Slashdot Mirror

"I can easily break 50MPG"

[Citation seriously needed]

Becasue the rated gas mileage of ov a Chevy Impala is about 27 MPG:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15989.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/bymodel/2000_Chevrolet_Impala.shtml

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/02/chevrolet-impala-gas-mileage/

A lot of geeks really enjoy cars, so you need to take your lie to some other place, or prove it.
If you had said 30 MPG or even 33 MPG I could see that maybe you ahve an odd driving pattern. 50? Bullshit.

In short Mod -1 Pants on Fire

"I can easily break 50MPG"

[Citation seriously needed]

Becasue the rated gas mileage of ov a Chevy Impala is about 27 MPG:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15989.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/bymodel/2000_Chevrolet_Impala.shtml

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/02/chevrolet-impala-gas-mileage/

A lot of geeks really enjoy cars, so you need to take your lie to some other place, or prove it.
If you had said 30 MPG or even 33 MPG I could see that maybe you ahve an odd driving pattern. 50? Bullshit.

In short Mod -1 Pants on Fire

Mini fuel economy

Smart fuel economy

Your two anecdotal examples get 26 and 36 MPG respectively, both under the proposed 42 MPG standard for *all* cars. And yet, this is modded insightful, again. Why doesn't Slashdot just add an agree option for mods and be done with it?

Mini fuel economy

Smart fuel economy

Your two anecdotal examples get 26 and 36 MPG respectively, both under the proposed 42 MPG standard for *all* cars. And yet, this is modded insightful, again. Why doesn't Slashdot just add an agree option for mods and be done with it?

Unfortunately for the US, California has pretty much blocked the adoption of diesel in small cars in the US. Even leaving aside historical concerns (GM's craptastic diesel offerings in the past), California and the few other states that followed its lead had such high emissions standards that no diesel was able to meet them. That's finally changed a bit recently, with the urea injection and other tech, but diesel is still pretty much a wasteland in the US. The only passenger car diesels in the US right now are big, expensive luxury cars with mediocre mileage (tuned for performance, not efficiency) and the VW Jetta TDI. We're getting a couple more based on the same TDI in the Jetta (A3 and Golf), but that's it. Honda was going to bring over their iDTEC, but have changed their minds.

Honestly, I don't see how the automakers can do this. Looking at the cars available in the US, most auto makers don't even have a SINGLE model that meets this new standard, much less any way to hit it on the average. Take away the Jetta TDI and a couple hybrids (Prius, Civic and Insight) and we're down to the Smart Fortwo. Seriously. Even stuff like the Civic and the Yaris don't meet this new standard. (You can check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ to see the EPA ratings, which is what any standard like this would be judged by)

I've been looking at buying a new car lately, and this kind of thing is driving me nuts. I see all sorts of cars I'd buy, and then hit the "not in North America" proviso and get frustrated. The European Honda Civic diesel is pretty much exactly the car I want, and I have no chance of ever being able to buy it.

I wish you had bought a Golf TDI

You can't but those new in the USA. And the used ones emit a LOT of pollutants. The closest thing is a Jetta Sportwagon Diesel, so I'll use that to compare to the Prius.

which has practically the same dimensions and performance

I think the Sportwagon is actually bigger than the Prius, so +1 VW. Sedan has a bit less usable space since it's not a hatchback.

gets superior mileage in average driving

Citation please. If I head to fueleconomy.gov and look at the end-user reported fuel economy, the Prius (I checked multiple years) seems to average very close to it's EPA rating of 46 mpg, while the TDI seems to average well above it's EPA rating of 33 mpg getting close to 40 mpg.

So, no, I'd have to say that the Prius gets superior fuel economy in average driving (seems to get about 15% more miles per gallon than a Jetta TDI), not to mention that diesel has significantly more energy in it than gasoline so if comparing mpg you should take that in to account which puts the TDI even farther behind.

and which doesn't have all those batteries in it

True, but the NiMH batteries in a Prius are significantly less toxic than even the lead-acid battery in all automobiles. People tend to overstate the environmental impact of battery packs citing flawed and obviously biased studies. Toyota will even pay you to take it off your hands if it reaches the end of it's useful life.

They also have better visibility.

That may be true, but having driven a Prius on extended trips, visibility is actually pretty good. I never found myself wishing I had more.

An African grey parrot, we're probably going to be adopting another one. He's between 15 and 17 in age.

We have a 3-year-old yellow-headed amazon. We take him out to local parks about weekly -- not for shows, but just to meet the local children so he stays well-socialized. He's a real sweetie. :)

First up you're wrong regarding it takes more to refine diesel, par the DOE

First off, your link doesn't state that. Secondly, that's not what I stated; I stated that diesel *contains* more energy (and more mass of petroleum) per gallon, not that it uses more energy to refine. Third, diesel *did* used to take less energy to refine, but it's approximately the same today with modern desulfurization requirements. Oh, and my source on how much energy it currently takes to refine is from my father, who is the CEO of one of the largest refiners in the US.

Based on this you can't get a single product from a barrel,

That's not how it works. They're talking about the average. First off, there's no single type of crude oil. Crude comes in varying average molecular weights, from light to ultra-heavy (and even bitumen), varying levels of sulphur (sweet to sour), etc. The different average molecular weights have differing natural "cuts" between gasoline, fuel oil (varying grades), and so forth. In addition to the average molecular weight requirements (diesel/fuel oil being heavier than gasoline), you also need approximately the right mix of different types of hydrocarbons -- alkanes, cycloalkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, etc. Again, your crude can have a different natural cut of these, and almost never does it come out just right to be used directly as fuel just by separating by weight.

That's where refining comes in. Refining is not only the process of the separation of the crude, but changing certain chemicals from one form to another. My father got his start, for example, managing cat crackers, which use hydrogen and catalyst beds to break down long chain hydrocarbons into shorter chain hydrocarbons.

Secondly, the Biodiesel Board has something to say regarding emissions with just a 20% blend of renewable fuel in the mainstream

And I'm sure the Tobacco Lobby has something to say regarding the health effects of tobacco smoking. They are correct, mind you, that biodiesel is usually cleaner than regular diesel when burned properly. But it still doesn't come close to gasoline. For example, point to a single diesel or biodiesel SULEV. They don't exist, and it takes some really convoluted methods (like traps and urea injection) to even get down to LEV status.

we can easily offset that by using any number of renewable crops -- several of which have no human consumption traits

There simply is not enough land. Do the math. We're already farming too darn much of this country, a large chunk of it unsustainably in terms of water, and what's being proposed is asking for somewhere between another Florida's worth of irrigated land to about five Texases worth of irrigated land.

I don't really care how you slice it, when you look at a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle that gets 28/32 and the 1.9L Diesel Beetle that gets 44/51

*Sigh*. I really have to start from the beginning here, don't I?

1) First off, where are your numbers from? From fueleconomy.gov, we don't see a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle in any recent model -- only 2.5L. The most recent year that a diesel VW beetle was certified by the EPA was 2006. The gasolines ranges from 20/28/23 to 20/29/23. The diesels ranged from 30/38/33 to 31/40/34. *However*, the gasoline beetles ranked from 6 to 9 on their pollution scores, while the diesels both ranked *1*. That's on a scale of 0 being the worst and 10 being the best. Breathe in deep from *that* tailpipe!

2) A gallon of diesel contains about 12% more petroleum, and burning it emits about 12% more CO2. The diesel beetles wer

You were very generous with 40mpg. The highest mileage a 2009 car gets on E85 is only a paltry 16 city 23 hwy, much lower than the 22 city 32 hwy on gasoline. Most new vehicles that burn E85 are trucks so the cafe average is probably closer to 13mpg, which would be worse if running on E100.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

plants are only about 6% efficient(max) at converting sunlight into sugars & cellulose. Modern solar panels are around 20% efficient(very expensive space panels are at 40%).

ethonol must be distributed by truck or rail(there is no pipeline yet).
electricity transmission loss is around 3%.

How you use the energy matters also. Internal combustion engines waste most of the energy as heat(75-80%) and use only 20-25% of the energy to move the car. Electric batteries and motors are around 85% efficient.

Electricity wins.
Now if we can just get some affordable batteries and solar panels...

The 1.9L 2006 VW Golf TDI has a 12.5 gal tank. Here are the numbers. Please notice the EPA ratings barely break 40MPG for the 2006 (newest) and about the same with older models.

The TDI Golf has a 12.5 UK gallon fuel tank, this equates to a ~15 US gallons (the fuel economy site you linked to gives 14.5 US gallons capacity.

While I'm sure the mileage is great, I'm skeptical of the claim that fnj can 'go over 600 miles without coming close to empty' though. With a 'best fillup' of 781 miles, one would be breaking 60MPG. That's barely achievable even with VW's diesel hybrid. fnj must do a lot of modestly paced highway hypermiling down a 700 mile slope or something... heh. Just a quick search around shows anecdotal evidence that people typically get about 45 highway with their Gold TDIs... that's probably more like it. But yeah, diesel engines are just more efficient than their gasoline counterparts.

With a full tank at 12.5 UK gallons and a best fill up of 781 that would give a fuel efficiency of 62.48 miles per UK gallon (53.86 miles per US gallon), which is achievable. I have a 2000 1.9 90bhp TDI Golf and I often get between 55 and 60 miles per UK gallon (46 - 50 miles per US gallon) so I wouldn't find the idea of 62.5 miles per UK gallon (52 miles per US gallon) that far out. Driving style and reading road conditions can have dramatic effects on fuel efficiency especially when driving long distances

The 1.9L 2006 VW Golf TDI has a 12.5 gal tank. Here are the numbers. Please notice the EPA ratings barely break 40MPG for the 2006 (newest) and about the same with older models.

The TDI Golf has a 12.5 UK gallon fuel tank, this equates to a ~15 US gallons (the fuel economy site you linked to gives 14.5 US gallons capacity.

While I'm sure the mileage is great, I'm skeptical of the claim that fnj can 'go over 600 miles without coming close to empty' though. With a 'best fillup' of 781 miles, one would be breaking 60MPG. That's barely achievable even with VW's diesel hybrid. fnj must do a lot of modestly paced highway hypermiling down a 700 mile slope or something... heh. Just a quick search around shows anecdotal evidence that people typically get about 45 highway with their Gold TDIs... that's probably more like it. But yeah, diesel engines are just more efficient than their gasoline counterparts.

With a full tank at 12.5 UK gallons and a best fill up of 781 that would give a fuel efficiency of 62.48 miles per UK gallon (53.86 miles per US gallon), which is achievable. I have a 2000 1.9 90bhp TDI Golf and I often get between 55 and 60 miles per UK gallon (46 - 50 miles per US gallon) so I wouldn't find the idea of 62.5 miles per UK gallon (52 miles per US gallon) that far out. Driving style and reading road conditions can have dramatic effects on fuel efficiency especially when driving long distances

what is so groundbreaking about a 750 mile range if your car has a 100 gallon tank in the back seat?

The 1.9L 2006 VW Golf TDI has a 12.5 gal tank. Here are the numbers. Please notice the EPA ratings barely break 40MPG for the 2006 (newest) and about the same with older models.

While I'm sure the mileage is great, I'm skeptical of the claim that fnj can 'go over 600 miles without coming close to empty' though. With a 'best fillup' of 781 miles, one would be breaking 60MPG. That's barely achievable even with VW's diesel hybrid. fnj must do a lot of modestly paced highway hypermiling down a 700 mile slope or something... heh. Just a quick search around shows anecdotal evidence that people typically get about 45 highway with their Gold TDIs... that's probably more like it.

But yeah, diesel engines are just more efficient than their gasoline counterparts.

And your way of thinking is why most people who attempt to avoid alternative energies think your crazy.

The problem isn't a lack of consideration to the current disadvantages, the problem is with the costs associated with the level of mitigation to the current disadvantages. Take ethanol for instance, in order to be cost effective, it requires energy from oil and coal or it costs more to make then it's currently selling for. But, when you put it directly into a car designed for it, you lose about http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml >20-30 percent gas mileage and when run in vehicles not designed for it, you loose more gas mileage and engine power and end up losing most if not all advantages to it because you will be using way more then any savings.

With this CFL power factor issue alone, if everyone getting power from one generating station up and switched to those CFLs today, then the generating stations would end up losing money because they have to create more energy then they are billing for. This means your rates go up but more importantly, if they are actually 50% more efficient instead of the advertised 80% or whatever, then real tech which might be 65% efficient is locked out of the market because of somewhat deceptive advertising. So we could possibly be free to choose something that is even more effective at savings in both money and efficiency which translates to even less of the disadvantages of the current systems. Instead, the choice and potential is getting locked away by people like you who want to force their favorite crap on us because it does "something" even if that something isn't what is advertised.

If it is important, then it's important enough to get right and not half ass. Otherwise we will end up with tarp legislation with politicians claiming it doesn't have to be perfect just to get it passed only to later find that paying bonuses with the bailout money outrages them just to be shown that they specifically allowed it to happen in the not so perfect bill. And just like you, I'm not trying to change the topic, I'm just showing how half baked ideas not fully considered and thought through to completion does come back to bite people in the ass.

My point is that your buick still only does 21 mpg, which would be considered a very very poor mileage for any car sold in Europe or Japan.

And yes, there are SUV made by every brand nowadays, but the american ones are still bigger, more powerfull and thus more gas consuming that the European and Japanese. Also the relative percentage of these big cars to more reasonably sized cars is much higher in the states than in either Europe or Japan.

I'm not saying Europe or Japan aren't too blame, it's just that the States have been very late to admit to the enviromental impact they're making and later still to actually start reducing it.

Y'all are still using roughly twice as much resource per capita as Europeans or Japanese, guys. Wake up and smell the coffee.

And why do you need a V6 anyway?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/15079.shtml

Bah - the 2009 TDI is not any better than the 2006 in fuel economy. If anything, it tends to be worse because of the extra emissions control equipment used to drastically reduce NOx and soot emissions.

Fuel economy of the 2006 and 2009 TDIs are very similar in practice with the 2006 slightly edging out the 2009. Both averaging a bit over 40mpg according to http://fueleconomy.gov/

it sounds like you do not own your vehicles very long. most prius owners i know plan to drive it until it dies a horrible death many years from now. (I am a prius owner, fyi).

Well, using the gas mileage statistics here, and assuming the Corrola is $6000 cheaper, if gas is $4 a gallon, you would have to drive the Prius ~130,000 miles to make up the difference. If gas is $2 a gallon, you have to drive 260,000.

It's a bit more miles than most people would think.

North America +5 Insightful

Rest of the World +5 Sad

Compare for instance, two competitors in the sedan market, a 2009 V-6 Toyota Camry, and a 2009 V-6 Ford Taurus. The Camry gets 19/28 mpg, and the Taurus gets 18/28.

I am not going to attack the fact that you pick two random cars (with similar fuel consumption) to represent the entire US and foreign auto industries. Instead what amuses me is the fact that these are the typical models you select.

A sedan with a 3.5l V6 engine would hardly be my entry into a discussion on fuel efficiency. But then, North Americans seem to need that sort of grunt to propel themselves from one traffic light to another. We use to borrow my wife's grandmother's Taurus when we went to visit my in-laws in Canada. It had a 3l or 3.4l engine. We really did not need that power to do 50/70/90km/h. I remember a piece of highway on the way to Mt Washington where we were actually allowed to do 110km/h. I can assure you that her grandmother has never legally driven it more than 90km/h and most probably never legally taken it over 70km/h. (3l -> 18/26mpg or 3.4l -> 15/24mpg

Contrast that with their visit here when we traveled as 5 adults with a 7 ft luggage trailer and aircon in my wife's 160 Etude/Protege. We averaged 27mpg (actual figures over 1890km) at or near 120km/h most of the way. The car is quite capable of doing 160km/h on the deserted roads of the Northern Cape (never done it with the trailer) and with the aircon on the fuel consumption falls to 23mpg. It tows my Hobie just fine though I limit myself to 100km/h and it might struggle to maintain higher speeds. Over a 6 month stretch my wife averaged 35.6mpg commuting to work, though granted, most of it was highway.

So what is my point? This ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/BMW2009.shtml ) site seems to list the smallest BMW in the US as the 128i. Here it would be the 118i. The smallest 3 is the 328. Here it is the 320i, which would probably also be the most common. These cars are neither slow nor under powered, for everyday use. So while the 335ci (17/26mpg) and the Taurus (18/28mpg) might be comparable, they both pale in comparison to the 320i (46.3mpg combined according to http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/bmw-320i-1002947.html) though realistically it is probably more like 22/33mpg ( http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=10089 ).

I have no problem with people wanting powerful or inefficient cars. I too have a 3l V6 truck (bakkie). When I bought it it was the least fuel efficient 14.4mpg average to date (and most powerful) on the market. It gets me to work in exactly the same time as my little 1.3l car.

When people say that foreign (to North America) cars are more efficient, they are not saying that a Japanese SUV with a 4.5l engine is more efficient than a US SUV with a 4.5l engine. What they are saying is that in the rest of the world there are cars that can perform the tasks that the average North American car performs comparably, but using less fuel in the process. For example, they only thing that you achieve by commuting to work at 30 mph in a BMW 335/328 as appose to a BMW 320 is to burn more fuel.

So, even foreign cars in the rest of the world are more efficient that foreign cars in North America.

No, the adjusted MPG, used on http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

There's been no noticeable gains in fuel economy in the last 10 years, except in hybrids. And even some of the hybrids are pretty underwhelming.

• The people that use craigslist are representative of the general population of Los Angeles.
• The distribution of cars for sale on craigslist for Los Angeles is similar or identical to the distribution of cars for sale in the city itself.

Now, none of those cars need to worry about snow, or road salt either. Yet, all of the first 20 cars here have mileage less than 28 mpg (and most have less than 25) according to FuelEconomy.gov (if you feel the source is biased, I won't mind using numbers from car forums*). So it looks like the people in Los Angeles use vehicles that are incredibly inefficient despite not needing to use such vehicles due to reasons such as yours. Is Los Angeles a very different city from the rest of the US? It's definitely worth looking at other cities too, then.

*In a few cases, I did: I found Edmund's CarSpace easy to search so I looked at that instead of fueleconomy.gov quite often.

As for hybrids, a Toyota Prius is rated at 48 MPG in the city. The 2010 models are supposed to approach 60 MPG in the city. The 94 Civics are rated at 25 to 39 in the city, depending on model. That's not a tie, that's a clear win for the hybrids IMO. They really only tie in the highway ratings.

As for hybrids, a Toyota Prius is rated at 48 MPG in the city. The 2010 models are supposed to approach 60 MPG in the city. The 94 Civics are rated at 25 to 39 in the city, depending on model. That's not a tie, that's a clear win for the hybrids IMO. They really only tie in the highway ratings.

A calculation of the German version of the AAA, the ADAC, showed that the electric smart that is currently on the road, would actually create more CO2 per km than the combustion engine version, IF the power plant was solely coal based

This did not seem quite right, so I ran the numbers for the electric and non-electric versions of the MINI:

• The electric MINI has a 35 kWh battery which takes it 150 miles
• 35 kWh / 150 Miles == ~233 Wh/Mile
• Coal plants emit 2.095 pounds of CO2 per kWh generated
• New MINI Coopers generate an average of 6.7 tons of CO2 in 15000 miles
• 6.70 tons == 13,400 lbs

Electric Mini: 2.095 lbs CO2 * .233 kWh/mile == .488 lbs CO2/mile

Gas Mini: 13,400 lbs / 15000 Miles == .893 lbs CO2/mile

So it looks like a Gas MINI produces about twice the CO2 per mile... In the absolute worst case (For the electric version).

Thanks!

While I tend to agree with you -- there are many, many cars with extremely similar mileage to the Prius and if you really do the math, you'll find that you save either $0 or very close to $0 buying a Prius over other cars with similar gas mileage (not counting the tax credit, which many people may not even be able to take advatnage of), I highly doubt that you're getting 38 MPG on the highway with an unmodified 205 HP V6 engine of any make.

I'm not saying that you're lying, but I think that maybe you're not calculating your actual fuel economy correctly. If you do an advanced search at fueleconomy.gov for cars getting greater fuel economy than 30 MPG for model years 1994-2009 with at least 6 cylinders, you'll find that there aren't any from any manufacturer that get more than 33 mpg.

Many vehicles only use a tiny fraction of their horsepower to maintain speed and the rest is for acceleration, so in an car driven by electrical motors - the gasoline recharging engines can be significantly smaller; 5-20hp (? - my civic has 140hp in comparison)

Speaking of Civics, did you know that yours has plenty more engine than it needs too? A decade or so ago, Civics had engines with 70-90 HP. It seems silly to me that everybody thinks efficiency in the 40-50 MPG range is so hard that it requires electric motors and stirling engines and whatnot, when a perfectly normal CRX HF -- the cheapest CRX -- did 45 MPG in 1988! And that's the revised figure; according to the old EPA method the combined efficiency was 54 MPG.

Whoops, meant to change that to FuelEconomy.gov

That's nothing.

2008 Cadillac Escalade: 14mpg combined

2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid: 20mpg combined

25% more efficient!

Incontrovertible evidence that GM holds its U.S. customers in contempt.

That's nothing.

2008 Cadillac Escalade: 14mpg combined

2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid: 20mpg combined

25% more efficient!

Incontrovertible evidence that GM holds its U.S. customers in contempt.

>>Without citations, you can say anything and it could just as easily be completely false.

What, I didn't provide enough citations already?

Combined Fuel Efficiency:
Geo Metro (40 MPG): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/13347.shtml
Honda Civic (34 MPG): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/3033.shtml

Note that these numbers are using their own metric for fuel efficiency which is lower than the official number. The 87 Honda Civic has an official EPA combined mileage of 54MPG.

>>Without citations, you can say anything and it could just as easily be completely false.

What, I didn't provide enough citations already?

Combined Fuel Efficiency:
Geo Metro (40 MPG): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/13347.shtml
Honda Civic (34 MPG): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/3033.shtml

Note that these numbers are using their own metric for fuel efficiency which is lower than the official number. The 87 Honda Civic has an official EPA combined mileage of 54MPG.

No, it isn't a matter of simply building better engines. That is and will be the overall hope but they can't do much more then what they got now. As the Parent said, they have to live withing the constraints of physics.

A good example of this os Toyota. Toyota has a history and reputation or producing fuel efficient vehicles as well as being ahead of the curve compared to US cars. They recently entered the Full Size consumer truck markets commonly referred to as the light trucks with their Tundra model.

Now, you would think that if it was possible to get better gas mileage through building a better engine, that Toyota would have done it or attempted to. But if we look, (click the link for View old/new MPG ratings for a specific vehicle and look them up yourselves) we can see that a 2007 tundra 5 wheel drive, automatic with a 5.7 liter gas engine gets 13 MPG cty and 17 MPH hwy with an average of 14. Now, if we look at a comparable ford or chevy truck, we will see the same or similar numbers. A 2007 Ford F150 Pickup FFV 4WD with a 5.4 liter gas engine gets 12 cty and 16 hwy with an average of 14. Not quite as good as the Toyota and is more or less due to less power because of the smaller engine. A 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Classic 1500 4WD with a 6 liter engine gets 13cty and 16hwy with and average of 14.

Now, the interesting thing is that while there might be a little better mileage in some respects, they are all basically the same trucks with minor differences in weight, options and engine size but they all get about the same average fuel economy. This is even after knowing that Toyota is known for producing well made efficient motors. If Toyota could product a similar truck that got 20 MPG, they would and everyone would buy it. If Ford or Chevy done the same, everyone would buy it. But there are practical limitations and laws of physics that just can't be moved around. You will need to burn so much fuel to get so much power and until something happens to change that or that makes metal much more lighter while still as strong, nothing is going to happen over night like your suggesting.

Now sure, there might be something sitting somewhere that will improve economy a little. But if it costs $20,000 extra, any company using it would be an idiot because no one would buy their vehicles. But I'm sure that there are enough conscious buyers who would pay the $20,000 extra for a custom or add on package from the factory to gain 2 MPH. But you can't expect a normal consumer to go that route.

Oh, BTW, claiming that a company looks to their next monthly profit rather then doing something that defies natural laws is a bit childish. Maybe you should refrain from talking about this with smart people or at least people smart enough to use the interweb until you get a grasp on practical limitations imposed by the basic science behind the tech. I mean blaming malice over something that is only in your head because of your ignorance isn't very smooth.

Can you point to me the trucks that were the offending models of low farmer usability? Everything I've seen on the subject indicates that the standards were lowered before they went into effect, so I'm surprised to hear that the standards were rolled back due to poor products on the market. It's possible you and I are thinking of different reductions in the mileage standards, but I was only aware of Reagan dropping the standards once.

Ford Ranger and Chevy S10 are the models that were introduced to cope with the Cafe Standards. Engine Tech simply wasn't there at the time and ALL vehicles shrunk in order to meet the standards. The exemption was added before there was a loss in production but that doesn't make the problem any less real. And no, it wasn't due to poor products on the market, it was do to unusable products on the market. You see, unlike consumers taking kids to school, industry has an Idea of what type of horse power and cargo space they need. Farmers know how big of a tractor they need (horse power wise) based on what they do (plant, raise, or whatever).

The congress was controlled by democrats with a comfortable majority under Reagan. They would have had to of been convinced of the need and agreed enough with it in order to vote onn the changes to the Cafe Standards. This isn't some made up BS that Reagan automagically waived a pen or a wand in the air and made happen.

Now, the 27.7 MPG hasn't been reached in cars or trucks of the size since then. It is even more apparent now since the EPA changed the MPG reporting to reflect actual experiences more accurately. Imports aren't even hitting the mark until recently under the new reporting standards for anything but the smallest cars. The EPA has adjusted fuel economy ratings under the new system to accurately compare older vehicles with the old ratings. A 1985 Honda accord for instance with a 5 speed 4 cylinder engine has a rating of 26 with 23MPG city and 30MPG highway. But nothing other then a 4 cylinder came close to the ratings.

Now, you can defy the laws of physics and assume that we have always been able to push 200+ horse power out of a V8 to power something that not only has the towing and cargo space but the power and ability to pull a tractor out of the mud and not use any fuel. You can deny the laws of thermal dynamics and create over unity engines all you want. And when you do this, you can bring the engine to market and make millions from it. But until that happens, we need to be able to have vehicles that are more tools then cars and those tools need to be able to get the job done.

Your also crazy if you think the auto makers aren't attempting to lower fuel usage in the mean time. Lets take something like Toyota, a company known for making fuel efficient vehicles. When they started producing their full size pickups, they didn't do any better then the American trucks. Take the 2007 Toyota Tundra for instance. With a 5.7 liter V8 gas engine, 4wd, 4sp automatic transmission and about the same power ratings as a Chevy Silverado, It has a MPG rating of 14 with 13MPG cty and 17 MPG hwy. The 2007 Siverado with a 6 liter has the same rating of 14 with 13 cty and 16 hwy. If you go down a notch to a 5.3 liter gas engine, you get a 15 rating with 13 cty and 18 hwy. Now, everyone who needs a full sized pickup truck is generally using them for work to some extent. The more money spent in fuel means the more money not put in their pocket. It doesn't matter if your loading junk from people's back yard for $125 a load or if your hauling tools and equiptment or materials to a job site or pulling a hay wagon or livestock trailer, the more you spend in fuel to get the job done means the more you don't get to keep. If you could produce an engine that will drop in these trucks that deliver the same power that is needed, they will snatch it up in a heart beat. This is why they are going to diesel trucks, you produce more power a

They made a fuel burning car that did 45 mpg back in the 80's. It sat 4 people, who didn't have to be under 150 lbs, and could go well over 55. It was a Honda Civic CRX.

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

There is no reason we couldn't do much better than that now.

It gets about 2x the fuel economy of a relatively efficient gasoline vehicle and diesel only costs about $1 more per gallon (which is about 4/3 as much as regular)... idunno how many people here are capable of such reasoning though. Also, 65 is a lot more than 46 gotten with the (2009 model of the) Prius, which may make the extra 2,000 worthwhile...

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 rated 43/51 mpg
1989 Honda CRX-HF 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

So you definitely can't compare the 1989 numbers with the 2008.

Right, but the 50MPG figure takes into account those new standards. Hilariously, the highway mileage for that particular Civic before the 2008 adjustments was an even higher 56MPG. See for yourself. I have an 08 Civic. It's a small car no doubt, but it's a giant compared to the Civics of olde.

The 1989 civic got 50mpg highway, better than the Prius.

Yes, we need extra safety items. Yes, those add weight. But all the advances made in improving efficiency have been burned away on power and sportiness and cup holders.

50 Mpg TWENTY years ago.

And no mention of a plug-in aspect.

Very discouraging.

In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.

Please provide STATISTICS to prove your POSITION.

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml

Again, it's simple math.

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 rated 43/51 mpg
1989 Honda CRX-HF 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

1. $12k includes the price of the truck.
2. According to this, his truck would get 16 mpg, not 25.

From the article:

The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.

1. To absorb 1 mole of CO2, you need 2 moles of CaO (one mole of CaCO is used to negate the effect of the production of CaCO), that gives is a ratio of 2:1

2. We are producing almost 30 million metric tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuels (and accelerating).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html

These numbers look suspicious, but remember that the weight of CO2 is huge due to the fact that burning fuel (which almost only made of carbon) adds 2 atoms of oxygen to carbon, therefore quadrupling the weight:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/co2.shtml.

3. Divide the weight of CO2 by atomic weight of 44g/mol, multiply by CaCO atomic weight of 84g/mol, and then multiply by the ratio of 2:1, you get:

115 million tons of lime per year (roughly 4 times the weight of CO2)!

Thus is huge: in comparison, the world is producing just under 1 billion tons of mineral ore per year, which means that we would have to divert the equivalent of 12% of that effort to the task of producing and transporting lime. Imagine the cost!
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/340302.pdf

In comparison, saving one pound of oil which produces 4 pounds of CO2 would save 16 pounds of lime.

If you fill up the tank in five minutes, you're transferring power at 7.368 megawatts. Can you imagine what kind of electrical infrastructure you would need to transfer the same power over mere wires?

Yeah - a bigger one than you'd need.

Those 491.2kWh from 14 gallons of gasoline can take you about 14x25=350 miles. At 0.15kWh/mile, an equivalent electric car would travel those 350 miles using 0.15x350=52.5kWh, or 10.7% as much energy.

52.5kWh / 250kW from the commercially-available charger mentioned here = 12.6 minutes to charge from empty. How many of you run your gas tanks dry and then fill them to the brim on anything other than a rare, long-distance haul? Nobody I know.

Most people I know will get about 3gal each time they go to a gas station, or a little under 20% of their tank's capacity. 20% of 52.5kWh = ~10kWh / 250kWh = 2.5 minutes, which is well under your desired time.

And the Geo Metro XFI, with an engine the same size as the one in the Smart, got 46 mpg about 15 years ago. And the Honda CRX HF got 45mpg with a 4 cylinder engine 20 years ago.

And the Geo Metro XFI, with an engine the same size as the one in the Smart, got 46 mpg about 15 years ago. And the Honda CRX HF got 45mpg with a 4 cylinder engine 20 years ago.

my gas mileage went from 21 in the summer to 17 in the winter (which wasn't why.) My most recent car has air pressure sensors on the tires so I noticed that during the winter months the air pressure in the tires dropped from 35psi to about 28psi (cold air shrinks) - when I pressured up my tires to the suggested 35psi, my gas mileage went right back to 21mpg.

I challenge your claim of a 20% MPG savings as a result of inflating your tires by about 20%... Believe what you will, but I can tell you from experience that this was very much not true for me.

Filling or over-filling your tires sounds good on paper and it does have a measurable effect according to sites like Edmunds and fueleconomy.gov (About 3%). So, I decided to make my own test. I purposely deflated each of my tires from their current 32-33 PSI to 25 PSI and measure my gasoline usage each time I filled up. Unlike your situation, the weather was warm; however, I saw little difference in my MPG. I drove the same exact way to the same places during the same times with the same load using the same gasoline from the same gas station. And to rule out a fluke, I tried this twice... with nearly identical results.

The trend showed that properly inflated tires help, but only very slightly. Both my first and second runs resulted in a savings of less thn 2%. There could be other factors at work in my situation. But, I'm very sure inflating your tires did not account for nearly 20% of your MPG... It *does* help in some small way, but there was obviously something else happening because 20% is huge. It isn't like the circumference of your tires increased by 20%... or even at all (especially if you have radials). The total volume increases, but the sidewalls of your tires bear the brunt of of it, not the belt. It does decrease friction though - which is where you save gasoline - by narrowing the contact point between your tires and the road. But there's no way in hell it accounts for 20% of your gasoline usage.

No, it's not all due to weight.

A large portion is emissions controls to reduce NOx and CO emissions. My old 95 Civic (1.5l manual, basically the same as your 93 Civic but with stricter emissions on it because California has stricter emissions laws.) averaged 33mpg, a typical range depending on the driving was 31-36mpg. If you go to fueleconomy.gov you can see that Honda sold multiple Civics in the US with the 1.5l See my earlier post on the subject.

You are so wrong.

...the Astra, which is similar class to the Accord...

Not in America, it isn't. Here, the (Saturn) Astra is considered to be a compact car, while the Honda Accord (which is different and larger than the European Accord) is considered to be a large (not midsize) car. (On the same scale, by the way, your Corsa would be a subcompact.)

Also, an MX-5 doesn't come anywhere close to 35 MPG (and "fairly careful driving" is worthless for comparison; if you're going to start doing that, I might as well claim the Accord gets 60 MPG). For comparable numbers, I use fueleconomy.gov, which obviously doesn't have your Corsa in the database as it's not sold here, but lists 24, 27, and 23 MPG for the Accord, Astra, and MX-5 (all with auto transmissions, because Americans are pussies) respectively.

Fisrt off that 1995 3.5L 4spd auto Dodge Intrepid gets only 24MPG (19MPG combined) using the same 2008 fuel economy tests:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/12036.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/24824.shtml

That means the 33MPG in the 2008 Ford Focus SE 2L I4 with 4 speed auto (28MPG combined)(35MPG/28MPG for the 5 speed manual) gets 38% better fuel economy than the 3.5L V6 95 Intrepid (47% better combined). The 2008 Ford Focus SE has 140HP versus the 3.5L's 214HP.

If your Interpid ever got 35MPG with a lead foot, it was drafting by tailgating a truck and/or downhill all the way. The same in a 2008 Focus would net you 48MPG. In my 2001 Focus ZX3 2.0L DOHC I4 (130HP) 5spd manual, it gets 30MPG by the same standard (25MPG combined). I drive frugally and get 32.5MPG combined (even with a significant amount of E85 usage) with peaks of up to 44MPG throughout a tank. Thus I get 30% better at combined. The same driving (light foot) in that 95 Intrepid would get 24.7MPG.

Of course if you went by the old standard, my 2001 Focus got 25/34/28 (city/hwy/combined). I get 16% better over the old standard.

Fisrt off that 1995 3.5L 4spd auto Dodge Intrepid gets only 24MPG (19MPG combined) using the same 2008 fuel economy tests:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/12036.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/24824.shtml

That means the 33MPG in the 2008 Ford Focus SE 2L I4 with 4 speed auto (28MPG combined)(35MPG/28MPG for the 5 speed manual) gets 38% better fuel economy than the 3.5L V6 95 Intrepid (47% better combined). The 2008 Ford Focus SE has 140HP versus the 3.5L's 214HP.

If your Interpid ever got 35MPG with a lead foot, it was drafting by tailgating a truck and/or downhill all the way. The same in a 2008 Focus would net you 48MPG. In my 2001 Focus ZX3 2.0L DOHC I4 (130HP) 5spd manual, it gets 30MPG by the same standard (25MPG combined). I drive frugally and get 32.5MPG combined (even with a significant amount of E85 usage) with peaks of up to 44MPG throughout a tank. Thus I get 30% better at combined. The same driving (light foot) in that 95 Intrepid would get 24.7MPG.

Of course if you went by the old standard, my 2001 Focus got 25/34/28 (city/hwy/combined). I get 16% better over the old standard.

Seriously? 35 mpg on a full-sized V6 sedan? I think you might be "mis-remembering" your economy numbers.

According to the EPA, the '95 Intrepid posted 16/24 with the 3.3L engine. You're going to tell us that your LARGER engine somehow posted almost double the combined economy?

Remember to pack the tin foil hat when you gas up your new car.