100 mpg car?

[minic6]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/3374271.html

I was wondering if you have any comments on this article? Much of it is very close to being true. I hate this statement.

{There's no business case for it," says GM's Juechter. "How many people would spend $200,000 on a car that would ultimately save them a few thousand dollars on fuel over the life of the car?" That's the worst-case scenario in terms of price estimates, but there's little doubt that a 100-mpg car would cost thousands more than today's bigger, more powerful vehicles. }

After seeing how badly the Geo and every other small car has sold. You have to wonder how small of a minority we are? I drive 20 miles each way on the freeway and see only a couple of people adopting a fuelish mind set for driving. Will they continue if prices go down?

I think the price quote is incorrect and if you check GM's or anyone else who sells all over the world we could have cars that break 50mpg if we could get by all the rules in this country now at an economical price not even hybryd.

[mrmad]

I think if gas prices stay where they are or continue to go up, a car similar to a Geo that cost around $11-$12K and got near 50mpg would probably sell pretty well. Gas prices were too low when in the late 80's and early 90's to make the CRX HF, Geo/Suzuki Swift, and Civic VX's sell very well.

Most people don't even realize these high FE cars existed. When I tell people my old HF can get over 45mpg they seem shocked.

[Snax]

I don't believe that safety requirements are the true impediment. Certainly Metros could be made today that are as light as the first generation of them, but the cost of materials such as more extensive use of aluminum and other lightweight materials would be higher, and they would certainly be built diffferently. Not only that, but there is also the mindset of people wanting cars that are fully optioned and quiet. It's a tough sell when the majority of buyers would rather be comfortable and showy rather than utilitarian and frugal.

[mrmad]

With the housing market so expensive here in So Cal, 50 mile (or more) commutes are not uncommon. I heard some guy complaining he was spending a thousand a month in gas commuting his F150 to work (which seemed pretty stupid to me). It would take years in gas savings to pay for a $25K Hybrid, but I think newer versions of these high FE cars would allow people to buy second cars just to get to work and allow them to have their SUVs and pickup trucks to drive on the weekends.

[mrmad]

F150 commuter boy needs a kick in the nutz.

He was kind of snickering at my old HF until he found out what kind of mileage it got.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by theclencher

F150 commuter boy needs a kick in the nutz.

Werd. VW expected the 1L prototype to cost ~$35k in limited production, and iirc, as of lately this estimate has been significantly dropped due to changes in available tech/cost. Even at $35k, over the average 150k lifetime of an American vehicle, it'll save money compared to a ~30mpg econobox provided gas stays at ~$3/gal. If it, increases, well... you know.

[Bill in Houston]

You'd get arthritis in your hip before you got every F150 commuter down here...

[kickflipjr]

Non-hybrid 100mpg cars could be made at a reasonable price, but there are sacrifices that have to be made. Sacrifices that most Americans are not yet ready to make.

1) Power: obviously a smaller, more efficient, engine would result in higher mpg. 0-60 times would be well above 10 seconds.
2)Size/ Storage Capacity: making cars more aerodynamic usually results in less storage capacity.
3)Safety: well if very car on the road was under 2,000 pounds then this car would do fine, but against a larger car the results could be bad.

[VetteOwner]

lol yea the econo cars of the 80's were essentially marketed for college grads that want to buy a new car yet could only afford the econo boxes. (chevette for one) you wont belive how many people at auto shows come up to me and tell me that a chevette was thier first car, and sometimes how much they wished they woulda kept the thing for mpg wise. then thier all suprised i get 32mpg out of it...

[minic6]

That is one of my points were being sold a bill of goods every day. One of my pet peaves is the marketing of trucks the biggest seller. Toyota is a prime example to compete they advertise the fact you can basically pull a house with your new gas hog Toyota. Same with all truck manufactuers. 95% of truck buyers are hauling 6 or 8 feet of empty space. Plus being able to pull a house, for what marketing! We need to go back to checking the box for a towing package not punish the public with things they don't need for marketing sake. This mind set must be broken first and the public educated to the facts. Before most would be willing to buy a high mileage veh.

[Sludgy]

I totally agree about pickups. They keep getting larger, but carmakers find ways to keep mileage stuck at 14-16 city and 17-20 hwy.

Why couldn't GM resurrect the GMT 700 Sierra 1500 of the 1990's and put their 5.3 liter Displacement on Demand engines in it? I had one, and it was plenty big enough for everything I do. This combo would get 20 city 30 highway and would SMOKE the bloated competition off the line.

Carmakers suck.

[jwxr7]

Originally Posted by mrmad

With the housing market so expensive here in So Cal, 50 mile (or more) commutes are not uncommon. I heard some guy complaining he was spending a thousand a month in gas commuting his F150 to work (which seemed pretty stupid to me). It would take years in gas savings to pay for a $25K Hybrid, but I think newer versions of these high FE cars would allow people to buy second cars just to get to work and allow them to have their SUVs and pickup trucks to drive on the weekends.

Sorry this brought out a rant in me .
My friend has a full size dodge pickup and has to drive up to 100 miles one way to some job sites. That thing gets him around 13-14 mpg and he was complaining to me about not being able to afford going to work anymore. I mentioned that he should try to find a metro. He said "I couldn't be seen driving one of those". It's too bad people buy vehicles more for image than efficiency . Another thing that bothered me was my own mom. She drives a 17 mpg explorer everywhere. Of course she drives 5 mph over the speed limit all the time. I told her to try an experiment on the next tank of gas, try going 5 mph under and see how much difference it makes (a small easy experiment). She said something about having to go with the flow or get run over by everyone. I said, until they pay for your gas you can drive any legal speed you want, besides, that's why there are two lanes on the highway. Another social acceptance type thing .
Then I think, fine keep wasting YOUR money on gas, but too many people are doing that in america and it has raised the price per gallon of gas for everyone at the pump.

[rvanengen]

Doesn't socialism feel good? You are helping pay the cost of those people driving their inefficient cars inefficiently! Everytime you see some jacka$$ passing you at a stupid speed...they help keep your price per gallon higher.

Until everyone pulls their "collective" (hahaha) heads outta their butts...we all pay more.

I don't remember which thread I saw it, but I think a mandatory FE display with real-time and average figures should be mandatory on ALL new cars and trucks. Make it something that is prominent on the fuel gauge/dashboard and something that cannot be turned off.

Another idea to piggyback the last one is giving a large tax CREDIT for people that exceed the EPA HIGHWAY ratings by at least 20%. Don't fine the ones that get lower, but reward the ones that get higher. You could even make it a progressive credit...each 10% moves you into a larger credit. Motivated self-interest. Then you get the idea that higher FE is a GOOD thing...not just higher HP and lower 0 to 60 times.

[Telco]

You folks are speaking the same way that the folks on the high performance truck board I hang out at speak. Why don't the manufacturers do this, why don't they do that. Only on the performance side, it's why don't they offer the biggest engine in the smallest truck? Why will they only go to a certain weight/HP ratio? Why won't they let us buy stripped down trucks with that big engine? Why can't I get a turbodiesel in a reg cab halfton?

Fact is, the manufacturers are in the game to make money. They sell a lot of trucks and SUVs with fat profit margins. 30 grand for a pickup truck, when half of the vehicle is a 200 dollar box? You bet they are pushing the crap out of them. On the other hand, they have to spend a lot of money on an econobox to maximise the mileage, and they can't sell them for a lot because people see them for what they are; cheap, basic transport. Since they can make more money selling an SUV than a Chevette, they will push SUVs hard and park the Chevettes in the back lot.

I'd also be willing to bet that the auto manufacturers are pushing low efficiency models because they are heavy investors in the oil and gas industry, and probably vice versa. So if the automaker sells a car that uses a lot of oil, the automaker's stock in the oil company is worth more, so the automaker makes money coming and going. Sell more efficient cars, they lose money both ways.

To change this, we would need to first end any relationship between the automakers and the oil companies, by not allowing them to cross-invest, either as a company or the boards of directors personally. Then, we would need to change the perception that you need an SUV or pickup truck as a family hauler. Make the truck and SUV what they were 20 years ago, a work horse designed to haul loads or people where the roads don't go, with no luxuries from the dealer. Sell them stripped down, if the purchaser wants a luxury truck/SUV let them order it for a premium price.

And here's the big thing that would need to be done: bring back the rear wheel drive car, in force. I myself made the switch from car based to truck based when the cars went from primarily rear wheel drive to front wheel drive. I can't stand driving front wheel drive vehicles. If you check on the rise of the SUV and match it with the fall of rear wheel drive, I think you'll find that there is a real correlation there. Front wheel drives have torque steer, are unsafe in bad weather as the fix for going too fast through a corner is to GO FASTER, and they make it easier for people who shouldn't be driving to begin with to get their cars moving in the snow. If you can get a RWD going in the snow, it's because you have the driving skills to do so, and can handle what happens. Plus the fix for going into a corner too fast in bad weather is to downshift and let the rear wheels slow you down. And no torque steer. Bring back RWD cars, and don't make them look and run like crap, and people will abandon their SUVs just like they abandoned FWD cars.

Full size RWD cars are getting mid 20s to low 30s now, with some close attention to how things are done they could be pushed higher. If turbodiesels were made available here, these cars could easily see into the 50s. Smaller diesels in smaller trucks would see the same, and I'd have something to cross over into my 87 S15.

[rvanengen]

Nice little vicious circle, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuou...vicious_circle

Car makers are selling what they say people want to buy, and people are buying what the car makers want to sell. The problem is simple...many people have forgotten what the primary purpose of an automobile is/was: move your butt from point A to point B without having to walk. Everything else is an embellishment on that simple purpose. Somehow, my grandfather found that his used 1925 Model T was more than enough when he was first married in 1929 as a graduate student. He upgraded to a Model A in a few years, but they did live in Michigan at the time.

Anyone want to take a guess what the MPG was for a 1908 Model T?

...25mpg... http://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg

Granted, it didn't have air conditioning, airbags, crumple zones, or even a 0 to 60 time. But, have we really made a LOT of progress in 100 years?? Ok, we have disc brakes, macpherson struts, butt warmers and cd/mp3 players...but we are really still just driving nice examples of late 19th and early 20th century technology.

Heck...electric cars aren't even new...

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/ele...-timeline.html

"1891 - William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa builds the first successful electric automobile in the United States."

116 years...and we still cannot buy a good electric car...

anyway...ending rant...

[brucepick]

Originally Posted by rvanengen

... I don't remember which thread I saw it, but I think a mandatory FE display with real-time and average figures should be mandatory on ALL new cars and trucks. Make it something that is prominent on the fuel gauge/dashboard and something that cannot be turned off.

Hey that was me. Always good to find a sympathetic ear (eye?).

Originally Posted by rvanengen

... Another idea to piggyback the last one is giving a large tax CREDIT for people that exceed the EPA HIGHWAY ratings by at least 20%. Don't fine the ones that get lower, but reward the ones that get higher. You could even make it a progressive credit...each 10% moves you into a larger credit. Motivated self-interest. Then you get the idea that higher FE is a GOOD thing...not just higher HP and lower 0 to 60 times.

I like it but I don't think I could tolerate the burocracy needed to administer it. Real quick, you'd find people selling hacks too make their mpg trackers into liars so they could get the credits.

[minic6]

We go around and around about what people want what their willing to drive. Even in China which has just started to really pull ahead in purchasing veh. they don't want econoboxes. Sales for large cars are on the rise there too. Maybe we as humans just like the best?
Still love my Geo, my preferece has always been small cars. Weird.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by Telco

And here's the big thing that would need to be done: bring back the rear wheel drive car, in force.

I can't disagree with the charachteristics you dislike about FWDs, but there are two very good reasons manufacturers keep them, number one of which is packaging. They are able to put the entire drivetrain in one small area that can be installed and removed as an entire unit. The other reason is reduced weight and materials cost - which incidentally leads to improved fuel economy.

Sorry Telco, but they won't be going away anytime soon so long as most manufacturers insist on putting the motors in front. If safety and driveability were the deciding factor on everything, we'd all be driving AWDs.

[VetteOwner]

boo! lol i love rwd sure they loose traction on the rear end in snow but its easily regained if you know how to drive. but most jackasses dont so thats why u see alot of people in ditches...

but yes fwd is alot more economical. thay can make lighter "frames" nowadays and roomier interior cuz you dont have the driveshaft tube going down the middle of the car. but personally, rwd cars and trucks are so much more easier to work on....

recently ive kind of got a likeing to hatchbacks.(liek accual sloped hatch backs liek a chevette) the car that i love the shape of is a early 2000's hyundai elantra. looks exactly liek a rounder updated chevette to me...if i need a acr and i can accualy find one of thsoe id think about getting it.(as long as it was manual screw automatics...)

but yes as a owner of a 29 model AA truck (yes model AA) they could get over 20 at least. now mine is well gonna need about 4-5 years of resor to get it looking nice maybe 2-3 to get it ruinning/driving but ive done research and it amazes me that even way back when they had mildly effecent cars. i dunno how many people knew this but henry ford was tryign to design a engine that ran on pure ethonal. he belived the way of the future would be a renewable recoruce like ethonal, just took 100 years or so to even begin using it but...i thikn if he were alive today (impossible but fun to think about) he would design some radical new way of building an insanely effecent engine.

[Telco]

I never did expect FWD to go away, it's been around as long as the RWD has. What I was saying is that the SUV came into popularity with the decline of the RWD car. I made the switch from car to SUV for this very reason, and so did many other people I know that are now SUV drivers. If you want to get heavy SUVs and their truck CAFE standards off the road, then the automakers need to start building large, powerful, luxurious RWD cars with their higher CAFE standards. There are people for whom the price of a gallon of gas does not mentally connect with the size of their car, instead the connection is that another dime per gallon just means another 2 bucks per refill. These same people will plop down 4-6 bucks for a cup of coffee every single day, what is another 2 bucks in the fuel tank each week?

Vetteowner, I live in the Midwest, and what I see in the ditches in heavy snow is front wheel drive cars and 4x4s. FWDs because the cars by design let people with no business driving in heavy snow get started, and 4x4s because they are out playing around and driving with the idea that 4x4 means all-weather imperviousness. They forget that with 4WD, when they hit the ice all 4 wheels will stop moving, and into the ditch they go. I see very few RWD cars in the snow, because only people (such as myself) who know how to handle their cars can get a RWD moving in the snow to begin with. Well that, and there aren't many RWD cars left.

[Snax]

My wife made another interesting observation to me yesterday while driving our new car. She said that people don't get out of the way like they did when she drove the pickup. I never really noticed it myself because I tend to be assertive with my merges no matter what I'm driving.

I think that illustrates more of the allure that many people are reluctant to give up, the intimidation factor of a larger vehicle. It's also a tough sell to get people out of the improved vision that SUVs and trucks provide.

[Telco]

Originally Posted by theclencher

I'm astonished to learn that that's the reason people went to SUVs! I guess most motorists are driving at 9/10ths or higher??? Because at anything less than that FWD vs RWD dynamically hardly matters at all. Of course if you get all your information from the enthusiast magazines they rave over RWD cuz their main focus is how fast can it lap a racetrack. I don't think I'm being biased when I say that when it snows it is by far mostly 4x4s in the ditch, upside down or otherwise! That could be because the traf-f*** mix here is mostly 4x4s tho'. And yes, RWD cars are practically just vintage collectables so that's why you don't see them in the winter.

Well, it may not be the only reason, but I can't help but see the correlation. RWDs were phased out in the early 90s, pickups and SUVs became popular in the early 90s. Dodge recently brought out the rear wheel drive 300 after years of FWD only cars, and unlike their FWD cars the 300s flew off the lot faster than they could make them. This was enough to prompt GM to get the Zeta RWD platform out and get the new Impala on it. The next generation Impala will be RWD, and the FWD Bonneville will become the RWD G8. Caddy is going to go RWD, may make the entire lineup RWD. Then there is also that FWD was not nearly as refined back in the early 90s as it is now, and anyone considering a FWD vs an SUV would definitely hated it, and will to this day tell you how bad FWD sucks, drives like crap compared to RWD, ect ect. I know I hated it back then.

There really is a difference between driving FWD and RWD. On long trips a FWD will wear you out, a RWD won't. I think it has to do with every time you take a corner you have to force the front wheels to turn when they want to go straight. The power steering keeps this from being apparent, but on a long trip the fact that you've been wrestling a lot of weight under power around. I have had to drive a few FWD cars around, and have bought a few FWD minivans (not really because I wanted a FWD but because I needed the van part) so I am not just getting this from magazines. I will admit that I was very impressed with how far FWD has come, when we were getting rid of the Tahoe we test drove a 2005 Nissan Altima 2.5L and found it to be impressive. I do think it was at the edge of torque steer though, under WOT you could start to detect it. The 3.5 probably does have some torque steer. Mom's 06 Lucerne with the northstar V8 has quite a bit of torque steer, but it will also fly like a scalded dog. GM is definitely not someone I'd be looking at for a FWD anything, regardless of price. Their FWD systems just aren't up to snuff even on their luxury liners. Had the Tahoe sold when we made the test drive we'd have bought the Altima, but for some reason the price shot up about 4 grand between the test drive and the sale, and it was only over the course of a month. Otherwise I'd have a 2.5L Altima now instead of a Toyota Sienna minivan.

I see you are from the far north from your logo, I am from Oklahoma. This would explain why you see few RWDs and I see many, we don't have a lot of snow, so not a lot of salt, so not a lot of rust. 70s and 80s RWDs are still commonplace, but the numbers are dwindling .

[Antoine]

Why not a RWD with rear engine like mine. They are the best ! ( Smart car)

[Snax]

Well bringing this back around to the 100MPG vision, longitudinal engined RWDs simply are not as efficient. It's just a fact that 90 degree turns in the transmission path impose greater friction than parallel shafts. It's not a huge difference, but it's there.

[minic6]

What about auto fwd? They use a chain to turn the corner lots of spin loss there. Like it or not most people buy autos. Rwd have a straight shot. Rwd is traditionaly heavier, frt wheel drive as stated earlier is a packaging dream. Rwd can be balanced better because the load is spread out. The Volt is frt wheel for packaging. Look at a Solstice no room the tunnel takes up valuable real estate. I've thought of using a Geo Metro 3 cylinder with a 2wd Tracker manual to get rear wheel drive. But packaging beats anything that could be gained by going rwd to lower frontal area.

[VetteOwner]

Originally Posted by Antoine

Why not a RWD with rear engine like mine. They are the best ! ( Smart car)

accually a RR setup car (rear engine rear drive) is worse in the snow because well yes it can get going but since theres virtually no weight on the front wheels you cant turn worth a crap so your front wheels are gonna sliiiiiiiiiiiide (on snow that is) unless you got extremely skinny tires thbat act more liek ski's than tires then prolly would be best. with a front engine RWD you got the weight of the engine on the steering but usually no weight over the drive wheels(if its a truck, cars are alot more balanced) so while you cant get going as easy you sure as hell can steer id rather be able to control my car before i can get it moving...

but yes i too live in the midwest and all i ever see is alot of fwd and 4x4 in the ditches when it snows. yet my 2wd s-10 and my chevette have never gotten stuck...i think the 4x4 people get stuck in the ditch cuz they think well i got 4wd i can go 55 on snow! yet they fail to realize that it takes the same distace to stop no matter what driveline u got...

[Mike T]

Originally Posted by Antoine

Why not a RWD with rear engine like mine. They are the best ! ( Smart car)

You bet! Rear mid engine, 6 speed gearbox with shifter paddles, convertible top (in my case), de Dion rear suspension just like a vintage Alfa-Romeo, turbocharger.

Ok it's slow, but the MPG is fine!

[VetteOwner]

well they also had skinny tires. skinny tires=best traction in snow. also depends on if your on snow pack or fresh.

[minic6]

but yes i too live in the midwest and all i ever see is alot of fwd and 4x4 in the ditches when it snows. yet my 2wd s-10 and my chevette have never gotten stuck...i think the 4x4 people get stuck in the ditch cuz they think well i got 4wd i can go 55 on snow! yet they fail to realize that it takes the same distace to stop no matter what driveline u got...[/quote]


You've got that right. Then add abs, traction control, new rollover protection, and air bags and they think they are invinsible. NOT!!!!!!!!!!

[VetteOwner]

IMO ABS sucks(pisses me off to no end) traction control (learn to drive) rollover protection (again LEARN TO DRIVE) air bags (thier good to a point), but those are the #1 things that total a car.(beacuse they are super espensive to replace)

oh and the fwd traction thingy i totally brainfarted and forgot about the added weight on the gastank over the front. a full 15 gal tank is well close to 200lbs i thought. should be plenty for traction weight.