Mike and Sherrie in VA
Well-known member
Tom said:Don't have any numbers, and I'm not up on current (no pun) technology, but regenerative braking has been around for many years and is essentially "free" energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Driving habits make up for a huge difference in energy used. For example, I can get roughly the same MPG out of a 5-speed, 8-cyl Mustang at 330 HP that I got out of a 170HP Volkswagen 4 cyl. You'll notice I say 5-speed. That plays a big part. As opposed to braking all the time as I would probably find it more necessary to do in an automatic transmission vehicle, I downshift well before known slowdown/turning points. Feather the throttle a bit, no brakes needed. My car is rated factory at 300HP and 22 MPG highway. With a cold air kit and an engine computer reflash tune at a cost of around $600 I have it running at 330HP ans 29MPG highway. The only difference is I have to run 93 octane vs. 87-89. Costs about $2.50 more at fillup.
I've seen some articles about a guy that tuned one to the point that he was getting about 500HP and 75 MPG running on gas. It is in the engine tuning. But most people won't want to accept the expense of keeping the engine in tune to that level.
Brakes in use just mean that you use the brakes to bleed off excess energy built up under throttle to slow/stop the car (or RV). With a manual transmission, an informed driver can improve on the performance of the vehicle so long as they practice the necessary skills all the time.
But, if I could take the wasted energy from braking heat (wasted energy) to another means to power the vehicle I'd go for it. I just don't know if the additional weight (for batteries) and carbon footprint (from manufacturing the batteries, recycling them, etc.) would be worth the tradeoff. I figure I'd come out about even to what I get with a good tune and maintenance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------