The amazing gas mileage blunder
 

As a company, Honda has been concerned about gas mileage long before it was ever popular. See this article for more information: https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272373/site/newsweek/

The great blunder I speak of belongs to Honda. Let's take a stroll down memory lane and examine just how much Honda has deviated from it's previous goals:

<table border="1">
<tr>
<td>car</td>
<td>city</td>
<td>highway</td>
<td>combined</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p>1985 CRX HF</p> </td>
<td>49</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1987 CRX HF </td>
<td>52</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1988 CRX HF </td>
<td>50</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>52</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1991 CRX HF </td>
<td>49</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1992 Civic VX </td>
<td>48</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1995 Civic VX </td>
<td>47</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1996 Civic HX </td>
<td>39</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>41</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2000 Civic HX </td>
<td>35</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>38</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2001 Civic HX </td>
<td>36</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>39</td>
</tr>
</table>

Then there are the hybrids:

<table border="1">
<tr>
<td>car</td>
<td>city</td>
<td>highway</td>
<td>combined</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2000 Insight</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>65</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2002 Insight</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>64</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2004 Insight</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>63</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2005 Insight</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>63</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2003 Civic Hybrid </td>
<td>48</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2005 Civic Hybrid</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2005 Accord Hybrid </td>
<td>29</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>32</td>
</tr>
</table>


*based on EPA ratings from www.fueleconomy.gov

A few thoughts on this. Honda was making very fuel efficient vehicles back in the 80s. These cars are 20 years old now and still get superior gas mileage. As the years progressed, the fuel economy worsened. The introduction of the HX was a huge blow to Honda's gas mileage capabilities. The HX is basically the same technology as the VX, only it gets 10 fewer miles per gallon.

And then there is the Civic Hybrid, which claims to have the most advanced technology a Honda has seen. Unfortunately, you would still be better off with a Civic VX from ten years ago.

I recently commented on Honda's new engine. It is a 1.7L engine that gets the gas mileage of a 1.5L, and yet has the power of a 2.0L engine. I have no idea why Honda, who claims to have a long lasted concern for fuel economy, gives in and builds a BIGGER engine. you would think that they would be better off building a 1.5L engine that gets the gas mileage of a 1.3L, yet the power of a 1.7L.

It has taken Honda 20 years go get back to where they started. At least they are still in the lead.

Engine shipping question!
 

Yes, I have thought about this many times, and use it to make fun of people who drive hybrids thinking it is the best thing ever when really a prius is not good compared to a crx hf. Seriously, some article I was reading, the author owner a prius and under normal driving it got 42.5, gosh that sucks. In any case, thhe 2006 Civic Hybrid will have a 1.3 liter 3-stage vtec giving it the fuel economy of a something less and 110 hp. But then it has to haul so much weight around, so really it ends up getting 50 epa and 47 under normal driving.

Condensator Installation/Reporting Thread
 

what baffles me is when people claim to be buying these cars to save money.

first of all, if you want to save money, buy a used car. Secondly, if you want to save money, hybrids usually cost at LEAST $5k USD more than non-hybrids. It will take tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of miles to make up for that money. If you really want to cut consumption, save money, etc... buy a used car. Get a CIVIC VX that can get 50+ mpg in stock format for around $3000-$4000 USD total. Your insurance will be lower, your car payment will be lower (if not non-existant) and you'll be the envy of all of us.

That being said, I can't wait to install my z1!!! (it's actually not a z1. it's a JDM d15b vtec-e, which is exactly the same thing)

Most users online - what happened last month?
 

Yeah, but it's jdm, so better. Haha, not really, but some folks might think so. I thought the site actually said it was the d15z1, dinnit?

Gassavers Videos, Podcasts, and newsletters
 

Yeah, it did say that it was a d15z1. I think they did that because too many people were buying it thinking it was one of the other two d15b (the d15b vtec, and the d15b 3 stage vtec). Selling it as the USDM equivilant makes sense I guess.

So are you going to get that one from the guy in Texas? If not, you should send Jonathan_ED3 his contact info. He's in TX and is interested inthe z1 as well.

"Lean Cruise" ECU Modification Thoughts
 

The guy stopped responding to everything though, I'll have to find his email and send it to jonathan.

Role of aero clear in record-setting 86 km/h "bicycle"
 

Very weird. you might be better off with a JDM d15b vtec-e like me. The miles are super low, and from the looks of it I only have 2 broken sensors.

Over the last 25 years each
 

Over the last 25 years each generation of Acords and Civics has grown in size. So much so Honda is getting ready to add another car to the lineup. It will be a step smaller than the Civic and more the size of the original one. Right now it is being called the Fit or Jazz in other parts of the world. It my have another name here in the US. Look for it in the spring of 2006. It is to compete with Toyota's Scion.

Canadian Users, do you use MyTelus?
 

That's true. I totally forgot about it or I would've posted it. I think it'll be called the fit in the US also and is being given the title of "econobox" though I have absolutely no idea what kinda gas mileage the thing is sposed to get, but it is popular around the world so heck.

How is this Honda's blunder? Increased crash test standards, emissions standards, and Americans desire for large vehicles is the cause of increased vehicle weight and size; as well as creating the need for stronger, more torquey engines.

The HX may be the same concept as the VX but it's actually a step up in technology. The VX is notoriously unreliable. Any small problem, such as a vacuum leak or a worn out sensor; results in very poor driveability. I got my VX cheap because it was bucking hard. An aftermarket cruise control system was to blame. The vacuum T had cracked creating a small vacuum leak. If it had been a DX, CX, EX, or LX, it's likely the owner would never have noticed a problem.

Car companies have to follow the market. Quite frankly, Americans didn't care one wit about gas mileage. We started to take notice when the prices shot up, but it didn't change people's choice in vehicles or driving behaviors until it reached $4/gallon. Honda took the VX, made it into an attractive coupe with more interior space, increased safety, power steering, power doors and windows, bigger wheels, bigger brakes, much more power especially in the driving range, and made it much more tolerant of small problems and normal wear and tear (OBD2 requirements also had a hand in this). All this, and the mpg in the real world is actually comparable to the VX. Having driven an HX and having owned a VX, I would put the actual mixed gas mileage difference at 3-5. I would also recommend the HX over the VX to anyone that values driving comfort at all. The small loss in FE is worth the trade-off for a more comfortable, more powerful, more safe, and more reliable Honda Civic HX. (I personally hate the 6th gen Civic but that is because I nit-pick all kinds of things that don't matter to the average driver.)

If you want to ***** at Honda how about you mention that they switched the Civic from double wishbone suspension to the inferior Mcpherson strut design? Or that they discontinued the Integra? Or that their engines don't make the hp/liter that they used to? Hondas today are more marketable to the typical American but you wont ever catch me in one!


I think the most interesting fact that you can derive from the data you provided is that if you want to buy a used car to save money, then it is absolutely stupid to pay an inflated price for a VX. At $3000-5000, how long will it take you to get your money back on the difference in FE between your current vehicle and a VX? If you were smart, you'd get a mid eighties Accord. They can be had for $1000 or less and typically get 40+ mpg on today's gas and with today's tires. That, and no expensive/rare to find O2 sensor!!!

Nominated for the most extreme necropost ever accomplished on GasSavers.org...can anyone cite a more extreme example? :D

A mid-eighties Accord is ten years older than a mid-nineties VX, most of which are already too old to be cost-effective unless you can do your own repairs and can get the parts cheap.

You have to consider that this is a zombie thread... It died 3 years ago and has come back to life.

-Jay

I will chime in on this dead thread. Car companies don't make cars any more. The Government makes cars. Enough said.

https://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...ecromancer.htm

:D

And that is bad how? Do we all want to be driving in light and cheap chery amulets? If lotus can make the elise a road legal car here, I don't know what keep companies to still make light cars.

woopy

The belief that a car gas to be a lightweight tin can to be efficient is simply wrong.

regards
gary

Was going to respond but noticed the date and said which grave yard did this come from. Most hybrids i have noticed are going 75 to 80 mph, no where near the 60 mph they should be going to get the best results. Oh well, human nature. I am saving one half of the calories so i can eat three times as much.

Drove the wifes Murano to our daughters house and back yesterday and today.

I took over on I95 North at Ashland Va, for a 60 mile hop on the interstate. Reset the MPG meter and drove 60 MPH in the right lane. Averaged 30 MPG. Then I tried it at 65 MPH and did a little drafting, 28.5 MPG. She had been averaging 25.1 MPG before I took over.

Thats 3800 pounds and 245 HP rated at 20-24 MPG. It was fun and broke up the monotony of a trip we have taken many times.

regards
gary

I am not saying we shouldn't have safe cars. I just don't like government intervention in the development of cars. I don't think Honda would have ever let their Civic get so large if the government wasn't involved. If people want to drive a tin box (89' Civic) then let them. I just don't really have that option any more and it upsets me. I can tell you just because my name says Civic lover I won't be buying a 6th gen when they are cheaper, because they are too big.

The Civic is larger because of market forces, nothing else. Nothing the government did encouraged upsizing a compact car. CAFE encourages making it smaller and just selling SUVs instead to the people who need space.

Look at ANY model of car from ANY manufacturer. Since the '80s, every model has grown. To fill the space left by the smallest models, new small models are created, which then grow, and are followed by more new small models. Civic? Fit. Sentra? Versa. Etc.

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

Didn't you just describe a diesel engine, no throttle plate, low rpm and loads of torque?

Try Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition, which is very much like a Diesel but without the emissions complications.

But in fact a Diesel is a very good place to start, with energy conversion efficiencies of 42%, powertrain efficiency of 85% or better, regeneration efficiency of 80%, CD below .34, and 16% weight reduction, combined with 25% lower rolling resistance, and you have a 7400 pound gross weight truck with 3.7 square meters of frontal area getting better than 50 MPG combined.

Those are EPA figures.

Now if you figure the frontal area reduced by 50%, drag coefficient of .19, you are talking 80-100 MPG in a sedan.

The EPA 3800 pound test mule got 80.

regards
gary

Gary's point was that it is possible to get high mileage without building engines out of unobtainium or costlium.

The four passenger WV Lupo got 78 mpg using technology no more sophisticated than a diesel engine with a starter/alternator. Hell, Geos and Civics in the 1980's got about 50 mpg with a gas engine simply by matching a low power engine to a lightweight body .

I'm beginning to hate hybrid technology because it takes the focus off the FE basics: low mass; good aerodynamics; and less powerful engines. In other words, it takes the focus off cars we can AFFORD.

Gary's point was also that they don't have to have low mass, as he repeatedly cited heavy examples (such as the 80mpg 3800 pound vehicle he mentions a couple posts above).

Touche

That Mercedes Bionic concept based on DI diesel and with low drag gets around there and it's practically minivan sized, (There's only an inch or two in it) figure I can find now says 70mpg but I think that's Imperial gallons.

This topic falls under my fear of robot overloards. We are being setup for immobilization. (Now excuse me while I check my horse for a signs of an implanted processor.)

I'm prepared, Marvin is practically identical to Cruise's bug out vehicle in War of the Worlds, and I've got a spare coil in a lead lined box...... of course I need to fix his tranny...

I'm prepared as well. Because... [Voice="KeanuReevesMatrix"] I know Kung Fu! [/Voice]

I wish I knew Kung fu. My team of smurfs does though. Sadly, they don't exactly invoke much fear...... or damage either.
I've lead lined my car, and my house, and made tinfoil hats for all my fish. No ones going to read the thoughts of my guppies!