Why are cars sold in other countries so much more fuel efficient than in the US?!

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I can count on the fingers of 3 fingers the times I have needed to do 0-60 as fast as possible, in 30 years.

Is every light in the US a drag race ?

In which case that's your problem.

Why do you need to win, why do you even need to compete.

I can't count on all my fingers how many times I've exceeded 5000rpm for fun in the past month. Sometimes it's not about what you need, but what you want. Acceleration and its accompanied adrenaline rush are really, really fun. I'll take 40mpg and 0-60 in 8 seconds compared to 50mpg and 0-60 in 12 seconds.

Of course it doesn't apply to most modern cars, but when your car has a lower performance threshold you can push it harder without breaking traffic laws.

To answer the OP, American car companies make A LOT OF MONEY on trucks. Fuel efficient engines are more expensive to produce than big, simple small blocks. It's easier to put out a big powerful sedan than a super-efficient econobox.

[Frank Lee]

I like fun too, that's why I have a fast bike. I don't want to carry around an extra 3000 lbs to have "fun".

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I can count on the fingers of 3 fingers the times I have needed to do 0-60 as fast as possible, in 30 years.

Is every light in the US a drag race ?

Then you perhaps aren't thinking about the situation, or don't drive where lights are timed. If you're at a light on a stretch of road where the lights are set for say 30 mph, then you need to get up to 30 mph as quickly as possible after the light turns, otherwise you miss the timing and get stuck at the next light, and the next after that...

Likewise, if you are entering a freeway, and can't (or don't) accelerate to match traffic speed before merging, you're creating a hazard.

And if you don't get going when a light turns green, you're delaying everyone behind you, which is inconsiderate.

[Frank Lee]

I'm sure that I can take off at a leisurely pace and everyone behind me will be better off than they are behind a texting/comatose jackrabbit that needs a wake-up horn toot to realize the light has changed..

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

You also have to consider the difference in the mileage tests. The Euro tests give higher numbers than the US EPA test. It's not a direct percent change, it varies by vehicle, but the difference is in the 10-15% range I believe. ...

It is even much worse than that.
My lifetime MPG on the Insight is 48.67 mpg (US) right now, which is about 20% over EPA and 5% below the manufacturers claim in Europe. A 25% discrepancy!

The European tests are done with a hot engine from start, perfect conditions and ultra smooth tracks, no lights, no A/C, no radio, no heat/ventilation...

I test drove a Seat Ibiza ST Ecomotive 1.2 TD 3-cyl one day. It had NO low-end torque under 2000 RPM. Don't grief for missing that one in the US... I was happy to buy something else.
A colleague of mine has its Skoda sister model as a company car and gets far worse mileage than I do on the Insight. To be fair, he doesn't try. Nor would he buy that car for himself when the lease contract expires.

[niky]

Originally Posted by sid

There is one difference I haven't seen anyone mention. Even the same model vehicle gets better fuel economy in other countries than in the US. Why? The US has the strictest pollution requirements in the world, at least with regards to all recognized pollutants other than CO2.

No. It's because US EPA numbers are some of the most pessimistic, since they've been revising them downward over the decades. While California regulations don't allow stratified lean burn (too much NOx) and force the use of urea injection, many non-direct injection gasoline cars aren't affected by this.

Economy numbers are relevant for their specific regions, specific fuel quality and specific speeds, and nothing else.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Then you perhaps aren't thinking about the situation, or don't drive where lights are timed. If you're at a light on a stretch of road where the lights are set for say 30 mph, then you need to get up to 30 mph as quickly as possible after the light turns, otherwise you miss the timing and get stuck at the next light, and the next after that...

Likewise, if you are entering a freeway, and can't (or don't) accelerate to match traffic speed before merging, you're creating a hazard.

And if you don't get going when a light turns green, you're delaying everyone behind you, which is inconsiderate.

0-30 mph is dictated more by gearing and weight than power. I've got tables for hundreds of cars going from 0 to 60 km/h (37.5 mph). There is typically only a one second difference (often less) between something like a Mirage and your typical 8 second to 60 mph car. And only 2 seconds to something like a 300 horsepower sports car. Less if you skip the tire-shredding burnout.

Because ain't nobody doing burnouts from the stoplight unless they want a ticket.

And merging onto the freeway, hardly anyone does full-bore acceleration. What a CR-V or Civic will do from 40-60 mph at half-throttle can easily be matched by a Mirage at three-quarters throttle.

A light, small-engined car will suffer little performance deficit to a heavy, large-engined car untill aero comes into play, which is around 55 mph (this is the range where push typically starts to taper off, according to the V-Box). So European and Asian engine sizes should work for typical daily use in the United States with no problem. Unless you're on that rare off-ramp that actually requires full acceleration from a WRX STI to merge "safely" at a screaming 80 mph from a full stop in just a few hundred yards... in which case, 90% of the cars on the road would be "unsafe".

[user removed]

What astounds me about the US auto market.

The absolute stupidity of short overall gearing in both manuals and autos.
Heck even 8 speeds aren't enough? All you need is a tall 5th gear. the other 4 can be fairly close together. Give me 1600 at 55 3200 at 110. I'm a big boy and can downshift if that ratio is not short enough.

Build engines for torque, not HP. Of course that would mean for many US males something akin to having their "equipment" size reduced.

At least pay a little attention to aero shapes. They have only been well known for hundreds of years when mankind realized that sailing vessels went faster when the hull's shape was right.

7 years ago the EPA clearly stated that the greatest improvement in mileage would be through better powertrains with capacitive regeneration of single braking events. 80% better mileage through the powertrain alone.

For the sake of humanity you would think they could lower the final drive ratio. The ONLY justification would be the rationalization that the car would spend all of it's life loaded to capacity, which we all know is a farce in the US.

regards
Mech

[kach22i]

WSJ Op-Ed Uses Debunked Exxon Talking Point To Obscure Massive Oil Profits | Blog | Media Matters for America

So does the government really "rake in a larger profit at the pump" than oil companies? The federal government certainly doesn't. According to the Congressional Research Service, the five major oil companies made almost $133 billion in profits in 2011. Exxon alone made more than $41 billion. By contrast, the federal gas tax generated $24 billion in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund in 2011.

Interesting that this thread was started so late in the night, is this topic what we think of when we cannot sleep?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by niky

0-30 mph is dictated more by gearing and weight than power.

I don't think so. Take for instance a perfect comparison opportunity: an Insight with and without assist active. With assist, it has reasonable acceleration from a stop. Without, it takes seconds to get to 10-15 mph or so. Which I'll tell you can be a little nerve-wracking when you e.g. pull out on to a busy highway expecting to accelerate...

Because ain't nobody doing burnouts from the stoplight unless they want a ticket.

Anyone doing burnouts is driving less than efficiently. The object is to keep just below the point where you lose traction.

And merging onto the freeway, hardly anyone does full-bore acceleration.

Maybe that's their problem, then.

A light, small-engined car will suffer little performance deficit to a heavy, large-engined car untill aero comes into play...

Whereas a light car with a reasonably-sized engine will outperform both. See e.g. any Lotus, or for less money the Honda CRX.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I don't think so. Take for instance a perfect comparison opportunity: an Insight with and without assist active. With assist, it has reasonable acceleration from a stop. Without, it takes seconds to get to 10-15 mph or so. ...

Though I adhere to your point in general, I do not think this is a fair comparison.
I have many Insights, one of them material with wheels and all and I can assure you that it is very quick on the 0-30 with or without assist, if you really boot it. I have had my traction control system jump in a few times, even in the dry...

The ICE yields say 63 kW while the electric motor can only do 10 kW. When it is way below freezing the electrical assistance is almost nil at first, as the batteries play dead until their cheeks glow.

The Insight's CVT allows the ICE to operate at max power all the time, no need to shift. 0-30 mph is done in 3 seconds, maybe 3.5 in the cold with dead batteries. That's very hard to beat with the average stick-shift or conventional auto trannied car.

30-60, that is a whole different story. Now the Insights lowish power/weight ratio comes into play. Even with full assist that takes almost 9 seconds.
It feels weird as though you are still accelerating, the RPM stays the same and the actual acceleration becomes gradually less. It almost feels like decelerating. But you don't have to shift, it just keeps on pulling.

It does list its 0-100 km/h (62 mph) time as 12.4 seconds (iirc, I don't do that on a daily basis). Many cars are quicker on paper. But you do not have to be a gearhead, slam-shifting in the minimal time while keeping on the gas like they do to minimize 0-60 acceleration times on stick-shift cars. Just put your foot down and wait. Anyone can do that.