Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics

In News ,, Eeyore at
, typed this:

> Scruffy McScruffovitch wrote:
>
>> Eeyore at typed this:
>>> Scruffy McScruffovitch wrote:
>>>> Eeyore typed this:
>>>>> Scruffy McScruffovitch wrote:
>>>>>> Eeyore at typed this:
>>>>>>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>>>>>> AKA sniveled ineptly:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I began to wonder what vehicle would get an
>>>>>>>>> average of 35 mpg. Since I was at a Toyota dealership
>>>>>>>>> and Toyota has been a leader in fuel efficient vehicles,
>>>>>>>>> I started checking out the vehicles on the lot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll make a very simple statement: The Toyota Yaris D-4D is a
>>>>>>> staggeringly good little car.... I have never driven another car
>>>>>>> that could happily tootle along at 80-90mph, nip past
>>>>>>> obstructive drivers in old-shape Merc CL500 coupes, and still
>>>>>>> take me 63 miles on a gallon of diesel.
>>>>>>> http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=52
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK that's a UK gallon but it's still 50.4 US mpg !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diesel engines are a large part of the answer. The USA has an
>>>>>>> irrational fear of them though. Modern European diesel engine
>>>>>>> design is making even SPORTY diesels possible. They have
>>>>>>> exceptional torque which most drivers like too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How well do they operate at -30 degrees Fahrenheit?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have NO idea.
>>>>
>>>> That's rather important for people living in my area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How well do YOU work at -30 F ( -34C) ?
>>>>
>>>> Not well, which is why I need a reliable car at that temperature.
>>>> In the past, Diesels have not proven reliable in the Winter.
>>>
>>> I've never experienced such temps but the Swedes for example use
>>> block warmers. I imagine you can have a fuel tank warmer too.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>> Why would I go to that problem and added energy expense/expenditure
>> when I can just buy a reliable non-Diesel car?
>
> What kind of engine oil works right from -34C ?
>
> Graham

I've never had a problem with engine oil, other than it may be a bit thich
until the engine warms up, but that's never been a big problem. Getting the
diesel started in such cold weather is the big problem.


--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
enough to take away everything you have."

Thomas Jefferson

Scott in SoCal wrote:

> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" wrote:
>
> >>> How well do they operate at -30 degrees Fahrenheit?
> >>
> >> I have NO idea.
> >
> >That's rather important for people living in my area.
>
> OTOH, people living in my area couldn't care less.
>
> >> How well do YOU work at -30 F ( -34C) ?
> >
> >Not well, which is why I need a reliable car at that temperature. In the
> >past, Diesels have not proven reliable in the Winter.
>
> Ever watch that show Ice Road Truckers? They never shut thier engines
> off lest they freeze up.

Interesting point. Diesels are far less wasteful at tickover than gasoline
engines too. Possibly very largely due to the absence of a throttle which
makes a gaoline engine have to work harder than it needs to at idle.

Graham

"Scott in SoCal" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:23:12 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
> > wrote:
>
>>The solution, of course, is to shrink the car and use
>>lighter materials. Ideally, every family of 2 kids
>>under driving age (around 16-18 years) would have three
>>cars:
>>
>>- his car, which would be a tiny 1-seater with very high
>> fuel efficiency, optimized for commuting, and just
>> big enough to hold a briefcase and a cup of coffee.[*]
>
> Even better, his car could be a commuter train. Having one fewer car
> would save the average family thousands of dollars per year in
> insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs.
>
>>- her car, which would be a 1 to 3-seater with not quite
>> as high fuel efficiency but which can carry a week's
>> worth of groceries; it can also be used to pick up
>> and drop off kids from various functions, although
>> ideally the kids would use bicycles instead or just walk,
>> as both are healthier, if less safe in some neighborhoods,
>> depending on the age of said kids (obviously babies
>> crawling to the day care center or to Grandma gets
>> ridiculous, but there's a line somewhere).
>
> For me the line was drawn the first day of Kindergarten. My Mom walked
> with me the first day to show me the route; I walked by myself from
> that day on. In 5th grade we moved and I started taking the "L" to
> school. Not until I was in high school and I bought my own car did I
> ever get a ride to school in an automobile.
>
>>- the family car, which would be a 4-seater primarily
>> intended for long trips and family outings, and it
>> sits in the garage most days.
>
> When I was growing up, the family car (a 4-door sedan) was our ONLY
> car. My dad took the train to work, I walked to school, and my Mom
> stayed home. Many things were within walking distance, including a
> small neighborhood grocery store, so unless it was the big weekly
> shopping trip the car sat unused most of the time.

Well, if you could live that way, then that certainly means everyone else
can to. I'm sorry the rest of us have been such fools.

- B

"Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> > AKA sniveled ineptly:
>> > >
>> > >The new gas mileage standards mandated
>> > >by the recently passed energy legislation
>> > >defy the laws of physics..
>> >
>> > leotard, you don't know any physics to speak of..
>>
>> The laws of physics certainly do tend to say that expecting a 7 litre
>> V-8 (or even say a more humble 4 litre) to do 35 mpg is wishful thinking
>> ! But who actually NEEDS one ?
>
> Strange how Toyota's been doing it for around ten years and their Prius
> is probably one of the more popular models on the roads today.

If it's one of the most popular models on the road, how come I've never
actually seen one on the road?

- B

In article > , What Me Worry? wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, V-for-Vendicar
>> wrote:
>>>
> wrote
>>>> "The efficiency of an internal combustion engine is
>>>> based on total energy of the fuel and the amount of
>>>> energy used to perform useful work. So by
>>>> legislating a fuel efficiency increase of about 40%,
>>>> our Congress Critters were attempting to rewrite Laws
>>>> of Thermodynamics."
>>>
>>> Over 30 teams from the U.S., Canada, India and Bahrain participated in
>>> the
>>> SAE's annual mileage competition June 7-8, 2007 in Marshall, Michigan.
>>> The
>>> competition requires the development and construction of a single person,
>>> fuel efficient vehicle. All vehicles must be powered by a small
>>> four-cycle
>>> engine, have a minimum of three wheels, and the driver must be fully
>>> enclosed to prevent contact with the ground. The winner is based on a
>>> combination of best fuel economy and points from technical inspections of
>>> the vehicles. The 2006 winner, the University of British Columbia,
>>> achieved
>>> a record 3,145 miles per gallon!
>>
>> These vehicles are completely irrelevant to anything useful for
>> transportation on public roads.
>
> The point is made: 40% increase in fuel efficiency standards isn't even
> coming close to maximum theoretical efficiency. It's a pitiful increase,
> which has already been achieved in production vehicles today (they'll just
> have to stop making the inefficient vehicles - problem solved).

I'm sorry you don't understand basic engineering, but there is no such
point to be made with that example. These SAE supermilage vehicles
represent nothing as far as hidden technology. They simply weigh very
little, minimize drag in all forms, and are run in such a manner to
maximize fuel economy on a perscribed course that has nothing to do with
real life transportation.

>> They are as I recall a recombent bicycle with an ICE that runs at full
>> throttle and then coasts, rinse and repeat.

> Well, they sure as hell aren't Hummer H2's, that's for sure. So sorry if
> that ****es off the irresponsible and the stupid; but automobiles are gonna
> change - finally - to MUCH more fuel-efficient designs. By orders of
> magnitude. When gasoline hits $10/gallon, the market for SUV's will approach
> zero, while buyers for the 300MPG hybrids (ready for production right now)
> will be on a 2-year waiting list.

I know you control freaks think that the only reason a honda civic
doesn't get 5,000mpg is a lack of motivational legislation, thing is
you're wrong. SAE supermilage competition has less to do with real life
driving than me commuting to work on my bicycle.

Brent P wrote:
> In article > , What Me Worry? wrote:
>
>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, V-for-Vendicar
>>>wrote:
>>>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>"The efficiency of an internal combustion engine is
>>>>>based on total energy of the fuel and the amount of
>>>>>energy used to perform useful work. So by
>>>>>legislating a fuel efficiency increase of about 40%,
>>>>>our Congress Critters were attempting to rewrite Laws
>>>>>of Thermodynamics."
>>>>
>>>>Over 30 teams from the U.S., Canada, India and Bahrain participated in
>>>>the
>>>>SAE's annual mileage competition June 7-8, 2007 in Marshall, Michigan.
>>>>The
>>>>competition requires the development and construction of a single person,
>>>>fuel efficient vehicle. All vehicles must be powered by a small
>>>>four-cycle
>>>>engine, have a minimum of three wheels, and the driver must be fully
>>>>enclosed to prevent contact with the ground. The winner is based on a
>>>>combination of best fuel economy and points from technical inspections of
>>>>the vehicles. The 2006 winner, the University of British Columbia,
>>>>achieved
>>>>a record 3,145 miles per gallon!
>>>
>>>These vehicles are completely irrelevant to anything useful for
>>>transportation on public roads.
>>
>>The point is made: 40% increase in fuel efficiency standards isn't even
>>coming close to maximum theoretical efficiency. It's a pitiful increase,
>>which has already been achieved in production vehicles today (they'll just
>>have to stop making the inefficient vehicles - problem solved).
>
>
> I'm sorry you don't understand basic engineering, but there is no such
> point to be made with that example. These SAE supermilage vehicles
> represent nothing as far as hidden technology. They simply weigh very
> little, minimize drag in all forms, and are run in such a manner to
> maximize fuel economy on a perscribed course that has nothing to do with
> real life transportation.
>
>
>>>They are as I recall a recombent bicycle with an ICE that runs at full
>>>throttle and then coasts, rinse and repeat.
>
>
>>Well, they sure as hell aren't Hummer H2's, that's for sure. So sorry if
>>that ****es off the irresponsible and the stupid; but automobiles are gonna
>>change - finally - to MUCH more fuel-efficient designs. By orders of
>>magnitude. When gasoline hits $10/gallon, the market for SUV's will approach
>>zero, while buyers for the 300MPG hybrids (ready for production right now)
>>will be on a 2-year waiting list.
>
>
> I know you control freaks think that the only reason a honda civic
> doesn't get 5,000mpg is a lack of motivational legislation, thing is
> you're wrong. SAE supermilage competition has less to do with real life
> driving than me commuting to work on my bicycle.
>
>

I don't know how I missed the post to which you're responding, but
that's a sterling example of why I try to avoid bringing up
environmental concerns and fuel economy in social situations.
Non-engineers just don't get it, and unfortunately they don't set policy
either.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

>> When I was growing up, the family car (a 4-door sedan) was our ONLY
>> car. My dad took the train to work, I walked to school, and my Mom
>> stayed home. Many things were within walking distance, including a
>> small neighborhood grocery store, so unless it was the big weekly
>> shopping trip the car sat unused most of the time.


"Bill" > wrote
> Well, if you could live that way, then that certainly means everyone else
> can to. I'm sorry the rest of us have been such fools.

Well, fools in the sense of building cities and towns that require the
inefficient consumption of resources. Constructing a city that demands a
car, is one example of stupidity. Building an economy based on planned
product failure is another.

>> Strange how Toyota's been doing it for around ten years and their Prius
>> is probably one of the more popular models on the roads today.


"Bill" > wrote
> If it's one of the most popular models on the road, how come I've never
> actually seen one on the road?

It's probably too expensive for a person of your limited social class and
that of your neighbours.

"V-for-Vendicar" > wrote in
:

>
>>> When I was growing up, the family car (a 4-door sedan) was our ONLY
>>> car. My dad took the train to work, I walked to school, and my Mom
>>> stayed home. Many things were within walking distance, including a
>>> small neighborhood grocery store, so unless it was the big weekly
>>> shopping trip the car sat unused most of the time.
>
>
> "Bill" > wrote
>> Well, if you could live that way, then that certainly means everyone
>> else can to. I'm sorry the rest of us have been such fools.
>
> Well, fools in the sense of building cities and towns that require
> the
> inefficient consumption of resources. Constructing a city that
> demands a car, is one example of stupidity. Building an economy based
> on planned product failure is another.


not many cities are "planned".They tend to evolve erratically.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Bill" > wrote in
t:

>
> "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>> > AKA sniveled ineptly:
>>> > >
>>> > >The new gas mileage standards mandated
>>> > >by the recently passed energy legislation
>>> > >defy the laws of physics..
>>> >
>>> > leotard, you don't know any physics to speak of..
>>>
>>> The laws of physics certainly do tend to say that expecting a 7
>>> litre V-8 (or even say a more humble 4 litre) to do 35 mpg is
>>> wishful thinking ! But who actually NEEDS one ?
>>
>> Strange how Toyota's been doing it for around ten years and their
>> Prius is probably one of the more popular models on the roads today.
>
> If it's one of the most popular models on the road, how come I've
> never actually seen one on the road?
>
> - B
>
>

It seems like I see at least one Prius every day lately.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net