Archives

Instead of being the solution, cars in this category offer neither appealing size nor good fuel economy. Are their days numbered? (http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/dec2007/bw20071214_306805.htm)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2008_4Runner_Ltd.jpgMichael Frank – Business Week – Dec. 14, 2007

Toyota 4Runner 4WD rated at 14/17 - FSP sales are off 25% with wants finally coming into line with needs. -- Ed.

If there's one truism about car buying, it's that it's almost never rational. Want trumps need. You might say the Toyota Prius disproves this argument, but nothing about human behavior is a constant, nor is Prius-buying solely altruistic. If you haven't seen the South Park episode about the Prius ("Smug Alert"), download it on iTunes for some perspective.

The point is, it is shocking that the biggest "appliance" purchase in our daily lives should be so tied to emotion, not reason. Here's a bit of support for this notion:

1. The sports car. Nobody needs to go from zero to 60 in under six seconds. Nobody needs a car in electric yellow with flames painted on its sides.

2. Cup-holders. One per passenger, sure, but three per passenger? If you had only one place to set your drink, would you miss the other two?

3. The SUV. Early examples were born of need, not want: The Jeep exists because of the need to get around battlefields. Even as recently as the 1970s utility vehicles were largely made for work and were uncomfortable, with rudimentary truck platforms. Adding the "sport" designation—and of course cup-holders—transformed the utility vehicle into the SUV. The rest of the time line, from the mid-1980s through about 2001, looks like this. (I've written it in haiku form as a tribute to the Japanese, because SUVs have put U.S. carmakers behind their Japanese competition in the long run.)

SUVs were Detroit's love

They sold millions. Cars? Who cares!

The H2 is born… http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/dec2007/bw20071214_306805.htm

I sure hope the death of the midside SUV is comming. I've seen it happen in my life. My mom picked up a Rav4 last year or so. She was incredibly disappointed in it. Low power to weight ratio, cargo room was nice, but mileage was horrible in it. She was getting low 20s IIRC. I think it was a 2003 model. It was before they got larger in any case. So, I suggested she look at the Matrix as I was looking at them at that time too and it fit her description of what she wanted. Well, she ended up picking one up and now loves it. She says it carries just as much as the Rav, has more pep, and gets almost 10 more mpg. She even traded it in and got money back for going to the lower priced Matrix! Win, win, and win.

If the Matrix had a hybrid option it would be the ultimte midsize SUV killer. I never understood the whole SUV phenomenon anyway. For carrying loads of cargo, a utility van does it cheaper and with better FE.

I found out by accident that midsized SUVs don't offer huge mpg advantages over HUGE SUVs.
Our Pilot got 12-14 mpg in city driving with my wife or so driving it.It got just 15.9 mpg on two 3000 mile trips(with the roof rack filled with a basket).It got 21-22 mpg with an empty roof basket on the same 3000 mile trips-at least 5 trips).
The ancient 1998 Suburban(198000 miles 2 valve 5.7 V-8) gets 15.5 in back and forth to school(32 mile city trip with 1/2 of it being city interstate,the rest being stop sign/stop light to stop).The Suburban gets 12-13 in the purest city driving.It will get about 18 mpg on a pure interstate trip(prediction from scangauge).In pure city I would get 15 mpg with the Pilot.Now,I was driving carefully, but not P&G .If I had P&Ged it would have gotten close to 18 mpg on the same trips I get 15.5 mpg with the Suburban.
The 22mpg vs 18 mpg-this is barely a 20% improvement in mpg despite the Honda having a very advanced 3.5 lt V-6 vs the 2 valve 5.7 V-8.There is a 1000lb wt difference.
The Pilot is one of the more efficient mid sized V-8s.Other midsized Explorer,all the Dodges,the Trailblazer don't do as well as the Pilot.The Highlander does about the same-the 4 cyl should do better.
A 20% increase in miles travel per gallon just isn't very good.Some-Durango/Expedition-get poorer mpg than the Suburban.Honda might be correct to go to Diesels.As xcel mentioned waaaaay back-on another forum-Toyota missed the boat-mpg wise-when they went with the V-6 in the HH.They left 4 mpg on the table by not using the 4 cyl.The HH should have matched the FEH in mpg instead it only beats "itself" by 20%.
4 cyl hybrid midsized minivans and SUVs(with suitable aero improvements) should be able to get 30 mpg on trips,and 25-30 mpg in the city instead of the mid teens and low 20's they actually get.Same story with smallish TDIs.
Honda CRVs get about 30 mpg highway right now.They get at least 20 mpg city with careful driving.A 4 cyl hybrid could be 10" longer/4" wider and 500 heavier and still match
it.
I agree midsizedV-6 ICE SUVs will die.The market for new HUGE SUVs is dying.Folks who downsized at $2 gas will downsize again with $3-$3.50 gasoline.
The Suburban sized SUVs will have to go TDI(3 liters or less like a Sprinter) and get better aerodynamically if they plan to sell in decent numbers.
I remember 1979-1985 very well.Everyone eventually went smaller-and the 4cyl 4 valve ICEs got very,very good.Small TDIs and hybrid 4 cyl SUVs will come.GM has lots of TDIs they could use on their midsized SUVs.
Charlie

The article says,

"To be fair, GM is hardly the only company guilty of capitalizing on impractical mid size SUVs. Moreover, the company is starting next year by finally offering hybrid and diesel options to its SUV lineups, which will arguably be a bigger help in reducing the nation's fuel consumption than niche vehicles like Toyota's (TM) Prius".

Ya know, I would tend to agree with that statement, were it not for the fact that we all know America does not have time to gradually "withdraw" from its "Silverado addiction". Cold turkey is our only hope, because;

1. Of the magnitude of the problem. Our whole economy depends on this commodity. The rapid advance of gasoline prices is having a profound impact on America's economy and our way of life.

2. Of the impact rising gasoline prices is having on Americans. Starting from America's lowest income families, and slowly working its way up to the great American middle class, rising gasoline prices is destroying our Americans standard of living. Because gasoline is so pivotal, and used so much, the rapid escalation in price is wrecking the lives of those who do not have the ability to absorb it, financially.

3. Of the impact on America resulting from vast amounts America's wealth going to our "drug dealers". I myself am totally unable to conceive of the amount of money that is leaving this country daily. I do know, however, that Americans are selling our country, piece by piece, to our drug dealers. We Americans are beginning to live the existence of any junkie who spends the majority of his income (if he has any income) on his habit.

I really, truly believe we as Americans do not have the luxury of time to relegate the Toyota's (TM) Prius to the status of a "niche vehicle". As with the treatment of any addiction, one thing is perfectly clear. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.

Unfortunately also, as with most addicts, they usually must "die" (see just how bad they have become) before they are able to be "born again" (kick the habit and rehabilitate themselves).

Sorry, all, for the bright, cheery thoughts just before Xmas, but I see that

Hoards of Estate Wagons are clogged at the gate,
And the doorman has told the first he's too late,
There will be no more America in the morning.

Hi Charlie and Bob:

___I agree with everything you two have said.

___I love it how the naysayer’s keep spouting that the Prius is a niche vehicle all the while it breaks into the top 10 of all sales in the US and with the next gen right around the corner, more then likely the top 5.

___There is one ace in the hole we have yet to see and that is the electrification of all drivetrains. If the planet is truly at peak, fuel costs have only one way to go and it is not in a favorable direction. At some point, capitulation finally appears. When that time arrives, citizens will be so pissed off that a $30,000 Aptera or $35,000 Yaris EV from Hybrid Technologies will not seem like such a bad idea. When looking at how far the $ has crashed vs. the European currencies, I can see a lot of Brit’s eyeing that converted Yaris/SMART/Mini/PT Cruiser given they actually pay the same for their current lineup of high end sub-compacts now :rolleyes: And of course they have the $9.00 + per gallon to contend with that should help move their own transportation sector to a far more sustainable solution as well. Leave the iCDTi in the garage for longer trips and drive the BEV back and forth to work. Or the Volt, whichever ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

The only gas-hog I ever owned was a Ford pickup truck with the "economy" straight-six motor.

When it only got 17 mpg highway, I got rid of it in a year. This was way back in 1980.

Why didn't other people come to the same conclusion as me, that gas-hogs are a fuelish waste of money? I don't understand the average American's addiction to gasoline, and never have.

Harry

Earthling.
Americans(USAers) love-LOVE-our cars.I'm not sure why but for many of us they aren't just appliances.Many of the folks-especially slightly older folks-on this forum were/are car tinkerers rehabilitated hot rodders.
What folks have to be convinced of is that they can still "love" their cars, but there love has to be transferred from acceleration/size to mpg/lightweight/clever materials.
I get a big kick out of watching the Prius go from 25mpg during moderate acceleration to 99mpg when I lift and glide.
I can picture us-USAers having 2 cars in the future.One might be a Hybrid TDI(or a smaller motored-1000 cc spark motor running on ethanol, or 85% ethanol)-say 1 foot longer-6" wider, with a nice aero shape like a Prius. It would match the current Prius in city and Hy mpg,and would be the Home Depot/minivan kid hauler/Road Trip vehicle.
The second car would be a tiny-2 adult seats,2 kid seats-1700 lbs- electric plug in with a 50 mile range.It would be very aero-use maybe 100 watt hr per mile in the city.
We just need smaller, lighter cars.
One car will have to be a decent sized-5 passengers with Home Depot potential,and road trip potential.I think Toyota is planning to make a stretch Prius as part of its 3 in one Prius plan.
We can have our cake and eat it too-just smaller cake with a different flavor.With current tech we could 2.5X the average family mpg.The minivans and SUV get traded for a stetch Prius-the small car-Corolla.Accord- gets traded for a tiny electric car(much like an Insight, but with tiny back seats),and plug in only-no ICE.
Yeah,we are buying oil from folks who are going to use the $$ to buy/make a nuke.
Wayne, an extra $10000 to get a 20 mile plug in range for the Prius will make more sense once we have $5-$6 gasoline with the next Middle East Blow up with $150-$200 oil.One good thing about expensive oil is that it will drive up the prices of all the Chinese junk ( electronic crap/gadgets/cars(soon) we don't need).We might get back some light,and heavy industry if transportation costs rise enough.Maybe some textile mills also.Heck,I see evaporated milk comes from China now(in my coffee)!Transportation eats lots of fuel.
Charlie

This made me wonder. If this is the death of the midsize SUV, I can pretty well figure that this is *not* the death of the large SUV (I think we could name a few of these). But what's considered a small SUV? A Jeep Wrangler, an Outback, a RAV perhaps?

Maybe you can see where I'm going but some of these get as bad/worse mileage as larger models do.

--des

The only gas-hog I ever owned was a Ford pickup truck with the "economy" straight-six motor.

When it only got 17 mpg highway, I got rid of it in a year. This was way back in 1980.

Why didn't other people come to the same conclusion as me, that gas-hogs are a fuelish waste of money? I don't understand the average American's addiction to gasoline, and never have.

Harry

Gas is still cheap. 17 mpg was intolerable to you, but not to other people. I refused to buy and explorer when a crv would due. I refused to pay the high premium for poor gas mileage and poorer workmanship. That's me. I friend with 2 kids like me "upgraded" from a Grand Cherokee to a Tahoe. That's his business. He is free to make that choice and free to pay the extra money it costs to exercise that choice. People are free to do what you term "feulish" things.

That's his business. He is free to make that choice and free to pay the extra money it costs to exercise that choice. People are free to do what you term "feulish" things.

Well, it is my business, if you consider our addiction to gasoline has got us over a barrel overseas. We're wasting $$$'s and lives protecting the Persian Gulf area, so people like your friend can continue to drive gas-hogs. And global warming/climate change which the gas-hog drivers refuse to acknowledge, certainly affects me, you, and everyone.

So it isn't just a case of freedom to drive whatever you wish. There are consequences to all of us.

Harry

Well said, Harry.

Well, it is my business, if you consider our addiction to gasoline has got us over a barrel overseas. We're wasting $$$'s and lives protecting the Persian Gulf area, so people like your friend can continue to drive gas-hogs. And global warming/climate change which the gas-hog drivers refuse to acknowledge, certainly affects me, you, and everyone.

So it isn't just a case of freedom to drive whatever you wish. There are consequences to all of us.

Harry
How convenient, now everything is your business Harry.

98CRV,
Your buddy is probably getting as good a mpg with the Tahoe as he was with the Grand Cherokee.For some reason-I don't know why-Dodge/Chrysler gets the worst mpg,or close to the worst in most categories.Check CR real world figures-the Tahoe and GC are very close.This is the problem with many midsized SUVs-they just don't deliver on their promised/implies mpg.Most of them get 12-15 mpg in the city-maybe 20-22 on CR's trip loop.This is barely 2 mpg better than the HUGE Suburban.My guess is that the high weight-always over 4500 lbs-tall profile-and 250+hp V-6s are to blame.City mpg seems to be mainly a function of weight.
With my old gas guzzling Suburban,I get 15-16 mpg in mixed city.In the purest city-very short 2 mile trips with a warm motor,I get 13 mpg.Once I replace the motor,and the starter,I'll be able to shut the motor off at stoplights.Idling at stoplights absolutely kills mpg on short trips.
Nothing new about this,all the really committed hypermilers shut their motor down at stoplights.On a recent 2.1 km trip I used .7Liters;it got 3 km/lt(11.34 mpg).The trip took ~12 minutes,and I was stopped idling for about 6 minutes.In those 6 minutes I used .28 liters.If I had shut down(ignoring the higher consumption from the cold motor-it is usually hot around here).If I had shut the motor off,I would have used .42 liters for the 2.1km.The consumption would have been 5 liters/km or about 18.9 mpg.I don't shut down because of my very high mile vehicle-198000 miles-and starter.I don't want them to break any sooner than they "have" to.Now,I'm driving to get good mpg-accelerating to just above the limit,them gliding until the next stop or until I'm about 5 mph below the limit-more or less standard P&G works works better than I expected for this hog.If I drove casually,I would get about 8 mpg on these short trips.
The market share of HUGE,and Midsized SUVs is going to be just 25% of what is was before President arrived.His meddling has precipitated the high gasoline prices.Maybe he is doing the USA a favor by forcing us off imported fuel several years early.If gasoline was $1.50 gal do you think all the activity in biofuels(and the windmills) would be going on?
I remember 1979-1982 very well(and 1973).They were more abrupt changes,and they precipitated a fairly dramatic change in vehicle choice.We suddenly had diesel cars(Corollas,little trucks,Peugeots,VWs etc),and we had lots of 2100 lb 40 mpg(highway) vehicles.Prior to 1973 20 mpg highway was considered GREAT mpg!!Now great mpg is the 49mpg you get driving a Prius at 63 mph.
Things are changing.The big SUVs(new sales) will become niche vehicles for very affluent folks hauling boats etc.They also will get much better mpg(next 5 years) than they currently do.Just shutting them off at stoplights will improve their city mpg by 30-40%.The older SUVs will stay around for 10 more years because they will be so cheap(already happening-check Ebay sales of Suburbans) that they will make $$ and cents sense to buy as a lot use second vehicle.
We-USAers will be driven to economise/conserve by the increased cost of gas,and by some intervention by the feds-just like 1979 with the 55 mpg limit,and change in Cafe limits.President Bush-in a horrible way-was a gift for the forces of conservation.It forces our-USAers-hand about 10 years earlier than otherwise.I THINK a DEM might win in 2008(they are easily capable of shooting themselves in the foot), but it won't matter much with the price of gasoline,heating oil etc rising with no prospect of them falling.
I'm optimistic in respect to energy independence for the USA.
Sorry to run on, but yes the sales of big and medium sized SUVs are dying.They are becoming a niche vehicle.The Prius,HCHII ,FIT,Camry Hybrid are going to be the norm as the high use family vehicle.A stretch Prius will be the trip vehicle(much like the European Zafira,Mazda 5 etc).It will be a mini mini van getting 45 mpg highway.6 passengers, 185") long under 4000 lbs).It will replace most of the minivans,and biggish SUVs.We could even see a minivan on the Camry Hybrid chasis-a hatchback Camry Hybrid.
Thanks,
Charlie

The problem is, it is too easy to ignore the problem because the consequences are not enough. Force people to get a cdl to drive a truck or suv. Supposedly big cars for small business is why these cars are guzzler tax exempt, so extra licensing headaches will help ensure that people really need them. The tests are harder, more expensive and take more time. The medical requirements alone might help reduce the number of these cars on the road.

How convenient, now everything is your business Harry.


It sure is. I worked two years in Saudi Arabia, so I know where our petro-dollars are going.

What part of global warming/climate change is not my business?

What part of our government runnning huge deficits to finance a war in the Persian Gulf is not my business?

What part of Americans dying in the Persian Gulf is not my business?

Oh, and how about having the planet run out of oil? Is that my business? It's a concern for my grandsons, and their children.

Oh, I forgot the part about us financing our enemies with all the money we are spending on gasoline. Now I'm sure that is my business.

The problem I have is all the Americans who blissfully go about their business, and don't acknowledge any of this.

Harry

Thats a good idea! Also one could hope that it would make people safer because its harder to get a CDL... plus it would reduce drunk driving because the alcohol limits are half what they are for normal licenses... at least they are in my state.

koreberg,
I have to disagree a little bit.I think the current fuel costs are going to drive us to more efficient vehicles.The numbers-2000 vs 2007-I don't have at hand.Does anyone have those numbers?We could use sales of Suburbans/Tahoes/Yukons are a marker for Huge personal vehicles.What are GMs 2000 sales vs 2007 ?I would bet that the 2007 numbers aren't even 1/2 the 2000 numbers.
For sales of small efficient vehicles we could use Corollas.Civics are a slightly different story,so they aren't as good a marker.Honda has a lot of very committed customers who have been buying Civics for 15 years,and they are the vanilla vehicles that Corollas are.You only buy a Corolla if you want good mpg and good reliability.It doesn't warm anyones heart like Civic.
If I get a chance,I'll check GM 1/2 ton SUV sales 2000 vs 2007,and check Corolla/Matrix(Matrix is just a hatch Corolla with slightly different sheetmetal).
These figures will clearly demonstrate that we are changing our buying habits.
I don't want to be too much of an apologist for big SUVs, but they will continue to sell to affluent folks.If the Feds impose more strict mpg regs(they should) GM will get smart,and put a SMALL TDI(4 CYL-2.5 LITERS) in them with a 6-7 speed manual automatic transmission.They should use a MT/AT with no fluid coupling.You only need about 80 HP to adequately move a 5000 lb SUV at 80 mph.A 175 hp 2.4 cyl spark motor with lots of gearing and lots of flywheel would allow them to perform adequately,and get much better city/hy mpg.Cylinder shutdown of a V-8 will never be as efficient as a true 4 cyl.Part of the reason cars-WITH CARBS!!-did so well in the early 80's was that the motors were small,and not too powerful.They were frequently running with their throttle plates open,so their efficiency-lower pumping losses since the throttle plate was open-was better.
Spark motors are getting much better relative to TDIs.All the current 1/2 ton passenger vehicles could be adequately driven with the good spark 4 cylinders motors combined with6-7 speed MT/ATs-no fluid coupling-with heavy acting flywheels,so they can run with low RPMs, big throttle openings(no lugging).
TDIs do have 3 huge huge advantages-no throttle plate-20/1 compression-and they can take lots of turbocharging(1 atm easily-15 psi).Current spark motor can only run about 5 lbs of boost,and they usually have to drop the static compression to do that.Small spark motors have to be run with more throttle plate openings,so pumping losses are less.
I'll try to find the #s.
Thanks,
Charlie
PS-Some of the vast number of older SUVs could be converted to plug in only electric city hauling vehicles.They only need about 60 hp in the city,and they can easily carry the 2000 lbs of batteries. I'm might do this some day.Yes,they would be very slow accelerating, but so what?

It sure is. I worked two years in Saudi Arabia, so I know where our petro-dollars are going.

What part of global warming/climate change is not my business?

What part of our government runnning huge deficits to finance a war in the Persian Gulf is not my business?

What part of Americans dying in the Persian Gulf is not my business?

Oh, and how about having the planet run out of oil? Is that my business? It's a concern for my grandsons, and their children.

Oh, I forgot the part about us financing our enemies with all the money we are spending on gasoline. Now I'm sure that is my business.

The problem I have is all the Americans who blissfully go about their business, and don't acknowledge any of this.

Harry

Then get rid of your 3 vehicles now, eliminate any carbon use and rid yourself of your addiction.

You complain about others addiction, but yet you are addicted still.:rolleyes:

Current spark motor can only run about 5 lbs of boost,and they usually have to drop the static compression to do that.Small spark motors have to be run with more throttle plate openings,so pumping losses are less.


There are several cars coming directly from the factory that have small 4 cylinder gasoline engines that are running at 3 to 4 times the amount of boost your quoting (15 - 20 psi). Granted they are performance cars, but one could make small gas engines running at high boost take the place of big V-8 naturally aspirated engines while increasing fuel mileage.

I completely agree with you though. We don't need big V-8 to get the job done. Its going to take a change of perspective of alot of people before real change happens... luckily for us it is happening.

Then get rid of your 3 vehicles now, eliminate any carbon use and rid yourself of your addiction.

You complain about others addiction, but yet you are addicted still.:rolleyes:

One can reduce their carbon use without being addicted. Just because someone uses gas doesn't mean they are doing their part to be part of the solution. Isn't that the reason these forums exist? I'm sure many here would buy a full electric car if one was available for a price that was realistic.

@worthywads

Addiction is 1 thing, casual consumption is something different. The cars in earthlings stable easily count as casual consumption, especially when placed into context with the rest of the vehicles being discussed in this thread.

Attacking the messenger does not dilute the message.

@Blake

I would convert my CRX to full electric if I actually knew what I was doing. I only need about 30 miles worth of batteries :D

@worthywads

Addiction is 1 thing, casual consumption is something different. The cars in earthlings stable easily count as casual consumption, especially when placed into context with the rest of the vehicles being discussed in this thread.

Attacking the messenger does not dilute the message.

The addiction argument isn't mine, but if it is an addiction there is no casual consumption. I see lots of Hybrids driven by people that own 3000+ sqft homes, the addiction takes many sources to fulfill.

I'm disturbed by the repetitive Us vs Them attitude here. Most of us here enjoy the lifestyle that the fossil fuel economy allows to a far greater extent than 99% of the world population but then condemn the SUV driver as evil.

I feel like a Them around here even though my carbon footprint is likely smaller than every Hybrid driver in Boulder.

Why not everyone stop with the judgment.

koreberg,
Think I've seen an online article from someone who used one of the very small older Hondas as an electric platform.The downside is that they are awfully efficient to begin with-maybe 30+ mpg city,and 40's highway.
I think you need about 100 watt hrs to drive a vehicle 25 mph for 1 mile.The Prius battery is 1500 watt hrs-100 lbs-but I'm just not sure how far they let it discharge-maybe only 300 watt hrs-3 miles.If you could track down 4 of them(Prius battery packs),and were willing to drain them to 1/2 full-you would have your 30 miles city.I think"normal " lead acid deep discharge batteries would weigh about 1000 lbs and could give you the 30 miles.
Blake,I remember turbocharging got a big "boost"(pun intended) in the early 80's, but it died as standard 4 cyl technology and HP improved,and problems with the turbo bearings(cooking/coking the oil in the bearings) became obvious. Which spark cars are going to 1 atm boost?It is a lot easier now with detonation detectors, easy spark retard,easy fuel adj etc.Recemtly Toyota performance came out with an add on turbo for their Tundra-the 4.7 V-8.It really didn't deliver the performance because it could rarely be induced to go over 5 lbs of boost(roughly 30% increase in power).Granted this wasn't a full OEM attempt.
The boost-detonation problem -if solved/improved would lessen the TDIs inherent advantage over spark motors.
A 300 HP 4 cyl with proper gearing -6-speed AT/MT could easily tow the 7000 lbs many 1/2 ton SUV owners very occasionally need. It could be done with the 4 cyl 175 no boost hp, but the 300 would make them happier.They will be affluent folks,so they could easily pay the extra costs.
Thanks,
Charlie
PS I'm really curious which spark turbos are going 15 psi( almost doubling hp)

Then get rid of your 3 vehicles now, eliminate any carbon use and rid yourself of your addiction.

You complain about others addiction, but yet you are addicted still.:rolleyes:

Please be realistic rather than antagonistic. You are intelligent enough to know that there is a big difference between forced addiction and wanton addiction, and wanton addiction is what is at issue here.

Please be realistic rather than antagonistic. You are intelligent enough to know that there is a big difference between forced addiction and wanton addiction, and wanton addiction is what is at issue here.

Then we should stop with the addiction analogy, it doesn't work. One person's forced addiction is another's wanton addiction. The person without electricity certainly can't agree that anyone's forced.

I'll give you a short list of production cars that have boost levels around 15psi or higher.

Dodge Neon SRT-4 : Stock Boost 14psi
Subaru Impreza WRX & STi: Stock Boost 15 psi (japanese spec stock boost: 18 psi on the STi)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution: Stock Boost 18 psi
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR: Stock Boost 20 psi
Audi TT RS: Stock Boost 15 psi
Mini Cooper S: 14.5 psi in overboost mode, 10.5 psi normally
Pontiac Solstice and Chevy Colbalt (supercharged): 12 psi
Porsche 911 Turbo: 17.4 psi in overboost mode, 14.5 psi normally


There's more but you get the idea. Now all of these are sports cars, but they would work equally well in bigger vehicles (ie SUV's) and if they are tuned properly to take advantage of FE instead of fast speed, they could achive higher FE than they get now.

I honestly don't see why automakers don't switch big V8's over to highly turboed/supercharged I4's (H4's in the case of subaru and porsche ;))


While we are on the topic of forced induction... I'll agree that forced induction works MUCH better for FE when its done with a diesel. The nature of the diesel motor lends itself to forced induction much better than a gas motor.

Now compound induction is an intresting concept. I personally think we'll see some of them hitting the market in small diesel as it takes to best of both worlds when combining superchargers and turbochargers. Small supercharger to provide boost at low RPM's with a large turbo to provide more power at high RPM's when the turbo is in its peak operating range.

A small diesel with compound induction could easily provide enough power to propel a truck while keeping the engine size small ;)

I'll give you a short list of production cars that have boost levels around 15psi or higher.

Dodge Neon SRT-4 : Stock Boost 14psi
Subaru Impreza WRX & STi: Stock Boost 15 psi (japanese spec stock boost: 18 psi on the STi)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution: Stock Boost 18 psi
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR: Stock Boost 20 psi
Audi TT RS: Stock Boost 15 psi
Mini Cooper S: 14.5 psi in overboost mode, 10.5 psi normally
Pontiac Solstice and Chevy Colbalt (supercharged): 12 psi
Porsche 911 Turbo: 17.4 psi in overboost mode, 14.5 psi normally


There's more but you get the idea. Now all of these are sports cars, but they would work equally well in bigger vehicles (ie SUV's) and if they are tuned properly to take advantage of FE instead of fast speed, they could achive higher FE than they get now.

I honestly don't see why automakers don't switch big V8's over to highly turboed/supercharged I4's (H4's in the case of subaru and porsche ;))


While we are on the topic of forced induction... I'll agree that forced induction works MUCH better for FE when its done with a diesel. The nature of the diesel motor lends itself to forced induction much better than a gas motor.

Now compound induction is an intresting concept. I personally think we'll see some of them hitting the market in small diesel as it takes to best of both worlds when combining superchargers and turbochargers. Small supercharger to provide boost at low RPM's with a large turbo to provide more power at high RPM's when the turbo is in its peak operating range.

A small diesel with compound induction could easily provide enough power to propel a truck while keeping the engine size small ;)

All this talk of turbo is deja vu, this was what was thought to be the solution back in the late 70's earlly 80's until gas dropped to historic lows.

In 1979 I wrote a paper titled "Turbocharging, An Exhausting Subject" comparing the advantages of turbo vs supercharging with the turbo the clear winner. Turbos were just gaining ground with the Buick Turbos. Chrysler was soon to follow.

In 1980 as a freshman Mechanical Engineering student my first group project was a 5-speed vertical gate shifter for the fairly new 5-speed manuals that were being mated to the I4s of the time. Vertical gate being a shifter that only required forward and back motion, no left right. This was primarily for drag racing, but the presumption was the V8 was history.

A TD tacoma would be a nice choice.

Nice name for a paper ;)

Turbo's definitely are superior to supercharging because they recapture waste energy, while superchargers require energy to run. They seem to be catching on with more and more cars using them... now if we can get auto manufacturers to make a turbo engine designed for FE instead of increased speed.

Hello. While it is true that prices on used (large) S.U.V.'s have fallen precipitously, I believe Americans in general have become somewhat comfotrable with current petrol prices. There seems to be real no outcry about three dollar a gallon fuel as there was shortly after Hurricane Katrina (news covergage is remarkably absent.) We have become accustomed (incrementally this time) to the cost of fuel for our vehicles. My belief is that fuel will have to rise by approximatley 65 percent (sustained) before Americans (in general) will reject non-fuel efficienct vehicles is mass quantities. I still don't konw why the masses seem to reject the small, fuel efficient vehicles which are so prevelant in Europe. I suppose it's our woefully bloated (and festering) culture.
brian

Blake,
I was aware of a couple of them, but I didn't know theu were operating regularly at 15 PSI(1atm more or less).They require 93 octane no doubt, but can certainly use 87 octane9with a drop in HP0 if needed.
What sort of trickery are they using to get away using all that boost without detonation?Lower initial compression probably? Intercooler to keep charge temp down?Detonation sensor -all cars have them now.No water or alcohol injection(that would be cheating)??The Porche of the 70's 80's ran horrendous boost, but they were using 115 octane,and who knows what else.They literally threw out a fire plume like a jet on afterburner.
Worthywads- you might remember there was a Turbocharged small Toyota pickup in the mid late 80's.It was a spark motor.There was a Diesel(no turbo) small Toyota truck also.I had a series of small Toyota pickups-76-86-94-98-all 4 cyl all but the 98 were MT.They got an honest 24mpg(with no effort to get good mpg) in my mainly city driving-except for the 1998 AT-it strained to get 20mpg.They were all light-under 2800 lbs-key to decent city mpg,and the reason big SUVs are dropping in sales-it is very,very hard to get 20 mpg city with a 5000 lb vehicle(and a fluid coupling AT).
Blake,I seem to remember that Turbo "steal" 7 hp to add 100 hp(power wise), but belt supercharger "steal" 30hp to make 100 hp.Just as you folks say,a turbo is nearly free-the 7% penality is usually worth paying for 250 lb less motor,and 4 cylinders less friction.4cylinder motors got so good(and gas so cheap-89 cents/gal in 1999) that turbos became unnecessary.
I have to admit ,I have a soft spot for straight sixes-no counterbalancers.Unfortunately,they are too long for most vehicles,and I agree all the 1/2 ton vehicles could do fine with a good 4 cyl with a 6 speed-MT/AT and a turbo for the boat towers that need 7000 lb tow capacity.The 3/4 and one ton work trucks could do fine with a straight 6 turboed spark motor or a TDI.They wouldn't need to be bigger than 4 liters,and a TDI could be 3 liters easily enough(175hp and 350 LB ft).
Oh well,memory lane.
Thanks,
Charlie

All of the cars on my list require 93 octane and all run intercoolers. Most, if not all, modern FI engine have a knock sensor, so by default all the ones on my list have them as well.

As for how they get around detonation, lower inital compression is one way of doing it, but most of these cars have a static compression ratio of 8.5 or higher. The way they get around it usually is through careful timing adjustment and with VVT, this makes the process safe through out the RPM range. Also another way of dealing with detonation is through adjustment of air/fuel ratios. I know when the STi got higher up in the RPM range, with the corresponding increase in boost pressures, the air/fuel ratios would go from something around the 14/1 range to around a 11 or 12/1 range. Adding extra fuel richens the mixure to deal with the extra air as well as cooling the in cylinder temperatures. Obviously not the best way of achiving high FE's.

What diferentiates these cars is that their turbo systems are designed around high RPM max power. The STi didn't make full boost until around 3500-4000 RPM and the basic engine design is built around max output at high RPM's. The STi is not extreme in this example as boost starts to fall off around 6,000 RPM... well short of the rev limit of the engine which is 7000. The mitsubishi on the other hand holds full boost very close to its RPM limit of 8000 RPM. I know when I was active in the subaru community the stock turbo's on the STi were good for ~17.5 psi and the Evo's turbo's were good for around 23-25 psi. Obviously careful tuning was required of this and also required race gas.

The problem with this was these engines obviously are NOT fuel efficent. If you look at a turbo system designed around low RPM boost (Saab's 9-3 comes to mind) you can get boost VERY early in the RPM range, around 1100 rpm.

If the auto manufactures would produce turbo systems that cam on boost low in the RPM range like Saab's system they could be use as a tool for trucks to provide low end torque when they need it to pull loads when the engine load is high. The addition of very adjustable wastegates could be employed to vent off boost when its not needed when driving for high FE. I'm quite sure a well designed low boost system that came in during low RPM ranges and place these engines in trucks/suv's they could achive must higher FE ratings while still retaining towing capacity.


An even better idea would be to make a series hybrid system that used a VERY high boost small diesel motor that ran at a constant RPM in order to charge the battery pack. Such a engine could be tuned to the specific RPM range the motor ran at to produce extremely efficent operation. Thats the problem with engines... they are at their most efficent operation in a very small RPM due to gearing. CVT's help with this. Making the engine constantly run at that range while operating a generator seems to me like the best of both worlds until we can have a full BEV.

On another topic. While I don't like ethanol, in high boost applications it actually makes sense. Since an engine operating at very high boosts needs a high octane fuel to resist detonation, ethanol with its high octane levels lends itself well for this type of application. Allowing higher boost means you can get by with a much smaller engine to reach the same needed HP levels.

What this also means is that the engine will only safely run on E85 (or higher levels of ethanol like E100) and since we all know the availablity of it is very lack lustor its not the greatest of solutions. Diesel or biodiesel would be better since its much more available.

Well, it is my business, if you consider our addiction to gasoline has got us over a barrel overseas. We're wasting $$$'s and lives protecting the Persian Gulf area, so people like your friend can continue to drive gas-hogs. And global warming/climate change which the gas-hog drivers refuse to acknowledge, certainly affects me, you, and everyone.

So it isn't just a case of freedom to drive whatever you wish. There are consequences to all of us.

Harry

Sorry, Harry. Your business is your business and yours alone. You have no business in any adult's business. If I choose to hop in my Caddy instead of my del sol, that's my choice. You would just have to live with it. If it makes you upset, that is your business, not mine.

Long live individual liberty!

Blake,
Yep,Ethanol from an expensive food crop like corn isn't too good-except to "get us moving" in the rightish direction-growing fuel,recycling the CO2 and letting nature do the heavy lifting.I know switchgrass is the current favorite, but who knows what the final "best" crop will be.No it won't be corn-check prices on milk,and anything else that has a connection to any USA grown grain(corn or wheat).The rising price of corn has caused wheat and probably oats to go up also.
Yes,I don't see why personal use tow folks-1/2 ton trucks/SUVs (who usually tow 5000 or less,and rarely go over 7000 lbs) couldn't use a good ,properly geared MT/AT(like BMW and others use) 4 cylinder with a good low RPM boost turbo to produce 300+ hp peak,and 250 lb ft and 3000 RPMs.Of course they couldn't do 6.5 0-60 like the 5.7 Tundra does, but it really isn't necessary to have 400 hp on tap.Huge trucks only produce just 600 hp,and they accelerate 80,000 lbs-why the heck do they need more than 200 hp or so to move under 12000 lbs(and usually just 5500 lbs)?The "we need the torque to pull the load" is BS-that is what gearing is for(or a turbo of course).HP and gearing are what determine how fast you accelerate and how fast-top speed-you can go.Gearing takes care of turning decent hp into acceptable torque.Granted they won't be able to do 0-60 in 20 seconds pulling 9000 lbs like some of the current big TDIs(Duramax,Powerstroke etc).Those big 6 liter TDIs make over 1/2 the HP that big rigs make, but they only pull 20% of the load,and probably have under 1/3 the drag(not sure on the drag).

Thanks,
Charlie

Charlie, I think the point you make is spot on. People need to realize that these diesel engines in these big trucks pull amazing loads. Our ladder trucks weigh ~91,000 lbs. But to compair a pickup truck engine to a tractor engine might not be quite fair.

Remeber Horsepower is just a mathmatical function of torque.

Horsepower = (Torque*RPM)/5252

Lets use Chevrolet trucks as an example.

The Vortec 6.0 V8 makes 353 HP @ 5400 RPM and 373 ft/lbs of torque @ 4400 RPM. Meaning at the engines peak HP its producing 343 ft/lbs of torque and at its peak torque rating its producing 312 HP.

Lets use a tractor engine of similar HP levels to illustrate a difference.

The Detroit Diesel Series 92 (used in our reserve fire truck at my station) produces 335 HP at 2100 RPM and 838 ft/lbs of torque. The peak torque rating is 1020 ft/lbs at 1300 RPM and it makes 252 HP at that RPM .

Now lets get numbers for an engine making roughly 50% more power...

All the front line trucks in my department use Detroit Series 60 engines.
The engine has a governed speed of 2100 RPM and produces 515 HP at 1800 RPM, at that RPM its producing 1503 ft/lbs of torque. Its peak torque is 1650 ft/lbs at 1100 RPM making 346 HP.


So basically the diesel engine making only ~50% more horsepower is producing almost 450% the torque that gas engine makes.


When you compair the diesel engines in the small pickup trucks the number is about the same as the gas engine, only the diesel gets slightly better torque because of the lower RPM range. The highest output chevy diesel makes 660 ft/lbs, still only 33% of the power of a tractor diesel.

This is why using a highly boosted small diesel engine to run a generator makes sense instead of using a gas engine. Torque is what gets the work done... Horsepower is just a measure of how fast it can do that work ;)

The FE of a chevy gas engine gets around 16 combined while the diesel version maybe gets 18-20 mpgs. Our fire trucks get maybe 4

Thats a big difference. When a truck that weighs 91,000 lbs can get by with "only" 515 HP, why on earth does a pickup truck pulling 1/8 the load (at their max towing rating) and 1/20th the load when just driving down the road, need almost the same amount of HP. Your assement of the "needs" of the american public is spot on. Wasteful :(

BUT! remember, its not really almost the same amount of "power" just almost the same amount of Horsepower.

Blake,
I have had this argument before-Torque vs HP-before.HP does work per unit of time-how fast you go or fast you accelerate.
I Think of it this way-is your top speed dependent on your peak HP,or your peak torque(assuming you can gear properly)Torque X HP X constant=HP
Huge trucks use big motors because they don't mind the weight penalty-drop in the bucket.The weight is more than made up for by the decreased in friction a much lower RPM motor will have,and greatly increased service life.If we dropped one of those 6 liter 300 hp 600 lb-ft Big 3 motors into a big truck pulling 80,000 lbs it would be running at full hp 100% of the time.It sure as heck wouldn't last 500,000 miles between rebuilds-probably wouldn't last 25,000 at full throttle.
HP and gearing tell you how fast you can go,and what you can pull.Now high torque at high RPMs means big hp of course,since as you say HP=TQ X RPMS X CONSTANT.
Thanks,
Charlie

They use the big motors because they need the torque to get the weight moving. If you were to drop one of the "big" diesel's from the the Big 3 into one of the fire trucks at my station, it more than likely wouldn't even more... and if it did, it would accelerate so slow that it would take ages to get to a fire call.

The point being is that Truck drivers and any big truck operator actually needs the "power" to function. The pickup truck driving down the road does not.

I had a non-turbo 6.2L diesel silverado several years ago that was rated at 143 HP and 257 ft/lbs of torque. It got MUCH better FE than the gas motor option and I never had any issues with the minimal towing I did with it.

Yep, big torque at high RPM's = big HP ;)


But getting back to the orginal intent of this whole converstation, I think we, as well as most people, would agree a small diesel would make a great powerplant to put in cars since their design allows massive amounts of boost to be ran and make lots of power for a very small engine at very low RPMs... which would be great for high FE applications :D

The addiction argument isn't mine, but if it is an addiction there is no casual consumption. I see lots of Hybrids driven by people that own 3000+ sqft homes, the addiction takes many sources to fulfill.

I'm disturbed by the repetitive Us vs Them attitude here. Most of us here enjoy the lifestyle that the fossil fuel economy allows to a far greater extent than 99% of the world population but then condemn the SUV driver as evil.

I feel like a Them around here even though my carbon footprint is likely smaller than every Hybrid driver in Boulder.

Why not everyone stop with the judgment.

Jumping in a firefight here, but need to deposit my $0.02.

I'd argue that well over 99.9% of the citizens in the US finance Terrorism. The only way you get out of that class is if you don't use any gasoline or petroleum products. There is ONE guy I heard of that went transendental and moved to the woods, hunts for his food and uses no electricity at all (or natural gas). Lets say there are a few hundred thousand like him and you have your 0.1% NOT financing terrorism.

The logic goes like this. Oil is traded on an open market, meaning that ANY oil product can be thought of made up of 20% domestic oil and 80% foreign oil. Now of all the trillions spent every year on foreign oil SOME makes it to terrorist. You can argue about the amount of the SOME, but you can't argue (successfully) that the SOME does not exist. So since every oil prodcut is made up of SOME foreign oil, and SOME of foreign oil revenue is used to finance Terrorism, using any oil means the user is giving SOME money to terrorist.

Now... ALL of us give money to Terrorist. We do that, every time we pay our electric bill, fill our gas tank, buy vegetables grown with fertilizer and take them home in plastic bags. So if everyone on CMPG is financing terrorism, what's the point of CMPG.

It's a matter of degrees. My brother for example sends 3 times as much money to Terrorist every year compared to my family. Now to go all polyanna perfect world for a second. If everyone could reduce their consumption by 2 or three fold, Terrorism as we know it would be in serious financial trouble. And as any capitalist knows, you take funding from a thing away, and eventually the thing itself goes away.

So for me the question really becomes:

"How much money have you sent your terrorist today?"

And for me the answer is "About half as much as most everyone else". I don't like the fact that I gave any money, but I'm glad I gave less than I could have.

Personally I'm just not scared enough about Terrorism to move out to a cabin with a bow and arrow. I admire those that do, but for now, I'll have to live with blood on my hands.

11011011

Blake, you are right we are running a bit wide! If one of the Big 3 6 liter was dropped into a 100,000 lb fire truck-with the big motors gearing etc-something would break.Now if you dropped it in with a trans geared EXTREMELY low, it would move the truck like any other 300 hp motor.It would have a very short service life of course,since it would be revving its guts out a peak hp-peak boost constantly.The huge motors can run at near peak levels-400-500-600 hp because they turn very low rpms (maybe 1500 rpms-just guessing),and are built to do just that(HEAVY) No matter what the 3/4 1 ton TDIs say,their motors aren't meant to run a peak power constantly.Most of their service life is spent with Zero extra load.New Orleans is still being rebuilt,and there are zillions of TDI pickups rattling down the road(yes,they are much, much quieter,and much less smoky/stinky) than the used to be).Most of the time they have a driver,and nothing else to haul.
You're right-enough of the HP VS Torque battle.
Dan, yes you are right.To his credit,President Bush has said point blank that the energy dependence problem is our number one problem.I think he said this overseas-I can't remember when or where.However, his solution with the emphasis on find more oil, is BS.We use 20,000,000 barrels a day-11,000,000 imported.No way are we going to find that 11,000,000 barrels here(especially 11,000,000 barrels in perpetuity).Conservation,NUKES to drive electric city cars, biofuels,and scrubbed coal to power our houses and cars,wind,tidal, non biological solar, home solar-will be the answers. Conservation is the quickest-good light bulbs, beter insulated houses, higher efficiency AC/HEATERS and much more efficient cars and car should be 1st steps.The high cost of heating oil and gasoline will push the "cars' and houses in the right direction.$4 gasoline-just a hurricane, or ME blip away, is going to drive the stake thru current mid sized,and huge SUV/pickup sales.Toyota is already suffering-they expected to print $$ with their excellent Tundra, but they are already heavily discounting them($9500 off MSRP on selected models of Tundras" )according to one local dealer.
$3 gasoline is doing the same thing $1 gasoline did in 1979-a bit slower, but same final result and we won't see $1.25 gasoline(pre 911 price) without a severe recession, or dramatic biofuel breakthru with much more efficient cars.
It would be nice to see the middle east folks(who hate us-USA-as a culture) choke on $30 oil, but we will need to drop our use to 705 of current(and the Chinese doing the same) for that to happen(it might).
Thanks,
Charlie
PS sorry to run on.The ME mis-adventure has been a horrible gift(that cost 4000 lives,12000 mainings $600,000,000-maybe 100,000 Iraqis-many 100's of billions for the Iraqi economy).It is forcing our hand 10 years early.I'm optimistic(and I have 15 outdoor not green housed tomatoes 10 days from picking-GW,who knows"rare wind....")

Seems to me that many Americans purchased their SUVs, in part due to:

- Fuel costs were cheap at under $2/gallon
- Credit was even cheaper - 60 month loans, var rate mortages, home equity loans etc.
- Media and marketing made them out to be status symbols

Well I think all three above are taking a hit now, which should continue to impact SUV purchases and boost efficient vehicle sales.

I expect home/apt utilities costs to become a bigger issue as well as it may take a larger bite out of a persons budget.

My hunting and fishing skills are none, I keep hoping the government will secure the borders and push evs, instead of fighting wars half way around the world, and push suvs.

Then get rid of your 3 vehicles now, eliminate any carbon use and rid yourself of your addiction.

You complain about others addiction, but yet you are addicted still.:rolleyes:

Addiction?

I walk to work most days. I live half a mile from work. You?

Harry

Well, it is my business, if you consider our addiction to gasoline has got us over a barrel overseas. We're wasting $$$'s and lives protecting the Persian Gulf area, so people like your friend can continue to drive gas-hogs. And global warming/climate change which the gas-hog drivers refuse to acknowledge, certainly affects me, you, and everyone.

So it isn't just a case of freedom to drive whatever you wish. There are consequences to all of us.

HarryLet's try this analogy...I eat a can or two of this during a meal.

http://graphics.samsclub.com/images/products/0000394009181_LG.jpg

...then I stay at the table long enough for everyone else at the table to experience the consequences of my diet. ;) :o

Do you think it's any of their business?



BTW, Bush's Beans is not related to #41 or #43, even though they are Texas-based. ;)