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
Seriously, there are so many cars sold in the U.S. that are also available in Europe and/or Japan with much smaller less powerful engines that absolutely BLOW AWAY their American counterparts for fuel economy, and that is with gas, not diesel. Believe me, we ARE paying a fuel penalty (a big one at this point) for the high power and speed of our fleet.
Plus, as andre mentioned, in our ongoing quest to turn everyone's grocery getter into a race car, we have made all these cars much heavier than they otherwise need to be. I will keep saying it until the automakers finally listen: get the pork out guys!
A side issue is that in smaller cars, which have the advantage of generally less weight, automakers tend NOT to employ sophisticated engine technologies that could substantially improve fuel economy, because smaller cars are so price-sensitive that there is no way to cover the costs. That is why the early hybrids had to cost way more than same-sized cars and offer luxury amenities in order to justify a higher price.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That's true but typically a larger engine at its peak efficiency is more efficient than a smaller engine at its peak. So the fact that it operates further away from this peak probably puts it at about the same place as the smaller engine. Regardless, the difference isn't great. A Corvette probably represents one of the most over powered domestic vehicles and it is definitely loafing down the road at 70 mph but still gets incredibly good mileage and did so even before they incorporated the technology that shuts down cylinders. An example I liked to bring up was when BMW offered the 3 series with either a 2.5L or 3.0L engine. The 2.5L got no better mileage despite a sizeable power and displacement difference. To me this was the best example of comparing apples to apples since if you got the automatic transmission these cars were basically identical. The only difference was the 3.0L had a slightly longer stroke.
So I would say a 3.0l Camry or Accord should get (slightly) better mileage than a 3.5l Camry or Accord, if all other technologies are equal.
But since they don't then the only answer is that Honda and Toyota both unveiled some new fuel saving technology that they chose to incorporate at the same time as the bigger engine was released. This seems to happen quite a bit. Almost to the point where it seems implausible. I don't accept the fact that if they had developed some way to make their vehicles more efficient they wouldn't share it with the 4 cylinder models. Especially when the people buying these 4 cyl probably place a higher priority on fuel efficiency. I know in the case of the Accord they both have 5 spd automatics.
I'm not trying to say there is no mileage hit associated with power and displacement. I'm simply pointing out that using real world examples it doesn't seem to be all that significant. Certainly not enough to be singled out as the reason our fleet isn't getting much better mileage.
The cars being driven in Europe and Japan are being built by the same companies that build the vehicles for the US market. So if Honda, GM, Ford, Toyota, et al can manufacture these more fuel efficient cars in Europe they are certainly capable of doing the same here. I'm not entirely sure these smaller cars would be in compliance with US crash and emissions standards. And with relatively cheap gas in the US these cars certainly don't appeal to the typical American's tastes.
I even remember the test drive (1997, paper, no link sorry) of the BMW 540 and 740 which posted same FE than less powerful 535 and 735. 5 and 7 consistently recorded a consumption gap due to their weight difference.
One example is that of the European VW Golf which is offered with a 1.6 atmospheric Petrol in European market. Its Fuel consumption figures are about half a liter / 100km higher than the more powerful and more torquey 1,4L TSI (single turbo engine with Direct injection)
True, the 1,4L has more advanced tech. Nevetheless, the 1,6L needs to be worked quite hard to keep the pace. Part of its disappointing FE comes for it being underpowered in regard to the car weight.
If you want the link I will find it.
I think no one want to put in question the added benefits of more equipment and stronger frame for crash protection purpose. The only workaround solution is a lighter conception from scratch (MAZDA 2 2007, 60 kg lighter than previous generation) or /and the use of Aluminium.
You may be interested by the A2 which AUDI invested a lot of money in.
Small engines (1,2, 1,4, 1,6 ) in an aluminium body. Size like a honda FIT but 400 lb lighter. This model was maybe too early as it was dropped in 2005. Nobody was ready to pay the extra 5-10K USD that were imho justified for such a fine piece.
http://www.audiforums.com/models/a2/
should this model have existed with an automatic, I would seriously have considered one
Friction and pumping losses, is the answer and other parasitic losses of the movement of engine parts. Take a car with 0.5L/cyl such that a 4 cyl is 2 L and add 2 more cylinders gives you a 3L 6 cyl. - the surface area of those moving parts has increased 50%. 50% more surface area increases friction 50% (loss of energy, as heat), at the same rpm. But we know a 4 cyl typically has to run faster to produce the same power; but this will not increase friction 50%.
Friction of moving parts that are not needed is inefficient. Thus you have Hemi and some GM V-8's with cylinder deactivation. At cruise they use 4 cyl, instead of 8 cyl, to reduce frictional losses. These V-8's are more efficent producing 40hp using 4 of their cylinders (half their displacement), instead of their 8 cyl. producing 40hp.
So if you're using a larger engine to make more power than typically needed, and you don't have cylinder deactivation, and a hybrid is basically doing the same thing by shutting the engine off at times, then you have an engine that is partly running.
Yes many things are known carcinogens, and many more are suspected, and then there is a whole bunch of chemicals which we really haven't studied. And guess what everything is toxic, water is toxic - just drink 5 gal or so. It is not a question of whether something is toxic; everything is toxic! it's just a question of how much you can consume before it is harmful.
I still rather have my radioactive elements cleaned up from the natural state - all over the environment; to being used at nuclear plants for energy. I also like to keep my mercury in thermometers, rather than spreading it around my house.
I guess I don't take the sunny view that nature is benevolent. I see nature as having scattered pollution all over, and man is trying to clean it up and make some order of the chaos that surrounds it. A history of the Earth will show you how nasty nature can be.
My Sienna (3.5l, FWD, 8 seater) is more efficient driving to the beach than my Miata is (1.6l, RWD, 2 seater). The Miata revs about twice the RPMs on the highway.
I get 28-34mpg highway on the tall geared Sienna
I get about 28 mpg on the Miata no matter how slow or fast I go.
In the city is a different story. In that scenario the small engine wins every time, no contest.
So I think that choosing the right engine for the job has a lot to do with where you will use it.
I guess it can be done because they make more torque at low rpm.
Small engines can't really be geared tall, you'd be lugging them all the time.
Exactly! Americans' tastes for fast powerful cars. Even the Mini, already a paragon of fuel economy virtue by American standards, was not offered here with its smallest engine, which can get up to 50 mpg and does so routinely in Europe where it is offered as the base engine. But OMG! God forbid we offer that engine here, where the 0-60 time would probably be around 12-13 seconds! GASP! And this in a car that is designed primarily to be a city car anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm sure that's true but how significant is the drop in fuel consumption? From what I've read the reduction in fuel consumption is in the range of 5-7%. IMO, not all that impressive when you consider that you've essentially gone from a 6.2L V8 to a 3.1L V4. Again, I'm not disputing that displacement and power can have a negative impact on fuel efficiency. I'm simply stating that the impact is not as great as some would have you believe.
People love to point out the US trucks/SUVs and their 'bad' mileage, but I've been amazed at the hp race between MB/BMW/Audi over the last several years, that has helped drive the market to huge engines in otherwise compact cars. Talk about unecessary...
Shifty: what was your point with the $137,000 Mercedes remark? That European carmakers can also go to wild excesses? Sure they can, but for every $137,000 V-12 Mercedes that gets sold, ten cars get sold that make more than 40 mpg combined. Maybe 50 times as many!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That many 30+ mpg cars probably sold as i was typing this
yeah, a real "collectors item" that will sink like a stone just like every other AMG hotrod does, sooner or later.
I don't see such a car any more irresponsible than a 3 ton plus SUV or some 80 year old driving a 40 foot motorhome. If anything, I suspect high end performance cars like that are in less accidents than the general vehicle population.
I thought I heard about 10%, but then that may have been rounded-off or GM and not Dodge, or vice-versa.
As I believe Nippononly is stating, if you really want to increase mpg you start with a light vehicle. That then doesn't require a high powered engine to give it decent acceleration. Cut the weight to 60% and cut the power to 60%. The engine can be smaller. So now there is less friction. The lighter vehicle now puts less force down on the tires, thus less friction there. The lighter vehicle also will require less power to overcome the air - instead of 40hp to maintain speed, 35hp might be adequate to maintain the same speed. Then you gear the engine for lower rpm's at highway speed. Someone mentioned a Miata not getting great mpg. That's because with a small engine and the desire to accelerate sportily for that model, the gearing is not optimized for mpg.
You're right in implying that no 1 thing will give you high mpg. A hybrid SUV isn't high mpg. Light weight which allows for a less powerful lower displacement engine, good aerodynamics, proper and sufficient number of gears to maintain relatively low rpm's, and cylinder deactivation all would contribute to high mpg.
I had an auto. '88 Honda CRX that pulled 40mpg no matter city-mix or highway. A llow curb weight around 2,100 lb allowed the engine to be a 1.5L which sipped gas at idle and slow around town, and maintained 70 mph at 3,200 rpm and still got 40mpg. Oh and it was aerodynamic. This was an automatic, and probably the 5-speed did better mpg. Also this was not the lower power HF model which was closer to 50mpg.
If you want what power and weight (60 tons) do to mpg, an M-1 tank (yes they're gas, not diesel) gets about 0.5mpg = 2gallons/mile @ it's road speed of 40-50mph.
Many years ago I saw something on TV where a guy had modified a pair of roller skates to run off a gas engine from a leaf blower. The engine was mounted on his back and the wheels turned via a cable connected between the two.
It showed the guy going down the street and the local police pulling him over. The officer suggested that the guy stay off public roads until they could determine what type of vehicle the thing should be classified as.
Someone wondered if it could be modified even further by adding gears to make it go faster. Always wear your helmet.
"Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, John Howard set a 152.2 Miles per Hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. This type of human powered record is called motor pacing. The pace vehicle was modified by adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing."
Or 81 mph unassisted in this:
He laughed and exclaimed "everyone punches it when the light turns green...then, since the streets are so full of traffic, everyone has to hit their brakes and cram to a stop! It's a huge game of hurry up and wait!"
Exactly. And it also goes against the physics of getting optimum gas mileage, too. That was in the mid-80's. The same scenario gets played out daily all over the U.S.
What's the rush? OTOH-going so slow you fall asleep is a danger of another flavor and just as nasty on the road.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Heck, even in my '85 Silverado, which takes about 12 seconds to get from 0-60, I can't remember the last time I've had to push it to its max. And if I ever did, chances are I'd be the fastest car off the line, unless whoever was beside me thought I wanted to race and obliged me.
The only time I really need the power is when I'm merging onto a highway, and around these parts, flooring it would just mean that I rear-end the daydreamer in front of me who's taking his sweet time getting onto the highway.
95% of the time the roads are too crowded to take advantage of anything over 150 hp in a passenger vehicle (regardless of size or type) anyway.
And 50% of the time they are too crowded to take advantage of anything more than about 40 hp. Meanwhile, these overpowered cars are wasting so much gas we could have saved if the automakers had pursued fuel economy as a primary goal.
Oh yeah, and have I said it yet today? Automakers, let's GET THE PORK OUT!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So if we took the 1.5L engine out of the Honda Fit and stuck it in the Honda Accord what kind of mileage do you think we'd get? I guarantee we'd see the 15 second 0-60 mph times that you're advocating. It would be an interesting experiment to see just how much we'd benefit in terms of fuel efficiency by sacrificing this much power.
As far as the extra mass I think I'm in agreement with you. Unfortunately that's the cheapest way to comply with crash standards. If you want smaller vehicles then you are advocating for reduced crash standards or the incorporation of more expensive, light weight materials. Personally I'd love to be able to buy a 2.300 lb vehicle that could produce 160 ft-lbs of torque. It would be a blast to drive and I'm sure it could get exceptional fuel efficiency. I don't see it happening.
I don't think so. Toyota has just increased the size of their largest SUV. The 2008 Sequoia is larger than the last one. With a lot more HP in the new 5.7L V8. The big question is whether it will sell in this climate. They were selling last years Sequoia way below invoice to move them. Same for their trucks. The price of gas is probably a factor.
I think there would be more to it than just putting an undersized engine in a car...you have to find a way to shed some weight, too. A 1.5 would probably get worse economy in the Accord than the current 4-cyl, perhaps even the V-6, because it would be working its little butt off just to move all that bulk!
But then, maybe not. A simpler way to test this theory out would be to take a FIT, and load it up to the point that it would weigh as much as an Accord. Presuming, of course, that you don't exceed its GVWR.
Back in 2005, I took a trip in my 2000 Intrepid. Had two friends with me, and a trunk full of luggage. I'd say that added about 600 pounds compared to just me, alone, in the car. On that trip, doing a lot of 70-80 mph highway driving, a/c running full-blast most of the time, stuck in traffic jams a few times, we averaged 27-28 mpg. About what I'd average in that car alone, doing 70-80 mph, a/c blasting. So in this case, the extra 600 pounds didn't make a noticeable difference.
I'm sure with a lot of stop-and-go driving though, the difference would be more noticeable.
In a mile per mile comparison I would suspect the opposite is true. People buy those things for the performance and they tend to push them at times. Add that to the fact that most drives don't have the skill to handle those cars being pushed to anywhere near their performance limits I would suspect that they get into more accidents per mile.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
One time driving around town me and a friend timed our acceleration in normal traffic. We typically went from 0-40 in 10-12 seconds. No real need for high powered cars now is there?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes, or would you allow me to rephrase it?
a 55 mph America is completely absurd for a 518HP car.
However, handing the keys to anyone, no matter how bad a driver, for a 518 HP car is absurd!
If you want to see what happens to high HP cars, read the classifieds in Hemmings for used Vipers. I'll bet you every third car is being sold damaged.
Such a waste.
I mean, the ZENN is a beginning step in the right direction...getting away from dino ghastly combustion engines, and truly building for our future.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
On a lighter note:
The Ford Exorbitant seats 50 !!!
And:
Have your family reunion in the Marsupial
Mitsubishi is going to start selling an EV (i-MiEV) in 2009 that meets those criteria. The first year it will only be available in Japan. By 2010 they should be for sale in the US and Europe. The latest press releases I've read indicate that they're ahead of the curve in terms of R&D so I'd say there's a good chance they'll meet this schedule.
http://www.beckerautodesign.com/jetvan.html