http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/12202.page Public Action http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1119700 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1119700 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1110224 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1110224 GMT
You are correct that the Prius is mostly a fashion statement at this point (most people use the name Prius as a generic term for hybrids) and every celebrity is bragging about their new Prius. From a technical point of view, it's probably a dead end but toyota should win some kind of marketing award for selling these things in large numbers. I also assume that toyota will be smart enough to get out before the fad ends in a few years. The domestic have to be careful that they don't arrive just as the party is ending and everyone else is getting into the next thing.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108613 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108613 GMT
There are numerous technologies available today for increasing fuel economy, but what the auto industry has found is that these technologies are currently too expensive, and most consumers are not willing to shell out more money for a more fuel efficient car. Case in point is hybrid technology; the only successful hybrid, from a sales and marketing standpoint, is the Prius. Why? Because Toyota designed the car to look and operate significantly different than non-hybrid models. People are willing to pay the higher cost for the hybrid technology if it comes with new “image” as well. The hybrids such as the Escape and Civic look and drive almost identically to the non hybrid models, but have a higher price tag, and the vehicles sales and market research demonstrate that this approach does not work; the general public is simply not willing to pay for it.

Until the cost of higher fuel efficient cars can be reduced, or the auto industry can change the mindsets of the average consumer (Ford has been trying this approach with their Escape marketing), larger fuel efficient cars will be a very slow evolution.


]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108453 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108453 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1112811 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1112811 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108437 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108437 GMT THIS IDEA CAN BRING MANY CARS TO 30 PLUS MPG............ITS A GOD STARTING POINT IN MY MIND....]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108433 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1108433 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1107044 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1107044 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106642 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106642 GMT
Yeah, they're developing direct injection for gas engines. Since it would have to take up area that could otherwise be used for moving fluids in and out (valve space) and would thus (I would think) have to compromise the capacities of the valves to feed and evacuate the cylinders, I can't visualize its benefit over port injection. Diesels use direct injectors, but they don't need spark plugs, so they can effectively use what would have been spark plug area for valves.

The new diesel systems have substantially reduced carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons, and of course carbon clouds, but since they operate with compression and cylinder temperatures much higher than gas engines they really can't get the NOx levels down with any kind of mobile system. Diesels simply cannot currently meet the same emissions standards. I agree that the acoustics engineers have done great deeds with quieting the noise down.

Because diesels are not required to test, there are also millions of them on the roads that are running filthy.

My feeling is that when diesels are required to meet emissions requirements (I would accept ones modified to accomodate their inherant weakness, NOx), then I'll be less opposed to them.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1109612 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1109612 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106429 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106429 GMT
The "big 3" have spent billions over the years on eco-cars, but they are risk-averse. And putting them on the market involves risk. they'd rather spend the money (millions, actually) putting a "known commodity" on the market than something new. Chrysler, when it was under Lee Iacoca, took risks with eth Dodge Ram design, the Cruiser, the 300, and others and it paid off big.

Old cars ran rich. The fuel droplets were a lot larger from carbs because they worked via a low pressure-differential feed, using variations in the lateral sidewall pressure of the venturi caused by changes in velocity of the airflow stream to draw the gas through the feed orafice. Modern injectors use a high pressure differential system, high pressure spraying through an orafice the volume controlled by changing spray pulsewidth. That provides much more accurate and smaller fuel droplets which burn more completely in the limited time spent in the chamber. That means more of the gas' energy is used, less gas is needed, and fewer unburned hydrocarbons get expelled. Remember that only the surface of the droplet burns, only those hydrocarbon molecules that are in contact with oxygen. In order to get sufficient power out of the larger droplets, the old carburated engines had to run richer.

Interesting comments about NOx. Forest rot in Germany? Really?

In my opinion the diesel did not make it big in the U.S. because they're smelly, dirty, and noisy. They also produce much more NOx, HC, and CO than gas engines, but in truth if they were not smelly, dirty, and noisy people would have bought them anyway.

GM tried years ago to make a diesel out of a gas V8. It was a disaster of epic proportions. They now have diesel truck engines, but I don't know the details of them.

Personally I think GM will continue to be risk averse. I hope I'm wrong. ]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106417 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106417 GMT
I sincerely doubt that the big three, GM, Ford and Chrysler are purposely keeping the fuel consumption on their products high. I just think that fuel was and is too cheap to consider alotting a big amount of their R&D money towards eco-cars. I do not see capable conspirators , I see a lot of economists at the top with lack of vision. Instead of sticking money into engine research , which is a high risk business. One would spent money on the cars new styling. A case in point, the Ford 92 LX had a carbeurator in the 90s. Most people will think, what is wrong with that? Well to keep it short, the modern fuel injector has a few tricks up its sleeve to reduce fuel consumption. One of them being, shutting of the fuel flow while decelerating with the foot off the gas and in gear. I remember one of the ford people, giving examples why the hybrid would not sell. This was the time when the Prius was introduced to the market. Here are a explanation, why it seems the combustion engine consumed more fuel after the introduction of emission laws. I am guessing in the old days, that the most motors were running on a lean mix, which means the ratio of air to fuel was such, that the fuel had more air than it needed to combust. This is mostly positive, this means that most of the fuel will have a chance to combust (burn) and next to no unburned fuel to be purged. Ah but then there is the excess oxygen which usually does nothing in our ambient temperatures, but in the high temperatures of the cylinder in goes into a unholy bond with the ample nitrogen and we get different types of nitrous-oxides. (If you look at your emission sheets it is NOx) Needless to say it is a toxic gas, it is responsible for forest rot in Germany etc. So all this had to be sorted out by changing the air fuel mix and then came the brilliant US-invention the catalytic converter. Back to the point, real life is too complicated to have few people to keep ever thing in check.
Here are a few perfectly innocent reasons the diesel did not make it big in the US. The first and utmost important one is the California emission standards, which I applaud. California is the biggest car market and if you can not sell your car there, you have already lost a considerable chunk of the market. To the reason, why diesel can not achieve clean emissions, the biggest one being the sulphur content in US-Diesel, which has be sorted. To the argument the big three sell Diesels abroad and not in the US. This is I find the saddest part. I suspect the big three have no small compact diesel engines of their own. These engines are bought in. The Jeep uses a VW TDI, Ford has psa engines (Peugeot) and Chrysler uses Mercedes engines which can be bought in the US as the Liberty CRD. I have no idea if GM has its own diesel engine.So I think it makes it hugely expensive to import the engines just for the small domestic market.I guess the big three have been sleeping though the compact engine research. As an example of how far foreign firms have advanced, VW have a gas engine which has a displacement of 1.4 Litres and 170 HP. The golf gets 33 mpg with it and it is very quick.Toyota is also a a prime example of high risk research, which paid off. Who knows maybe the big three will notice that you can not build your core business around muscle cars a la charger (it does look sweat) and concentrate on boring small engines.
]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1104012 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1104012 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1101819 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1101819 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1100620 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1100620 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1100629 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1100629 GMT
From 1985 to 1988, the carbureted 1.0 L 3-cylinder engine used a hemispherical head design. The 1986 model was documented at 60 mpg (US) (3.9 L/100 km/72 mpg imp) on the highway. Later, as fuel injection was mandated, the cylinder head for the 1989 was redesigned to add the additional cooling required, which reduced gas mileage. The Sprint was originally offered in parts of the western US for the 1985 model year; subsequently Chevrolet marketed the Sprint to the rest of the North American market as well. All models had the hatchback body style and initially all were three-door models. Starting in 1986, a five-door hatchback version was offered, called the Sprint Plus. That year, another model called the Sprint ER was offered that included a few extra features, such as an "up shift" light to indicate the ideal speed to shift to the next highest gear on manual transmission models. Although air conditioning was offered in all years, the three-speed automatic transmission wasn't offered until 1986. All models featured front-wheel drive and 12-inch tires, which contributed to the Sprint's excellent handling and super-economical upkeep costs.


Additionally, the Suzuki/Chevrolet Sprint was also developed in the late 90s and early 00s to run as a 100% Electric Vehicle. There are still a few on the road today. The company that did the conversion is called Solectria, and occassionally one appears for sale on Ebay for a lot of dollars.

However there is a solution to today's gasoline cost crisis...HHO. Run your car on water. Google HHO.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1099811 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1099811 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1095052 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1095052 GMT
Suzuki is said to be bring the Swift back into the U.S. 2010 after it gets its freshing up. It to could be a 40 MPG if equipped with a fuel sipping engine. Thats the car the OP was talking about in the first place. The Swift, and Sprint were the same car with different badging.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1095043 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1095043 GMT http://www...3ygYUYia9I

SUV against normal car
http://www...re=related
]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1095024 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1095024 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094820 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094820 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094642 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094642 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094633 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094633 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094417 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094417 GMT http://www...n.php?sp=b]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094214 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094214 GMT http://www...rement.htm
If one U.S. gallon only = 3.75 liters, and one Imperial gallon = 4.5 liters, then what gallon contains the more fuel?]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094024 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1094024 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093614 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093614 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093613 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093613 GMT Thats approximately 20% more fuel per Imperial gallon
]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093418 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093418 GMT Alfa Romeo 147 JTD 5.8 L/100 km 40.00 mpg Diesel
Alfa Romeo 156 JTD 5.8 L/100 km 40.00 mpg Diesel
Alfa Romeo SportWag. 5.9 L/100 km 39.40 mpg Diesel
Audi A3 2.0 TDI 5.5 L/100 km 41.90 mpg Diesel
Audi A3 1.9 TDI 5.1 L/100 km 45.56 mpg Diesel
Audi A4 1.9 TDI 5.6 l/100 km 41.26 mpg Diesel
Audi A4 2.0 TDI 5.7 l/100 km 40. mpg Diesel
Audi A6 2.0 TDI 6.8 l/100 km 38.75 mpg Diesel
BMW 118d 5.6 l/100 km 41.61 mpg Diesel
BMW 120d 5.7 l/100 km ~40.00 mpg Diesel
BMW 318d 5.8 l/100 km 40.00 mpg Diesel
BMW 320d 5.9 l/100 km ~39.50 mpg Diesel
Citroen C2 1.1 5.9 l/100 km ~39.50 mpg Premium unleaded
Citroen C2 HDi 70 4.2 l/100 km 56.00 mpg Diesel
Citroen C3 1.1 6.0 l/100 km 38.75 mpg Premium unleaded
Citroen C3 hdi 90 4.4 l/100 km 52.85 mpg Diesel
Ciroen Berlingo HDi 5.7 l/100 km 41.42 mpg Diesel
Citroen Xsara Picas 5.5 l/100 km 42.75 mpg Diesel (Mini-Van)
C4 to C5 all diesel models around 40 mpg
Ferrari JUST JOKING
DAIHATSU has a few 40 mpg gas models all horrible cars (the snob is speaking)
FIAT has a lot of 40 mpg Diesel models
Ford Ka 5.9 l/100 km 39.5 mpg unleaded
Ford Fiesta 1.3 5.9 l/100 km 39.5 mpg premium unleaded
Fusion-Focus-Mondeo all 40 mpg diesel models available.
Honda Jazz 5.5 l/100 km 42.5 mpg premium unleaded
Civic CTDi 5.0 l/100 km ~47.00 mpg Diesel
Accord Diesel 5.4 l/100 km
Honda CR-V 2.2 i 6.7 l/100 km 34,71 mpg Diesel (SUV example)
Lancia has a few 40 mpg cars
Mazda has a lot of 40 mpg cars all diesel
Mercedes A160 4.9 l/100 km 47.40 mpg Diesel
Mercedes C220 CDI 6.1 l/100 km ~39 mpg Diesel Top Speed 140 mph
Mini One D 4.8 l/100 km ~49 mpg Diesel (not comparenle with the nifty Cooper S)
Nissan Micra 5.9 l/100 km ~40 mpg premium unleaded
Opel Corsa 1.0 5.3 l/100 km ~44 mpg premium unleaded (This is a General Motors Car 100% American!)
Opel (General motors) has the usual Diesel 40 mpg diesel cars up to the Minivan Zafira
Peugeot 206 HDI 4.3 l/100 km ~55 mpg Diesel
Peugeot has lots of 40 mpg diesels.
Renault Twingo 1.2 5.0 l/100 km ~47 mpg unleaded! (My favorite car, cheap with airbags and pretty)
Renault Cleo 1.2 5.9 l/100 km ~39 mpg unleaded!
Renaults Diesels have the 40 mpg stigma
Seat Ibiza Cupra 5.5 l/100 km ~42 mpg Diesel (If I had the money - top speed 140 mpg )

I am sorry I have become lazy, this is just too much, I though there were much less 40 mpg cars.




]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093212 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093212 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093419 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1093419 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1090821 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1090821 GMT
Remember when sports cars were popular? Toyota had the Celica and Supra, Nissan had the 300 series, and Mazda RX was a great car. Even Honda outdid Ferrari with the NSX.

Very high gas prices may well be the deathblow to the big 3, since they can't make money on small cars because of their cost structure.

Their imports from Europe would be too expensive, and those from other countries, such as Brazil and Argentina would not have the quality US buyers demand. A lot is riding on the Saturn Astra, a Belgium-built, German-designed GM Opel car. If it is successful, there's hope.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1087260 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1087260 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1086469 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1086469 GMT
I can't help but wonder about the multi-million dollar marketing campaigns though. Who leads who around by the nose? Some of both I would have to say. I also have to wonder about the number times US carmakes have been caught with their pants down - overstocks on cars that can no longer be sold so easily - most recently SUVs. So often what is being made isn't what customers want. (Could that be linked to marketing $$>).

It is also possible to say that the situation described (supplies outstripped on small economical cars - e.g. the Prius) has occurred. But I wouldn't say that the change is occurring at heartbeat speed.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1086037 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1086037 GMT Don't blame the car makers for making what sells at a profitable price.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1085619 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1085619 GMT

maico
]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1084022 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1084022 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106017 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1106017 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1083442 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1083442 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1082227 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1082227 GMT without paying the "luxury", or "sin" tax on it. It might be difficult to remove enough of the water from the alcohol to make it pure enough. There's enough technical data out there to find out how to do it.
Now, if you had an alcohol burning engine........................................!]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081812 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081812 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081611 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081611 GMT
I love their hotrods.

]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081612 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081612 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081016 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1081016 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1078835 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1078835 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1078623 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1078623 GMT http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1082025 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1082025 GMT
It would seem that with today's more efficient overhead camshaft engines we could have achieved 40 miles to the gallon with a full sized automobile. However, people thought that the "Airflyte" styling was ugly. With plentiful, inexpensive gasoline, we moved to the finned monsters of the late 1950's. We had Buick's Dynaflow and Chevrolet's PowerGlide that depended on the torque converter rather than gearing for torque multiplication, and had plenty of slippage. Even after the mid 1970's when we had a gasoline crunch and small cars became popular, after the crunch we went to SUV's. Had we made a sustained effort to improve on the Nash design, we might have full size 40 mpg cars.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1074816 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1074816 GMT My worst tank ever was a 70 mph highway trip against a brutal headwind, got 36.1 mpg. The Geo I owned could also be driven down to the upper 30's mpg if driven in a similar situation.]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1071614 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1071614 GMT
A frame made of 7075-Al, however, would be a verry nice thing!]]> http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1105271 http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/cartalk/posts/list/1009210.page#1105271 GMT