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

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

You have to remember we have a lot of history, so some of our roads are over 2000 years old. Some of them are Roman...

Who count as Johnny-come-latelys, really. One of my favorite spots Castlerigg stone circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is in that neighborhood. And there are older roads, too: The Ridgeway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by basjoos

What is the non-hybrid equivalent of the Honda Insight (1st or 2nd gen?)?

How about a Metro, or the Honda CRX? I got 40+ mpg in my CRX, but get 70+ in my Insight.

[some_other_dave]

The CRX HF is the non-hybrid version of the Insight-I, IMHO. Two-seat hatchback, lightweight, optimized for fuel economy. (Oh, and made by Honda!) The second-gen CRX HF was rated at 49 or 50 MPG on the freeway in pre-2008 EPA ratings.

-soD

[Arragonis]

Here is a worked example of lightweight, aero, simple and cheap.





Lightweight
The shell was designed to be light from the outset and it used plastic for quite a few of the external panels including the bonnet. External panels are also made of very thin metal.

Aero
Overall style came from the eco2000 concept project that PSA had been involved in. Cd at the time was 0.31 - this is the mid 80s.



It was very much simplified for mass production though as you can see. The 3 door models had partial rear wheel covers (a Citroen style item at the time) and recessed door handles. They all ran on skinny tyres too, and no huge grill openings at the front.

Simple
No fancy engines (4-cyl, OHC 8vs), not even fuel injection on the Mid-80s ones - engines shared with the other PSA hatches - the 205 and were lightweight aluminium units except the later Diesel which was modified to be an iron block for reduced noise. The underpinnings were all recycled from the Peugeot 104/Citroen LNA/Talbot Samba.



Cheap
Sold down to a price to compete with the equivalent hatches at the time. It was intended to replace a few cheap cars from the various companies PSA had 'acquired' including their own Visa, the LNA/104/Samba trio and there were even thoughts it could finally replace the 2CV which was getting expensive to build.

The result of this cleverness was a car which could outperform its competitors whilst having a smaller engine. The 1.0 base model could outrun an equivalent Fiesta 1.1 and was capable of over 90mph. The 1.1 model could keep up with a Fiesta 1.3/1.4 and could do 105, and the 1.4 could challenge an XR2.

And good on FE - the 1.5 Diesel has a combined MPG of 78.

Downsides ? Well the lightweight construction led to it feeling a little flimsy after a few years use, and of course it is described as 'not too clever in a crash' - but it was never regarded as a death trap at the time.

With a little imagination maybe makers could still come up with something like this ? Well maybe not. All those safety features we insist on seem to have put paid to that idea in small cars anyway. This is the AX's grandson :



The modern equivalent, the C1, had to be designed (mostly by Toyota) to get the weight down, but its still quite lardy. And there is no Diesel anymore at least in the UK, just a 1.0 68hp Petrol which sounds like a 911 apparently

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

How about a Metro, or the Honda CRX? I got 40+ mpg in my CRX, but get 70+ in my Insight.

Not really equivalent except in general shape and that they were both designed incorporating the fuel saving technologies that Honda was willing to sell to the public in their respective decades (mid 80's and late 90's) . The Insight has a much lower Cd (0.25), CRX Cd is 0.30, and the CRX uses engine technology that is a decade older than that of the Insight. I was getting upper 40's out of my 1992 Civic CX in normal driving before I started hypermiling or aeromodding it. The CX is a car larger and heavier than either of the above two cars, with no lean burn and with a Cd of 0.31, but it did have newer engine technology than the CRX.

When the guys at Cleanmpg made their single tank world record distance in an Insight in Oklahoma in 2006 (and in all of their other mpg record attempts using either the Prius or the Insight), they deliberately drove it in a manner that avoided using assist or regen, in other words deliberately avoided using the hybrid system in order to get the highest possible mileage. This tells me that an EQUIVALENT non-hybrid variant of the Insight could have beaten this record since it would have been a hundred pounds lighter and wouldn't have had the added transmission drag of the unused electric motor spinning in the drive train.

A hybrid reduces the mpg hit of urban driving or any driving where you have to use either friction or engin braking, but in pure rural driving where you never have to use braking, a manual non-hybrid with its lighter weight and the reduced drag of its simpler transmission would get a better mileage. Unfortunately, since the auto manufacturers need to recoup the money invested in developing their hybrid systems, they will never field a non-hybrid variant of their hybrid model that would get a mileage even close to that of the hybrid, otherwise people would be less likely to spend the extra money for the hybrid. They will always handicap their non-hybrid offerings by giving it shorter gearing and worse aerodynamics so the hybrid will be the mpg star of their lineup.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by basjoos

...since the auto manufacturers need to recoup the money invested in developing their hybrid systems, they will never field a non-hybrid variant of their hybrid model that would get a mileage even close to that of the hybrid, otherwise people would be less likely to spend the extra money for the hybrid. They will always handicap their non-hybrid offerings by giving it shorter gearing and worse aerodynamics so the hybrid will be the mpg star of their lineup.

Try here where you can compare the Auris Hybrid, Petrol and Diesel models. The economy is in l/100km and yes, the Hybrid wins on urban consumption and loses out on extra-urban.

It also gives you other specs including weight and capacities. Enjoy.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by basjoos

When the guys at Cleanmpg made their single tank world record distance in an Insight in Oklahoma in 2006 (and in all of their other mpg record attempts using either the Prius or the Insight), they deliberately drove it in a manner that avoided using assist or regen, in other words deliberately avoided using the hybrid system in order to get the highest possible mileage. This tells me that an EQUIVALENT non-hybrid variant of the Insight could have beaten this record since it would have been a hundred pounds lighter and wouldn't have had the added transmission drag of the unused electric motor spinning in the drive train.

The problem here is that the driving style used for a mpg record isn't acceptable in normal driving. It's equivalent to saying that because there's a solar-powered car race across the Australian Outback, then solar-powered cars work for daily driving.

A hybrid reduces the mpg hit of urban driving or any driving where you have to use either friction or engin braking, but in pure rural driving where you never have to use braking, a manual non-hybrid with its lighter weight and the reduced drag of its simpler transmission would get a better mileage.

Wrong, unless your rural driving is entirely in Kansas :-)

The Prius may work differently, but in my experience (7+ years, about 100K miles) of Insight driving, the hybrid doesn't help all that much with city mpg ('cause it sucks whatever you do), it just makes it possible to drive without being a traffic hazard. Where it helps - and we should all know this - is by allowing a smaller engine that operates more efficiently at cruising speeds. But a car with that engine, but without the hybrid boost, would be practically undriveable on anything but straight & level roads.

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The problem here is that the driving style used for a mpg record isn't acceptable in normal driving. It's equivalent to saying that because there's a solar-powered car race across the Australian Outback, then solar-powered cars work for daily driving.

This still doesn't negate the fact that those driving hybrids for maximum mileage drive in a manner that minimizes use of the hybrid portion of the drive train. Therefore a non-hybrid version of the hybrid car which used the same engine as the hybrid would get better mileage than the hybrid due to the weight and transmission drag factors mentioned above in my previous post. The hybrid would accelerate faster than the non-hybrid and get better mileage in urban driving.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Wrong, unless your rural driving is entirely in Kansas :-)

And Oklahoma, northern Texas, the central valley of California, almost all of Florida, and the coastal plains of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and any other region with flat to slightly rolling terrain.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The Prius may work differently, but in my experience (7+ years, about 100K miles) of Insight driving, the hybrid doesn't help all that much with city mpg ('cause it sucks whatever you do), it just makes it possible to drive without being a traffic hazard. Where it helps - and we should all know this - is by allowing a smaller engine that operates more efficiently at cruising speeds. But a car with that engine, but without the hybrid boost, would be practically undriveable on anything but straight & level roads.

A hybrid helps immensely in city driving since regenerative braking allows you to store and reuse a portion of the energy lost to heat in non-hybrids. If you look at the EPA mileage sticker, the city mileage on a hybrid is much higher than the city mileage of a non-hybrid and is often higher than the highway mileage of the hybrid, something never seen in non-hybrids.

The Insight has a 67hp engine and weighs 1800 lbs. The 67 Volkswagon Beetle had a 54hp engine and weighed 1900 lbs. I drove a 67 Beetle for many years and it was perfectly drivable and was fun to drive despite having less power and more weight than an Insight running only on its gas engine. It had no problem keeping up with traffic and definitely wasn't a traffic hazard.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by basjoos

This still doesn't negate the fact that those driving hybrids for maximum mileage drive in a manner that minimizes use of the hybrid portion of the drive train.

We're just going around in circles. Driving for mpg records isn't at all the same as driving in the real world. Sure, IF you have a level road, don't have to start and stop, and don't mind taking several minutes to accelerate to cruising speed, you might get as good mpg w/o the hybrid. (But not significantly better, since in that sort of driving the weight penalty would be negligible.) However, that's not the way cars are driven in real world, even for people who live in the flatlands.

Therefore a non-hybrid version of the hybrid car which used the same engine as the hybrid would get better mileage than the hybrid due to the weight and transmission drag factors mentioned above in my previous post.

No weight penalty in steady speed cruising on the flat. No extra transmission drag in a properly-designed hybrid system.

A hybrid helps immensely in city driving since regenerative braking allows you to store and reuse a portion of the energy lost to heat in non-hybrids. If you look at the EPA mileage sticker, the city mileage on a hybrid is much higher than the city mileage of a non-hybrid and is often higher than the highway mileage of the hybrid, something never seen in non-hybrids.

But not something seen in the real world, in my experience. At least with a properly-designed system like the Honda IMA. As I said earlier, I've no experience with Toyota's system, but my Insight will cruise 70-80 mpg in good conditions, but only averages around 40-50 in city driving.

[Frank Lee]

I don't know what you two are going on about.

A non hybrid can do just as well if not better than a hybrid when driven in such a way that energy potentially recouped from regen braking is minimal.

How does that figure in to changing mfgs minds?

For starters, we could say that the performance magazines and the hp wars are not what we're about, and slow acceleration is plenty good enough. Then we don't need to pack on a second drivetrain to get the whole mess going down the road.