By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
First issue here is that we're not using the right numbers.
A car that has 10HP at 10MPG (very bad) and a car that has 100HP at 100MPG (very good) are both 1:1 if your measuring this way.
What you should be doing for HP to mileage is take the inverse of the mileage (or...gallons per mile, not miles per gallon). This will measure horsepower generated per gallon of gas consumed each mile, which is a (very rough) measure of power efficiency from gasoline consumed.
The 10HP at 10GPM car would score a 100 HP/G/M, and the 100HP at 100GPM would get 10000 HP/G/M.
Another issue is that max HP is only generated at peak RPMs when these mileage numbers mean nothing, since this measure compares fuel consumption going a mile while cruising (hwy) or stop an go (city) driving, not measuing power at peak usage. If you could get real mileage numbers at wide-open throttle for a mile, then that number would be meaningful here.
Third is that its not linear in reality. Its easier to double HP than to double MPG, yet both would be rated the same if these measurements are linear. You would need to give some kind of higher weight to the MPG to make this number meaningful. Unfortunately, the weight is going to depend on each person and how they value fuel economy over power, or vice versa.
Anyways...heres a few numbers using the inverse.
Prius should be 110HP @ 1/60 gpm = 6600 HP/G/M
Camry V6 (Hwy) is 268HP @ 1/31gpm = 8308 HP/G/M.
RS4 (Hwy) 420 @ 1/20gpm = 8400 HP/G/M
M5 (hwy) 500 @ 1/18gpm = 9000 HP/G/M
Bugatti (hwy) 1000HP @ 1/12gpm = 12000 HP/G/M
Corvette Z06 (hwy) 505 @ 1/26gpm = 13130 HP/G/M
So you have to look at the hybrid as a leap forward in emissions technology and this is what distinguishes them from say a 40 mpg gasoline subcompact....even if a straight gas engine car got close to the MPG of the hybrid, it isn't likely to come close to the extremely low emissions levels that the hybrid can post.
As I alluded to earlier, the other main distinction is that the potential to increase the fuel economy of hybrids is much greater than that of your generic subcompact. Unless the automakers have been hiding that 200 mpg carbuerator as part of some CIA-KGB-Area 51 plot, the only improvements that we could expect to see from subcompacts could come from reducing performance (smaller, less powerful engines), reducing weight or otherwise very minor, incremental gains. In contrast, hybrid systems have more potential to generate greater gains.
You simply cannot evaluate the potential market for hybrids by looking solely at current sales levels and the current generation of technology. Hybrids are not now a low-cost alternative or significantly better than some competing technologies, but that margin could significantly improve and make them a great advance forward.
It takes time for new technologies to hit peak operating efficiency and sufficient demand so that costs are in line with the prevailing models, but it will properly happen. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if almost every car offered for sale in the future employed some sort of hybrid technology.
Nobody I know has braught this topic up ????
Rocky
Right today there are over 20 non-hybrid gas cars that equal or exceed the emissions rating of the Prius. PZEV is becoming very common in the midsize and compact cars. The only area that the hybrids pass the other PZEV rated cars is in GHG. That is based strictly on MPG. So the guy in the Prius getting 40 MPG is going to put out the same amount of CO2 as the non-hybrid PZEV that gets 40 MPG.
And pls don't forget that other non-hybrids are not standing still as well. They are also being improved as well. Contrary to some, I feel that its easier to improve something simpler as a conventional diesel / gasoline engine as to a complex powerplant as a hybrid.
When U try to improve something very complex, the chance that something still not working, going wrong is greater still. Thus even more time needed.
Emissions wise, back to the same old problem. 0.2% of hybrids among all cars, even with less emissions, is FAR FAR AWAY from even addressing the emissions caused by the other 200+ million old cars and gas guzzlers. How long will it take for the hybrid population to make a difference ?
If U REALLY want to appreciate this problem, consider this analogy :
Imagine tomorrow in a street at night U ALONE faced 460 (that is not a typo, FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY !) gangsters out to rob U. Even if U are Arnold S, U got yr hands Full man ! Each hybrid today is outnumbered 1 : 460 (500k vs 230 million cars) on the roads.
And remember, Toyota and Honda combined sells abt 3 million conventionals and gas guzzlers. Out of that only 100k+ are hybrids (their target).
Thus as time goes by, for EACH buddy U bring along to fight those 460 robbers facing U, those robbers bring along another 20 ! (3 million divided by say 150k)
How do U hope to overcome those robbers ? See my sense of helplessness ? See why I say if for each hybrid Toyota and Honda sells, their lower CAFE numbers allow them to sell EVEN more gas guzzlers ? Is the situation now better compared to say 2 years ago ? Even with all those new hybrids going on sale ? I say its getting worse, not better.
Remember, today is 2006, not 1906. We don't have THAT much time.
In addition, I think too many people underestimate the huge leaps in emission reduction of conventional internal combustion engines today. Many of them are today already very very low emission cars. With enough of them replacing old cars, THEY are our quickest chance to make a big difference than hybrids.
Oh yes, someone said hybrids may one day be so cheap as conventionals. Yes, maybe, but how long ? Remember that cars keep on increasing in price as time goes by. Unlike computers and other electronic devices which often goes down in price. Its a lot more difficult to make cars, let alone hybrids, much cheaper years later.
Small cheap electronics can easily drop in price because they are affordable to a lot of people. But $20k+ hybrids isn't peanuts to many people.
Ah, let me make a little analogy. U know John Travolta has his own airplane, a Boeing. Now what are the chances that one day Boeing could also use R&D to make Boeings more affordable for more non-John Travoltas to buy ?
Remember, Boeing is probably the Toyota of the aircraft industry. And Boeing aircraft don't have tax incentives issues which will not go on forever (once these incentives are lowered or stopped, hybrids face even more hurdles)
Sure, aircraft has gone from the Wright Brothers to the jet plane today, but pls remember the LAW of DIMINISHING RETURNS. The leaps in jet engine technology is also slowing down a lot. Why ? Boeing also finds it very difficult to improve and already efficient jet powerplant.
So will hybrids. It is a lot easier to improve a conventional from say 30 to 36 mpg than a hybrid from 40 to 80 mpg. And that is still not considering the economic factor which are still unfavourable for hybrids.
If U imagine the much more complicated parts when U take a hybrid powerplant apart, U will realize that all these extra gizzmos are not going to come down in price THAT easily. Lets say each of those big batteries cost say $3k. What are the chances and how soon that those batteries will come down in price to $2k, $1k ? These are not mini mass produced cell phone batteries remember.
And people don't buy cell phones thinking abt things like break even period for gas money. And there are no alternative cellular phone power systems.
Hybrids have competing alternatives which are quite attractive too. Cleaner Diesels, Ultra low emission conventionals, and so on.
Thus hybrids in my view face a more formidable challenge of being much more economical in the future. And that I will rather resources spent on hybrids be used for alternative power research instead, to speed up their discovery.
And pls don't say hybrid research helps solar powered / fuel cell hydrogen research as well. I totally disagree. Its like comparing Hurricane Research and Tsunami Research. One is in the sky, the other in the ocean. Totally different things. The chances of one helping the other is miniscule at best.
I stand by my statement that there are many PZEV cars that have equal or better emission ratings than the Prius.
Perhaps part of "bang for the buck" for Prius owners is the aspect of "Feel Good" marketing, wherein they get not only good gas mileage but a pat on the back from society in general for a lower lifetime score on emissions and for supporting new tech.
I'm sure that is the major reason most part with the additional bucks. I do commend them for their part in making our air cleaner. I don't mean to sound ungrateful by pointing out other very clean cars. I just think some people go overboard. If the air coming out of the Civic GX is cleaner than the air going in that is great. Just don't try forcing that on all vehicles. There are limitations to the cost of cleaning our emissions. PZEV to me is not the end all. If I can save a third of the fossil fuel I use by going diesel or better yet biodiesel, that should count for something. To many on board here it is of no relevance. PZEV is their god. I say why stop at PZEV go all the way to ZEV without the intermediate stop over.
Make mine 3.0L with AWD.
This seems like another great alternative for fuel savings without driving something underpowered. We need them here, not just in Europe... Why aren't American manufacturers working on technologies like this, too?
If all vehicles weighed the same, no problem, but vehicles used for towing (SUVs, full size pick ups) are made heavy on purpose to make towing possible.
Besides, weight is not a big contributor to fuel inefficiency except in very hilly areas. There is no net energy required to move a weight horizontally and much of the energy involved in going up hill is returned going down hill, offsetting rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag.
There is power put into accelerating mass that is wasted as heat when braking. Some cars have generators to recharge batteries on slowing.
Another weight related loss is tire deformation, but increasing tire pressure can offset that. It's a less comfortable ride.
Some vehicles use composites as part of the suspension to lower un-sprung weight, which allows the tires to more closely conform to bumps in the road - especially handy when going around curves on rough roads, and when stopping on rough roads.
Another problem is that most low density alloys - examples: aluminum, magnesium, titantium - are, proportionate to density, less stiff. And, unlike steel, aluminum has finite fatigue properties, no matter how low the stress and so is guarenteed to fail. Grumman made the Flxible (spelled correctly) bus for a while - all aluminum. All frames failed and bus companies went back to steel.
They'd make airplanes out of steel if the fuel didn't cost so much more than the limited life of the aluminum costs them.
Carbon fiber and epoxy offer the best bet, but composite matrices are impossible to properly repair, tend to force metals in contact with them to corrode, and are difficult to build with uniform properties. In oriented applications (fly rods, cantilever springs, skis) carbon is unbeatable. In other applications it performs poorly or is much more expensive (it takes maybe 10 seconds to stamp out a hood from sheet metal or hours to cure a fast epoxy)
Internal frictional losses are enhanced by weight. That's why a car with just a driver returns better fuel economy than when loaded with passengers and luggage - even on flat terrain.
Frictional losses are pretty small in comparison.
Check out the fuel efficiency of trains sometime. Pretty sippy on the fuel in comparison to a semi-truck for the same cargo weight ( and I'm talking about a full train, not just a loco with a UPS box in it.) Just not as much up-hill waste and down hill throw-away of heat on RR tracks. Or speeding up and slowing down in traffic.
Sadly GE touts fuel sippage, but advertises brute:
Our solution: the GEVO-12™ diesel engine. A V-12, producing 4,400 horsepower, equal to our previous-generation, 16-cylinder engine.
I want one.
Last year I took a trip to Florida with two friends in my 2000 Intrepid. I'd say that we averaged about 27-28 mpg in mostly highway driving. We had the trunk packed to the gills, with some luggage spilled over into the back seat and probably had the car at close to its ~4400 lb GVWR. And we had the air conditioning running most of the time.
Oddly, 27-28 mpg on the highway is about what I usually get in that car when with just me aboard. So the extra ~600 pounds, roughly what GM saved per car when it went through massive a massive downsizing campaign back in the late 70's, actually had little-to-no effect on my mileage.
I'm guessing that in "pure" highway driving, where you get up to a constant speed and only slow down for fuel and pee breaks, or when the cop motions you over
There's the answer; as best as anyone can predict the future.
From the article:
"Worldwide demand for oil is projected to climb 47% between 2003 and 2030...."
..and also:
"This translates into oil prices of between $50 and $63 a barrel in 2006 prices over the period of the report, which means oil prices would actually decline from current levels."
Does this make sense? Worldwide demand will rise by 47% yet prices will remain steady (or perhaps decline)? The only way I can see this as being true is for a large increase in oil production and for it to stay up until at least 2030.
What happened to the theory that we were currently at 'peak oil'?
It's because oil reserves are not a fixed quantity, the term is a bit deceptive.
Known reserves are calculated based upon oil that has been discovered and is economically viable. While something such as Saudi sweet crude is viable at just about any price (it is cheap to extract and refine), other sources such as shale make no economic sense unless oil prices are high. It doesn't make sense to extract oil that costs $25 per bbl to obtain, when the market price is $15, but it starts making a lot more sense at $50 and more.
In other words, the higher the price, the more becomes accessable, which increases supply. Eventually, we may run out of these more costly sources, but for now, there seem to be enough that they could sustain us for some time if the prices remain at these levels.
And keep in mind that with inflation factor, $50 per bbl oil in 2006 dollars would probably end up being $100 per bbl oil in 2030 dollars. (That's a quick guess based upon 3% inflation and the Rule of 72. Raise the inflation rate, and it will be north of $100.)
In other words, worldwide demand can rise by nearly 50% but all the demand doesn't have to be met by crude oil; as the price STAYS above a certain level, other technologies become commercially viable allowing the demand be met from other sources.
So, we could STILL be at or near 'peak oil' (theorectically), and still meet increased demand with little long term effect on price. Interesting. I'll have to look into shale/oil sand technology some more to see if the elevated price for crude has sparked plans for large scale production.
For anyone who doesn't follow, here's a bad analogy: Suppose you have a senile, paranoid aunt who hides piggy banks throughout the house. You have found some of the piggy banks and counted the change in them, but there are others out there - how many banks and how much cash is in them, you aren't quite sure, but you are confident that they are there and can be located at some point.
So if I ask you how much you have (your "known reserves"), you respond by telling me about the banks you've found and the money in them, less whatever you've spent since you found them. But that doesn't mean that this accounts for all of the money, and you have enough information to know that there is more out there, you just haven't yet found it.
That being said, everyone should know that there is almost no oil left in the Lower 48, and North Sea reserves will probably run out within the next couple of decades, at the most. And much of the oil in Canada is of the costly variety, so many of those supplies won't ever come available if prices decline.
RAS LAFFAN, Qatar -- Here in the Persian Gulf, hundreds of workers are piecing together a coiled labyrinth of pipes that they hope will turn natural gas into an ultraclean automotive fuel _ and challenge the oil industry.
These plants will produce a clear liquid that operators say will have the high efficiency of diesel fuel, but virtually none of the sooty pollutants. Millions of diesel cars and trucks around the world could run on this fuel.
The gas-to-liquids, or GTL, plants under way here are part of a big bet by a small nation to reshape global energy markets. Some of the world's biggest energy companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch/Shell Group and ChevronTexaco Corp., have committed $20 billion to build GTL facilities in an industrial park here that's twice the size of Manhattan. They are using an unusual technology whose lineage traces back to [non-permissible content removed] Germany and apartheid South Africa. The projects are one of the largest and riskiest gambles by the industry in years.
"Qatar is going to become in the gas business what Saudi Arabia is in the oil business," says Wayne Harms, Exxon Mobil's top official in Qatar. Largely blocked from doing business in Saudi Arabia, Exxon is investing in Qatar's natural gas. It expects to spend $15 billion to $17 billion in coming years building facilities in the giant industrial park, including $7 billion for a GTL plant, the largest single investment in the company's history.
The companies say these GTL facilities _ unlike some earlier, smaller efforts _ make economic sense because of technological advances and the lower costs from building on such a large scale. They say the result will be an alternative fuel that should be priced competitively with crude oil.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05047/458356.stm
Led by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, four U.S. senators didn't mince words in touting a proposal to drastically raise fuel economy standards by model year 2017, a move they argued would save America 2.5 million barrels of Middle Eastern oil a day.
"You know the automotive industry fought seat belts, if you can believe it," said Feinstein, a Democrat. "If the industry doesn't respond, doesn't mutate, it'll go just the same way the dinosaur went."
Called the "Ten in Ten," the bill would require automakers to have a fleetwide fuel economy average of 35 miles per gallon by the 2017 model year. The measure also would mandate onboard fuel economy display by the 2013 model year and require cars to average 31.1 miles per gallon by model year 2009 and light trucks to average 23.6 miles per gallon.
"This is really a help to the industry," Feinstein said. "And I think stonewalling it, getting in a bunker mentality, fighting it doesn't make any sense at all."
The proposed legislation is the latest -- and most aggressive -- attempt by lawmakers to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Previous attempts have failed, but lawmakers contend $3 per gallon gas prices should bolster their efforts.
Automakers said the senators' proposal would cost the industry billions of dollars to comply and could force them to build lighter, potentially less safe vehicles.
Chrysler: Plan is unrealistic
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., said many senators haven't supported raising fuel economy standards in the past "because there are big GM plants or big Ford plants in their states. And so the industry's been opposed to this and I think that's been a mistake."
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the Big Three didn't get it.
"Some of us have felt that they should have received the message long ago that their product line needed to be changed," he said.
Jason Vines, a Chrysler Group spokesman, called the proposal unrealistic.
"What we don't want is to get something so technically ridiculous that everyone's forced to buy a Fred Flintstone car," Vines said. "If anyone could build an SUV that gets 40 miles per gallon, don't you think we would? We'd corner the market. No one can do it, not the masters of the universe, Toyota, not BMW, Mercedes. It's not technically feasible."
The Big Three and Toyota have endorsed a Bush administration proposal to allow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to rewrite fuel economy standards for passenger cars -- that have been at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1985.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, chastised automakers for not embracing earlier proposals to significantly improve mileage.
"The industry would have been far better off had they adopted the legislation we originally introduced," Snowe said, referring to proposals in the early 1990s and 2001.
Big 3 focus: alternative fuels
The auto industry has been aggressively touting its efforts to offer fuel efficient vehicles and flexible fuel vehicles that run on E85, biodiesel and alternate fuels. The Big Three will tout those at a White House meeting with President Bush expected to take place next week. The proposed truck rules alone will cost the industry $6.2 billion, including at least $1.2 billion for General Motors Corp.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said the company continues to focus on introducing "more advanced technologies and flex fuel vehicles in the market."
"Ultimately, that's how real progress will be made to lessen our dependence on oil. Standards, however, must be designed by the technical experts," Martin said.
U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, has long been the only Michigan member of either party to endorse across-the-board fuel economy increases -- and his wife recently bought a Toyota Prius, though he has a Ford and GM.
He said the Big Three had better embrace fuel economy improvements.
"If they haven't, they got bigger problems than they think," said Ehlers, who has resisted heavy industry lobbying over the years.
The senators' 19-page proposal calls for a credit trading system that would allow companies that surpassed the fuel economy requirements to sell credits to automakers who didn't meet the requirement. So in order not to break the law, GM might have to give Toyota hundreds of millions of dollars.
Toyota questions feasibility
Feinstein heaped praise on Toyota.
"Increasingly, it's becoming the dominant global force in the auto industry," she said.
But Toyota declined to endorse the proposal.
Jo Cooper, Toyota's group vice president for government affairs, said there were questions about the feasibility of the bill.
"That's a huge number. It doesn't sound like much, but that's a huge leap forward," Cooper said. "Those kinds of changes would require a fundamental shift in the vehicle makeup of this country."
At Ford Motor Co., CEO and Chairman Bill Ford Jr. and Americas President Mark Fields said in recent weeks that they believe the experts at NHTSA, rather than Congress, should set gas mileage standards.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/AUTO01/606210356/- 1148
Rocky
P.S.
"I think congress needs to take 3 and get back with us in the morning"
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/AUTO01/606200337/- 1148
Rocky
You have to have common sense, and quit listening the nutty far left. :mad:
Rocky
Authorities pump up pressure on makers who falsely claim products improve vehicle mileage.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/AUTO01/606190325/- 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
"something to consider"
Rocky
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/BUSINESS01/606210344/10- 14
Rocky
This is what I would drive everyday if they were street legal.
It's a tough thing to do, making the American public get in step with the rest of the world. Despite the wide open spaces here, we all drink from the same global supply of oil.
The Congress should give people tax incentives to get into smaller vehicles, and tax the heck out of the largest ones. Business owners who can verify the need for a truck(s) in their business exempted of course.
And hey, remember, if your friendly neighborhood car companies would get off the dime and get alt fuels to the street, you wouldn't necessarily have to drive "no little piece of junk car" (as gagrice so poetically put it) to meet this standard. In fact, what you drive might not be powered by gasoline at all by the time this standard reaches its full force.
Not that they will ever pass this legislation, we all know Americans love their gas-guzzlers way too much for that. Let's hope the price of oil continues to go up, to damp the huge impact increasing oil scarcity will have on our way of life and economy later this century.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Both were great posts....
Rocky
Sure, but you can bet that the Detroit automakers will lobby to get a 150% mileage credit for putting a locking fuel cap on their vehicles, which will allow a Hummer H2 to contribute to meeting the new standard. (Apparently, this special patented fuel cap prevents fumes from escaping, which is exceptionally good for the environment...)
I'm not only getting better mileage, I'm helping the environment by decreasing emissions, and saving maintenance costs. Also, I am using regular gas instead of premium with no problems. I'm very pleased.
Did you miss a '0' there.
What car do you drive?
And are you selling this product.
http://www.fuelsaving.info/fuel_additives.htm
I read the ad copy for the ethos "scientific" claims---it doesn't look good.
40 MPG: I've heard Detroit say so often through the years that "it can't be done" that I really hope Toyota or Honda will produce the 40 mpg SUV in the near future and send Detroit into board room hysteria. I love competition, it really does improve the breed. Shades of the late 1970s all over again.
I think the quote should be re-written from "it can't be done" to "Detroit can't do it".
Rocky
The xB is not a good example of what can be accomplished in terms of power and fuel economy. It is a direct export of a car expressly designed to be an urban runabout for the streets of Tokyo. It is supposed to be a "lifestyle-mobile" first and foremost.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anyways I agree perhaps it's possible. However am I willing to give up the power I want to achieve a stupid mpg regulation set out by politicans that ride mainly on private jets ????? I don't think so.
Rocky
The Land Cruiser will never make it past the current generation in America. At least, not as a Toyota. No-one buys them any more. They have luxed themselves right out of the Toyota market.
Even GM expects the market for SUVs like Yukon and Tahoe to shrink in the coming years, and their silver lining is the hope that they will grab a bigger and bigger portion of the sales, so that the actual numbers will hold flat.
It is perfectly possible that hybrid tech could lead to 40-50 mpg SUVs, even three-row models, in the next decade. Plug-in options will grow, I think, which allows you to charge the car at home and operate on electric only for local driving, so that the gas engine never fires up unless you go on a longer trip.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
#1 a hybrid engine
#2 a 6-speed auto & manuel
Rocky