U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles - Page 16

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 226 to 240 of 240

Thread: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

  1. #226
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dearborn, MI
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    FORD

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Staspeterson your are absolutely correct in your assertion that the idea that petroleum is a rapidly diminishing, and rare commodity is at best propaganda and at worse an outright lie. Let us not be mistaken when we realize that the Europeans willingness to embrace diesel was initiated by exorbitant gasoline cost. Basically forced adoption through exorbitant taxation, and a fiscal reason to sacrifice normal buying patterns. Americans simply do not have high enough gas prices that will justify a significant shift to compromised vehicles all in the sake of fuel economy.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #227
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    3,225
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 67 Times in 47 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Against my better judgement, I'd like to weigh in here. Yes, there are lots of new discoveries of various fossil fuels. Right now, supply is not an issue. But, the new supplies tend to be far more expensive to get at and, in the case of non-traditional sources like oil sands, require a lot more energy and money to produce usable fuels like gasoline and diesel. So, the issue is not that we are running out of oil. The issue is we are running out of cheap oil. At a floor of $80 or so a barrel, there will be a fair amount of new oil coming to market. But that will simply replace much cheaper conventional oil that is slowly going off-line.

    The bonanza in natural gas is great, but unless we adopt the Pickens proposal, we aren't talking about converting our transportation to natural gas -- and if we were, my understanding is that diesel is a wonderful engine for burning natural gas.

    I'm the last person to propose that theory that global warming from man-made C02 is completely resolved. But, there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction -- and admittedly some evidence to the contrary. To dismiss the theory and the issue out-of-hand seems to me to be just as reactionary as those who would propose immediately halting every element of our industrialized economy. Certainly, between the two extremes exists the possibility to look at the issue rationally and explore potential avenues of action.

    All that said, I really, really don't want to take this thread down a crazy path of debating global warming or the abiotic oil -- we all know where those threads end up. It's never useful to debate beliefs!

    What HAS been constructive in this thread is some of the earlier discussion that I only sort of understand -- that NOX emissions from diesels react in the production of smog in some fundamentally different way than NOX from spark-ignition engines. Am I understanding this correctly? If so -- is this just the result of a few initial studies, or has the results been independently verified? If it's been verified -- it's one of those -- "well that changes things" -- in terms of where we should go with diesel emission standard.
    Last edited by Tone; 10-25-2012 at 08:42 PM.

  4. #228
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,394
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    To address germeezy first

    It is not about diminishing oil.

    It is about getting OUR collective money's worth from economic activity.

    The XL pipeline for example sounds like a great idea on the surface. However, it terminates in a TAX FREE TRADE zone that include a TAX FREE port. IF I understand correctly.

    A dumb question ... IF it is for US consumption why terminate in a TAX FREE TRADE ZONE? Who benefits?

    Can the Feds or states collect any tax revenues from the movement of that oil if it is direct import-exported?

    Who will try to use eminent domain to avoid paying full fair market value for rightaways? Certainly an anti-free market act for the "common good" ... but for who's "common good" ... if the crude is imported from Canada and exported to China tax free?

    What Federal funds/incentives and tax benefits will be asked from Congress to implement and support the XL pipeline, probably a tax free export effort?

    What Gulf coast refinery is even set up to handle tar-sands crude? I have no idea but odds are there is little to NO choice in the current Gulf refinery complexes. Does anyone know differently?

    IF we REALLY want improved US petro-availability and the US economy ... why aren't the "powers" advocating the shorter pipeline from the Bakken Formation?

    Bakken (domestic) crude can not be export by Federal statue. It must at least be processed domestically before the finished goods can be exported. IF I understand correctly.

    Guess what, that is not a problem with Canadian crude! Directly exportable! Through a tax free trade zone?

    If I am wrong ... please proved verifiable information. I am interested in learning!


    Stas ...

    I accept the fact that there are inherient problems with both NEDC and EPA rating systems relative to "user experience". Both over rate gasoline technology mpg combined. But EPA is less, only about 10% to 15% on average below the vehicle's combined mpg rating. NEDC is far worse. Maybe double or triple?

    Interestingly, fuel frugal diesel "user MPG average estimates" are generally ABOVE EPA combined ratings by about 22% ... but about 10% to 15% below NEDC mpg combined.

    The normalized constant speed versus gpm data posted earlier in this thread give a clue why this occurs. I am hoping to get some degree of confirrmation from ORLN within the month, IF I am lucky.

    So for now, I still contend there are OVER 400 fuel frugal diesel vehicle configurations, subcompact to mid-size, that would be US 2025 CAFE compliant TODAY. A fair number of these vehicles already are seen on US roads with gas guzzling powertrains.


    I acknowledge you beliefs
    When you clean up the dirty, filthy emissions in European cars, the mileage of their cars starts to resemble our CAFE, but not our Politically Correct EPA pseudo-scientific, measures.
    I would like to point out that under Tier 1, the NOx limit for gasoline cars was about 370 mgNOx/km @ 100,000 mile; diesel was about 770 mgNOx/km, and all areas of the country were able to come into attainment with the NO2 NAAQS, i.e., atmospheric NOx was within acceptable standards.

    What data do you have to support your claim?

    IF you are REALLY concerned about the US environment, what is your position on gasoline related

    sub-PM2.5 (particle matter)
    SOA (secondary organic aerosols) [also generated during fuel processing and delivery]
    NMHC (non-methane hydrocarbons)
    CO (carbon monoxide)
    to pick a few of the predominant ones. IIRC, there are more than 50 individual species.

    Here is some information on particulates for your consideration. Unfortunately it does include a diesel for direct comparison.
    "...Across 5 replicate real-world runs, the average total cumulative particle number (3 to 3000 nm particle diameter) emission rates measured for the hybrid vehicle were two times higher than that of the conventional vehicle, despite the hybrid vehicle's internal combustion engine (ICE) being off 16 to 57% of the run duration...." (Page 1)

    "...One laboratory study compared the emissions and fuel economy from four different models of light-duty hybrids. Reported particle number emission rate patterns were similar to those documented for conventional vehicles: emission rates increased during acceleration events, transient operating events and with increasing vehicle speed. Two of the four hybrid vehicles studied by Christenson et al. had the capability to shut down the ICE for electric-only low power, low speed operations (Toyota Prius and Ford Escape)...." (Page 2)

    "...An unexpected result of this study was the magnitude of the hybrid vehicle [Prius/Escape] particle number emission rate when the engine restarted after the periods of electric-drive-only operation...." (Page 2-3)

    Robinson, Mitchell K., Holmen, Britt A., "On-Board, Real World Second-by-Second Particle Number Emissions from a 2010 Hybrid and Comparable Conventional Vehicle."

    BTW, 3 nm is about 0.0394X10-6 inches ... that is small.

    Stas, as I have said before show me some facts to back up your claims.
    Last edited by 44 mpg by 2010; 10-26-2012 at 01:28 AM.
    It is important what WE use as our "moral compass" and ...
    the "measuring stick" chosen for judging progress/success as well.


    44 mpg by 2010 ... 2013?

  5. #229
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) AMERICA 123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    11,706
    Thanks
    338
    Thanked 80 Times in 38 Posts
    My Ride
    The Toyota Rat Catcher

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    Against my better judgement, I'd like to weigh in here. Yes, there are lots of new discoveries of various fossil fuels. Right now, supply is not an issue. But, the new supplies tend to be far more expensive to get at and, in the case of non-traditional sources like oil sands, require a lot more energy and money to produce usable fuels like gasoline and diesel. So, the issue is not that we are running out of oil. The issue is we are running out of cheap oil. At a floor of $80 or so a barrel, there will be a fair amount of new oil coming to market. But that will simply replace much cheaper conventional oil that is slowly going off-line.
    ..... well, ok, sorta' ( in a large way ) but then the other thing is - the planet's under great stress - some would say dieing and independent of the common arguments there are other aspects of POL involved.

    Also, there are things 'related' ( non environmental ) that ( also ) are bearing down.......'now'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    The bonanza in natural gas is great, but unless we adopt the Pickens proposal, we aren't talking about converting our transportation to natural gas -- and if we were, my understanding is that diesel is a wonderful engine for burning natural gas.
    Ah, yes and no but yeah.......... it could be -


    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    I'm the last person to propose that theory that global warming from man-made C02 is completely resolved. But, there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction -- and admittedly some evidence to the contrary. To dismiss the theory and the issue out-of-hand seems to me to be just as reactionary as those who would propose immediately halting every element of our industrialized economy. Certainly, between the two extremes exists the possibility to look at the issue rationally and explore potential avenues of action.

    All that said, I really, really don't want to take this thread down a crazy path of debating global warming or the abiotic oil -- we all know where those threads end up. It's never useful to debate beliefs!
    - or well established and antagonistic propaganda positions.

    The truth isn't necessarily in the middle - that's just where it gets slaughtered - from all sides.

    Again a multi spectral set of numerous agenda's seems involved..... and call it what is - so just a guess but perhaps one of those is that some have figured some ( really ) bad things about controlled gasser auto emissions.......which nobody really wants to talk about in 'public'.

    Imagine accounting for everything emitted in detail ie all substance's out the pipe in all modes of operation...........+ the toxicities such as we know them....


    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    What HAS been constructive in this thread is some of the earlier discussion that I only sort of understand -- that NOX emissions from diesels react in the production of smog in some fundamentally different way than NOX from spark-ignition engines. Am I understanding this correctly?
    - essentially........... yes that's in there, when considering certain types of 'controlled' on road LD diesels ( with the right kind of fuels ) versus their most immediate gasser brethren. And then..... also while not ignoring the other gasses accounted for and their Smog / ozone effects.

    And that's really just the beginning - there are a bunch more arguments 'just like that' and some very similar.

    Throw in the idea of well to refinery, refinery to tank, and tank 'useful' work + the concept of toxicity.... which is mandatory when discussing any poison ie dose..... it then becomes a full blown route ++++++.

    And then it goes in hyperdrive when really small particulate matter is considered both qualitatively and quantitatively.... when a better accounting of that is done.

    _________


    This all gets so confusing because in part, one of the relevant concepts would be - we have consistently demonstrated a willingness and desire to paint diesel as bad while overlooking the worst about gassers. Diesels start looking good again and wham, somebody publishes something new ( but very incomplete ) to knock them down again - the war's all happening in the South......

    Two, in essence, diesel's ( total ) emissions effects and toxicities are so different from gassers that a better approach would be to give them a different emissions program including tailpipe standards based on both - if you will, total impacts and toxicities 'matching'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    If so -- is this just the result of a few initial studies, or has the results been independently verified? If it's been verified -- it's one of those -- "well that changes things" -- in terms of where we should go with diesel emission standard.
    Depends what aspect you are talking about.


    There are big piles of relevant material well established just sitting there, being fully ignored....

    However,

    See, much of this stuff - for all and not just diesels is more incompletely understood than many assume.

    In a way, we're starting to not only understand some things better, we're also developing a better understanding - about the size and scope of what we don't know.

    There are questions without definitive answers at this time......
    Last edited by AMERICA 123; 10-27-2012 at 11:21 AM.
    "From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they're about to do it again."
    "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
    "If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — " Matt Taibbi

  6. #230
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,394
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    America and Tone

    Tone
    What HAS been constructive in this thread is some of the earlier discussion that I only sort of understand -- that NOX emissions from diesels react in the production of smog in some fundamentally different way than NOX from spark-ignition engines. Am I understanding this correctly? If so -- is this just the result of a few initial studies, or has the results been independently verified? If it's been verified -- it's one of those -- "well that changes things" -- in terms of where we should go with diesel emission standard.
    May I suggest that according to my sources NOx is NOT the instigator of SMOG. NOx abates SMOG generating ozone within reasonable concentration ranges.

    In the dark ages of Tier 1 gasoline engines had high NOx and diesels even higher. Even then atmospheric NOx was WITHIN accepted standards compliance (NO2 NAAQS). Further, Euro Step V NOx emissions are about 1/2 the value allowed for gasoline ICEs under Tier 1.

    The primary culprits driving ozone generation are SOA (secondary organic aerosols) AND NMHC (non-methane hydrocarbons) resulting from gasoline vehicles during combustion. And as 123 pointed out, SOA evaporation between well-to-pump.

    That ozone is the mechanism along with sunlight (and possibly moisture?) that results in SMOG. NOx can, when in adequate quantity, abate or inhibit the generation of SMOG.

    The problem with Stass's view is even at Euro Step V the NOx emission MAY be becoming to low too provide sufficient NOx density to fully inhibit the ozone to SMOG process resulting from gasoline automotives.

    My concern is that as diesel NOxemissions are driven lower VOAs and NMHC will dominate resulting in higher ozone levels (particularly in large metropolitan areas) with an accompaning HIGHER risk of SMOG events.

    This is probably a gross over simplification, but at this point I believe it is fundamently correct.

    I hope this helps.

    IF any of you are seriously interested I might be able to find a report or two. But I warn you in advance some are heavy in statistics and chemistry.

    On second thought, here are two places to start for higher level overviews
    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...ngs/index.html
    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...it_review.html
    Last edited by 44 mpg by 2010; 10-26-2012 at 07:22 AM.
    It is important what WE use as our "moral compass" and ...
    the "measuring stick" chosen for judging progress/success as well.


    44 mpg by 2010 ... 2013?

  7. #231
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    3,225
    Thanks
    162
    Thanked 67 Times in 47 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    I'll freely admit that I'm a bit out of my depth in this conversation (anything that's going to involve both stats and chemistry is going to leave me struggling!), but it's a very interesting dialogue. America and 44 - thanks for the detailed responses!

  8. #232
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,394
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Tone, this is OUR "canoe".

    Hopefully we can make the trip safely, comfortably with minimum effort and cost.

    I also find this atmospheric "stuff" very complex. Everything interacts individually or in combination with everything else in the "stew". It defies tradional linear thinking.

    That is why I brought up the idea of the symbiotic opportunity of fuel frugal diesels for the US fleet because the combination with our current gasoline fleet offer huge benefits well beyond either one alone.

    Those potential benefits start with radically improved fuel economy (the FUEL FRUGAL small displacement 2 Liter diesels), balancing domestic fuel consumption to domestic refinery output, significant reductions in demand for crude due to improve diesel efficiency and balancing refinery outputs more closely to domestic demand for more efficient utalization, reduced dependence on foreign crude, greater confidence crude supply can be met domestically with less stress, better balance of trade, more money staying within the US economy providing REAL fuel for domestic economic growth, more jobs, more people wanting cars, fuel frugal 50+mpg combined vehicles open up a previously untapped market segment (opportunity to cut personal fuel consumption and associated costs up to 50% is one reason to buy), probable market expansion/increased demand, higher poduction, more jobs ... the list goes on.

    EDIT: I forgot an important one. IF the NOx abating capability of diesel is valid and NOx emission are reduced by regulations, then even more stringent regulations will probably be placed on gasoline VOC and NMHC emissions to maintain environmental balance ... adding MORE COST to gasoline vehicles. I am still not certain how gasoline sourced sub-PM2.5 emissions will be resolved or the associated abatement costs. It is very difficult to filter out particles in the 100X10-6 inche range.

    With a LOT of CAREFUL ANALYSIS, GOOD SCIENCE, and PLANNING plus some work that we get paid for ... WE end up with a cleaner safer environment with the fewest toxins at the lowest levels. Not a bad goal.

    Then there is this very strange idea of using cost effective current fuel frugal diesel technogoly, specifically NOx emissions at readily manageable levels to abate SOA (secondary organic aerosols) AND NMHC (non-methane hydrocarbons) [from gasoline ICEs and fuel supply chain] and the risk of SMOG.

    If done based on science and data (not emotion and dogma) we have the opportunity to have a better environment as well additional business opportunities.

    We, as a nation, have been very SLOPPY post 1960 regarding use of skills, knowledge, material, and capital compared to 1941 to 1946. It requires the big picture view ... NOT just maximimizing accumulation of capital.

    Some folks like Warren Buffet "get it". But sadly many do not.

    Look at OUR CONGRESS for the last 2 years. They have contributed very little VALUE ADD. In fact, I am beginning to believe that their contentious behavior has infected and demoralized OUR citizenery. Although it might be the other way around. Either way, it is certainly not productive ... destructive seems more appropriate.

    Possibilities and WHY NOT ... seem to be more desireable.

    And, then I am reminded of the Savings & Loans in the late '80s .... Enron in 2001 .... the banks, insurance companies, and WallStreet in 2008. All imploded at the taxpayers' expense ... based on "Possibilities", and "WHY NOT" ... the result of vague promises of "BIG CHANGE" for monetary gain.

    I guess it is important what WE use as the "moral compass" and the "measuring stick".
    Last edited by 44 mpg by 2010; 10-27-2012 at 10:37 AM.
    It is important what WE use as our "moral compass" and ...
    the "measuring stick" chosen for judging progress/success as well.


    44 mpg by 2010 ... 2013?

  9. #233
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dearborn, MI
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    FORD

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    So the question for both of you who are quite well versed in this area is the true question, and that is who stands to benefit FINANCIALLY from this farce in relation to diesel engines environmental perception? I believe there to be a direct correlation between the significant raise in diesel costs in this country, and the public perception of diesel engines being propagated to be negative in many ways. I know that the petrodollar has a direct , and significant effect on this whole situation but as of yet I am unable to figure out the direct correlation , and the demonization of the diesel engine in passenger cars.

  10. #234
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11,567
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 106 Times in 67 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    I think most people are confused by conflicting "truths" as to what causes smog, pollution and their effects on humans and the environment. Absent non-partisan opinions, the truth would set us free. But I don't trust peoples'opinions, including a friend of mine who works for a coal company, who claims coal burning doesn't pollute! I'd love to read truly objective scientific studies on the subject.

  11. #235
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,394
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    So the question for both of you who are quite well versed in this area is the true question, and that is who stands to benefit FINANCIALLY from this farce in relation to diesel engines environmental perception?
    No proofs but good guesses ...

    Mismatches in domestic consumption versus refinery ouput:

    1) international shipping,

    2) super opportunity for commodity community to deal (and profit) with international exchange of finished fuels,

    3) everyone in the crude supply chain to supply the extra crude needed to make up for inefficiencies


    I have been trying to figure out how the Det3 US could benefit from denying access to their fuel frugal diesels since they have ALREADY SPENT (years ago) the development time and money in Det3 EU to implement and produce their current FUEL FRUGAL diesel product, many of which are already seen in the US in gas-guzzling configurations.


    I am guessing that there is an "invisible political undercurrent" that strikes FEAR into the auto industry. And probably even the EPA. Congress, "money does talk" (the Supreme Court says it can)?

    Case at point, visible in the 2025 CAFE by its' ABSENCE ... special considerations for almost EVERYTHING ... EXCEPT DIESEL.

    Why the exclusion? Since diesel is already guaranteed at least 15% better fuel economy on a volumetric basis why not at least give it a chance (and incentives) to be in the "race"?

    I suspect it has to do with "big money" ... but it could be an "anti-diesel" portion of the green crowd operating on dogma. Possibly CARB? A coalition? WHO has the "power" and what do they gain?


    The only obvious and immediate benefactors are the oil interests and particularly commodity market makers, both domestic & international, due to the losses of efficiency in the vehicles, refineries, and markets requiring international balancing of gasoline-diesel consumption to refining capacity.

    Very inefficient ... but ... probably very profitable to a very limited few that have figured out how to take advantage of the "opportunity" ... sounds a very "Enronish".

    Back to my original list ... interesting.


    I'm open for other possibilities. Any suggestions?
    Last edited by 44 mpg by 2010; 10-27-2012 at 01:58 PM.
    It is important what WE use as our "moral compass" and ...
    the "measuring stick" chosen for judging progress/success as well.


    44 mpg by 2010 ... 2013?

  12. #236
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 DmitryKo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Case in question.

    Last December I have replaced my Focus II 2.0 L hatchback with a similar Focus III and got an immediately noticeable fuel economy boost. Instead of 9.4 L/100 km (25 mpg US), I now average 8.8 L/100 km (26.7 mpg US) under the same driving conditions. This is a 7% improvement.

    The two cars are almost identical, with the same curb weight, the same Duratec engine (though updated with direct injection and VVT) and the same MTX-75 manual gearbox (same trim as in the US).


    The difference is due to revised gear ratios. Whereas Focus II would make 65 mph (100 km/h) at 3300 rpm, the Focus III achieves the same speed at 2500 rpm.

    The updated engine is silky smooth right from the idle - you can accelerate from 800 rpm in the 2nd gear, which I often do in traffic jams.

    The on-board computer now has a gear-shift hint display, which routinely advises me to cruise 40 mph (60 km/h) at 1500 rpm in the 5th gear. I employed a very similar gearshift strategy with my Focus II, however it was cruising 60 km/h at 2000 rpm (33% higher).

    I would never achieve the working engine temperature on my Focus II in winter, but the new engine reaches 90 degrees in less than 5 minutes of driving. This could be due to the catalytic converter relocatied closer to the engine block (though some malfunction on the old car is a possibility as well). This also attributes to increased fuel economy in winter.


    The study by European experts assumes that optimizing gear shift ratios gives you 4% economy for negligible costs, and stratified direct injection (with lean-burn mode) gives you 9% for a mild cost.

    PS. Reducing the car weight gives you about 7% for every 10% of weight reduction; Volkswagen and Peugeot have already shed about 70 kg in the latest generation, but Ford is not there yet and for now the curb weight remains the same as the previous model - though they plan to reduce the curb weight of their cars up to 340 kg by 2020)...
    Last edited by DmitryKo; 02-18-2013 at 02:25 PM.

  13. #237
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,394
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Thanks for the update.

    Enjoy your new ride!

    How does the torque of the Focus III compare to the II? I assume the DI III torque is better allowing better (more fuel frugal) gearing.

    About 4 weeks ago the wife bought a 2012 base 2L AT Camary that runs about 1800 RPM cruising at 60 mph. She gets about 26~27 mpg in mixed driving under 65 mph, probably average 35~40 mph.
    It is important what WE use as our "moral compass" and ...
    the "measuring stick" chosen for judging progress/success as well.


    44 mpg by 2010 ... 2013?

  14. #238
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 DmitryKo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010 View Post
    How does the torque of the Focus III compare to the II? I assume the DI III torque is better allowing better (more fuel frugal) gearing.
    Yes, this was the point of my post. The torque and power is a only a bit higher (200 Nm and 155 PS, vs 185 Nm and 145 PS on the old engine), but as I said, the engine is much smoother and it easily adapts to different loads. It's much like automatic - you keep the throttle in the same position and maintain the same gear, but the ECU varies the fuel mixture according to road conditions.

    My trip computer has a momentary fuel consumption display, and the typical figures are anywhere from 0 L/100 km when going downhill with throttle depressed to 22 L/100 km (12 mpg US) when heavily accelerating or going uphill. As I said, I currently average 8.8 L/100 km (26.7 mpg US).

  15. #239
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 DmitryKo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by DmitryKo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DmitryKo View Post
    5. http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/12/f...-to-save-weig/
    http://media.ford.com/news/forddevel...ntvehicles.htm

    Ford Develops Carbon Fibre Technology that Could Deliver More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles

    Carbon fibre offers a very high strength-to-weight ratio. It is up to five times as strong as steel, twice as stiff, and one-third the weight. Advanced materials such as carbon fibre are key to Ford’s plans to reduce the weight of its cars by up to 340kg by the end of the decade.


    And of course GM is also considering carbon fiber material, in addition to NanoSteel deal, aluminum welding and magnesium sheet metal:


    8. http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/vi...omotive-parts/

    Teijin starts up pilot plant for carbon fibre thermoplastic automotive parts
    04 December 2012

    Carbon fibre manufacturer Teijin Ltd has begun operating a pilot plant for the production of carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic automotive components at its Matsuyama Factory in Ehime Prefecture, Japan.

    The plant features Teijin’s proprietary mass production technology for carbon fibre thermoplastic components, which is reported to reduce cycle times required for moulding composite parts to less than 1 minute. This makes the process attractive to car makers wanting to mass produce carbon composite parts.

    In December 2011 North American car maker General Motors (GM) and Teijin Ltd announced plans to co-develop carbon fibre composite technologies for potential use in high-volume GM vehicles.

    “Our relationship with Teijin provides the opportunity to revolutionise the way carbon fibre is used in the automotive industry," said Steve Girsky, GM Vice Chairman

    http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/vi...ve-technology/

    GM and Teijin collaborate on carbon composite automotive technology
    12 December 2011

    North American car maker General Motors (GM) and carbon fibre producer Teijin Ltd have announced plans to co-develop carbon fibre composite technologies for potential use in high-volume GM vehicles.

    The co-development pact involves the use of Teijin’s carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic (CFRTP) technology, which is said to reduce the cycle times required for moulding composite products to under 1 minute.

    ”Teijin’s innovative CFRTP technology, which promises to realise revolutionarily lighter automotive body structures, will play an important role in GM’s initiative to bring carbon fibre components into mainstream vehicles,” says Norio Kamei, senior managing director of Teijin.

  16. #240
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 DmitryKo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: U.S. completes 54.5 mpg fuel-economy mandate for light vehicles

    Quote Originally Posted by DmitryKo View Post
    I currently average 8.8 L/100 km (26.7 mpg US).
    Update: my average consumption now is 8.0-8.1 l/100 km or 29-29.5 mpg US; this is during quite warm late Winter and early Spring months and after 4000 km of mileage.

    The best I could get on my MY2005 Focus II was 9.4 L/100 km (25 mpg US) during Winter and 8.4 L/100 km (28 mpg US) during summer; by extension I hope to average 7.8 L/100 km or less (30.1 mpg US or higher) during the summer months


    Interesting, but my Summer results are pretty much consistent with EPA combined fuel economy for the 2012-2013 Ford Focus and 2010-2011 Ford Focus respectively (which use a similar engine and a manual gearbox), and since my latitude matches that of Alberta, Canada, continental US weather matches my Summer conditions.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....30312&id=29292
    Last edited by DmitryKo; 03-19-2013 at 04:00 PM.

  17. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2