Let the modding begin! (How US carmakers will meet the 35 mpg CAFE target)

[markweatherill]

Stop-start technology would save fuel in a huge way, but as I understand it, cars fitted with stop-start don't show any increased EPA mpg numbers, due to the way the test is carried out. So few vehicles sold in the US have stop-start.
Whereas, in Europe, the official emissions figures are arrived at using a test which gives an advantage to stop-start, so you find it being fitted to more and more new cars.

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by markweatherill

Stop-start technology would save fuel in a huge way, but as I understand it, cars fitted with stop-start don't show any increased EPA mpg numbers, due to the way the test is carried out. So few vehicles sold in the US have stop-start.
Whereas, in Europe, the official emissions figures are arrived at using a test which gives an advantage to stop-start, so you find it being fitted to more and more new cars.

That'd be a great way to do more in the US easily. Doesn't (to my knowledge) require massive investments in new/untested technology, and can be adapted to current platforms being built. As much time as people in the US spend at stoplights, it'd save a lot. Someone on here once posted research saying 20% of all fuel is wasted at red lights.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by brucepick

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.

My 84CJ is rated at 115hp and about 3000lbs, it can do 75mph on the flat, it has trouble maintaining speed with hills, but thats because most of its power is taken up by the fact that it has the aero of a cinderblock. With the gearbox I want to put in it, if I can get the tires to stick it will be able to climb a tree.

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentPointofView
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.

That sure sounds like an urban myth to me! (But I'm willing to stand corrected if you can point me to EPA figures that show this.)

Its more of a case of cherry picking the data. Under very specific circumstances the vehicle with the larger engine will get better FE.

[tru]

a good example of this would be chevy 1500 series trucks. the mileage is almost identical for the 1999-2005 ish models ranging from the 4.3L V6 4.8L V8 to the 5.3LV8.

[JasonG]

This makes we wish we could just go with the ISO standards.
Get rid of the US standards and many more options become available that actually save fuel !
Unfortunately Americans are too big-headed to change.

[some_other_dave]

Originally Posted by tim3058

It's easy to rage against the evil right ...

Sorry, but I didn't see anything political in the post you were quoting. Just a rant against "Americans" who feel that they are entitled to use as much fuel as they can.

An attitude which too many of us seem to have, regardless of political leanings. Which was the point of your post, wasn't it?

Hmm, let me just crawl back under this rock over here....

-soD

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

Sorry, but I didn't see anything political in the post you were quoting. Just a rant against "Americans" who feel that they are entitled to use as much fuel as they can.
-soD

My post was in response to the poster's previous comments that ...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 . My understanding is the poster blames some right-wing religious group for the situation. As some_other_dave also summarized, its definitely a bipartisan problem.

[JackMcCornack]

Originally Posted by brucepick

IHMO the biggest improvement would be to wean American drivers off vehicles that have twice the power needed.

brucepick's comment was posted four years ago and it's still true. One easy way for a manufacturer to get its fleet average to 35 mpg is to sell more economy cars and fewer juggernauts. The way to achieve that is to increase customer demand for efficient cars--cars that are smaller, lighter, and less powerful than the high-profit-per-unit cars the manufacturers want to sell us. The manufacturers are strongly motivated to sell us more car than we need, for the same reason McDonald's wants you to supersize your fries: there's bigger money to be made by selling bigger cars (or meals).

It would sure help if motor fuel was expensive enough to make people feel really stupid if they buy inefficient cars. $3 a gallon was enough to make Hummers ridiculous--twenty years ago when they first came out (and fuel was cheap) they were pretty cool and their drivers were envied and admired, but for the last five+ years they've been the butt of jokes. People didn't quit buying them because they couldn't afford the fuel (a 2006 H1 cost over a hundred grand; if you could afford one you could afford to put fuel in it), they quit buying them because buying a Hummer makes you look Really Stupid.

Unfortunately, fuel prices have to go considerably higher before the average overpowered oversized automobile looks sufficiently stupid to demotivate purchasers. I think gasoline has to hit $5 a gallon before Ford and Chrysler's flagship Mustang and Charger (at 17 mpg each) look Really Stupid.

I know what would work--a 100% fuel tax, which would bump fuel at the pump to five bucks a gallon or so. Put the tax money into improving (or at least maintaining) the country's transportation infrastructure; we'd have good roads again, we'd keep more of our money in America, and I'll bet in three years we'd have a 35 mpg national fleet.

[JasonG]

Why in the 70s/80s did my parents, my 2 brothers and I fit in a Chevy cavalier/Hyundai excell but now it takse an Excursion/Escallade/Van to do the same ? My brothers are both 5'11" 190lbs.
Dad had a F250 for the camper/boat/logs that was rarely driven empty.

[Ladogaboy]

The problem is, Americans have been told that they can have it all, and so, that is the expectation. We operate with the assumption that we might, possibly, do anything we can think of in the future: Move large furniture; transport a soccer team; inexplicably find ourselves entered into the Indy 500.

My friend and I were discussing this in reference to electric vehicles, and we came to the conclusion that EVs would not be a viable option for Americans until those vehicles were able to transport four people 400 miles on a single charge. Forget the fact that almost no American requires that capability regularly (a rental car a few times a year would be a much better option), the fact that they might, one day, need a vehicle capable of doing that is enough to drive the average American away from EVs.