Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-21-2007, 07:55 PM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 152

The Mighty Mira - '92 Daihatsu Mira
90 day: 61.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
The reality is that more fuel efficient vehicles are lighter, cheaper to produce (enabling more competition, as you won't need an absolutely massive industrial plant to make one), less capable of fashion statements (since good designs will converge on the one form as form follows function) and for the same profit margin, generate less profit. It's Detroit's way of saying "We see where this is going, our shareholders won't be happy if we aim to become the next Kawasaki or Suzuki, and neither will my salary as CEO etc".

Where this is going ultimately is velomobiles for regular transport, powered velomobiles capable of reaching 80kph or so with a carbon neutral kind of fuel like biodiesel, with probably a hybrid drivetrain. For carting heavy items, trains and ships for long haul, perhaps streamlined hybrid trucks for the short haul.

__________________
"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed." - Isaac Newton
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-26-2009, 05:33 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
orange4boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Wet Coast, Kanuckistan.
Posts: 1,272

The Golden Egg - '93 Toyota Previa DX
90 day: 31.91 mpg (US)

Chewie - '03 Toyota Prius
90 day: 57 mpg (US)

The Spaceship - '00 Honda Insight
Thanks: 98
Thanked 297 Times in 174 Posts
Quote:
But some larger vehicles like vans and stuff would get even more terrible mileage if they didn't have the power. Some trucks that have a v8 get better fuel economy than the v6 version cause they don't have to work as hard to do the same amount of work.
Sounds like that comes from a classic up-sale tactic rather than the facts. If what you say is true (proof please) it could only be true if the bigger engine was much more efficient than the smaller which is possible but not likely. The reasons for a smaller engine (given similar engine designs) in the same vehicle being more fuel efficient than a larger one, have mainly to do with pumping losses, friction, rotational inertia, and weight. For the same HP power output a smaller engine would have less of all these.

This is a general statement but given a very efficient V8 and a very inefficient V6 you could prove me wrong in that particular case. ( I wouldn't put it past Detroit to do this.)
__________________
Vortex generators are old tech. My new and improved vortex alternators are unstoppable.

"Itís easy to explain how rockets work but explaining how a wing works takes a rocket scientist."
-Philippe Spalart


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 09:43 PM   #13 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
HamiltonianOperator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
yeah. I think He may be confusing fuel economy in big diesel trucks and smaller gasoline versions. The fuel has more energy density and the compression makes it efficient to run them at certain speeds. The torque thing is true. A lot of new engines are actually either direct inject. Or they have variable cylinder firing. The Chrysler Hemi™ can shut down and run on 4 cylinders for light load highway driving. With regards to torque. I would say that a certain diesel truck would generally require less fuel for driving on a flat surface than a gasoline version. You can think of the higher compression, longer stroke, to generally move the parts a further distance for the same amount of gas. This translates, in turbo diesel GM type motors with around 450HP, will have a condition that opens the waste gate the boost goes down and as a result the injectors put in less fuel, you get a charge that can be timed to go off at a certain time and you get a smaller more direct flame which will still send the engine around 1 time for each of the 4 cycles.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 11:25 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post

EDIT: Hrmmmm, on second thought, I don't like this. I won't be able to coast in neutral anymore, .

CarloSW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
You know what? I think the writer got the terminology slightly wrong. They're really semi-automatic manuals, or automated manuals.
They are, more or less, the same. It really just comes down to semantics. And CarloSW2's point is valid; dual clutch systems do affect one's ability to perform certain hypermiling techniques. My former car was (for all intents and purposes) a detuned version of my current car, but it had a dual-clutch transmission. Even though my former car was rated as having better fuel economy than my current car, it wouldn't have allowed me drive in the manner that has garnered me the biggest mileage gains in my current car.

In my opinion, these dual clutch systems come down market appeal. Driving with paddle shifters makes people feel like race car drivers (as a result, these transmissions might indirectly result in worse ACTUAL mileage). Don't want to drive in manual mode? Simple. Hit a button, and it drives like an automatic. A completely anemic driving experience.

Now, in terms of hitting the CAFE's 35 mpg across the fleet, I don't think that's going to be very hard for them at all. When the new Mustang gets 31 mpg with ~300 hp and has the aerodynamics of a parachute, I think they just need to make some small steps. Direct injection, LRR tires, and the aero mods should me more than enough to take them to 40 mpg pretty easily.

The hard part will be the truck/van/suv fleet. I am personally not opposed to having slightly different restrictions for vehicles with > 2,000 lb payload capacity; > 5,000-10,000 lb towing capacity; and seating for six or more passengers. The last is the most dubious on the list, and despite regulations, those vehicles could still be driven around by a single individual with no cargo whatsoever.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 12:08 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Kodak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 346

Canyon - '07 GMC Canyon 2wd regular cab
90 day: 24.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 41
Thanked 39 Times in 24 Posts
I think we're already starting to see some of these changes. Ford's 2012 Focus has an "" - basically a grill block that is open when cooling is needed, and closed on highway trips for FE.

I bet we'll see some pickups come with tonneau covers stock, rather than as an add-on. I seem to see a lot of Honda Ridgelines with a hard tonneau - maybe they're stock already.
__________________
EcoDriving: Turning more fuel into usable forward motion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 07:50 PM   #16 (permalink)
GRU
Master EcoModder
 
GRU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Windsor ON Canada
Posts: 373

silver bullet - '00 Honda Civic
90 day: 34.41 mpg (US)
Thanks: 21
Thanked 36 Times in 31 Posts
I think buyers just need to be educated on how much money they will waste per year in fuel if they decide to go for a big vehicle they don't need. If people bought cars they needed and not ones they wanted to look cool in, there would be about 80% less big suv and pickups on the road which would cut down on our dependance of fossil fuels

I head a saying before and it's totaly true, something like "we vote every day, when we buy something we say that we support this product and if we don't buy it we can get rid of it"
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 08:35 AM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
I agree. I think that a power/weight ratio of around 20 is good enough for most vehicles....except for cargo carriers?

That means a 2500 lb car would be limited to around 130-135 HP....(2500/130 = 19.2) Power over this should be taxed? Or the CAFE standards should be raised?

I realize this is UN-AMERICAN...where 5% of the worlds population uses 25% of the worlds energy...we are god's chosen people and are meant to have all the energy we want....just ask the right? No matter if we steal it or trash the planet? God is on our side and that is just that..... In fact...no matter what we do as a country...it is just plain....AOK!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucepick View Post
IHMO the biggest improvement would be to wean American drivers off vehicles that have twice the power needed.

My '89 Euro-beast weighs about 3070 lb and the engine is 115 hp. Any car currently on the US market has a much higher hp/weight ratio - '07 Camry 4-cyl is 158 hp/3263 lb. And the V6 is 268 hp!

True that before mods, I rarely would win the stop light derby in this car, but so what? It always gets me where I'm going.

I have to admit that turning all cars into total gutless powerless slugs would turn the public against the industry. It happened in the '70's; people couldn't wait for more powerful cars to be available again. But 268 hp for a 3300 lb car? People actually think they need that to do battle with freeway traffic or something. Let them learn other ways to get through life.
__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to suspectnumber961 For This Useful Post:
brucepick (11-26-2011)
Old 11-25-2011, 09:30 AM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,882

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: 3,403
Thanked 2,901 Times in 1,819 Posts
Folks, the Nissan 'Leaf' gets 99MPGe. The Mitsubishi 'I' gets 114MPGe (if I recall correctly). The Illuminati Motor Works '7' gets 207MPGe. The Edison2 'VLC' gets 110MPGe, and the 'VLCe' gets 245MPGe. The VW 'XL-1' gets about 260MPGe on the NEDC Combined cycle.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2011, 09:29 AM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / York SC
Posts: 726

05 DMax - '05 Chevrolet 2500HD
90 day: 18.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 107
Thanked 54 Times in 50 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Folks, the Nissan 'Leaf' gets 99MPGe. The Mitsubishi 'I' gets 114MPGe (if I recall correctly). The Illuminati Motor Works '7' gets 207MPGe. The Edison2 'VLC' gets 110MPGe, and the 'VLCe' gets 245MPGe. The VW 'XL-1' gets about 260MPGe on the NEDC Combined cycle.

"e"
__________________




I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
21,000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 10:09 AM   #20 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
tim3058's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 147

Silver Bullet - '86 Chevy Camaro Z28
90 day: 19.74 mpg (US)

New Blue - '96 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
90 day: 20.46 mpg (US)

Diesel - '96 Chevrolet Tahoe LS
Last 3: 13.56 mpg (US)

Tahoe #2 - '95 Chevrolet Tahoe LS
90 day: 13.05 mpg (US)

SuperDuty - '08 Ford F-350 dually Lariat
90 day: 9.34 mpg (US)

Fundai - '09 Hyundai Elantra
90 day: 26.45 mpg (US)

HRV - '17 Honda HRV LX
90 day: 31.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 View Post
I agree. I think that a power/weight ratio of around 20 is good enough for most vehicles....except for cargo carriers?

That means a 2500 lb car would be limited to around 130-135 HP....(2500/130 = 19.2) Power over this should be taxed? Or the CAFE standards should be raised?

I realize this is UN-AMERICAN...where 5% of the worlds population uses 25% of the worlds energy...we are god's chosen people and are meant to have all the energy we want....just ask the right? No matter if we steal it or trash the planet? God is on our side and that is just that..... In fact...no matter what we do as a country...it is just plain....AOK!
It's easy to rage against the evil right - consider working to solve the problem by educating the ignorant folks from all parties. I'm probably the furthest right of anyone on this site and I'm cruising around in an 18 year old rusty 50mpg Civic that most people (left and right-wing) laugh at. Why? I realized I could save a lot driving an efficient car. I didn't need a Marxist gov't to force me to do that. Free-market principles at work, I'm greedy and I learned about fuel savings on this site. Consider my left-wing coworkers, one commutes in a 17mpg Dodge Ram, the other just bought a ~17mpg Jeep Grand Cherokee - simply because they can. The one's an ultra-liberal/environmentalist, but to quote, "its so convenient" to have an SUV. I've tried sharing what I've learned and how much I've saved (thousands of dollars), neither has any interest. Education, my friend, for all parties.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tim3058 For This Useful Post:
JasonG (11-28-2011)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com