcompass.com/forums/jeep-compass-news-rumors-updates/42761-electricity.html)

[email protected] 03-06-2019 12:55 AM

Electricity....
 

arudlang 03-06-2019 02:38 PM

I am intrigued. Normally I would be pretty averse to a 1.3L engine in a buggy like this, but I have experience with a 2011 vehicle I used to drive that was tiny N/A 4 cylinder + electric motor, and it performed for all intents and purposes just like I had a V6 (when the battery was charged).

30 miles of electric range would allow me to do my daily work commute with no gas, and then when we road trip the 1.3L turbo should net 30 MPG trips pretty easy I would assume.

Very interesting. The plot thickens. Just the other day the wife and I were out looking at the new Chevy Blazer RS, and the Cadillac XT4, and even the GMC Terrain. Those are all pretty darn expensive compared to what we paid for the Compass, though. Will be fun to keep an eye on this one.

mdram4x4 03-06-2019 03:17 PM

the 2.4l can already get over 30mpg (i get 36)
30mile electric range is laughable, in a cold winter it would be closer to 15.

Tripod 03-06-2019 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdram4x4 (Post 147863)
the 2.4l can already get over 30mpg (i get 36)
30mile electric range is laughable, in a cold winter it would be closer to 15.

You need to travel below the advertised speed limit in many states to get MGP above 30. Which is dangerous and is shown to more crashes that going at or even slightly above advertised speed.

And in the end, it is a hybrid,it will improve your city MPG more than highway. You probably, at max, can make ~23mpgs during city driving, with this system, you can bring that upto 36mpg as well, so your combine mpg will be ~36mpg.. so electric range being 30miles doesn't matter all that much. That 30 miles is not designed for you to cruise at 50mph for 30 miles ( I am not even sure the system will let you go that fast with electricity alone), it designed to saves gas when you are in traffic jam or going slow. You can spend 45 mins on a 10 mile stretch of road and with this system, you wont spend a drop of gas. When considering this 30mile range, you needs to think how much of your drive is below 35mph. So, there wont be many cases that you would need to spend all 30 mins worth of electricity in a single stretch. As it is an hybrid, it can also charge the battery to some extend during driving.

And yet my back and forward compute is ~12 miles and max speed is 30MPH, this would be a great gas saver for me.

mdram4x4 03-06-2019 04:39 PM

city driving? whats that?

my commute is 55 miles each way, speed limit is 55 for all but 15 miles where its 65.

Jasmine 03-06-2019 07:15 PM

The people who come up with these hybrid ideas live in cities so it makes good sense to them. What works in Chicago is laughable in Arizona; what works inside the beltway is idiocy even 50 miles away in the mountains.

@Tripod the cause of speed-related accidents is speed variance. There are many situations where the flow of traffic is well in excess of the posted limits. The question here is, who's causing the variance -- the law-observing driver or the majority of speeders?

A friend had a solution: Take down all the speed limit signs, measure the speed of traffic, and post the average as the limit. Exceptions would only be where hazards might not be obvious.

Back in the 1970s when the speed limits dropped to the old "double-nickel" I heard a state official being interviewed on the radio. He said in the year since the speed limit had dropped to 55 there had not been a single fatality in that state where both vehicles were traveling at or below the speed limit and all occupants were wearing their seat belts. Lower speed limits save gas and save lives. Think how much less expensive cars would be without air bags! And how much technology could be eliminated if we all drove 55! STM, the biggest problems with our Compasses seem to be related to the manufacturer trying to cope with CAFE standards and safety.

Tripod 03-06-2019 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasmine (Post 147875)

@Tripod the cause of speed-related accidents is speed variance. There are many situations where the flow of traffic is well in excess of the posted limits. The question here is, who's causing the variance -- the law-observing driver or the majority of speeders?

A friend had a solution: Take down all the speed limit signs, measure the speed of traffic, and post the average as the limit. Exceptions would only be where hazards might not be obvious.

Back in the 1970s when the speed limits dropped to the old "double-nickel" I heard a state official being interviewed on the radio. He said in the year since the speed limit had dropped to 55 there had not been a single fatality in that state where both vehicles were traveling at or below the speed limit and all occupants were wearing their seat belts. Lower speed limits save gas and save lives. Think how much less expensive cars would be without air bags! And how much technology could be eliminated if we all drove 55! STM, the biggest problems with our Compasses seem to be related to the manufacturer trying to cope with CAFE standards and safety.

And in Germany they achieve far less crashes without any upper speeds limits, compared to any other developed country. I think the main issue with US is not the speed limits but poor lane discipline. People travel at different speeds at different lanes, which causes large speed variance within the same lane. It is true that the main cause of accidents is speed variance and the reason for that is number of accidents is directly proportional to the number of times two cars traveling on the same lane pass next to each other (let that be a divided or multi-lane road). Traveling below speed limits makes this even worse because majority of the cars on the road will actual try to pass you, whereas if you traveled or slightly above speed limit, you would be moving with the traffic with less "passing" occurring. So, higher speed variance increase the times two cars pass each other and that increase the chance of a crash, but traveling slower makes it even worse because than you have higher speed variance to everybody.

Jasmine 03-06-2019 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripod (Post 147883)
Traveling below speed limits makes this even worse because majority of the cars on the road will actual try to pass you, whereas if you traveled or slightly above speed limit, you would be moving with the traffic with less "passing" occurring.

So the answer is to raise speed limits and raise minimum speeds. But no matter what the speed limit is, people will always set their cruise on a couple miles higher. I frequently travel on I-93 north of Concord where the speed limit is 70. At 70 I only pass vehicles that are entering or exiting, or maybe a truck on a hill, but I am passed frequently.

Oh, about Germany, do they have deer and moose that wander onto the highway? I fear animals more than other drivers, regardless of their speed. Deer can spring out of the brush and onto the highway in an instant. Moose move slower but unless there's snow for a backdrop they are invisible at night, so half the year your headlights will only tell you how many feet you have left to live a normal life, or live at all.

Hit a deer = wreck your car.
Hit a moose = wreck your life.

For further reading: https://newengland.com/today/living/...ake-for-moose/

PS, I wonder if driverless cars can compensate for animals on the run, or can compensate for over-riding headlights?

Tripod 03-07-2019 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasmine (Post 147893)
So the answer is to raise speed limits and raise minimum speeds. But no matter what the speed limit is, people will always set their cruise on a couple miles higher. I frequently travel on I-93 north of Concord where the speed limit is 70. At 70 I only pass vehicles that are entering or exiting, or maybe a truck on a hill, but I am passed frequently.

Oh, about Germany, do they have deer and moose that wander onto the highway? I fear animals more than other drivers, regardless of their speed. Deer can spring out of the brush and onto the highway in an instant. Moose move slower but unless there's snow for a backdrop they are invisible at night, so half the year your headlights will only tell you how many feet you have left to live a normal life, or live at all.

Hit a deer = wreck your car.
Hit a moose = wreck your life.

For further reading: https://newengland.com/today/living/...ake-for-moose/

PS, I wonder if driverless cars can compensate for animals on the run, or can compensate for over-riding headlights?

As far as I know, they dont have moose in Germany, its southern most range is around Poland. But they have deer for sure, there are videos of people hitting deer at Nurburgring track, so it must be widespread. Though the autobahn is fenced and they have wildlife bridges, so animals cant and dont need to cross the road.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...d0c0385bf.webp
https://www.quora.com/Are-collisions...erman-Autobahn

I think Uber's self driving car killed a pedestrian ~6 months ago and the video showed the woman entered the road similar to how a deer would enter it (jumped in front of the car in the last minute). Car tried to compensate, but still hit the woman.

[email protected] 03-07-2019 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdram4x4 (Post 147863)
the 2.4l can already get over 30mpg (i get 36)
30mile electric range is laughable, in a cold winter it would be closer to 15.


36 mpg... fake news. You're fake news bro.

mdram4x4 03-07-2019 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 147903)
36 mpg... fake news. You're fake news bro.

its true, its less in the winter (@32-34)

lundy 03-07-2019 04:41 PM

What trim level is your Compass?

mdram4x4 03-07-2019 04:46 PM

standard lattitude

[email protected] 03-07-2019 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdram4x4 (Post 147911)
Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 147903)
36 mpg... fake news. You're fake news bro.

its true, its less in the winter (@32-34)


Man, then that's awesome. I am like 25 for easy driving on relatively flat ground.

Jasmine 03-07-2019 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 147903)
36 mpg... fake news. You're fake news bro.

In the summer on a long easy drive I can get 34-35 even at 60+MPH. My overall average was 31.5 in my first 20,000 miles. Now since I put my snow tires on, and considering my morning starts are often at or below zero F (as it was this morning), then add in a significant warm up while I'm scraping frost, ice, or snow off the windshield, and the fact that it can take a lot of miles to get to get thoroughly warmed up, its down under 29MPG for an overall average since owning it of 30.3MPG. That's using the EVIC which may be a tad optimistic -- though when I check it by doing my own math its pretty close.

mdram4x4 03-07-2019 08:21 PM

im @ 25k miles. overall average is just over 35, 10.5 months in

i only warm it up while im scraping frost, other wise, its start and go

i also always turn off the ess

arudlang 03-08-2019 01:54 PM

I've been averaging 23-25 all winter, but, I like to remote start it up 12 minutes before I leave for my 9 minute drive to work :devil: I mean hey, its parked outside (no room in the garage) and its northern Minnesota, hella cold here in the winter mornings!

I also remote start it a good 5-10 minutes before I leave work. So I basically have it idling nearly 50% of the time, and still get mid 20s no problem. In the summer usually around 28 for daily driving, and it easily claims 29-32 on any road trips.

Personal best short-run is still this 138 mile trip back in June to a larger city north of home, conditions were pretty much perfect and I was in no hurry, rural rolling 55 MPH roads (but obviously averaging more like 60 MPH). Good chance I drafted a truck or something for a good part of it, can't remember now. Seems like it held 40 MPG for the first leg but I must have gotten impatient at some point to drop it down to 38 grin:

https://txrx2a.dm.files.1drv.com/y4m...&cropmode=none

mdram4x4 03-08-2019 02:07 PM

yep, the mpg shines 55-60mph in the summer

its almost like its designed for that kind of driving

alacran60622 03-08-2019 03:34 PM

Itís true I was able to get up to 35mpg on my drive to New York, but it all depends on how the wind is blowing if u drive against the wind youíll get less mpg. But driving in the city I only get max 17mpg, bummer...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lundy 03-08-2019 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdram4x4 (Post 147937)
im @ 25k miles. overall average is just over 35, 10.5 months in

i only warm it up while im scraping frost, other wise, its start and go

i also always turn off the ess

What method/formula do you use to calculate fuel use/mileage?

mdram4x4 03-08-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lundy (Post 147959)
What method/formula do you use to calculate fuel use/mileage?

i started off with a calculator, then some fuely
it all points to the onboard mpg within a few tenths

so i am only using the onboard now

i do a quick math check at each fillup in my head
(335.x miles/ 9.7xx gallons) is close enough to 33.5mpg for me (its actually 34.5)

mdram4x4 03-08-2019 04:11 PM

heres the fuelly stats before i stopped using it
has over 13k miles in it

http://badges.fuelly.com/images/sig-us/798411.png

Tripod 03-08-2019 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arudlang (Post 147949)
I've been averaging 23-25 all winter, but, I like to remote start it up 12 minutes before I leave for my 9 minute drive to work :devil: I mean hey, its parked outside (no room in the garage) and its northern Minnesota, hella cold here in the winter mornings!

I also remote start it a good 5-10 minutes before I leave work. So I basically have it idling nearly 50% of the time, and still get mid 20s no problem. In the summer usually around 28 for daily driving, and it easily claims 29-32 on any road trips.

Personal best short-run is still this 138 mile trip back in June to a larger city north of home, conditions were pretty much perfect and I was in no hurry, rural rolling 55 MPH roads (but obviously averaging more like 60 MPH). Good chance I drafted a truck or something for a good part of it, can't remember now. Seems like it held 40 MPG for the first leg but I must have gotten impatient at some point to drop it down to 38 grin:

https://txrx2a.dm.files.1drv.com/y4m...&cropmode=none

According to those values, you average speed was ~53 MPH (138/2.6). It think it is pretty reasonable to get that MPG on a flat surface at that speed. You can get close to 40mpg at 50mph. If you get a slight tail wind, it is even better.

arudlang 03-08-2019 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripod
According to those values, you average speed was ~53 MPH

That sounds about right, have to pass through several towns where the speed limit dips to 30 mph so that would drag the overall average down for sure. Outside of the towns, highway cruising I usually aim for about 60 MPH but if I was drafting a big semi truck then I would have settled for whatever he was doing. Can't remember now.

eric 03-09-2019 12:03 AM

Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD. Helps offset the Hybrid cost.

The battery is likely sized to optimize government rebates and what people are willing to pay. 31 miles is not bad and probably similar in size to the original Chevrolet volt that received the full $7500 rebate. That got 35-39 miles of range and subtract a bit for SUV aerodynamics and higher weight.

I hope the keep the 2.4 and the manual available for those that want it. The 1.3 is auto only and the manual left the renegade lineup for 2019.

Tripod 03-09-2019 12:31 AM

Electricity....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 147979)
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD. Helps offset the Hybrid cost.

The battery is likely sized to optimize government rebates and what people are willing to pay. 31 miles is not bad and probably similar in size to the original Chevrolet volt that received the full $7500 rebate. That got 35-39 miles of range and subtract a bit for SUV aerodynamics and higher weight.

I hope the keep the 2.4 and the manual available for those that want it. The 1.3 is auto only and the manual left the renegade lineup for 2019.



Can you have a manual car with electric motors? That combination seems a bit strange to me since electric motors donít use transmissions and having a car with both electric motor and manual transmission would need the driver to put the gear in neutral (or drive with clutch fully pressed) while only using electric.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

arudlang 03-09-2019 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripod
Can you have a manual car with electric motors? That combination seems a bit strange to me

Sure you can, it all just depends on how they implement it. My 2011 Honda CRZ I used to have was a 6 speed manual hybrid and, although it was a poor winter weather car for northern mn, man do I miss driving that car in the summer. It had such a beautifully simply hybrid system. All they did was replace the traditional flywheel with a high-power brushless motor on a basic 1.5L naturally aspirated SOHC motor. Let me tell you, that combo worked GREAT. Gas mileage of a tiny 4 cylinder, power of a small V6, in a small light car. It was so much fun to throw around, and I averaged 46-48 MPG with it under constant aggressive driving. 50 MPG was easy to obtain if driven more lightly.

There was no plugin for that car. All your electricity came from engine braking or light cruising, during which time the brushless motor became a generator. That was actually much easier to do with a manual vs automatic, and I saved big time on brake pads since the brushless-motor-turned-generator did a fair share of the work to slow down the car if I wanted it to. If I wanted to coast instead I just put it in neutral.

Yep, I would say depending on how they design the system it can be better to have a manual paired with a hybrid system. But there are many other ways to put an electric motor in the mix, and the CRZ IMA system (Integrated Motor Assist) did have its caveats, such as no option to drive on purely electrical power alone.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD

Its alright but I had my hopes up that they would just place a beefy brushless electric motor in the center of the car where the two sections of driveshaft meet. Throw in clutch or two, you would have the options to:
1) assist the front axle gas motor combo during normal acceleration
2) assist both front and rear axles equally during heavy acceleration, starting a heavy towing load, rock crawling, etc
3) drive the rear wheels independently for short periods as your 30ish mile range "EV mode"
All the while retaining true AWD capability even if the electric motor system fails, and probably most important to me the ability to send gas engine power to the rear wheels which is important to me for the way I use my Jeep.

When I'm pulling our 2000+ lb boat back up out of the lake on a wet, steep ramp I want real engine power being sent to every wheel, especially the rears where two or three hundred pounds of tongue weight are being applied. Pure electric rear wheels would help for taking off on snow and ice better than FWD alone but you won't ever call such a car a rock crawler.

Tripod 03-09-2019 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arudlang (Post 147999)

Yep, I would say depending on how they design the system it can be better to have a manual paired with a hybrid system. But there are many other ways to put an electric motor in the mix, and the CRZ IMA system (Integrated Motor Assist) did have its caveats, such as no option to drive on purely electrical power alone.

Yeah I was questioning it more about cars that can run solely on electricity. In that case, since the power is coming from the electric motors outside from the engine and transmission, transmission will need to be put in the neutral or clutch pressed, otherwise you will basically make "engine breaking" and waste energy. Of course they can make a very simply automatic system that disengage the clutch as soon as engine shuts off and electric motors are the only source of power.

mdram4x4 03-11-2019 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 147979)
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD. Helps offset the Hybrid cost.

The battery is likely sized to optimize government rebates and what people are willing to pay. 31 miles is not bad and probably similar in size to the original Chevrolet volt that received the full $7500 rebate. That got 35-39 miles of range and subtract a bit for SUV aerodynamics and higher weight.

I hope the keep the 2.4 and the manual available for those that want it. The 1.3 is auto only and the manual left the renegade lineup for 2019.

EV's should not get any gov rebate/tax credit/ect

they should be paying a tax. they pay no road tax due to not using gas
it need to be made up someplace

eric 03-15-2019 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arudlang (Post 147999)

When I'm pulling our 2000+ lb boat back up out of the lake on a wet, steep ramp I want real engine power being sent to every wheel, especially the rears where two or three hundred pounds of tongue weight are being applied. Pure electric rear wheels would help for taking off on snow and ice better than FWD alone but you won't ever call such a car a rock crawler.

Completely agree such a system isn't a rock crawler. It's designed for suburban mom's who don't know what a differential is to feel better about driving in the snow when they have summer tires on.
For towing, which the right software programming coordinating the different inputs the electric motors could work very well. The electric motors provide instant acceleration and torque.
The real issue with the towing example is the 1.3L engine. With the 1.3 sent to all fours do you really want to be towing the 2,000lb boat? I'd much rather have a V6.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome