Low Power Output and High Displacement, a big debate.

[ozyran]

The new Fiesta will do 40mpg.

I've managed better than 40, which surprised me; it's a matter of how they're driven. It's definitely not a Pinto, that's for sure - it's 20 hp shy of the 1986 Olds Cutlass Supreme that I used to own, and that thing had a 307 c.i.d. V8 under the hood, cranking out all of about 140 hp

Won't manage more than 40 mpg in the city, and most days stop-and-go driving brings the gas mileage down to around 35.

The emissions stuff mainly constricted air flow into and out of the engine. There was also a hit in compression too. But most of the restrictions biggest effect was to limit RPM, hence the drop in power.

Indeed. Torque produced was still massive in spite of it, but that's what happens when you're running a large-displacement engine.

 

[homeforsummer]

But honestly, people and car companies these days must not be too worried about efficiency. While cars average much better mileage numbers, they do so with a lot more power than they did back in the day. And I firmly believe that the average weight of vehicles on the road - especially here in the States - has gone up considerably. So while today's cars to run cleaner and use less fuel, they also boast way more power, are way faster, and heavier too. Imagine how efficient they would be if they didn't have way more power, weren't way faster, and weren't heavier. It would be Europe, land of the at-least-30-mpg car.

One thing to mention is that as engine technology improves, performance and economy are pretty much by-products of each other. The more efficient you make an engine at getting the last out of a drop of fuel, the more power it should produce on the fuel it's using.

Modern tech is pretty much win-win.

If I recall correctly, Honda made a hatchback Civic in 95 that achieved 40+ city 50+ highway mileage, in the states, all gas powered.
I could be wrong, but with today's weight figures, I don't think 40mpg city is even possible without a hybrid.

'Tis is Europe (and yes, I realise US gallons are a different size - that's 48mpg UK). Obviously it means small cars and small engines, but then those old Civic 1.5s with lean burn were small cars with small engines too. And then of course there's diesels.

It's possible, but generally the market in the States will no longer put up with cars as small as we can get away with in Europe.

 

[buickgnx88]

Speaking of all this economy from the 70's versus today, I was looking through an old Hot Rod magazine from the mid 70's and there was an ad for a small car, and they were saying about how it would be about 30 bucks worth of gas to go from one side of the US to the other. Then they said that the larger cars with worse mileage (13mpg or so) would triple the cost.

Seems funny today that 90 dollars worth of gas to go from coast to coast would be horrible.

 

[JCE]

Speaking of all this economy from the 70's versus today, I was looking through an old Hot Rod magazine from the mid 70's and there was an ad for a small car, and they were saying about how it would be about 30 bucks worth of gas to go from one side of the US to the other. Then they said that the larger cars with worse mileage (13mpg or so) would triple the cost.

Seems funny today that 90 dollars worth of gas to go from coast to coast would be horrible.

WTF, $90 wouldn't cover me 500 miles in the Focus with my awesome 20mpg highway.

 

[Bottoz]

I was going to comment on inflation, but I'm more worried about a Focus only getting 20MPG highway. Now that's a WTF!

MINI Cooper S, 38MPG from Denver to Salt Lake City and back. 36MPG from Colorado Springs to Las Vegas and back.

 

[Jim Prower]

WTF, $90 wouldn't cover me 500 miles in the Focus with my awesome 20mpg highway.

Yeah, how are you only getting 20mpg? Your engine isn't that much bigger than mine, and I got about 38 going from here to St. Louis and back. on one tank.

I literally filled up in Washington the day before, then filled up in Morton on my way back - 15 miles apart.

 

[CSLACR]

My Ford gets 40mpg

Um, no. I said city.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
39 city, 50 highway for 95 Civic HB.
29 city, 40 highway for 2011 Fiesta.
And any random Focus should manage at least 30mpg highway, so I third the "wtf" motion.

I maintain, there is no 100% gasoline powered car today that achieves this.
Diesel, to me, is a semi moot point, as part of your mileage "savings" go right back into the extra cost of diesel itself.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

WTF, $90 wouldn't cover me 500 miles in the Focus with my awesome 20mpg highway.

UNPOSSIBLE.

My rotary gets 25mpg highway!

Um, no. I said city.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
39 city, 50 highway for 95 Civic HB.
29 city, 40 highway for 2011 Fiesta.
And any random Focus should manage at least 30mpg highway, so I third the "wtf" motion.

I maintain, there is no 100% gasoline powered car today that achieves this.
Diesel, to me, is a semi moot point, as part of your mileage "savings" go right back into the extra cost of diesel itself.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/fiat/500/road-test/twinair-driven

 

[JCE]

I was going to comment on inflation, but I'm more worried about a Focus only getting 20MPG highway. Now that's a WTF!

Yeah, how are you only getting 20mpg? Your engine isn't that much bigger than mine,

And any random Focus should manage at least 30mpg highway, so I third the "wtf" motion.

You three are forgetting those all 3 important letters, "SVT". With the Cosworth/SVT engine mods and the fact that these run VERY rich 20 mpg is not unheard of for this car. I literally average 16-20 mpg with mixed driving (70% city 30% hwy, approx.), I just recently managed 258 miles my last tank, that's 19.5 mpg. This is when I don't really drive spiritedly or I have to drive with the A/C on Max, when I do drive spiritedly for a portion of the tank I get 18-18.5 mpg. I also drive the all 4 windows down so I am creating drag which lowers the fuel mileage, this is the prime reason why I stated 20 mpg hwy.

Also, I've got a K&N filter too but that literally made zero difference on fuel mileage. These just aren't very economical.

Observe:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=18515

Estimated New EPA MPG
MPG ratings for this vehicle have been revised
Regular Gasoline
18 City
20 Combined
23 Hwy

And actually the government is stupid and listed this using "regular" gasoline, it takes premium you idiots!! Occasionally I averaged 17 mpg in my Camaro when it was healthy. Put that in perspective, 5.0L V8 getting close to what my 2.0L I4 averages...

UNPOSSIBLE.

My rotary gets 25mpg highway!




http://www.topgear.com/uk/fiat/500/road-test/twinair-driven

Our Rotary doesn't, more like 23.

 

[Tornado]

20 does seem kind of low. Dad's Neon during its last year of life would get low-30's if he granny'ed it (and mid-30s before he swapped the engine). Granted, it was a bit lighter and didn't have quite as much power as your Focus, but it did have a bigger engine and shorter gears.

 

[Cano]

5.0L V8 getting close to what my 2.0L I4 averages...

That's what I was gonna say... did you put a 302 in your Focus with one of those swap kits? because, damn, it sure eats like a V8!!!!

amazing.

 

[CSLACR]

UNPOSSIBLE.

My rotary gets 25mpg highway!




http://www.topgear.com/uk/fiat/500/road-test/twinair-driven

Is that U.S. legal?
Surely we're not comparing cars with different road standards and therefore different amounts of weight from "safety" equipment?

You three are forgetting those all 3 important letters, "SVT"

170HP and it gets worse mileage than a car with 180HP from 1989?
I won't say it's not true, just sad, very, very sad.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Is that U.S. legal?
Surely we're not comparing cars with different road standards and therefore different amounts of weight from "safety" equipment?

170HP and it gets worse mileage than a car with 180HP from 1989?
I won't say it's not true, just sad, very, very sad.

http://www.fiat500usa.com/2010/03/fiats-revolutionary-twin-air-engine.html

 

[JCE]

20 does seem kind of low. Dad's Neon during its last year of life would get low-30's if he granny'ed it (and mid-30s before he swapped the engine). Granted, it was a bit lighter and didn't have quite as much power as your Focus, but it did have a bigger engine and shorter gears.

My '05 Focus had consistently 30-32 mpg combined and I did drive the hell out of it.

That's what I was gonna say... did you put a 302 in your Focus with one of those swap kits? because, damn, it sure eats like a V8!!!!

amazing.

I wish there was a 302 in there, would be infinitely more reliable and fast. I'd keep my SVT then.

170HP and it gets worse mileage than a car with 170HP 255 torque from 1990?
I won't say it's not true, just sad, very, very sad.

Fixed the stats, but essentially yes. Sad that the Camaro has double the cylinders with more than double the displacement and has almost the same gas mileage. 15 city, 18 combined and 24 hwy. They share the same BHP but the Camaro has 100 more torques but with the extra weight of the Camaro vs the SVT they are about even on 0-60. Ironic.

 

[CSLACR]

Fixed the stats, but essentially yes. Sad that the Camaro has double the cylinders with more than double the displacement and has almost the same gas mileage. 15 city, 18 combined and 24 hwy. They share the same BHP but the Camaro has 100 more torques but with the extra weight of the Camaro vs the SVT they are about even on 0-60. Ironic.

I was actually talking about the previously mentioned Grand Am.
I believe they managed about 21-31mpg.

http://www.fiat500usa.com/2010/03/fiats-revolutionary-twin-air-engine.html

http://www.fiat500usa.com/2011/01/fiat-500-complete-vehicle.html

Estimated EPA Fuel Economy 30/38 mpg (City/Hwy) (5-speed manual)
27/34 mpg (City/Hwy) (6-speed automatic)

I'm not sure where the "revolution" is exactly.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Now you guys are just taking this a bit offtopic... I made the thread to discuss power not sissy stuff like Fuel Economy, ok?

 

[BrutherSuperior]

My '05 Focus had consistently 30-32 mpg combined and I did drive the hell out of it.



I wish there was a 302 in there, would be infinitely more reliable and fast. I'd keep my SVT then.



Fixed the stats, but essentially yes. Sad that the Camaro has double the cylinders with more than double the displacement and has almost the same gas mileage. 15 city, 18 combined and 24 hwy. They share the same BHP but the Camaro has 100 more torques but with the extra weight of the Camaro vs the SVT they are about even on 0-60. Ironic.

I had a 5.0L Cobra that got better mileage than your car AND it was heavily modded (H/C/I etc.). I probably had somewhere around double the power of your car too.

Something's going on with that car. I can't believe something left the factory running pig rich.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Something's going on with that car. I can't believe something left the factory running pig rich.

You may be surprised what manufacturers do with WOT fuel tuning.

Every 4cyl Mazda6 ever has a WOT A/F of 10-11.5:1. Yeahh...

 

[niky]

Could be worse. I've seen AFRs for some (non-Mazda) cars in the tens... at idle.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Wouldn't want to melt a piston now

 

[neanderthal]

Computing power increased by leaps and bounds in the 80s, especially in the 90s. Cars used to be designed by people who had been doing so for a long time, who had to reference thick books with their previously attained knowledge when they were designing a new car. Now they could be designed by someone who could test stuff, draw stuff, check stuff, on a computer.

Also, fuel injection was on a very small percentage of cars in the early/ mid 70s and fuel injection gives a more exact fuel delivery than any carb system; Mercedes for sure, Porsche, BMW with the 2002tii starting in 72 and that was pretty much it. Electronic injection started being used in the late 70s early 80s but was spotty; didn't have that dead smooth idle of mechanical injection models like the kugelfisher. Not to mention the computing to deliver the injection was in its infancy.

New cars weigh a lot more because people want more in their cars. The old adage that it's all government mandated is complete and utter bull excrement. YOU, Mr Consumer, want a car with more airbags, cupholders, speakers, heated and cooled massaging seats etc. The car makers would spend a lot less money on integrating these things (and therefore probably make more profit) (lets not get into the fact that they are selling these things at a profit. They are. But they also have reliability and warranty claims from all these things. When was the last time you heard of a car being recalled for an actual engine problem, vs something in the mod cons?) designing these things, buying, storing, making, fitting, warranteing etc all the extra stuff the consumer demands.

 

[CSLACR]

Computing power increased by leaps and bounds in the 80s, especially in the 90s. Cars used to be designed by people who had been doing so for a long time, who had to reference thick books with their previously attained knowledge when they were designing a new car. Now they could be designed by someone who could test stuff, draw stuff, check stuff, on a computer.

Also, fuel injection was on a very small percentage of cars in the early/ mid 70s and fuel injection gives a more exact fuel delivery than any carb system; Mercedes for sure, Porsche, BMW with the 2002tii starting in 72 and that was pretty much it. Electronic injection started being used in the late 70s early 80s but was spotty; didn't have that dead smooth idle of mechanical injection models like the kugelfisher. Not to mention the computing to deliver the injection was in its infancy.

New cars weigh a lot more because people want more in their cars. The old adage that it's all government mandated is complete and utter bull excrement. YOU, Mr Consumer, want a car with more airbags, cupholders, speakers, heated and cooled massaging seats etc. The car makers would spend a lot less money on integrating these things (and therefore probably make more profit) (lets not get into the fact that they are selling these things at a profit. They are. But they also have reliability and warranty claims from all these things. When was the last time you heard of a car being recalled for an actual engine problem, vs something in the mod cons?) designing these things, buying, storing, making, fitting, warranteing etc all the extra stuff the consumer demands.

I'll take my 4 ounce cup holders, a 50 pound stereo, seats and a steering wheel please. (Nothing else)
But then I can't afford a new car, which means I have no vote.

Of course we could always check into weight gains from other continents to NA, but the OP wants us to keep talking about the obvious reasons why engines are more efficient now then 30 years ago, so GL with that.

 

[homeforsummer]

I maintain, there is no 100% gasoline powered car today that achieves this...

...in the States

Aston Martin Cygnet (): 40mpg city
Audi A1 1.2 TFSI: 38mpg city (close enough!)
Citroen C1/Peugeot 107/Toyota Aygo: 43mpg city
Fiat 500 TwinAir: 51mpg city
Ford Ka 1.2: 41mpg city
Hyundai i10 Blue: 47mpg city
Kia Picanto Air: 44mpg city
Smart fortwo mhd: 52mpg city
Toyota iQ 1.0: 46mpg city
Toyota iQ 1.3: 40mpg city

All the above are regular gasoline cars, not hybrids, not diesels, both of which probably triple that list. And I almost certainly missed some gasoline cars too (and again, I've already done the UK > US mpg math).

I chucked the A1 in there to prove that it isn't just bargain-basement vehicles that can manage either and that you can get decent performance from some of them too. And obviously, you're less likely to die in an accident than in a 15 year old car.

So yeah - 40mpg city might not be possible in the States any longer but that certainly doesn't mean it's not possible anywhere.

 

[CSLACR]

So yeah - 40mpg city might not be possible in the States any longer but that certainly doesn't mean it's not possible anywhere.

I understand this, but I'm talking U.S. figures for the 20 year old Honda.
So I'd like to see the U.S. spec car getting better.

Notice the Fiat 500 is shot down to 38mpg highway? They can't even make most cars get equal mileage on the highway as they did sitting at red lights 20 years ago.

 

[homeforsummer]

I understand this, but I'm talking U.S. figures for the 20 year old Honda.
So I'd like to see the U.S. spec car getting better.

Notice the Fiat 500 is shot down to 38mpg highway? They can't even make most cars get equal mileage on the highway as they did sitting at red lights 20 years ago.

You're forgetting that the way EPA tests are measured has changed significantly in the last 5 years, let alone the last 15-20. It's much, much harder to get good EPA figures today than it was back then.

It makes comparing the figures between old and new a bit unfair.

 

[JJ72]

None of those fuel figures are realistic.

Sure in a city environment but no traffic you may be able to do it, but added traffic jams, other cars rushing you off the line and the constant speed change darting in and out of different lanes.

In the real world A Prius would do high 30s in real city block to block driving.

 

[CSLACR]

None of those fuel figures are realistic.

Sure in a city environment but no traffic you may be able to do it, but added traffic jams, other cars rushing you off the line and the constant speed change darting in and out of different lanes.

In the real world A Prius would do high 30s in real city block to block driving.

But I said no hybrids, and the tests have been redesigned to accommodate. I've yet to get less than EPA estimate in any car I've ever owned that ran properly.

You're forgetting that the way EPA tests are measured has changed significantly in the last 5 years, let alone the last 15-20. It's much, much harder to get good EPA figures today than it was back then.

It makes comparing the figures between old and new a bit unfair.

No, because they updated older cars to reflect what they would achieve on today's test.
The ratings on the old system were 48 city, 55 highway if I recall correctly. (for the Honda)

In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published new test methods for calculating fuel economy estimates that are posted on window stickers of new cars and trucks and on the website, fueleconomy.gov. These new methods, which took effect with model year 2008 vehicles, brought the miles per gallon (mpg) estimates closer to consumers' actual fuel economy by including factors such as high speeds, quicker accelerations, air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures.

To make comparing mpg estimates for vehicles easier for consumers, we added a feature on fueleconomy.gov to convert the older label values for model year 2007 and earlier vehicles to the new "2008 Label" format. These conversions were based on the original rounded fuel economy values, and needed to be updated with the increased precision to be included under the CARS program.

New rating: 39/50
Old rating: 47/56
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=11703

 

[homeforsummer]

None of those fuel figures are realistic.

Sure in a city environment but no traffic you may be able to do it, but added traffic jams, other cars rushing you off the line and the constant speed change darting in and out of different lanes.

In the real world A Prius would do high 30s in real city block to block driving.

That's a completely arbitrary comment. The city tests take into account traffic flow. Obviously if you're stuck in nose-to-tail traffic for hours on end you're not going to meet the figures, but then if you do 90mpg you're not going to meet highway figures either and if you drive like a dick everywhere you won't meet the average figures.

You always need to take MPG estimates (note the word "estimate") with a pinch of salt, but it certainly doesn't mean that they're impossible to hit, and not even with hypermiling. I've not yet owned a car that I've not been able to match the official figures in.

No, because they updated older cars to reflect what they would achieve on today's test.
The ratings on the old system were 48 city, 55 highway if I recall correctly. (for the Honda)

My point was that the actual test has changed, so unless they're going back and re-testing that 15 year old Honda with the current methods, it's still not a direct comparison.

I'm not saying the Honda didn't have great figures (I've driven one of those old 1.5s with lean burn and it's pretty impressive) but it's still not a direct comparison. Throw in the weight of some modern cars (and weight makes most impact at city speeds as you're having to start, stop and turn all that extra mass) and it's quite impressive what they can manage.

 

[CSLACR]

My point was that the actual test has changed, so unless they're going back and re-testing that 15 year old Honda with the current methods, it's still not a direct comparison.

I'm not saying the Honda didn't have great figures (I've driven one of those old 1.5s with lean burn and it's pretty impressive) but it's still not a direct comparison. Throw in the weight of some modern cars (and weight makes most impact at city speeds as you're having to start, stop and turn all that extra mass) and it's quite impressive what they can manage.

So basically, even though the numbers have been revised to reflect new test methods by the EPA, it's not good enough for you?

I understand the weight is the main factor here, although it's highway numbers also destroy any U.S. spec car. (gasoline only engine)

The underlying point here, is that we've backtracked in terms of fuel economy from our best here in the states, and that all these modern advancements mean squat diddly for fuel mileage in the sense that we strap on extra weight every single year, which, as proven, can more than cancel out modern efficiency techniques.

Another point, (more on topic) is to notice while power figures are rising, acceleration numbers are not rising accordingly also, along with cornering capability.
Yes, over the graph of all cars there are improvements across the board, it's just awful to see all the new potential get squandered the way it currently is.

Imagine, for example, that Dodge Omni coupled with today's fuel efficiency, suspension, and brake technology. 💡
But we're (in the US) just pissing most of it away with "crash safety zones" and many other things. Not that safety is a bad thing by any means, but we constantly push aside the best safety equipment a car can ever have, and that's called a good driver, that pays attention to what they're doing, and doesn't drive like a total a-hole.

I'll give you a guess how many times I've needed a "safe car" to protect me from my own idiocy. My only worries in any car are other "drivers" on the road doing something unavoidably stupid, and it's something I have to watch for every time I get behind the wheel.

So long story short, we've backtracked in efficiency in the US because everyone wants a car that just does everything for them, because at least 90% of people can't be bothered to learn how to drive properly. I know I would have been irate at the time, but now, I can only be grateful the driving age (at least in PA) has changed to 18, but an idiot that's 35 is no better than an idiot who's 16.

Oh well, sorry for going off-topic, but that's what discussions do, they move forward.

Edit: 1994 gets the same mileage, hence "20" year remark, as 18 gets rounded.

 

[homeforsummer]

So basically, even though the numbers have been revised to reflect new test methods by the EPA, it's not good enough for you?

Not so much that, just that "revising" isn't the same as "re-testing". When you change a scientific method then the only way to achieve like-for-like results is to re-test. Obviously this isn't possible and revising estimates is the next best thing, but it still doesn't necessarily make it accurate.

Not to mention that a 20 year old car won't be in the same mechanical state it was 20 years ago, even if it's been well-maintained. Horsepower and torque ebb away, and fuel consumption increases.

The underlying point here, is that we've backtracked in terms of fuel economy from our best here in the states, and that all these modern advancements mean squat diddly for fuel mileage in the sense that we strap on extra weight every single year, which, as proven, can more than cancel out modern efficiency techniques.

Agreed, though only to an extent.

Another point, (more on topic) is to notice while power figures are rising, acceleration numbers are not rising accordingly also, along with cornering capability.

They sort of are. Even a bog-basic standard new car, class for class, will comprehensively out-grip, out-accelerate and out-brake its predecessors from 10, 15, 20 years ago, despite all the extra weight.

You're looking at a market where people will rarely get out of bed for less than 120bhp now even in a basic economy car, where back in the 90s there were Civics with 75bhp and Geo Metros with what, 60? I suspect most people would be prepared to take a 5mpg hit over a 20 year old car for the huge increases in everything else, whilst still not paying that much!

Yes, over the graph of all cars there are improvements across the board, it's just awful to see all the new potential get squandered the way it currently is.

I agree, but I still don't think things are that bad. And this is coming from a self-confessed "green" buff.

So long story short, we've backtracked in efficiency in the US because everyone wants a car that just does everything for them, because at least 90% of people can't be bothered to learn how to drive properly. I know I would have been irate at the time, but now, I can only be grateful the driving age (at least in PA) has changed to 18, but an idiot that's 35 is no better than an idiot who's 16.

I do know the feeling, but what you're describing is an "ideal world", and that's not the one we're living in.

The world we're living in contains a high percentage of idiots, and although we'd probably be better with them all skidding off the road into trees, I at least like to think the manufacturers do their best to stop them skidding into me...