Why are there no new cars in the top 10
Looking over the top ten there are no cars after 99. Is it because they are still under warrenty or are older cars easier to tweak?
TOP 10 Pontiac 98 Honda 92 Ford 99 Honda 93 Metro 93 Saturn 99 Honda 91 Metro 94 Mero 94 Honda 94 16th Saturn 2002 Over EPA Ford 99 Saturn 99 Honda 91 Plymouth 90 Honda 93 Honda 93 Honda 93 Honda 92 Pontiac 98 Honda 92 Toyota 92 19th Honda 2005 Total cars in Garage (these numbers are from the search engine on the site(which I suck at) so not 100% accurate) Metro 11 Honda 65 Saturn 3 Yaris 15 Ford 10 |
safety requirements -> more weight -> less FE
At least, that's what I've read. US safety requirements were made more stringent in 2000 or 2001, and the easiest way to meet them was add more metal around the passenger compartment. I have also read that if you wish to license something like a Ford Ka in the US, you'd have to add metal rods to the B pillar and perhaps beef up a few other spots.
If you did a top ten list of US cars from lightest to heaviest, I bet you'd see the same sort of thing. Nothing 2000 or newer would be in the top 10. |
If you look at engine size, horse power rating, horse power to weight ratio, and options that are now standard, you will notice all of those going up as cars get newer, new cars are designed to get high reveiws from people who spend 30 minutes in a car, push all the buttens, stomp on the gas pedal a few times, then go off to a cubical to write a review that is ment to sell said car, if it's not bigger, faster, has more cup holders, and cushy seats, it gets a bad reveiw.
|
Quote:
I want a Lotus Elise personally. Closest thing to my ideal car but maybe a touch heavy. I believe the radio is still optional. |
Quote:
|
Size and Emission Tech
I'm just guessing that 2 factors are at play here:
First being the size of the average vehicle has increased significantly over the last 15 years. Look at the same name 15 years ago (Accord, Camry, even Maxima and Taurus since they were first introduced). Secondly, the advent of OBD-II has made it increasingly difficult to fool the computer into more efficient conditions or to meet those conditions physically. The ECU holds the key to so many variables of FE vs. Emissions and driveability that it's probably harder to tweak and to really get access to. Fuel maps and the oxygen sensor's role in the whole mix is more complicated. Now, with throttle-by-wire and even more electronic gadgetry on cars this decade have made it a challenge to diagnose what they demand for superior FE. RH77 |
Ryland's on the money. It's not the computers, or the weight, or the safety equipment. It's only because the auto companies don't believe ordinary, efficient cars will sell in North America, so they've stopped trying. (Or they do believe it, but they don't want to sell them.)
The "new" small cars we have here - which are admittedly bigger and safer than their 10 year old predecessors - are available in other markets with more efficient drivetrains. Yaris & Fit spring to mind. Repeat after me: you do not want an efficient small car. You do not want an efficient small car. You do not want an efficient small car... |
shoot guys
Don't I count? Or did my car get disqualified because it is diesel? I was briefly #3....and my car is a 2005 model.:confused:
|
Quote:
...hey what am I saying? Stop it. Those are jedi mind tricks. :p |
Same here if diesels were in the top 10 I would be in there all the time with our 2003 TDI wagon.
Although on this note the VW diesels keep getting bigger and more powerful engines. So anything newer then the 03's get lower and lower mpg, but more power. Another thing cutting back on the mpg's is the emissions. There are a few mods on the diesels that can increase mpgs but also increase emissions. I wonder how true that might be with gassers as well? |
Well, I assumed the question was directed at the top 10 gasser list. Because the newer hybrid cars are doing OK too.
It's true that controlling NOX cramps FE potential (in gas engines, anyway - can't speak for the diesels.) |
I don't want an efficient, small car...
Honestly, I do want an efficient small car aside from the one I have -- but honestly, I'm cool with what I've got. I've resolved to drive the Integra until it basically dies or becomes too costly to repair. From a financial standpoint -- no car payment is nice, and the potential is there for some high percentage FE over EPA.
I'm sure many of us are there -- we have the potential with what we drive -- it's just getting there (or finding the time to work/experiment to reach additional FE potential). Hopefully the MY '08-'09 will produce some smaller, low emitting and high FE vehicles. It may be tempting to get something then -- but I don't know if I'd buy new for myself lately. There's too much loss of equity. Diesels really have my interest lately (specifically the Accord iCTDi). RH77 |
OK, so against diesels it's not a fair fight? I say it would be, look at the Suzuki crew getting 70+ MPG! Whatever....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Maybe someone needs to found DieselSavers.org ;)
|
"energysavers.org"! :D (So I can report the ForkenSwift's future "MPG".)
|
Maybe it's because most of us are penny pinchers, and dont buy new cars.
|
https://www.eere.energy.gov/state_ene..._econ_year.jpg
This is probobly why, average fuel econmy of new vehices (purchased)* in the U.S. has steadily declined over the years since the early 80's. There are a few cars getting improved gas mileage, like hybrids, but the average americans new car is getting worse gas mileage every year. :thumbdown: * accidently put built, should have been purchased. |
My '02 Accord was in the top ten for % above EPA for a brief, fleeting moment. I felt good about that moment ;). But then you guys kicked my butt! At least the Prius is doing OK so I can't complain.
I agree with the theory that it's because the automakers just aren't trying anymore. They think that hybrids should be the only really efficient cars because otherwise you would have to "make sacrifices." That and they don't want to start introducing cars that would compete with the hybrids. Can you imagine if Honda had brought the 1.3L iDSI Fit w/ CVT to the US? It would easily match the Civic Hybrid on fuel economy for 60-75% of the cost. As much as I'm loving the Prius, the Fit might have won me over on economics alone. |
what baffles me is that automakers are spending money on making cars less efficent so they can sell them in the US market, the Fit is a good example, it's been in production for a number of years all over the world, but it had to be re-designed for the US market, giving it a lower gas mileage number, this was at an added cost, parts had to be re-enginered, equipment had to be retooled, electronics had to be changed, the vehicle that was being sold to the rest of the world was good enough for them, why wasn't it good enough for us? what would happen if a car like the Smart Car got 60mpg like it does in the rest of the world, insted of the projected 40mpg for the US market??
|
Yet another example of FE creeping the wrong way: my understanding is the redesigned xB and xA replacements (xD?) both get worse fuel economy than the cars they replace.
I think we need to remember we're about as far away from the mainstream as we can get. What we think is wrong with these small cars, isn't what the average person thinks. The proof of that is our first question about any small car is: "what's its fuel economy?", whereas everyone else is crying "is that thing SAFE???" |
As I said, the people who design them read the reveiws in magazines of their own products, and it's all about what someone who gets paid way to much money thinks of a car that they only spend half an hour in.
|
The new gasoline smart (model 451) which will be sold in the US has a NEDC fuel consumption rating of 50 US MPG, about 60 on the highway....
The 451 diesel, which we will NOT get either in Canada or the USA, is rated at 69 US MPG in the NEDC test. |
:O Why no diesel in Canada? They already know we'll buy them??
|
Quote:
CO2 emissions are also interesting. Each 115,500 BTU of gasoline energy used adds 10,874 grams of fossil CO2 to the atmosphere. 115,500 BTU of diesel adds 10,963 grams. Each 115,500 BTU of B100 adds 2,746. For the same energy output as a gallon of gasoline, B100 adds 1/4 the fossil CO2 to the atmosphere. |
And that doesn't even start to account for one of the largest consumer of grid power in the US, drum roll, you guessed it petroleum refineries. It takes a LOT of power to convert crude in to gasoline and diesel.
I think Darell once said it took more power to just make a gallon of gas then it takes to use that same power to move his RAV4 25 miles... |
Quote:
the fluke was: Mercedes-Benz Canada was trying to certify the gasoline engine model, but the EU-spec fuel vapour recovery system was not good enough, so they would have had to redesign the entire fuel tank and charcoal canister etc....for the estimated sales of 1000 cars per year they were projecting in Canada, it wasn't worth it (actual average annual sales are more like 3500). So they switched to certifying the diesel, because it needed no such system. Once the smart cars are sold in both Canada AND the USA, we will get the crumbs that fall off the US table. If smart USA does not bring in a cdi diesel, we won't get one either. The other issue is that the model 451 diesel has an open-loop particle filter, and its EU-4 emission standards are not as strict as 2007 CDN and US standards. So if the US (and we) ever do get another smart fortwo diesel, it will have Mercedes' BlueTec smission control system in it. |
Brock -
Quote:
And that doesn't included the military cost of maintaining access to the crude, right? CarloSW2 Addendum : This thread made me google the following : "rocky mountain institute gas refinery" Which led me to here : https://www.rmi.org/images/other/Ener...rogenMyths.pdf The thrust of this article is an argument in favor of fuel cells, but it touches on fuel conversion efficiences. YF(uel)MV Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.