Skip to comments.Why car makers lie about fuel consumption (in Europe)
Posted on 04/28/2012 12:06:31 PM PDT by Olog-hai
click here to read article
I’ve been saying for years there’s no reason to buy a sports car/muscle car anymore. A plain old basic model ford taurus is about as fast as a mid 70s vintage firebird. A new mustang or camaro with a v8 will give you somewhere around 175MPH...around 200MPH if you get the *special* v8. I do not see the point.
We live in an era when a HONDA CIVIC SEDAN(Si version) has nearly 150hp from a 100cubic inch non-turbo 4 cylinder and will do 0-60 in 6 seconds flat, 0-100 in 8.3 seconds and 1/4 mile in 14.5 seconds.
Then you can add an aftermarket computer chip and an air cleaner and see substantial gains for not much effort. And it should be noted that Honda has not yet begun to upgrade their engines with direct injection as the other brands have already done. When that happens, there will be a dramatic increase in performance AND efficiency. Honda has always been “anti-turbo” so they will not be using turbos any time soon. I think the direct injected motors will be out this fall.
earlier in the thread I mentioned the 1970 chevelle SS454. It was the fastest production car(showroom stock configuration) in the quarter mile ever made and held that title until the 1987 buick GNX. The 1970 chevelle would do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. the GNX would do it in 4.7 seconds. Granted, the chevelle would be much much faster with just a few simple mods, like better tires, traction bars, and removal of the mufflers. But as soon as you start allowing these kinds of mods, then the 1970 chevelle is no longer the king of the hill...the chrysler hemi is.
But the point is, a basic sedan is plenty fast enough nowdays.
So what is the engine for?
Well then how much of the energy in fuel is converted to power, and how much is converted to heat?
“I accelerate rapidly to the speed of traffic (that 5.7 liter engine does a good job of it) then kick it into cruise control.”
In the early 1980s BMW gave your driving method, as their recommendation for maximum mileage.
Accelerate quickly to desired speed, then hold steady.
You cant get free power, it all has to come from the fuel.
You must look at the LOAD ,, my car produces more power at larger throttle openings when TOWING at 55mph than when it isn’t towing at the same 55mph (or add any other load you want ,, windows open , car loaded with lots of weight..) ... smaller throttle opening , SAME RPM , different power levels (despite same RPM and same engine/car etc.) and LOWER fuel consumption ... the same can be said of different engines in the same chassis ... you have some cars where the engine is too small/overworked and it uses more fuel than the larger optional engine.
Your THEORETICAL info is good in theory ,, and is repeatable on a dyno as you simply run WOT against a big load and measure fuel flow and power output but in the REAL WORLD where PART THROTTLE is the NORM , results will vary considerably. You can’t take simple minded “most efficient at WOT” thinking into a “I just need 15 of those 300 available horsepower” to maintain a 60mph cruise world and expect them to correlate.
Honda has always been anti-turbo so they will not be using turbos any time soon.
Honda has had turbocharged micro cars (2 cylinder 550 or 600 cc) in Japan for many decades... and they certainly know how to tune for boost ,, remember F1 with 1200hp (qualifying) 1.5 liter turbo cars!
“Your THEORETICAL info is good in theory”
The only “THEORETICAL info” I stated was that you can’t get free power, it all comes from the fuel.
Not sure where there is any wiggle room there.
Blanket statements that big old cars use less gas than smaller new cars are silly. Of course, the whole “Cars were better in the 60s” thing is silly too. But every car thread gets pasted with those same tired old silly posts.
They don’t build ‘em like they used to. And it’s a good thing they don’t.
Styling is a whole different issue. Cars look so much alike today because of Government regulations that dictate so many parameters of a cars design that it is a miracle they aren’t identical in every way.
I think a lot of the “old cars are better” thing is because people long for the old styles (I liked the looks of the older cars too) and they long for the OLD DAYS. But that doesn’t change reality.
And reality is that a big old Caprice, or a Newport, or a Galaxie from the 60s was NOT built as well as today’s cars, and it was NOT safer, and it was NOT getting 20 MPG.
The only THEORETICAL info I stated was that you cant get free power, it all comes from the fuel.
Not sure where there is any wiggle room there.
If you looked at the rest of my statement you would see that I wasn’t “dissing” you ..
Under light throttle conditions (which cars operate under the vast majority of the time) , efficiencies have NOTHING to do with rated power ,, we’re talking at MAYBE 10% of available power being used ,, of course all power comes from fuel (DUH!) .. what makes the difference is load ,, (notably aerodynamic above 40mph) ,, rolling resistance is more or less a straight line ,, aero is cubed by the speed.. the difference in an engine running at 10% load and 15% load isn’t that big ,, you don’t increase your fuel burn by 50% by going from 10 to 15% power ... most engines have a sweet spot for best efficiency that the engineers tune for ,, 10-15% power at a rpm equal to about 50mph , you need a certain amount of velocity in the airflow for things to work well.. that’s all ... you seem stuck on theoretical efficiencies ... I was there 30 years ago ..
If you were talking light aircraft engines or auto racing engines that run 100% of the time between 50% power and 100% power then your ideas would be valid ...
“you seem stuck on theoretical efficiencies”
No, I am not stuck on anything. Nor am I arguing with your technical analysis. It is obvious that you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I...I believe this because I am aware of about half of what you are talking about, and didn’t smell any BS there so I conclude you must be right. The rest I will take as free education.
My original post on this thread was merely a response to the tired old “bigger is better, older is better” theme that always pops up on an automotive thread. It is tiresome, and generally wrong.
I’m with you ,, the old cars were fun but the advances today are unbeievable... I just wish I could afford a new Elantra... or maybe a Focus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.