Maximum vehicle weight to meet 2025 54.5 mpg requirement?

[yoyoyoda]

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Completely off topic. I really have to stop reading forums while drinking hot liquids. I feel the long term effect of shooting them through my nose when laughing may lead to a reduced sense of smell, or worse.

nice.

Thanks for the chuckle lol.

Back on topic, here is a question to ponder...what technology will there be 11 years from now? We now are seeing direct injection engines, Skyactiv, Hyundai's new spark plug-less gasoline engine, etc so there will probably be a few more major changes to current engine design to aid in better fuel economy.

For SUV's, probably a cushion of air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6m01VGiNPI

I am waiting out for frictionless bearings.

I personally want to weld some 1/4 inch copper pipe into a coil on the underbelly pan of my car so that I have a neat method of removing the heat generated by the engine via a much more aerodynamic means.

Similar to how central heating works.

Nobody else has thought of this idea as far as I know, therefore I am hereby copywriting it, if anyone would like to use it you gotta pay me royalties.

This then allows me to completely block off the front of the car where the radiator is and let the airstream underneath the car take care of removing heat from the engine.

I'm going to bed. nini

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by aardvarcus

Also, I agree that my truck doesn’t work on here; it works in real life doing things. No, the truck has not delivered fairy floss but one time it did deliver flowers. It typically delivers building supplies to construction sites. I did not realize this was a fairy floss and flowers type of forum, I thought this was a forum about doing and accomplishing things.

The second AND third times my truck delivered more than 30 miles per gallon included several trips of moving firewood, 800-1000lbs at a time. On the flat and coasting down hills, extra weight is okay.

It's worth considering, however, that when carrying a load that big that even though my truck is rated to a load as high as 1600lbs, it doesn't feel that good at speed and so I automatically hold a lower top speed on trips. That doubtless also made a difference; weight wasn't the only variable to change on those tanks.

[redpoint5]

My 400lb, 600cc motorcycle doesn't achieve 54.5mpg.

The target will not be met.

Who comes up with these efficiency targets, anyhow? Is it even based on science, or did a group of idiots just get together and make a law?

[brucey]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Is it even based on science, or did a group of idiots just get together and make a law?

Don't be silly...

All laws are based on a group of idiots getting together.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by brucey

Don't be silly...

All laws are based on a group of idiots getting together.

A camel is a horse, as designed by committee.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Back on topic, here is a question to ponder...what technology will there be 11 years from now? We now are seeing direct injection engines, Skyactiv, Hyundai's new spark plug-less gasoline engine, etc so there will probably be a few more major changes to current engine design to aid in better fuel economy.

I don't know how much further ICE efficiency will improve, but to improve city ratings the weight will have to go down and to improve highway ratings the frontal area and/or Cd will have to go down.

Pickups, SUVs, and even cars currently have needlessly huge frontal areas, all due to fashion. When the high mpg requirements kick in, someone will have to convince the buying public that long and low is better than high and boxy. It's not impossible- the 50's and 60's were all about long and low. What goes around, comes around.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It's not impossible- the 50's and 60's were all about long and low. What goes around, comes around.

As I recall, the 50s and 60s were all about "longer, lower, wider!" and Dinah Shore singing about seeing the USA from your Chevrolet. What the 50s and 60s - and a great many other decades - were really about was planned obsolescence.

I can't think of many things more wasteful than a new car, especially when the old one is still working. What if we could make the essential upgrades for improved efficiency on our existing rides?

This is a mindset already in existence in some motoring circles. Honda fans will change engines faster than I change socks. VW aircooled enthusiasts can drop an engine out of a car in under an hour and have it back in in less than two. Knowing that contemporarily respectable numbers can be had from an otherwise stock VW with just a chassis tune and a new, purpose-built engine, why not avoid all the extra waste of a completely new car?

This is the part of the argument where everyone starts yelling about safety again. And again I tell you, you're going to die. If people weren't so reliant on built-in safety measures, maybe there'd be much more careful driving.

If you really want people to avoid rear-end collisions, install a six-inch spike to the center of the steering wheel. Following distances will increase dramatically.

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I don't know how much further ICE efficiency will improve, but to improve city ratings the weight will have to go down and to improve highway ratings the frontal area and/or Cd will have to go down.

Pickups, SUVs, and even cars currently have needlessly huge frontal areas, all due to fashion. When the high mpg requirements kick in, someone will have to convince the buying public that long and low is better than high and boxy. It's not impossible- the 50's and 60's were all about long and low. What goes around, comes around.

If I recall the one article correctly, the Hyundai spark plug less gasoline engine was supposed to be 10-15% more efficient and didn’t specify what the comparison was to. Question is, more efficient than what?? I love stats.

But, I think it is safe to assume it has some increased efficiency. And not just with that particular engine, either. Even if the engine is a few percent more efficient than current new car engines, add that to aero improvements and shave some weight off, and then gas mileage is going to increase. 54.5 mpg is a stretch for a non-hybrid though.

I do agree, there probably won’t be any engine built that has some unbelievable efficiency increase over the next ten years.

[PaleMelanesian]

42 mpg. Not 54.

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

42 mpg. Not 54.

Huh? Is the thread title supposed to be 42 mpg??

I think that is a much more realistic number.