PeakOil is You
History of Fuel Efficiency
75 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
by MonteQuest » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 01:12:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', ' ') I think it's pretty shocking that we've engineered so much crap into cars that efficiency has gone down over the last 100 years.
It has not gone down. Mass to move has gone up.
MPG has gone down for those who chose to buy the heavier more powerful cars and for those who chose to drive faster. The industry built what the market demanded.
I have shown you the data.
Ignore the facts if you insist. I've boiled this ocean long enough.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon 29 Jan 2007, 01:42:02, edited 2 times in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
by smallpoxgirl » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 02:26:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')t has not gone down. Mass to move has gone up.
So now obesity is the cause?
The mass is the car. Fat car = inefficient car. No mystery.
In answer to your question. No I am not ASE certified. No need to be. These days, I only work on my own car. Have I built race engines? No. All the engines I've built have been for street use. I have built race CARS...professionally. And I know that if you want a car to go fast and be efficient, you strip off all the unnecessary accessories. If you cross the finish line last, you loose. I suppose you could tell people that you really didn't loose because you're car has air conditioning and the others don't. I don't think anyone would accept it though.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl - Expert
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
by lper100km » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 03:59:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
')
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
Since it was SPG who made the original point, I have to think that it is you who is missing it. I’ve read many of your posts elsewhere and the ones on this thread seem to be out of character. I’m not sure if you are doing it deliberately or not, just to prolong a discussion, but the points you are making do not discredit the original observation that over the past 100 years or so, the US auto fleet has averaged around a 25mpg fuel consumption.
To a certain degree, it is irrelevant that engine efficiencies have improved, because, as a result, they have simply become larger, more powerful and drive more weight and luxuries. Whatever fuel consumption benefits that have ensued from engine technology have simply been lost in powering other onboard systems. At this point, I have to think that engines from any auto company must be performing at close to the theoretical maximum. It seems that a goal of the US auto industry has never been to minimize the fuel consumption capability. Given such a long history of cheap oil, there has never been any incentive to do that. Contrast that with Europe, where gasoline prices have been at least double the NA prices for decades. There are many autos there that will do 50mpg or better using conventional engine technology. Yes, they are small, yes they are uncomfortable, likely stick shift and with no air conditioning. It is very possible to be vastly more efficient in fuel usage. You can mount a 500cc motorcycle engine on a three wheeler and get something over 75mpg as was done in the UK in the 1930’s and ‘40s. What you give up is weight, comfort, performance etc ie all the extras that the motoring public have come to consider as basic.
To a large degree, the auto industry, and for that matter, the country, are victims of the industry’s own innovation and marketing. (As goes GM, so goes the country) The problem is, the more ‘improvements’ that are developed, the more the consumer expectations are raised. Until the day comes, barring mandated intervention, that the majority of people realize that truly basic, low fuel consumption transportation trumps air conditioning, speed, size and so on, there is likely to be little change in the fleet average. By then of course, it will be too late and hay burners will be in vogue. Me, I’m learning to make buggy whips.
-
lper100km - Lignite
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
by MonteQuest » Mon 29 Jan 2007, 11:18:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
')
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
Since it was SPG who made the original point, I have to think that it is you who is missing it. I’ve read many of your posts elsewhere and the ones on this thread seem to be out of character. I’m not sure if you are doing it deliberately or not, just to prolong a discussion, but the points you are making do not discredit the original observation that over the past 100 years or so, the US auto fleet has averaged around a 25mpg fuel consumption.
To a certain degree, it is irrelevant that engine efficiencies have improved, because, as a result, they have simply become larger, more powerful and drive more weight and luxuries.
Duh? Exactly what I said. Plus people drive faster. It is not the automotive engineers who are to blame, it is the buying and driving habits of the people behind the wheel.
Overall car engineering is more efficient today, the mileage has not improved due to the above reasons.
The true culprit seems to be advertising, not poor engineering.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon 29 Jan 2007, 11:38:03, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
