RE: Peugout 208 Hybrid FE: Driven
Discussion
Pugs are starting to sound interesting again. There is an opportunity for a mainstream manufacturer to steal a chase on the competition. Losing weight has to be the way forward. It is a virtuous circle for every system on the car. Power to weight ratios are so much more informative than outright power figures.
Car magazine said:
The 208 Hybrid FE doesn’t really do corners. Project chief Christophe Mary warned that no testing of the dynamics had taken place, simply because it wasn’t part of the brief. Predictably, the resin suspension sags under any sort of lateral load – and alarmingly when passengers hop into the Recaro bucket seats...
Hmmm.mikEsprit said:
J-P said:
cookie1600 said:
The Crack Fox said:
If only Peugeot had the balls to actually make stuff like this. But they dont't. And that's why they're in the s
t.
How much do you reckon a vehicle like that would cost, even if they could productionise it? Would it be a profitable thing? doubtful, would many people actually buy it at say £35,000 or £45,000? t.It's more about learning what can be done for future models and introducing small incremental changes to new cars I guess.
What I was getting at is that it would be even lighter - less difference between start weight and end weight is irrelevant! If it was 700kg instead of 800kg - that would be better even if it was only 800kg to start with.
As far as I'm aware the Peugeout 308 is not known for having a spectacularly light platform (I could be wrong though) but if this tech was in the MQB platform or new i3 platform, then surely it would weigh even less, which means it would be both faster and more fuel efficient.
An interesting article and a cool car. It is great to see stuff like this from a mainstream manufacturer.
For all that people complain about EU emissions regs they, with California's, have driven and will continue to drive proper innovation towards properly efficient vehicles.
Efficiency can be fun (Caterhams, Elises, 4C, CLS 63 averaging 26mpg
), we just haven't seen enough of it in the mainstream yet.
For all that people complain about EU emissions regs they, with California's, have driven and will continue to drive proper innovation towards properly efficient vehicles.
Efficiency can be fun (Caterhams, Elises, 4C, CLS 63 averaging 26mpg
), we just haven't seen enough of it in the mainstream yet.Jeez, what a load of bull!
"Economy and racing is exactly the same"
No, no it isn't sorry. Unless it's a race to the death between a couple of bulimics!
"the engine turns over on inertia alone"
Wow, they ought to patent that quick. (i think you'll find they are using the ISG to start the engine actually, otherwise the "thump" and powertrain shunt will be truly terrible
"reduced the volume of cooling liquid by FIVE times. Of course then they could shrink the radiator."
Except of course there is no link between radiator physical size and cooling jacket volume, A radiator is sized to reject a certain amount of heat, and that doesn't change with system coolant volume.
"the pricey titanium engine conrods....... weighed as little as a slim fountain pen"
No, No they didn't, unless your fountain pen happens to be made of depleted uranium.
" dash to 60mph in eight seconds"
In 2013, i'm sorry, but 8sec to 62mph isn't really a "dash"
"And because they've converted some of the battery power to 12V, they can run all the electrics off the lithium ion unit"
Using no doubt an expensive and heavy DC-DC convertor. Although this being just a concept, they probably "cheated" and take a low voltage "tap" off the main battery pack. Which is unfortunately illegal and will not pass homologation rules due to the lack of isolation from the main HV system.
"But the Peugeot Sport guys managed to remove more than 200kg"
Easy, just take stuff out. A LOT harder/ more expensive to do when you can't just leave stuff out of the car
When other manufacturers are rolling out production ready EV's and Hybrids, this botched together concept seems a little too little, and a little too late to me............
"Economy and racing is exactly the same"
No, no it isn't sorry. Unless it's a race to the death between a couple of bulimics!
"the engine turns over on inertia alone"
Wow, they ought to patent that quick. (i think you'll find they are using the ISG to start the engine actually, otherwise the "thump" and powertrain shunt will be truly terrible
"reduced the volume of cooling liquid by FIVE times. Of course then they could shrink the radiator."
Except of course there is no link between radiator physical size and cooling jacket volume, A radiator is sized to reject a certain amount of heat, and that doesn't change with system coolant volume.
"the pricey titanium engine conrods....... weighed as little as a slim fountain pen"
No, No they didn't, unless your fountain pen happens to be made of depleted uranium.
" dash to 60mph in eight seconds"
In 2013, i'm sorry, but 8sec to 62mph isn't really a "dash"
"And because they've converted some of the battery power to 12V, they can run all the electrics off the lithium ion unit"
Using no doubt an expensive and heavy DC-DC convertor. Although this being just a concept, they probably "cheated" and take a low voltage "tap" off the main battery pack. Which is unfortunately illegal and will not pass homologation rules due to the lack of isolation from the main HV system.
"But the Peugeot Sport guys managed to remove more than 200kg"
Easy, just take stuff out. A LOT harder/ more expensive to do when you can't just leave stuff out of the car
When other manufacturers are rolling out production ready EV's and Hybrids, this botched together concept seems a little too little, and a little too late to me............
Dan Trent said:
Glad to see such a positive response to this car and story; we took a punt on it but it's a fascinating study and the guys behind it are the real deal. Indeed, we've got a follow-up interview that'll run tomorrow with more on how they channelled the aborted 908 Hybrid4 into the 208 - it's really interesting stuff!
Cheers,
Dan
Dan,Cheers,
Dan
How about some sort of response to the many requests for an EV/hybrid/alternative forum?
These are developing but are still at a level where a combined forum would be more useful than having the info spread across pug/bmw/renault/honda/toyota/mitsi/etc
There have been several requests in website feedback but absolutely no response at all from 'the management'
cptsideways said:
800kg and no power steering is fine trust me, tbh you would hardly know especially with 145 tyres
How many people on here don't realise that power steering only became essential when the marketing dept started deciding on things like tyre profile and size!?Back in the late-80s, as this started to happen and PAS started to appear outside of 'luxury' cars and expensive boxes on options lists, no petrolhead would be seen dead with such a car (TVR were amongst the companies offering it as an option and generally finding people didn't want it - or complained a lot about it if they specced it!!)
We've now pretty much abandoned cars without PAS (is there anything on-sale now which isn't self-build/exotic and doesn't have PAS?) - but the reasoning is really more down to what markettng people think we want and not what's actually needed!!
Someone on the old Evo forum owned a Teg - one day the PAS failed and he discovered the car was driveable without it so he had all the bits removed 'to save weight' (I think it was optional on that car so I guess it wasn't a big job?)
Edited by 405dogvan on Sunday 3rd November 03:29
405dogvan said:
How many people on here don't realise that power steering only became essential when the marketing dept started deciding on things like tyre profile and size!?
Back in the late-80s, as this started to happen and PAS started to appear outside of 'luxury' cars and expensive boxes on options lists, no petrolhead would be seen dead with such a car (TVR were amongst the companies offering it as an option and generally finding people didn't want it - or complained a lot about it if they specced it!!)
We've now pretty much abandoned cars without PAS (is there anything on-sale now which isn't self-build/exotic and doesn't have PAS?) - but the reasoning is really more down to what markettng people think we want and not what's actually needed!!
Someone on the old Evo forum owned a Teg - one day the PAS failed and he discovered the car was driveable without it so he had all the bits removed 'to save weight' (I think it was optional on that car so I guess it wasn't a big job?)
Couldn't agree more. My old Rover 200 didn't have PAS and was fine at 945kg, even when I fitted the wider tyres. The Mini and both Metros were the same. PAS on those would've been horrid. When the PAS failed on the Jag though, that was a different kettle of fish. I'm a BIG lad, but hauling nearly two tonnes of Jag back down the twisty lanes from Clee Hill took it out of me a little.Back in the late-80s, as this started to happen and PAS started to appear outside of 'luxury' cars and expensive boxes on options lists, no petrolhead would be seen dead with such a car (TVR were amongst the companies offering it as an option and generally finding people didn't want it - or complained a lot about it if they specced it!!)
We've now pretty much abandoned cars without PAS (is there anything on-sale now which isn't self-build/exotic and doesn't have PAS?) - but the reasoning is really more down to what markettng people think we want and not what's actually needed!!
Someone on the old Evo forum owned a Teg - one day the PAS failed and he discovered the car was driveable without it so he had all the bits removed 'to save weight' (I think it was optional on that car so I guess it wasn't a big job?)
Edited by 405dogvan on Sunday 3rd November 03:29
The P6 could've done with it for three point turns, but that's a lot heavier than the others (circa 1250kg IIRC) and was absolutely fine for normal driving without.
Max_Torque said:
Jeez, what a load of bull!
"Economy and racing is exactly the same"
No, no it isn't sorry. Unless it's a race to the death between a couple of bulimics!
" dash to 60mph in eight seconds"
In 2013, i'm sorry, but 8sec to 62mph isn't really a "dash"
1. If you use less fuel, you can have higher performance, simply because you dont need to lug as much weight around. Actual improvements from F1 show that carrying 10kg less = 0.3 seconds improved lap times."Economy and racing is exactly the same"
No, no it isn't sorry. Unless it's a race to the death between a couple of bulimics!
" dash to 60mph in eight seconds"
In 2013, i'm sorry, but 8sec to 62mph isn't really a "dash"
In numerous drag racing run, the same car with weight removed will also achieve better performance. I myself have seen 50kg weight loss achieve a 0.1 sec improvement in my ET.
So, I'm sorry you're sorry, but you're also wrong.
2. I'm sorry, but not every car is a veyron. Maybe recalibrate your expectations from a warm hatch. Or get a dose of reality.
big_rob_sydney said:
Max_Torque said:
Jeez, what a load of bull!
"Economy and racing is exactly the same"
No, no it isn't sorry. Unless it's a race to the death between a couple of bulimics!
" dash to 60mph in eight seconds"
In 2013, i'm sorry, but 8sec to 62mph isn't really a "dash"
1. If you use less fuel, you can have higher performance, simply because you dont need to lug as much weight around. Actual improvements from F1 show that carrying 10kg less = 0.3 seconds improved lap times."Economy and racing is exactly the same"
No, no it isn't sorry. Unless it's a race to the death between a couple of bulimics!
" dash to 60mph in eight seconds"
In 2013, i'm sorry, but 8sec to 62mph isn't really a "dash"
In numerous drag racing run, the same car with weight removed will also achieve better performance. I myself have seen 50kg weight loss achieve a 0.1 sec improvement in my ET.
So, I'm sorry you're sorry, but you're also wrong.
2. I'm sorry, but not every car is a veyron. Maybe recalibrate your expectations from a warm hatch. Or get a dose of reality.
Economy is about moving a set distance using as little energy as possible
Racing is about moving a set distance in as short a time as possible
Simple physics dictates that those objectives are polar opposites.
The rules of racing are what makes "endurance and fuel economy" sometimes increase performance (but those rules are artificial. A racing car will always go faster with more power)
(hint: work done = Force x distance, Force = Mass x Acceleration, Power = Work x Time)
Racing is about moving a set distance in as short a time as possible
Simple physics dictates that those objectives are polar opposites.
The rules of racing are what makes "endurance and fuel economy" sometimes increase performance (but those rules are artificial. A racing car will always go faster with more power)
(hint: work done = Force x distance, Force = Mass x Acceleration, Power = Work x Time)
kinda depends on your distance though don't it?
a massive fuel tank not only adds weight but it adds volume too, overall size and shape which has a bearing on balance and if you take it to extremes, imagine trying to drive a car with a 6m track round pretty much any circuit?
then there's the complexity of actually getting the fuel out the tank which has a bearing on what kind of shape is going to be anything like usable. so it tends to be tall-ish so it messes with your com and adds frontal area and generally cocks up your aero.
motorsport, like all auto engineering, is a balancing act. what makes this and racing "the same" is that the balancing act is heavily weighted towards one trait and less compromised for bulls**t like NVH, comfort and "perceived quality".
plus I think these people who have a fair old record in top-tier motorsport are qualified to make statements like that.
eta: reading back over your post I can see where you've got lost. engineering is not simple physics. we're not accelerating a point (fixed) mass here.
a massive fuel tank not only adds weight but it adds volume too, overall size and shape which has a bearing on balance and if you take it to extremes, imagine trying to drive a car with a 6m track round pretty much any circuit?
then there's the complexity of actually getting the fuel out the tank which has a bearing on what kind of shape is going to be anything like usable. so it tends to be tall-ish so it messes with your com and adds frontal area and generally cocks up your aero.
motorsport, like all auto engineering, is a balancing act. what makes this and racing "the same" is that the balancing act is heavily weighted towards one trait and less compromised for bulls**t like NVH, comfort and "perceived quality".
plus I think these people who have a fair old record in top-tier motorsport are qualified to make statements like that.
eta: reading back over your post I can see where you've got lost. engineering is not simple physics. we're not accelerating a point (fixed) mass here.
Edited by scarble on Wednesday 6th November 20:02
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff