HP on a grade.... KiddingHisSelf wants to know......

On May 6, 1:31*am, "T0m $herman" >
wrote:
> On 5/5/2013 10:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>
> > NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
> > 2,000#, so, contrary to the *smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE than
> > capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.[...]
>
> I can assure you that a 1979 VW Rabbit with ~600 pounds of people and
> luggage was *not* capable of maintaining the then 55-mph speed limit on
> I-70 uphill between Denver and Vail. *Much of the time was spent at
> ~40-mph in 3rd gear at full throttle.
>
> Calculating power needed uphill without including at least the weight of
> the driver is not very useful.
>
> --
> T0m $herm@n

Me and a buddy rowed a VW Van (late 60s IIRC) from the west coast to
the east coast.
Rowed is correct on meeting a head wind.

Harry K

On May 6, 5:27*am, "T0m $herman" >
wrote:
> On 5/6/2013 5:50 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "T0m $herman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 5/5/2013 10:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> >>> NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
> >>> 2,000#, so, contrary to the *smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE than
> >>> capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.[...]
>
> >> I can assure you that a 1979 VW Rabbit with ~600 pounds of people and
> >> luggage was *not* capable of maintaining the then 55-mph speed limit on
> >> I-70 uphill between Denver and Vail. *Much of the time was spent at
> >> ~40-mph in 3rd gear at full throttle.
>
> >> Calculating power needed uphill without including at least the weight of
> >> the driver is not very useful.
>
> > Well, you can redo the math to account for those people, AND different
> > angles.
> > Multiply the uphill hp amt by 1.3 or so, for 600# of people.
> > Also, that 6% grade is a modern spec., I'm sure there are steeper grades
> > grandfathered in here and there.
>
> > If grades are really an issue, then mebbe more hp is req'd in your case..
> > And certainly in Kidding's case.
>
> > The point was to show that in "green times", hard times, oil-scarce times,
> > we can do with much less hp than we're being fed.
>
> True. *My 2002 Nissan Frontier is rated at 170-HP, but can still get up
> to 50+ mph at the end of most on-ramps pulling a 2-ton trailer. *So the
> 350-500 HP we see these days in full-size pick-ups is ridiculous
> over-kill.

<snip>

for sure and you can add 4x to that!! I've had 'working PUs (cut
firewood) since 1968. Every one was 6cyl, 4spd 2x. You don't need a
huge engine to haul a load - that is why they invented those things
called gear boxes. I had a neighbor who complained about his
mileage. I pointed ouit that he was driving one of the biggest
engined PUs of that era. "I need it for hauling/towing" "Just how
often do
you do that? You've got some gears to handle that" It was
complicated by his driving habit. Full bore all the time, jackrabbit
starts stops, etc.

Harry K

On Mon, 06 May 2013 07:27:53 -0500, "T0m $herman"
> wrote:


>True. My 2002 Nissan Frontier is rated at 170-HP, but can still get up
>to 50+ mph at the end of most on-ramps pulling a 2-ton trailer. So the
>350-500 HP we see these days in full-size pick-ups is ridiculous
>over-kill. And the average new minivan with a V-6 these days has a
>better power-to-weight ratio than mid-1970's to early 1980's Corvette or
>Ferrari 308.

My last car was a Camry with a V6, 268hp. The 4 cyl version with 100
less hp was quite capable, but the 6 had only a slight mileage penalty
and man, the extra ponies sure were nice sometimes when passing a long
string of cars uphill.

>You can estimate from a USGS topo quad, and sometimes from county GIS
>servers. There is also aerial laser topographic coverage in many areas,
>but requires special software to use. In the case of Rocky Mountain
>passes, Interstate highway may exceed 6% grades due to the huge costs of
>tunnels required to achieve lower grades.

It's easy to read elevations on Google Earth. Hover the cursor over a
location and read the elevation at the bottom of the screen. There's a
ruler to measure straight line distances. Or you can put a place
marker anywhere, then right click and choose "directions from here."
The coordinates will appear top left. Copy paste into Google maps or
whatever to find road distances.

"Harry K" > wrote in message
...
On May 6, 5:27 am, "T0m $herman" >
wrote:
> On 5/6/2013 5:50 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "T0m $herman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 5/5/2013 10:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> >>> NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
> >>> 2,000#, so, contrary to the smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE
> >>> than
> >>> capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.[...]
>
> >> I can assure you that a 1979 VW Rabbit with ~600 pounds of people and
> >> luggage was *not* capable of maintaining the then 55-mph speed limit on
> >> I-70 uphill between Denver and Vail. Much of the time was spent at
> >> ~40-mph in 3rd gear at full throttle.
>
> >> Calculating power needed uphill without including at least the weight
> >> of
> >> the driver is not very useful.
>
> > Well, you can redo the math to account for those people, AND different
> > angles.
> > Multiply the uphill hp amt by 1.3 or so, for 600# of people.
> > Also, that 6% grade is a modern spec., I'm sure there are steeper grades
> > grandfathered in here and there.
>
> > If grades are really an issue, then mebbe more hp is req'd in your case.
> > And certainly in Kidding's case.
>
> > The point was to show that in "green times", hard times, oil-scarce
> > times,
> > we can do with much less hp than we're being fed.
>
> True. My 2002 Nissan Frontier is rated at 170-HP, but can still get up
> to 50+ mph at the end of most on-ramps pulling a 2-ton trailer. So the
> 350-500 HP we see these days in full-size pick-ups is ridiculous
> over-kill.

<snip>

for sure and you can add 4x to that!! I've had 'working PUs (cut
firewood) since 1968. Every one was 6cyl, 4spd 2x. You don't need a
huge engine to haul a load - that is why they invented those things
called gear boxes. I had a neighbor who complained about his
mileage. I pointed ouit that he was driving one of the biggest
engined PUs of that era. "I need it for hauling/towing" "Just how
often do
you do that? You've got some gears to handle that" It was
complicated by his driving habit. Full bore all the time, jackrabbit
starts stops, etc.
==================================================

Bec some people, like assholeKidding, MUST have it all, ALL the time.
Compromise is not in their vocabulary. They are too good for compromise.
--
EA



Harry K

mike wrote:


> My '64 beetle got 29MPG on the flatland in Texas.
That's ALL? Geez, terrible. My 1976 Vega got almost 40
on the highway. My 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid will do about
49 on mildly hilly terrain at 70 MPH, and if you hold
it to 55 on flat terrain (which we have very little of
around here) it will probably do 53 or so.

Jon

On Sun, 05 May 2013 20:46:15 -0700, mike > wrote:

>On 5/5/2013 8:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>
>>
>> NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
>> 2,000#, so, contrary to the smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE than
>> capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.
>>
>>
>My '64 beetle got 29MPG on the flatland in Texas.
>Half a century later, why can't cars do better?
>MUCH better??
>

First off, many cars today can get the 29 mpg or better. I got 25 mpg
in my 95 Caprice on the open road. What you are forgetting about your
64 beetle is that in order to get that 29 mpg you had to accept a car
that took over 20 seconds to do 0 - 60. Most of the mainstream bread
and butter cars today will get the same 29 mpg or more and do 0 - 60
in 8 or 9 seconds.

On 5/6/2013 10:29 AM, Harry K wrote:
> On May 6, 5:27 am, "T0m $herman" >
> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2013 5:50 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "T0m $herman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/5/2013 10:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>>>>> NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
>>>>> 2,000#, so, contrary to the smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE than
>>>>> capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.[...]
>>
>>>> I can assure you that a 1979 VW Rabbit with ~600 pounds of people and
>>>> luggage was *not* capable of maintaining the then 55-mph speed limit on
>>>> I-70 uphill between Denver and Vail. Much of the time was spent at
>>>> ~40-mph in 3rd gear at full throttle.
>>
>>>> Calculating power needed uphill without including at least the weight of
>>>> the driver is not very useful.
>>
>>> Well, you can redo the math to account for those people, AND different
>>> angles.
>>> Multiply the uphill hp amt by 1.3 or so, for 600# of people.
>>> Also, that 6% grade is a modern spec., I'm sure there are steeper grades
>>> grandfathered in here and there.
>>
>>> If grades are really an issue, then mebbe more hp is req'd in your case.
>>> And certainly in Kidding's case.
>>
>>> The point was to show that in "green times", hard times, oil-scarce times,
>>> we can do with much less hp than we're being fed.
>>
>> True. My 2002 Nissan Frontier is rated at 170-HP, but can still get up
>> to 50+ mph at the end of most on-ramps pulling a 2-ton trailer. So the
>> 350-500 HP we see these days in full-size pick-ups is ridiculous
>> over-kill.
>
> <snip>
>
> for sure and you can add 4x to that!! I've had 'working PUs (cut
> firewood) since 1968. Every one was 6cyl, 4spd 2x. You don't need a
> huge engine to haul a load - that is why they invented those things
> called gear boxes. I had a neighbor who complained about his
> mileage. I pointed ouit that he was driving one of the biggest
> engined PUs of that era. "I need it for hauling/towing" "Just how
> often do
> you do that? You've got some gears to handle that" It was
> complicated by his driving habit. Full bore all the time, jackrabbit
> starts stops, etc.
>
> Harry K
>
I wish that Nissan and Toyota would sell Diesel versions of their
pick-ups (almost ubiquitous in Africa) in the US, as the mileage of the
gas version is nothing to write home about.

I could only find a decent used 4WD Frontier with A/T in my area, and
the mileage varies from about 12 mpg (4WD around town in the snow) to 20
mpg (2WD on the highway).

--
T0m $herm@n

On 5/6/2013 8:02 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 20:46:15 -0700, mike > wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2013 8:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
>>> 2,000#, so, contrary to the smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE than
>>> capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.
>>>
>>>
>> My '64 beetle got 29MPG on the flatland in Texas.
>> Half a century later, why can't cars do better?
>> MUCH better??
>
> My '64 Beetle got 30 mpg highway, too.
>
> Because our Beetles were frail little deathtraps that wanted to kill
> us, and couldn't get out of their own way going up a 2% grade.
> Zero-to-sixty time was...one lunchtime. <g>
>
Actually, just over 20 seconds or so.

I ride a motorcycle (Yamaha TW200) that will go about 65 mph (70 mph if
I lay on the tank) without getting run over - just takes some sense and
attention to other traffic.

> I alwasy figured they were the Nazis' revenge for WWII.
>
Ferdinand Porsche copied heavily from Hans Ledwinka's Tatra T97 - VW
eventually paid Tatra 3 million DM in compensation.
>>
>> I've talked with several people driving the "smart car".
>> They don't even do much better than my beetle.
>> What gives?
>
> The US versions have stunk in the efficiency department. I don't know
> why. The European versions supposedly do much better.
>
Yeah, a VW Jetta TDI wagon will do better carrying 3 more people and 10
times the cargo. Of course, the Europeans get a turbo-diesel Smart,
while the US does not.

Another small car with disappointing mileage in the BMW Mini.
>>
>> Oh, my beetle didn't have any cup-holders...that must be it.
>
> Heaters. I lived in Michigan at the time. Unless you had one or two of
> those JC Whitney add-on heater blowers, your windshield could freeze
> up -- on the inside. d8-)
>
The Type II and Type IV were not much better in the winter, even with
the add-on auxiliary heaters.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 5/6/2013 1:56 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
>
>> My '64 beetle got 29MPG on the flatland in Texas.
> That's ALL? Geez, terrible. My 1976 Vega got almost 40
> on the highway. My 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid will do about
> 49 on mildly hilly terrain at 70 MPH, and if you hold
> it to 55 on flat terrain (which we have very little of
> around here) it will probably do 53 or so.
>
> Jon
>
My Honda CBR600F4i will get around 20-25 mpg during a track day.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 5/6/2013 10:18 AM, Harry K wrote:
> On May 6, 1:31 am, "T0m $herman" >
> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2013 10:28 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>> NOW -- the 1960/70 Beetle had 42 hp (before it jumped to 54), at only
>>> 2,000#, so, contrary to the smugly ignerintKidding, the VW was MORE than
>>> capable of climbing max interstate grades at 60 mph.[...]
>>
>> I can assure you that a 1979 VW Rabbit with ~600 pounds of people and
>> luggage was *not* capable of maintaining the then 55-mph speed limit on
>> I-70 uphill between Denver and Vail. Much of the time was spent at
>> ~40-mph in 3rd gear at full throttle.
>>
>> Calculating power needed uphill without including at least the weight of
>> the driver is not very useful.
>>
>> --
>> T0m $herm@n
>
> Me and a buddy rowed a VW Van (late 60s IIRC) from the west coast to
> the east coast.
> Rowed is correct on meeting a head wind.
>
> Harry K
>
I drove a early 1970's Type II camper version, and with 65 mph speed
limits I could just put my foot to the floor and not worry about getting
a ticket.

--
T0m $herm@n