Yes this is probably true, but what I am getting at is that there are so many standards the government makes car manufacturers meet that it limits certain markets (ex. there was just a thread on here about the the VX being killed because of the amount of NoX it produced.)

If the Smart can pass current EPA standards, then I dont think size and weight are the issue.

Fuel economy was the issue after the embargo of the seventies. Honda brought cars to the American market that addressed the issue and their reliability made them the gold standard.

I bought a CRX 1.5 new in 1983, it got 44 MPG. I rebuilt a 77 Accord that my dad drove all over the Florida Keys and averaged 39.5 MPG in the late seventies. US 1 in the keys is not the best place to drive for mileage.

Honda changed when Soichiro Honda died in 1991. The US had imposed voulentary import quotas on the Japanese manufacturers. They responded by loading their cars up with accessories and the prices skyrocketed. They made more money per car without violating the quotas.

The SUV craze hit the Amercian market about the same time. The American manufacturers had given up on making profits on small cars, and loaded the SUVs up with accessories that increased profits to $6 K per vehicle.

Honda followed suit along with the rest of the Japanese manufacturers and the Amercian public swallowed the bait hook line and sinker.

All this time the OPEC members were making obscene profits and draining capital out of the advanced countries, until they became an economic power of their own.

Then they started raising prices of crude, exploring the limits of the World's economy to be able to pay the price of oil extortion. Prices would rise and fall, and every time they fell, Americans went back to their behemoth gas hogs, and made it clear to OPEC that we really did not have the backbone to make any sacrifices in out desire to have, bigger, heavier, more powerful vehicles.

Last summer the OPEC cartel pushed the price of oil to the breaking point and the highly leveraged World Economy found its limit.

Now OPEC is doing the same old thing, dropping oil prices so we will revert to our old wasteful ways, gleefully sending our National Net Worth to the Cartel.

Why fight a war with us when they can simply buy us?

There is no sane reason for the US to continue to make gas hogs. You want a 4000 pound pickup truck? No problem, just build one that averages 40 MPG.
You want a high end 5 passenger sedan? No problem, just build one that averages 50 MPG.

You want a small 4 or 5 passenger sedan that is economical? No problem, build one that averages 75 MPG.

When the US decides to fight the Cartel with our best weapon, which is technology, then we will win the real war, and the World's climate will be the beneficiary, along with every aspect of our lives. I can only hope the we as a crew of this planet finally wake up and dedicate our intelligence and resources to the real issue, which is to make every energy consuming object we rely on for daily convenience do the same job with less than half the fuel.

It really is possible, and our grandchildren will look back at this time period and wonder how we could be so stupid.

regards
gary

Gary nailed this. There is no technical barrier to great mileage.

I, however, still think that the U.S. government's cheap gas policies are to blame. Every other industrialized country taxes the bejesus out of gas.

The US ought to tax it heavily too, in a phased-in approach. Then we'd see GM, Ford and Chrysler introduce high-FE cars and trucks. They'd have to, to survive.

So, by that logic, there should be 50mpg high end 5 passenger sedans and 40mpg 4000 pound pickups in other countries. Are there? I suppose it is possible, though the 75mpg 4-5 passenger small sedan sounds out of reach.

Can anyone post examples of vehicles that meet those specifications?

The Audi A2 did; however, it was unpopular and production only lasted a couple of years.

The WV three liter car (Lupo) comes to mind @ 78mpg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

Theres not alot of small cars (late 90s civic size) because 50% of population are now overwheight, and thus you are almost eliminating 50% of your potential consumers (my opinion). haha!

And theres also the mentality of American that bigger is better, just get over it folk, that's what you are known for! Just check the difference of the best sellers in USA vs Canada, two neigboring coutries sharing the same car lineup.

Best selling cars in 2007, USA.
1. Ford F-series
2. Chevrolet Silverado
3. Toyota Camry
4. Honda Accord
5. Toyota Corolla / Matrix
6. Honda Civic
7. Chevy Impala
8. Nissan Altima
9. Dodge Ram
10. Honda CR-V

Canada best sellers 2007
* 1- Honda Civic (1) 70,838
* 2- Mazda3 (2) 48,236
* 3- Toyota Corolla (3) 40,474
* 4- Toyota Yaris (4) 34,424
* 5- Chevrolet Cobalt (5) 32,613
* 6- Toyota Camry (6) 28,218
* 7- Pontiac G5 (8) 25,211
* 8- Ford Focus (7) 24,013
* 9- Honda Accord (--) 22,102
* 10- Nissan Versa (--) 21,940

https://www.forbes.com/2007/11/30/car..._1130cars.html

https://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/Gui...mentID=6198519

EDIT: I realise that list lacks truck/SUV, seems like I can't find a list with both in the same top 10... Anyway, just my opinion lol.

Look in the gas logs here to see examples of people getting those kinds of mileages in cars that were never designed for that purpose.

I posted a data sheet published by the EPA that stated a class 2 truck (7400 lbs gross) could get 66 city and 50 highway with the correct combination of refinements that have already been achieved.

HC you know you are asking a question for which the answer already is known.

My counterpoint is the technology exists to accomplish the projected EPA goals which easily exceed the projections in my post.

These are the stepping stones:

No idling
No WOT
Engine not running constantly
High efficiency capacitive storage of engine generated power
Application of stored power in precisely the amounts necessary
Minimalized frontal area
Maximized aero CD
Regeneration of at least 80% of braking potential energy
Lowest rolling resistance tires

Above and beyond these requirements are engine designs that focus on high efficiency application of storage energy to the capacitive storage system. The best designs today are in the mid to high 50% range, easily 3 times as efficient as current vehicles.

In fact my estimates are very conservative. I see no real issue with the posted figures increasing by another 25%to100%.

regards
gary

That answers a different question. Although it was not specified, it was strongly implied that the hypothetical (or probably real but not in the US) vehicles would get the specified FE under normal driving.

Yes, but the answer is not already known by me, which is why I was asking. I do believe that you're right, and I wanted to see the examples that I believe must exist.

Why?

There would actually not be any throttle, so you could say it was always at WOT, but then you would assume enrichment indicative of WOT.

In reality there is no need for throttle control. Intake runners would be undersized to enhance velocity. We are talking about a lazy fairly large displacement engine that would never see above 3k RPM but would produce a lot of torque.

If any member of this forum can drive a car so it doubles the EPA mileage figure, then that same car can be driven exactly the same way by a programmed cpu.

The system I have referred to for many months separates power generation from application. Hypermilers use the vehicles mass for storage to place a greater load on the engine and achieve higher BSFC. Then they kill the engine and release the stored inertia.

A capacitive accumulator does the same thing, but does not require changes in vehicle speed, allowing the same tactic as pulse and glide to be utilized without changes in vehicle speed. The storage accumulator is pulsed and glided, while constant speeds are maintained.

This requires an Infinitely Variable Transmission in order to apply the exact same amount of energy to the drive regardless of the pressure level in the accumulator. In fact the "ratio" of the IVT drives would be constantly changing as the accumulator reserves depletes and is replenished.

Nothing new, but the key is to do it with efficiencies in the 85% or greater range, with regeneration at 80% or better.

regards
gary