Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-25-2008, 10:57 PM   #41 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,907

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,950 Times in 1,844 Posts
Hi,

Now I understand what you are saying -- the barfing GIF tells me nothing.

I think the 1.3 would be a fine engine (100HP) vs the 1.5 (120HP):

New 2008 Honda Jazz - detailed preview | bkkAutos.com

And I think you're wrong about the relative economy:

Quote:
The Japanese Fit offers two engine options, the most interesting being the high revving 1.3 litre i-VTEC. This is a newly developed engine that employes drive-by-wire, and "enhanced intake performance" which allows it to produce around 100 hp. The engine also allows for only one of the two intake valves (per cylinder) to be used while the engine is at low RPMs in order to save fuel. This combination allows it to achieve around 24 km/l (according to Honda).

We probably won't see that engine in Thailand, but why not? Honda are probably going to drop the i-DSI from the range, and if they do, then this engine would be a nice replacement, offering more performance, and better fuel economy.

The other Japanese engine is the 1.5 litre i-VTEC, which is also a new development of the current i-VTEC unit used in Thailand. The new engine offers up around 120 hp, an increase of 10 hp from the current model, and due to improvements in efficiency 19 km/l is the claimed efficiency.
[emphasis is mine]

A difference of 5km/liter is fairly significant -- about 25% better!!

I'm interested also in the CVT-7 transmission:
Road Tests: Honda Jazz and CVT-7

It looks like 55-60mpg in the new fit would be easily achievable with the 1.3 liter and the CVT-7 transmission. I'll take it -- unless the hybrid version gets even higher mileage!

__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-26-2008, 10:02 AM   #42 (permalink)
38 time NHRA/IHRA Champ
 
ATaylorRacing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 305
Thanks: 1
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
The emissions testing is relatively easy for the car makers to do, but the crash testing is the part that starts making our cars heavier an thirstier than the same model overseas. Look at the tiny Smart car..41 mpg...my 98 Neon would do that all day and have lots more room. Even my beloved Chrysler was thinking of importing the China made Cherry and the first thing they talked about doing is adding a ton of standard items so it would be more liked by the public.....JUST build it PLAIN JANE and ofer us option packages. If I had a car co I'd do all I could to build no frill cars that would offer a/c as the main option and a cvt as the second. The Cherry was going to be under $10,000 but they said no one would buy them like that....WRONG. The US auto companies could also build some kick butt economy cars if they thought they would sell. No reason why the SRT4 Caliber with 285 hp 42.4 4 banger could be redesigned as a 2 cylinder with 142 hp. The Neon was killed off to make this vehicle. Wt is a big factor....my 98 Neon was 2500 lbs while my 05 is 2990, the caliber is heavier yet.
__________________
42 time NHRA/IHRA drag race champ

05 SRT4-12.17@117 mph on DOTs-31.0 mpg-SOLD
96 Geo Metro-3 banger-60.1 mpg-SOLD
95 BMW M3-13.41 @ 106 mph-31mpg-SOLD
77 Chevy Monza with 350/350-FOR SALE
84 Horizon-1880 lbs-29 mpg
95 Neon-43 mpg
99 Z28-10.80 @ 127 mph-27.1mpg
2011 Prius-62.1 wife's
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:06 AM   #43 (permalink)
38 time NHRA/IHRA Champ
 
ATaylorRacing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 305
Thanks: 1
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
One more rant here.....my 06 Scion Xb is very peppy (17.1 1/4 at 50) and gets 36 (EPA 35) hiway....the new Scion was designed as bigger everything and its hiway is what mine is city rated at....they are ruining the Xb.
__________________
42 time NHRA/IHRA drag race champ

05 SRT4-12.17@117 mph on DOTs-31.0 mpg-SOLD
96 Geo Metro-3 banger-60.1 mpg-SOLD
95 BMW M3-13.41 @ 106 mph-31mpg-SOLD
77 Chevy Monza with 350/350-FOR SALE
84 Horizon-1880 lbs-29 mpg
95 Neon-43 mpg
99 Z28-10.80 @ 127 mph-27.1mpg
2011 Prius-62.1 wife's
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:08 AM   #44 (permalink)
38 time NHRA/IHRA Champ
 
ATaylorRacing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 305
Thanks: 1
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Sorry...should have been 17.1 at 80 mph, the V6 Voyager we traded in for it ran 17.4s and in real world driving "felt" quicker then the Xb.
__________________
42 time NHRA/IHRA drag race champ

05 SRT4-12.17@117 mph on DOTs-31.0 mpg-SOLD
96 Geo Metro-3 banger-60.1 mpg-SOLD
95 BMW M3-13.41 @ 106 mph-31mpg-SOLD
77 Chevy Monza with 350/350-FOR SALE
84 Horizon-1880 lbs-29 mpg
95 Neon-43 mpg
99 Z28-10.80 @ 127 mph-27.1mpg
2011 Prius-62.1 wife's
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:58 AM   #45 (permalink)
Box Dreamer
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 154

xB Commuter - '04 Scion xB
90 day: 40.76 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Regarding to xB, I believe Toyota has listened our owner opinion. Remember when we first buy xB1, we love it so much, but still have some complaints, like slow acceleration, noisy, choppy ride and small trunk. Toyota listened all and improved by adding bigger engine and extending the car length. However, xB2 is not what we want. I believe most people want 1.8L corolla engine instead 2.4L for better acceleration and similar FE. Some people may like to have turbo version for racing. We want bigger trunk, but we don't want a foot longer. In fact, half of the extra length goes to the engine bay for bigger engine. Anyway, the result is no more choppy ride, which is good. Sometimes, automakers listen what's bad about their cars, but don't keep what's good about it.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 12:25 PM   #46 (permalink)
Recycling Nazi
 
Bror Jace's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: People's Republic of Albany
Posts: 234

Blue Bullet - '06 Honda Civic Sedan LX
90 day: 35.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Arrow

” … to reclaim a turf we had formally enjoyed (Vega, Pinto, etc) and since relinquished.”

Reclaim turf we enjoyed?? I just don’t see it.

No one I know ‘enjoyed’ cars like the Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, Pacer, Maverick, etc … These cars were Detroit’s wrong answer to the question posed by new imports such as Saabs, Datsuns, Mazdas, BMW 2002s and Volkswagon Beetles and Golfs … which were pretty decent cars in their day. The Detroit economy cars weren’t. But why not?

A big problem with Detroit is that for many decades, all they wanted to build were medium and large family sedans: large, soft but often clunky cars using 40s and 50s technology with various amounts of upholstery and chrome. Their culture centered around this idea. These were good, respectable cars bought by the typical American family: Mom, Dad and their 2.3 beautiful, blonde kids. The big three also produced trucks … honest, big work vehicles for hard working blue collar men … real MANLY men, not the emoting, metrosexual sissies of today.

What about other cars, like sports cars?

Well, those are bought mainly by arrogant, irresponsible young men. IF they survive and mature into a respectable family man, we’ll sell them a family sedan down the road. For now, let them zip around in those tiny, lightweight death traps … and probably kill themselves. There’s more money to be made mass producing bland family sedans than tiny snob-mobiles for people with short lives.

(Don’t forget that the Corvette was nearly killed off several times, the Thunderbird ‘matured’ into just another heavyweight family sedan and there were bigwigs in Detroit’s boardrooms that loathed muscle cars and the car companies’ involvement in racing: Drag racing, NASCAR, etc …)

So, what about economy cars … like they have in Europe and Asia?

Ha! Those countries are all losers. That’s what they get for starting two world wars. Their economies are always on the brink of ruin … or socialism … which is about the same thing. It’s THEIR problem that they are designing their way of life around shoeboxes with wheels.

The gas crisis of the 70s was seen as a minor speed bump in the expressway devoted to the family sedan … and let later the big, heavier “cooler” SUV. (and low gas prices in the 80s and 90s fuel this perception) The automakers did feel compelled, however, to make economy cars starting in the 70s … which were affronts to the engineering gods. They were essentially large, obsolescent vehicles scaled down … and not surprisingly, that just didn’t work. Their heart just wasn’t into it. They produced these with a grudge against them. After all, no decent person would want to drive little cars, they only do so out of necessity … until they can afford a ‘respectable’ car like a Caprice or LTD. With this mentality, they produced hundreds of thousands of lemons before they quit and began re-badging imports.

Fast forward to today, the Big 3 are still scrambling to put together a small car that can compete with the companies they spent decades laughing at. With all their resources and global platforms available to them, they have a chance to finally succeed … but until then I’ll enjoy my 2006 Civic.

jamesqf seems to blame all of the problem on the Big 3 (as I have seemingly done above) but don’t forget, the car companies had willing partners in the ignorant, unthinking motoring public throughout all this. Plenty of blame to go around …
__________________
--- Bror Jace
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 04:56 PM   #47 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave View Post
People have also come to dislike a semi-reclined seating position and many don't care to do yoga to get in and out of them. This dictates a rather tall vehicle.
Who's "people"? Not the purchasers of Minis, Miatas, Porsches, BMW Z5s... or for that matter Teslas :-) Those are the people who might buy a similar US-made car, if the automakers bothered to offer such. Then there's the whole aftermarket of lowered cars...
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 05:32 PM   #48 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Briggsdale, Colorado
Posts: 296

Wildfire - '96 Ford Bronco XL
90 day: 14.88 mpg (US)

Blackford - '96 Ford Bronco XLT
90 day: 20.26 mpg (US)

Y2k - '00 Honda Insight
Gen-1 Insights
Team Honda
90 day: 73.98 mpg (US)

Redford V10 - '01 Ford F250 Lariat
90 day: 15.64 mpg (US)

FireFly - '00 Honda Insight DX
90 day: 69.43 mpg (US)

LittleRed - '00 Honda Insight
Thanks: 3
Thanked 31 Times in 14 Posts
Because the US's priority is emissions first fuel economy second, whereas every other country in the world, the priority is FE first.

Kinda wierd considering that a very fuel efficient car puts out far less greenhouse gases than a gas guzzler, even though they share the same smog standard. SO, if my car puts out an ounce of gases a year, and a gas guzzler puts 100 tons, AND if my car fails the test by .00001, and his passes by .00001, he wins, I lose. I would be the polluter and he'd be the "green guy".

Makes sense?
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 06:38 PM   #49 (permalink)
Addicted
 
bbjsw10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Findlay,OH
Posts: 555

bbjsw10 - '91 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 51.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99metro View Post
Because the US's priority is emissions first fuel economy second, whereas every other country in the world, the priority is FE first.
Funny part about this too is We the USA are one of the biggest producers of air pollution. Kinda ironic.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:05 PM   #50 (permalink)
EcoModding Dilatant
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 262

Volvo - '00 Volvo V70 XC AWD SE
90 day: 27.7 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 27 Times in 17 Posts
Sure are a lot of detailed reasons listed here why Americans can't get good small cars, but they all pale to insignificance to the One True Reason: Big cars make more profit for the carmakers than small cars.

Also, Americans will buy big cars, Europeans won't.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article: Want cars to eat less? Put 'em on a diet MetroMPG General Efficiency Discussion 34 07-14-2013 01:38 AM
Excel PROVES why oil companies do not want more FE cars capn The Lounge 10 03-13-2010 11:24 AM
eBay: Zemco FE computer for carb'd cars (not mine) AndrewJ For Sale 1 06-18-2008 12:47 PM
Good cheap project cars ebacherville Aerodynamics 13 05-08-2008 12:04 PM
Basic EcoDriving Techniques and Instrumentation SVOboy Instrumentation 2 11-17-2007 11:38 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com