[Cloud9...68]

"i am continually dismayed at the failure of the industry to significantly improve on economy"

You're not alone, for sure. I think the problem is simply that the low hanging fruit for improving fuel mileage (fuel injection, CPU-driven control of ignition timing, fuel delivery, combustion stoichiometry, valve timing, etc., improved metallurgy, improved oils, etc.) has already been picked. To improve from here is going to start costing serious money, with technologies like direct injection, hybrid schemes, modern common rail diesels, exotic lightweight materials, and the like. The industry clearly has every incentive, from market forces to government mandates, to improve mileage. The fact that it seems to be stuck suggest that it ain't so easy.

The Smart, targeting the lower-cost end of the spectrum, has to make do with the aforementioned conventional approaches. I am surprised that as light as this thing is that it doesn't do better, though.

Consumers will have to dispense with the idea that an economical car is a cheap car, which is going to be a tough paradigm to shift. It will be interesting to see how consumers react to the sticker shock that is going to come with the more "economical" cars of the next few years. I for one am not going to make any predictions one way or the other...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the issue i have is that a 1981 honda civic with a 1500cc engine got 32 city and 42 hwy - why can't they merely incorporate those new technologies into that car? based on the power output and laws of physics, it should get about 60mpg

in the same year:

the plymouth champ did even better at 34/45

the toyota tercel did 36/48

the toyota starlet did 36/50

even the datsun pickup did 38/51

a 1979 rabbit did 41/55 and made 115hp

the list is huge:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-...cars-1978-1981/

a 1 liter engine powering an even lighter car should get 80mpg

something fishy here - we're not trying very hard

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[T-Bone]

I remember my 1978 Honda Civic hatchback used to get like 35-40mpg. The problem of using that comparison against today's cars is that my car had hand cranked windows, no A/C, manual choke, only 1 floor vent, the most horrible black/white checked cloth interior, barely a stereo, 13" wheels etc. You get my point. The car had 52hp and I vividly remember how embarrassed I was one night when, at a party, 3 of my friends stood behind my car to keep me from leaving. Well, I was having none of that and when I tried to back up over them, I could smell my clutch burning from the friction but the car never moved. So, I went back inside and had another beer. Oh, and the car weighed 1500 lbs! None of our kids would ever stoop so low these days as to drive a car without a/c, power windows, at least 17" wheels, etc., all which add weight. Throw in the government-mandated things like ABS, airbags, etc. and even more weight is added. Hell, the Smartfortwo even weighs more than my Civic did, 1600 lbs. vs. 1500 for the Civic. Man, it's fun to reminisce... I loved that car! Sold it for $850.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[968Z]

I owned a 1992 Honda Civic LX, and while not the lap of luxury, it had most of the creature comforts. I got 31-33 around town, and 42-44 mpg on the open road. It was actually quite fun to drive with a 5-speed gearbox. It makes me laugh when I see the auto companies touting 35 mpg as if it were a breakthrough.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

T-bone hit it on the head. 20 years ago, cars had fewer safety features, less sound proofing, fewer amenities, etc. and nowadays, weigh quite a bit more than an '81 Civic.

Weight is the enemy for gas mileage. I wouldn't be surprised if the Smart car weighs significantly more than an '81 Civic.

My 2004 Jetta has 6 airbags and all the lovely electrical doodads that go with it. My Jetta weighs over 3300lbs and it is tiny! It is a slow pig even though it have a fairly decent sized V6.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the cars are larger - that's why they weigh a lot more - the airbags and such don't weigh much - you can come over to my place and hold them in your hand if you want - grand total of like 12 lbs for ours - double that for side impact - another 20lbs or so for side reinforcement - AC is good for a total of 40lbs, and a max draw of 15hp and 3mpg when running (almost zero impact when not)

all totaled this gets nowhere near explaining things

where the problem lies is in the market dictating larger cars, with more powerful engines, and not also making the intelligent and efficient super compact commuters

we stepped away from this direction deliberately

there absolutely is no reason we should not have a aluminum and composite body 1500lb car with a 1 liter engine producing 90hp and making 60mpg

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

You can have your 1500 lb car with 90HP and 60MPG... It just won't be street legal by today's requirements, that's all. If you want it to meet current and future safety requirements, the market won't bear it because they won't be able to afford it - at least not currently or in the immediate future.

Cars getting larger is certainly a reason, but you can't logically discount all the "extra" stuff in today's car. Easily accounts for 4-600 pounds (if not more in many cars) when all is said and done. That certainly affects MPG.

Again, my Jetta, which isn't much bigger than an '81 Civic, weighs about 3300 pounds. And if you want to get real technical, the physical size of the car's shell isn't important - the overall mass of the shell and what's in it is what matters.....

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Anchorman]

I'm on a business trip right now and rented a Toyota Corolla. I'm amazed at how large this "economy" car is. According to the in-car computer, the long term gas mileage is around 35 mpg - not bad, but I'd expected better. But, as I said, this is a surprisingly "big" little car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

It's so interesting that the a thread with even an oblique reference to fuel economy ignites such passionate, and very well-informed, discussions. A lot of very good points are being made here.

To the point that the auto industry isn't trying hard enough to produce economical cars, I have two words: Toyota Prius. The Prius (and the Ford Fusion hybrid is another reasonable example) proves the industry is certainly capable or producing cars with outstanding mileage. The problem is that to do so in a package that will meet consumers' tastes, and, very importantly as Biotechee points out, passes today's stringent safety standards, requires some pretty cutting edge, and therefore pricey, technology. Rumor has it that Toyota, despite the bazillions of Priuses it's sold, hasn't made a dime on any of them. If somebody could produce a competitive car with comparable mileage using simpler, less expensive technology, the market would surely be flooded with them by now.

Will a new class of super-small, lightweight, cost-competitive cars getting 50-60 mpg emerge out of the current climate of stricter mileage standards and oil prices that are again creeping upward? I sure hope so. Americans' tastes have historically run counter to such vehicles, but hopefully this will change.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

Let's look at the Smart car again-

Wheel base for 80-83 Civic 2-dr = 88.6"
OAL for 80-83 Civic 2-dr = 146.9"
Engine size = ~1.3 or ~1.5L (I believe I saw 1335 and 1488cc for the two available engines)
HP = 55 or 67 depending on engine
Gross weight = ~1500 lbs

Wheel base for 09 Smart For2 = 73.5"
OAL for 09 Smart For2 = 106.1
Engine size = ~1L
HP = ~70
Gross weight = ~1807.8 lbs

EDIT:

Here's info on the 2009 Pontiac G3 which is close to the Civic in size:

Wheel base = 97.6"
OAL = 155"
Engine size = ~1.6L
HP = ~106
Gross weight = ~2550 lbs

(and it's a 4-dr! so that accounts for the length difference)

So the Smart has a volumetrically smaller engine, a >27% smaller OAL, an approximate 17% smaller wheel base, yet it weighs somewhere around 300 lbs more - why??

I'm not arguing that cars didn't get bigger - many did. I am arguing it's way more than the overall dimensions of the cars that has caused weights to "blossom!" For me, it's pretty obvious what has occured over the last 20-30 years.

I'm all for light weight, safe cars. I'd love to have all my creature comforts and get 50-60 MPG or more. Yet still be able to accelerate with purpose.... But I can't afford a Tesla right now... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

Interestingly enough, the new Civic is nearly 32" longer (OAL) when compared to the '81... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the overall dimensions add to the sheer mass - you can look up the weight of sheet metal per square foot, and quickly figure out that about 600lbs comes from the increased size on most cars

granted the chassis of a car today is much stiffer and solid than cars of yesterday, but is that really necessary for a commuter?

i have removed the safety stuff from a few cars - it just doesn't weight that much - we're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 100lbs total for all the airbags and side reinforcement beams

what weighs more is the little things we don't think about - all those economy cars used to have 13" wheels and tiny tires - we all know from experience how that can affect thing - with most everything now running at least 16s, that's good for nearly 60-80lbs on most cars today

the electronics we now drag around account for another 70lbs

the plush interior panels weigh a lot more than they used to

the sound deadening material we have added to quiet down cars is good for another 30lbs

it all adds up, and i think it is unnecessary for most people for their commuter car - most people drive less than 60 miles a day, and spend less than 1.5 hours a day in the car - do we really need all that stuff just to get back and forth to work?

leave that stuff for the weekender car

the prius is the best example of how badly we have failed - 50-60 mpg is NOT trying hard - just look at the chart - we had cars back then that got 50 or better - we have made little to no progress here

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

Uh, I know the answer to my own question... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] Point is, in my example, the physical size of the car didn't cause the weight increase. You cannot discount all this extra stuff and this is what you did in your previous post...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

you can't discount the fact that the extra sheet metal required to increase the size results in more weight

steel sheet metal is about 2.15lbs per square foot for the gauge they use to build a car - that comes out to about 250lbs by increasing a 12' long car just 6" in width and length - figure the rest from there

extra glass also adds to this which is about 2.5# per square foot

add more for the extra interior panels for the larger body, extra sound deadening, for the larger body, yada yada

all together the difference between a 12' x 5' car vs a 12.5' x 5.5' car comes out to about 400lbs

this accounts for aobut 2/3 of the added weight

then you add 100# for safety stuff, and 70# for electronics, and suddenly you have nearly 600# of new weight to drag around

by the way, the civic was a lot closer to 2000# (the small hatchback accord of the day, which was barely bigger than the civic, was 2018) the civic got 41/55mpg in one version

i'm just saying, we aren't trying very hard

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

I think that, essentially, consumers currently won't "pay" for fuel economy. Fuel economy is equated to "cheapness" and "utilitarian". This car has some features that are not found as standard in base level small cars - traction control, ABS, airbags, neat 6-speed auto/manual transmission, A/C, CD stereo, fog lights. It is not uncomfortable. The steering wheel is not canted to the centre of the car. But it costed $17K new and you could buy a base Hyundai for less than $10K. So who wants to pay more for a 2 seat car just because it gets 30% better fuel economy that the cheaper one?

When fuel costs more fuel economy will be a commodity worth paying for. For now, for a work car, most people just say to hell with it. But I pay for the fuel and have a fleet of 18 vehicles. Have to start somewhere and It may as well be something interesting and fun rather than crappy construction, cheap materials and boring to drive. I still intend to drive my other cars to work.

As I said, I would not have bought a gas model. The savings would not have been there (see first sentence in this post). This is a diesel and gets much better fuel economy than any Prius or older style small car ever did.

But this post has sure sparked some interesting math - where is Spock on these matters?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[raydog]

"sheet metal is about 2.15lbs per square foot for the gauge they use to build a car"

Flash, you need to check your resources. Cars today are made with 20-21 gage steel for the exterior panels. This gage weighs approx. 1lbs/sqft. If you take that a step further, look at all the plastic that is now being used to further lighten today's autos. To me this would totally negate any small amount in physical size. Bio nailed it, it is all the crap that is added to the vehicle, satefy, conveniences, the list goes on. There has got to be hundreds of pounds added when you add up every electric motor to move your seat, mirror, hatch, steering wheel. Don't forget the abs, traction control, ect..., and like you said, electronics in general. And yes wheels too. Physical size really doesn't play into this.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

sheet metal is 41.82 lbs per square foot per inch of thickness - that crunches down to 1.5 lb per square ft on 20 guage (21 is 1.375)

http://www.jedi.com/obiwan/jeep/misc/gaugeconv.html

also, the numbers i gave are an aggregate of thicknesses used - while door skins and such are now 20 guage, bed pans, frame rails, beams, et all are not

if you ever cut up a car, or dragged a tub around a shop, you would quickly see where the weight is - it is NOT really in the safety stuff - that is something we have been sold by the industry - the bigger the car, the more reinforcement is needed to handle loads - it's not just linear footage - cars today are much larger than cars of yesterday - even the prius is large by 1980 econo-car standards - that means weight

engine weight is a big one too - not too many cars have a 1.3 or 1.5 liter engine anymore

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Not to pile onto Flash, but I'm not sure I understand his comment that the automakers aren't trying very hard. Trying very hard to do what? They're trying damn hard to do what any other corporation tries to do - make money, which is achieved by delivering to the consumers what they want, within the foul lines of the regulations the government imposes. They've succeeded in producing a fairly wide array of models that deliver respectable mileage, comfort and quality that was only available in top tier luxury models a few short decades ago, blazing acceleration by historical standards, etc.

What they haven't produced, at least for sale in this country, is a single-purpose commuter vehicle that delivers 60+ mpg. I agree with Flash that this is very disappointing, because anyting that reduces our oil consumption is a good thing. Here's where I think the problem lies:

1) Meeting the safety regulations in a vehicle light enough to achieve 60+ mpg could be a very expensive proposition.
2) Achieving the weight necessary to achieve 60+ mpg would require eliminating most of the creature comforts, onboard gadgets, and power Americans have grown addicted to.

So, I'm afraid the end result would be a pretty expensive car that's not very comfortable or interesting, noisy, and cheap-feeling, that's only really useful for commuting short distances. As Kim says, I think it would be a real struggle for many Americans (and Canadians) to shell out their hard-earned cash for a vehicle whose only redeeming feature is stellar fuel economy, when there is a wide array of choices that are much more comfortable, and usable for multiple functions, for only a modest penalty in gas mileage.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

we aren't trying very hard to build economical cars that are environmentally conscious first, and creature comfort conscious second - in europe they have far more economical cars than we have, and don't seem to be worried about safety

i think we put entirely too much emphasis on safety in such a manner that is inapplicable for urban driving - this is due to the litigious nature of americans - implement no-fault insurance, take the option of lawsuits off the table, put the responsibility back on the owner, and you will find that suddenly safety building is not so much of an issue

we also got lazy and want power everything and big cushy quiet interiors so we can hear our 1000watt 10 speaker computer driven stereos and dvd players

we did this to ourselves - now we are forced to drive around 3000+ lb behemoths with airbags all around us, and crumple zones everywhere, built in rollover protection (how often does anyone roll a car?) and every possible bell and whistle imaginable

that's all fine for a weekend car - but for a commuter, that seems quite silly

gas is cheap right now - when gas sails up again, we'll start to see more efficient cars - it happened in the 70s - it happened when gas soared recently - it just didn't last long enough to see real change

there is no reason we can't have an 80mpg commuter car - just rebuild the honda civic with new lighter weight materials and the newer more efficient engine management systems - we would quickly find we had a 1500lb car with 100hp and got 80mpg - perfect!

screw the airbags and all that - i've been in about 2 dozen accidents, including 2 high speed flips, and not had one do anything for me yet

but this is fun stuff to knock around

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

I will tell you a story about airbags. My wife's son, two years ago, stole her car in the middle of the night to go to a party. He was 18 and he had no driver's license and, even if he had one, was not insured to drive the Murano. He drove through a "T" intersection and did not turn either right or left. At 100 km/h he drove into the ditch across the street. He did not see it coming. No seat belt on. He came to a stop in about 3 feet. Flash, you can calculate the g-force of decelerating from 100 km/h to 0 km/h in 3 feet and probably about 0.5 seconds. He slammed forward into the airbag and, once he caught his breath, abandoned the vehicle and ran away before the cops came. I sold the veicle the next day for salvage and got $1500 as it was not insured for that.

Saved his life. But I digress, as I have hijacked my own discussion about the fun to drive a diesel Smart car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Chris Vais]

"screw the airbags and all that - i've been in about 2 dozen accidents, including 2 high speed flips, and not had one do anything for me yet"

All I can say is you been very lucky.

Some of you recall that my wife had an auto accident a few years back and were it not for the design, build quality and safety features, not the least of which were the airbags, built into the Audi Avant she was driving she would not have survived. She would have been killed had she been driving one of those lightweight Japanese econboxes from 30 years ago. I for one will opt for a somewhat heavier better designed and better built vehicle at the expense of gas mileage.

This has been an interesting and thought provoking discussion. I had a chance to experience a number of small turbo diesel powered cars in Europe when I was last there. I sure wouldn't mind having the little Turbo Diesel Alfa I drove around in in Florence to use as commute car here. That said and given the number of times people drivng large SUV's have failed to see me driving the 968, I would be afraid to drive a small car like the Alfa here in the US.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.