Why so inefficient?

[PoorManQ45]

Haha, sorry. My post was intended to bait PMQ. I was hoping for a long response not to read, but he didn't bite. Guess he wasn't a fan of my worm?

you are an amateur. I saw right through your trolling attempt.

if you would have sold it a little with references I would have gone for it.

seriously, the Learn'd crew are a bunch of hacks...

[AppleBonker]

Too much work. You're not worth it. Sorry dude.

[PoorManQ45]

Too much work. You're not worth it. Sorry dude.

apparently you say that to your "lady friends" too...

[Rev_D21]

Haha, sorry. My post was intended to bait PMQ. I was hoping for a long response not to read, but he didn't bite. Guess he wasn't a fan of my worm?

Don't use such a classy worm next time.

[AppleBonker]

Too much work. You're not worth it. Sorry dude.

apparently you say that to your "lady friends" too...

Yeah, I call everyone dude. Are you stalking me? I have told some ladies they're too much work. Prolly should've just upper-decked them and left... Save that for next time I s'pose.

[IBCoupe]

I guess I'm going at this the wrong way.

what happens if/when the pumps start running dry?

everything I see you guys talk about is using resources in excess...

We'll use up something else.

Look, it's not like we don't like efficiency. It's not like we're buying inefficient cars out of spite. And it's not like we're trying not to be efficient - the 31MPG 300HP V6 Mustang was pointed out to you in the other thread, and then there's the Tesla roadster. In all reality, these crappy, slow, not-for-highways-if-you're-faint-of-heart econobores work for a certain type of person.

But you're on a forum for enthusiasts of cars, racing, and driving in general. You're talking to a group of people who are here because they realize there's more to driving than getting from point A to point B. You know who you'll find that'll be convinced by what you're saying? The people who are riding trains.

[AZhitman]

I guess I'm going at this the wrong way.

everything I see you guys talk about is using resources in excess...

Wouldn't be the first time.

If the concern is over "resources", you've gotta look byond fuel efficiency. In fact, I'd argue that they're damn near a WASH, if not inversely-related. Follow:

If you were really concerned over depletion of "resources" (assuming you mean petrochemicals), then the TRUE "conservationist" would find the oldest paid-for car in the family and keep it running forever, costs be damned.

Every time you buy a new car, whether it be 50mpg or 14mpg, it consumes roughly the same amount of initial "resources" to manufacture, transport, advertise and sell. Assuming the "discarded" car that it replaces isn't fully recycled, you've just wasted MORE resources.

At what point does the 50-mpg car's fuel savings and decreased pollution OUTWEIGH the resources used to manufacture, transport, advertise and sell it? That's a pretty involved study, but I'd wager it would be a real eye-opener.

These a$$ who bought a Prius and drive around with their nose in the air have NO IDEA that they're a bigger net contributor to resource depletion (and net pollution) than the nimrod in Florida who drives the hand-me-down 1985 Buick Century Wagon.

[dusred]

obnoxious diesel trucks with smokestacks coming out the bed and billow smoke everywhere they go. People think of loud, disgusting huuuuge trucks. . .

Checking in.

I LOVE diesel's and think they're the way of the future. The new Ford 6.7 diesel engines are as quiet as a gas engine and probably emit less smoke and they get 7-8 MPG better.

The VW TDI's can be chipped which will improve their mileage 10 MPG which is about 50 MPG.

Another thing about Diesel engines is there are other types of fuel available for them. For a time in St. George (Utah) a guy was selling biodiesel for $1.50 a gallon which ran the same as diesel fuel. Burning deep fryer oil in diesels is much better for the environment than some of the stuff thats done with it.

You want some reasons why diesel hasn't become big in the US?

3. Diesels take longer to start when they're cold, (glow plugs), even longer when the outside temp is low. We live in an impatient society, especially in the northeast.

That may be true for the older ones but the modern engines start as easily as a gas engine even when it's cold.

4. Diesel fuel is less readily available as gasoline.(not every gas station carries it)

Again, not true. 90% of stations carry it. The only stations that don't carry it are the ones in the middle of a city where you don't have semi-trucks as much. the reason they don't carry it is because storage space is limited. Along open empty highways every station will have it.

[PoorManQ45]

I guess I'm going at this the wrong way.

everything I see you guys talk about is using resources in excess...

Wouldn't be the first time.

If the concern is over "resources", you've gotta look byond fuel efficiency. In fact, I'd argue that they're damn near a WASH, if not inversely-related. Follow:

If you were really concerned over depletion of "resources" (assuming you mean petrochemicals), then the TRUE "conservationist" would find the oldest paid-for car in the family and keep it running forever, costs be damned.

Every time you buy a new car, whether it be 50mpg or 14mpg, it consumes roughly the same amount of initial "resources" to manufacture, transport, advertise and sell. Assuming the "discarded" car that it replaces isn't fully recycled, you've just wasted MORE resources.

At what point does the 50-mpg car's fuel savings and decreased pollution OUTWEIGH the resources used to manufacture, transport, advertise and sell it? That's a pretty involved study, but I'd wager it would be a real eye-opener.

These a$$ who bought a Prius and drive around with their nose in the air have NO IDEA that they're a bigger net contributor to resource depletion (and net pollution) than the nimrod in Florida who drives the hand-me-down 1985 Buick Century Wagon.

All excellent points!

[dre1507]

i'm all for small displacement and boost. i could care less for boring cars with no power and their 5-10 more mpg rating. my 4g^2 (4 cylinder gas guzzler) drinks gas like i drink water during the summer; excessively. you'd never see me trade it in for one of those no-power-cruise-mobiles though. as a matter of fact i'm trying to figure about saving for boost.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Economy cars exist less for fuel efficiency reasons and more because they're cheap to buy new. Even in the 90s, a Cavalier automatic got 30mpg. A Buick Regal GS got... 30mpg. But the price for a Regal was as much as double.

YUP!!!
Typically, companies don't pour their engineering resources into the low profit-margin economy cars, so they just slap together an internal combustion engine (or use an old one), along with a relatively inefficient transmission, and a cheap, light chassis. Good fuel economy is often just a byproduct. That and the newer emissions regulations actually often end up burning MORE fuel than what you could do in the past. Timing/fuel consumption is optimized for lower NOx and CO emissions rather than fuel economy.

These reasons are partly why older cars often SMOKE newer cars in terms of fuel MPG. Back in the day when 150hp was balls to the wall, lots of time and effort went into producing the engines with tighter tolerances and higher quality standards than today's "boat anchor" engines. Emissions regulations were also more lax. The fact that Ford (FORD!!! Of all people!) dumped some engineering resources into their Mustang V6 is VERY applaudable. I guess they are leading the way on that front...

The days of "get the japanese car with the V6 or the 4 banger instead of the American car with the V8 or V6 because it will get better fuel economy/performance" is long gone. And honestly, I really don't have a problem with it. I'm happy us as Americans have finally gotten our s*** together and (as the corvette commercial says) "are still building rockets".

[PoorManQ45]

Economy cars exist less for fuel efficiency reasons and more because they're cheap to buy new. Even in the 90s, a Cavalier automatic got 30mpg. A Buick Regal GS got... 30mpg. But the price for a Regal was as much as double.

YUP!!!
Typically, companies don't pour their engineering resources into the low profit-margin economy cars, so they just slap together an internal combustion engine (or use an old one), along with a relatively inefficient transmission, and a cheap, light chassis. Good fuel economy is often just a byproduct. That and the newer emissions regulations actually often end up burning MORE fuel than what you could do in the past. Timing/fuel consumption is optimized for lower NOx and CO emissions rather than fuel economy.

So the real issue is the uncaring and wasteful nature of American people?

[Razi]

So the real issue is the uncaring and wasteful nature of American people?

lol wut?

[PoorManQ45]

So the real issue is the uncaring and wasteful nature of American people?

lol wut?

The demand for econoboxs has never been great. This means the price is kept relatively low and with little profit margin. THis means the manufacturers don't put much tech into them.

Compare this to the Corvette and Mustang that are pushing 30mpg with over two times the power output! These vehicles are in much higher demand and therefore get better tech.

If you reversed this trend you'd see econoboxes easily clearing 50mpg without much effort.

So, this stems from Americans wanting an excessive amount of power...

[Razi]

captainobvioustotherescue

And what does efficient, high power engines that have to do with the "uncaring and wasteful nature of American people"?

[PEZi]

Heh, 85hp 2011 Aveo = 35mpg.
305hp 2010 mustang = 31mpg.
350hp 1997 C5 vette = 28mpg.

Inefficient? Quadrupling the HP decreases gas mileage by 20%

What we need are cars that aren't grossly underpowered, enabling them to just loaf along.

^ this


also... want better gas mileage? strip your car

[PoorManQ45]

captainobvioustotherescue

And what does efficient, high power engines that have to do with the "uncaring and wasteful nature of American people"?

Americans demand more power.

Based on the current information and technology that we have available there is a limit to the efficiency of engines.

If the manufacturers focused their efforts on low powered vehicles we would see a much larger improvement in efficiency.

Unfortunately americans don't want these vehicles. So manufacturers don't really care about them...

[Razi]

I don't see how this is related to the nature of the American people.

[PoorManQ45]

Ugh...

Americans demand bigger and better vehicles. There is a limit to the efficiency of these vehicles. Americans do not care about the efficiency as long as the vehicle is big and powerful

[Razi]

Oh so the Americans are preventing Asia from this as well?
Americans are preventing the world from making 80mpg shoeboxes because America is the center of the Universe?
And are you kidding me around America not caring about efficiency?

[PoorManQ45]

Oh so the Americans are preventing Asia from this as well?
Americans are preventing the world from making 80mpg shoeboxes because America is the center of the Universe?
And are you kidding me around America not caring about efficiency?

I'm too lazy to look for the articles, but IIRC the vehicles in european countries are more efficient then those in America.

Car companies don't have to sell every car in the US, only those that americans will buy...

[Razi]

Then what's stopping them from producing a line of cars that get me 80mpg?

[PoorManQ45]

Then what's stopping them from producing a line of cars that get me 80mpg?

Not sure.

I believe Tata motors was working on something like that.

You won't see it in the US though...

[Razi]

Yeah, I think it was because American's don't want high mpg.
Same reason why Toyota doesn't sell their hybrid lineup in America.

[PoorManQ45]

Yeah, I think it was because American's don't want high mpg.
Same reason why Toyota doesn't sell their hybrid lineup in America.

HUH?

[Razi]

You said it yourself man.

Americans do not care about the efficiency as long as the vehicle is big and powerful

American's don't want it! Toyota's just as smart as you, you know.
They realized this and don't sell hybrids in the USA!

[PoorManQ45]

You said it yourself man.

Americans do not care about the efficiency as long as the vehicle is big and powerful

American's don't want it! Toyota's just as smart as you, you know.
They realized this and don't sell hybrids in the USA!

Funny...

And the Prius is a bastardized hybrid. The fuel economy is surpassed by diesel sedans...

Besides, how many other Hybrids are available?

[Razi]

None.

[PoorManQ45]

None.

THere are a few that the companies call "hybrid", but they're the same as the BS prius...

Anyway, you get the point now?

Because American's don't want the cars, companies don't offer them.

[Razi]

Hence, no hybrids in the USA.
I thought we went through this?