Low Power Output and High Displacement, a big debate.

[niky]

Indeed, it's inaccurate to quote estimates based on arbitrary calculations that could have nothing to do with the actual mileage of a particular vehicle.

Granted, the old Civics are terrific, but the first-generation Fit has tons more space, is nearly as efficient in 1.5 form, and much more so in 1.3/1.4 form (I've seen 70+ mpg from the 1.3) and has tons more crash safety.

Not to mention the NOx from those lean-burn Civics would probably merit an automatic fail if they were a 2012 car...

 

[Sniffs]

something you guys forgot (i actually READ the whole thread). during the oil crisies, manufacturers lowered the compression ratios while fitting the smog equipment. this was commented on in an old article with a reproduction of the TV show version of the batmobile that had been built on a caddy chassis with an "emissions strangled" 6.6.

every eighties I had (and I had a pile of them well into the 90's, including vehicles who's engines were designed in he eighties up to 08) topped out at 145 HP factory fresh, and I only had two engines that got over 20 US MPG (18 UK mpg), a Chevy and a very badly abused Toyota. they got the exact same mileage in the mid and late ninties : 25

something else to keep in mind is fuel tank size. there's a weird rule out there. the more fuel efficient the car, the tinier the gas tank is to save weight, so you still get the same range even with higher fuel efficiency. the only break i had in this rule was a Chevy that someone had obviously engine-babied. i could run to work for almost a MONTH on one tank of gas. the last mileage report i got out it was 31 on Us 89 octane (80's engines seemed to do better on 89 gas) which meant a 'running on fumes' range of 400 miles(640 km) on 87, 496mi/800km on 89 gas

btw, i don't know how people run anything made before 98 now. pre 78's need lead additive with the original engine (most people swap out the original engine) and pre 98's have to be driven with your fingers crossed. Ethanol is ubiquitous, and tends to DISSOLVE metal (and, apparently, requires it's own fuel pump. had to have mine replaced with one meant for ethanol based gas)

 

[homeforsummer]

Not to mention the NOx from those lean-burn Civics would probably merit an automatic fail if they were a 2012 car...

Quite. They used the same system in the Mk1 Insight with some sort of capturing device but I'm not sure if they've used it since - I suspect not.

 

[Tornado]

Now you guys are just taking this a bit offtopic... I made the thread to discuss power not sissy stuff like Fuel Economy, ok?

The two are directly related.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

The two are directly related.

Oh whatever, since this is all interesting and useful information I guess I'll let it go!

 

[CSLACR]

Indeed, it's inaccurate to quote estimates based on arbitrary calculations that could have nothing to do with the actual mileage of a particular vehicle.

Granted, the old Civics are terrific, but the first-generation Fit has tons more space, is nearly as efficient in 1.5 form, and much more so in 1.3/1.4 form (I've seen 70+ mpg from the 1.3) and has tons more crash safety.

Not to mention the NOx from those lean-burn Civics would probably merit an automatic fail if they were a 2012 car...

I'm not sure why we're comparing a new car to a used one now.
And no, the new fit is nowhere near the mileage of the old Civic, I believe about 10mpg less around.
I understand the emissions from new cars are less, not so sure what that has to do as a reason for less fuel economy.

What I can tell you, with utmost certainty, is on my cars, I've always managed old EPA estimates anytime I tried, and the lowest mileage I've owned was 78,000 miles. So if your point is that the 90's Civics can't manage those estimates, I have to say that's completely untrue, unless there's a hidden reason those specific models can't achieve what every other used car I've owned achieved.

Indeed, it's inaccurate to quote estimates based on arbitrary calculations that could have nothing to do with the actual mileage of a particular vehicle.

Then why does the EPA consider it accurate? Or does this mean we're throwing all EPA estimates out the window, in which case it becomes a discussion of he said she said.

 

[niky]

I'm not sure why we're comparing a new car to a used one now.
And no, the new fit is nowhere near the mileage of the old Civic, I believe about 10mpg less around.
I understand the emissions from new cars are less, not so sure what that has to do as a reason for less fuel economy.

Which is why I specifically mentioned the 1.3/1.4, which do. I've seen over 50 mpg in the city in the 1.3 Fit (given, this was an economy run, but it was done in stop-go traffic) and 70 is entirely possible on long highway trips.

The problem with the US model 1.5: 4AT and a short-geared 5MT, simply to give best-in-class 0-100 times... which don't jive with the need for economy. Given the proper gearing, the 1.5 should be able to do 60 mpg easily... in real-world highway driving, I've personally gotten 47 mpg (US mpg, mind you) out of the GD 1.5 MT, and I've heard of around 50-55 mpg on long runs, but you have to put up with a low cruising speed because of that fifth gear.

I often look out for secondhand GD 1.5 MTs... as that's my opinion of a perfect car. (Minus the cruddy electric steering)

The second generation though, absolutely sucks. Especially with the 5AT. It's worse in traffic and not even as good on the highway.

At a standstill, the GDs can't compete with the ultra-ultra-lean burn of the Civic... but let's see if Mazda's new SkyActiv program with the ultra-high compression and cooled EGR can get automakers back to the low-rpm frugality of those NOx-ious motors...

What I can tell you, with utmost certainty, is on my cars, I've always managed old EPA estimates anytime I tried, and the lowest mileage I've owned was 78,000 miles. So if your point is that the 90's Civics can't manage those estimates, I have to say that's completely untrue, unless there's a hidden reason those specific models can't achieve what every other used car I've owned achieved.

Then why does the EPA consider it accurate? Or does this mean we're throwing all EPA estimates out the window, in which case it becomes a discussion of he said she said.

The point is, an estimate based on guesswork on how a test done twenty years ago relates to a test done today is not as accurate as actual testing results.

Of course, since the EPA doesn't actually test all cars, none of the estimates are completely accurate, but at least all new cars are measured on the same stick, whether it's the EPA or the manufacturer outputting the numbers.

Personally, I never pay attention to the highway numbers. Too easy to spoof with a longer gear. And some cars, designed for the global market, have a fifth gear designed for cruising at lower speeds than the EPA test...

The city test is more representative of what a car's actual consumption in mixed driving is.

----

Oh, and about Prii doing 30 mpg in the city? I live in a tropical country, and in three separate weeks of driving different Prii, I've never seen city economy below 39 mpg. In free-flowing city traffic, fuel economy ranged from 40-50+++ mpg. Never broke 50 on the highway in the 2nd gen, but we got the 3rd gen up to 85 mpg.

I think we got the second generation car down to 35 mpg, but that was in the middle of a crowded market, where we sat in place for about an hour as the traffic moved a few inches, then lurched to a stop... a few more inches... then lurched to a stop...

And this was after we drained the battery by parking with the AC on at the gas station.

Modern engineering is wonderful. That a fat pig like the Prius can do so well despite weighing as much as a city bus is amazing.

 

[Eric.]

btw, i don't know how people run anything made before 98 now. pre 78's need lead additive with the original engine (most people swap out the original engine) and pre 98's have to be driven with your fingers crossed. Ethanol is ubiquitous, and tends to DISSOLVE metal (and, apparently, requires it's own fuel pump. had to have mine replaced with one meant for ethanol based gas)

Parents cars are a 99 Taurus with 220k+ miles that does an 80 mile commute five days a week, and a 99 Cherokee. Only mechanical issues with the Jeep have been replacing a wheel bearing about once a year. The Taurus is starting to have small problems in just about any department. Just had the trans rebuilt last year. Engine runs fine besides a rough idle sometimes.

And my 87 MR2 could be so much worse. Its leaking oil pretty badly from somewhere. **** happens when you buy a sports car that was used as a gas getter by the previous owner(s) and not taken care off too well.

Maintenance is everything, and a well-cared for Toyota or Honda from the 80s is probably nearly as good as something from the 2000s. It has always been my theory that the Made-in-Japan Japanese cars were built to a higher standard than the ones made in Canada or wherever. I feel like that applies when comparing my Civic and the MR2.

 

[CSLACR]

Which is why I specifically mentioned the 1.3/1.4, which do. I've seen over 50 mpg in the city in the 1.3 Fit (given, this was an economy run, but it was done in stop-go traffic) and 70 is entirely possible on long highway trips.

The problem with the US model 1.5: 4AT and a short-geared 5MT, simply to give best-in-class 0-100 times... which don't jive with the need for economy. Given the proper gearing, the 1.5 should be able to do 60 mpg easily... in real-world highway driving, I've personally gotten 47 mpg (US mpg, mind you) out of the GD 1.5 MT, and I've heard of around 50-55 mpg on long runs, but you have to put up with a low cruising speed because of that fifth gear.

I often look out for secondhand GD 1.5 MTs... as that's my opinion of a perfect car. (Minus the cruddy electric steering)

The second generation though, absolutely sucks. Especially with the 5AT. It's worse in traffic and not even as good on the highway.

At a standstill, the GDs can't compete with the ultra-ultra-lean burn of the Civic... but let's see if Mazda's new SkyActiv program with the ultra-high compression and cooled EGR can get automakers back to the low-rpm frugality of those NOx-ious motors...

Right, but I'm only talking about U.S. spec cars, because none of this has any relation to me, just as U.S. spec cars have no relation to you.

The point is, an estimate based on guesswork on how a test done twenty years ago relates to a test done today is not as accurate as actual testing results.

Of course, since the EPA doesn't actually test all cars, none of the estimates are completely accurate, but at least all new cars are measured on the same stick, whether it's the EPA or the manufacturer outputting the numbers.

Personally, I never pay attention to the highway numbers. Too easy to spoof with a longer gear. And some cars, designed for the global market, have a fifth gear designed for cruising at lower speeds than the EPA test...

No, it may be not as accurate, but it's certainly accurate enough to not give the car a 10mpg advantage either, so I wonder why the big fuss about pinpoint accuracy in this instance, as the numbers aren't even close, nothing so far has come close to matching the numbers.

The city test is more representative of what a car's actualy consumption in mixed driving is.

That's laughable to me, because I've always managed far better than city.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=15087
I average 25-27, depending on how much city driving typically, and I've never yet gotten less than 22mph over a tankful. And yes, I measure every single time, I can't help myself.

Oh, and about Prii doing 30 mpg in the city?

Wasn't me, I'm talking 100% gasoline engines, because it seems to me the main current focus is to much on hybrid technology, considering fuel cell is the future (IMO) and gasoline is the current.
Diesel is just a mix of less fuel, more money for the fuel, pretty much equals out to me. Either way Diesel doesn't offer the same performance as gasoline for minimal (at best) fuel savings.

 

[homeforsummer]

Maintenance is everything, and a well-cared for Toyota or Honda from the 80s is probably nearly as good as something from the 2000s. It has always been my theory that the Made-in-Japan Japanese cars were built to a higher standard than the ones made in Canada or wherever. I feel like that applies when comparing my Civic and the MR2.

Yup, it's amazing what some cars will do with regular maintenance, whatever their age. Some take high mileage better than others but just treating a car well will vastly extend its life. Same applies to driving it of course. Even a reliable car owned by someone with no mechanical sympathy will feel pretty baggy in very little time at all.

Right, but I'm only talking about U.S. spec cars, because none of this has any relation to me, just as U.S. spec cars have no relation to you.

A car is a car is a car. Many are global now so you can make comparisons anywhere.

Diesel is just a mix of less fuel, more money for the fuel, pretty much equals out to me. Either way Diesel doesn't offer the same performance as gasoline for minimal (at best) fuel savings.

Even in the UK where diesel is considerably more expensive than gasoline, the fuel savings can be absolutely huge, as long as you don't spend your life in nose-tail traffic. And modern diesels easily offer the performance of an equivalent petrol car, whilst offering MPG often 10-15 better.

Again, depends how you drive too. You're clearly someone able to extract the official numbers from a car fairly easily, and I'm the same. Give me a diesel quoted as averaging 65mpg and I'm pretty sure I could do it, but then I tend to sit at 70mph in a 70 limit and I drive quite smoothly. Hand that 65mpg diesel to someone who cruises at 90 and to whom every traffic signal is a potential drag race and they always seem to wonder why it's only getting 40mpg.

Even driven like that though, the savings are usually enough to be better than gasoline - though of course, diesels often cost more to buy brand new.

 

[niky]

Right, but I'm only talking about U.S. spec cars, because none of this has any relation to me, just as U.S. spec cars have no relation to you.

I merely clarified for clarity.

No, it may be not as accurate, but it's certainly accurate enough to not give the car a 10mpg advantage either, so I wonder why the big fuss about pinpoint accuracy in this instance, as the numbers aren't even close, nothing so far has come close to matching the numbers.

Yes, yes it is. I find it laughable that the Honda Civic gets better EPA highway numbers than the first-gen 1.5 Fit, because best-case scenario for the Civic is slightly above EPA estimate... whereas best-case scenario for the Fit is wildly higher than EPA estimate.

Like I said: gearing, gearing, gearing... which is why the Corvette's highway numbers are misleading. It may have an intergalactic 6th gear, allowing it to post credible numbers at EPA speeds, but at "sane" cruising speeds, it can't get much better than EPA, whereas other cars with similar can.

That's laughable to me, because I've always managed far better than city.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=15087
I average 25-27, depending on how much city driving typically, and I've never yet gotten less than 22mph over a tankful. And yes, I measure every single time, I can't help myself.

I mention city numbers because those can't be gimmicked by gearing or programming a car for EPA speed cycles... well, not as easily as the highway test. Whether or not you can get better (and I can get better), the EPA city cycle is a more stable baseline.

Wasn't me, I'm talking 100% gasoline engines, because it seems to me the main current focus is to much on hybrid technology, considering fuel cell is the future (IMO) and gasoline is the current.
Diesel is just a mix of less fuel, more money for the fuel, pretty much equals out to me. Either way Diesel doesn't offer the same performance as gasoline for minimal (at best) fuel savings.

I know. I just saw that Prius post and had to respond.

Diesel? My dad has a turbodiesel Focus that's bonkers quick and gets nearly 50 mpg... and 30-35 mpg in the city. Damned if I can match that in any car in the class that's the same size and can match its 0-100 km/h time.

The worst you can say about diesel is the upfront cost of direct injection technology is substantial. Piezo-injectors cost a mint.

 

[Sniffs]

Parents cars are a 99 Taurus with 220k+ miles that does an 80 mile commute five days a week, and a 99 Cherokee. Only mechanical issues with the Jeep have been replacing a wheel bearing about once a year. The Taurus is starting to have small problems in just about any department. Just had the trans rebuilt last year. Engine runs fine besides a rough idle sometimes.

And my 87 MR2 could be so much worse. Its leaking oil pretty badly from somewhere. **** happens when you buy a sports car that was used as a gas getter by the previous owner(s) and not taken care off too well.

Maintenance is everything, and a well-cared for Toyota or Honda from the 80s is probably nearly as good as something from the 2000s. It has always been my theory that the Made-in-Japan Japanese cars were built to a higher standard than the ones made in Canada or wherever. I feel like that applies when comparing my Civic and the MR2.

if that taurus has the 3.8, keep an eye on it

my last toyota was an oil eater. i had to keep topping it up. we also had trouble getting the filter ON. the two toyos i had were not only beat up pretty hard, but they were the paper thin ones. and these were Japan assembled also had a lot of Wiring Harness rot, but the engine? nope. the 4runner did fine, it just needed a tune up. (17.6 power mode, 19.3 regular)

 

[Eric.]

The Taurus has the 3.0 SOHC. Speaking of low displacement/liter, I think they rated at 160hp. The MR2's 1.6 made 112hp at one point.

 

[nick09]

My 2003 Chevy Malibu has a 3.1L V6 and generates 170hp. Don't really care for the high displacement vs power since the engine has enough power for the highway. Also should do fine in snow since it is FWD. Not that good on gas if you don't baby it. I've gotten 27mpg on longer highway trips but 26-23mpg is normal for my regular travels.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

My 2003 Chevy Malibu has a 3.1L V6 and generates 170hp. Don't really care for the high displacement vs power since the engine has enough power for the highway. Also should do fine in snow since it is FWD. Not that good on gas if you don't baby it. I've gotten 27mpg on longer highway trips but 26-23mpg is normal for my regular travels.

Hmm... thats bad! Oil Consumption? Emissions?

By The Way: I think I have a theory on high fuel consumption vs. emissions
So the dudes were putting all these filters on the exhaust pipes of the 70's and 80s cars, but those cars had 5 liter V8s, and yet they didn't send much hydrocarbons out, but since they were big V8s they consumed a lot? And since they were so many restrictive metals on there, they couldn't exhale properly and thus had trouble converting the fuel unto power?

 

[daan]

Anyone else find it humorous that one of the biggest contributors to a thread entitled, "Low Power Output and High Displacement" is named after a car that, in 1976, had 215hp from a 7.5 litre engine?

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Anyone else find it humorous that one of the biggest contributors to a thread entitled, "Low Power Output and High Displacement" is named after a car that, in 1976, had 215hp from a 7.5 litre engine?

lol Daan!!! 215 horsepower aint bad..... for a small car

 

[homeforsummer]

By The Way: I think I have a theory on high fuel consumption vs. emissions
So the dudes were putting all these filters on the exhaust pipes of the 70's and 80s cars, but those cars had 5 liter V8s, and yet they didn't send much hydrocarbons out, but since they were big V8s they consumed a lot? And since they were so many restrictive metals on there, they couldn't exhale properly and thus had trouble converting the fuel unto power?

In the 70s and 80s there wasn't as much of an emphasis on big engines in the first place which is one of the ways that they reduced fuel consumption, but the cars that did have big engines were pretty strangled. I suspect by today's standards they were still fairly polluting but by virtue of using less fuel they produced lower emissions.

The lack of power was partly from running low compression (less air/fuel = smaller bangs = less power) and partly from old-tech exhaust catalysts which are very, very restrictive.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

In the 70s and 80s there wasn't as much of an emphasis on big engines in the first place which is one of the ways that they reduced fuel consumption, but the cars that did have big engines were pretty strangled. I suspect by today's standards they were still fairly polluting but by virtue of using less fuel they produced lower emissions.

The lack of power was partly from running low compression (less air/fuel = smaller bangs = less power) and partly from old-tech exhaust catalysts which are very, very restrictive.

Hmmm.... so to answer the OP's question (me), we cannot compare the emission regulation technology to that of today's, as that means we have to compare many other aspects of the olden' days cars?

 

[Eric.]

I thought we established the answer to this thread on page 1. Old cars made less hp/L one because of less technology, no fancy electronic fuel injection and ignition control, and also by choice to make them meet emissions standards. As technology has increased, we can make more power with less fuel by using that smaller amount of fuel more efficiently. More efficiency results in more power per unit of fuel, and with less wasted fuel burn, less emissions.

 

[neanderthal]

btw, i don't know how people run anything made before 98 now. pre 78's need lead additive with the original engine (most people swap out the original engine) and pre 98's have to be driven with your fingers crossed. Ethanol is ubiquitous, and tends to DISSOLVE metal (and, apparently, requires it's own fuel pump. had to have mine replaced with one meant for ethanol based gas)

Tell that to my 1990 Mercedes 300E. i drive it with nary a thought for caution, knowing that it's superior engineering may not excite, but will endure.

I agree with you about tank size though, it appears most cars have an effective range of about 400 miles. This has been true for my vintage BMW 2002, Corolla, Saab 900, Mazda B2200, Lincoln Navigator, BMW 525i, Mitsubishi Galant, Honda Civic and the Benz, although since i've started using hypermiling techniques in the Benz I have achieved 519 miles on one long trip.

 

[CSLACR]

Yes, yes it is. I find it laughable that the Honda Civic gets better EPA highway numbers than the first-gen 1.5 Fit, because best-case scenario for the Civic is slightly above EPA estimate... whereas best-case scenario for the Fit is wildly higher than EPA estimate.

Like I said: gearing, gearing, gearing... which is why the Corvette's highway numbers are misleading. It may have an intergalactic 6th gear, allowing it to post credible numbers at EPA speeds, but at "sane" cruising speeds, it can't get much better than EPA, whereas other cars with similar can.

I have to ask what your source is to be so certain all these new cars aren't tailored to EPA mileage tests, while you seem certain older cars are.
If anything, the opposite of that is true.

Back in '95, when gas was $1 a gallon or so here, 55mpg highway wasn't the best slogan to have, whereas now it is. So if you really believe a 1995 Honda is tailor made to get a good score, and a newer, same company, Honda, is no longer tailor made to get a good score, there must be a reason why.

I personally have yet to see a shred of evidence in my life that any car on the planet can achieve over 10mpg more than EPA estimates, aside from hearsay. I've heard a lot of hearsay, problem is, it's usually associated with bragging by the owner.

I mention city numbers because those can't be gimmicked by gearing or programming a car for EPA speed cycles... well, not as easily as the highway test. Whether or not you can get better (and I can get better), the EPA city cycle is a more stable baseline.
The worst you can say about diesel is the upfront cost of direct injection technology is substantial. Piezo-injectors cost a mint.

City numbers can and are gimmicked, just as easily as highway, but the fact I've seen is, any car can beat EPA estimates, and no car can beat them by dozens of miles per gallon.

The other thing I can say about diesel is I've never seen a direct comparison Identical car vs. identical car, how much it helps economy, let alone extra price of vehicle, and extra price of fuel, though if you know where to find a good read I'm all eyes.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

I have to ask what your source is to be so certain all these new cars aren't tailored to EPA mileage tests, while you seem certain older cars are.
If anything, the opposite of that is true.

The new EPA 'mileage' tests are different, and I'd argue less real-world, than they used to be.

Today, MPG is based solely on CO2 emissions which is why some cars perform poorer and some cars better than the EPA sticker says.

 

[homeforsummer]

I personally have yet to see a shred of evidence in my life that any car on the planet can achieve over 10mpg more than EPA estimates, aside from hearsay. I've heard a lot of hearsay, problem is, it's usually associated with bragging by the owner.

Go to a site like Ecomodder. Half the forum seem to quite comfortably beat EPA figures, many without even trying.

In fact:

That was my old Miata. Few low results there (the 17mpg one was anomalous - probably a poor calculation on my part), but a fair few at roughly 10mpg more than EPA. And plenty at more than 5mpg above EPA, in mixed driving. And I don't hypermile, I just drive economically most of the time and have fun when the opportunity presents itself. I'm pretty sure if I'd put my mind to it I could have consistently achieved 10mpg above EPA.

Not all cars can do that of course, but I suspect rather more than "none" can.

 

[TVC]

I haven't read all the posts so I am not sure if it has been said yet but in 1976 Cadillac made an 8.2 liter/500 cubic inch engine that only had 190 horsepower and 360 lb-ft of torque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_V8_engine#500

 

[niky]

I have to ask what your source is to be so certain all these new cars aren't tailored to EPA mileage tests, while you seem certain older cars are.
If anything, the opposite of that is true.

Did I ever say anything like that?

I mention EPA-tailoring because many cars are tailored to the EPA regimen. The first-generation Honda Fit isn't.

Still, the point stands. Estimating a new EPA number on some arbitrary percentage calculation ignores the fact that mileage can't be calculated that way simply because the cruising speed changes. If a car is at optimum cruising speed at the old EPA cruising test and beyond that (and out of lean-burn mode and into the regular MAP-regulated mode) at the new cruising speed, then simply applying a percentage change will not realistically reflect that change.

Back in '95, when gas was $1 a gallon or so here, 55mpg highway wasn't the best slogan to have, whereas now it is. So if you really believe a 1995 Honda is tailor made to get a good score, and a newer, same company, Honda, is no longer tailor made to get a good score, there must be a reason why.

Simple. Shorter gears because people cared about performance more than economy when the Fit was released. Now they care more about fuel economy, but the Fit's gearbox is already there. Eventually, Honda will have to change the final ratios on those gearboxes... but they haven't, yet.

I personally have yet to see a shred of evidence in my life that any car on the planet can achieve over 10mpg more than EPA estimates, aside from hearsay. I've heard a lot of hearsay, problem is, it's usually associated with bragging by the owner.

Too bad I don't own any of the cars I test. The one car I own has never gotten above 37 mpg... and often gets 12 in traffic thanks to the modifications I've made to the engine.

All my fuel testing is done with GPS-corrected odometer readings and full-tank to full-tank testing. The only thing I'd be bragging about here is the insane amount of money I spend to test fuel economy on media test units when most other drivers are content to read the trip-meter and make a guesstimate off of that.

Sure, it's not quite as accurate as the guys who drain gas tanks, run the car dry, fill up, then weigh the remaining fuel after a run... but... seriously, that's overboard.

City numbers can and are gimmicked, just as easily as highway, but the fact I've seen is, any car can beat EPA estimates, and no car can beat them by dozens of miles per gallon.

So 55 mpg in urban driving isn't beating the Fit's numbers by dozens? City driving is difficult to gimmick because of the acceleration cycles and idling cycles. Cars spend less time in lean-burn and cruise on the city cycle than on the highway cycle. Mazda fought with the EPA because their "city" cycle doesn't show the full effect of their stop-start technology. If you can get decent city numbers, then the car will be fuel efficient.

The gimmicking here is the shifting. The EPA allows ATs to shift whenever they want... so manufacturers can program shift points to take advantage of this. But the EPA gives set shift points for manuals. Some manufacturers can tune their engines based on this... hell... a lot of US-market engines we've tested make a lot of power up to 2500 rpm, drop-off between there and 4000 rpm in the lean-burn area... then make power again after. Gimmicky? Yes. Does it suck? Hell yes, I hate uneven power bands.

But in the real world, it does make for better economy. Much more than a gimmicky EPA-friendly cruising gear that makes sixth/fifth too long for proper econo-cruising (which is best done at speeds below the EPA test speed).

The other thing I can say about diesel is I've never seen a direct comparison Identical car vs. identical car, how much it helps economy, let alone extra price of vehicle, and extra price of fuel, though if you know where to find a good read I'm all eyes.

Very difficult to prove... as the level of engine technology can vary very widely from manufacturer to manufacturer... the new diesels we have here tend to outperform their gasoline counterparts by 5-10 mpg (depending on conditions) while providing more useable torque over the entire rev range.

The big problem, again, is up-front price. The price of diesel is too market dependent to be a big talking point. In any event, even in markets with expensive diesel (like the US), the economy of diesel vehicles still gives them an advantage. But there's often a $2000 - $4000 premium for the engine versus a gasoline engine with the same power output. (Still better than the $4000 - $6000+ hybrid premium)*

It bears remembering that a 170 hp turbocharged diesel is going to give much better acceleration and economy than a 170 hp naturally aspirated gasoline engine. Hell... that porker of a Focus weighs nearly 1.5 tons, 500+ pounds more than my Protege... and while my car makes 175 hp, the Focus outdrags it with "just" 135.

And it still has economy similar to a much smaller gasoline engine.

These new direct injection turbocharged small-displacement gas engines might be able to match diesel economy and power, but they will obviously carry a price premium, too. I can't wait to test one, myself.

Best place to see the comparison? UK market publications. They often have very balanced reviews of gas and diesel cars... but given the high tax there, the price premium of diesel is amplified.

In the end, in economical terms, diesel might not be worth it... long-term maintenance and running costs partially negate the fuel savings, and the upfront price premium will always be a problem... like hybrids, diesels will most benefit those who do a lot of miles a year... but payback time is often much shorter, and... well... because turbo. Who doesn't love a rush of torque to the head?

Now if they could only make them sound nice.

*Price premiums depend on the cars... on luxury cars, the premiums are hidden behind the huge markups, so they're mostly non-existent. On economy cars, the price difference is often a significant portion of the purchase price.

 

[TVC]

If I recall correctly, Honda made a hatchback Civic in 95 that achieved 40+ city 50+ highway mileage, in the states, all gas powered.
I could be wrong, but with today's weight figures, I don't think 40mpg city is even possible without a hybrid.

The weight of today's cars makes me sick, and 75% of the weight gains come from government mandated BS. But Americans have always opened their wallets willingly for anything called "safer" by the government, 3 seconds after complaining about the same government.

Of course 40 MPG would be possible without a hybrid today and the government is only part of the reason why cars today weigh so much. Consumers in the U.S. want features, even Civics have optional navigation. 20 years ago cars in the same class would probably not even have air conditioning as a standard feature.

From the 4th generation Civic released in 1988 to the 9th generation released as a 2012 MY the civic increased more than 10 inches in length, grew 3 inches in width, and became 3 inches taller.

People simply want bigger cars. That is why SUVs and Crossovers sell so well. That is why the new Mini is so much larger than the original one and it's also the reason why the new Fiat 500 is not really all that small anymore. A small car that got great (40+) MPG will not sell as well as a bigger car that gets good (30+) MPG because people want bigger cars. That is one reason why so many companies are making hybrids, the consumer can get a car that is the size they want and still get 40+ MPG.

You are correct about the civic. The VX hatch got 39 city and 43 highway with 2008 measurements (originally it got more like 50).

The CRX HF gets 41/49 (originally 50/56).

 

[homeforsummer]

Best place to see the comparison? UK market publications. They often have very balanced reviews of gas and diesel cars... but given the high tax there, the price premium of diesel is amplified.

I was just about to say that. I'll have a dig through my car mags and see if I can find any comparisons between diesel and gasoline. They were all the rage for a while when diesels were becoming more competitive, but now that diesel and gas have their own merits they don't tend to be compared as much any more.

Our market has shifted massively towards diesel though, following the rest of Europe. I suspect it's mainly for tax reasons since the better MPG and lower CO2 of diesels mean it's generally much cheaper to run one here, purchase cost aside.

Now if they could only make them sound nice.

Alfa had a good stab with their 5-cylinder turbodiesel and the Range Rover V8 diesels sound okay too. Truth be told, a lot of modern diesels, like a lot of modern petrol cars, are as good as makes no difference pretty much silent, at least inside the car.

People don't necessarily want a "nice" sound from diesels so much as very little sound at all...

The last two cars I've bought I've claimed beforehand that I was going to buy a diesel for cost reasons, and then I've gone and bought sporty petrol cars. I might be an MPG buff but the enthusiast within me is strong That said, my next car could well be a diesel, and even an automatic. Now I have a project car in the garage I've a much better excuse to make my daily driver something much more comfortable, economical and easy to drive...

 

[Sniffs]

Tell that to my 1990 Mercedes 300E. i drive it with nary a thought for caution, knowing that it's superior engineering may not excite, but will endure.

I agree with you about tank size though, it appears most cars have an effective range of about 400 miles. This has been true for my vintage BMW 2002, Corolla, Saab 900, Mazda B2200, Lincoln Navigator, BMW 525i, Mitsubishi Galant, Honda Civic and the Benz, although since i've started using hypermiling techniques in the Benz I have achieved 519 miles on one long trip.

I shoulda said AMERICAN cars in regards to high ethanol, which is actually a relatively new thing (and, apparently, requires a different fuel pump).

American effective range seems to be actually 250, almost, regardless of tank size.

Home: unfortunately, I can't keep track of my mileage like that anymore. people were stealing gas when it hit only 2.65, and "pay first" was implemented for the first time in this state. besides, Americans are in the habit of buying "x bucks" worth of gas. i saw more abandoned cars with carrier bags stuck in the window (bag name courtesy of my British transplant ex) because they bought 5 bucks worth of gas in the 5 dollar era (1 US gallon, or less than 4 liters)

 

[nick09]

Hmm... thats bad! Oil Consumption? Emissions?

My engine is the LG8 model from this page. My dad told me that his Oldsmobile Cutlass had the Generation II 2.8L and he never got past 28MPG with long highway trips. Here is the changes from the last model that is in my engine.

Based on what I've read it seems like it points at the emission laws. I've checked my oil many times and there was no bad oil consumption. I change the oil with my dad every 3K miles. Me and my dad could also tell the car was well taken care of by the last owner(I'm the second owner and it's been taken good care of in it's 82K life before I got it). Only problem is that me and my dad saw some oil crud in the anti-freeze(it's possible that it's just some oily product the previous owner put into the radiator to stop a leak). Since then me and my dad flushed the system out and filled it with water for the summer. I plan on checking the anti-freeze the next time I fill the car up though just to make sure.