|12-07-2012 11:38 PM|
Yeah, they do SAE contests at colleges trying to get ultra high mileage vehicles.
They get to do things that wouldn't work in the real world:
-Burn and Coast (get up to speed, kill the engine, coast down to a near stop)
-Drive without concern for normal speeds on highways(really slow)
-Have torpedo like shape
-one passenger only, no cargo, no creature comforts, no safety features
-tiny narrow wheels like a road racing bicycle
I know it's not what you referred to, but I think some of the real-world limitations being removed may be similar.
|12-07-2012 11:21 PM|
|sleepyboy||it's all about money. In the mid to late 90's all three of the big three made prototypes that got up to 100mpg's but the cost of these cars were enormous. If I can find the link I will post it.|
|12-07-2012 11:18 PM|
Ok, if it is a conspiracy and the auto manufacturers have the technology but just won't let us have it:
Why wouldn't ONE company sell out and be the one car maker out there selling cars that get 50-100mpg and just clean up the major market share?
GM, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, VW....
Somebody would market ultra-high mileage cars if it were easy, it's not.
You still have to work within the laws of physics, there is no magic.
The amount of work done to push a 1988 Geo Metro down the highway at 65 mph is about the same amount of work it takes to push a 2012 econobox down the highway. The marginal gains made in drivetrain efficiency get eaten up by the increased weight for today's safety standards and creature comforts.
|12-07-2012 10:56 PM|
|12-07-2012 10:33 PM|
|xpeterbilt387x||Fuel Economy in general is a bunch of BS if you ask me. These large Company's and Manufacture's have the tech and know how to increase fuel mileage by quite a bit!!! It's been done SEVERAL times before in the past many ways. What it is in a nut-shell, is market and money. All about the money. Oil and Auto have their hands in so deep it's not even funny.|
|12-07-2012 11:20 AM|
Heck the old Oldsmobile deltas, Bonnevills and Lesabre's and other full sized sedans from the late 80's and early 90s were rated for about 18 city but got 28 sometimes 30 MPG on the high way, but the front ends were also not as tall, and the cars were lower in profile it seems.
Hell my 4 door 96 Cutlass Supreme gets 32 on the high way, and about 20-25 in town. But I put a cold air intake on it, stock intake would get me 20 city and 29 highway. It has a 3.1 and a 4 speed over drive trans. Everything else is bone stock.
Now my sisters 93 Grand am gets probably 25 max on the highway, bone stock 3.3L v6 and 3 speed tranny. That trans really robs it of fuel mileage. But both the Oldsmobile and Pontiac have lower front ends though and aren't as tall as some newer cars tend to be.
Now I wonder what both cars would do in terms of power, torque and efficiency with 5 and 6 speed transmissions?
|12-07-2012 07:49 AM|
|12-06-2012 09:15 PM|
Most of the advertised fuel economy ratings are complete BS and the subject of several lawsuits now that consumers actually care about fuel economy.
Smaller displacement motors, 1.6 liters are common now instead of 2.5 in an econobox
More forward gears in the trans, 6+ speeds now instead of 3-4 forward gears
Better aerodynamics, cars are coming in with drag coefficients at .25 nowadays instead of .35 which used to be "slippery"
|12-06-2012 08:37 PM|
Bigger cars/crossovers have caught up with my 08' focus in terms of fuel economy
I have an 08' focus coupe, it's rated around 35 mpg highway. I don't know how accurate the dashboard thing is but it gave me 40mpg last time I checked.
Anyway, those new big crossovers that can get around 35mpg, if that kind of technology was put inside a lighter and smaller vehicle such as my focus which weights around 2,600 lbs, what do you think the fuel economy would be?
Sucks that as cars are getting more fuel efficient they are aslo getting bigger and heavier.