View Single Post
Old 05-17-2022, 04:21 PM   #35 (permalink)
redpoint5
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,430

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - CBR600 - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - Dodge/Cummins - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)

Model Y - '24 Tesla Y LR AWD
Thanks: 4,206
Thanked 4,387 Times in 3,361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityRacer View Post
Thanks for that. So with room for 80% improvement which would bring us to an impossible 100% efficiency, what are we not focused on engine efficiency? Even if we improve combustion to 40% efficiency, we can double MPG. Why aren't we doing this?
Read the comment above, it answers your question.

Engine efficiency has continually been improved for over a century. The low hanging fruit (the easy stuff) has already been done, meaning every subsequent improvement is much more difficult. As an aside, combustion efficiency is somewhere around 40% now.

Diminishing returns applies to absolutely everything in the universe. Training to reduce a mile run from 20 minutes down to 10 minutes is relatively easy. Cutting it in half again to 5 minutes is extremely difficult and saves even less overall time in the process. It's 10x harder and yields half as much improvement.

"There are no solutions, only trade-offs" -Sowell
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!

Last edited by redpoint5; 05-17-2022 at 04:34 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to redpoint5 For This Useful Post:
mpgmike (05-17-2022)