Slashdot Mirror

It'll take a lot more than "smart" government officials to fix this.

This article dumbs it down to high-gas mileage = death trap because they're light weight, so solution is make everything have better gas mileage, right?

Not always true: 2001 Ford Explorer 2wd SUV has a curb weight of 3769 and averaged 17mpg. 2011 Ford Explorer 2wd SUV has a curb weight of 4400 lbs and averages 20mpg. 600 lbs (18%) more, 3mpg (20%) better gas mileage.

So go ahead, require better gas mileage, but better mpg != lighter vehicles.

Besides this is already a problem because I can buy a used 2005 (last year they were made) 7,000+ lbs 15mpg Ford Excursion and outweigh almost every non-commercial vehicle on the road by 2,000+ lbs. Even a 2011 4WD Chevy Suburban is over 1,000 lbs lighter than a Ford Excursion.

I was more commenting on the fact that his numbers exceeded EPA estimates by that amount ( in retrospect his numbers don't quite exceed the EPA numbers by that). My numbers certainly do not exceed the EPA numbers. Though, as part of the EPA calculation/measurement re-calibration car numbers from that era where downgraded by 2-3mpg easily, which put the guys claimed numbers well above the EPA numbers.
As for the driving test comparison, the numbers from that site certainly seem suspect now. I still recall Car and Driver or Road and Track review stating that they got 25.6mpg overall, and those guys don't take it easy. Can't seem to find any links to that, but the EPA revised numbers seem to show the Passat as I would expect, with the exception of the combined:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17762.shtml
My driving is really mostly rural roads with few lights, but not really highway either. So my combined mileage differs severely, but in my experience in my car the city and highway are pretty spot on.
Here is the same site for the LHS:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15185.shtml
Still a significantly large difference between the guys driving experience and the standard ( 50-60% in city, 16-20% highway) to be questionable.

I was more commenting on the fact that his numbers exceeded EPA estimates by that amount ( in retrospect his numbers don't quite exceed the EPA numbers by that). My numbers certainly do not exceed the EPA numbers. Though, as part of the EPA calculation/measurement re-calibration car numbers from that era where downgraded by 2-3mpg easily, which put the guys claimed numbers well above the EPA numbers.
As for the driving test comparison, the numbers from that site certainly seem suspect now. I still recall Car and Driver or Road and Track review stating that they got 25.6mpg overall, and those guys don't take it easy. Can't seem to find any links to that, but the EPA revised numbers seem to show the Passat as I would expect, with the exception of the combined:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17762.shtml
My driving is really mostly rural roads with few lights, but not really highway either. So my combined mileage differs severely, but in my experience in my car the city and highway are pretty spot on.
Here is the same site for the LHS:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15185.shtml
Still a significantly large difference between the guys driving experience and the standard ( 50-60% in city, 16-20% highway) to be questionable.

My 1994 Civic VX was stickered for 56mpg on the highway. I've averaged about 45 mpg over the past 80,000 miles... I think it's quite good for a car with 212,000 total. I think it'd do better without the ethanol...

The Civic VX burns "lean" sorta like a diesel... 5 wire oxygen sensor costs about $600.

California Emissions didn't like how the engine put out a lot of the NOx when doing the leanburn trick, so the Civic VX was neutered in 1996 to become the Civic HX, Someone here said the Japanese Civic HX was good for 70mpg - it had lean burn and a CVT...

Honda brought Lean Burn back for the 1st generation Insight in 1999. The 5-spd was good for 70mpg highway. The CVT insight didn't have lean burn, and only got 50-something. A few years later Honda figured out a catalyst to break down the NOx, and incorporated lean burn (that the air regulators are happy with) into all the Civic Hybrids.

The point here is that it's possible to make a gas engine that gets the economy of diesel, but Honda only uses this feature in their hybrids (and the mpg on these is rather poor compared to what they used to sell). Wonder why that is.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS IN1992 HONDA CIVIC HATCHBACKS

I had a Honda Civic DX hatchback (4-speed) and was able to achieve 53 mpg. It's EPA rating was 40mpg. It was routine to get 45-50 mpg and I usually drove 75mph on the interstate.

My 1996 Geo Prizm is rated for 27mpg, but typically gets 33 and has gotten 40.5.

My 2001 Toyota Prius gets 40mpg at 80+ mph and 60-ish mpg when going 48 mph.
It's rated for 41 mpg.
5500 mile cross country trip with 85mph interstate speeds - 45 mpg.

The ratings are wrong.
Your mileage will vary by 25-50% from the test numbers.
Not all drivetrains are equivalent, some will surge and waste fuel like the GMC Acadia. It's rated for 23 mpg and some people are only getting 13. (76% error)

Manual transmissions are best since you can see the road ahead and shift accordingly.
Being in top gear with the engine idling while going downhill is an excellent way to conserve fuel.
It also allows you to downshift just before going up a hill without having to step on the gas.

I bet a fuel-conscious driver in that mustang you linked could get 30-35 mpg.

I had a Honda Civic DX hatchback (4-speed) and was able to achieve 53 mpg. It's EPA rating was 40mpg. It was routine to get 45-50 mpg and I usually drove 75mph on the interstate.

My 1996 Geo Prizm is rated for 27mpg, but typically gets 33 and has gotten 40.5.

My 2001 Toyota Prius gets 40mpg at 80+ mph and 60-ish mpg when going 48 mph.
It's rated for 41 mpg.
5500 mile cross country trip with 85mph interstate speeds - 45 mpg.

The ratings are wrong.
Your mileage will vary by 25-50% from the test numbers.
Not all drivetrains are equivalent, some will surge and waste fuel like the GMC Acadia. It's rated for 23 mpg and some people are only getting 13. (76% error)

Manual transmissions are best since you can see the road ahead and shift accordingly.
Being in top gear with the engine idling while going downhill is an excellent way to conserve fuel.
It also allows you to downshift just before going up a hill without having to step on the gas.

I bet a fuel-conscious driver in that mustang you linked could get 30-35 mpg.

I had a Honda Civic DX hatchback (4-speed) and was able to achieve 53 mpg. It's EPA rating was 40mpg. It was routine to get 45-50 mpg and I usually drove 75mph on the interstate.

My 1996 Geo Prizm is rated for 27mpg, but typically gets 33 and has gotten 40.5.

My 2001 Toyota Prius gets 40mpg at 80+ mph and 60-ish mpg when going 48 mph.
It's rated for 41 mpg.
5500 mile cross country trip with 85mph interstate speeds - 45 mpg.

The ratings are wrong.
Your mileage will vary by 25-50% from the test numbers.
Not all drivetrains are equivalent, some will surge and waste fuel like the GMC Acadia. It's rated for 23 mpg and some people are only getting 13. (76% error)

Manual transmissions are best since you can see the road ahead and shift accordingly.
Being in top gear with the engine idling while going downhill is an excellent way to conserve fuel.
It also allows you to downshift just before going up a hill without having to step on the gas.

I bet a fuel-conscious driver in that mustang you linked could get 30-35 mpg.

Oh, and before someone says "gasoline performance car, different market segment, not applicable"

check out the EPA ratings for the diesel commuter we already have in this country, the VW Jetta TDI.
M6 and A6 both come in at 30/42 city/hwy.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2011_Volkswagen_Jetta.shtml

Actually, everything I'm finding says that fuel efficiency is worse at lower speeds, peaking in the 40-60 mph range, then dropping again. This has a good explanation of the math. This has a simple chart that shows the average results. AFAIK these exact figures deal only in gasoline engines, but the logic should be applicable to diesel engines.

To summarize, with the engine on, at 0 mph, you are getting 0 miles to the gallon and all of the gas that you are using is being wasted. Also, the power needed to increase speed and maintain it by 1 mph increases dramatically as speed increases. (The difference in the amount of work needed to maintain speeds of 60 and 61 mph is far greater than the difference in the amount of work needed to maintain a speed of 2 to 3 mph) When these two are combined together. It turns out that, for gas engines anyway, peak fuel efficiency is between 40 and 60 mph, although if you're driving at any speed between 25 and 60 you probably wouldn't notice. After that, fuel efficiency drops dramatically.

I don't think you understand how fuel economy works, or what an average is.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2009&make=Toyota&model=Corolla&hiddenField=Findacar

That said, I'm surprised how bad the larger engine in that year's Corolla is. You COULD average 27 in it.

But you'd still have to have no idea how to drive to get that on the highway. And keep in mind this is the new EPA testing regime, and it was entirely possible to get better than old-style EPA numbers, without driving like an asshole.

Just another reason to hate Toyota, I guess.

Sadly, this isn't very impressive when cars nearly 20 years ago did the same.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9765.shtml

So you're saying EPA lowballs these things?
Let's compare apples-to-apples.
The new car is a little less powerful and requires a little less (but not as much less as the drop in HP would suggest) fuel to operate. So, no, there's no improvement to date.
And the yet-to-be delivered car contains a lot of hype and promises severely lacking in credibility. Again, nothing new.

13 years after Nissan built my 200SX, we see Mazda produce a vehicle with about the same exterior dimensions (lxwxd is ~3% less) and a 13% smaller engine. (200SX is 4364x1692x1377mm, 115HP, vs Mazda2 at 3949x1694x1475mm , 100HP).

They get--using NEW EPA numbers and the NEW EPA 55/45 city/hwy spread...wait for it...about 7% better mileage. (200SX@29.5 vs Mazda2@31.7)

This is what 13 years of incremental improvement have achieved? 13% smaller engine for 7% improvement?
And Mazda wants me to believe that a shiny new EBCIDIC engine is going to deliver, in one shot, a 120% improvement? (from 31.7MPG USEPA to 70 MPG Japanese).
By taking the 70MPG(J) as 70MPG(USEPA) I'm erring on the conservative side. "Most vehicles will achieve higher fuel economy on the U.S. test cycle than on the European or Japanese cycles.". If Mazda is to be believed, USEPA will give them a rating above 70MPG.

So, I'll say it again--an idiot would believe their promise of 70MPG. If they get an EPA 50 MPG that would be wonderful.

To your point, if these people deliver 70 Japanese MPG, I should see at LEAST 85 they way I drive. While this would be consistent with the grandiose claims from Mazda (and their ilk), past experience suggests that I should wait and see.
And the same experience tells me what I'm likely to see is no significant improvement in efficiency or performance.

So you're saying EPA lowballs these things?
Let's compare apples-to-apples.
The new car is a little less powerful and requires a little less (but not as much less as the drop in HP would suggest) fuel to operate. So, no, there's no improvement to date.
And the yet-to-be delivered car contains a lot of hype and promises severely lacking in credibility. Again, nothing new.

13 years after Nissan built my 200SX, we see Mazda produce a vehicle with about the same exterior dimensions (lxwxd is ~3% less) and a 13% smaller engine. (200SX is 4364x1692x1377mm, 115HP, vs Mazda2 at 3949x1694x1475mm , 100HP).

They get--using NEW EPA numbers and the NEW EPA 55/45 city/hwy spread...wait for it...about 7% better mileage. (200SX@29.5 vs Mazda2@31.7)

This is what 13 years of incremental improvement have achieved? 13% smaller engine for 7% improvement?
And Mazda wants me to believe that a shiny new EBCIDIC engine is going to deliver, in one shot, a 120% improvement? (from 31.7MPG USEPA to 70 MPG Japanese).
By taking the 70MPG(J) as 70MPG(USEPA) I'm erring on the conservative side. "Most vehicles will achieve higher fuel economy on the U.S. test cycle than on the European or Japanese cycles.". If Mazda is to be believed, USEPA will give them a rating above 70MPG.

So, I'll say it again--an idiot would believe their promise of 70MPG. If they get an EPA 50 MPG that would be wonderful.

To your point, if these people deliver 70 Japanese MPG, I should see at LEAST 85 they way I drive. While this would be consistent with the grandiose claims from Mazda (and their ilk), past experience suggests that I should wait and see.
And the same experience tells me what I'm likely to see is no significant improvement in efficiency or performance.

Wikipedia reports 36 MGP according to EPA and 50 MPG according to the EU measurements (I'm assuming the EPA number refers to the gasoline and not the diesel model). The difference in the numbers is simply due to the different testing methodology. Fuel economy is an abstraction either way, so unless one of the methods is very broken, it shouldn't matter: a car that ranks well in one should rank well in the other.

From what I can see on the EPA site, those numbers compare favorably to other cars. The only cars with a better economy are hybrids. The numbers could still be better considering what a tiny and (sanely) low-powered car it is.

Of course in Europe the diesel model with far better fuel economy (even taking into account the higher energy density) is more widely available. The diesel Fortwo is among the cars with the least emissions (88g CO2/km) available, on par with a Prius 3. It's also way less expensive. (No clue about US pricing.)

On top of this, it's going to be more expensive than it's competitors.

Fully loaded, with absolutely every option you can add to a Prius from the factory (At least when I built one on Toyota's site), it costs $36795, and can be easily retrofitted to work similar to the Volt's powertrain since the Prius powertrain already has an electric only mode built in. (albeit, not with the same range or power, or with a plug)

The Chevy Volt is reported to start at $41000, and is $44600 fully loaded.

Yes I know there's a tax credit that will knock $7500 off the price, but that only lasts until they build 200,000 cars. After that the credit starts phasing itself out.

Considering that what made this car special is now proven to be just another hybrid in a sea of hybrids, and an expensive one at that, There's a good chance that the Volt will be GM's Edsel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Conservation_and_reduction_in_demand

To help reduce consumption, in 1974 a national maximum speed limit of 55 mph (about 88 km/h) was imposed through the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. Development of the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve began in 1975, and in 1977, the cabinet-level Department of Energy was created, followed by the National Energy Act of 1978.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drivehabits.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/speedVsMpg3.gif

While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph.

You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.24 per gallon for gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Conservation_and_reduction_in_demand

To help reduce consumption, in 1974 a national maximum speed limit of 55 mph (about 88 km/h) was imposed through the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. Development of the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve began in 1975, and in 1977, the cabinet-level Department of Energy was created, followed by the National Energy Act of 1978.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drivehabits.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/speedVsMpg3.gif

While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph.

You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.24 per gallon for gas.

Even after revising the 1985-2007 mpg estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 mpg estimates, the 1989 Honda CRX-HF is rated at 41 city and 50 highway mpg.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml

After 20 years of technological innovation, and four years of sky-rocketing fuel costs, shouldn't a new car model get at least 41/50 mpg before that car is considered to be ecologically friendly? Yet greencar.com features the 2008 Nissan Rouge (22 city/27 highway mpg) as a "Top 2008 Fuel Economy Faves." The 2008 Nissan Rouge also has a sticker price of $19,250.

http://www.greencar.com/features/fuel-economy/

Seems to me that true economy cars been pulled from the market, and replaces with the new hybrids. Major car manufacturers want us to think that 30+ mpg is something miraculous, and requires an expensive, heavy, complicated, hard-to-maintain, hybrid.

In my opinion there is more to ecological friendliness than just mpg (although the present line-up fails at even that). Hybrids have huge batteries, and disposing of those batteries is never ecologically friendly. Then there is the ecological impact of manufacturing and shipping these huge, heavy, vehicles. Furthermore, recent road tests carried out by Auto Express show that hybrids often have worse CO2 emissions than standard autos.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3958376.ece

To have a real impact on fuel consumption, and emissions, new vehicles need to be affordable. Hybrids are about the most expensive vehicles on the market. How can hybrids have a positive effect of the environment, if practically nobody can afford the beasts? Even if you can afford the steep sticker price, what about the cost of maintenance? Hybrids have two engines, and use a complicated system to charge their huge batteries. I hate to even think about the cost of maintenance and repair.

It used to be common that most fuel efficient cars also had the lowest sticker price, and lowest maintenance costs. The cars where simply smaller, lighter, and required more manual operations. With smaller, cheaper, parts, and a less complicated design, the cars were cheaper to maintain. When I bought my 1992 Ford Festiva, the 30/37 mpg rating was the least of my criteria, I was also concerned with sticker price, and maintenance costs.

Why can't we do as well now, as we did 16 to 35 years ago?

1973 Honda Civic rated 35/40 mpg
1986 VW Golf Diesel rated 31/40 mpg *
1989 Geo Metro was rated 43/51 mpg
1989 Honda CRX-HF was rated 41/50 mpg
1992 Ford Festiva rated 30/37 mpg

* I got over 50mpg driving from Florida to New Jersey, while running the air conditioner.

Related:

57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
Want to drive a cheap car that gets eye-popping mileage? In 1987 you could - and it wasn't even a hybrid.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm

Efficiency? Think Racing Cars, Not Hybridso
A renowned racing car designer has said that car manufacturers should be looking at making cars lighter to improve efficiency, rather than adding complex drive trains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7387432.stm

Hot Cars Best Gas Milage
Welcome to hi-mpg.org. We are automotive enthusiasts and travel aficionados who also love the environment. We appreciate both form and function, all while striving to leave future generations a legacy of clean air, scenic grandeur and a continuum of natural resources. In addition: the freedom to drive.

http://hi-mpg.org/best-cars-with-high-gas-mileage.phtml

is totally useless as-is and is only owned by eco-posers with too much money and too little sense

And people who want to save on fuel, park easily, and still own a car that is nice to drive.

is totally useless as-is and is only owned by eco-posers with too much money and too little sense

And people who want to save on fuel, park easily, and still own a car that is nice to drive.

Like the SUV driving "soccer mom" who is concerned about the environment and recycles her husband's beer cans but drives a vehicle that gets 7 mpg.

Well, more like 11 MPG, if we're talking SUV's and US Environmental Protection Agency city mileage figures. If she truly wanted to maximize her fuel inefficiency, she'd be driving this VW roadster. (Yes, it's from VW.)

Boutique lifestyles of the nouveau riche. Wealth coming out of their eyeballs but morally bankrupt.

The 60's generation, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

I suspect most of "the 60's generation" aren't in that economic class (or above it).

Like the SUV driving "soccer mom" who is concerned about the environment and recycles her husband's beer cans but drives a vehicle that gets 7 mpg.

Well, more like 11 MPG, if we're talking SUV's and US Environmental Protection Agency city mileage figures. If she truly wanted to maximize her fuel inefficiency, she'd be driving this VW roadster. (Yes, it's from VW.)

Boutique lifestyles of the nouveau riche. Wealth coming out of their eyeballs but morally bankrupt.

The 60's generation, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

I suspect most of "the 60's generation" aren't in that economic class (or above it).

• the average cost per mile
• the average annual fuel cost
• the average cost to fill up
• tank size
• mileage range on a single tank
• average consumption per year in barrels
• Annual Tons of CO2 Emitted
• .... other crap you might care about

it even has calculators so you can plug in your own average miles traveled and driving style and determine how that effects the above.

also on there has a "garage" feature where you can have your cars and plug in how much you paid for gas and how many miles you got per gallon. (you don't even have to do the math yourself) and it will plot your mileage and allow you to compare what you're getting against the car's listed ratings as well as other drivers with the same car as you. I've got complete gas mileage charts for ever car I've owned over the last few years thanks to that site.

The site was created by the American government, it's been around for years, and it's openly available to any American smart enough to conjure the phrase "Fuel Economy" and plug it into Google.

Not everything needs to be stickered to the damn car... I'm sure you friendly neighborhood car salesman would be happy to give you the sheet that explains all this information about the car too. Don't assume that the only information available is only what's fed to you in TV ads...

You can compare back as far as 1984. The EPA has a website which publishes fuel economy ratings for just about everything on the market. They have updated the older cars to the new standard, to allow apples-to-apples comparison.

I'd assumed that the old MPG ratings were gamed by manufacturers to reflect higher-than-real-world performance myself. But I've recently been measuring the MPG of my '97 Geo Prizm (set the mileage counter when I fill up, record gallons-to-top at the next fill up, divide first figure by second) and I've been seeing numbers that range from 29 to 37 mpg. If you look at the fueleconomy.gov ratings, that's not only closer to old rating system, it exceeds it.

I suppose there may be factors from vehicle maintenance to how it's driven to what's kept inside, but it's an old car at this point (200k+), I don't think I've done anything special with it, I probably have more than the usual amount of stuff in the thing, and doubt I drive much more conservatively or efficiently than the average.

I don't have the time to address more of your points properly (like nuclear waste), however

4) The auto industry introduced the SUV. The fact that they made an end run around regulation si there fault. The minivan kills the station wagon, not the SUV. It also a pretty cheap trick to compare the best station wagon to on of the worst SUVs.

I just looked it up, all SUVs in 2009 and 2010 sold in N. America get of 20 MPG. so you are actually a liar. Just so you know, that's worse then a cheap trick.

So, what is the MPG that the 2009 Nissan Armada gets then? According to fueleconomy.gov, it does 14 MPG combined for the 2009MY and the Sequoia gets similar numbers. Unless both manufacturers significantly increased the performance without any significant changes while hiding it from the government, I don't think the OP is the liar here.

I don't have the time to address more of your points properly (like nuclear waste), however

4) The auto industry introduced the SUV. The fact that they made an end run around regulation si there fault. The minivan kills the station wagon, not the SUV. It also a pretty cheap trick to compare the best station wagon to on of the worst SUVs.

I just looked it up, all SUVs in 2009 and 2010 sold in N. America get of 20 MPG. so you are actually a liar. Just so you know, that's worse then a cheap trick.

So, what is the MPG that the 2009 Nissan Armada gets then? According to fueleconomy.gov, it does 14 MPG combined for the 2009MY and the Sequoia gets similar numbers. Unless both manufacturers significantly increased the performance without any significant changes while hiding it from the government, I don't think the OP is the liar here.

"I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics."

Agreed, but the real question is how are they testing? Downhill with a tailwind? Anyone can achieve 98mpg given the right conditions (downhill in neutral), and since they don't come out and say "we achieved 98mpg using the same technique as fueleconomy.gov" it sounds like BS.

Another reason this sounds like BS: billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020. When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $47 billion dollars to reach that goal: "For the auto industry, it will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion."

So a magic fuel injector that achieves 98 mpg would literally be worth billions of dollars, not to mention win the xprize and $10 million dollars. Any engineer that designed this could join any auto manufacture and write his own ticket. The idea that a startup in California just happened across this technology outdoing the greatest minds in GM, Toyota, Honda, and the academic community just sounds like snake oil, just like the car that runs on water, 130mpg car, 110mpg 0-60 in 3 seconds Mustang. If any of these technologies were real GM or Honda would be announcing it or at the very least they'd be xprize competitors.

Have we forgotten the Perpetual Motion DeLorean scammers already?

I see speculation on the cost of the fuel, but nothing whatsoever on the performance of it. This makes my suspicion meter go into alarm mode...

Though, to be fair, ethanol suffers from the same issue.

Looking at the 2010 Town and Country (a similar vehicle to my own Flex-Fuel van), I see these ratings:

E85 - 17mpg

Gas - 24mpg

Adjusted into dollars-per-hundred-miles, using these prices, that's something like:

E85 - $14.13 ($2.403/g)

Gas - $10.87 ($2.610/g)

So even though the price at the pump is less, I'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.

Unless this new fuel is better than E85, I can't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors. Now if it is somehow better than E85, then that would be some good news. Alas, the story is mute on this topic.

significant drops in fuel efficiency that appear when you start moving up past 75 or so.

You're being too generous. Fuel mileage starts to drop off around 60 mph for most vehicles. See this link and the accompanying chart as well as this link from Wikipedia which shows a fuel mileage chart from various cars over the years. Note how all of them have reduced fuel mileage at 60 mph. For a more simplified version of the graph, see this link.

Even using the word 'significant' is a misnomer as you can lose 5 mpg going from 55 to 65 or nearly 10 mpg going from 60 to 70, depending on your vehicle.

If AC is giving you the curb weight, doesn't that mean the particle filter is already in there?

For the Cooper S vs D:
Gas: 28/37 - EPA
Diesel:42/63 - I can't find American numbers, but I did find this, and multiplied by .83 to convert from imperial MPG.

So, you're right, 30% isn't true... It appears that it may be better in terms of efficiency. It has less horses, but the same torque. I don't know if the numbers are really that much better.

Uh... explain then why European & Japanese manufacturers can make high mpg with the same four-stroke engine technology? Oil lobby aside, the technology has more efficiency possible.

Maybe because European and Japanese car markers are only perceived as having better fuel economy these days? Look for yourself if you don't believe me: 2 of the top 5 family sedans ranked by fuel economy are American cars and in the large sedan class, of course, the only Japanese car maker in the category is Toyota and it gets a whopping 1 mpg than its next 6 competitors. Finally in minivans, the Mazda 5 gets the best gas mileage, running a 2.3L 4 cylinder engine that happens to be made by Ford (same engine that's in the 4 cylinder Ranger pickup truck), BTW, while the next 2 are Chryslers, both of which run a 4L Mitsubishi V6.

Perceptions, perceptions.

These are designed to remove the *concentration* of exhaust gases from fuel burning from crowded urban areas. It isn't really that there are that much less overall emissions, just relocate where the emissions occur (although something can be said for having emissions controls at the generating plant). There's a lot of stop and go traffic, etc, most vehicles today sit at idle or run at some lower less efficient speed in city traffic. Air cars and electric cars shut completely off at "idle" and aren't wasting fuel sitting there in some traffic jam or at the stop light doing nothing as regards moving from point A to B.

That's the primary advantage here for short range urban vehicles as regards the environment. If you primarily do long trips, get a well tuned/ well built modern diesel for best mileage/less fuel burnt.

Nice graphic on this page that shows where the fuel goes with a regular car, idling accounts for almost 1/5th energy wastage today, with extra pollution concentrated then for no real reason.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml

The US EPA changed to more accurate MPG measures two model years ago.

The article is almost certainly using UK gallons, since Ford's website for the Taurus lists fuel economy as 18 mpg city and 28 mpg highway.

False. Gasoline Jetta versus Diesel Jetta (or Golf, or Passat, or Beetle) == ~60% better MPG.

False yourself. Let's first make sure to compare equivalents. Automatics sell better than manuals, so let's go with automatics in both cases. For the diesel, that leaves one choice: the 4cyl, 2l turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP. There are two possible gasoline competitors: the 4cyl, 2l premium gasoline turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP, and the 5cl, 2.5L regular gasoline 3MODE CLKUP. The diesel makes 140 horsepower. The 5cl makes 170 horsepower; I can't locate the hp for the 4cl. So let's go with the 5cl, regular gasoline one. That's a combined mileage of 33 versus a combined mileage of 25. This means that the diesel engine is 32% more fuel efficient on a per-gallon basis than the gasoline engine. But the diesel engine also has only 82% as much horsepower. Subtracting for the horsepower difference, 25% is about right.

>>>half of which is simply due to the denser fuel.

Jeez. False again. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE???

Geez, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT A CURSORY SEARCH ISN'T THE SAME AS KNOWING WHAT THE F*** YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Diesel doesn't have a single energy density. There are different blends sold in different places and even variation at different times of year. Hence my use of a (somewhat generous) "about half" term.

False. Gasoline Jetta versus Diesel Jetta (or Golf, or Passat, or Beetle) == ~60% better MPG.

False yourself. Let's first make sure to compare equivalents. Automatics sell better than manuals, so let's go with automatics in both cases. For the diesel, that leaves one choice: the 4cyl, 2l turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP. There are two possible gasoline competitors: the 4cyl, 2l premium gasoline turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP, and the 5cl, 2.5L regular gasoline 3MODE CLKUP. The diesel makes 140 horsepower. The 5cl makes 170 horsepower; I can't locate the hp for the 4cl. So let's go with the 5cl, regular gasoline one. That's a combined mileage of 33 versus a combined mileage of 25. This means that the diesel engine is 32% more fuel efficient on a per-gallon basis than the gasoline engine. But the diesel engine also has only 82% as much horsepower. Subtracting for the horsepower difference, 25% is about right.

>>>half of which is simply due to the denser fuel.

Jeez. False again. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE???

Geez, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT A CURSORY SEARCH ISN'T THE SAME AS KNOWING WHAT THE F*** YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Diesel doesn't have a single energy density. There are different blends sold in different places and even variation at different times of year. Hence my use of a (somewhat generous) "about half" term.

False. Gasoline Jetta versus Diesel Jetta (or Golf, or Passat, or Beetle) == ~60% better MPG.

False yourself. Let's first make sure to compare equivalents. Automatics sell better than manuals, so let's go with automatics in both cases. For the diesel, that leaves one choice: the 4cyl, 2l turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP. There are two possible gasoline competitors: the 4cyl, 2l premium gasoline turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP, and the 5cl, 2.5L regular gasoline 3MODE CLKUP. The diesel makes 140 horsepower. The 5cl makes 170 horsepower; I can't locate the hp for the 4cl. So let's go with the 5cl, regular gasoline one. That's a combined mileage of 33 versus a combined mileage of 25. This means that the diesel engine is 32% more fuel efficient on a per-gallon basis than the gasoline engine. But the diesel engine also has only 82% as much horsepower. Subtracting for the horsepower difference, 25% is about right.

>>>half of which is simply due to the denser fuel.

Jeez. False again. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE???

Geez, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT A CURSORY SEARCH ISN'T THE SAME AS KNOWING WHAT THE F*** YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Diesel doesn't have a single energy density. There are different blends sold in different places and even variation at different times of year. Hence my use of a (somewhat generous) "about half" term.

7.3/6.4 = a 15% CO2 benefit. Gee, what do you know -- that's the number I've been stating this entire freaking thread.

How did you find that 2008 figure? I went Here, then here, and there are no diesels listed.

And want to see something weird? Click on the "Show detailed air pollution information" on the link you provided. When you do so, that "6" drops down to a "1". You click to close the detailed information and the 1 sticks around; the 6 is gone. Given that the model just two years prior was a 1, I seriously doubt the vehicle jumped up five rankings that fast; looks like a bug to me.

7.3/6.4 = a 15% CO2 benefit. Gee, what do you know -- that's the number I've been stating this entire freaking thread.

How did you find that 2008 figure? I went Here, then here, and there are no diesels listed.

And want to see something weird? Click on the "Show detailed air pollution information" on the link you provided. When you do so, that "6" drops down to a "1". You click to close the detailed information and the 1 sticks around; the 6 is gone. Given that the model just two years prior was a 1, I seriously doubt the vehicle jumped up five rankings that fast; looks like a bug to me.

Alternate link in case the other one does not work: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=25262

And also I stated the carbon footprint wrong:
6.4 diesel versus 7.3 for gasoline (diesel is smaller and better)

>>>Here's the most recent one that fueleconomy.gov has

You are such a fucking liar. You've done it twice now, first by claiming a modern diesel only gets a "1" and using old old data. And now again by claiming 2006 was the most-recent available year. False. 2009 Jetta Diesel == 6 on the EPA pollution scale. LINK - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car2tablef.jsp?column=2&id=25262 - That's equivalent to what the gasoline version gets.

And the Diesel has a smaller "carbon footprint" - 11.9 diesel versus 7.3 for gasoline

European countries, which have signed the greenhouse gas reduction treaties, are encouraging diesel and diesel-electric cars as the cleanest technology. Once again the United States is falling behind its E.U. neighbors with bass-backwards antidiesel policies, just the same way its falling-behind in internet speeds, cellphone speeds, and so on.

Anyone who registers that complaint without checking to see if things have changed is just being a jerk. Here's the most recent one that fueleconomy.gov has an EPA pollution score for -- 2006. Guess what? Still score 1.

But hey: go to a dealer and take a test drive. Then you'll know.

And then mosey on up to that tailpipe, breathe deeply, and enjoy that score 1 out of 10 (10 is best, 1 is just barely legal to sell) EPA emissions rating.

It's quite true that modern diesels are generally reliable, powerful, and comfortable. But it's a myth that they're clean, from anything but a marginal CO2-reduction perspective.

Show me more than a handful of non-hybrid SULEV vehicles.

Fine. Show me a LEV diesel engine smaller than what you'd put in a school bus.

Besides, since diesels hardly sell in the US, there hasn't been a lot of point in developing the technology. SULEV is a US (not EU) standard, and diesels only account for a small percentage of passenger car sales. Most of the diesel vehicles are produced by EU companies and there is no reason SULEV cannot be achieved by diesel.

The modern "clean diesels" generally barely meet modern US emissions reqs. The Jetta TDI, for example, has an EPA Air Pollution Score of 1 out of 10, where 1 is the worst (the Prius gets an 8). You can't sell a car in the US that has worse emissions than the Jetta TDI.

By the way: all of New England is in a smog alert right now.

The reason diesels are popular in Europe is because gasoline is so heavily taxed in Europe that the 10-30% improvement in fuel economy diesels get adds up to real money. Furthermore as of this writing the EU and Japan have more stringent emissions standards than the US.

Almost every EU diesel would be illegal to sell in the US because they don't meet US emissions reqs.

It's almost 15% denser and releases correspondingly more CO2 per gallon

Even if that were true (and this study says you are wrong)

Huh? The densities of diesel versus gasoline are not up for debate. Even a sixth grader doing a science fair project can measure fuel densities. Diesel is denser, plain and simple. It's made of longer-chain hydrocarbons. That's what defines diesel. Hydrocarbon densities increase with average chain length, with methane as the least dense and your bitumen/tars as the densest.

diesel also uses 10-25% less fuel for the same power output thanks to that same energy density.

And divide that by the density difference....

I'm not all that impressed, either at this point, but I do have to take issue with a couple of your points.

The current model VW's that have diesel options (Jetta, Golf, Beetle) can average 50mpg all day long with 4 adults and the AC turned on.

Under certain conditions (steady state cruising on the highway at moderate speeds), the current TDIs may get 50mpg, but it seems that in real life fuel economy is really around 40mpg on average. (see fueleconomy.gov)

I for one would rather start with a diesel and tune it to get 70mpg without a trunk full of batteries.

Good luck with that. It doesn't appear to be possible unless you limit operation to 45-50mph cruising in an aerodynamic vehicle.

Well, supposing a Grand AM (29 mpg highway) can keep up 5mpg at 100mph, it's been done. (Incidentally, that song is based on a genuine news item. More info.)

In fact it would go about 400 miles at 100 mph (since I routinely get about 450 miles at about 85 mph, with it loaded to the limit).

What? No way. How big is your tank, and what's your rated mpg?

The most fuel-efficient minivan on the market (the Mazda 5 Touring) gets 22/28 mpg for the manual transmission. Most minivans get between 21 and 25 mpg highway.

When you multiply mpg rating (highway) by fuel tank capacity for minivans, the largest "theoretical distance between fuel-ups" for any minivan is 513 miles (25 mpg * 20.5 gal tank). At 85 mph, you're getting less than 80% of your rated highway fuel efficiency (there is no minivan in production that gets batter than 80% rated efficiency at 85 mph... most get more like 70-75%). So at best, you'd get around 402 miles per tank -- with no load other than yourself. Even assuming you got a freak car that gets 10% better fuel economy than rated... no way. Not with a load.

Simply put... I call shenanigans. Either you have a customized minivan with a ginormous tank or some serious body modifications (in either case you can't extrapolate to other cars), or you're exaggerating.

Also, mileage in particular is noted as mediocre for a hybrid in this review - and isn't that pretty much the defining characteristic for any hybrid?

Seems like your mileage may vary as with all cars. With hybrids, it seems to vary a bit more as there were more than a few comments where people are regularly exceeding the EPA numbers.

Looking at the customer entered numbers at fueleconomy.gov seems to indicate that they aren't alone.

Know of any other 3700+lb cars that can fairly easily beat 40mpg? There aren't even that many small cars that can do that!

While they don't do that, what they do is almost as bad.

They tune the car perfectly and esentially put it on a rollers in a room. No road, no wind, no hills, just the car sitting in a room under perfect driving conditions.

You mean this?

At least in the US, automakers are following federal law. The "rollers" you mention are computer-controlled dynamometers which provide realistic resistance based on the speed of the vehicle, simulating road and air resistance. Not only does indoor testing provide controlled, repeatable conditions, but it makes it possible to test the fuel consumption and pollution much more accurately, by capturing and analyzing the vehicle's exhaust.

If you can't get the rated mileage, you should really look at your own driving habits.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15989.shtml ...sez a 2000 Chevy Impala (6-cyl, 4sp automatic) gets around 21 mpg. If you're making a bald assertion that you can get 50 mpg+ out of that car, seriously, dude, you gotta provide some data, or expect people to just flatly disbelieve you.