I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. If other folks want more horsepower, they should have it if they want to pay for it. What bothers me is that today there is a much lower selection of high-mileage cars than even in the early 1990s. For example, I'd like to see a contemporary replacement for my 1991 Honda Civic wagon. It doesn't exist.
I either have to move down market to a much smaller Fit, or up to a CRV.
I don't want to do either. Nor is the lower gas mileage of a Matrix or Impreza very appealing despite the added safety features over my 1991 Civic. Nor do I want the added weight and complexity of a Prius.
I also don't need all of the supposedly "must-have" bells and whistles such as power windows. Give me something light, simple and versatile with gas mileage at least in the mid-30s -- without having to switch to a hybrid.
Improvements in fuel economy since 1980 were also offset by the fact that we're all getting fatter; I can't believe the authors of this study would overlook such an important factor.
/ducks #fueleconomy
As much as I am disgusted by model bloat, added features, and unnecessary complexities, I have to agree: the results are horseshit.
A brand-new vehicle with comparable interior room and luggage capacity to my dad's old Citation, bought new back in 1980, delivers both better fuel economy and a radically improved driving experience. To say that the cruise control, myriad airbags and magnitudes-different engineering that goes into the intrusion prevention door beams, traction control and brake lockup prevention don't keep the fuel economy down would be to look through the wrong end of the telescope. By that same token, to say the fuel economy would be so much better if it weren't for all that added weight, is to block the telescope before looking through it.
Things are better than they were, all around. Certain aspects could be much, much better, yes. But that would come at the expense of the improvement in other areas. This is the whole package. #fueleconomy
but when you leave out an obvious weight driver the whole affair is suspect.
On first reading, I though you were commenting on the weight of the driver, which has also substantially increased in the last 30 years in America. #fueleconomy
I've read the report. He's used a lot of extra words to make the document understandable and to make himself sound more intelligent. Had he stripped those out and written for a 6th grade audience, he could have saved a lot of paper. #fueleconomy
@mr_dude: That weight AND power have increased (on average) and there is still a net improvement of 15% tells me they have attempted (and achieved) efficiency improvements.
The fact that a relative comparison would yield a 50% improvement shows how much progress they have made.
Should it be 100%? Or a 1000? What number would mean they did the homework assignment?
Sorry if I've mis-understood your analogy but it seems to me they've done their homework, met the teachers requirements while also satisfying the market demand (if the market demanded better economy, you can bet your ass we'd have it).
@GV_Goat: Yes indeedy, deciding on a metric is the hardest part. My analogy is based on the supposition that 30 years of development would yield a 15% efficiency gain without a concerted effort.
It's all grey area, since *some* effort was dedicated to mpg and it's very tough to qualify. Ostensibly, efficiency has been a low priority until recently.
@beercheck: The key word being 'sells' rather than 'sold'. It's impossible to make up 30 years of r&d opportunity in the few short years since gas was $5.00 and Toyota rose on a platform of efficiency and reliability.
Saying 'the mpg interests of consumers have been met' is cyclical. Our perception is based on our reality, defined by what is available to us. #fueleconomy
Completely ignores safety and comfort (weight gains), which are probably a bigger driver of engine power than consumers simply screaming "moar powah!"
However, for a long time I've been wondering what would have happened if engineers spent more time on efficiency before power. Honda can squeeze 255hp(?) out of the Accord V6 and still give it high-20s on the highway. But could they also have managed 35mpg on 200hp? Probably not, but it's worth considering those tradeoffs.
My back-of-envelope crunching shows a lot of examples where power can be increased substantially with a very small hit in economy, so that power/efficiency frontier isn't exactly linear. It favors power. #fueleconomy
@Amalgamated Stainless Headers, est.1978: F Honda. Let's take a look at the Corvette, shall we? over 30 MPG highway in my 2002 Z06 (~30 with AC on, over 32 without), and I have 405 HP and 400 Lbs.Ft. Pushrod V8 FTW. #fueleconomy
@DaddyRocket: Yep, also very impressive (though it's a little skewed because of the tall gearing, but I'm also a fan of low-rev, high displacement engines) #fueleconomy
@beercheck: "Skewed" meaning a top gear that's unusually high in relation to the rest. It's not cheating, it's just a nice trick you can do with a big engine. ie, not very applicable to most engines that have to provide efficiency in blended driving. The vette in the city is pretty thirsty. #fueleconomy
@DaddyRocket: CD, gearing, and low-end torque. As nice as that combo is, it can't ignore certain thermodynamic realities. You either have to have a light foot or a lean burn...and neither sound like much fun. #fueleconomy
Andy Wallwhore promoted this comment
Edited by ☠Grяrяrяrяrя, portrait of a chickenwolfmoosepig. at 08/05/09 7:06 PM
☠Grяrяrяrяrя, portrait of a chickenwolfmoosepig. was starred
☠Grяrяrяrяrя, portrait of a chickenwolfmoosepig. was unstarred
Login
Enter your username and password.
Reset Password
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Register
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
11/18/09
I read that as "but when you leave out the obvious driver weight, the whole affair is suspect."
11/18/09
I either have to move down market to a much smaller Fit, or up to a CRV.
I don't want to do either. Nor is the lower gas mileage of a Matrix or Impreza very appealing despite the added safety features over my 1991 Civic. Nor do I want the added weight and complexity of a Prius.
I also don't need all of the supposedly "must-have" bells and whistles such as power windows. Give me something light, simple and versatile with gas mileage at least in the mid-30s -- without having to switch to a hybrid.
Please? #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
Sorry, I am more interested in this. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
If it weren't for the Porsche badge, I'd say a Mustang Mach III had a terrible reaction...possibly to production greenlights. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
/ducks #fueleconomy
11/17/09
A brand-new vehicle with comparable interior room and luggage capacity to my dad's old Citation, bought new back in 1980, delivers both better fuel economy and a radically improved driving experience. To say that the cruise control, myriad airbags and magnitudes-different engineering that goes into the intrusion prevention door beams, traction control and brake lockup prevention don't keep the fuel economy down would be to look through the wrong end of the telescope. By that same token, to say the fuel economy would be so much better if it weren't for all that added weight, is to block the telescope before looking through it.
Things are better than they were, all around. Certain aspects could be much, much better, yes. But that would come at the expense of the improvement in other areas. This is the whole package. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
Look at the "unemployment number". Totally. Worthless. Statistic. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
On first reading, I though you were commenting on the weight of the driver, which has also substantially increased in the last 30 years in America. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
i do consider driver & passenger weight to be a consideration in total vehicle weight/mileage issues... #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
It's like saying the teacher graded too harshly on a homework assignment you didn't do. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
The fact that a relative comparison would yield a 50% improvement shows how much progress they have made.
Should it be 100%? Or a 1000? What number would mean they did the homework assignment?
Sorry if I've mis-understood your analogy but it seems to me they've done their homework, met the teachers requirements while also satisfying the market demand (if the market demanded better economy, you can bet your ass we'd have it).
11/17/09
The MPG interests of consumers have been met. When consumers want more MPG, the manufacturers will/do focus more on efficiency. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
It's all grey area, since *some* effort was dedicated to mpg and it's very tough to qualify. Ostensibly, efficiency has been a low priority until recently.
@beercheck: The key word being 'sells' rather than 'sold'. It's impossible to make up 30 years of r&d opportunity in the few short years since gas was $5.00 and Toyota rose on a platform of efficiency and reliability.
Saying 'the mpg interests of consumers have been met' is cyclical. Our perception is based on our reality, defined by what is available to us. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
However, for a long time I've been wondering what would have happened if engineers spent more time on efficiency before power. Honda can squeeze 255hp(?) out of the Accord V6 and still give it high-20s on the highway. But could they also have managed 35mpg on 200hp? Probably not, but it's worth considering those tradeoffs.
My back-of-envelope crunching shows a lot of examples where power can be increased substantially with a very small hit in economy, so that power/efficiency frontier isn't exactly linear. It favors power. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
[jalopnik.com]
At highway speeds, aerodynamics are far more important than weight. #fueleconomy
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
08/05/09
If there was a "National Village Idiot" position, I'd vote for Beck in a heartbeat.