PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
Non-NEC Console Related Discussion => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: Necromancer on May 19, 2009, 10:00:48 AM
-
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/wid=18298287)
Interesting and a laudable idea, but I'm not sure how feasible it is. Only the hybrids, Smart Fortwo golf carts, and diesel VeeDubs can currently meet 40mpg, so it'll be interesting to see what can be done to improve mileage by such a drastic amount in a relatively short time. My biggest fear is that this will actually hurt the overall mileage average, as more people will turn to light trucks (and their lower required mileage) to get the size they want. What do y'all think, or do you even give a hoot?
-
I think we will see alot of changes in the near future. I can tell you that someone I know has developed an invention that, once installed in a car/truck, increases the gas mileage by 30%. He is currently marketing it to large fleet vehicles. He chooses not to sell to the average consumer because its not worth the hassle. This being the case, a regular joe figuring out something like this in his garage, the technology is here. Its just a matter of who market it to the main stream public.
-
The technology is already there, has been for some time.
The big pushback is from the major oil companies who have everything to lose from higher MPG regulations and alternative energy. Lobbyists can have a major influence.
-
40 MPG cars have been around...for ages. There was shit in 1950s that got that. Deathtraps, of course, but they could do it.
The truth is that everything car makers gain by using loads of lightweight alloys and composites, cylinder management, hybrid drivelines, aerodynamics, etc gets pissed away because the cars just keep getting bigger and bigger. A new Miata weighs 200 lbs more than my 1992 model, even though the new one has all sorts of weight saving tricks. Mine has an friggn iron block, almost no aluminum at all really, and weighs 200 lbs less. The new Honda Insight gets 43MPG. Pretty good? Not really when you consider that the 2000 model got 61 MPG with much much less tech.
The reason cars get the same overall fuel economy today as they did 25 years ago (or worse, in the case of companies like Toyota and Honda) is because MPG just isn't a priority for Americans. They want SIZE, and no matter what tricks you use volume makes the car harder to push through the air at higher speeds, and weight makes it more difficult to move at all. People wanted more HP, and because of that a new VW GTI has twice of power of the 1986 model I owned, but the MPG is basically the same. If we make it a priority then it will happen, and honestly we don't need one scrap of new tech to do it. Just shovel all those f*cking minivans and SUVs into a big smelting pit and start offering some diesel and we're there. A Bluemotion Golf (not a US model, of course) gets 52 MPG. That's just a relatively normal diesel engine, no Hybrid stuff.
Personally, I don't think the new standards are tough enough.
-
The new Honda Insight gets 43MPG. Pretty good? Not really when you consider that the 2000 model got 61 MPG with much much less tech.
And the original was a shoebox, new model has more SIZE ;)
GEN 1
Model year(s) 2000–2006
Assembly Suzuka, Mie, Japan
Successor Honda Civic Hybrid
Class subcompact
Body style(s) 3-door hatchback
Layout Front-engine, front-wheel drive
Engine(s) Gasoline: 995 cc (60.7 cu in) lean-burn I3 12-valve SOHC
Electric: 144 volt 10 kW
Transmission(s) 5-speed manual
Continuously variable transmission
Wheelbase 2,400 mm (94 in)
Length 3,945 mm (155.3 in)
Width 1,695 mm (66.7 in)
Height 1,355 mm (53.3 in)
Curb weight Manual w/o AC 838 kg (1,850 lb)
Manual w/ AC 852 kg (1,880 lb)
CVT w/ AC 891 kg (1,960 lb)
GEN 2
Manufacturer Honda
Also called Honda Insight Hybrid
Production 2009-
Assembly Suzuka, Mie, Japan[13]
Class midsize car
Body style(s) 5-door hatchback
Layout front-engine, front-wheel drive
Engine(s) 1,339 cc (81.7 cu in) I4 DC electric motor
Transmission(s) CVT
Wheelbase 2,552 mm (100.5 in)
Length 4,390 mm (173 in)
Width 1,695 mm (66.7 in)
Height 1,425 mm (56.1 in)
Curb weight 1,237 kg (2,730 lb)
Fuel capacity 40 l (8.8 imp gal)
A LOT bigger difference than the 200lb. Miata difference :P
-
The technology is already there, has been for some time.
True, but in what form? Hybrids can make it, but at substantial cost and nowhere near enough batteries to go around to make all new cars as hybrids; diesels are there as well, but again at a sizable price increase. They could start selling gutless wonders (like the 70hp I3 Insight touted by Zeta), but who will buy 'em? I don't doubt that cars can meet the new standards, but I fear they'll come with a bucket of boredom in the trunk and a big dent in the wallet.
The truth is that everything car makers gain by using loads of lightweight alloys and composites, cylinder management, hybrid drivelines, aerodynamics, etc gets pissed away because the cars just keep getting bigger and bigger.
Agreed, but they've added new models to fill the bottom shelf as cars grew (new Civic = old Accord and new Fit = old Civic). The bigger problem is power. I find it quite nutty that the average V6 powered grocery-getter is more powerful than a fifteen year old M3.
A new Miata weighs 200 lbs more than my 1992 model, even though the new one has all sorts of weight saving tricks. Mine has an friggn iron block, almost no aluminum at all really, and weighs 200 lbs less.
Case in point: 10% more weight but 40% more power. I'm certain the mileage would be much improved had they maintained the same power to weight ratio, but then we're back to slower and less fun.
Just shovel all those f*cking minivans and SUVs into a big smelting pit and start offering some diesel and we're there.
But they're in a different class and don't have to meet the same mileage requirements. The biggest reason that they are popular is because people want big powerful vehicles and it's easier for manufacturers to meet that need with light trucks. The disparity between mileage requirements remains in the new rules, which is why I fear these new standards won't help as much as they could.
A Bluemotion Golf (not a US model, of course) gets 52 MPG. That's just a relatively normal diesel engine, no Hybrid stuff.
It's also dirt slow, won't meet US emissions, and starts at nearly $30,000. If I'm going to be forced into a slowmobile, I'd rather pay half for a similarly sized Nissan Versa; sure, it'll get a third less mileage, but an extra $15,000 in my pocket will pay for a pant load of gas.
-
They could start selling gutless wonders (like the 70hp I3 Insight touted by Zeta), but who will buy 'em?
I would. I don't drive for fun (that's impossible with all these Omaha drivers around), I drive to go where I want to go.
-
I would. I don't drive for fun (that's impossible with all these Omaha drivers around), I drive to go where I want to go.
That's great, your local Smart dealership awaits your visit. Don't get me wrong, everyone should have the option to buy the car that fits their needs and budget; I'd rather forgo a few mpg for something more fun, like a Versa or Fit. I'll gladly pay a few bucks more at the pump and not have to drive something so slow that I have to bury the pedal in the carpet just to attain interstate merging speeds (quarter mile of 19.9 seconds @ 68mph).
-
That's great, your local Smart dealership awaits your visit.
I would, but I can't afford new cars. For now, my choices are likely mid to late 90s cars.
-
Only the hybrids, Smart Fortwo golf carts, and diesel VeeDubs can currently meet 40mpg
My 2003 Honda Civic EX (manual transmission) regularly got 41+mpg in the city. No hybrid, no diesel. My dad has some sort of hybrid (it's not a Prius, I forget what it is) and it gets about the same or maybe even less mpg than my 2003 Civic did, yet it cost way more and has a giant battery that will slowly lose charge capacity and eventually end up in a landfill. In fact it would take 10 years of driving a hybrid just to BREAK EVEN on what you save in gas compared to the extra amount of $$$ you pay for them. Hybrids are a true rip off. My 2008 Honda Civic EX (manual transmission again, of course) gets around 35-36mpg city. Pisses me off, but the car is a bit heavier and has a bit more HP and that's why.
The old Geo Metro got some crazy-ass MPG as well.
-
My 2003 Honda Civic EX (manual transmission) regularly got 41+mpg in the city. No hybrid, no diesel.
Your experience is anything but typical. If you're going to use anecdotal evidence of your car far exceeding the rated mpg, then why not use a similar number for hybrids? Car and Driver took a first gen. Insight and managed to get over 120mpg over a 195 mile trip, so that must be normal, right? The thin mountain air must be affecting your logic centers. :P
My dad has some sort of hybrid (it's not a Prius, I forget what it is) and it gets about the same or maybe even less mpg than my 2003 Civic did, yet it cost way more and has a giant battery that will slowly lose charge capacity and eventually end up in a landfill. In fact it would take 10 years of driving a hybrid just to BREAK EVEN on what you save in gas compared to the extra amount of $$$ you pay for them. Hybrids are a true rip off.
Indeed. The only way they ever pay for themselves is when you can get a fat tax break or you really value the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from saving Mother Earth.
The old Geo Metro got some crazy-ass MPG as well.
So? It's a 70hp crap-skate that would have no chance of meeting modern safety standards or emissions requirements.
-
I don't really understand why you are trying to argue with me, Necro. I am stating what my car got, what my dad's hybrid gets and that Geo Metros were good for MPG. What is the point that you are trying to argue, Mr. Logic? However Zeta is correct, cars exceeding 40mpg have been around for a long, long time.
-
I don't really understand why you are trying to argue with me, Necro. I am stating what my car got, what my dad's hybrid gets and that Geo Metros were good for MPG. What is the point that you are trying to argue, Mr. Logic? However Zeta is correct, cars exceeding 40mpg have been around for a long, long time.
No argument but rather an attempt to steer you back to the topic, which is about the feasibility of current/future autos meeting future mpg standards. Said standards are based on the EPA mpg test procedure, so anecdotal evidence about your car far surpassing the EPA mpg is entirely irrelevant, as is the mpg of discontinued autos that wouldn't pass current emission/safety requirements.
-
Not really irrelevant because it goes to show you that it can be done with existing technology. Current autos won't have to comply. Do you really think you can get a 1984 Ford F150 to comply? No way, that's just silly. Future autos, yes. Though I'd love to see all current SUVs taken away by Mr. Obama because they couldn't comply.
-
Not really irrelevant because it goes to show you that it can be done with existing technology.
Of course it can be done with existing technology, as shown with the vehicles listed in my initial posting. Your two examples remain mostly irrelevant because we'd need a crystal ball to know whether or not the old Metros could still achieve such high mileage after being modified to pass current emissions/safety testing, and a 2003 Civic EX simply would not meet the requirement (EPA tested mileage is only 32/38 and only 27/35 using the revised test method). My whole point is that it seems impracticable to make such substantial gains in mileage in such a short amount of time, not that it can't be done at all.
Current autos won't have to comply. Do you really think you can get a 1984 Ford F150 to comply? No way, that's just silly.
Sorry for not being more clear, but that's not what I meant by 'current'; I meant 'models currently being sold as new'. The new mpg standards will have to be chiefly met by modified versions of today's platforms, as it is nigh impossible (in economic terms) for almost every current model to be completely redesigned, thoroughly tested, and its factories refit and ready for construction in little more than five years.
-
Corn. The answer is always corn!
Being sarcastic, there.
-
My 1991 CRX HF gets me 50+ mpg consistently. It's not powerful but I can get up to 80 mph pretty easily if I'm not going up a hill. It's very roomy for a 2 seater.
I've heard something about a CRZ hybrid - a new model of the CRX. It's the only new car I'm interested in at all. I'm happy with my car from the Turbo era. Would be a little cooler if it had a PC Engine in the windshield though...
-
I haven't had the time to post. Been busy. Here I go.
The technology is already there, has been for some time.
True, but in what form?
In nearly the same form they were in 20 years ago. The enemy isn't power. Power can be turned down on demand. For example, a turbocharged car barely burns more fuel than a normally aspirated one if you use a light foot. My girlfriend's 2.0 NA Jetta actualy gets worse MPG that the 1.8 turbo model. The enemy is weight, and to a lesser extent size, because these things can't be turned down. The reason a new Civic gets far worse MPG than the ones from 20 years ago is because they are %50 heavier. They, like most things in America, have become fat.
The truth is that everything car makers gain by using loads of lightweight alloys and composites, cylinder management, hybrid drivelines, aerodynamics, etc gets pissed away because the cars just keep getting bigger and bigger.
Agreed, but they've added new models to fill the bottom shelf as cars grew (new Civic = old Accord and new Fit = old Civic). The bigger problem is power. I find it quite nutty that the average V6 powered grocery-getter is more powerful than a fifteen year old M3.
As I mentioned before, the problem isn't really power. A new Honda Odyssey has something like 40 more HP than an E30 M3, but is also cleaner by far and gets about the same MPG despite it weighing double. The difference is in the gearing of the M3 (close and low for performance), active cylinder management (the rear bank shuts off in the Honda during cruising), and the fact that BMW, historically, doesn't give a shit about CAFE.
Just shovel all those f*cking minivans and SUVs into a big smelting pit and start offering some diesel and we're there.
But they're in a different class and don't have to meet the same mileage requirements. The biggest reason that they are popular is because people want big powerful vehicles and it's easier for manufacturers to meet that need with light trucks. The disparity between mileage requirements remains in the new rules, which is why I fear these new standards won't help as much as they could.
Customers want big because overconsumption is the way of life we have. They want power because a 4500lb SUV will be a turtle without it. Customers aren't crafty enough to cheat the system, but the OEMs sure are. The only reason why the aging PT Cruiser is still in production is because Chrysler managed to grease enough palms to get it classified as a light truck. Obviously this does wonders for their light truck CAFE, but its basically a joke because the PT isn't a truck, at all. Its a weak-ass POS with less power and hauling capacity than a Golf. These sorts of shenanigans are what [iss me off. We need to keep pressure on the EPA and NHSTA to keep this sort of BS from happening.
A Bluemotion Golf (not a US model, of course) gets 52 MPG. That's just a relatively normal diesel engine, no Hybrid stuff.
It's also dirt slow, won't meet US emissions, and starts at nearly $30,000. If I'm going to be forced into a slowmobile, I'd rather pay half for a similarly sized Nissan Versa; sure, it'll get a third less mileage, but an extra $15,000 in my pocket will pay for a pant load of gas.
Um...I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Slow: not really. Won't meet US emissions: this is only because VW hasn't bothered to offer it and therefore test it, in the US. VW is now selling diesels in Cali thanks to us finally getting low sulfur diesel in the US so things are moving forward in that direction. $30,000? Also, I don't know where you get this. Are you converting the Euro/GBP price to USD? If so then you should know that doesn't work. A GTI is $22,000 in the US which equals about £13,000. In reality a GTI sold in the UK is about £20,000. Everything costs more in europe and the UK. Currently the US spec diesel Jetta (the only small diesel they sell here) is about $22,000, and if you think this car is slower than a Versa then...think again. It moves just fine. Also, the difference in overall "car" between a Jetta and a Versa, engine aside, is pretty huge. I don't have a problem with Nissan or anything, but the Versa is no Golf, hence even the base prices being vastly different. If you want to compare a Versa to a VW it would be more realistic to use the Polo as an example. The TDI Polo will get you even better MPG than the Golf, and lately the gas version and diesel versions are priced the same.
I totally understand your concern for the effectiveness of these rules. What I said is that if we want fuel efficient cars and lower CO output (these two are basically the same thing) then we can have it. In fact, Toyota already met these fuel economy standards 25 years ago, they just don't meet them now because now they sell giant gas guzzlers. The whole point of CAFE working the way it does is that the manufacturer can make whatever they want, but they will have to restrict sales of the super suckers and regulate things somewhat themselves. Really they can even make as many gas guzzlers they want as long as they pay huge fees (see: Bentley) so if people want a Escalade they'll have to pay many thousands more in fees that Cadillac will pass on to the government. This isn't a problem, IMO, since the real issue with Americans and their cars being such gluttonous fat f*cks doesn't come in the form of people in Ferraris and Vipers and H2s pumping out emissions, it comes in the form of 14MPG minivans that do 15,000 miles a year with only one person in the vehicle.
But like I said, if we want it, we can have it. Shit, I wouldn't even have to change my car buying habits all all since I've never owned a car that weighed more than 2300 lbs and I've only owned I4s. The cars in that catagory will always be able to meet these requirements. Just tax the living shit out of the minivans and SUVs so that no one will buy them and we're there. This really isn't an issue.
-
Corn. The answer is always corn!
Being sarcastic, there.
Yeah, I think that whole corn thing might have finally begun to blow over. I sure hope so.
-
The enemy isn't power. Power can be turned down on demand. For example, a turbocharged car barely burns more fuel than a normally aspirated one if you use a light foot. My girlfriend's 2.0 NA Jetta actualy gets worse MPG that the 1.8 turbo model.
What model year is that? The last year that those two engines were available in the US (2005), the NA outdid the turbo (24/31 mpg and 22/29 mpg, respectively). Remember, the rules are based only on EPA tested mileage; real world results don't count.
As I mentioned before, the problem isn't really power. A new Honda Odyssey has something like 40 more HP than an E30 M3, but is also cleaner by far and gets about the same MPG despite it weighing double. The difference is in the gearing of the M3 (close and low for performance), active cylinder management (the rear bank shuts off in the Honda during cruising), and the fact that BMW, historically, doesn't give a shit about CAFE.
You're comparing apples and oranges. My point was that when you compare models of yesteryear with similarly sized models of today (with similar powertrains), then the difference in weight is much less than the difference in power (e.g. - a '09 Yaris has nearly twice the hp of a '95 Metro, yet it's only a fourth more heavy). It seems obvious to me that the big increases in power are hurting mileage just as much as anything else.
Customers aren't crafty enough to cheat the system, but the OEMs sure are. The only reason why the aging PT Cruiser is still in production is because Chrysler managed to grease enough palms to get it classified as a light truck. Obviously this does wonders for their light truck CAFE, but its basically a joke because the PT isn't a truck, at all. Its a weak-ass POS with less power and hauling capacity than a Golf. These sorts of shenanigans are what [iss me off. We need to keep pressure on the EPA and NHSTA to keep this sort of BS from happening.
Indeed. Gaming the system is a big part of the problem.
Um...I'm not sure where you are getting your info.
The intrawebz, duh! :lol:
Slow: not really.
The BlueMotion Golf's 0-100 kph (62 mph) in 11.3 seconds is pretty dang slow in my book. The latest GTI does the deed in 6.9 seconds and a Versa hits 60 mph in 9.1 seconds (acceleration times were culled from Car and Driver for the latter two and straight from VW for the BlueMotion).
Won't meet US emissions: this is only because VW hasn't bothered to offer it and therefore test it, in the US. VW is now selling diesels in Cali thanks to us finally getting low sulfur diesel in the US so things are moving forward in that direction.
Agreed, but the awesome mileage numbers touted for European cars always take a big hit when they come to the US; I don't know if that's due to changes made to pass emissions, the different testing procedure, or a bit of both. Case in point: the Jetta is rated at 33/52 mpg in Europe but only at 30/41 mpg in the States (mileage ratings taken directly from VW, converting liters per 100 km for the Euro version).
$30,000? Also, I don't know where you get this. Are you converting the Euro/GBP price to USD? If so then you should know that doesn't work. A GTI is $22,000 in the US which equals about £13,000. In reality a GTI sold in the UK is about £20,000. Everything costs more in europe and the UK.
Quite true; I wasn't comparing apple to apples. Still, it's slated to cost about £20,600, whereas a gas Golf with similar acceleration times starts at only £14,500. Admittedly, I don't know what other bells and whistles the BlueMotion comes with, but there better be a lot for 42% more money.
Currently the US spec diesel Jetta (the only small diesel they sell here) is about $22,000 and if you think this car is slower than a Versa then...think again. It moves just fine. Also, the difference in overall "car" between a Jetta and a Versa, engine aside, is pretty huge.
A Jetta is not a Golf; I wasn't comparing anything to the Jetta.
I don't have a problem with Nissan or anything, but the Versa is no Golf, hence even the base prices being vastly different. If you want to compare a Versa to a VW it would be more realistic to use the Polo as an example. The TDI Polo will get you even better MPG than the Golf, and lately the gas version and diesel versions are priced the same.
Using data from MSN and VW: the Versa is larger than the Polo in every dimension and is much closer in size to the Golf. In fact, it's larger than the Golf in every dimension excepting overall width, shoulder room, and rear headroom. That said, the VW uses nicer materials and comes with a few more toys as standard equipment, so it should cost more money, though not twice as much (based on the last US diesel Golf's starting price of $19,580)
I totally understand your concern for the effectiveness of these rules. What I said is that if we want fuel efficient cars and lower CO output (these two are basically the same thing) then we can have it. In fact, Toyota already met these fuel economy standards 25 years ago, they just don't meet them now because now they sell giant gas guzzlers.
That's entirely my point: it's not really feasible for automakers to completely retool their lineups to make mostly smaller, lighter, less powerful cars in only five years.
-
It wasn't feasible for us to land on the moon in only 8 years but we did it using only shitty 1960's technology. These days we have far better tools like CD-ROM drives, parallel ports and a host of other things they could only dare dream of in the 60's. We can do it!
-
The replies are getting to long for me to keep track of. The main question in this thread, I thought, was "are the new standards possible?". The answer is yes. If you understand the way CAFE works then you should know that they (the OEMs) don't have to invent shit. Everyone already sells cars that meet the upcoming rules except for Ferrari, Bentley, and other companies that are glad to recoup the CAFE fees from the customers (who, in turn, are glad to pay). The OEMs like Ford will just have to make sure they sell a lot less Mustang and more Foci to meet the average. It won't require any hybrid or diesel shit, honesty. They can do this by adjusting available quantities and/or prices. They've been doing it all along anyway. GM, for example, basically giving away low spec Cavaliers to rental agencies just to offset the shitty MPG of their more profitable models. With the way things are now though they are going to have to be more genuine about it though for multiple reasons, and not rely on the tricks of the past (ie: GM making a selection of hybrids that get vastly worse MPG than a half dozen of their non-hybrids just to get the extra special EPA credit). I haven't done the math, but if Honda simply canned their V6 powered crossover line (the Ridgeline, Pilot, and Odyssey) they'd probably break even on the CAFE while still selling the CR-V and Element in controlled quantities.
BTW, I mentioned the Jetta because ever since the death of the MKIV platform VW has only sold TDI Jettas and not Golfs in the US. Therefore the TDI Jetta has become the reference car for high end fuel misery. However, a Jetta is a Golf, or they are so similar as makes no difference. This has always been the case. With a Mazda3 you have a hatch and a sedan. Both are called the 3. VW just likes to use different names for some reason. The Jetta even changes names from region to region from generation to generation, but they are both "A" series platforms and always have been. If you looked underneath my MKII Jetta you could actually see where the seem on the floorpan was for the extra trunk area that the Golf didn't have. They have the same engines, suspensions, interiors, just about everything. Only the shape of the rear end differs.
Edit: I was just looking at VW's website and noticed that the car they are selling as a Jetta wagon in the US is the same one they are selling as a Golf wagon in the EU/UK. Marketing people are a truely confusing subspecies of human being.
-
they are selling as a Jetta wagon in the US is the same one they are selling as a Golf wagon in the EU/UK.
Kind of like what they sold as the TurboGrafx-16 in the US they called the PC Engine in Japan. Kinda.