If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Open ForumsThe Open forum was created for people to discuss anything else Non-Moto related. Just about anything goes! Please remember this is a loosely moderated area. If you do not have thick skin. We suggest you stay out of here.
Posts: 5,828
Casino Cash: $60724
Sportbike: The one with 3 wheels...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighsideSV
Do you have a source for those claims? I've never seen a cam drive boxer engine before.
Back in the mid 1900s' everyone was trying to make a better engine. Everyone wanted to get better MPG. And they did. But no one wanted it, or it was too much work. Like you hear about the carbs that would get 40-50 MPG. Well yes, it would do 50mpg. But you have to look at the design. After messing around with it for a couple hours then it would make 50mpg. And you would have to re-correct it everytime you fill up.
So many people put so much money into designing better engines, that everything thats "new" and "high tec" most likly is just a copy of what was made 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago...
Posts: 5,828
Casino Cash: $60724
Sportbike: The one with 3 wheels...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabanaboy
To quote first line of story:
The cost would more likely be fitting them into a traditional frame setup for a traditional engine. A company like Toyota should pick the ball up on this and make a new car to replace the Yaris, or better yet the Prius, and profit. I mean, it costs a decent amount to produce hybrid vehicles because of all the hardware, electronics, and of course materials, and the reason why they cost as little as they do is because of government tax breaks and general support. If they could cut all that out and still charge similar prices (while making a better MPG car) they would make a killing for the eco-conscious buyer.
Ok, maybe not to make. But to maintain. This little engine has a more moving parts than a normal engine. And it looks kinda hard to work on...
Back in the mid 1900s' everyone was trying to make a better engine. Everyone wanted to get better MPG. And they did. But no one wanted it, or it was too much work. Like you hear about the carbs that would get 40-50 MPG. Well yes, it would do 50mpg. But you have to look at the design. After messing around with it for a couple hours then it would make 50mpg. And you would have to re-correct it everytime you fill up.
So many people put so much money into designing better engines, that everything thats "new" and "high tec" most likly is just a copy of what was made 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago...
So the answer to my question (can you back up that statement) is "no". OK.
well look at the rotary engine, it makes a good amount of power for it's size. and has less parts. but you only see mazda using one in only ONE of it's cars.
I'm surprised a yaris isn't getting better fuel economy than that.
the honda CRX got those numbers back in 1989.
my GMC sonoma 4.3L V6 gets 25-27 average depending on brand of gas and how hard I drive it. that's with a truck rear end and truck gearing in the transmission. and a truck with a curb weight of 3500lbs.
I just can't see why a yaris is only seeing 40 then. and that is only an epa ESTIMATE. meaning in the most perfect conditions, off throttle down hill, no wind etc
That's something that bugs me now. About 5 years ago I had a 1995 Z-28 Camaro. Solid VERY reliable car i used to beat the snot out of. Had some minor mods like CAI, headers, etc. The car ran 13.5's at 103mph. It was an automatic with 2.73 gears, car was rated at 275 hp with my mods it was probably about 300 crank HP. What's bizarre is the gas mileage I got, it was a little less that 20 around town (as long as i wasn't beating it) and on the highway it got an honest 29MPG!! I'm looking for a car now and I can guarantee I'll never find a car that gets 29 mpg and runs in the mid 13's now. So what's the deal?? 15 year old GM technology was better than what we have now?? BIG BS!! Two car I'm looking at now, a Civic SI and VW GTI get similar mpg, are alot slower, and alot lighter to boot. Something doesn't add up.
That's something that bugs me now. About 5 years ago I had a 1995 Z-28 Camaro. Solid VERY reliable car i used to beat the snot out of. Had some minor mods like CAI, headers, etc. The car ran 13.5's at 103mph. It was an automatic with 2.73 gears, car was rated at 275 hp with my mods it was probably about 300 crank HP. What's bizarre is the gas mileage I got, it was a little less that 20 around town (as long as i wasn't beating it) and on the highway it got an honest 29MPG!! I'm looking for a car now and I can guarantee I'll never find a car that gets 29 mpg and runs in the mid 13's now. So what's the deal?? 15 year old GM technology was better than what we have now?? BIG BS!! Two car I'm looking at now, a Civic SI and VW GTI get similar mpg, are alot slower, and alot lighter to boot. Something doesn't add up.
Safety standards today result in heavier cars, stringent EPA standards hurt efficiency a bit. Performance cars are actually pretty efficient up to a point, but they are expensive. Many of the things that result in high performance also result in an efficient use of fuel.
It was the same for non-performance cars too. I had a Geo Metro in the early 90s that got better mileage than a Prius.
^I've noticed the weight of small cars today. I'm shocked how heavy they really are.
I remember a mustang GT weighed in at 2800lbs. and today small compact cars are over 3000lbs.
baron brings up another thing about cars I've noticed, some of them are no more aerodynamic than cars 30 years ago. a 93+ camaro was and still is one of the most aerodynamic cars out there.
and baron, I know what you mean about a camaro, they are supposed to be horrible on gas.. I used to have a 91 Z-28 with a 350. I drove me and my friends to sandusky ohio (about 5 hrs) and only used 1/2 a tank. I don't know the mileage but for a 350 to go 5 hours at 55-65 off and on, that's fantastic considering the tank only held 13 gallons.
That's something that bugs me now. About 5 years ago I had a 1995 Z-28 Camaro. Solid VERY reliable car i used to beat the snot out of. Had some minor mods like CAI, headers, etc. The car ran 13.5's at 103mph. It was an automatic with 2.73 gears, car was rated at 275 hp with my mods it was probably about 300 crank HP. What's bizarre is the gas mileage I got, it was a little less that 20 around town (as long as i wasn't beating it) and on the highway it got an honest 29MPG!! I'm looking for a car now and I can guarantee I'll never find a car that gets 29 mpg and runs in the mid 13's now. So what's the deal?? 15 year old GM technology was better than what we have now?? BIG BS!! Two car I'm looking at now, a Civic SI and VW GTI get similar mpg, are alot slower, and alot lighter to boot. Something doesn't add up.
Try looking at an Evo!!! we used to run AWD DSMs and I could get 25-30mpg on the interstate.. and run 11.8 @ 116 at the track... loved pissing off the mustang, fbody, vette, viper, and many bikes!!!
The above mentioned engine looks overly complicated... not unlike the wankel rotary that was supposed to revolutionize the internal combustion engine how many years ago? Oh yeah.. and ask any RX7 owner how much boost it took to blow his apex seals???
Try looking at an Evo!!! we used to run AWD DSMs and I could get 25-30mpg on the interstate.. and run 11.8 @ 116 at the track... loved pissing off the mustang, fbody, vette, viper, and many bikes!!!
The above mentioned engine looks overly complicated... not unlike the wankel rotary that was supposed to revolutionize the internal combustion engine how many years ago? Oh yeah.. and ask any RX7 owner how much boost it took to blow his apex seals???
Love the EVO but don't wanna spend 30k!!! Too much $$$$. Will probably get yet another DSM, my GF isn't pleased I was stuck on a new GTI. DSM guys are getting into running E85 and its the shit. Guys are saying it works better than race gas. E85 + Boost =
I just can't see why a yaris is only seeing 40 then. and that is only an epa ESTIMATE. meaning in the most perfect conditions, off throttle down hill, no wind etc
False.
The highway test cycle involves speeds of up to 80 MPH, at 20 degrees Fahrenheit, using more rapid acceleration than previous tests, and using the A/C 13% of the time. The speed is varied quite a bit, and it is definitely not "off throttle down hill."
Even the past tests weren't that nice, but the new one very closely estimates real world fuel economy.
The EPA estimate for the Yaris, by the way, is now 29/36 and 29/35 for the manual and automatic respectively.
For more fuel efficient things, why not just get a older, cheap, 4banger for a DD and then spend your money on a nicer car to have fun with on weekends?
My 98 Ford Escort wagon with a stick shift will get 38mpg around town and my record is recently 47mpg highway. Course alot of that was downhill and i drafted a semi for around 120 miles, but i normally get 43mpg highway driving normal.
Linear Mode
