Why we are happy with sub par fuel economy?

[Pyro15D]

Now that we've moved to a place with TV, we have to sit through commercials. There is one thing that really gets under my skin though. These commercials for crappy little econo boxes are advertising 40 miles to the gallon fuel economy like it is something to be proud of.

To give a bit of a backstory, one of my cars years ago was a 1964 Triumph Spitfire. It had a passenger door that liked to randomly open in the middle of left turns, a 1,147 cc engine, 2 Stromberg carburetors, a 4-speed transmission, and no overdrive. It was a busy little engine when I had the balls to take it on the freeway. Being eye level with lugnuts on semi truck was a bit unnerving. Lets just say it was a death trap. The thing is, it got 40 miles to the gallon on the freeway. I would get between 32 and 36 in town as well. It was quick enough, but that's just because it barely weighed 1,500lbs. Lets fast forward a few decades in automotive technology. My wife used to own a 1995 Honda Civic. It was the higher end model with electric everything and AC and VTEC. Even at over 233,000 miles on the original engine (and clutch), it still got 42mpg on the freeway. Now fast forward to today. They are still advertising 40mpg economy as something to be proud of. I watch Top Gear (the good one, the British one) and back in 2008 when they did the economy run, all three cars they drove got immensely better mileage than what we get in the US. Hell, the VW got 80mpg; TWICE what our "economy" cars here get. I know many of these cars aren't allowed to be sold in the US because of emissions regulations, but it really begs the question, how can a vehicle that goes twice the distance per gallon be putting out more emissions than one that goes half the distance? Something just doesn't add up. You hear politicians on both sides shouting "We need more economical cars" yet we really haven't made any advances towards more fuel efficient vehicles.

Disclaimer: I know US Gallon is a bit smaller than Imperial Gallon, but it still doesn't make up for that big of a difference.

 

[hvyman]

It's could be because American car manufactuers don't want or know how to make small cars that get great gas milage and because the government loves to tax us on gas.

 

[suprafreak123]

Thats true I been noticing more diesel with advance technology being advertise.Look at Jetta it get 750 mpg on a pump of diesel, Audi is promoting too.

 

[Midwest_Mudder]

if you're a fan of conspiracy and evil govt check out Tom Ogles Vapor fuel car. IF, and thats a big IF, the numbers were correct in the story that car was amazing. Between his story and all the other amazing feats of MPG that end with "and he was never heard from again" it makes you wonder what is really going on. Some folks claim the big three own patents for hydrogen powered cars and arent using them due to pressure from the oil industy. I guess it depends how far you believe the rabbit hole goes.

Here in nebraska we have a little place called pioneer village, has all sorts of cool crap, one of the best is the old cars, full metal cars that have signs on them claiming 50mpg.

 

[suprafreak123]

Well i been been hearing that our government does not tax us directly,but gas companies are able to fluctuate the price and pay x amount of dollars to Uncle sam, so that makes every party happy.

 

[suprafreak123]

It's could be because American car manufactuers don't want or know how to make small cars that get great gas milage and because the government loves to tax us on gas.

Hey I saw your car at the long beach car show. looks good man!!!!

 

[Pyro15D]

I guess it is something that really bugs me. I mean, I believe that auto companies CAN make very fuel efficient and fun vehicles. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive. With having the large amounts of R&D money most large auto companies have, it should be easy. Maybe it does have to do with taxes though. When I lived in Idaho, my next door neighbor was an older guy and he told me about a car project he did that used an old Hit-N-Miss engine as the powerplant. Apparently it was pretty economical. I can't remember the exact figure though (that was over 10 years ago when I talked to him about it).

 

[Piratetip]

They are making better / more efficient engines.
The problem is the amount of safety & electronic nanny controls that are required to go into vehicles now.
Cars year after year are continuing to bloat & increase in weight.
Greatly offsetting the MPG it can actually achieve.

Would like to see what kind of mileage a new civic engine can get transplanted in a 90's era model.

Ever noticed on new vehicle test drives you cant see anything out the rear window anymore?
Can't see past the A, B, & C pillars?
Guess what, backup camera, mirror lane merge indicators, ect.... there is an insane amount of electronics going in vehicles these days.
All that stuff adds up quick.

When are they going to go back to basics?
Never....

Too many people satisfied with appliance vehicles these days.

 

[Piratetip]

Not to mention the obsession with increased HP / Torque year after year.
Seems counter intuitive when building a small commuter vehicle.

A good quick overview of this trend, a bit dated but still relevant.
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2010/04/improving_the_f

 

[Pyro15D]

You are on to something there. You just have to compare the original Challenger and Camaro to their new ones. They look bloated in comparison.

Some stuff is nice though. ABS has been a positive thing, so has fuel injection. I'm amazed at the gimmicks that companies put in their cars. I see most of it as unneccesary garbage. I like having lots of visibility. When I went to some training in San Diego a couple years ago, I was able to convince Hertz to upgrade me to a new Camaro SS for no charge. Driving around in that was really stressful though. There really was no visibility anywhere behind the front doors. The power was nice, but I couldn't imagine owning a car I couldn't see out of!

 

[suprafreak123]

They are making better / more efficient engines.
The problem is the amount of safety & electronic nanny controls that are required to go into vehicles now.
Cars year after year are continuing to bloat & increase in weight.
Greatly offsetting the MPG it can actually achieve.

Would like to see what kind of mileage a new civic engine can get transplanted in a 90's era model.
i Have a new 2014 civic i drive 57 miles a day and gas last as much as my old 1998 civic.I think they are not trying make cars more fuel efficient otherwise It would be catastrophic to all the oiling companies.Many jobs would lost.The only advantage of owing a new car is too keep up with reliability,technology and all the money digging girls.....lol

Ever noticed on new vehicle test drives you cant see anything out the rear window anymore?
Can't see past the A, B, & C pillars?
Guess what, backup camera, mirror lane merge indicators, ect.... there is an insane amount of electronics going in vehicles these days.
All that stuff adds up quick.

When are they going to go back to basics?
Never....

Too many people satisfied with appliance vehicles these days.

 

[Pyro15D]

Well, there is this. http://jalopnik.com/driving-volkswagens-261-mpg-car-is-like-driving-the-fut-582194948
It is funny looking, but it does get good mileage. If only they could make a car that looked like a regular car. I imagine that carbon fiber body isn't cheap either. Honda came out with the FCX-Clarity car years ago that really seemed like a reasonable option. I'm not against electric cars, I'm just against batteries for the sole source of power. We probably won't have a legitimate solution to any of our energy problems until we actually need it. The solution is out there, we just don't want it bad enough yet. 40mpg is good enough for us. :nono:

 

[3p141592654]

I have no desire to go back to the old pieces of crap that used to be sold as cars. Horrible running carb'd engines that had flat spots, surging and poor cold driveability. There was nothing good about any of that. The handling was crappy, the ride was noisy, the engines lethargic, the non-ABS brakes locked up in the rain, and the the crash worthiness was horrible. Sorry, but I like the electronics, and I like the design effort that goes into modern cars. The only reason I am not dead is that I never had a major crash in my 75 Civic when I was a young kid. That thing weighed 1500 lbs and was a death trap, even though it did get good mileage.

For the conspiracy minded, I can assure you that the greed of any corporate board would prevent any major improvement in efficiency from being suppressed. The company that comes out with a revolutionary improvement in efficiency is going to own the market, and get very rich. No one is going to pass up that opportunity just to help some other guys 'oil' business. The business world is way to cut throat to play like that.

 

[Pyro15D]

I agree that the cars made nowadays are much easier to drive. Having come from 60's and 70's cars, I like being able to plug a computer in and diagnose or 'tinker', not to mention just being able to hop in and drive without having to pump the gas or sit and wait because the engine is so cold blooded. The thing is, buying a car in Europe that gets 60-70 mpg seems to be pretty easy. You really don't hear about that here. The safety standards between NHTSA and Euro NCAP are remarkably similar, so it can't be a safety issue. Are the emissions standards in the U.S. really that tough? I must say I have my doubts when I'm following a diesel truck "rolling coal" on the freeway.

 

[Poodles]

This is really quite simple... NOX.

Lean burning engines produce a lot of NOX, which is quite harmful to the local environment (I'm not talking global warming here, I'm talking smog or even just the poor runner on the sidewalk).

It boils down to emissions.

That and cars have to be safer, which means heavier, which means larger engines, which means worse gas mileage.

The only real way around these issues is lightweight and strong materials (high strength steel isn't used nearly as often as it should be), and great aero (hence the VW that you think looks weird and not like a normal car...)

 

[3p141592654]

There is essentially no difference in NOx standards between EU and US.





Standards are complex, but you can see the numbers are pretty close.

 

[yhatzee89]

Are the emissions standards in the U.S. really that tough? I must say I have my doubts when I'm following a diesel truck "rolling coal" on the freeway.

Sorry about that, my bad. Seriously though, diesels are pillars of fuel economy though. I've gotten 23 MPG out of my '04 F-250, which weighs a metric-shit-ton. When I look at a gasser version of the same truck and its only getting half that it makes me think diesels are the way of the future. Then when I see Audi/VW adds for clean diesel tech, it really confirms it for me.

 

[Pyro15D]

I like the discussion that this has brought on. Anyway, I see what you are saying Poodles. My question here is, even though we are adding more "stuff" to cars for safety and convenience, the technology must have gotten up. I mean, we still have Moore's Law, so the electronics should be getting smaller and faster. Plus, many cars made now aren't using heavy steel panels. For example, my 2005 Tundra has a v8 with iron block and aluminum heads, pushbutton 4WD, 5-speed automatic, a larger interior, AC, airbags, power everything, bigger tires, lifted, etc and it weighs within 100 lbs of the truck it replaced, a 1978 Chevy C10 Scottsdale. That was only 2WD, small block V8 with iron block and aluminum heads, 3 speed auto, no electronics besides a radio, a bench seat, manual everything (besides power steering and vacuum asist brakes). The trucks are also both within 6 inches of each other in length. The only thing that really sticks out to me in it is the body panels on the Tundra are made from MUCH thinner steel than the ol' Chevy.

Pi, thanks for providing that info. We can always rely on you to provide cold hard facts. :icon_bigg Do you happen to be an engineer in the auto industry?

Yhatzee, I do agree that diesels are more efficient than their gas-powered counterparts. The disadvantage of diesels seems to be their very narrow powerband when compared to gasoline engines. It would seem to be a better idea to run a diesel-electric drivetrain with supercapacitors or a small battery bank for those times you need lots of acceleration, so the engine is always operating in its most efficient range. Why haven't they done something like that yet?

In response to those who enjoy blowing massive amounts of smoke out their tailpipe, whenever a big lifted diesel truck rolls up next to me and attempts to smoke me out, I just press my recirc button. It seems to prevent most of the exhaust from getting blown in my face. For the most part though, I'm left alone by those trucks. They seem to swarm and prey on the Honda's, Prius's, and Smart cars. Maybe it's because our old cars don't look very ricey.

 

[suprasick]

The disadvantage of diesels seems to be their very narrow powerband when compared to gasoline engines.

After recently driving a rental with a CVT, I can definitely see it getting paired with a diesel engine to get the most power out of its small powerband. (If it hasn't already)

 

[yhatzee89]

Yhatzee, I do agree that diesels are more efficient than their gas-powered counterparts. The disadvantage of diesels seems to be their very narrow powerband when compared to gasoline engines. It would seem to be a better idea to run a diesel-electric drivetrain with supercapacitors or a small battery bank for those times you need lots of acceleration, so the engine is always operating in its most efficient range. Why haven't they done something like that yet?

Perhaps the easier route is the same one that diesel trucks utilize, gearing. But for an economy car in the future, I could see it being set up in much the same way as modern diesel/electric trains, where the Diesel engine is pretty much only a mobile generator that powers the electric motors that move the vehicle. Imagine if each wheel had its own electric motor that controlled it, I imagine if it was setup right, you could have a hell of a auto cross machine

In response to those who enjoy blowing massive amounts of smoke out their tailpipe, whenever a big lifted diesel truck rolls up next to me and attempts to smoke me out, I just press my recirc button. It seems to prevent most of the exhaust from getting blown in my face. For the most part though, I'm left alone by those trucks. They seem to swarm and prey on the Honda's, Prius's, and Smart cars. Maybe it's because our old cars don't look very ricey.

I think it depends mostly on the owner of the car, you can rice out a MKIII unfortunately, but the majority don't thank god. Same goes for trucks, the guys who go around trying to smoke out people are usually ass clowns who aren't doing their vehicle any justice, real diesel enthusiast know smoke = unburned fuel = inefficient engine = less power, rather blow your doors off than waste time smoking you out...