Nothing intelligent to add.

It makes sense. We're not going to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels in 10, 20 or even 50 years. It's a noble idea, but a bit delusional. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be exploring alternatives. But the world still has to run while we do. Therefore, we have an obligation to developing cleaner & more efficient engines to work with what we have while continuing to look into how we will replace them.

The author of TFA is right, but not for the reasons that he thinks he is. Internal combustion engines are at an advantage, but only because oil is still cheaper than the alternatives and because of it's massive installed base. The bit about improving engines is rubbish, as 35mpg has been possible with engines for 30+ years now but everyone wanted power instead of fuel economy.

IrateShadow - 35mpg has been possible with engines for 30+ years now but everyone wanted power instead of fuel economy.

True. The car culture extends way beyond motorheads & greasemonkeys. The automobile has & probably always will be part utilitarian, part toy.

Diesel is where the future is. That and making cars lighter.

Do I like paying $3.80 a gallon? No. Will I pay it? Yes.

Smerri: Nothing intelligent to add.

I'm sure glad you cleared that up.

I was on the edge of my seat waiting.

Crosshair: Diesel is where the future is. That and making cars lighter.

I fail to see how painting our cars in pastel colors will help.

APE992: Do I like paying $3.80 a gallon? No. Will I pay it? Yes.

try paying 8 dollars a gallon in europe.

Diesel > Otto

TommyymmoT: I fail to see how painting our cars in pastel colors will help.

He's talking about adding neon and KC Daylighters, moran.

I never really understood how my friends 1991 civic gets over 40 on the interstate, but the newer civics barely get that.

Gothmolly: Diesel > Otto


>

?

I don't know about that.

Robo Beat: Gothmolly: Diesel > Otto


>

?

I don't know about that.

Curses. There was supposed to be a picture of the musical masterwork "Shaq Diesel" in there somewhere. Use your imagination.

what's up with that lazy-ass photo spread from McDonalds on the same page?

mcdonalds around the world, just one picture, barely captioned.
people get paid to come up with that?

/goes off on tangent

theorellior: He's talking about adding neon and KC Daylighters, moran.

A+++ would read again

Considering in the latest eco-marathon, a car went more than 7000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, when shiat hits the fan, there are alternatives.

Of course a smarter way is to mandate a switch now.

Do these "experts" also recommend our military use flintlock rifles
as well?

Oh they aren't? Ok cool. See you later.

We'd better get used to pumping gas? We already are dumbass article writing guy!

Gothmolly: Diesel > Otto

HCCI >Diesel>Otto

Death to the V8 engine. V6 still okay.

zahal: I never really understood how my friends 1991 civic gets over 40 on the interstate, but the newer civics barely get that.

Or how both my 1970 and 1996 VWs get 35 mpg. (Or that VW sells a 80 mpg diesel in Europe.)

But hey, the article, despite it's fluff, does make some good points. Like the convenience of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Let me know when I can buy a car with some other power source that can travel over 400 miles before refueling and then only takes 5 minutes to refuel.

/600 mile round trip commute to work
//only work once a month

What gets me is the brilliant mechanical engineers that build drag race car engines can get over 8,000 BHP from an 8 cylinder, Chrysler hemi block.

Sure, it's yanged to the nines and only has to stay in one piece for about 4 seconds, but.. I mean the engineering that can be done to the humble combustion mill is STAGGERING in scope, and yet, we keep getting the same different vanilla with sprinkles from the fine folks at consumers cars R Us.

I can't help but think that it would be too difficult to re-engineer a straight bang 4 cyl block for some serious mileage and then drop it into a lighter, vehicle without re-inventing the wheel.

After riding in my friend Toyota Prius Hybrid. The "experts" are WRONG. Self charging battery rocks.

Yoyo: zahal: I never really understood how my friends 1991 civic gets over 40 on the interstate, but the newer civics barely get that.

Or how both my 1970 and 1996 VWs get 35 mpg. (Or that VW sells a 80 mpg diesel in Europe.)

But hey, the article, despite it's fluff, does make some good points. Like the convenience of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Let me know when I can buy a car with some other power source that can travel over 400 miles before refueling and then only takes 5 minutes to refuel.

/600 mile round trip commute to work
//only work once a month



I wish we could get some european mpg on american streets. I would be perfectly content with a little VW lupo.


my 2001 carolla gets 40 on the hwy. the new ones get 35, methinks the 500lbs of extra plastic have somthing to do with that

I received an email the other day telling me I can dramatically increase my car's mileage by simply converting it over to run on water. I know about the whole principle of separating the hydrogen (fuel)atoms from the oxygen (exhaust) but it sounds like too much of a pipe dream and a bit dangerous. That and since I had deleted the cheap viagra email before it and there was an email telling me I could make $1000's of dollars while sitting in my underwear after, I really paid it no mind.

/if a car could be made then every single state in this country would eventually be accused of having WMDS

Cup_O_Jo: After riding in my friend Toyota Prius Hybrid. The "experts" are WRONG. Self charging battery rocks.

I don't think you understand what you are saying. Toyota Prii still have internal combustion engines.

zahal: I never really understood how my friends 1991 civic gets over 40 on the interstate, but the newer civics barely get that.

i have a '92 buick with the 3.8L V6, just under 200,000 miles on it and it will get 29.5 MPG consistently on trips that are around 300 miles. never have been able to break into 30 MPG. daily commute is 1/3 city + 2/3 hwy and it gets roughly 25 MPG week in and week out. until it dies there is no need to look at another car.

also have a '97 C2500 which gets 15 MPG hwy. guess which one gets driven more. although each has it's uses.

I wouldn't be surprised if the engine of the future is the turbine engine: they are cleaner and much more efficient than piston engines. The main problems are that they're high maintenance, noisy, and expensive. But there are some new ceramic composite materials they are exploring to get rid of the high maintenance aspect, and as fuel prices go up expense is less and less of an issue.

Cup_O_Jo: After riding in my friend Toyota Prius Hybrid. The "experts" are WRONG. Self charging battery rocks.

Too bad they're even worse for the environment than a Hummer, once you take into account the battery disposal

35 mpg? Hah. Every rent-a-car I have ever driven when visiting the in-laws got more than 50 mpg, even with the steering wheel on the wrong farking side. Something about govenment incentives pushing people into efficient cars for the last two decades, instead of SUVs. Europeans pay far more per gallon, but about the same per mile, as a result. And no, they are not all dying horrible fiery deaths, oddly enough.

Of course here in Dubai gas is still $1.36/gal, and so I drive a VW that gets 50 mpg...wait, what?

HCCI is the holy grail of ICE. There's no reason you couldn't run it on diesel or any other fuel (BioDiesel) and because of how it works, you wouldn't need much (if any) after treatment, it'd just be a 'perfect' burn every time.

IrateShadow: The bit about improving engines is rubbish, as 35mpg has been possible with engines for 30+ years now but everyone wanted power instead of fuel economy.

I had a 1986 Golf that got 50 MPG.
I still have a 1998 Jetta that gets 45 MPG (and is a bit safer).

I know people that have been running diesels since 1979, hell look at all of eEurope.

the smart car gets 40/45 mpg - why aren't we all driving those? oh yeah, because they look like this:

Rotary engines seem promising.

I have a 91 Sedan DeVille, amongst other vehicles, that gets 27 MPG on the freeway with a 4.9 litre V8.

I have no idea why, but I do loves me some leather and air con and 6 way electrical everything.

Yoyo: Or how both my 1970 and 1996 VWs get 35 mpg. (Or that VW sells a 80 mpg diesel in Europe.)

zahal: I never really understood how my friends 1991 civic gets over 40 on the interstate, but the newer civics barely get that.

Here's a long argument boiled down to its brief points. (Of course with brevity is going to come some pick at a lack of details)

First Gen Honda Civic (1973-1979)

40 mpg

1,500 pounds

~50 hp
2008 Honda Civic

26/34 mpg -(smallest/most efficient gas engine available)

2586 -2 door

140 hp




Want good gas mileage? Drive a lighter car. Use a smaller engine. Increase the VE and BSFC ratio of the engine.

Here's something else people don't remember.
1973 Civic goes 23.6secs on a 1/4 mile. (slow)

2002 civic si? 15.8 secs [1]

People are getting high 14 - low 15 sec 1/4 miles on their stock Civic si's too. Go ahead. Compare that with many 60's era stock muscle car factory 1/4 mile times. surprise yourself.

BobtheFascist: IrateShadow - 35mpg has been possible with engines for 30+ years now but everyone wanted power instead of fuel economy.

True. The car culture extends way beyond motorheads & greasemonkeys.

True. People have a vastly increased definition of performance in cars compared to 30 years ago.

BobtheFascist: It makes sense. We're not going to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels in 10, 20 or even 50 years. It's a noble idea, but a bit delusional. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be exploring alternatives. But the world still has to run while we do. Therefore, we have an obligation to developing cleaner & more efficient engines to work with what we have while continuing to look into how we will replace them.

It's so strange. In the late 90s, everyone was touting rotary engines and high technology as the future of cars.

I don't know what happened after that, but we have regressed to monstrous V8's, and basically reliving the 70's bigger is better mantra. Car companies regularly brag about small car gas mileage that is still worse than my '94 Nissan Sentra.

My guess is if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, history would've turned out differently. There is no way gas guzzling SUV's would've made it into the mainstream with the kind of mileage requirements he would've come up with. In the late 90s, SUVs were a fad among a small segment of the population, they weren't an inevitability. If only, the word "efficient" would be cool again among car enthusiasts, and not relegated to smug hipsters.

I'd wager that we'd be well on our way to returning Saudi Arabia to where it belongs, a land of sand, hatred, and Princes all mystified by toilet paper and running water.

gugnaut: Gothmolly: Diesel > Otto

HCCI >Diesel>Otto



This guy came up with the same (or similar enough) technology as HCCI more than 20 years ago. He called it the Hot Vapor Cycle Engine, or Adiabatic engine. Rumor has it he showed it to the Big 3 and the US military and was summarily dismissed.

In addition
BSFC is defined as the number of pounds of fuel burned for every HP generated in one hour.
Your engine is, most likely not made lovingly by engineers blueprinted the engine.

Its a mass produced engine. However, production methods have improved. Your "race engines" will have a BSFC ratio near the ragged edge of about .35. Yes, theres a terminal point where you need fuel to cool the engine.

Your car? about .50 -.45

gugnaut
Yes I do. The car switches from battery to gas..when it is not using the battery it self charges. It is awesome.
It uses both but it is a SWEET ride.

IrateShadow: 35mpg has been possible with engines for 30+ years now but everyone wanted power instead of fuel economy.

They didn't 'want' more power, they needed it because of all the other crap the car has to haul.

1975 Civic - 1500lbs
2007 Civic - 2700lbs

humanshrapnel: gugnaut: Gothmolly: Diesel > Otto

HCCI >Diesel>Otto



This guy came up with the same (or similar enough) technology as HCCI more than 20 years ago. He called it the Hot Vapor Cycle Engine, or Adiabatic engine. Rumor has it he showed it to the Big 3 and the US military and was summarily dismissed.

HCCI has its drawbacks, particularly in the area of control. It takes a lot of research money to iron out the kinks. If gas is $1 a gallon and there isn't tightening regulations on emissions, why would the Big 3, or anyone, bother? Only now is there money to be made.

The whole fuel economy/US thing is quite simple. The US accepts a certain cost per mile (Dubai Vol). The automakers and the oil companies are well stocked with smart people who could make more efficent engines, but why? The US accepts it for what it is.

I happen to drive a german car, with a 3.6 litre engine, 2 doors and currently ~400 hp. It averages +25 mpg hwy with 70,000 miles on the engine. If I hadn't made some performance mods it would do even better.

/2002 c4s

p the boiler: the smart car gets 40/45 mpg - why aren't we all driving those? oh yeah, because they look like this:

Complain to Mercedes about it, maybe they'll make the next version look like a Jaguar.

The issue is horsepower. Somehow, over the last 20 years, everyone got it into their little heads that they needed horsepower. You know, so they can accelerate faster than that guy in the next lane. Or whatever.

And with this shift in emphasis, the 1.4 and 1.6 litre engines that used to be offered in compact cars disappeared. You can't get them anymore, even as an option.

So now every soccer mom in town has a 250HP mill so she can have her jackrabbit start when the light changes.

I was getting 44 MPG in 1982 with my 1.4L Renault. No reason why it couldn't happen again, except no one would buy a 1.4L car today.

Nuclear power plants and electric cars. We have the technology (at least for expensive cars and could easily get it down with a little more research) and doing that would be make a massive difference in air pollution and oil dependence. This would make drastic changes all around and it is very possible. Why is it being overlooked?

Eagle747: Nuclear power plants and electric cars. We have the technology (at least for expensive cars and could easily get it down with a little more research) and doing that would be make a massive difference in air pollution and oil dependence. This would make drastic changes all around and it is very possible. Why is it being overlooked?

My guess is nobody has figured out a way to get pigfarking rich off of it.

gund: Considering in the latest eco-marathon, a car went more than 7000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, when shiat hits the fan, there are alternatives.

Yeah, as long as there's never a driver that weighs more than 120lbs, never has passengers or cargo, never has to drive faster than ~20mph, always travels on flat roads in good repair, never drives in poor weather, etc etc etc

Diesel Hybrids are "today" technology, can be produced affordability, and get excellent fuel economy without sacrificing much of anything you can get in a current automobile. Diesel because it's inherently more efficient and has a much shorter path to renewable biofuels than gasoline.
=Smidge=

Cup_O_Jo: gugnaut
Yes I do. The car switches from battery to gas..when it is not using the battery it self charges. It is awesome.
It uses both but it is a SWEET ride.

Valid point, but the car still relies on an IC engine to charge the battery. It's merely utilizing the engine in a more efficient manner. So, if anything, your claim supports the argument that "gasoline engines are just spiffy." I was under the impression that you were trying to refute it.