how to tackle the 'new car' issue? How can we change manufacturers minds?

[bluejoey]

The issue of mediocre economy was solved long ago; money's just in the way. Manufacturers know how to make 40,50,60+ mpg cars; there are plenty of them in Europe today, and there were numerous 40+ cars here in the 80s and 90s. Many of them are even made by the same companies present here in the US. We just don't get them here because there's much more money to be made selling large, overpowered, inefficient cars than small, reasonably powered, efficient ones. There's a lot of advertising and psychology that goes into making the F-150 the number one selling vehicle in the US, and Ford, Chevy, et al aren't going to stop marketing and profiting from those kinds of vehicles until they can't afford to keep making them here.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Sorry but I don't think this is valid. The extra energy content of Diesel is why less of it is used compared to petrol in the first place. By doing this you are counting it twice?

I think it is, because what we ought to be counting is energy used per 100 km. IOW (given the appropriate refinery technology) the crude oil that made 1 gallon of diesel could have made 1.12 gallons of petrol.

The Prius is ahead in urban, the econetic ahead in extra urban and the combined more or less equal.

But what we're seeing here is in part an artifact of the Toyota hybrid design, which emphasizes urban mpg at the expense of highway. Do the same for the Honda IMA (which IMHO was designed for better highway mpg), and you get a different answer.

And we're still back where we came in: put a full hybrid system in the Ford (keeping all else the same), and it'll get better mpg than without. Likewise, put the more-efficient diesel engine in the Prius hybrid, and you'll get better mpg than with petrol. Seems pretty darn obvious to me :-)

PS: And as for the extra weight of the hybrid system, note that at ~1850 lbs, the Insight hybrid was about the lightest car sold in the US this century.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

Hey James, not all the world has mountains. We get it that you do. Just don't try to project that on everyone.

25% of the world is mountainous:

OK. Now subtract some of the flat parts, where people don't do a lot of driving, for instance the Australian Outback, the Amazon basin, the Canadian & Alaskan Arctic, the Siberian steppe... What percent of the rest is mountains, or is in close enough proximity to mountains that a car owner would regularly drive there? At least a third, maybe half, of the continental US, for starters.

But in any case, me living in mountains and basjoos in the flatlands isn't really the issue. It just makes a direct comparison of our mpgs invalid, because we're not driving in the same conditions.

[cfg83]

jamesqf -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

...

But what we're seeing here is in part an artifact of the Toyota hybrid design, which emphasizes urban mpg at the expense of highway. Do the same for the Honda IMA (which IMHO was designed for better highway mpg), and you get a different answer.

...

Yes, when I talk to people about hybrids I try to make this distinction clear. I call the Prius an "electric-dominant" hybrid, which translates to better stop/go city MPG. The Honda IMA is an "ICE-dominant" hybrid, which translates to better highway MPG, aka what we expect from an ICE.

After I explain this distinction I ask them what their commute is like and I tell them which hybrid will be better for them, Toyota for city-dominant and Honda for highway-dominant.

CarloSW2

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Sorry but I don't think this is valid. The extra energy content of Diesel is why less of it is used compared to petrol in the first place. By doing this you are counting it twice ?

No, it is valid.
A gallon of diesel has a higher energy content, is heavier (more hydrocarbons) and will result in more CO2 when burned.

Volumes of diesel should be corrected (upward) for this when comparing them to petrol engines.

This makes the diesel numbers look better than they really are.

[Arragonis]

@ James - I agree that the ford with Hybrid will do better. But it does rather well with what is very simple technology, in fact pretty much what most of us do on here for free . And that is tech that can be easily applied to very small cars like those we have in Europe - e.g. the Ford KA which is smaller than the Fiesta.

@ Euromodder - Ahh, I see. I thought the adjustment looked like it was being applied twice but when I ponder it further I see where the advantage comes from.

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But that is you driving in South Carolina, no? I would bet your mpg would drop just a bit if most of your driving was done in the Sierra Nevada, or the Nevada desert. Let's see: Highest point in South Carolina: Sassafras Mtn at 3560 ft. My house down here in the valley: 4800 ft. Pass I climbed today to go skiing: 8911 ft. Reported snowfall for the past 72 hrs: 44 inches at Mt. Rose Ski Area (but only about a foot down at my place).

See why comparing your mpg with mine is maybe not quite as simple as matching numbers?

There may be a few more variables involved than those mentioned above. I do most of my driving in western North Carolina, which believe it or not does contain a few steep mountains. Part of my daily commute is a steep 3rd gear climb from 1300 ft in South Carolina to 2200 ft in North Carolina. I also have several other steep grades on that drive that will easily propel me to over 70 mph on the downhills if I didn't engine and friction brake and are full throttle climbs in the reverse direction. Also you have the advantage of operating at a higher altitude where the thinner atmosphere gives well known mileage benefits whereas I spend my time operating in the thick soupy atmosphere found closer to sea level to the detriment on my own mileage.

North Carolina does get regular snows in the winter (the Asheville NC area has gotten 40" to 50" total inches so far this winter), which is the reason I run Hakkapeliitta R snow tires on my car. When South Carolina does gets its ocasional snowfall, there is no fleet of snow removal equipment to quickly remove the snow from the roads (it is mostly left to melt in place), so when it snows, I am often cutting my own tracks through the snow while making my early morning commute.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

@ James - I agree that the ford with Hybrid will do better. But it does rather well with what is very simple technology, in fact pretty much what most of us do on here for free . And that is tech that can be easily applied to very small cars like those we have in Europe - e.g. the Ford KA which is smaller than the Fiesta.

Sure, I completely agree. And of course the best economy tech to apply to small cars, IMHO at least, is to make them smaller :-) (My ideal would be something close to the late '60s Lotus Europa.) But the Insight version of Honda's IMA does go in a fairly small car - and at that, it looks as though it was a first cut engineering-wise. There are lots of nooks & crannies of unused space that another design iteration or two could have put to good use.