Archives

The goal of 70 miles per gallon faces production roadblocks. (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070909/BUSINESS01/709090587/1014)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/GM_Precept_-_80_mpg_-_PNGV_sponsored.jpgJustin Hyde – Detroit Free Press – Sept. 9, 2007

The abandoned Precept concept was created for the PNGV which was an alliance between GM and the US Government. The Precept was a working hybrid prototype propelled by a 35kW three-phase electric motor to the front wheels, a 1.3L, 3-cylinder diesel driving the rears with NiMH power storage. It was capable of 80 + mpg on the 85 - 07 EPA test cycles. The aerodynamics alone (Cd of .163) equates to a composite highway/city number increase of 12 mpg before the advanced drivetrain was taken into account.

Seven years ago, Detroit's automakers built three concept cars that could travel more than 70 miles on a gallon of fuel and carry five people.

Depending on the breaks in this year's energy debate, the cars of the future may bear a striking resemblance to those ill-fated show cars.

With a fuel economy debate raging from Capitol Hill to statehouses across the country that could reshape what Americans drive, automakers face a growing uncertainty in planning what kind of vehicles to build -- and what consumers will demand -- five to 10 years from today.

Detroit automakers contend that under their worst cases, new trucks and some cars would be banned in several states, including California.

"Even the best of scenarios ... will require us to do the best technology we have and a few we have to invent," said Alan Weverstad, director of public policy for General Motors Corp.

But environmentalists maintain more efficient models will be easily attainable, with today's level of power and convenience, and say Detroit's prior warnings of tiny cars and financial doom from the first fuel economy standards in 1975 didn't come true … http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070909/BUSINESS01/709090587/1014

"And fuel economy rules can cause unexpected shifts in consumer demand; U.S. consumers moved from cars to SUVs in part because SUVs became the only vehicles capable of carrying five people and cargo long distances under the current standards."

Huh? I hereby nominate this sentence for Journalistic Mis-statement of the Week: (a) that's NOT why people shifted, and (b) the last bit is blatantly untrue.

So... GM *could have* built a hybrid car that had a similar function/performance as the Toyota Prius -- but they didn't. Fools! Even if GM had created the Precept with a NiMH/Gasoline hybrid power plant, it still would have gotten at least 65 MPG. It GM had been Precepts for the past seven years, they wouldn't be having so much difficulty building the Volt. GM would have had the hands-on experience.

personally, I would have bought an American 4-dooor hybrid sedan in 2003 if one had existed. Since they didn't Honda got the sale.

I'm hoping to get Sam Roe of the Chicago Tribune to present at a ChicagoPriusGroup meeting in the near future. He wrote an article called "Supercar: The Tanking of an American Dream."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/car/one/chi-startingup-special,0,7249692.special

It's an extremely interesting read albeit also depressing and infuriating. Yesterday, at the Elgin AFV show, I was handing out hard copies copies of this article that Sam had shipped to me. I told people that there were two valuable things that came out of the Supercar initiative: The Insight and the Prius. Read the article.

Wait..Don't I remember the big 3 saying that it would cost a ton of $$$ to achieve better gas mileage? Oh wait, they meant it would cost $$$ to increase the gas mileage on their land barges...What was I thinking. Sorry!

Wait..Don't I remember the big 3 saying that it would cost a ton of $$$ to achieve better gas mileage? Oh wait, they meant it would cost $$$ to increase the gas mileage on their land barges...What was I thinking. Sorry!Perhaps you weren't paying enough attention to listen between the lines. What they said was, "it'll cost a ton of $$$ to fight the legislation, lobby hard, pay politicians, produce misleading public announcements, generate distractions, manufacture vaporware, sue someone/everyone, cave in and eventually build the very thing being fought against, produce more PR swearing that they were working on it and supporting it the entire time."

So you see, it's just that simple.

That, and if they could build it back in 2000, what's stopping them in 2008? Toyota and Honda have proven that good fuel economy is do-able and affordable. I'm sure the Precept could have hit the showrooms for under $30k.

"And fuel economy rules can cause unexpected shifts in consumer demand; U.S. consumers moved from cars to SUVs in part because SUVs became the only vehicles capable of carrying five people and cargo long distances under the current standards."

Huh? I hereby nominate this sentence for Journalistic Mis-statement of the Week: (a) that's NOT why people shifted, and (b) the last bit is blatantly untrue.

Seconded.

I found myself arguing with nearly every statement in the article that it took me nearly 10 minutes to finish it. HAHA.

Can you imagine if the Manhattan Project scientists had given up on creating the atomic bomb? That's how big this mistake on GM's part this is.

I watched a History Channel episode about the VW Beetle, how it was Hitler's Car. Hitler gave the designer [Porsche] requirements, something along the lines of: seats 4 adults, luggage, travels hwy speeds, gets 35mpg. Something like that. Guess what, they did it, and it is the best-selling car ever.

There's a reason engineers in former Russia, Germany, and Japan succeed (besides their unrelenting governments over their shoulders). National pride - they do it for their country. Our engineers don't give a hoot about national pride, they only care about their 401K.

He says the industry wouldn't be in such dire straits if it had not diverted much of its prior gains in engine efficiency toward boosting power and bulking up vehicles instead of saving fuel.This is what I've been whining about. Who needs 0-60 in 4 seconds? And honestly, who is going zero to sixty? Last time I was on the hwy I didn't notice any traffic lights. A more modest 0-45 makes a heck of alot more sense.

This is what I've been whining about. Who needs 0-60 in 4 seconds? And honestly, who is going zero to sixty? Last time I was on the hwy I didn't notice any traffic lights. A more modest 0-45 makes a heck of alot more sense.

Your thinking interstates...most highways I know have some lights, but I agree with you anyway. Remember the car mags which used to have the lovely acceleration & power graphs? I'd love to see that again but with fuel economy maintaining a fixed speed between 15 & 70, accelerating at a slow rate between 0 and 70, and accelerating at a fast rate between 0 and 70. Occationally, the only way into traffic is to punch it, but I can usually wait a minute if I have to.

0-60 doesn't do much for me, but oddly enough I think the Prius pulls better from 40-70+ anyway. The engine and battery don't exactly kick in with a **wham**, but the **whoosh** is plenty good enough to get me in trouble if I forget to check the speedo. I don't think anybody would find fault with it if they weren't so stuck on believing that it's a "slow car." It's a problem manufactured by marketing departments who don't have any idea how to dig out of their own hole.

I still haven't figured out why car manufacturers are allowed to sell vehicles in the U.S. that are capable of speeds higher than 75 MPH, considering that's the highest speed limit found anywhere in country.

It's the American way?

It's the American way?

Actually, it's the way of capitalism :)

I can't think of any new car which can not go over the highest speed limit (130 Km/H, 80 MPH) here. High-end Mercedes, Audis and BMW's are electronically limited to around 155 MPH, but you can have the 'limiter' removed (for a price, of course).

I've had two vehicles that had a top speed of 75mph. A 71 Honda 600 sedan (http://www.honda600source.com/), top speed was 75mph. Very fun car to drive despite only having a 600cc 36hp 2 cylinder air cooled motor. The 0-60 time was about 25 seconds. The other was a 82 VW diesel Vanagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Type_2_(T3)), top speed was around 65mph on the flat, if there was no wind. I used to joke it did 0-60 in 2 minutes flat. It has a 1588cc, 48hp motor.

So my perspective is a bit different than most folks - I see all these commercials for over 200hp and just shake my head. Why? It seems such a waste of fuel... I feel like I'm driving a rocket with my TCH and it's

I know what you mean, Nash. I found the top speed in the '70 Beetle I used to drive only when a semi tried to run me over. 78mph and no higher. It was shuddering because of the wind resistance.

The top speed of my 92 Civic CX in stock form was 94mpg in 5th gear and 97mph in 4th. I could start feeling significant wind drag above 70. Since I aero modded it, I don't start to feel much wind resistance until the upper 80's. A friend plugged my car's new specs (lower Cd) into a performance car program and got an estimated top speed of 140mph, but I've only had it up to 98mph in 5th with plenty of power to spare.

I still haven't figured out why car manufacturers are allowed to sell vehicles in the U.S. that are capable of speeds higher than 75 MPH, considering that's the highest speed limit found anywhere in country.

No speed limits on private property, and imagine when 55 was the national speed limit if every manufacture produced cars that would only go 55. I'd hate to own one of those and drive on a highway with a 75 limit. Never know when someone might change the limits again.