Maker Pro
Maker Pro

100 MPG??

D

Dave Hinz

Jan 1, 1970
0
The Europeans seem to get along just fine without all that silly
schizophrenic safety bullcrap. Most problems come from the nut behind the
wheel anyway and American is full of them.

You are being unfair to european carmakers. I listed a bunch of safety
improvements Saab has made, willingly, long before anyone else was doing
them or they were required. Mercedes, Volvo, and others also have
excellent histories in this regard. For you to pretend that Europeans
aren't safety-concious in their car design is just plain wrong.

What _is_ a problem is that this mythical 100 MPG car, is not
crash-worthy. I will not risk my life or my family to save money at the
pump. If I wanted something with great mileage that was dangerous, I'd
be back on a motorcycle.
 
America is a fucking joke. VW Lupo gets 78mpg, Citroen in France has three
models that get from 53 to 68mpg.

Canadian cars get 19% more mpg than identical US cars too!

Yes, they do get much better fuel economy, but don't forget to take into
account the fact that the rest of the world uses a 4.546 liter gallon
instead of a 3.785 liter gallon.
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Canadian cars get 19% more mpg than identical US cars too!

Yes, they do get much better fuel economy, but don't forget to take into
account the fact that the rest of the world uses a 4.546 liter gallon
instead of a 3.785 liter gallon.

Only if someone goes to the trouble of calculating mpg in the first place.
My cars get between 6 & 9 liters/100km. We _don't_ use a 4.546l gallon.
We get a full 4.546 l into 4.546 l. :)
 
H

Herb

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nog said:
Tell it to the drug companies making the elderly eat dog food to pay
for their super inflated drug prices.


Once again Nog, your answer doesn't have any bearing on the original
statement. Do you think the drugs fall as manna from heaven? For one,
most drug companies have programs in place for people who don't have
insurance to get their drugs for free or reduced prices, not to mention
that I pay for a whole lot of people to get their drugs from the
government. As to your retarded statement about people eating dog
food, they could do a lot better than dog food if they wanted to eat
cheap. Unfortunately, people like you who have turned the government
schools into social experiments instead of a place to learn have
produced folks that can't figure out what is most economical.

Regards,
Herb
 
Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
(BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
sensationalism.
Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To get
better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight. Lots
of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.

I guess I don't understand why not. Please educate me.

I have 100HP engine that I use to accelerate my vehicle up to aerodynamic
vehicle up to a cruising speed of 60mph in some (few) number of seconds.
During that time I use a lot of fuel per distance. However, once at speed,
I utilize 15% of the engine's capacity to maintain this speed for the next
4 hours till I stop for gas/food/bathroom.

Why would I be using lots of fuel to maintain 60mph on a relatively flat
interstate highway just because the engine is capable of pushing the vehicle
much faster? Unless I'm going up hills, or constantly stopping why does
weight make any difference to my fuel consumption?
 
In alt.energy.homepower BobG said:
I have 100HP engine that I use to accelerate my aerodynamic
vehicle up to a cruising speed of 60mph in some (few) number of
seconds.
During that time I use a lot of fuel per distance. However, once at
speed,
I utilize 15% of the engine's capacity to maintain this speed for the
next
4 hours till I stop for gas/food/bathroom.
Why would I be using lots of fuel to maintain 60mph on a relatively
flat
interstate highway just because the engine is capable of pushing the
vehicle
much faster? Unless I'm going up hills, or constantly stopping why
does
weight make any difference to my fuel consumption?
==================================================
HP required to maintain a certain speed depends on rolling friction
(about .01mg for radial tires) and air density, drag coeffcient, and
frontal area. For my small car, I timed how long it took to slow down
from 70 to 50, then played with the drag coeff in a little prog that
computed how much HP for a certain speed. to go 40,50,60 mph took
20,30,40 HP, so I claim it takes about 40HP to cruise down the hiway at
60. Thats 40% of your 100HP, not 15%, and 40HP at 40% effciency you can
compute exactly how many BTUs per mi and KWhr per mi and $/mi its
taking.

40HP sounds awfully high to me for a car with good aerodynamics at 60mph.
My 28HP motorcycle which has terrible aerodynamics can get up to 100mph.

In any case with your example how is a 100HP engine at 40% power different
than a 40HP engine at peak power the whole time? I don't understand how
a engine capable of 100HP is not capable of 100mpg as long as it isn't
used very often for its full 100HP output.
 
J

JoeSixPack

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nog said:
The Europeans seem to get along just fine without all that silly
schizophrenic safety bullcrap. Most problems come from the nut behind the
wheel anyway and American is full of them.

It's a case of humiliation anger.
 
F

Ford Prefect

Jan 1, 1970
0
BobG said:
In any case with your example how is a 100HP engine at 40% power
different
than a 40HP engine at peak power the whole time? I don't understand
how
a engine capable of 100HP is not capable of 100mpg as long as it isn't
used very often for its full 100HP output.
========================================
ok, lets say a more aerodynamic car can go 60 all day with 30 HP.
(22.38KW). If the gas engine is 40% efficient, you need 55.95KW from
the fuel. If you do this for an hour and get 60 miles down the rd, you
have used .9325KWhr per mi. Assuming gas is 6.1 lb/gal and 15000
BTU/lb, you have used 191K BTU->12.7 lb->2 gal-> 30 mi/gal To get 100
mi/gal, you need to make something 3 times bigger or smaller, but it
wont be any of those constants that are in the physics books.

I was reading that some drivers of the latest model of honda insight
were getting over 80MPG highway. It's a good test case for your figures,
it has 65-67 HP ( the electric motor is 14hp) and weights 1850lbs and a
a drag coefficient of 0.25
 
In alt.energy.homepower BobG said:
In any case with your example how is a 100HP engine at 40% power
different
than a 40HP engine at peak power the whole time? I don't understand
how
a engine capable of 100HP is not capable of 100mpg as long as it isn't
used very often for its full 100HP output.
========================================
ok, lets say a more aerodynamic car can go 60 all day with 30 HP.
(22.38KW). If the gas engine is 40% efficient, you need 55.95KW from
the fuel. If you do this for an hour and get 60 miles down the rd, you
have used .9325KWhr per mi. Assuming gas is 6.1 lb/gal and 15000
BTU/lb, you have used 191K BTU->12.7 lb->2 gal-> 30 mi/gal To get 100
mi/gal, you need to make something 3 times bigger or smaller, but it
wont be any of those constants that are in the physics books.


You still haven't answered my original question. My car has a ~130HP engine.
I can get ~39mpg at a steady 60mph. Obviously it takes a whole lot less
than 130HP to drive it at that speed. (Probably low 20s HP.) If I were to
drop a 30HP or a 230HP engine of the same design in the same car, I'd expect
the gas mileage wouldn't change significantly at a steady cruse. The mileage
has little to do with the maximum output of the engine, and is highly related
to the amount of power the engine needs to output to maintain 60mph (or speed
X). I'd would guess this is highly related to aerodynamics, rolling resistance,
and mechanical resistance.

I'm guessing the reason that a diesel S-10 with a ~100HP diesel (slightly
higher BTU/lb than gas) can't get 100mpg has little to do with the engine as
the first reply in this thread indicated. It has mostly to do with the
crappy aerodynamics of an S-10. No?
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nog said:
Find your own proof on Edmund.com

So many ways to admit you don't know what you are saying...this one is
particularly cute
 
V

Vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
BobG said:
In any case with your example how is a 100HP engine at 40% power
different
than a 40HP engine at peak power the whole time?

Within limits, more horsepower means a bigger engine, but a bigger engine
has more losses. It is obvious that bigger parts rubbing together have more
friction and adding cylinders must result in more moving parts and more
friction; not to mention higher weight. But there are other important losses
involved. One of the largest is something called "pumping loss". When you turn
the engine, it sucks air in the intake and blows it out the exhaust; all that
sucking and blowing takes energy. A larger engine can also be expected to have
larger power-robbing auxiliaries such as a larger oil pump, larger water pump
and larger valve train. Everything else being equal, a smaller engine working
near its peak power will be more efficient than a larger engine operating at a
fraction of its peak power.

Vaughn
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
BobG said:
In any case with your example how is a 100HP engine at 40% power
different
than a 40HP engine at peak power the whole time? I don't understand
how
a engine capable of 100HP is not capable of 100mpg as long as it isn't
used very often for its full 100HP output.
========================================
ok, lets say a more aerodynamic car can go 60 all day with 30 HP.

Bob, please let your newsreader use its default quoting style. Even Outlook
Express does a better job than this. (A) it's not polite to quote other
people without attribution and (B) it's only obvious what here is yours and
what is quoted because wee know your style. Even top-posting isn't this
bad!
 
R

rick

Jan 1, 1970
0
So you are now publicly admitting that those cars are in fact not banned
in three states and that the feds/oil cartel have nothing to do with
your imaginary claim?

Go figure

THey sell them here in Norfolk VIrginia All day long.

Rick
Rick
 
R

rick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Provide a cite to prove that.



Sure they are. No motor car company would ever benefit from producing a
truly fuel efficient car while everybody else isn't. Nope, they sure
wouldn't


Provide some proof for that
Yet another example of a coffin with wheels. Sure it might get 58 mpg.
not much car for that 3 cylinder engine to push around.


Rick
 
R

rick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Name one SUV that has a 50 gallon fuel tank
got a chevy 1500 with a 250 gal tank (mounted a 250 gal oil tank on in
the bed. worked great until i had it inspected. Government didn't like
it.

Rick
 
R

rick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Once again Nog, your answer doesn't have any bearing on the original
statement. Do you think the drugs fall as manna from heaven? For one,
most drug companies have programs in place for people who don't have
insurance to get their drugs for free or reduced prices, not to mention
that I pay for a whole lot of people to get their drugs from the
government. As to your retarded statement about people eating dog
food, they could do a lot better than dog food if they wanted to eat
cheap. Unfortunately, people like you who have turned the government
schools into social experiments instead of a place to learn have
produced folks that can't figure out what is most economical.

Regards,
Herb

Gentlemen, Note I take efexor. my DR. has forms that he gets from
the manufacturer. I provide a pay stub from my job (armed security
enforcement officer). I get my drugs FREE. because I cant afford
them. THis is available (as I understand from my physician) from ALL
drug manufacturers as per mandate from FDA and Congress.

Just ask your MD for the forms. Go to their web page and download the
form and take it to your dr if nothing else.

also SAMPLES. ALL MD's Get them or can. all you half to do is ASK.

Rick
Norfolk VA
Rick
 
40HP sounds awfully high to me for a car with good aerodynamics at 60mph.
My 28HP motorcycle which has terrible aerodynamics can get up to 100mph.

In any case with your example how is a 100HP engine at 40% power different
than a 40HP engine at peak power the whole time? I don't understand how
a engine capable of 100HP is not capable of 100mpg as long as it isn't
used very often for its full 100HP output.

That's fine if you are running a non-throttled deisel - otherwise you
have relatively high pumping losses at part throttle. The most
efficient engine is one run where it's max torque peak is at full
throttle., In other words, if you have an engine that has a max torque
of 50 ft lbs at 5252 RPM, and you run it at 5252 RPM consuming 50 HP,
you are at your theoretical best.

If this same engine produces 50 ft lbs at 3200 rpm, running it at 3200
RPM and roughly 30.5 hp is theoretical best. In the real world you'll
likely do a bit better at slightly lower load.
Now, that same engine that produces 50 ft lbs at 3200 RPM MAY produce
75 hp at 9000+ rpm. And use 4 times as much fuel to do so.
 
No sonney, It was a Suzuki and sold as Geo Metro. Then Chevy bought it and
changed the name to Chevy Metro. Just as the Geo tracker was changed to
chevy tracker. They kept the Tracker because it only gets 22mpg. Isn't that
a suprise!


No, it was still a Suzuki, built in a plant run as a joint venture
between Suzuki and GM called CAMI Motors in Ingersol Ontario. Just
like a large number of today's "chevies" are Daewoos. (Except GM owns
Daewoo now)
 
Name one SUV that has a 50 gallon fuel tank

At $5 per gallon, it only needs to be a 28 gallon tank. Up here in
Ontario Canada, we have gone over the $5 per gallon mark for several
days this last 2 weeks. We have hit $6.19 Canadian per Canadian Gallon
in Waterloo, and it has been worse in other areas.. At 1.17 exchange
rate, that is $5.29 US per canadian gallon, or $4.23 US per pipsqueak
yankee gallon.
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
At $5 per gallon, it only needs to be a 28 gallon tank. Up here in
Ontario Canada, we have gone over the $5 per gallon mark for several
days this last 2 weeks. We have hit $6.19 Canadian per Canadian Gallon
in Waterloo, and it has been worse in other areas.. At 1.17 exchange
rate, that is $5.29 US per canadian gallon, or $4.23 US per pipsqueak
yankee gallon.

But nog wasn't talking Canada, nog was talking US and doesn't have an
answer.

(Hawaii with $4/gallon would come closest at 37.5 gallon tank, but there
aren't any SUVs with that size tank either)


 
Top