Posted on 01/14/2008 11:38:25 AM PST by reaganaut1
Solving the energy problem is easy if you pay no attention to the laws of physics. That's the wonder of our Congress. To pass is easy; to achieve is something else. This is where I break your green heart. You know that Congress passed a law ordering all cars and trucks to average 35 miles to the gallon by 2020. It won't happen.
Another part of that law mandates the production of 36 billion gallons a year of biofuels by 2022. That won't happen either.
It's not that automakers [] are just mean and don't want to do it. They don't know how. Of course, they don't dare complain or criticize the law. We must all be green and happy about it.
But there's just no way anyone subject to the laws of physics and automobile engineering can get a 5,000-pound pickup, or any mass-produced, reasonably priced sport utility near that weight, up to 35mpg.
Today the 2008 Honda Accord (weighing 3,570 pounds) has poorer fuel economy than last year's model, and Honda is Mr. Green. That new hybrid system on the General Motors Chevy Tahoe SUV probably adds $10,000 to the cost (and 400 pounds) and gets it up to 20mpg. Yes, the fuel economy increase is terrific, near 50%--but we're up to only 20mpg on the four-wheeler, and that's nowhere near 35.
The best way to increase fuel economy (and reduce greenhouse gases, too) is to reduce the weight and engine size of the vehicles. Congress could pass a law ordering that no car weigh more than 1,750 pounds (a Toyota Camry is in the 3,200-pound range), no truck weigh more than 2,500 pounds and no engine run more than 75 horsepower. Most Americans couldn't fit in such cars, but they would average 35mpg.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
WRONG!
THEY will not pay any fines at all....
WE ALL will be paying the fines....
The "newest" thing coming down the pike for auto trannies is the CV or "Constant Velocity" transmission.
It's basically two variable pitch pulleys with a chain-type "belt" connecting them, all running in an oil bath. Very simple, few moving parts, NO GEARS!
If you've ever looked under the "hood" of a gas golf cart, it's very similar to the belt/pulley setup that powers it....
If people wanted cars that got 30+ MPG, the manufacturers would build them....
But they don't, so they don't....
Let’s modify that:
People do want cars that get 30+ MPG.
However, the majority of consumers are not willing to die to drive the stupid designs that Detroit foists on consumers to achieve this mileage.
Whether the consumer has an engineering background or not, the vast majority of consumers instinctively know that small, lightweight cars made of nothing but mild steel sheet metal, spot welded together and using a unibody mode of construction result in death or serious injury in accidents.
Yes, I’ve seen these types of transmissions before in snowmobiles using a belt and two weighted pulleys that change the ratio between pulleys.
They’d work OK. They’d work fantastic if coupled with a computer that couples the torque curve of the engine, the ground speed (ie, are you accelerating off a light in city-type driving, or are you on the open road, etc) to the rate at which the ratios change.
I dunno if they’d hold up to the torque curve of a turbodiesel without making the coupling belt or chain heavier than one would want.
Mercedes achieves some of the highest front crash ratings by using a front engine to absorb the energy in the crash. Rather than keep the car on the mounts, MBZ designs their engines to break off the mounts and drop down under the passenger compartment, leaving the engine compartment to absorb the energy.
Rear-engine cars have a downside in front-end collision ratings — all that mass*velocity behind the passenger compartment has to go somewhere. Hit something immovable (eg, a tree, etc) and that engine is going to help crush the pax compartment, if it stays on the mounts and doesn’t come into the compartment as a result of intertia.
TANSTAAFL, I guess.
You’re right about the CV/Cardan joints costing energy, but there is a new joint on the horizon: the Thompson Coupling. Could save some energy over the technology available today.
The solution here is electric cars. Every dollar we spend on oil goes, at least in part, to fanatics who want to kill us. This is a national security issue; not a “green” issue. Nukes don’t solve the problem because we have to import uranium. Solar is the best solution and many companies are moving us in that direction. Better battery technology is critical, but the market is already moving in the right direction. Most trips, which are short, could easily be accomplished with existing technology.
Congresscreeps, you want to ride in a Yugo - your dumb choice. (of course you ride in a Lincoln limo, to be safe and sure.)
I have yet to hear of one in anything beyond a 250hp gas auto, using one in a high-torque turbodiesel would certainly generate a lot of heat....
A fine car until you wanted to go uphill. Or turn on the air. I can remember having turn our air off every time we had to merge onto the highway.
I’m considering swapping my gas-burner for the Powerstroke, but as a consumer, I don’t know much about them. Would you have any advice for a greenwing before I take the plunge?
I would be pulling a 6000# travel trailer about six times/year but the remainder of driving would be less than 50 miles/day, so with the family taking trips - the crew cab seems best suitable. I also like the 4x4 for the trips to the outerbanks, but I don’t care for the dually.
So, does that put me in 250 or 350 catagory? What mileage ought I expect towing/normal? Do you use bio-diesel?
As one auto engineer I talked to said, "did these people ever take a physics class in college?"
Without getting into the details, I have been told 30mpg may be doable for a pickup pulling out all stops at a high cost. Obtaining an additional 20% on top of that to get to 35mpg is not a change around the margins, the technology to do so IMHO isn't there.
Who will be hurt the most in my opinion? Small business men and women. The first asset usually acquired is a van or truck. This is a dampener on small business, not a good move.
I guess what I was trying to say is that there are cars on the market today that exceed the proposed standards that would be suitable for most Americans.
The American people are arguing with their buying habits. I have to carry lots of equipment to job sites. An Astro van is the smallest vehicle that said equipment will fit in and gets 20 mpg. Guess what, Chevy stopped making the Astro in 2005. Full size van is the available option, and it does have more space. I’ll bet the mileage is not quite what I’m now getting.
Agreed 100%. It’s why I have an alternate car, altho the LS v8 is not as gas friendly as I’d like either :)
I’m waiting for the new VW diesels before buying another car.
Funny you should post that. The old VW squareback was just that type of car.
Ford lets you have a single rear wheel in either the F-250 or F-350, with or without the crew cab. For what you’re talking of doing, either truck would do what you want.
Don’t get the 6.0L version of the engine. Ford and Navistar created a black hole of despair in that engine. The recent 6.4L is a big improvement over the 6.0L, but I still like our 7.3L classic Powerstroke engine. From 2000 to 2002 model years were very solid engines.
As for transmissions: unless it is an Allison, I’m not a fan of automatic trannies behind diesels. There are certainly plenty of people using Ford’s automatic transmission behind the diesel; I’m just a guy of hardened opinions about transmissions behind diesel engines. Allison is the first automatic transmission behind a diesel to change my mind. The automatics in Dodges and Fords just aren’t up to taking the torque in style, so maintain the auto transmission well, and don’t allow it to “hunt” the overdrive shift when you’re towing. The newer transmissions have a “tow mode” to prevent the overdrive hunt and torque converter lock/unlock cycling that chews up automatic transmissions.
From what you’re describing, you’d be OK with the 3.73:1 rear end.
Diesel engines need to be maintained properly. You must pay attention to things you don’t need to worry about on a gas engine; coolant chemistry, the quality of the engine oil you use, the fuel filter, glow plugs and glow plug relays, etc.
Given the high cost of new pickups, I’d look around for a clean used model and have a diesel tech go through it before you buy it. You can bring the cost down quite a bit by buying used.
Mileage: unloaded, on the highway, you should see 18MPG. Towing, about 11 to 12 MPG.
I don’t use bio-diesel, but that’s mostly because it is very rare in Nevada and the intermountain west in general.
Yeah ... chuckle ... it was a bit on the “primitive” side. In those days I was happy I had A/C. My previous car that my father had provided for me to drive in high school was a VW bus (can you tell he was big on VWs ?) and they didn’t have A/C. The heat was also a bit sketchy.
The worst car I ever owned for heat was the Triumph TR6 - in winter you’d need to put layers on your legs.
So are we. We want to get a VW TDI wagon for the Mrs.
and the technology already exists to meet the standards set by Congress.
I don’t believe anyone is arguing your point, what is in contention is will those vehicles serve the American people. The answer is for this person, yes, if I use two of them for every job, where I now use one that gets 20 mpg. So 2 at 35 mpg is only 17.5 mpg not counting having to pay someone to drive it, and the additional maintenance, license, insurance and other associated costs. You can’t build semi’s that pull 48 foot or longer trailers that get 35 mpg.
Since you’re an automotive guy, a question - how many miles do you think the Powerstroke engine, well-maintained, is good for ? Any opinion is useful.
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.