Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this thread(Page 1 of 1)
TriShield @ May 7th 2008 11:09AM
And with CAFE and other regulations looming we are on the brink of a new generation of automotive malaise.
psarhjinian @ May 7th 2008 11:36AM
I was just reading an interesting statistic. Did you know that the current Accord (yes, the full-size land yacht; the one with the ~170hp four) gets nearly the same mileage and has much better performance than the 77hp wonder from the 1970s.
That says to me that, if we drop a smaller engine in the Accord (or cars like it) and readjust our expectations to 0-60@10s (which would have been more than adequate up until, oh, 2000 or so), that CAFE goals are entirely reasonable. Drop that expectation to 11-12s (which is what many European cars manage) and it's certainly attainable, even in a full-size car.
We've been spoiled for power since about 2002.
The reliability problems of that era had a lot to do with shoddy engineering. Yes, fuel injection posed awful problems for the domestics, but that didn't explain the incredible body hardware, electrical and transmission problems they saw. It certainly didn't explain their (and the Europeans') horrible warranty performance, which hurt them even more than their quality issues.
Dan @ May 7th 2008 11:55AM
That's garbage.
A 260hp V6 Accord scores 22 mpg combined on the EPA test.
A 160hp I4 Accord nets 24.
Giving up another 30 horsepower is going to magically boost that to 35?
A full sized car with a thousand pounds of crash-me-into-a-brickwall-at-40-mph safety frame is not going to get clowncar mileage no matter how weak the engine is.
psarhjinian @ May 7th 2008 1:17PM
No, it's not going to get 35mpg city, but it's certainly going to do much better than it does now. The point was that at ~110hp, the car is still more than adequate for most of what it's owners would use it for. 24mpg combined is not at all bad for a car of this size and power, especially considering what a car of similar specifications was managing in 1982...
...and this is a full-size car that doesn't make many compromises. People seem to be of the opinion that 35mpg isn't possible without resorting to, as you call it, clown cars; it is, but there has to be a reevaluation of what we're deeming acceptable performance. Again, we've been spoiled for power lately, and it's seriously skewed the way vehicles have been marketed. You cannot sell a midsize sedan with a ten-second time without being lampooned, despite the fact we all drove cars that slow for nearly two decades.
Take a look at some European- or Japanese-market cars; even with the difference in mileage testing cycles and units of measure, sub-2.0L gasoline-powered versions of are getting north of 35mpg on average. How do they do this, despite weighing not a not less than their North American equivalent? They've got small engines and gearing that isn't tuned for smoky burnouts at every intersection.
With diesel or hybrid powertrains, it becomes even less of an issue, but only if you keep your performance expectations reasonable.
Disgruntled Goat @ May 7th 2008 1:46PM
I agree psarhjinian, we could get 35mpg today if we really wanted 35mpg. I don't even think that by the time 2020 gets here the car makers will even have to try that hard to do it. $6/gallon gas should be enough motivation by itself. Unfortunately the average Joe is desperately afraid of change so any time you start talking about making a real, effective change people are going to resist. Eventually they'll come around, they always do, but not without a lot of angst, belly-aching and prognostications of doom and gloom.
Dan @ May 7th 2008 2:08PM
No one denies that small euro and JDM market cars get good mileage. The disconnect is that putting their powertrains in a 3500 lb Accord is going to get equally good mileage.
When those small, low powered, primarily foreign market cars are brought over here very nearly verbatim - the Focus, the original XB, the Astra, the Daewoo Aveo, the Yaris, etc. - they still come in closer to 30 mpg than 35. Putting a 25% larger and heavier body on those underpinnings is going to get us to CAFE as simply as giving up burnout takeoffs?
No.
psarhjinian @ May 7th 2008 11:44PM
Here's the thing: a lot of those Euro- or Japanese market cars weigh just as much as the Accord. Take the Toyota Avensis, for example: ~1350kg versus ~1450kg for the (much, much larger) Accord. Assuming we put the Civic's 1.8L in the Accord, we can probably narrow that gap further. Cut some mass from the Accord's body, either with complex options like aluminum, or simple ones like thinner glass and no spare tire, and we might end up with a car that weighs _less_ than the Avensis does.
Yet the Avensis can just manage more than 35mpg (again, Euro cycle) with a gasoline engine. It's only serious disadvantge is that 1.8L four that makes maybe 130hp, and European gearing, which tends to be pretty tall.
The point here is that 35mpg is more attainable than we're being led to believe. It's not easy, and it's going to result in some dog-slow cars by current standards, but it's not going to be crap car parade that some of 1980s were. The changes needed are incremental (like weight reduction and less power-to-the-wheels) rather than radical changes (the rapid adoption of fuel injection, unleaded fuel and emissions control.)
The problem will be selling these changes to a public that's gotten addicted to cheap power.
Dan @ May 8th 2008 4:44PM
Comparing different cars that are similar only in weight and engine displacement is changing too many variables to meaningfully demonstrate anything.
Until manufacturers start releasing SFC plots of their engines, which will be approximately never, comparing the same car with different engines is the best you can do.
And other than niche applications shoehorning existing engines into applications that don't match their tuning, like the smallblock Impala, or the Camry powered Corolla XRS, the mileage bonus for giving up literally a third of the engine is consistently in the order of 5 to 7%.
Jeff @ Jun 18th 2008 10:58AM
2009 Chevy Cobalt 2.2L, 148HP - 36 mpg
2009 Honda Civic 1.8L, 140HP - 36 mpg
2009 Toyota Corolla 1.8L, 132HP - 35 mpg
2009 Ford Focus 2.0L, 140 HP - 35 mpg
Yes, highway figures, but so is the figure for the Avensis, the only actual example mentioned. Take a look at the cars actually being produced before you whine about not having 35 mpg cars in the U.S.