Does it frustrate you too?
....when you see new SUVs that have factory MPG ratings as good as older compact cars?
My current car: 98 Grand AM GT, 5spd manual, 2.4L - 20/30/24 Previous car: 94 Galant GS, 5spd manual, 2.4L - 19/27/22 Both of these cars would be considered compacts or smaller midsize cars (my Grand AM is a coupe, so it is very small), and I have certainly sacrificed trunk space and interior space for the sake of MPGs by owning both of these vehicles... Now, take a look at just a couple of the new SUVs on the market.... 2012 Hyundai Tucson 2WD, 6spd AUTO, 2.4L - 22/32/25 2011 JEEP Compass 2WD, 5spd manual, 2.5L - 23/28/25 2011 Chevy Equinox FWD, 6spd auto, 2.4L - 22/32/26 Why is it that some of these newer SUVs are getting better FE than older model compact cars? Is a 6 speed slushbox really better than a 5spd manual? Obviously I only listed 2wd SUVs, but even the 4wd SUVs are basically on par with the cars I've owned. I would call it mildly irritating at the LEAST, when I am cruising along :turtle: at 10 under the speed limit on the highway in my compact car without A/C and a new SUV flies by me at 70 MPH ++ and is probably getting equivalent if not better MPG than I am. What do you guys think is the main reason these SUVs are getting so much better MPGs? They still look like an aerodynamic drag and I couldn't imagine them very light, either. What am I missing? |
...just goes to illustrate that the car manufacturers COULD have produced cars with much better MPG numbers years ago, if they'd just wanted to do so!
|
They are doing so now; only because of being forced by their owners(the government!) to get sales.
The car mags., have been saying for a while now that the future will have plenty of 1/4 ton PU's in the future; as per Rampage (dodge in 80's), and of course; the VW Rabbit trucks! There always will be something more expensive that brings slight improvements, but do you really want to spend most of your life paying for depreciation just to keep up w the Jone's?? If you have the RIGHT type of diesel; in the future, you have more do it yourself options when many so called modern cars are parked while you are still rolling! |
Old Tele man -
Quote:
It's like SUVs with stability control. Put the same system in a car with a low COG (center of gravity) and it should perform even *better* than the SUV. CarloSW2 |
Does it annoy you that a toyota prius gets about the same gas mileage as an 1990 Geo Metro?
|
Yes it does, but look at the lovely current price difference between the two. Here in unsalted country; there are still many early Metro's in fine overall shape for sale!
I almost wish I could run a delivery service bringing you eastern guys some nice cars. I certainly don't have Gouge in mind; but I'd look for any excuse to do a road trip. Hmmmm!! |
I'd like a nice eastern diesel though.
|
Could just be that in the real world the small cars are better at beating the rating than the SUVs.
That said, I wouldn't turn down a little two seater convertible with the drive line from a Highlander Hybrid :D |
Don't forget technology. Engine computers have gotten "smarter;" compression is up, direct injection is being used; taller gearing in a transmission; more efficient torque converters/auto trannies, etc.
|
Keep in mind that the average speed during the EPA highway test is 48.3mph.
Then consider the fact that: A: Most vehicles are traveling significantly faster than that (sometimes over 70) B: Many of them have higher Cd than your coupe, and C: Aero drag is a substantial factor at high speeds, While some vehicles may be geared to be efficient at higher speeds, the consensus around EM is that high speeds usually result in increased consumption; I imagine that to be true of trucks and SUVs. The high speed test would likely be a better real-world indicator. But hey; it's about how you drive the vehicle you already own. |
Its not a supprise to see suv's getting decent mileage now, they are one of the more profitable line of vehicles being sold. Now that gas prices have gone up people are demanding more efficient vehicles. The manufacturers have caught on and are making their more profitable cars more efficient to keep their profit margins up. (or bring them back up out of the red)
|
...a similar "frustration" is how Detroit seems "stuck" on HP and not MPG.
...for example, when GM first came out with their 265 cid small block engine, they keep spiraling UPwards, always seeking higher HP, instead of doing this: 1) if the 265 cid can produce 200 hp--and they "knew" there was more where that came from--lets reduce the displacement to 250 cid and see if we can STILL get 200 hp. 2) then, lets try it again; lets reduce the displacement some more, to 200 cid, and see if we can STILL get 200 hp. 3) repeat again! ...that way, they would've eventually had a 100 cid engine producing 200 hp! It would've been SMALLER, LIGHTER and very HP-dense for its size. AND, it would've been ECONOMICAL, too! ...a Mopar example was the LA 273 cid engine which produced 235 hp with a four barrel carburetor, but was replaced by a 318 cid 2BBL which produced 230 hp! ...it's obvious, they ALL took the "easy" way (BIG, BIGGER & BIGGEST) rather than the "smart" way. |
The problem with that is that yes they can get the same power out of a smaller engine but the difference in tuning makes the engine use more gas at the rpm range its used.
For example the 3.8L engine used in the Jeep Wrangler is also used in a minivan. The minivan has an optional 4.0L which only makes a little bit more power. The minivan with the 4.0 engine actually gets better mileage than the same minivan with the 3.8. edit to add: I agree though, they are fixed on peak HP and not the overall picture. Who is going to be able to use the max horsepower when the max horspower is 1000rpm past the rpm limiter? |
Quote:
The simple fact is, the general public doesn't really care that much about FE, particularly when buying a vehicle.:( To prove my point, just pay attention to the car commericials you see advertised on TV. Note how many of them metion absolutely nothing relevant about the vehicle's powertrain, let alone effeciency. Note how many of them advertize the vehicle's bluetooth system, dvd players, navigation system, etc. To answer the question of why the FE has improved, the FE of some vehicles has gotten better for 2 main reasons. First, as fuel prices have gone up there are a few more people who do care more about FE and are willing to pay for it. Secondly, is the government influence (the merits of which I'm sure we could debate to no end). That basically forces customers to pay for things they otherwise would not (which, again, we could debate). As to whether it bugs me, no, I doesn't. I drive a vehicle that is "supposed" to get worse mileage than a Hummer and my last tank (30.36 mpg) was equal or better FE than the rating of every 2007 non-hybrid vehicle (and even a few hybrids). It's now so much what you drive as how you drive it :D |
...I'm just lamenting that they ALL could've been making 40+ mpg vehicles already, instead of being "forced" to do so by Government EPA mandate.
|
In an ideal world it wouldn't be an issue, unfortunately the world isn't ideal.
|
yes, but we can at least try to make it more ideal.
|
...I recall reading an SAE article back in early 1980's in which GM touted that they "could" make a 60 MPG car--no problem!--but wouldn't because marketing deemed there wasn't enough of a market (Fiero chassis?). So-o-o-o, it was never made nor offered to the public, beyond that SAE article!
...hey, GM, you can't SELL what ain't OFFERED! |
A vehicle that gets better mileage (and doesn't give up other factors like performance, etc.) costs more to produce--otherwise they would already do it. If the customer is willing to pay the extra $ for the extra FE, then they make the car. It's really as simple as that.
Look at the Prius--it gets good FE, but it cost a bunch too. Imagine if we got everybody on this site together and gave them unlimited resources to create the ultimate mpg machine (isn't that a COOL thought!). I think we could probably make a sedan that would get over 100 mpg (on gas or diesel). However, with all the added technology we'd have to charge $50k for the thing to make a profit. Most people simply wouldn't pay for it. |
Quote:
But I could see something with a metro-like platform (small engine, lightweight frame, etc.) plus a few of simple aero mods, getting way above average FE. It's out there, but I don't blame companies for not producing a vehicle that [they believe] would certainly fail in the market. Doing so would be a travesty for workers, execs and stockholders alike. |
Stretched "aerocivic" type car with 4 doors, gas lean burn, tall gears, and a hybrid drivetrain. Done. :)
or diesel hybrid instead. |
Quote:
I have a 1990's diesel truck that seats seven and can do 40 mpg in a pinch. But it takes nearly 30 seconds to hit 60 mph and emits enough smoke to kill a small dog every time you back out of the driveway. Nowadays, you can buy seven seater diesels that hit 40 mpg on the highway and 60 mph in seven or eight seconds, with emissions that meet even stringent EURO IV levels. But those things cost twice as much as my old smoker (even inflation adjusted) did. Today's Tucson is a pretty sweet car... and if you want excellent fuel economy, you can have it in 2.0, a 2.0 Tucson with the 6-speed can match a 1.8-2.0 compact car in terms of economy. So why don't you get it in America? Because there's no market demand. Manufacturers DO and HAVE made cars with excellent economy over the years. They needed to in order to make it in markets with high gasoline prices and tax restrictions on engine size. But in America, there was no market demand (too slow), so they didn't bother importing them... not in great numbers. Too bad you never got the 1.2 liter Honda Fit, which could, on the highway, even tweak 60-70 mpg... Reminds me of the old "Who killed the electric car" brouhaha... GM-bashers only need to look at other ultra-high tech fuel saving cars of the time, like the late, lamented Audi A2... a fantastic car that used high technology, efficient engines and extensive use of aluminum to achieve nearly 100 mpg. Yet sales were relatively dismal. People weren't willing to pay a lot of money just for fuel economy. |
Quote:
...sometimes, you have to INVEST today for TOMORROW's returns; obviously, something GM apparently isn't good at doing, to wit: EV1 down the tubes; bankruptcy; Volt gets 246 MPG (B.S.!), etc.. |
I already cited examples... Audi pushed the A2 for years without success. Honda has been pushing and pushing to keep their engine sizes low. The Fit is an economical car, and yet sales are suffering as people go on to bigger, more powerful ones.
The only way to make people buy is to take a hit on profit for the initial batch (or batches) to get them interested. And even then, with the Prius, they still needed government incentives to sweeten the deal before it finally went mainstream. GM tried, and failed. Most pure electrics of the time failed because of the high cost of the battery systems of the time. The EV1 would have cost over $100k... over a decade ago. It's only with better battery life and controllers that we are seeing pure electrics dip under the $40k barrier. Not that I'm accusing GM of being ultra-efficient at self-sabotage (and there are many that claim that the EV1 program was one big self-sabotaged publicity stunt embarked upon by GM as a way of forcing the removal of the ZEV CARB mandate), but really, there are easier ways to lobby against legislation than spending over a billion dollars on a handful of cars... |
Quote:
PS: Now that I think on it, I just have to ask a dumb question. If Americans have always wanted big cars, where'd all the Metros, Civic/CRXs, VW Rabbits, and the other cars you guys like to pick up used come from? |
The wife averages right at 28 in her Rogue, while I average 34 in my Altima. Both weigh about the same (around 3200) and both have the 2.5 with CVT transmission. On a hot fill the Altima will push 40 MPG at 55 MPH (best case scenario) while the Rogue will push 34 MPG.
You should have seen my step daughters face when I was getting 35MPG at 60MPH in her Murano ;). regards Mech |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I can see what you're saying, but sometimes certain sacrifices are made in order for vehicles to be more marketable. What if automakers decided to add stock boattails to their fuel sipper models? Certainly some potential buyers would be turned off by the appearance - even despite the FE gains. "Perfect is the enemy of good" - Voltaire. Automakers can't forcibly make markets, but through styling, effective marketing and the naturally shifting consumer interest in fuel economy (I don't claim to be an expert, just generalizing), sometimes markets do develop. With that said, your Prius example is an excellent illustration of [potentially] high risk, resulting in high reward. I agree with you that an influence was made on that front. |
...instead of a single model, they could/should make variants:
• economy model: stripped down, lowest weight, manual trans, best aerodynamics, highest fuel-economy. • entry model: sound-proofing, manual or auto, A/C available, people-hauler. • upscale model: fully loaded w/ all the bells & whistles. • sporty model: performance is goal, economy isn't. |
Old Tele man -
Quote:
In a way Honda is doing something like this with their eco/normal/sport button on the Honda CRZ. I think having a button like that is a no-brainer on almost all models. It won't change the options in the way you describe, but having a low-cost button + differentiating the software should keep the UMC under control. Have the ECU/PCM help you get good MPG, not fight you. CarloSW2 |
Quote:
|
...which: a marketing ploy or EPA loop-hole dodgement, or both?
|
Quote:
*I say large numbers, because there was a small market for SUV-like vehicles earlier, like the Jeep station wagon or the International Scout, that were mostly bought by people who actually needed their capabilities. |
Quote:
Sorry, I let a little bit of my libertarian/conservitive leanings slip out there...that and seeing firsthand the effect of EPA regs in my own work (diesel R&D). |
I see what you're saying james, but I think this might be a matter of perspective.
I mean, yes, the automakers try to advertise a product to create interest. If they succeed, a sale can be made. But consumers have to make decisions too. Are they always logical? No, but for the most part people try to weigh factors that they personally feel are important: safety, style, efficiency, creature comforts etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the automakers can create criteria upon which consumers may act - like constantly touting their latest safety feature or design - but ultimately a good consumer decides whether or not it's worth their money. Now, where I think we'll really meet common ground is in the creation of a need. Kind of like the ol' saying that Listerine created halitosis. I stand by my claim that automakers can't forcibly create markets, but I agree that their marketing can have an influence on the factors that consumers will consider important. You do bring up a good point with the SUV emissions stipulation. |
Quote:
Also remember that even with the advertising, and the constant pushing of the "Americans want big cars" meme, somehow a lot of small to medium sized cars seem to get sold in this country. |
Quote:
|
Old Tele man -
Quote:
But I also think context helps explain the story. We had Texas oil fields for the longest time. Japan *always* had to conserve energy and other resources because it has no raw materials. Japanese guv'ment regulations discouraged large gas hogs and encouraged thrifty Kei cars since the end of WWII. European cars have also been influenced by via high fuel taxes, so there is *again* a guv'ment regulation encouraging thrifty small cars. I readily admit to the huge blunders the Big-3 has made, but we could have *legislated* them into being more competitive for their own good. CarloSW2 |
...a couple of Detroit "blunder" examples:
• when GM claimed EPA emissions couldn't be met in V8 engines, Honda modified and delivered to GM a CVCC version of the Chevy 350 heads. Honda's could meet EPA emissions standards without catalytic convertors and other addons at that time. • GM claimed they "could've" made a 60 MPG vehicle, but didn't. • Chrysler "dabbled" with Lean-Burn, but abandoned it; Honda instead, developed it into their HFE models. • GM "crushed" the EV1's; Toyota developed the Prius. ...see a trend happening in the above? |
Old Tele man -
Yup, but $6-$8 a gallon would have influenced all of those decisions. CarloSW2 |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20 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