Direct-injected 2 stroke engines can be made nearly as clean as a 4 stroke engine. Current direct injected 2 stroke outboards pass all the same emissions that the 4 strokes do, they use no more gas than the 4 strokes do, and they weigh less. The only problem with modern 2 strokes is they are stuck with the reputation they have earned as dirty oil burners.

Around here anyways, nearly all the tournament fisherman use 2 strokes still, simply because they are lighter(in turn faster) and get just as good of mileage as the 4 strokes.

As for 4 strokes taking over in dirt bikes, that has as much to do with politics (and 2 stroke reputation) as it does with anything. The 4 strokes are easier to ride, and therefore most riders can ride harder for longer with the 4 stroke. On the other hand, 2 strokes have better power to weight ratio, and a talented rider will be faster on them (notice the freestyle guys still use 2 strokes). The big problem there is the 4 strokes are more expensive/time consuming to own and maintain than the 2 strokes were.

If someone were to spend the time and money on 2 stroke engine technology that has been spent on 4 stroke engines, they would absolutely be as clean, get as good of mileage, and have a better power to weight ratio. I wouldn't count on it happening though.

Quite right, I mistyped. I meant to say a broad shift to all-electric vehicles, not hybrids. Although the argument could still apply if plug-in hybrids ever became very popular, which could conceivably happen rather quickly, say, if the cost of battery technology quickly came down in price, making them cost competitive with gasoline-powered cars. Or, say, gasoline prices skyrocketed again and recharging at home made more financial sense than burning gasoline to charge the battery.

As more people begin looking at and purchasing electric/hybrid vehicles, will the cost of the high tech batteries go down or up? As I understand, the materials for these batteries is not cheap.

I don't see it happening unless things get drastic. The longest range I've seen for a totally electric vehicle is 320 miles for the new model Tesla. For daily driving only (i.e. to work & shopping afterward then home) an electric would be useable but it would mean having to have two vehicles w/ expenses (tags, insurance, & maintenance) if you wanted to travel very far. Depending on which direction, this wouldn't get a lot of us out of the state.

Charging would depend on your driving habits (distance, speed, & time of day). If you work first or second shift, you would be able to charge it in the early morning when power is cheaper & demand is down. It would make the most sense to use 220v single phase. It's faster & more efficient than 110v plus most residences already have 220v service and should have room in the breaker box. Ideally, a higher voltage with three phase would be used except it means more work and expense to install (definitely a possibility for a fleet or if the facility already has three phase).

IIRC electricity is already cheaper than gas if you only look at the "fuel" required to travel a distance. The difference is in the equipment. I don't know what the Chevy or Nissan cars use, but for 110v, the Prius charges @ 110v 12Amp in three hours using a standard plug.

What I suspect will happen is that prices will remain fairly constant as battery technology improves. The technology of today (I originally wrote current-generation, which was too awful an inadvertent pun to continue with) will get much cheaper, but the EV and hybrid manufacturers will continue to innovate and look for ways to increase storage density and reduce weight and cost.

At some point, and I don't know when, we'll reach a plateau in energy density and weight. When that happens, if we're still using expensive commodities, demand will start to drive up prices.

I don't work in the battery business, the rare-metals-commodity business, or the automotive industry, so take my opinion as being that of a car enthusiast rather than any sort of expert.

For myself, I would have LOST MY FREAKING MIND today if I were driving a slow EV or hybrid. My friends' kid broke her arm and I was elected to go screaming off to the ER with her. She has a medical history that demanded urgent transport, and nobody wanted to wait for the paramedics. Hybrids and EVs will need to be a lot more economical, with greater payload and significantly better performance before I would consider one.

slow hybrid? I have put over 150,000 miles on my Prius, and I can exceed the freeway speed limit just like everyone else. When the freeway turns into a parking lot, I am not idling away my fuel.

You do have a point. I have seen analyses that demonstrate it is more economical to buy a Yaris, which has good fuel economy, rather than a hybrid. After 200,000 miles, you will be money ahead.

You must have slow paramedics. Even with the current budget crunch, around here the response times is right at 5 minutes, and their transport is infinitely safer than that in any civilian car.

The only time Toyota hybrids are poor on performance is if you try to stay in electric mode while accelerating. The current model Camry Hybrid is listed at 200HP. This falls between the four cylinder with 170HP and the 6 cylinder with 248HP.

Have a co worker with a Prius and his would accelerate and drive fine,wasn't any slower than any other car. Supposed to be pretty safe too, the steel around and supporting the weight of the batteries is pretty strong so it adds strength to the body.
I still won't have a front wheel drive without a frame, I moved close enough to work that if gas gets too high I can just walk.

I have been saying that for years. We could almost go single-fuel in this country - diesel. IIRC, it is easier and cheaper to produce.

Blast, you can correct me if I am wrong.

As a side note: I wondered why Jeep did not put a small diesel in the Wrangler when they were owned by Daimler. I think that would have been the way to go. Then again, look at how long it took them to add two doors to it. But, I digress.

From what I've been told, a Wrangler diesel is still in the plans. As is a diesel version of the Grand Cherokee. Finally, we're also going to see a diesel version of the half-ton Ram relatively soon.

Unfortunately, diesels aren't really Fiat/Chrysler's focus right now. They are more worried about getting their small cars competitive. With looming CAFE standards overhead, they can't just rely on truck and SUV sales.

If you want a diesel car, GM has a diesel version of the Cruze coming out within the next few months. Rumor is, this is going to be GM's test of the viability of diesel vehicles in the U.S. market. If it sells, we'll see more, if it doesn't, they'll stick with development of hybrids/electric/small displacement turbo engines exclusively.

It's expected that fuel economy costs for the Cruze Diesel will be similar to their current Cruze Eco (depending on gas/diesel prices where you live), but at a greater starting MSRP. The only real advantage would then be greater horsepower/torque over the Cruze Eco, which is kind of an anemic vehicle to drive.