+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 67
  1. #1
    Banned sharder8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Uh, Central Oregon
    Posts
    10,341
    Blog Entries
    2

    Exclamation VW Passat 78.5 MPG (Imperial gallon) 65.2 MPG US gallon in the Uk

    How many of you are aware of this? 70MPG Fords too???




    Harder

  2. #2
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Nope.

    Explanation from VW

    Here is what Mark Gillies explained about the situation. His title is: Manager, Product and Technology Communications, Volkswagen of America Inc.

    There are at least five things that factor in here.

    First, VW used to sell the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe here in the US. But it didn't sell very well. It was too expensive and too small in the mid-size sedan segment. So they came up with a larger version with a better price point; and of course the size effects the mileage. [Americans are not nearly so concerned with mileage as Europeans are.]

    Second, the way the US' EPA calculates mileage is different than the way the European equivalent does it. "The cycle is different," he said. The driving course and rigor set in the dynamometer is different. The fuel types used are different. The EPA estimates for diesel mileage tend to be lower than reality. For example, while the EPA says the Passat is 44 mpg, the Consumer Reports number comes in at 51 mpg.
    "The number for the combined US cycle for the US Passat is 35 mpg, whereas the same powertrain in a European Passat gets 61.2 mpg on the Euro cycle."
    Third, a US gallon (3.79 L) is less than an Imperial gallon (4.546 L).

    Fourth, the US government doesn't stipulate to an automobile company what vehicles they can and cannot sell, other than setting the regulations for things like emissions, with which the manufacturers are required to comply.

    Fifth, dealers are independent from VW and are not always aware of certain aspects of the auto business.

    This explanation seems rational to me, and accounts for the seeming discrepancy in mileage between the US Passat and the European Passat.
    Debunked: High-Mileage Vehicles Not Blocked from US Market

    (2 whole minutes looking into this. Never watched the video.)

  3. #3
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Wanna see something neat:
    Volkswagen XL1 Prototype Revealed by Naked Spyshots - autoevolution
    260+ MPG
    1700+lbs
    0-60 in 12 seconds

    As I have pointed out repeatedly over the past 10 years... we've made gobs of efficiency and churned out fatter faster vehicles. Leaner and slower will be the solution.

  4. #4
    Banned sharder8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Uh, Central Oregon
    Posts
    10,341
    Blog Entries
    2
    Growing up on the Canadian border in the '70's, I'm familiar with the Imperial gallon numbers game. And speed isn't my big thing, out here in the Cascades, power is.

    Funny thing is, when my Mazda B2200 had its front end ripped off in the parking lot, I ended up buying a '99 Mercury Mountaineer. When I bought it, I was told it was 2WD and though I would have preferred a 4x4 or AWD, the price and timing was right.

    I took it in for an oil change and the grease monkey comes out of the pit and tells me the front drive line is missing. Of course it is, it's a 2WD! No, the drive line is missing, you have a transfer case and a front diff., but no drive line. HUH?!? (Best millage I was getting was 15MPG.) Took it to my regular mech. and for $150, he put a drive line in. Now, I'm getting 15.6MPG.

    Glad I had it and did it last weekend, when I had to go to the in-laws and ran into a blizzard going over Santiam. I had no trouble with the mud and snow tires . . . but I watched a number of cars spin out in front of me.


    Harder

    BTW, we've had another 6" of snow over the last 72 hours on the hill, snow in the yard, and a total of 513" so far this year.

  5. #5
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sharder8 View Post
    BTW, we've had another 6" of snow over the last 72 hours on the hill, snow in the yard, and a total of 513" so far this year.
    Only 3" here so far this season. Not expecting much more.

  6. #6
    Banned sharder8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Uh, Central Oregon
    Posts
    10,341
    Blog Entries
    2
    We can see a foot + yet, before season ends. We were skiing on the 4th of July, last year.

    Fed's have already ordered solar and wind turbine farms to shut down several times this year. After coming to an agreement not to. Snow melt is causing high water releases through the hydro dams.


    Harder

  7. #7
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Quote Originally Posted by sharder8 View Post
    We can see a foot + yet, before season ends. We were skiing on the 4th of July, last year.

    Fed's have already ordered solar and wind turbine farms to shut down several times this year. After coming to an agreement not to. Snow melt is causing high water releases through the hydro dams.


    Harder
    I put my trellis up today for my snap peas, cucumbers, squash, beans, and tomatoes.

  8. #8
    RIP Jessica Francesca. paul9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Gateshead U.K.
    Posts
    12,460
    So you got a 4WD/AWD without the front driveshaft fitted as a 2WD?
    There must be a HUGE market on those conversions, as I would imagine the manufacturer charges a lot more than $150 premium on the 4WD model.

  9. #9
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,354
    Blog Entries
    2
    gomer,

    Are our emission standards based upon emissons per gallon? Do we disregard Mileage from the equation. In other words would a car that emitts 10% more than the EPA standard on a per gallon basis be banned from sale in the US regardless of the fact that it get 15% better mileage and ultimately puts out 5% less pollutants?

  10. #10
    Ultimate Member thephilosophizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Epidemic View Post
    gomer,

    Are our emission standards based upon emissons per gallon? Do we disregard Mileage from the equation. In other words would a car that emitts 10% more than the EPA standard on a per gallon basis be banned from sale in the US regardless of the fact that it get 15% better mileage and ultimately puts out 5% less pollutants?
    Emissions are rated per mile, not per gallon.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine

  11. #11
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ft. Drum, NY
    Posts
    22,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomer View Post
    Wanna see something neat:
    Volkswagen XL1 Prototype Revealed by Naked Spyshots - autoevolution
    260+ MPG
    1700+lbs
    0-60 in 12 seconds

    As I have pointed out repeatedly over the past 10 years... we've made gobs of efficiency and churned out fatter faster vehicles. Leaner and slower will be the solution.
    As for the tech side, only 23 percent of the car is made out of steel or iron, with the rest using special materials to keep the weight low. To be more precise, the vehicle tips the scales at 795 kg (1,750 lbs
    We could make cars out of titanium, magnesium, and carbon fiber and save a ton of weight. Anything is possible with limitless capital.

  12. #12
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Epidemic View Post
    gomer,

    Are our emission standards based upon emissons per gallon?
    No. Five seconds in Google will show you that they are based on grams emitted per mile.
    Do we disregard Mileage from the equation
    Yes.

    In other words would a car that emitts 10% more than the EPA standard on a per gallon basis be banned from sale in the US regardless of the fact that it get 15% better mileage and ultimately puts out 5% less pollutants?
    That seems like a stupid idea.

  13. #13
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Quote Originally Posted by The Real Bingo View Post
    We could make cars out of titanium, magnesium, and carbon fiber and save a ton of weight. Anything is possible with limitless capital.
    Or aluminum or plastic of which we have such limitless capital we throw away with reckless abandon.

    Or carbon fiber. Which is more of manufacturing problem than it is a raw materials problem. A manufacturing problem that VW is working strenuously to solve. A manufacturing problem which our government has a vested interest in helping to solve.

    What was it you were trying to provide a commentary on?

    Do you disagree that all of the large gains in efficiency we have made have gone into fatter faster vehicles?
    Last edited by Gomer; May 7th, 2012 at 09:12 PM.

  14. #14
    What? SoloCamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burning in Florida
    Posts
    15,217
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomer View Post
    Or aluminum or plastic of which we have such limitless capital we throw away with reckless abandon.

    Or carbon fiber. Which is more of manufacturing problem than it is a raw materials problem. A manufacturing problem that VW is working strenuously to solve. A manufacturing problem which our government has a vested interest in helping to solve.

    What was it you were trying to provide a commentary on?

    Do you disagree that all of the large gains in efficiency we have made have gone into fatter faster vehicles?
    I agree about carbon fiber (and feel this will be one of the big players in the next decade once they get a cheaper, more efficient manufacturing process down).

    However, cost cost cost. don't forsee any of the above being the norm anytime soon.

    However, regarding "fatter and faster" I agree on both, to some extent. Fatter, definitely and I've been asking that question since the 90's in my head... why do cars get bigger and bigger. Look at any eco car for a company when it's new, over the years it slowly gets upsized into a larger vehicle. Civic, corolla, etc all apply here.

    Secondly, faster yes? But to me it's because with efficiency comes increased power.

    If customers can get a 400hp mustang getting 30mpg, why would they want to drive a 140hp civic getting 35-40?
    Main PC: AMD FX-9590 / 16gb DDR3 2400 / AMD R9 290X @ 1100 Core & 1350mhz Mem / Win7 Pro 64bit
    Linux Boxr: AMD FX-8120/ 4gb DDR3 1866/ Nvidia GTS450/ Ubuntu 12.04
    Laptop: HP-Compaq nc8430/ Intel CoreDuo T2400 / 2gb DDR2 667/ Ati x1600 / WinXP Pro 32bit

  15. #15
    Fact Checker Gomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Barely DC
    Posts
    10,095
    Quote Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post
    However, regarding "fatter and faster" I agree on both, to some extent. Fatter, definitely and I've been asking that question since the 90's in my head... why do cars get bigger and bigger. Look at any eco car for a company when it's new, over the years it slowly gets upsized into a larger vehicle. Civic, corolla, etc all apply here.

    Secondly, faster yes? But to me it's because with efficiency comes increased power.

    If customers can get a 400hp mustang getting 30mpg, why would they want to drive a 140hp civic getting 35-40?


    All of our advances in technology have gone into more HP and faster cars. More HP = more weight (in rough terms). Reverse the trend of either line (0-60 is simple) and MPG will follow!


    I'm sure you have read this from me before:
    Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did 0-60 in 14 seconds.

    Forty years ago, a coveted sports sedan did 0-60 in 11 seconds.

    The Accord does 0-60 in 9 seconds. That's only 2.5 seconds more than a '68 Vette with a 427 big-block V8. That Accord hits a top speed of over 84 MPH in the quarter mile!

    That 177 HP Accord is the slowest in their lineup! That's supposed to be an average miserly econobox in the US.

    The entire spectrum has shifted from muscle cars through econoboxes.Even the econoboxes are hotrods any more by previous standards. That's why they've gotten heavier as well.

    Maybe you haven't read this before, but I've been posting it for years:

    Here is the problem and the solution for manufacturers to meet the new CAFE standards. Reverse the trend of either line (0-60 is simple) and MPG will follow!
    Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2008 | Cars and Light Trucks | US EPA

    ESPN Page 2 - Easterbrook: Chicken run
    Hold Your Horsepower: Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, "Now that the gasoline price crunch is over " Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America's petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs -- according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.


    Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade -- as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones -- eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it's that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage -- rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

    Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac's new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford's new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn't a sports car, it's a family car! Toyota's new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti's 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac's 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the "combined" numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car's MPG and greenhouse numbers here.

    Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don't buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds -- the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8.The new Camry and Honda's comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won't be pushed in the company's home market of Japan. There, the IS-F's road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak's numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

    Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don't reply, "No one can tell me what I can drive." Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property -- there, horsepower is nobody's business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody's business. You'd be laughed at if you asserted a "right" to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the "right" to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

    Meanwhile, all the talk lately has been about getting drivers into hypothesized future vehicles that might get excellent mileage, such as plug-in hybrids. Even assuming such cars someday are in showrooms, the payoff is greater for getting people out of low-mileage vehicles right now, because low-mileage vehicles are disproportionate consumers of fuel. Assume an average year of 12,000 miles traveled. The driver who trades in a 15 MPG SUV or high-horsepower car for a 20 MPG standard-engine full-size car would reduce fuel use by 200 gallons. The driver who trades in a 20 MPG full-size car for a 25 MPG midsize would reduce fuel use by 120 gallons. The driver who trades in a 25 MPG midsize for a 30 MPG compact would cut fuel use by 80 gallons. The driver who trades in a 30 MPG compact for a 35 MPH current-technology hybrid would save 60 gallons. And the driver who trades in a 35 MPG current-technology hybrid for a 40 MPG advanced plug-in hybrid would save 40 gallons. By far the best oil-reduction bang for the buck lies in people giving up large SUVs, pickup trucks used for commuting, plus any type of overpowered vehicle, in favor of driving regular cars. The math is presented in detail in this paper by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University. This suggests that instead of tax policy being focused on credits for buyers of high-mileage hybrids, and federal subsidies being focused on the development of high-mileage hypothesized future designs, tax policy should reward those who junk SUVs in order to buy regular cars. Tax programs to encourage drivers to junk old high-polluting automobiles were successful, so a junk-your-SUV program might work, too.
    and from over 6 years ago (again, Easterbrook):
    As far as the Constitution lays it out, you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. You certainly don't have a right to drive an SUV. Yet people say this--for instance Senator Kit Bond of Missouri has declared that "government should not interfere with the people's right" to buy the largest SUVs. What right? And is there any chance this will become an issue in the fall presidential campaign?

    Perhaps the most tiresome defense of the SUV is, "No one can tell me what I can drive." But, of course, government can tell you what you can drive and has been doing so for years. The Bill of Rights creates two specially protected areas of possessions: militia arms and just about anything--newspapers, magazines, books, movies, tickets to live performances--connected with political or artistic expression. But there's no constitutional right to own devices society thinks you shouldn't have (burglar tools, for example) or substances society thinks you shouldn't have (dynamite, anthrax spores) or to operate machines that pose threats to others (you need a license to fly a plane or drive a bulldozer, and these licenses are hard to obtain). All kinds of products and purchases are regulated by law, and courts generally uphold such laws so long as they are reasonably related to the public good.

    The idea that there's a right to own a monstrous personal conveyance that wastes gasoline, causes road rage, and, most significantly from the public-good standpoint, increases traffic fatalities, is nonsense. (See the road-fatalities argument in detail here; studies show that SUVs not only raise total highway deaths, but that even those inside SUVs are more likely to die than those inside regular cars.) There's no doubt government has the power to regulate motor vehicles for public safety, pollution reduction, national energy policy, and for other issues appropriate to the general good. That government has largely failed to do so in the case of SUVs and the misnamed "light" pickup trucks is the fault of government, especially the Congress. The failure to regulate does not mean there is any inherent right to own unsafe mega-vehicles; it only means government has not regulated such machines properly. There was a time when government did not regulate private commerce in machine guns; this did not confer any protected right to own machine guns.

    If you wanted to buy a Hummer or an Escalade, put it up on blocks in your backyard, and use it for parties, that would be nobody's business but your own. If you want to drive that vehicle on public roads, creating peril for others, then it becomes the public's business. All kinds of rules have been passed regarding what can be operated on public roads, and courts have upheld these rules. In the cases of SUVs and pickup trucks, Congress has simply failed to enact adequate rules. (SUVs and pickup trucks are held to lower MPG standards than regular cars, or are exempt from fuel standards altogether; they do not have to meet the pollution-control standards applied to regular cars till 2009; lower safety standards apply to SUVs and pickup trucks.) It's time that changed.

    Set aside the aesthetics of the SUV and the mega-pickup--most new pickup trucks are used as cars, not for commercial or work purposes. Think only of the fuel consumption. In 2003, new regular cars averaged 24.8 miles per gallon, new SUVs averaged 17.8 miles per gallon, and new pickups averaged 16.8 miles per gallon, according to Bush administration figures. And these are just "laboratory standards" of fuel consumption--calculations based on extremely unrealistic tests in which SUVs and pickups are accelerated gently with their air-conditioners turned off, and never, ever driven above the speed limit. Real-world fuel economy is usually about 20 percent less than the official government number, suggesting the real-world MPG of new SUVs is a pathetic 14 miles per gallon.

    With heavy SUVs and pickup trucks now accounting for 48 percent of new vehicle sales, buyers racing to these guzzlers have caused a huge increase in U.S. petroleum consumption, and hence increased the political power of the Persian Gulf oil states. Consider that if new 2003 vehicles averaged the same weight and zero-to-60 performance as new 1981 vehicles--more on horsepower in a moment--overall mileage of new vehicles would be about one-third higher. Let's do the calculation. About 9 million new passenger vehicles were sold in 2003; raising their fuel efficiency by one-third would have jumped the official overall number from 24 MPG to 32 MPG. The typical vehicle is driven 12,000 miles per year, so that extra MPG would have saved 125 gallons per year per vehicle, or about 1.1 billion gallons of gasoline. Since a barrel of petroleum yields about 20 gallons, about 55 million barrels of oil would have been saved.

    Perhaps you think, aha! With U.S. petroleum demand at 19 million barrels per day, this MPG initiative has avoided only three day's worth of oil use. Yes--in the first year, no mileage jump has much effect. But the following year, with two model years' worth of vehicles at the higher MPG, 110 million barrels of oil are avoided. The next year 165 million barrels, the next year 220 million and so on. Each year a larger share of cars on the road are efficient. In just the fifth year of this initiative, 825 million barrels of petroleum consumption would be avoided. And that is approximately the amount the United States imports each year from the Persian Gulf oil states. (Note to econ majors: Yes, this is a simplified calculation that does not include the effects higher MPG might have on auto and oil markets.)

    Thus sharply reducing and perhaps even nearly eliminating U.S. dependence on Gulf State oil isn't a pipe dream; it is practical in a decade if federal MPG standards for all vehicles are raised by about one-third. This, in turn, is a goal the National Academy of Sciences has called feasible using current technology. So what are we waiting for?

    Horsepower note: Because the overall MPG of new vehicles in the United States has not risen in 15 years, people tend to assume Detroit has made no progress on engine and drivetrain efficiency. In fact, auto and SUV engines have gotten much more efficient in the last two decades, it's just that all the engineering improvements have gone into higher horsepower and more weight, not into MPG.

    From 1981 to 2003, average horsepower of new vehicles rose 93 percent, average weight rose 24 percent, average zero-to-60 acceleration rose 29 percent, andmileage rose 1 Percent.HERE! Today's cars, SUVs, and pickups have much more powerful engines and significantly more acceleration than their counterparts of two decades ago. If the engine engineering that makes possible significantly more acceleration and horsepower were instead directed into fuel efficiency, cars, SUVs, and pickups could still be big and roomy, yet use far less gasoline. Why isn't this simple fact on the table in American politics? Surely not because anyone seriously believes there is a "right" to a high-horsepower engine!

    Cars need decent acceleration to merge or pass, but today's average car has more acceleration than necessary for any non-road-rage purpose. High horsepower is used for speeding, drag-racing from stoplights, and cutting other drivers off, all antisocial purposes. The antisocial nature of the power in some new cars borders on obscene. The Porsche Cayenne Turbo (450 horsepower), Mercedes S55 AMG (493 horsepower and a "worst" rating from the EPA on greenhouse gases) and Jaguar S-Type R (390 horsepower) are among cars that do zero to 60 in less than 6 seconds, which is racetrack acceleration. Even some affordable, mainstream new cars such as the Acura TL (270 horsepower) have this kind of hostile super-speed. In real-world conditions, such speed is used solely to cut other drivers off--and to waste fuel, making the Saudis smile!

  16. #16
    Onii-san Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    11,423
    Those heavier cars are also a lot safer. If you throw out all of the safety equipment from today's vehicles that were not available in the past, the weight would be a lot closer.

    On one of the Fifth Gear (I think it was Fifth Gear, but may have been FDL or a half dozen other car shows I watch) episodes they talked with one of the engineers from Toyota asking them what the biggest hurdle was when designing the new Toyo-baru (This was a while back, before the prototype had even been shown) when it came to weight savings. The engineer said that if they add nothing to the car but just safety equipment (No A/C, radio, power steering, interior upholstery, ect...) and basically just had the bare essentials just to make the car drivable, they would only be a couple hundred pounds under their weight goal for the car. They originally wanted the car to only weight 2600lbs, but because of the new mandatory safety regulations that were introduced during the time the car was being designed, they ended up only being able to get the car down to a little over 2800lbs to be able to keep it at the price point they wanted. (And even then the price is $2,000 more than what they first announced). Car companies would love to strip out all of the safety equipment for their sports cars to make them light and affordable but the government won't let them.

    Mazda decided to sacrifice the A/C in the RX8 to save weight so they installed a tiny wimpy ass compressor that only blew mildly cool air.

    As for the horsepower thing, nother way to look at it is that it has increased without mileage decreasing, and in many cases both horsepower and mileage have increased. If you detune an engine to reduce horsepower, you are also going to lower the mileage as it will no longer run as efficiently. If you put a tiny under powered engine in a vehicle, that engine will have to work harder and may end up burning more fuel just to keep the same speed as a higher horsepower engine.

    My old F150 had the under powered V6. The EPA rating was less than the V8 (By only about 2mpg average I think), but in the real world the V6s actually got worse mileage than the V8s, especially when it came to towing. When driving 70mph down the highway, I had to keep the accelerator pressed at least half way just to stay at speed. I would average 14-15mpg per tank. On F150 bulletin boards and fuel sites, other people were averaging the same with the V6 Extended CAB 2WD, however the V8 Extended Cab 2WD trucks were averaging closer to 19-20mpg. During towing, the V6 mileage would drop into the single digits while the V8 would stay in the double digits, even while towing heavier loads.

    The new Camry V6s are rated only 1mpg less in the city and equal the mpg on the highway as the new 200hp 4 Banger 2800lb FR-S/GT-86/BRZ. That is a 268hp V6 powered car weighing 3450lbs getting almost identical epa ratings as a 200hp i4 powered car weighing over 600lbs less.

    The reason why? They had to gear the FR-S/BR-Z/GT-86 transmission will really short gears to get it to accelerate at a decent rate since it was a sports car (Even then it is still slower than the Camry) and because of that it cruises along at around 4,000rpms at 70mph while the Camry cruises along at only 2,000rpms. An engine that makes more power, but isn't worked as hard will be more fuel efficient than an engine that makes less power but has to work harder.

    I am not disagreeing with your points Gomer, I just wanted to say that it isn't always as simple as just cutting the horsepower and cutting weight. There are a lot of other factors to take into consideration. You can tell a car company to put in a smaller engine to save on gas, but unless they also put in a more efficient transmission, make the engine more efficient through higher compression/direct injection/variable valve timing/ect..., and make the car more aerodynamic they won't get the mileage gain that you would be hoping for just by lowering the horsepower and reducing weight.
    Last edited by Bizkitkid2001; May 8th, 2012 at 02:22 AM.
    One by one the penguins steal my sanity.

    TechIMO Folding@home Team #111 - Crunching for the cure!

  17. #17
    Living the dream The Real Bingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ft. Drum, NY
    Posts
    22,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomer View Post
    Or aluminum or plastic of which we have such limitless capital we throw away with reckless abandon.

    Or carbon fiber. Which is more of manufacturing problem than it is a raw materials problem. A manufacturing problem that VW is working strenuously to solve. A manufacturing problem which our government has a vested interest in helping to solve.
    All that stuff is still more expensive than steel.

    What was it you were trying to provide a commentary on?
    How your grand dreams of lightweight efficient cars will probably be too pricey for the average person. Chevy Volt ring a bell?

    Do you disagree that all of the large gains in efficiency we have made have gone into fatter faster vehicles?
    Not entirely. Obviously not with manufacturers that make diesels and hybrids and small, efficient cars (which is almost every manufacturer).

  18. #18
    What? SoloCamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burning in Florida
    Posts
    15,217
    Blog Entries
    4
    What I see as a big player, (Ford ecoboost anyone) is turbo's being standard on vehicles that had higher displacement.
    Main PC: AMD FX-9590 / 16gb DDR3 2400 / AMD R9 290X @ 1100 Core & 1350mhz Mem / Win7 Pro 64bit
    Linux Boxr: AMD FX-8120/ 4gb DDR3 1866/ Nvidia GTS450/ Ubuntu 12.04
    Laptop: HP-Compaq nc8430/ Intel CoreDuo T2400 / 2gb DDR2 667/ Ati x1600 / WinXP Pro 32bit

  19. #19
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,354
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by thephilosophizer View Post
    Emissions are rated per mile, not per gallon.
    if that is the case then why doesn't Ford, GM, Toyota reap the benefit of selling efficient cars?

    if there is no legal impedement to selling efficient european style cars here in the USA?

    could it be there is not a big market for them? If ford, tomorrows decided to become the premier economy box maker throwing trucks on the back burner would they become wildly successful?

  20. #20
    What? SoloCamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burning in Florida
    Posts
    15,217
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomer View Post
    All of our advances in technology have gone into more HP and faster cars. More HP = more weight (in rough terms). Reverse the trend of either line (0-60 is simple) and MPG will follow!

    I'm sure you have read this from me before:
    Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did 0-60 in 14 seconds.

    Forty years ago, a coveted sports sedan did 0-60 in [B]11 seconds.
    To correct a few things here...

    More SAFETY and features = more weight = more power to compensate for the weight.

    Ever drive a 14 second to 60 vehicle? I'm glad those cars are long gone.

    Reducing power doesn't necessarily result in better gas mileage. But as was pointed out by Bizkit, you've got to be on the throttle more to get any sort of acceleration. More engine wear, just as much fuel consumed if not more.

    It's driving styles that need to change. The government control that. Speed limits aren't the concern, it's the acceration to that speed limit. If a guy has to practically redline his little civic to kee up on the highway, he will be getting similar numbers to a new base corvette cruising along at less than 2k rpm.

    We need to focus on aerodynamics, and weight savings. Power levels are fine where they are.

    Now keep this in mind, I currently drive a 1997 model Corolla w/ a 1.8L (about 200k on the clock) and average atleast 30mpg.

    The car also weighs a bit less than the newer models and doesn't have all the bloat. Yet the new ones, still get better mpg, and still are a lot faster with increased displacement. If we can get them lighter, and more aerodynamic with more efficient trasmissions, that will make way more noticeable improves than dropping the hp down.

    What I don't understand is why people are STILL not adopting the tradition diesel turbo car. They have come a long way, offer great reliability gas mleage (comparable if not better in some cases) to hybrids, and generally still move much faster down the highway when needed.
    Last edited by SoloCamo; May 8th, 2012 at 08:43 AM.
    Main PC: AMD FX-9590 / 16gb DDR3 2400 / AMD R9 290X @ 1100 Core & 1350mhz Mem / Win7 Pro 64bit
    Linux Boxr: AMD FX-8120/ 4gb DDR3 1866/ Nvidia GTS450/ Ubuntu 12.04
    Laptop: HP-Compaq nc8430/ Intel CoreDuo T2400 / 2gb DDR2 667/ Ati x1600 / WinXP Pro 32bit

Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above.

What planet do we live on?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. GM Wants $1.00 a Gallon Additonal Taxes
    By Chuckiechan in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 7th, 2011, 10:45 PM
  2. What will you do when gas hits $10.00 a gallon?
    By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: June 9th, 2008, 09:23 PM
  3. IF $4.00/Gallon of gas happens will you change your habits?
    By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 04:46 PM
  4. sacramento gas 1.67 a gallon
    By Omardeth in forum IMO Community
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: December 16th, 2004, 07:06 PM
  5. Gas at $3.19 @ gallon. Can't wait for summer!
    By Bill in SD, CA in forum IMO Community
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 14th, 2003, 04:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc