Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
Even looking at conventional gas engine huge gains have been made.
|
Of course. Sequential multi-port injection, and more recently direct injection, have done miracles regarding fuel-efficiency.
Quote:
|
Image the gains that could be made if we focused on fuel economy instead of making larger and larger cars with more and more power?
|
I usually point out the tax structure in my country which used to be tied to the power rating, and nowadays is tied to the displacement. A larger engine with a lower power and a greater low-end torque at reduced peak RPMs may sometimes be better than a marketing-oriented addiction to power.
Quote:
|
We are saying the same thing.
|
Look at this Opel Astra B, which was rebadged as a Chevrolet in my country. It was slotted at the same segment as the Cruze which became its replacement here.
Then take a look at the 2nd-generation Chevrolet Onix. Slightly longer and wider, yet at an immediately lower segment. The previous generation of the Onix, which is not really so smaller, is still available as a budget-oriented model.
Considering the Astra B was available here only with naturally-aspirated 1.8L and 2.0L engines, if someone told me 15 years ago I would see any car with roughly its same size and a naturally-aspirated 1.0L engine I wouldn't believe it, even though by then I was quite supportive of turbocharging a smaller engine due to the displacement-biased taxation.