37 replies to this topic

[Cäz™]

Just for thought ,gearing can make or break gas mileage. Higher gearing could mean going 55mph at a noticeably lower RPM thus reducing fuel conumption.

Chris Kuehne
1993 Honda Civic Lx
D15B7
1.5L - I-4
26-28mpg - 70% city/stop and go/pedal to the metal, 30% highway/steady acceleration.

^^^Hasn't had a tune up in...almost a year ...guess i have something to do this weekend

[oldschoolimport]

wes gamble
civic si
2002
k20a3
2.0 L
28 mpg

civic si
1986
ew4 (with web cam )
1.5 L
35 mpg

[petersterncan]

Yeah, if you're looking to keep overall costs to a minimum, buying a used Civic makes way more sense than buying a new Prius, Insight or Civic hybrid... which is why I'm driving an old 87 Civic Wagovan. Any fuel economy savings will not make up for the car payments.

You're arguing a complex issue. I suggest keeping your paper limited to something like 'keeping total car costs to a minimum'.

But make sure you factor in some other things like:
-Functionality. I personally would love to have a CRX... but the reality is that I have a family, need 4 doors and need enough trunk space for a stroller... And as you can see from my earlier post, my Civic Wagovan uses noticably more fuel than any CRX. -Consumer tastes. The reality in North America is that way more people like big vehicles.
-There are people who will not buy anything used.
-There are people who are willing to pay extra for superior environmental performance
-Different markets/areas have different driving styles. In rural areas, diesels make more sense. In contrast, hybrids are better in urban centres that have much more in the way of stop-and-go driving. All things being equal, a Diesel will have better mileage on the highway and gas hybrid with the Atkinson cycle will be better in the city stop-and-go situation.

I read a report on EVWorld.com a while ago, shortly after the 1st gen Prius came out, that compared it to a Toyota Corolla. They concluded that the Prius, even with the 30% or higher fuel savings, didn't make any economic sense... and therefore there was no market for hybrids.

I wrote a comment to the author that they made the right observation, but came to the wrong conclusion.

On a pure financial basis, factoring the gas prices that were about 25% lower at the time, a hybrid powertrain only makes sense on vehicles that are something like the size of full size pickup trucks or bigger, that are used in a lot of stop-and-go driving. Hybrid technology is perfect for public transit buses used on city routes. Also, hybrids are great for courier companies for the same reason.

But the point behind hybrids isn't just superior fuel economy, but also superior emissions.

And just like there are many people who are willing to pay extra for superior performance (in terms of ride, handling and power), there are also people who are willing pay for superior environmental performance.

That's why I view the Prius has a high performance performance vehicle... it's just not the kind of 'high performance' that the rest of the auto industry is used to. It has high environmental performance, rather than the traditional definitions of performance.

Also in terms of cost difference, while it is a big deal on a small vehicle, it's nearly not as big of a deal if you did the same thing to a Suburban or a Ford Excursion. Those vehicles already cost 60 grand. Considering their lousy fuel mileage, adding a $5000 hybrid option to get 30% better fuel economy makes sense in every way. They charge more than that for Diesel engines. And Diesels are way worse in terms of noise and emissions.

I concluded that the Prius has proven that hybrid technology works... and works fantasically in some situations. Now we just need to apply the concepts in the Prius to the largest vehicles that need the most help in terms of fuel economy and emissions.

Regarding your statement that electrics will be the way to go, I researched this electric vehicle:
http://www.feelgoodc...hine_index.html

I was thinking of replacing the Ford Escort that I had at the time with this vehicle. Here are some observations:
-This vehicle was way more cool than my Escort
-The coolness factor was partly offset by the 100KM/h top speed
-less practicle than my Escort
-Cost of electricty would only be between $10 to $15 a month, compared to the $100 a month I spend on gas.
-No oil changes, No-Tune ups, no filters to change... offset by maintenance done on batteries (must recharge every night and check water levels, for example)
-Satisfaction with being able to 'stick it' to big oil
-The lead-acid batteries would cost about $2400 to replace... and they would need to be replaced every 24 to 36 months
-Battery range gradually drops off as they age

I didn't buy this vehicle. I would buy it if the same $2400 got me Lithium batteries which don't get damaged if you drain them completely. But lithium batteries are just starting to become realistic today(check out www.valence.com). 3 years ago, you couldn't even get a lithium battery for EV use (prototypes don't count).

Based on what I've seen being done with the Valence batteries, I expect there will be a bit of a market for EVs within the next 5 years with companies like AC Propulsion (http://www.acpropulsion.com/). I don't expect the EV market to get big for at least another 15 years. I also expect that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will never become dominant.

Sorry for rambling.

Peter

PS: all my dollar figures are in Canadian funds. Subtract about 25% to convert to use funds

yah, im not doing this to prove we need to change the cars and make them lighter/smaller motors...but im just doing a research paper on hybrid/electrics and that imo they arent doing the job yet, when i can spend 20k on a new hybrid, and get the kind of gas mileage i would get with an old hf crx and spend almost nothing on one...and maybe we need to produce more cars like that before we spend all this money on hybrids that just wont make up for gas prices after you look at the price of cars...and yes electric will eventually be the way to go...plug in, goto work, drive home, plug back in...and plus i dont think anyone here will argue that a crx would be a hell of a lot more fun to drive than an insight...but yah, thanks for all the great info so far!!! KEEP IT COMING 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[petersterncan]

I agree that the basics you mention apply.

But on the issue of cams, you have things like VTEC that give you the best of both worlds. I think all BMW engines now have their own verson of this. I know that the new magnesium block I6 does. In light of this, I can't see BMW ever doing another ETA engine.

On the issue of big engines using more gas than smaller ones, I agree that's generally true, but there are exceptions... like engines that shut down cylinders under light to moderate loads.

Part of the reason why vehicles today guzzle as much as ever is because of the low gas prices we've had up until recently. There wasn't much incentive to raise fuel economy.

And you probably already know that equipping engines with advanced features that save fuel without sacrificing power adds to the cost of building the engine. The same thing goes for building bodies with lighter materials. The additional costs are only justifiable if fuel prices are high enough to get a decent payback.

And that's what I'm alluding to... that technical innovation is a better path to lower fuel consumption rather than just saying that cars/engines need to be smaller.

Also, a vehicle that gets great gas mileage isn't necessarily cheaper to own.

Peter

OK son, still some basics apply............1 lb.. 1 ft.. in.. 1sec..........
If you have a light car and drive slow you use less HP...........aero drag goes up to the sq of the velocity.........so body shap makes a difference the faster you go.......  In the 70's gas crissis I got over 50 mpg with the 1g civic......carb motor.......drive 50 .......don't pedal (acel pump waists gas).

Yes, 10 million hours of reasearch can make engines more efficient.....BMW 325e.....etta motor.      long intake runners..torque cam etc.  had a torque curve almost identical to a Diesel.

Still larger engines inherently use more gas.  The engine is an air pump, at 3000 rpm it still has to have 14:1 F:A ratio. even at no load it still has to supply fuel for the air consumed by the engine's own drag and inertias.  That = hp that = gas.

If you collected enough research data, I think you'll find, on the average, that the light cars with the smallest engines will give the best gas milage (CRX HF) (Honda Mini Cars 600cc's)

I'll bet that you'll see gas milage go to hell in the hand basket as the model years get newer as for a given model they are getting larger and heavier.  Larger engines to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[RedSIBaron]

well, im basicly doing a research paper on hybrids...im just using this as a good way to show that we probably arent moving in the right direction, there needs to be better options to fuel economy other than the insight and prius (cuz they cost way too much for the little extra gas your saving) instead you could probably get a suzuki new econo box (they are not a super small car either, i think its the aerio), save 8 to 10 grand and get over 30mpg...that 8 to 10 grand isnt even how much your going to spend on gas in the time you may own the car (lets say for kicks, a lot of people trade in every 4 years, unlike many of us haha) i just dont see a 50mpg car costing 20grand really saving you a lot...also ford should be releasing hybrid electric options soon, which will give us a car that will cost anywhere from 5 to 8 grand less than a honda or toyota and will give us the same, if not better gas mileage, which seems to make a lot more sense than the current hybrids...see what im getting at...*shrug*

[Buford]

Screw emmisions greenie bastards........zero emmission cars won't save the environment. One fart from a small volcano put more green house gases in the atmosphere than all tha cars in the world can in a year. Dangerous man made chemicals are a real issue. That new car smell is off gassing of extreamly dangerous chemicals from all the plastics etc. Same with new carpet in your house. Tupperware as well. Plastics can off gas for years.

If you want to get better milage use basic physics. You won't end up with a performance car. maybe if it is electric.

[mitch]

Mitch D.
1984 CRX 1.3
was 42 mpg avg. for 110K miles
EV1 engine
worst 36 mpg; best 51 mpg

same CRX, now with B16A; Y1; +4 tire width increase and lots of extra wt.
26 city; 30 highway

same CRX, now with B16A;Y1, was with .55 custom-made 5th gear ratio
29 city; 36 highway, usually highway driving well above the speed limit.
best of 55 mpg, at 45 mph, 8000 ft. altitude, with the .55 5th gear ratio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2000 Honda Insight
52 mpg lifetime avg., using ZR high performance tires, +3 width increase, instead of OEM low-rolling resistance tires.

1 liter, 3 cylinder engine, plus IMA

car driven aggressively, with frequent shifting at redline, and highway driving well above the speed limit.

worst 43 mpg, travelling at avg. speed of 90+ mph
best 63 mpg, traveling at 60.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1994 Mazda MX-3
1.6L 4 cyl.
31 mpg lifetime, using +1 tire width incr.
car driven normal around town, and highway driving well above speed limit.
worst 28 mpg.
best 47 mpg, travelling avg. speed of 55 mph at 6000 ft. altitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RedSIBaron, I've owned, from new, both the CRX 1.3 and the Insight. You seem to infer that the CRX HF (which essentially replaced the CRX 1.3) is a fair comparison to the Insight in terms of overall product, and that the Insight is more overpriced than the HF ever was. In reality the Insight is a much-improved car, and essentially is the improved modern day version of the CRX HF. Many Insight owners are former (some still current owners like myself) owners of all versions of the 2 generations of the CRX, many of which were purchased new, and all seem to agree that the Insight is a big improvement over the CRX HF of both generations. Most that had Si models even state they prefer their Insight over their former CRX Si model. Adjusting for inflation since the CRX HF was sold, the Insight does still cost several thousand more dollars, but the increase in content, mpg, and performance certainly offsets the price difference.

The Insight is utilizing mostly aluminum, and this is a huge improvement over our beloved CRX. Most CRXes out there from our generation are in the process of rusting out in most parts of the country. This won't ever be an issue with the Insight. The Insight comes with many enhanced features as standard equipment, which the HF didn't have: P/W, P/L, P/M, EP/S, auto climate control, 14x5.5" alloy wheels, security-coded keys, stereo with clock and speakers, mpg computer {with different displays of lifetime mpg, trip A mpg, trip B mpg, instantaneous mpg}, front strut tower bar, rear twist beam (essentially operating like a rear sway bar), A/C filter, ABS, airbags, hydraulic clutch, magnesium oil pan, aluminum brake calipers, passenger-side mirror. The Insight also has a much stiffer chassis than the CRX, and thus performs quite well in crash-testing. That's an area where all CRXes performed poorly. The CRX only came with a 1 yr./12K miles general warranty. The Insight has triple that, and an 8 year/80K warranty on IMA components.

As for performance, the Insight is aprox. .7-1 sec. quicker in the 1/4 mile than the HF, and capable of a much higher top speed than my CRX 1.3 was (113 mph at the speed limiter, vs. 100). The Insight's handling is also better than the CRX 1.3 and HF, and with a noticeably better ride quality as well. The Insight, with its much stiffer chassis, also seems to have responded better than the CRX when upgrading to better-handling tires. Both cars came with low-rolling-resistance tires as OEM, with 165mm section width. Some Insight owners are auto-Xing their cars, and are even winning races in H-Stock class. Contrary to what you're saying, the Insight is more fun to drive than the CRX 1.3 and HF, which I test-drove at a dealer in '88.

As for fuel economy, the Insight clearly outperforms the 1st and 2nd gen HF and 1.3. I didn't drive the 1.3 very aggressively over the years ('84-'96, before changing over to the B16A), but only averaged 42 mpg. I get 60 mpg driving the Insight in the same manner I drove the CRX 1.3 for 42 mpg. Many Insight owners keep their ill-handling OEM tires, pump them up to 50 psi, and get 75-90+ mpg at 50-55 mph on the highway. I can't usually drive that slow, and I prefer the very huge handling improvement of the Dunlop SP8000 195/55/ZR14 tires over the OEM tires, to the potential huge mpg improvement that the OEM gives over my tires. The point is, incredible mpg is possible with the Insight, even though I haven't gone in that direction, as others have.

Thus adjusting for inflation, engineering, performance and content increase, the Insight is seemingly priced no differently than the last '91 CRX HF was when new.
Keep in mind that the HF was not an entry-level car. There were cars that were still alot cheaper (30%+ cheaper, if I recall correctly) at the time. Thus the same argument that's today made about the Insight being an overpriced economy car could've been made likewise about the CRX HF back when it was sold. Back then there was more than just mpg to enjoy and appreciate about a CRX HF, and today the same is true about an Insight.

[MakDiesel]

damn informative Mitch, good work. Mak