U.S. vs China: The future of efficient automobiles

[jet_porkins]

The U.S. will call for a minimum gas mileage in all new automobiles to 42 mpg by 2016.

Source

New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming.

President Barack Obama was expected to adopt the higher mileage standards on Tuesday, administration sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement.

The new requirement will cost consumers an extra $1,30 per vehicle and marks the first time that limits on greenhouse gases will be linked to federal standards for cars and light trucks.

As for China, well, you simply have to see this for yourself.

edit: thread meant to be in Lounge, but I guess this is okay.

 

[Warped]

wow a minimum of 42. my car gets like 30mpg now and it looks like there will probably be too many people left behind

 

[DEATHMASTER]

well its just the new cars. Prices will surely **** to shitsville.

 

[Raziaar]

About ****ing time. 10-20 mpg commuter vehicles are absolutely terrible.

I don't know why people bitch about this. They're bitching about how much they have to pay for gas lately... but somehow the idea of forcing automobile manufacturers to have a standard like this is outrageous because it will... allow them to get more bang for their gas dollar buck.

 

[Warped]

I hate huge vehicles with one driver in them. Rarely do I see a huge vehicle thats packed. In fact I only see small cars that are packed with people these days

 

[repiV]

How the hell are you supposed to make a sportscar that does 42mpg? My bike doesn't even manage that.

 

[Raziaar]

How the hell are you supposed to make a sportscar that does 42mpg? My bike doesn't even manage that.

Research and innovation, biatch!

But seriously, there are cars out there that can get more than 100mpg. That doesn't mean that modern sports cars will have anywhere near that mileage, but that doesn't rule it out for the future.

42mpg is not some sort of barrier that is supremely difficult or impossible to cross.

LOL, here's a wacky story.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/how_japanese_mi.php

Enthusiasts in Japan have hacked their Priuses, and use zen-like driving techniques to get up to 116 miles per gallon (they go 1000 miles on a 13 gallon tank of gas). In Japan they are called "nenpimania", Japanese for "mileage maniacs". Their techniques involve hacking the cars' computer systems, adding special tires, strategically placing tap, cardboard and foam rubber over the engine and grill. They also drive barefoot, and strive to perfect what they call the "pulse and glide" driving method, which requires sensitivity when pushing or releasing the accelerator. Some drivers use only their big toe to push the accelerator. :: Via The Raw Feed and Chicago Tribute. (Note: Photo shows American, not Japanese, Prius hack.)

 

[repiV]

I can't see it being possible without sacrificing the performance of the vehicle. Bikes over here have already suffered for several years due to emissions and noise regulations (not mileage requirements). The manufacturers often work a flat spot into the power to pass the tests. So people spend a lot of money having the engine reconfigured and a freer-flowing exhaust system fitted...

If it's being ridden as nature intended, you'll get under 30mpg out of my bike. A supercar with similar performance probably 1 or 2mpg. It takes a seriously mental engine to make a big box-shaped lump of metal really shift some.

 

[MultiVaC]

How the hell are you supposed to make a sportscar that does 42mpg? My bike doesn't even manage that.

Easy. Stop making sportscars.

 

[repiV]

Easy. Stop making sportscars.

This isn't North Korea.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'm guessing this is only for US car companies. So its not like there aren't options right.
Also, I usually use my big toe to push the accelerator
(really, I did learn that from freakin Spongebob and was surprised how well it works).

 

[repiV]

More likely to be a requirement of vehicles registered in the US, I would say. As it is, manufacturers have to release slightly different versions of the same vehicle in different countries due to these sorts of regulations.

 

[Krynn72]

This is awesome. Sports cars can suck it, only douchebags drive them. Nobody needs that kind of speed.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Read the article again. The average mileage is the only thing changing, it's not the minimum mileage.

In other words, in the fleet of cars a company produces, the average mileage of all of them needs to be 42 mpg. So you can sell both 100 mpg cars, and 10 mpg cars, as long as the average is 42 mpg.

 

[Bob_Marley]

This is awesome. Sports cars can suck it, only douchebags drive them. Nobody needs that kind of speed.

Nobody needs quite alot of things. We don't need online games, or more to the point, the server farms that they run on consuming vast amouts of energy. The "need" argument is a dangerous thing.

 

[Warped]

Obama wants tough fuel economy rules

New fuel economy rules announced today by President Obama have already gained support from major automakers, but the challenge will be getting consumers to play along, especially if gas prices stay low. The proposed new fuel economy plan requires passenger cars and light trucks to get an overall average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/19/autos/fuel_economy_challenges/index.htm

35.5 ain't bad, 42 would be a lot harder to achieve. plus we're talking like 6.5 years from now...a lot of cars will probably have better mpg by then anyways

 

[CptStern]

meh at this point if obama says that US made cars need to travel across america on a single thimble of gasoline the big 3 automakers better jump right up and say "yes sir, right away sir" **** them, I hope the run to a fuel efficient car puts them all out of business

 

[Warped]

the thing is, our Automotive Industry is all ready beaten and broken. One more major blow and we'll all be driving foreign cars eventually. not that its a bad thing, but our Economy is both a War Economy and an Automotive Economy. We really don't make much more than that and a bunch of wheat/corn, etc

Just Added:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYjMCZTGbSU

 

[repiV]

This is awesome. Sports cars can suck it, only douchebags drive them. Nobody needs that kind of speed.

Who the hell are you to dictate what luxuries other people are allowed to enjoy? You get your kicks through...whatever it is you get your kicks through. I get mine through riding sportsbikes. I don't see why one is any more valid than the other.

Notwithstanding the fact that your claim that "nobody needs that kind of speed" is bullshit. I use full throttle on my bike every day (unless the weather is awful anyway), safely and to good effect, to overtake slower traffic. And that's a ****load more brutal acceleration than you'll find in ANY production car. A good illustration of why people with no interest in cars and no real driving skills shouldn't be voicing their opinion on issues to do with driving...

Read the article again. The average mileage is the only thing changing, it's not the minimum mileage.

In other words, in the fleet of cars a company produces, the average mileage of all of them needs to be 42 mpg. So you can sell both 100 mpg cars, and 10 mpg cars, as long as the average is 42 mpg.

Well, that's a little different. Mileage is only part of the picture though anyway. People put a hell of a lot more miles on their Mondeos than they do on their Ferraris. And if someone keeps their Ferrari for 15 years, it's vastly more economical than a disposable Eurobox.

Generally, people don't put big miles on uneconomical cars as they're used as toys. I suppose that might be a little different in the US where all your cars are uneconomical for some reason...

 

[VirusType2]

How the hell are you supposed to make a sportscar that does 42mpg? My bike doesn't even manage that.

I own one.

4 cylinder turbo. It just has to be extremely light weight


eh, but of course, if I drive it spiritedly, it doesn't get nearly that gas millage. It's only if I drive it economically

TBH, ever since they started adding ethanol 10% to fuel, I get a little less - probably about 38 mpg

 

[repiV]

I own one.

4 cylinder turbo. It just has to be extremely light weight


eh, but of course, if I drive it spiritedly, it doesn't get nearly that gas millage. It's only if I drive it economically

TBH, ever since they started adding ethanol 10% to fuel, I get a little less - probably about 38 mpg

Hmm. To be fair, I do get about 45mpg if I ride the bike economically. I don't get much chance to do that though, as all the roads in my neck of the woods are twisty country roads so you need low gears for control and then big acceleration to overtake the many cars that get in my way.

Worst I've ever had out of it is about 28mpg. To be fair, I don't know why it should be so thirsty even though it is stupidly fast. The thing only weighs 160 kilos. Possibly because it's so high-revving?

What do you have, a TVR or something? How much does it drink if you thrash it?

 

[VirusType2]

First let me say that my engine is from an old race car, and the engine was designed over 20 years ago. Now we all know that [fuel only] engines haven't changed much in that time, but I think that if they make cars as light as possible, and design a great engine, then 43 MPG in a small car should be easily achieved.

One only need to look to Honda for tips on how to get the most from a small engine.


I'm not sure of the MPG if I were to constantly drive my car hard, because there really isn't an opportunity to do something like that. I can say that that it is CONSIDERABLY higher. For example, If I floor it through second and third gear, I notice my gas gauge has gone down.

Now, I'm sure you know this, but since you are trying to figure why you get poor mileage - off the top of my head, things that factor in fuel economy are:

weight of the vehicle

wind drag (at over 55 mph this becomes a large factor)

engine liters

the actual amount of fuel being used depending on throttle

engine revs (including idle speed)

tire drag


Today, I took my camera to the weigh scale at the landfill, but they had closed at 4pm. I wanted to take a picture of the large LED display that shows the weight of my car.

I'll talk about this soon (when I get the photo), but I believe my car is nearly 1000 lbs less than stock weight, so that's how I get such great economy and performance. I've nearly doubled fuel economy and tripled performance.

I've made some sacrifices though, like removing the AC, no rear seats, power steering, and some interior cosmetics. I also have a carbon fiber hood, and plan to get an entire carbon fiber front end, which includes the side panels above the front wheels. There is also quite a bit of other things but that is my secret.

I also plan to replace my extra wide chrome wheels with some skinnier, lighter wheels. I put my chrome wheels on a scale, and compared them to the weight of some wheels I was going to buy and mine were 50 lbs heavier. These new ones where just sport wheels, mind you. If I find some Racing Hart wheels I like, then the weight savings would be dramatic. The thinner wheels will also have less drag, at the cost of grip, so I'll have to actuate the throttle carefully.

50 lbs will make a very noticeable difference, it will feel like about 5 more horsepower/torque.

I've roughly estimated that it's feels like 10 more horsepower for every 100 lbs less weight. The advantage doesn't stop there of course, you also get better handling, braking, fuel economy, and the car seems to have less wheel spin when accelerating hard from a stop.

An upgrade I plan for the future will be larger fuel injectors, but that will decrease my fuel economy.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

How the hell are you supposed to make a sportscar that does 42mpg? My bike doesn't even manage that.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/03/geneva-2009-frazer-nash-namir-by-giugiaro/

362 HP rotary/electric hybrid, top speed of 187mph, 0-62 in 3.5 seconds...

91.7 MPG!

It's currently a concept car, but it is very possible to make a fuel efficient sports car or super car.

 

[speedbump]

Auto-fatalities and insurance-costs are gonna balloon, judging-by the latest crash-tests. The fuel-efficient prototypes will be hyper-priced aluminum coffins, unless the auto-companies have more cards to play.

 

[Rico]

Who the hell are you to dictate what luxuries other people are allowed to enjoy? You get your kicks through...whatever it is you get your kicks through. I get mine through riding sportsbikes. I don't see why one is any more valid than the other.

Notwithstanding the fact that your claim that "nobody needs that kind of speed" is bullshit. I use full throttle on my bike every day (unless the weather is awful anyway), safely and to good effect, to overtake slower traffic. And that's a ****load more brutal acceleration than you'll find in ANY production car. A good illustration of why people with no interest in cars and no real driving skills shouldn't be voicing their opinion on issues to do with driving...



Well, that's a little different. Mileage is only part of the picture though anyway. People put a hell of a lot more miles on their Mondeos than they do on their Ferraris. And if someone keeps their Ferrari for 15 years, it's vastly more economical than a disposable Eurobox.

Generally, people don't put big miles on uneconomical cars as they're used as toys. I suppose that might be a little different in the US where all your cars are uneconomical for some reason...

Because driving is just for fun right? It serves no useful purpose other than to get your rocks off? I mean, it's not as if it would matter if all cars went at 1mpg, we have, after all, UNLIMITED amounts of oil/resources!

Or maybe you need to put a sock in your mouth and stop trying to look like some sort of muscle-car tough guy on a video game internet forum.

His opinion is just as valid as yours, I'd dare say more valid, as opposing legislation to make cars more efficient is downright stupid in my book. How exactly are you going to be driving your 10MPG motorcycle past the "slowpokes" without something to burn in it? Does it run on your hopes and dreams, or on pure testosterone?

 

[MultiVaC]

Who the hell are you to dictate what luxuries other people are allowed to enjoy? You get your kicks through...whatever it is you get your kicks through. I get mine through riding sportsbikes. I don't see why one is any more valid than the other.

We're the people who rely on the limited fuel source you wantonly burn through and inhale the toxic shit you spew into the air, that's who we are.

 

[Warped]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/03/geneva-2009-frazer-nash-namir-by-giugiaro/

362 HP rotary/electric hybrid, top speed of 187mph, 0-62 in 3.5 seconds...

91.7 MPG!

It's currently a concept car, but it is very possible to make a fuel efficient sports car or super car.

I've seen videos of cars that do almost triple that. it can and should be done on a massive scale. we may need gasoline thousands of years from now to fight of the horde. every drop counts imo

225mpg on hybrid mode!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ76z1YAhlY&feature=related

 

[unozero]

This is awesome. Sports cars can suck it, only douchebags drive them. Nobody needs that kind of speed.

jealous much?

 

[repiV]

First let me say that my engine is from an old race car, and the engine was designed over 20 years ago. Now we all know that [fuel only] engines haven't changed much in that time, but I think that if they make cars as light as possible, and design a great engine, then 43 MPG in a small car should be easily achieved.

One only need to look to Honda for tips on how to get the most from a small engine.


I'm not sure of the MPG if I were to constantly drive my car hard, because there really isn't an opportunity to do something like that. I can say that that it is CONSIDERABLY higher. For example, If I floor it through second and third gear, I notice my gas gauge has gone down.

That's pretty mental.

Now, I'm sure you know this, but since you are trying to figure why you get poor mileage - off the top of my head, things that factor in fuel economy are:

weight of the vehicle

wind drag (at over 55 mph this becomes a large factor)

engine liters

the actual amount of fuel being used depending on throttle

engine revs (including idle speed)

tire drag

Wind drag, that's a good point actually. All motorbikes have the aerodynamics of a brick. No matter how aerodynamic the design is, the rider always ruins it.

Revs to 17,000 rpm also - and it barely even moves until 7,000. The real power kicks in around 12. I'm assuming the fact they've managed to squeeze 130hp out of a tiny 636cc engine is a big factor. It needs a service every 4000 miles.

Today, I took my camera to the weigh scale at the landfill, but they had closed at 4pm. I wanted to take a picture of the large LED display that shows the weight of my car.

I'll talk about this soon (when I get the photo), but I believe my car is nearly 1000 lbs less than stock weight, so that's how I get such great economy and performance. I've nearly doubled fuel economy and tripled performance.

I've made some sacrifices though, like removing the AC, no rear seats, power steering, and some interior cosmetics. I also have a carbon fiber hood, and plan to get an entire carbon fiber front end, which includes the side panels above the front wheels. There is also quite a bit of other things but that is my secret.

I also plan to replace my extra wide chrome wheels with some skinnier, lighter wheels. I put my chrome wheels on a scale, and compared them to the weight of some wheels I was going to buy and mine were 50 lbs heavier. These new ones where just sport wheels, mind you. If I find some Racing Hart wheels I like, then the weight savings would be dramatic. The thinner wheels will also have less drag, at the cost of grip, so I'll have to actuate the throttle carefully.

50 lbs will make a very noticeable difference, it will feel like about 5 more horsepower/torque.

I've roughly estimated that it's feels like 10 more horsepower for every 100 lbs less weight. The advantage doesn't stop there of course, you also get better handling, braking, fuel economy, and the car seems to have less wheel spin when accelerating hard from a stop.

An upgrade I plan for the future will be larger fuel injectors, but that will decrease my fuel economy.

I'd be curious to see it, it sounds pretty interesting. You've put a hell of a lot of work into the car by the sounds of it. I don't drive cars at all myself but I still notice these modern cars loaded down with all sorts of shite feel like barges with really vague and disconnected steering.

Because driving is just for fun right? It serves no useful purpose other than to get your rocks off? I mean, it's not as if it would matter if all cars went at 1mpg, we have, after all, UNLIMITED amounts of oil/resources!

Driving is for fun, as well as for transport.

Or maybe you need to put a sock in your mouth and stop trying to look like some sort of muscle-car tough guy on a video game internet forum.

I don't even drive a car?

His opinion is just as valid as yours, I'd dare say more valid, as opposing legislation to make cars more efficient is downright stupid in my book. How exactly are you going to be driving your 10MPG motorcycle past the "slowpokes" without something to burn in it? Does it run on your hopes and dreams, or on pure testosterone?

It's not valid at all, because it's absolutely none of his business what other people choose to drive. You're pretty ****ing dumb anyway, as you obviously don't realise that EVERYTHING we do uses oil. The electricity for your pimped up PC uses oil. How about we limit the capability of home computers to that required to browse the internet and play music?

Yeah, thought that would go down well. Hypocritical mong.

We're the people who rely on the limited fuel source you wantonly burn through and inhale the toxic shit you spew into the air, that's who we are.

Please turn your PC and plasma TV off. You're wasting our finite natural resources. Smug twat.

 

[unozero]

utterly mindless/brainwashed the people in this thread.


"we gotta go green duurr"
Lets shit in paper bags and bury them in the backyard yes?

 

[repiV]

Tell me about it. :|

 

[VirusType2]

"we gotta go green duurr"
Lets shit in paper bags and bury them in the backyard yes?

Done and ... done.

No, but serious, I've been trying to save resources and keep the environment clean.

It starts with the incandescent light bulb - the one we've been using for like 100 years to light our homes.

If every household in Canada changed just one traditional incandescent light bulb to an ENERGY STAR labeled CFL , the country would save over $73 million in energy costs every year and reduce greebhouse gas emissions by 397 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide – which would have the same impact on climate change as taking 66 000 cars off the road for one year.

If every US household replaced six 60-watt incandescent light bulbs with 13-watt compact fluorescent light bulbs, it would be equivalent to taking 3,188,894 cars off the road - for good.

The Energy Star program estimates that if every household replaced at least one regular light bulb with a Compact Fluorescent one, the pollution prevented would be like taking a million cars off the road

"If every household replaced just three 60-watt incandescent bulbs with CF bulbs, the pollution savings would be like taking 3.5 million cars off the road!"

etc.

a CFL bulb:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=cfl bulb&sa=N&safe=off&tab=wi&um=1

 

[MultiVaC]

Please turn your PC and plasma TV off. You're wasting our finite natural resources. Smug twat.

The TV is off, and since I use public transit almost exclusively I'm wasting far fewer resources in my daily life than people who burn excess gallons of fuel in their ego machine sports cars. It's not about how much you use, it's about how much you waste. People need to cut down on the fuel they use, and using a fuel efficient car is one of the first steps they can take. Besides, when you drive "for fun" it's not only wasteful but unsafe as well. People are using the road to get places, it's not a playground. Thanks for keeping things civil, by the way.

 

[unozero]

jghjghjghjghjghjghjghjghjghjghjghjgh

 

[repiV]

The TV is off, and since I use public transit almost exclusively I'm wasting far fewer resources in my daily life than people who burn excess gallons of fuel in their ego machine sports cars. It's not about how much you use, it's about how much you waste.

It's not a waste if I enjoy it. You may also be interested to know that buses are by FAR the least efficient mode of road transport per passenger mile.

I do pity you - you must have an incredibly depressing life if everything you do is defined only by necessity.

People need to cut down on the fuel they use, and using a fuel efficient car is one of the first steps they can take. Besides, when you drive "for fun" it's not only wasteful but unsafe as well.

You use public transport to get around. Who the hell are you to say what is safe and unsafe driving? Motoring enthusiasts are, generally speaking, the safest drivers on the road by far because they take pride and active interest in their driving. Bikers especially so, because it takes many times more skill and awareness to even survive on a bike, let alone ride one well.

I've ridden 20,000 miles in the last year, about half of that for fun, on some of the most dangerous roads in the country, at speed, every day and in all weathers including ice and blizzards without a single incident. I would kindly ask you to STFU with your clueless opinions on what is safe and unsafe.

People are using the road to get places, it's not a playground.

Only an idiot would use this road to get anywhere. Especially as it's impassable for most of the year.

It sure is an incredible experience though.

Thanks for keeping things civil, by the way.

You're insufferably self-righteous, ignorant, obnoxious and judgemental. Why would I be civil to you?

 

[unozero]

burned.



anywho it all comes down that people don't have the right to tell what kind of car I drive etc...**** this isn't is East Germany circa 1970 lol.

 

[VirusType2]

The TV is off, and since I use public transit almost exclusively I'm wasting far fewer resources in my daily life than people who burn excess gallons of fuel in their ego machine sports cars. It's not about how much you use, it's about how much you waste. People need to cut down on the fuel they use, and using a fuel efficient car is one of the first steps they can take. Besides, when you drive "for fun" it's not only wasteful but unsafe as well. People are using the road to get places, it's not a playground. Thanks for keeping things civil, by the way.

I have a sports car, and it has nothing to do with ego:
- I am Misanthropic.
- I haven't washed my car in years.
- I get better fuel economy than anyone you know - short of hybrids, battery operated cars, and motorcycles.
- I don't drive it for fun, I drive it to get groceries.

The power is just there. Driving it like an econo car 95% of the time.

If I am stuck behind a service vehicle, when I get a dotted line, I pass in the oncoming lane and I don't want to hang out there

If I pull out and then realize there is a car coming, I can give it the power to get up to speed and keep from getting hit.

I can make lights - not necessarily by speeding, but by getting to the speed limit faster. Sitting in lights for several minutes is wasteful.

I don't have to use much gas to accerate quickly. The car is just plain light weight and so requires less power to get up to speed.

Climbing hills is where gravity really does a number on fuel economy motor vehicles. This is MUCH less of a problem for a car with ample power and light weight.



People do a lot of things for fun - motorsports, dirt bikes, waverunners, boats, powerboats, go-karts. I could litterally go on for hours on fun ways to waste fuel.

All of that is a drop in the ocean compared to what is used for people who spend four hours in the car commuting to work everyday.

I believe that many more jobs can be done from home using home computers for work, video conferencing, etc.

I think public transport has been proven to be worse honestly.


I know I use less fuel than almost anyone who owns a vehicle.

Now that I work from home, I honestly probably put less than 1,000 miles a year on my car. Compare that to the average driver who puts about 4,000 miles a month.

Not only that, but as I said, I get about double the fuel economy of the average passenger car.

After driving for almost 20 years, I'll also proclaim myself as an expert at working the traffic, lights, hills, etc., to my advantage for best fuel economy and least wear on my brakes.

 

[repiV]

Indeed it's not about ego. I would surmise that anyone who looks down on someone with a fast car ostensibly because they must be ego-maniacs has some deep-rooted insecurities themselves.

If you use public transport almost exclusively, I would imagine you don't get about much either, and don't really get to experience the richness of the varying landscapes this world has to offer.

I spent the long weekend touring the mountains of Wales at the beginning of the month. Saw some amazing places, met some amazing people. Rode some incredible roads. In June, I'll be spending nine days exploring the Lake District and the West Coast of Scotland. If funds allow then I shall be jumping on the ferry to Santander and riding around southern Spain in September.

My bike has opened up more of the world and more experiences to me than I would ever have imagined. You're obviously quite happy in your ignorant little corner of the world, as long as you keep it to yourself then I don't really care. But this world has enough tedious, unadventurous people who are determined to bring everyone else down to their miserable, bleak, conformist level.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't want to be seen as someone who thinks he is better than others. It really has nothing to do with that. I do a lot of things different. I want to encourage people to change, not make them feel bad or offended.


-Instead of making short trips out to get milk or whatever - I do without for a few days, until I have several things to do and do them in on one trip.

-I use fluorescent lights in my house and only use them when necessary.

-When I'm warming up my shower water, I catch the initial cold water in a pitcher and use it for other things.

-I work at home.


I don't expect everyone to make the sacrifices I've made. Some people actually require A/C, power steering, etc. - especially the elderly. People have families and need larger vehicles with more seats and more doors.

I just hope that many more people strive to become more energy efficient - less wasteful. A lot of people just don't know how. You'd be amazed how many people still think that heavier cars are faster.

So I've spent quite a bit of time in threads like these, preaching my shit to enlighten people. Who knows, maybe I'll make a difference.

 

[repiV]

Nothing wrong with not wasting energy. Unfortunately, certain extremist lunatics like our MultiVac here, would have you believe that freedom of movement, people's hobbies and livelihoods qualify as a "waste".