30 mpg is Laughable ~ US Auto Makers are Joking, right?
So I’ve been seeing these Chrysler ads lately touting 30 mpg as “great fuel economy”.
Does this strike anyone else as ridiculous? I know this guy thinks so. I mean, this is the 21st century. According to this source:
After 1920, mpg seems to have stayed in the range of 13-15 mpg until federally-mandated fuel economy standards were enacted in the 1970’s. As a result, fuel-efficiency increased from 13 mpg to 21 mpg over the next 25 years (after 1970).
For me as a scientist, futurist, and technologist, I find this fact offensive. In almost 90 years we have moved from 13 mpg to 30 mpg? That screams of laziness, complacency, and lack of American ingenuity. The Prius is getting 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 on the highway, which is still pretty impressive, but where’s the real vision? Why not 100 mpg? 200 mpg? 500 mpg?
The next focus after getting the fuel economy to admirable standards would be to make it economical for the average person to be able to afford them. That really will be who wins in the US auto market. Or you can just go car free. Thoughts?
Update: This got dugg. BOY HOWDY!
I’m for going car-free. But then again, I was born and raised in Manhattan.
THis post is absolutely ludicrous. This guy has no scientific bone in his body or else has not thought about this in any depth at all
By my rough calculations the max fuel economy of a car would be about 250 MPG with no acceleration, braking, or wind resistance. Math as follows:
Here
states that a gallon of gas contains 114,100 BTU’s of energy.
Expressed in joules this is about 120 million joules.
Here
1 joule = 1 newton* 1 meter
According to Wikipedia the rolling resistance only from the tires for a 1000 kg (2200 lb) car is 300 Newtons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance
THus to travel one meter 300 newtons are required.
If you only take into account the rolling resistance you get
120,000,000/300 or 400,000 which is 400 km or about 250 miles
If you add in wind resistance which is about 10 hp according to wikipedia at 50 mph (80 kph)
Here
One watt is one joule (the SI unit of energy) per second
1 horse power = 745 watts = 745 joules/s
10 hp * 1 hour = 7450 joules/second * 3600 seconds = 26 820 000 joules
if we take 120,000,000-26,820,000 = 93 180 000
Taking 300 newtons/meter we get
93180000/300 = 310 600 meters or 310.6 km or 192 miles
Keep in mind that these numbers represent 100% efficiency of the engine and no energy lost to acceleration or braking. Even by lowerign the wind resistance by half you are only looking at a theoretical maximum of 225 mpg or so. To post that we should be able to acheive 300 or 500 MPG is absolutely ludicrous. Before people jump all over me about using electric cars or other nonsense keep in mind that all I did was use the energy value of the fule so if that energy comes from a battery, nuclear generator, or gas engine is irrelevant.
Hey Michael,
Thanks for the physics rant. Since I got my undergrad in Physics from the University of Michigan, I can definitely understand you’re concern. However, what if you append the fuel economy with battery support? Who says you can’t just sip gasoline every few miles to support a battery recharge mechanism? Or what if you applied solar panels to the roof in order to recharge the batteries and the fuel was only used as a worst case scenario mechanism?
Really, my post was to motivate the US auto industry into thinking what is possible and not letting them fall back on old methods of production and ways of thinking that the automobile has to be entirely powered by gasoline.
Thanks for posting though. You’re analysis appears to be very well done,
Jeff
Sir, you are the one joking.
Think about this for one moment. We do have the know how and tech to make cars go 100mpg and maybe even better. Great huh? Guess what son, it will run you around the price of an Enzo.
Back in the 90’s, one of the big car makers took on of there popular selling cars at the time and replaced everything. Im talking about carbon fiber, titanium, magnizum and other exotic light weight materials. That car with the same motor that Joe Blow can buy off the lot was getting over 75 mpg in city conditions. That number was butting up to 100mpg for freeway use. Im sure as a scientist you can figure out why the numbers turned out like that.
Problem? It cost around 500k to make. Thats just to build the damned thing. Can you afford it?
(sorry if i ramble a bit)
i have a prius and it gets 45 in the city. 60 is wrong.
Jeff, I think you are missing the point of Michael’s post.
As he stated in his post, alternative energy is irrelavent especially when you are talking about “miles per gallon” of fuel. I do not have to go through the math, I’ll just ass.u.me his rough calculations are plausible.
Sure, adding solar or rechargable-battery power may assist in obtaining more “MPG” in the perception of the driver. In reality, however, if the gas engine is not running and the car is running solely off of solar or battery power, the engine is really achieving 0 MPG. That’s 0 MPG in the best way, possible, however!
Trying to “extract” 250+ MPG from fuel is simply impossible. Very simply put, in an ideal world with 100% efficienty and alternative energy sources on top of a gasoline engine, it could very well be possible to drive 500 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Then again, the gasoline engine was NOT using fuel for energy the entire 500 miles.
I don’t know many intelligent people who can’t properly use your/you’re.
chump.
go marquette.
Jeff,
You are too US focused. GM and Ford make cars with higher mileage outside of the US, in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and even in Europe. However, these cars have much smaller engines and are too small. (Try visiting http://www.celta.com.br and check the dimensions for the car. It is smaller than a Geo Metro).
The problem is Americans are not willing to give up big cars and big engines. Well, in all honesty, GM, Ford and Chrysler like to think that way. The fact is that Honda and Toyota have much more efficient engines than Ford, GM and Chrysler. And herein lies the problem: as a physicist, you should know that average numbers sometimes are not very useful. I bet if you comapre the average mog of Honda and Toyota with those of GM and Ford, the difference will be cery high. The main reason is because US-based car manufacturers are more dependent on SUVs than Japanese car makers.
Going back to the point, the cars have also became heavier and with more gadgets than in 1920. So if you consider that even a Geo Metro today weighs way more than a Ford Model T, there has been outstanding progress, as the amount of mass movem by gallon increased a lot (I would get at least between 5 to 10 times).
The numbers are what they are and the US market is what it is. It’s never going to change. It will become more efficient, but consumers vote with their wallets; and apparently they don’t mind a gas-guzzling SUV.
Marcelo
But it’s your NOT you’re!
While I agree with both of you, in that the base exclamations of “why not 500mpg?” are too rooted in the gas-only mentality and the physics as outlined (though backed by wikipedia, unfortunately) seem logical, it pains me greatly that someone with a degree in Physics from U of M transposed “you’re” for “your.”
Was this U of M Dearborn?
One thing to mention about the author’s claims of lack of improvements during the 20th century is the power efficiency of the engines. Cars in the 1920’s were lucky to have 50hp. Compare that to well over 400hp in some models during the late 60s. Even if gas mileage changed little, the amount of power generated from a gallon of gas certainly increased so you can’t say there was no innovation going on. The innovations were merely being focused on what customers were asking for during that time (power) and not fuel efficiency. Once the energy crisis of the late 70’s hit, consumers wanted more fuel efficient cars. This led to the rise of the Japanese auto makers because they responded to changing customer needs while GM and Ford lagged behind.
Um, Jeff, whether the energy comes from gasoline or electricity, it’s still energy. The generating capacity of a rooftop of solar panels isn’t enough to drive a car weighing 2000 pounds at 55mph down the freeway, even if you use a gasoline engine to get up to speed. You have to use some kind of stored energy, whether it’s gasoline or battery power or whatever. If you got your undergrad in Physics from umich, you should know better than to make statements like the one you just made.
Ultimately most of the energy in the world right now comes from burning fossil fuels of one sort or another. So while using electricity is nice, it doesn’t save energy - it just moves the generation to a different place, and indeed generally reduces efficiency, since batteries aren’t all that efficient and power transmission isn’t either.
As for the Prius’ milage, I have a Prius. I’ve never seen it get better than 50mpg. Never. It’ll report numbers higher than 50mpg on its display for a five-minute period, but if you average over a tank, it’s very unusual to see it report numbers that good. Furthermore, if you actually do the math, it’s getting more like 40mpg when it says it’s getting 45, so you really can’t go just by the readout when you’re computing gas milage.
It’s a great car, and I think that Toyota is doing a great thing by selling it. I’m really happy to have it - I feel very fortunate to be able to afford one. But 60mpg is a complete joke - even if you do all the fuel efficiency tricks in the book, it never gets that high.
I agree with you that the American companies ought to get a clue and start developing efficient drive trains as well. But it’s never going to be the case that we’re driving around cars that get 300mpg. If you want that kind of efficiency, consider carpooling. The Prius will give you 200pmpg quite handily, with today’s tech.
As a scientist, “futirist” and whatever else, you should realize the massive errors in your own logic. As pointed out, the Prius numbers are bunk. The 60mpg was calculated in the epa tests that factor in long periods of idling. (prius using 0 fuel)
Second, 30mpg in 1950 and 30mpg today is not the same. Anybody that boasts about their 55mpg 1985 honda CRX doesn’t realize how polluting it is to run really lean. More gas used means hotter combustion, means more complete combustion, means cleaner exhaust. sure we could be running around at 40+mpg in evey car, but at the expense of the reasonably clean air we breathe.
I don’t have a physics degree Jeff, but I’m pretty sure sipping gas to charge a battery will not improve on Michael’s theoretical maximum. I’m hoping fuel economy doesn’t improve actually, so we will have to turn to alternative non-hydrocarbon sources.
at most a mechanical engine will achieve about 50% efficiency….and your calculations used 2200 pounds, that is extremely light for an American car. So you can say that the actual maximum for a car that doesn’t accelerate of anything and just uses gas to be around 100 mpg, and with air resistance about
The idea of using solar panels on most cars is laughable.
First solar panels are heavy or expensive. Thier power out-put is at best able to help offset other fuel usage, not to mention issues with dependence and lack of sunlight. If you don’t believe me look at pure solar projects (eps at the university level where teams race on solar energy) and compare the features of both vehicles and speeds, and cost. Next you’ll suggest we put a wind turbine on the roof to recharge as we drive.
My ‘82 Toyota Pickup (Diesel) get 33MPG. Can anyone tell me of a compact pickup that gets that kind of mileage today? It is a crying shame…
Interesting post. I agree that it is ridiculous that we’ve spent so much effort on performance and bugger all on real fuel efficiency.
Michael May, you’re looking at things as they are, not how they could be/should be. Does a car have to weigh so much? Using carbon fiber, or fiberglass for panels and switching to alloy engine components (especially blocks) can have immense weight savings. Alloy chassis, steering components, axles, etc etc. Cars only weigh so much because it’s cheap to manufacture that way.
As for efficiency, it becomes apparent how inefficient an engine straight from the manufacturer is when you see the impact an improved intake, or exhaust, or modified ecu tune can have on performance. If a race team can triple the power output of a factory engine, more than likely you can triple it’s fuel efficiency.
I think the greatest improvements will come from the continued development of batteries. The quicker a battery can charge and the greater its power output the more useful it becomes in automotive applications.
The potential is there, we’ve just been working towards different goals.
I think it is safe to say that the low efficiency and dependance on gasoline is on purpose. We all know what the main concern is for oil companies… profit. And their ties to the automotive industry is mutual. Electric motors, hybrids, water fuel cell technology, etc, etc, etc… all yield little to no profits.
Do you believe that the oil companies care about the consumer or the environment?
Those in a position to do something about it will do what they can to downplay this issue or beat around the bush. The bottom line is, the solution to this problem is in the hands of the consumer, the people, not the auto industry, oil companies and/or government. We know that their best interest is not compatible with ours.
I think a privately funded project to put all the pieces together and create a plausible scenario on how to eliminate gas entirely using ‘working’ (not theoretical) engines with power, efficiency, range and reliability, in a way that benefits the consumer without any sacrifice.
Stanley Meyer had a good plan, for example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f52n8JkYEs
He was able to convert almost any car to run on any type of water for about $1500. He died unexpectedly in 1999 at a very convenient time. He had just received a $50 million grant from his county in Ohio to build a plant to produce his water powered engine concept that had 24 international patents.
He’s not the first and not the last.
This man has been driving on water for many years and still is to this day. And he is only one man.
http://www.mysticfamilycircus.com/Pages/Community/Projects/h2oh29MB.mov
Get the scientific community to create this project. I can see the project itself as completely plausible, with may supporters, and with great outcome and hope for a better future. There is not need to search for solutions as the media is having us believe. It’s a matter of acting now with the technology we already have.
Hybrids and bio-diesel cars are great, but the time for that has past. Why not water? It has already been done and water is accessible everywhere!
I’m willing to bet that it has something to do with the corporatism going on in the US right now–if they’re raking in the money through oil (less supply = higher prices) and we have cars with 300mpg, its as if the price of gas has dropped and there will be less demand even though they’ve manipulated supply. Of course these things are completely possible and feasible but the corporations won’t benefit like they would on an oil-based economy.
Personally, I think we should be beyond oil. This far in electronics, this far in everything else, yet we’re still running on prehistoric remains? Why doesn’t anyone question these things?
Jeff, I could’t agree more. I get so sick of hearing how the US auto industry is struggling and they need help. Here’s an idea: Build a better product!
I second Jeff Woelker. You’re retarded first Jeff. If you use gas to store extra into batteries you don’t get any more energy per gallon of gas. It just allows the engine to run at a more efficient rpm. Electric motors are good at starts, whereas gas engines use a lot of fuel here. Solar panels? Why would you measure in MPG if you aren’t actually using the gas as an energy source? That’s like me saying this electric car gets 100000000 mpg because it uses another fuel source. Or me saying this propane running engine gets 100000000 mpg. If your prupose was to “to motivate the US auto industry into thinking what is possible” maybe you should write the article in that matter instead of making some stupid claim and then saying that your real purpose was something else.
Sorry I meant I agree with Micheal. Not retard uOfM boy Jeff Wanker
I think Jeff left out a term. There is a great deal of heat left over in a gasoline engine. To assume a 100% efficiency way overstates the capabilities of a gasoline engine. If one assumes 80% efficiency, that gallon of gas would yield 180 miles. Honda insights are rated at 70 miles highway which is getting quite close don’t you think?
This article just goes to show how in the box people can be.
Why not 100mpg, 500mpg?
Well, Micheal did a good job of explaining that gasoline will only contain so much energy.
The issue at hand is not why not 100mpg? The issue is, why are we still so concerned with gasoline?
No, I don’t think it’s some big conspiracy. But, we definitely could put better and more minds into solving alternative energy sources that aren’t trapped in our current model of thinking.
You assume that the rolling resistance is 300 N (based upon a car that weighs 2200 lbs). That could be modified in various ways…
I too cringe when I see EVERY car commercial. It’s SADLY what Amerika wants. I drive a 1990 Geo Metro @ 47mpg, very reliable and great for around town. I have a couple of Isuzu diesels. one with minor mods gets 47 mpg. This is a 1981 model mind you. Zero electronics. This is massive low tech. Heck I’m restoring a VW Diesel and it’ll get 55-60 mpg. All low tech. And bio-diesel is starting to show up by little entrpreneurs. My dream car is going to be using a Yanmar 23hp diesel, then mate it with a CV (constant volocity) transmission, in a junk Geo metro I have. Should easily get 90 mpg.
I’m so sickened by the Subaru, Ford, and especially the Chrysler commercials when they tout gas mileage.
Sigh… I guess everybody wants to drive a James Bond-mobile
Hey Michael,
Before you jump on Jeff regarding the supposed ludicrous nature of his high mpg suggestion, why not take a moment to consider the idea first? Rather than prove to everyone that you know several 1st year physics formulas (as some of my engineering colleagues love to do), you might want to consider your own assumptions first. Who said that our vehicles must weight 1000kg? Who said that our tire composite and size (and by corollary rolling friction) must remain constant? I’m not saying that extreme mpg is feasible or not, just think first.
Regardless of what is or is not physically possible with fuel efficiency, I think a lot of the lack of progress comes from the public. Gas prices have increased greatly over the past several years and people are still out there buying cars that get meager mileage when better options are out there. If people are going to buy vehicles that have such a weak showing, is there a need for innovation or progress? As far as I see it (although this could just be my own pessimistic view of corporations), the majority of auto manufacturers are quite complacent. If they can continue to make money, there’s not an incentive to change. Certainly there have been some attempts at progress (e.g., hybrids and hydrogen fuel), but the best way to get companies to do something (I apologize if this seems a bit idealistic) is to change our buying/driving habits to show that we actually desire change.
Jeff - Found this post topic on Digg. I’ve been “radicalized” by an article I read somewhere about “hypermilers.”
These are unusual people who drive stock cars in such a way as to maximize their possible mileage. They do take risks!
As for me, I drive under the limit and coast in neutral whenever possible. But I have an idea that the engineering challenge to achieve 100mpg with a Detroit product is very possible.
See where I’m going with this? Make the least expensive, least amount of auto modifications necessary to get from a US carmaker’s product, what the Carmakers themselves refuse to do: manufacture a 100mpg car.
Any ideas for a test platform…some make not more than 10 years old? Ford? Chevy? Chrysler?
@Jeff Woelker: Look to me like Michael has estimated the minimum energy requirements pretty well.(if he didnt, criticise _that_) Although perhaps weight could be reduced too, but 200mpg seems beyond what is possible in practice.
What is the difference with getting the energy from batteries, i do not think it can be made more efficient. Batteries and the powergrid waste some too. Solar panels on the roof? Producing power where it is needed can be usefull, since it lowers transportation cost, but i do not think it offsets the energy cost during the drive much.
Also, rather then blaming the industry, why not drive less. Carpool, walk, use bicycles. I think cities often have bad infrastructure for bicycles. Which is silly, because for short distances bicycles rival travel times of cars, take less space, and are better for your health. (not in the Netherlands though)
So, the most urgent technological breakthrough we need is a set of bearings that allow for less rolling resistance?
oops: with lowers transportation cost i meant for the energy. And with “not in the netherlands” I meant the infrastructure for bicycles is good here.
what if you append the fuel economy with battery support?
Well, you move the fuel consumption to another location (with possibly better emissions and efficiency) but then lose a ton of efficiency in transmission, conversion, storage, not to mention making the car _much_ heavier, and therefore less efficient overall.
Who says you can’t just sip gasoline every few miles to support a battery recharge mechanism?
Converters on the car are going to be inefficient as well, so energy from the engine going to the battery has low efficiency, then loses efficiency going back out to the motors, not the mention the additional weight of the batteries and motors.
Or what if you applied solar panels to the roof in order to recharge the batteries and the fuel was only used as a worst case scenario mechanism?
Solar panels only have a 7% energy efficiency for decent panels. You could pay 100x more for space rated panels with up to 15%. But in either case, a square meter of panels on a car would not generate enough energy to make more than a drop in the bucket compared to a gallon of gas.
Really, my post was to motivate the US auto industry into thinking what is possible and not letting them fall back on old methods of production and ways of thinking that the automobile has to be entirely powered by gasoline.
Well, go for it. What other ways and methods are better? For that matter, what ways and methods are even close to being equal?
Right now, none.
If we reduce the safety of the car (remove half a ton of metal and replace it with plastic and fiberglass) and make consumers accept a car that can only travel at 45mph max and accept a car that costs twice as much, then yes, we can get 100MPG cars.
Good luck with that.
But, as you perfectly well know, there are only so many ways to store, move, convert, and use energy, and the bottom line at the end of the day is that gas is an incredibly efficient and cheap way of doing so.
-Adam
Technically, and scientifically speaking should we have better fuel economy in our cars?
Yes, with today’s technology, a small car should be able to get 45+ mpg on just a gas engine, and let me add that I don’t think that Hybrids in their current state are a good or environmentally/economically sustainable model for future efficiency increases.
Does it make financial and marketing sense for the automakers to make radically more fuel efficienct cars?
Maybe at some point in the future, but right now, Americans seem to have a desire to have bigger, faster, heavier cars. If you gave an average American the choice between two cars,
A) a comfortable, 5 door hatchback with a 1.6L 55hp engine capable of 55mpg or more.
or
B) A larger, much more comfortable 5 door hatchback with a 150hp 2.5 L petrol engine that gets around 28-32mpg.
Even in the face of $3.20+ gasoline the average American would probably opt for option “C” A larger, faster car or SUV that got in the range of 10-15mpg, but if you forced them to choose between the two above, I would speculate the average person would opt for option “B” almost 100% of the time.
Could car manufacturers build car “A”? Absolutely, in fact it has already been done (specs based on an early 80’s VW Rabbit), but if no one will buy it, why would they waste their money when they could build and sell alot car “B” (2007 Rabbit).
The first real test we will have of American’s having the ability to buy a somewhat highly fuel efficienct non-hybrid, non-diesel car is when the Smart Cars arrive here sometime next year, and even though it seems that it is becoming highly popular through the “pre-order” page, we need to see how many Americans will actually trade in their SUV’s on one of these pint sized cars after the test drive.
sidenote: I realize that there are a few diesel cars available to the American public right now, and some are capable of getting pretty good mileage, but there just does not seem to be enough of them around.
I don’t have a physics degree, but I was under the impression that energy couldn’t be created or destroyed. To me this means that even if you did just use the fuel to recharge a battery that the theoretical range limits wouldn’t change.
I think the real problem is one of motivation. If gasoline manufactures are claiming record profits quarter after quarter then no incentive exists for creation of better engines. These companies may not be the ones doing research into fuel economy but I am sure they are more than capable of exerting their influence on those that do.
Solar tech just isn’t powerful enough in its current state to be an alternative in my opinion. While it may work in some areas, Detroit doesn’t strike me as a place where solar power cars could thrive.
My current choice is to switch types of vehicles. I’m looking into motorcycles for my transportation needs. Living in Pennsylvania I know I won’t want to drive it all year round, however it will provide some much needed wallet relief during the summer months. What I find sad is that the selection of motorcycles in the US is very poor. I read about the Honda Unicorn and its impressive fuel economy only to find out later that it was only available in India.
We can’t just wait for the auto manufactures to make what everyone wants, better alternatives already exist in some cases. It’s just a matter of finding where we can apply these alternatives.
Michael,
Quick follow-up question - what happens if you halve the weight of the vehicle? While your analysis is helpful, it appears your assumptions are that rolling resistance, vehicle weight, drag, etc. are fixed. Maybe those are the exact areas where the auto makers need to pursue some advances…
This is what you get when the oil companies run your country
U Mich grads don’t need to know the difference between “your” and “you’re” these days, eh?
Thank you all for the posts. This is exactly the kind of discussion that needs to occur in order to move forward, and I can handle the ribbing for my use of “your” versus “you’re”.
“Not retard uOfM boy Jeff Wanker” - Well done.
Michael, thank you for getting it. I didnt read past his post becasue if he had to say it then the rest of you tards wrote some stupid hippie bullshit that I don’t care about. If you have’t, read micheal’s post. He says all there is to say.
Unless those batteries are being charged by something other than the gasoline, by conservation of energy you won’t do any better with batteries than without.
A hybrid can only really gain you two things. First, regenerative braking. Without it when you clamp down on the brakes the momentum just gets burned off as heat. Think the sparks on trains in movies, etc. except not as extreme so it doesn’t throw sparks. Second, instead of spinning the engine up and down, it’s possible (though I don’t believe it’s done on modern hybrids) to tune the gasoline engine to one particular speed, which lets you be more efficient - let the electric engine do the driving and just use the gasoline engine as a generator. Personally this latter way is the direction I see the ‘pure electric’ cars going.
A car “sipping gasoline every few miles” is entirely powered by gasoline. Batteries are just a storage mechanism. They let you decouple the generation from the usage, which gives you a few more options in terms of *using* the fuel efficiently, but you’re still spending the same thing. If what I was saying weren’t true, you’d see power plants that burn gasoline, charge batteries, use the electricity to make gasoline via electrolysis, and burn it again, and produce energy in the meantime. And that would be absurd.
But my rich brothers and their kids in the hydrocarbon business need to make a few hundred billion $$$ more while they are still controlling the government. Hence George’s apathy for scientific advancement, except for war stuff and water boarding techniques. George is the guy that convinced enough of the 300 million foolish Americans there were WMDs to let him have some war fun. Too bad they hung the wrong guy.
135 MPG, and it doesn’t even consume one drop of gas.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
@ Jeff Woelker ” Even by lowerign the wind resistance by half you are only looking at a theoretical maximum of 225 mpg or so.”
You’re not thinking laterally.
Your biggest limiting factor is the weight of the car. A light car today weighs 1000kg. But modern cars are made from iron, steel, heavy plastics, they have a 200kg petrol engine, they have 50kg of wiring alone. With improvements in composites, plastics, alloys, intelligent “bus” wiring, it’s possible to get a car down to 500kg even today. It would just be very expensive. Most cars carry a single occupant which adds another 100kg. Taking the occupant into account, even today it’s possible - albeit extremely expensive - to double your theoretical fuel economy maximum to nearly 500mpg.
Another big problem is the speed cars travel at. Reducing the maximum speed of a car from 80mpg to 55mph halves the fuel required to travel the same distance. “But I’ll be late” is the common complaint. Only because we live in a stop-go traffic society. If the traffic lights were more intelligent then you could double the fuel economy on cars without regenerative braking and halve the commute time. That would make 55mph a reasonable target for regional highways. Long-distance highways need more speed because of the greater distances involved, but read on for solutions to that problem too.
Why can’t cars automatically “join” each other like train carriages once they reach the freeway. They can use radar and computer controlled acceleration and braking to keep a safe distance of less than a foot! BMW has been trialling technology like this to reduce accidents on the autobahns; the cars travel closer and are safer than a human driver could ever be. This technology does nothing to the wind resistance of the lead car but reduces the wind resistance of every other car to near zero. That means the losses are rolling friction, transmission friction and engine friction; very little by comparison to wind resistance.
Let’s think even further outside the box. How about a sealed tube system as depicted in science fiction films such as Logan’s Run. No wind resistance at all. It’s not practical with today’s technology, but if we’re talking about theoretical maximums then why leave out the supposedly “never will happen” solutions? Because it could happen in the future; fuel just needs to be expensive enough (perhaps 100s of times) and sealing all roads to reduce resistance becomes the cheapest solution. Theoretical fuel economy could be as high as 1000mpg. This wouldn’t be suitable for inner-city traffic - and the technology involved doesn’t even exist today - but it’d be great for long-distance travel between cities. Think of it like a vacuum tunnel; initially it would be suitable for trains, then for specially modified trucks, then eventually for commuter cars.
Why don’t we have diesel train carriages that carry our cars between cities? I would be quite content to catch the half-hour “car carrying train” that took me to the next city. The fuel economy doubles straight away, the damage to my car is reduced, and the car carrying train could take me to the centre of the city without fighting the outer suburb traffic. This is the technique they use to carry cars between France and England via the Chunnel. People find it wonderful; they can go eat in the buffet, enjoy a movie, and just relax while a train takes them the distance. And it costs about the same as driving it yourself once you factor in wear and tear to the car you’d incur driving the distance.
Think outside the box. Fuel economy of 100mpg is practical today. Fuel economy of 500mpg is conceivable with today’s technology, albeit it wouldn’t be cost effective with the cost of fuel being so low. Fuel economy of 1000mpg is conceivable if progress is made at the same rate it has been happening for the past 100 years. The author of this article is right; 30mpg is a joke.
While I completely agree with you, you’re forgetting power increases.
Auto manufacturers have focused on power increases at the expense of mileage. Where you previously would have gotten say, 75hp / 50lb-ft at 30mpg, now you get 200hp / 175 lb-ft at 30mpg.
If they had focused on mileage, we’d still be driving underpowered cars, but with much better economy.
Compare apples to apples, Jeff. 30 mpg for an SUV cannot be compared against the inflated mileage of a small hybrid vehicle. I say inflated because the Prius is one of those vehicles that takes advantage of the outdated EPA fuel economy test to boast greater-than-realistic values in advertisements. Search a Prius car forum and see how many owners struggle to approach the mpg rating made by Toyota.
Read up about the changes in the EPA fuel economy test and the consequences for hybrid vehicles here.
I had a new 1990 Geo Metro that averaged 45 mpg. My friend’s 2006 Prius gets about the same, despite the high claims in ads. So almost 2 decades of increasingly expensive technology has delivered nothing. People just don’t want small, low powered cars. Eventually we won’t have a choice.
“According to Wikipedia the rolling resistance only from the tires for a 1000 kg (2200 lb) car is 300 Newtons.”
And this is where your logic is flawed. There are actual working versions of cars boasting ‘12,670 miles per U.S. gallon.’ http://www.primidi.com/2005/07/05.html
Who says the car must weigh 2200 and have 300 newtons of rolling resistance?
There was an article in Wired last year that talked about a couple of guys in Northern California that jakced up their Prius with better batteries, and were getting 250 miles to the gallon. Granted it still uses gas, but 250 mpg! In a standard car. The only change was the battery. How is that out of the realm of possiblities for everyone?
In 1920, did they think 50mpg was possible?
It’s 2007, so lets hope that 125mpg is possible.
I am shocked by how narrow minded most the people on this forum are. Seems most are locked into the gasoline concept. GM actually designed a car in the 90’s called the EV-1. THey designed the vehicle because CA state laws required all auto manufactures to do so. THe car would charge in 3 hours and drive 120 miles on a single charge. And to the person who said that solar panels are laughable, you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about. At that time a filament was designed that could adhere to the roof of the vehicle. It wasn’t much thicker than paper and it would allow the car to get 50 miles a day just from solar power. GM recalled and destroyed all the vehicles in 2002 when oil lobbyist had the CA law thrown out.
The electric engine is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine…however the big oil profits can’t be found in a world with efficient electric engines. You people need to watch “Who killed the electric car” and then friggin wake up!
I don’t know, they once said the Wright Brothers couldn’t fly, but they did.
Granted your not talking about inventing flight, but I think Jeff is trying to say that anything is possible and just like computers double every year or so in speed, so should the amount of miles per gallon we get.
The person who wrote the article is Ridiculous! Typical left wing attitude blaming America for low gas mileage as if the USA is the only country that builds cars. Collectively, worldwide all cars manufactured only average 30 miles to a gallon or less. It sure is easy to blame car manufactures and call them lazy for the low gas mileage if you don’t know anything about manufacturing automobiles. The fact that you’re a futurist and didn’t invent a future auto that gets a 100 miles to the gallon with a free and non-polluting fuel source tells me you are lazy and a poor scientist. I find you offensive. As if more laws and government will make things better. Why don’t we just pass a law outlawing all pollution and then we will live in one big paradise. You’re an idiot! I’ve been to many countries that have 100% government regulation and they are the dirtiest and most polluted countries in the world.
What amazes me is how americans have seemingly no insight into ‘what the norm’ is in Europe. Even our larger engined petrol cars all achieve around 25-30mpg with ease. Hell my BMW 2.5litre petrol will cruise along at 40-50mpg on a highway.
However whats even more astonishing is that Diesel isnt even mentioned. All these tree hugging hippys who love the prius because it gives a whopping 30-40mpg should try driving a german built diesel car. VW/BMW/Audi/Merc will all get 50mpg+.
I believe the Audi A2 in its most economical form achieves 80+ mpg.
Its ridiculous this move to ‘hybrid’ engines when engines that are available right now can get over double what a hybrid can achieve and give masses more performance.
Once americna car makers realise you dont need 5+ litres of engine to get good performance and start refining in the same way the euro/jap manafacturers do they will find you can squeeze oddles of power out of even 2.0litre cars (Mitsibishi Evolution is a perfect example. 2.0 with a big turbo and gets from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds.)
The problem is you can’t get that rated consumption out of regular cars either. All cars I have ever had always had lower gas mileage than what was on the sticker.
Cars should just be built with bigger wheels in the back. That way we’re always rolling downhill! Just imagine the efficieny possibility!
Someone mentioned the massive increase in horsepower that has been achieved in the last 80 years or so. I think this is the exact reason that fuel efficiency is being kept so lo.
Think about it, if we still only wanted engines of 100hp, engines could be massively reduced in size, thereby needing much less fuel. The problem here is the desire for perfomance cars, and this is not (at all) restricted to the American market. Smaller engines mean (generally) much lower speeds, but lower speeds also result in increased fuel economy. So efficiency wins on all counts.
Obviously under today’s conditions people are not going to consider (let alone purchase) cars that can only reach 40km/h. This is where government regulation could step in, and change speed limits and manufacturing requirements of all new cars.
Man, I couldn’t agree more. And the fact that they only rose in the 1970s when the government forced them is also amazing.
As for me, I’m 100% car free. Have been for the past 7 years. Yes, I live in London, but I work a job that has me traveling all over the UK and Europe. Within the UK, I find that I am the only one on my team of travelers who is almost always on-time. Many a time I’ve sat calmly in an airport while some colleague called every 10 minutes, voice cracking from the stress, jammed up in traffic and fighting like mad to make the flight. Personally, I can’t believe more people don’t throw out their cars and demand their governments do something to make public transport more viable.
Even without the traffic jams, I think about nights when I get home from a train ride at 9:30 or 10:00. I can usually go straight to sleep. Not so when I used to drive. It takes ages to calm down after a long drive.
And all that wasted time. My god. The number of books I’ve read, the amount of extra work I’ve got done, even the phone conversations with friends, to say nothing of extra sleep slept and meals enjoyed whilst sitting on a train. In a car? I’d be munching McDonald’s and cursing the traffic.
The worst part about this is Mother Earth News (magazine) was selling plans to upgrade a modern (mid 70s) car to get 129 mpg.
That’s right, 129 mpg..in 1980…w
Yeah, it’s top cruising speed was roughly 45 mph but it was 1980s technology using only $1500 of government surplus parts.
The folks here in Key West would gladly take this…we don’t go 45 here anyway.
Here’s the page for the non-believers…
Here
While the science of 300mpg may be flawed, as Michael (and others) pointed out, I agree with Jeff in that the progress over 90 years has been disappointing. (Remember The Jetsons?) Even with electric cars we in North America in particular are facing increasing gridlock as every Man, Woman and yes, even Child (of 16 years or better) gets a car. I have an idea though (not original, mind you): Design / redesign our cities to be smaller, denser and without cars as the central theme and maybe even leave the cars on the outskirts of town for wicked wide open rural drives but use efficient mass transit, scooters, bikes and small electric vehicles in dense urban areas. A visit to Catalina island (off the coast of California) can give one a whole new appreciation for the effectiveness of a golf cart.
Even so, I sure like that Tesla…
So in these comments, we’ve got one guy pretending that if you’re not using gas you’re not using energy, we’ve got one guy spouting conspiracy theories that our cars could be running on water, we’ve got one guy waving his hand at weight issues and magically quadrupling efficiency while h chants “Renew!”.
If you’re so convinced you’ve got the miraculous answer, try doing what Tesla did, and form a start-up. And then meet the realities of business.
for all of you with your degrees in astro physics and all
here is where you should go to read the truth
http://byronw.www1host.com/files/Shell%20P221.pdf
I own a Prius and I can atest to that, the mpg values touted by Toyota are a good way out of what you’ll actually get.
Yeah I think that their are cars that do get more than 30 or even 60 mpg but its the gas companys who made those types of engines patented them then put then away. also people dont want a little car because people are going places more and want the storage and they want the power
This is the deal. Does anyone remember the Geo? In the early 90’s the car got 53 mpg on the streets and 56 mpg on the highway. Why haven’t cars improved? Something rings a bell in my head.. The big business of oil companies relies on the poor gas mileage of car manufacturers. They are all dependent on each other. The more money, the more corruption, and the more powerful and sneaky the faces are behind it.
Unfortunately, there is a brutal reality that everyone in this posting has overlooked-the Carnot limit. Simply put, the maximum possible efficiency of ANY heat engine is limited by the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures in the system, and the best theoretical efficiency is obtained from an engine running what is considered to be an ideal reversible Carnot cycle. For lots of good technical reasons that have nothing to do with oil conspiracies, big government,ufo’s,tin-foil hats,pyramids, or anything else, such an engine is only a mathematical abstraction. Even if it could be built, the maximum attainable efficiency is on the order of 30-40%. Please note that this has nothing to do with wind resistance, rolling resistance,weight, or bearing friction - it is a basic law of thermodynamics. Also, please note that to date, the engine that comes closest (but still not very)to emulating such a cycle is the Stirling, and this engine was experimented with by several US automakers in the 1970’s. It was largely rejected by the public due to slow warmup times for starting ; it is also extremely difficult to build in anyting over a few horsepower.
Man, they’re sure giving it to you on the whole your vs. you’re bit.
God, I love driving around my 5.7 liter V8 Hemi w/ 340 horses. Burning gas those old dinosaurs makes me so happy. Americans are fickle. Right now everyone is in love with fuel efficiency. However, once gas prices drop back down, everyone will want to drive their big, powerful engines again. God bless America.
this company/ conglomeration of phds is aiming for high efficiency.
and it can run on multiple fuel types - including vegetable oils.
http://starrotor.com/Engine.htm
I apologize but I screwed up my calculations pretty badly because I was at work when I did it. Starting fresh here we go:
By my rough calculations the max fuel economy of a car would be about 250 MPG with no acceleration, braking, or wind resistance. Math as follows:
Here
states that a gallon of gas contains 114,100 BTU’s of energy.
Expressed in joules this is about 120 million joules.
Here
1 joule = 1 newton* 1 meter
According to Wikipedia the rolling resistance only from the tires for a 1000 kg (2200 lb) car is 300 Newtons.
one mile is about 1600 meters so one mile consumes 480,000 joules. THis will become important later to compare apples to apples for wind resistance.
If you only take into account the rolling resistance you get
120,000,000/300 or 400,000 which is 400 km or about 250 miles
If you add in wind resistance which is about 10 hp according to wikipedia at 50 mph (80 kph)
Here
This is where I was wrong before. I calculated the joules to travel 50 miles and applied that as the total resistance for the whole gallon not the joules to travel one mile. So the corrected math follows:
1 horse power = 745 watts = 745 joules/s
10 hp = 7450 joules per second. To travel one mile at 50 mph takes 72 seconds. Thus for wind resistance it consumes 536400 joules per mile at 50 mph.
if we add joules per mile for rolling resistance of 480,000 to wind resistance of 536,400 I get 1,016,400 joules per mile. THus without doing the exact math my new estimate for a “maximum” fuel efficiency is about 120 miles per gallon.
I stand by this still:
Keep in mind that these numbers represent 100% efficiency of the engine and no energy lost to acceleration or braking. Even by lowering the wind resistance by half you are only looking at a theoretical maximum of 160 mpg or so. To post that we should be able to acheive 300 or 500 MPG is absolutely ludicrous. Before people jump all over me about using electric cars or other nonsense keep in mind that all I did was use the energy value of the fuel so if that energy comes from a battery, nuclear generator, or gas engine is irrelevant.
I agree that these assumptions do assume that lost of things are fixed. However, the weight of the car can only go so low and the rolling friction of the wheels needs to remain constant by weight to allow for safe acceleration and decceleration. If the rolling resistance were reduced the amount of energy that coulds be applied to the wheels befor ethey lost traction would go down. If you hasve ever spun your tires this is because the force applied by the engine to the wheels is greater than the force applied to the tires by the road. the mechanics are identical on braking as well so a car with low rollign resistnace couldn’t stop very well.
Certainly the cars could be made lighter but again my assumption is on the low side when you consider that a Yaris, which is pretty much the smallest car you can buy weighs 2290 lbs without any gas or passengers.
http://www.toyota.com/yaris/specs.html
To refine my argument for drag being relatively constant I looked up the drag coefficient for the Accord and the Camry:
7.39 - 1994 Honda Accord EX
7.57 - 1992 Toyota Camry
Compare this to the EV1 which I will assume is the theoretical limit and you get:
3.95 - 1996 GM EV1
While not exactly half it is close enough for me to stand behind my theoretical maximum for a 1000 kg car being about 160 MPG with no accelration or braking only traveling constantly at 50 MPH.
As a side note on Solar panels they are basically irrelevant on a car. This is stolen from the Digg comments:
This draws on info from:
Here
Here
If we get 130 BTU’s of energy per sq. foot from solar, and
we put 6 sq. feet of solar panels on a car and
those panels are 50% efficient (don’t squabble on that number, it’s just for this example)
we get 390 BTU’s of energy into the battery for every hour of sunlight.
12 hours of sunlight per day (as an average) gives us
4,680 BTU’s of energy into the batteries.
A gallon of gas has 114,100 BTU’s of energy
4,680 / 114,100 = 4% of a gallon of gas
So, if our hypothetical car gets 50 mpg, it will go about 2 miles on the sunlight it absorbs in a day.
That number is actually a little depressing.
Again this goes to actual energy usage not how efficiently that energy is used or where it comes from.
As an economics major I firmly believe that the changes will have to come from the market. As long as the government is supporting artificially low prices for gas by not taxing it higher (not a misprint I mean another dollar or more per gallon) then people will not demand these innovations from the auto industry. THey will continue choosing to live far from their work or drive ridiculously big cars. The biggest reason congress can not raise CAFE standards is that consumers refuse to buy smaller cars. Despite record high gas prices driving is UP this year and truck sales have barely slown down. Furthermore, despite this run up in price a Prius is still not economically viable based on current gas prices. Tkae a driver that drives 12000 miles per year or 1000 miles per month. Gas bill for a camry hybrid 966(300 gallons * 3.22 avg price per gallon) is vs a camry is 1136 (353 gallon * 3.22 avg price per gallon). THis difference in gas bill is $170/year assuming no interest it would take 45 years to justify the $7730 extra in sticker price based on fuel economy alone.
http://www.toyota.com/camry/specs.html
However, with gas priced higher it will take less time. Ultimastely the reason we don’t have more efficient cars is that consumers aren’t willing to accept them yet and never will until the economics of the situation change. If you truly want to see fuel economy increase then you should cheer every time the price of crude or your price at the pump increases because it brings closer the day that we will see real change in the energy consumption habits.
Face it 30 MPG sucks, Aim higher you might sell more.
@Jeff
Since when does being a web developer/consultant qualify you as a scientist?
Get over yourself.
People who get below 50 mpg with a Toyota Prius do not know how to properly drive the hybrid. The “push and glide” method provides 60 mpg easily. There have even been people who have attained 113 mpg with a 2005 Toyota Prius.
When I drive mine around, I commonly get 55mpg.
It’s been done, and probably will be repeated…the auto makers and oil conglomerates continually stifle this kind of research and development. Until the government kicks them in the ass hard (like this new legislation to be able to investigate oil inflation) nothing will change. It’s too bad that they practically own parts of the government.
while it may be possible or not thats to be seen, i feel most of the comments are just focusing on “It cannot be done” rather than trying to envision a world where 1 gallon of fuel can produce sufficient energy to travel 100, 200 or even more miles.
Shocking! I’m shocked!
You Americans really have no clue. Some others have allready pointed out that 300N rolling resistance and 1000kg car weights does not have to be fixed. How about 200kg car weight? no reason why not. why not 100kg? carbon-nanotubes anybody? football-molecules?
Some new exotic materials weigh very little and are very strong. And don’t come up with the cost issue, with mass-production allmost anything can be made cheaply.
Anyway, in Denmark (thats in the EU folks) the engine sizes of cars are normally between 1.1L to 1.6L and a 1.6 is considered a slightly excessive option. Some have 0.9L engines or less. A 2.0L engine in a car is considered quite excessive and a bit of a show-off thing.
In Denmark, the norm is to get around 80 mpg!!!!! Thats the NORM people. This is due to small hatchbacks and quite efficient small engines. In those small cars you can still go 100 mph and they are just as safe as any other car. When do you ever go 100 mph? allmost never, since it’s illegal anyway.
Needless to say, petrol costs about $7.5 per gallon due to taxation, so you can see exactly what happens when fuel becomes expensive… efficiency goes UP.
Most of the small cars weigh like 5-600 kg by the way. And don’t add 100kg for an occupant, only Americans are that fat on average. A normal regular person weighs no more than say 60-70 kg on average (average of man+woman). In Asia people are much smaller offcourse.
And yes, Americans REALLY need to look into diesel too.
The Danish university DTU have recently won a competition for the most fuel efficient vehicle, achieving about 1160 mpg!!! Yes thats right, not a typo, onethousandonehundredsixty mpg. Using dimethyl-ether as a fuel which is a MUCH cleaner and cheaper biofuel.
Heres a link: http://www.investindk.dk/visNyhed.asp?artikelID=17429
They also won in the fuel-cell class where they achieved over 2500 mpg (of equivalent fuel), yes, twothousandfivehundred mpg.
Here
(you can also just google “dtu won competition fuel”)
Mind you these are experimental cars, so they go slower and with less occupants etc, but they show the way and they show that most of you are so far STUCK in the BOX that you really need to do something about that.
The author of the article is correct as well as a coupple of posters here. why not 500 mpg??? Absolutely no reason why not.
The American concept of 5L V8 engines with 300+ horsepower in a regular daily-use car is REDICULOUS. WAKE UP PLEASE, YOU ARE KILLING THIS PLANET AND CAUSING WARS OVER OIL.
Besides, small cars are MUCH more fun to drive than big heavy 3ton SUVs.
The Prius does not get 60 MPG that is a LIE!
EPA Lowers Prius Mileage Estimate
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/priius_epa.html
“Just this last October, the very same EPA that now says the Prius gets roughly 45 miles to a gallon praised the little car for topping the government mileage list with 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway despite protests from many Prius owners saying that just wasn’t so.”
New versus old EPA mpg:
Here
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage:
Here
“When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer”
Savings at Pump Don’t Offset Higher Purchase Price:
Here
“none of the six hybrids tested recovered its price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership. In fact, the extra ownership costs over five years for those vehicles ranged from $3,700 to $13,300. Even when the analysis was extended to a period of 10 years and 150,000 miles, it was not possible to recover the price premium for a hybrid vehicle.”
Next time do better research before you post such nonsense. Get the Facts:
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource:
Here
@ Matthew
It’s a conspiracy if no one has any evidence or seen a working prototype. I’ve seen more than one car that runs on water. And I’m good friends with one of Stanley Meyers close friends who worked with him before he died. And if you bothered to see the 2nd link I posted, Daniel Dingle is driving his car on water still to this day.
It’s not a theory anymore.
We need to realize that there is a lot of technology out there that the general public is unaware of. That is not far fetched.
We have the technology to create 100mpg cars. This technology has been available since the 80s. It’s not about technologies, it’s about power. The car industry and oil industry are two hands from the same body.
By the time average cards doe’s 3x more miles per gallon. Fuel will cost 4x more than it does now!
Hey All,
Again, thanks for the comments and debate. I think some people are getting hung up on the fact that I stated I was a “scientist, futurist, and technologist”. If we allow webster to define these terms:
Scientist
Futurist
Technologist
I think you’ll see I’m well within my bounds.
I appreciate the open mindedness of many of the comments on here, as I was indeed suggesting that it should be possible if anyone was motivated enough to do it. Also, to quote Henry Ford, “The customer can have any color car they want, as long as it’s black”. If the US Auto makers either collectively or individually, as a differentiator, decided to only sell cars that got 50 mpg or 100 mpg, the consumer would have no choice. So ultimately, I blame both the Auto Industry and the US consumer for not making their vote heard with their wallet.
I’ll close with another quote of Henry Fords - “Don’t find a fault, find a remedy.”
Jeff
My 1958 Morris minor (uk car) would do 40mpg (imperial gallons), it was not a light car and was avery simple engine. Why do new high tech cars fail to achive the same economy.
And by the way I often see old morris minors still driving around today.
The old minis were even better but kinda small and light.
I have a 2005 Mini and it gets about 43 mpg not bad but pretty lame improvement compared to a 1957 Morris.
When automakers were pushed by legislation to manufacture cars that were more fuel efficient in the early 90’s Handa came out with the Civic VX Hatchback. I own one (1994) which I bought for $400 from a Honda dealer, I put about 1200 into it to fix the suspention, brakes and tune the engine and I have been driving it for 3 years now. Why do I mention this car? It gives me 53 MPG on the highway without using complex and expensive hybrid technology. If we could build them then why not now?
The Ford Model T got 20mpg. We’ve actually declined in distance-efficiency.
you’re forgeting how “bloated” new cars are with safety tech and accessories. a typical compact car weighs in over 3000lbs and the most efficient engines made are 40% (not typical gas engines either). turboed diesels are an expected 33% efficient.
so it sounds like you need to complain to the government about the safety laws so cars can shed pounds to get down to even 1 ton again, for a small 2 seater with a tiny diesel.
just a reminder, look up the chevy triplets that were shown at newyork this year, and comment on the idea of those replacing all these foreign brands that are infallable cause they include toyota that con ed the epa test to those unrealistic numbers. oh and T also makes a horribly gas guzzling truck now with plans to make more vehicles with the same 5.7L engine. (it’s not just “detroit”)
i recently went close to 240miles on almost 6.5 gallons in a 99 monte carlo with the 3.1L v6.
WOW 30 MPG!!! Isn’t that just great. Well, for the average American car it unfortunately is. I laughed the first time i saw those Chrysler commercials. Seriously though…I’ve driven my 94 Honda Civic 4 door for years now and average over 45 MPG (more like 50+)! It might be the American need for excess that leaves us far behind the Japanese and Europe. It could be that the automakers use the same crappy tech for way to long, like the 3.8 liter PUSHROD V6s that GM slapped in darn near everything they made from ‘80 whatever to 1990 something or other. American never pushed for mileage save for the gas crisis of the ‘70. The proliferation of SUV are a testament to that as are the enormous engines they stuff in most cars bought in the US. A properly geared sub 2 liter engine is more than enough for most peoples driving habits. (yes gearing can make or break a car. try driving a 1st gen Toyota MR2 and then drive a much larger engined but very poorly geared Saturn vehicle. The MR2 will feel like a rocket compared to the Saturn.)
It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to design a more efficient car. Did you know that a turbocharger actually can increase the efficiency of an engine? Or how about using the wasted heat output from the engine? You could also take out the crap that makes it so wasteful like the slushbox automatic transmission. Not to mention actually improving the roadways for less wasteful commutes. How many times have you and several other cars had to stop at a stoplight along with several other cars while one vehicle is already making a right turn off some minor road that shouldn’t have a stoplight to begin with. then after your done stopping that that pointless light you’ll probably have to stop at the next one since they are not timed properly to the posted speed limit.
I want to see American car manufactures make a vehicle that gets more than 50 mpg, because we know it can be done. In the meantime I’ll be driving my little Kawasaki Ninja 250R. getting 70 mpg and wishing that summer would last forever
Just had to chip in with another comment from Europe…
One reply states that Americans have to choose between two general options - a 1.6l petrol engine with 55bhp??? I don’t know about America but in Europe any modern 1.6l petrol engine car gives you at the minimum 100bhp - most modern models will give you around 120bhp.
These are decent sized 5 door cars and tend to give around 43mpg combined town and highway.
Move to diesel and a modern 1.8l will give you 150bhp+ with combined mpg of 55+.
Really it seems Americans should start looking beyond the pathetic solutions being offered by their national car manufacturers and start importing some decent modern cars from elsewhere (Ford, GM etc all provide cars in Europe that give the mpg and performance listed above… why not in the US??)
I continue to be amazed as a (British) European at these adverts. I drive an Audi A6 Estate with a 2.7L diesel (big for over here) and get 45MPG averaging 85MPH on the motorways (freeways). This increases to 55MPG at 65MPH. And my car weighs (according to Audi’s site) 1695KG plus my 130KG makes 1825kg:
http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/new_cars/a6.html
to reiterate, my 1800kg+ car (with me in it) gets ~50MPG at US State highway speed limits.
As has been said many times above, it is pure willpower and demand that is shaping this - pickups are rare over here, in the US the P150 is the biggest selling vehicle ever.
I think my car is closer to the US average than the European average and is a fair comparison to use for this purpose. If you drop to a cheaper make, the MPG figures hold true. Indeed, as a company car driver, I get the UK Govt recommended mileage rate which is ‘over 2000CC diesel = 12 pence per mile’. The Government figure is designed to break even for the average car of that type, so to break this down, the average >2000CC diesel engined car in the UK gets:
12p per mile whilst:
diesel = ~98p per litre
=£4.40 per gallon (4.45 litres to an imperial gallon)
=~36 miles per gallon
This is for the category for all the biggest vehicles such as executive cars, 4×4s, SUVs, etc and the UK figures for these cars (when fitted with diesel engines) average 36 miles per gallon. In fact, the Govt discounted their figure by 10% to allow for traffic, etc as their stats showed the average for large diesel vehicles to be ~40 miles per gallon.
If you look at ‘normal’ cars and not execs, these fall into the 9 pence per gallon category which means they average ~49 miles per gallon.
Bear in mind:
- these figures are the average of all diesel cars available for sale in the UK
- Small cars don’t have diesels generally, so the sub-compacts, etc aren’t skewing the figures (the ‘average’car is a Ford Focus - go to http://www.ford.co.uk for sizes)
- Range Rovers, big mercs, SUVs and pickups are all factored into the 12p figure as we tend to go for diesels in larger cars
It is purely the market meeting demand - US customers want big cars and the manufacturers are making them. When demand changes, so will the makers. If a country wants to speed this up/shape demand, then taxation is the mechanism most countries (mine included) use, but you can equally offer incentives to buyers of certain types of vehicles to promote demand.
In essence, when the US want higer MPG cars, they’ll get them. All GM, Ford, etc have to do is ship them over as we have them here already. The difficult bit is changing what consumers want and when I was last in the US 5 months ago, the adverts were still mostly for the SUVs and pickups….
Seriously, for anyone wanting some insights into what exists now at affordable levels with all the air-con and other things we expect now, just take a look at the british car sites such as http://www.ford.co.uk, http://www.toyota.co.uk. Take a look at the petrol (gas) engined options for the average family cars and the specs they offer.
Once again, isn’t going car-free an option, at least for those of us who are single?
I would be surprised if current ic engines are even ~25% efficient. From the get-go you’ve already wasted 75% of the fuels available energy. Now, you’ve to get the power from the engine to the wheels. The transmission (and possibly transfercase if the vehicle is 4wd) and differential(s) account for even more energy loss. And then you have to worry about energy loss between the tires and the road.
What external factors have an effect on fuel efficiency? Wind resistance? Are you in the city stuck in stop-and-go traffic, or you on a freeway? Are you on flat or hilly/mountainous terrain? What’s the altitude? And so on…
I think auto makers can do more to up fuel economy, but it’s not as easy as some people think. Internal combustion engines have an upper limit when it comes to efficiency and there is nothing that can be done about it.
I am pleased to see that there are others out there wondering why we do not yet have myriad cars getting 75, 100, or even more mpg.
I drive a 2002 Nissan Sentra, which has an advertised fuel economy of about 35 mpg (highway). Nearly all my driving is done on highways, and I have been averaging about 37 or 38 mpg as of late. To most people that would seem great, but I am dissatisfied with those numbers. There isn’t any reasonable explanation for why at least 75% of our cars couldn’t be getting that kind of gas mileage.
Though it’s primary focus is not the automobile, Victor Papanek’s book Design for the Real World does offer some frightening facts:
“In Japan, however, Honda is selling a car that gets seventy mpg in city driving conditions. This is the Honda 1983 City - a car unavailable in North America.”
“Renault’s Vista (Vehicule econome de systemes et technologie avances) gets ninety-four mpg and seats four passengers plus their luggage. This car is also unavailable in North America.”
“A German firm is manufacturing a do-it-yourself car that gets sixty mpg and can be built by two people in one weekend.”
After a lengthy description of what the car of the future will be like, including an average mpg of 75-100 mpg, Papanek boldly states that “such a car can be brought into existence right now, using existing off-the-shelf hardware!”
For those who don’t know, Design for the Real World was written in 1970 and revised in 1984. Here we are 23 years later, and like Jeff states, in this country we still think of 30 mpg as “great fuel economy.” The “future” has arrived, and our vehicles have not made any great improvements.
First of all, trying to figure out how many miles per gallon one can get out of a gallon of gas by using science is utterly useless. The only fact that science has ever really proven is that humanity’s arrogance knows no bounds and that scientists, and people in general, always think that they understand more than they do, and don’t forget that not that long ago scientists came to the conclusion that it was physically impossible for the bumblebee to fly and to this day science maintains that it is theoretically impossible for drosophila to fly, but that hasn’t stopped them yet.
There was a man named Tom Ogle who in the late 1970’s invented a system in which his 1972 Ford Thunderbird with a 429 cubic inch engine and a 4,600 pound, 1979 Ford Galaxy with a 351 cubic inch engine (which came to be known as the “Oglemobile”) were both able to achieve over 100mpg by utilizing vaporization rather than by injecting the engine with gas via a carburetor or fuel injection, and the result was a car that was so efficient that it had virtually no exhaust waste. He too had a physics professor spouting that it was impossible to achieve such gas mileage with a car that large and heavy; however, the professor disappeared into silence when registered state engineer Frank Haynes Jr. conducted an inspection of the Oglemobile, and another inspection was conducted by Professor John Whitacre and Professor Garry Hawkins from the Mechanical Engineering department at the University of Texas at El Paso and discerned that there was no fraud; the system did what Ogle claimed. With witnesses, Ogle took the Oglemobile on a journey of over 200 miles on two gallons of gas. No one (American or worldwide) was interested in helping him market and produce his product and he was found dead at the age of 26 (a supposed suicide), and the cars that he installed this system on were found to be missing after his death.
So the argument that big American cars can’t get good mileage is false, and if you can’t figure out how an invention like this could go unnoticed, then I suggest that you take a closer look at this forum. People are so busy bickering and trying to belittle others and make themselves look knowledgeable that they scarcely know what is going on around them.
Well, I beleive that 250+mpg is acheivable. Since i am not a scientist however you cannot tell me that in mass production we cannot acheive that goal since we have back alley mechanics who are able to do it for any car with additional cost of $3K or so. As far as the 30mpg not being bad, thats a joke. People are idiots if they believe that 30mpg is good.
“Jeff,
You are too US focused. GM and Ford make cars with higher mileage outside of the US, in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and even in Europe. However, these cars have much smaller engines and are too small. (Try visiting http://www.celta.com.br and check the dimensions for the car. It is smaller than a Geo Metro).
The problem is Americans are not willing to give up big cars and big engines. Well, in all honesty, GM, Ford and Chrysler like to think that way. The fact is that Honda and Toyota have much more efficient engines than Ford, GM and Chrysler. And herein lies the problem: as a physicist, you should know that average numbers sometimes are not very useful. I bet if you comapre the average mog of Honda and Toyota with those of GM and Ford, the difference will be cery high. The main reason is because US-based car manufacturers are more dependent on SUVs than Japanese car makers.
Going back to the point, the cars have also became heavier and with more gadgets than in 1920. So if you consider that even a Geo Metro today weighs way more than a Ford Model T, there has been outstanding progress, as the amount of mass movem by gallon increased a lot (I would get at least between 5 to 10 times).
The numbers are what they are and the US market is what it is. It’s never going to change. It will become more efficient, but consumers vote with their wallets; and apparently they don’t mind a gas-guzzling SUV.
Marcelo”
My reply to this is that Chrysler came up with a van that was solely electric back in 1998 but dropped it and you never seen any advertisement. The van worked well without any issues. So why did they drop it? Why did they not bring anything over here, Why do you only here about inovative ideas only in other countries but our big auto makers or even the only things from the little guys but then quickly get hushed up.
Brian
“Brian Norton May 25th, 2007 2:07 pm
As a scientist, “futirist” and whatever else, you should realize the massive errors in your own logic. As pointed out, the Prius numbers are bunk. The 60mpg was calculated in the epa tests that factor in long periods of idling. (prius using 0 fuel)
Second, 30mpg in 1950 and 30mpg today is not the same. Anybody that boasts about their 55mpg 1985 honda CRX doesn’t realize how polluting it is to run really lean. More gas used means hotter combustion, means more complete combustion, means cleaner exhaust. sure we could be running around at 40+mpg in evey car, but at the expense of the reasonably clean air we breathe. ”
Brian, you are correct in this. However, what all the semi’s that has nothing but black smoke coming out of their tail pipes or for that matter all of the earth moving machines. Why are they improved or regulated? I sure dont want to stand by them when they polluting like that. So where is the improvement there? When it comes to the earth or our health cost should NEVER BE A FACTOR.
“Mike May 25th, 2007 2:27 pm
Sorry I meant I agree with Micheal. Not retard uOfM boy Jeff Wanker ”
Mike, your the idiot if you cannot understand the concept behind his article. The point is that automakers have been lying to us for years and only when we force the federal government to get on their case do things improve. We we are getting tired of it.
I have an idea, I dont think anyone has mentioned. If I am wrong I apologize. Here is it, someone mentioned compensating the gas with solar . Then someone else knocked it. Well there is new solar technology that does not relay solely on solar, its infrared (heat) combined with solar. Also there is new technology recently came to light on nanotechnology recharging batteries in 6 minutes and making steal ten times stroger and much lighter then current steal.
I totally support Jeff and other people who’ve commented in a constructive manner to help Americans change and maintain an attitude to fight for improvements in our automotive technology and transportation. Thanks for not just putting other people down to show your brilliant intelligence. Many posters appear to be so blinded by their super-duper degrees that they’ve missed the point of the original article. Maybe these same critics who are so hung up with the numbers (ie. how everything are so impossible) are the same people who are behind the wheels of those H2’s and Hemis. Who knows, some may even be working for the oil companies. Jeff, please understand the topic of this article may be offensive to them.
Anyways, I try to use my bicycle as much as possible on light trips around the city that are less than 10 miles. At today’s gas prices, I’m okay traveling on the interstate with my ‘98 Corolla making 40mpg; however, I know that my next vehicle will have to do better than this because the technology is here. Why do you think Chevron was so quick at snapping up the patents of the large formate NiMH battery to essentially kill the development of the electric car and hi-capacity plug-in hybrids? Unfortunately, we, as American consumers, are allowing everything to happen. As history have shown, reforms usually require the guide of our government along with our own will to change. As long as cars with high fuel-efficiency remain an “option”, then it is irrational to the majority of Americans to support their existence; however, when it becomes the only choice we have (in order to ensure our grandkids will have a car to drive…or even live healthy enough to drive a car), then it’s a different story. It is an “inconvenient truth”, as mentioned by Al Gore in his environmental documentary under the same name.
For those of you who think that getting over 300 mpg is impossible or at least not economically feasible, check this out: new hybrid does 340mpg, will cost around $27000, and will be in production in 2008. Its no pipe dream, its won awards and has gotten millions$ in venture capital. Check it out:
http://www.aptera.com/
Actually, all the way back in 1908, the good ol’ Ford Model T got 21 miles per gallon, more than just 13-15 mpg. I have to agree though, it’s sad at the turtle-like progress on fuel efficiency:
http://www.ecojoes.com/fuel-efficiency-improvement-over-100-years/
I co-own a delivery company that focuses on fast, small parcel deliveries in a concentrated area. We are always looking into finding more fuel efficient ways to transport our packages. Bikes are a great way to have things delivered fast, in a downtown core. We have a great crew.
We have been looking into options for our drivers, but they’re aren’t that many that are affordable and totally available. And driving 8-9 hours a day is taxing physically and mentally. At the end of the day, if you are driving a hybrid or electric or bio-diesel, you really do save on expenses, but the resources just aren’t readily available in my area.
Thanks for all the information. it has been a big help.
Finding this thread was great.
Would you buy one of these today?
In 1975, Chevrolet made a car that was 40mpg highway. It was the Chevrolet Chevette. Search google!
http://store.vintagepaperads.com/servlet/-strse-21101/1975-Chevrolet-Chevette-Car/Detail
With inflation, that $2899 car would be $11,575.69
And the high end - $3404 would be $13,592.15
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Who says that America can’t make a high MPG car inexpensively? We have just forgotten how.
We definitely could be seeing better than 30 mpg for the vehicles auto manufacturers are touting as high mileage. Personally, I like baby steps when making improvements like this. It’s probably good that I am not a politician. Unfortunately the U.S. auto manufacturers, and lately foreign manufacturers (Toyota) have been lobbying strongly against any increased mpg requirements. The groups lobbying for increases similarly seem to always be asking for an unreasonable increase. Due to this, increases mpg requirements have had a hard time passing, and the average 2% a