Hybrids killing mileage of non hybrids - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2007, 01:45 AM   #11
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Weight, aero, isn't really much of an issue compared to OD gearing imo. As MetroMPG has shown, w/o the proper gearing to take full advantage of lowering the CdA/Crr, the car's efficiency while cruising doesn't increase as much as the efficiency gains suggest it should. Every car out today would benefit during a cruise w/ taller gearing imo. Yet again, I'll bring up that same tired BSFC map I've been raggin' on.

The line in the lower left hand represents fuel consumption with three different changes in gearing. The lowest point is stock, the one in the middle represents a 25% reduction in engine speed, and the highest a 50% reduction in engine speed. While going from 75% to 50% really yields little benefit, going from stock to 75% of stock drops BSFC from ~350g/kwh to ~280g/kwh (my engine's the one with the dotted lines). Which means if I used to pull ~33mpg cruising at 55mph, with a 25% drop in engine speed, I could see ~41mpg at the same speed. Definitely worthwhile imo. I'd rather get 40mpg cruising at 55mph with a 3.0L V6 than be able to go ~120-130mph in top gear. The extra displacement just makes for better acceleration, and more people/stuff hauling ability imo. According to auto manufacturers, people would rather be able to go ~100-god knows what mph. which is illegal on every public road I know of, than increase mileage by ~20-40%. The figure's a guess, and it depends on engine/trans, but there's still plenty to be gained from gearing changes imo.

The kicker, is that even more can be gained from a transmission change with a modified car. Like the ones in the top ten, since by quartering or halving the energy needed to move the car at ~50mph, they've also decreased engine efficiency by some exponential amount. Sure, we could all use P&G/etc... But we won't. And it'd be much easier if car's were optimized for fuel efficiency. Of course, by making inefficient cars now, there's plenty of room for improvement. So a manufacturer could drop out 30-100mpg SUVs-hatches instead of 10-50mpg versions like we have now, but they choose not to because they claim we want faster/etc...

Maybe we do?
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2007, 06:21 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,138
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq View Post
Every car out today would benefit during a cruise w/ taller gearing imo.
Definitely. And I would buy one, too. BUT, I think that the general public doesn't want a 5-speed that they have to shift a lot. If a John Q. Public can't accelerate from say, 40 mph in the top gear of the car, he is going to howl about it.

Manufacturers will make whatever they perceive that customers want. That's how I ended up with a car that turns 3400 rpm at 70 mph in top gear. I could add a 6th gear, but that would cost about a thousand bucks since I can't do it myself.
__________________

__________________
Bill in Houston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2007, 10:35 AM   #13
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmad View Post
Obvously, if the auto makers wanted to, they could make modern versions of these high mileage cars. I wonder how much of this is showing their market research shows no one would by a low hp, taller gearing high mileage version of their current compacts, or if they do not want to release a low cost version of a non hybrid that can get as good mpg ratings as the Prius's or Civic hybrids. The Prius and Civic hybrids are larger, 4 door cars with over $20K price tags. Maybe as gas prices go higher, the market will decide and we will see HF versions of the Fit/Yaris/Areo.
You're absolutely right. This is a huge pet peeve. Somebody should manufacture a low HP, high FE car equivlent to the original 37 HP VW Beetle or the Honda N600.

A modern, all aluminum, ~800 cc, long stroke twin cylinder car with direct fuel injection, VVT, and four valves per cylinder could easily put out 50+ HP, which is more than enough for a Chevette or Escort-sized car.

It would get "Hybrid" mileage without the Hybrid price tag. There is an unfilled market out there for such a vehicle. But "they" won't build it. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2007, 11:03 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
mrmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 386
Country: United States
"It would get "Hybrid" mileage without the Hybrid price tag. There is an unfilled market out there for such a vehicle. But "they" won't build it. It's a conspiracy, I tell you."

I can see Honda, Toyota, and Ford for example not wanting to build such a car. It competes with cars they have spent a lot of money developing. But car manufactures that do not sell hybrids (and don't plan to in the immediate future) like maybe Suzuki, or Nissan, could release small cars like this and compete with the hybrids. Maybe not directly compete, you can easily argue that a Civic hybrid or Prius is alot nicer car then some overgeared 50hp econobox, but there is a market there. Or maybe gas prices are not high enough yet. Gas prices in CA are over $3 a gallon for reg unleaded and I believe closer to $2 in the rest of the country. Maybe another dollar a gallon more (or two?) and we'll see some cars like this.
mrmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2007, 04:12 PM   #15
Semi-retired OPEC Buster
 
BeeUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 200
Country: United States
The current environment will not allow the late 80's metro/civic fuel champs anymore:
The american consumer (thinks they) want(s) a car that crashes into the wall at 40mph and can walk away without any action on their part, like buckling a seat belt.
At least 8 airbags plus:
Power seats/Heated seats/Leather seats/Power windows/Power locks/Power mirrors/DVD entertainment for all passengers/Air conditioning/heated windows/heated washer fluid/automatic transmissions.

The EPA/California wants zero emissions, that requires multiple converters, sensors, pumps, cooled EGR and evaporative emission systems for sucking up the fumes while pumping gas.

All this has to last 100k miles.

An we cannot forget at least 18 rims, shiny with the biggest freakn tires possible.

All this kills mileage with weight and requires power. Plus most people are a bit wider and rounder, and would not fit comfortably with a mocca.

There is a market for a car like the old metro/civic, just not enough for the automaker to put it together. Or import from Japan, yet.

Hopefully sites like this keep growing and the list of potential buyers looks large enough for a manufacture to take the plunge.....untill then we have to build our own, using old metros and civics....
__________________
B W


BeeUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 08:17 PM   #16
Registered Member
 
AlexK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 42
Country: United States
They have a class of car in Japan that is 660cc or less. They pay lower taxes and can be recognized by their yellow license plates. They even make little mini vans and mini pickups in this class. Every time I'm over there I drool over these cool little cars. They are made by Suzuki, Toyota, Nissan, Daihatsu, etc.
__________________
AlexK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 08:27 PM   #17
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
yea ive seen a few (not in person but pictures) they look liek they took a golf cart, and slapped on a body for em. id be perfectly happy driving one of those around. if its small, you will bounce off other cars if they come into your lane and im sure they manuver extremely well cuz of less mass. but again think about it: japan has a huge population on a small island. america has a huge population but spread out over a huge area. we would need these things to go at least 70MPH, and be comforitable to ride in, and get super good mpg.(which i would think they already do)

and refering to the origional post, notice that the new hybrids are about 500-600lbs heavier than the others? proly because of thier batterys, and all the other electrical gizmos. a geo or crx or the liek could get even better mpg if all the body pannels were made of plastic, lightweight bumpers, etc.
but i think the reason why were not seeing anything along the lines of a geo is because car companies (or govt) is trying to design a car that gets good gas mileage but also produces super low emmissions for this global warming issue...
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 08:42 PM   #18
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 81
Country: United States
The manufacturer's have definitely succeeded in promoting the notion that ultra efficiency requires expensive new technology AND that no one should have to consider giving up some amount of performance and comfort for efficiency.

On the safety side of things, it's hard to argue with air bags and other safety features, and we all know that momentum = mass x velocity, so heavier is inherently safer, BUT heavy is relative. If there were more light weight cars, on the road, then all cars could be lighter and be relatively just as safe.

It's also interesting that we never seem to consider what the heavier mass of our own car might end up doing to someone else
__________________
northboundtrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 08:46 PM   #19
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 81
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by VetteOwner View Post
but i think the reason why were not seeing anything along the lines of a geo is because car companies (or govt) is trying to design a car that gets good gas mileage but also produces super low emmissions for this global warming issue...
If I'm not mistaken, carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas from automobiles -- is not recaptured by any of the current emissions systems. So its emissions equate exactly to fuel economy.
__________________
northboundtrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 08:49 PM   #20
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
As for cars, people are more worried about PM2.5 emissions, not CO2, CO is also an issue though. PM2.5 issues have gotten better.

Anyway, the meat industry accounts for higher emissions than all forms of transportation together. So yeah, meat eaters, for shame.
__________________

SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post new thread missing from iPhone view jostlehim Fuelly Web Support and Community News 7 02-21-2012 01:42 AM
suggestion for stat comparison zahampton Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 09-04-2008 08:29 AM
Current TV spot merckrx General Fuel Topics 1 08-14-2008 07:36 AM
Greetings from Japan. GasSavers_Diemaster General Discussion (Off-Topic) 8 07-13-2006 07:56 PM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.