Car engines are beyond ridiculous

[.... callchet ....]

Give me a break. If cars got the same economy as tractor trailers they would get 150 miles per gallon.

Tractor trailers have 400 hp and pull 80 thousand pounds. That is 200 lbs per horsepower. Translate that into what a car needs. Car weighs about

3000 pounds. Divide that by 200 lbs per horsepower. You get 15 hp. That is all you need to move a car around. A tractor trailer moves 3000lbs at

150 mpg. Engines in cars are way bigger than they need to be. Limit engines to 2 liters or less. Early volkswagens were 36 hp. You only need 40 hp

in a car. All the rest of the power is for the wow factor. You only need 40hp engines in cars. Small engines and continuously variable transmissions.


Give me that job and I will move the USA for less. .

[Captain Hilts]

1. I agree. People want to jack rabbit out of red lights, etc. nt

[zipplewrath]

4. Speed saves

Acceleration really. You want to be able to pull out smartly into traffic. However, I agree with the original poster. As engine efficiency increased, they used it to increase power for the same fuel usage. So engines got bigger, and cars got heavier. My old RX-7 had roughly 146 Hp, but only weighed about 2500 lbs. You can get a 200+hp sedan these days, but it weighs 3300 lbs. Cars weigh too much generally speaking. We could be making cars that got in the 50+ mpg relatively easily these days. But they'd have to be lighter, and involve things like advanced transmissions. But those days are passing. We are on the cusp of leaving internal combustion engines behind. First they'll be "on board secondary powers sources". In 10 years I'd guess they'll be used a bit like spare tires, only in special circumstances. And they may run on different fuels anyway. An engine that is using 10 gallons a month may not like gasoline, but prefer LNG or propane or something, and something that can easily be stored in a tank in the side yard, also powering the dryer, the water heater, the outdoor grill.......

[LiberalFighter]

23. I don't think it is speeding out of red lights that is the problem...

it is people that are in a hurry to get to the stoplight. They go faster than what they should be going to the point that one is not sure if they will stop in time.

[lazer47]

2. It is not Horsepower that moves a large truck,

it is the Xmission and rearend axle, it is based on torque, not horsepower

[.... callchet ....]

5. It gets 5 mpg and that translates into

150 mpg for a car. Continuously variable transmissions could do the same for a car and they ara available now. All you would have to do is reduce the size of the engine to about 1.5 liters and use the continuously variable transmission and you get 150 mpg.

[happyslug]

45. I use a CVT on my 80cc Honda, only get 90 mpg

Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) have one big flaw, no guts. They slow to start, slow to get up to speed and slow in general. Standard transmission get close to the same level of mileage without those problems (Which is why most big trucks still use manual transmissions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

Sorry, one of the problems with this comparison is that engine do weigh a lot. The key is tyeing the smallest engine with the largest weight it can move. In a Truck that is easy, take a 4 6 or 8 Cylinder Diesel, then slowly load it down till it can barely move. At that point you will get the highest mileage per weight. When in comes to car engines, the size of the car is the main restriction not total weight. You just can NOT put the same weight in a car that you can even in a pickup with the same engine and transmission (The Pickup bed and take a LOT of weight, weight it is hard to fit into a trunk or the back seat of a Sedan).

This same rationale is being used in recent ads by railroads, pointing out it has even BETTER Miles per ton then even the largest and heaviest truck (and when we had electric freight service even better mileage was achieved, once you convert everything to kilowatts as the measure of power usage).

This is the main reason train and bus service use less energy then car service, you have an engine not much bigger then in most cars, in a vehicle that is capable of hauling a huge increase in cargo (and passengers). Given that circumstances, from an energy point of view, trains are more efficient then trucks/buses, trucks/buses are more efficient then cars. cars (If loaded with four people) are more efficient then motorcycles.

Side Note: Lets remember one fact, the problem for most mass transit and other means of transport has been is that since at least the 1930s, 80% of the cost of operating a such transport system has been the cost to employ the employees NOT to cost of energy. Thus all this energy savings is moot, given the much higher cost of labor (When Compared to Energy costs TODAY). Now, last summer the high price go gasoline seems to have hit a point where labor costs were less then energy costs, but until that returns (and I prefer it to return in the form of high gasoline taxes NOT high gas prices do to any increase in use of gasoline) lets remember LABOR is the big cost not energy and until energy cost exceed labor costs when we talk about energy efficiency we are talking about sometime in the future NOT today. Until energy cost exceeds the cost of labor, energy will be used instead of labor. That means people will prefer to drive their car to work, then pay someone to drive the bus they take to work. The later may be more energy efficient, it cost more do to the higher cost of the labor needed to operate and maintain the bus.

[.... callchet ....]

18. By the way horsepower and torque come of of same machine when it is measured..

They put it on a dyno and put a load on it and measure the reaction to the load. You can't have a workable engine that doesn't have both torque and horsepower. You can't have one without the other. Higher torque engines generally have longer connecting rods and the wrist pine placed off s]center. The typically don't deliver fast acceleration but do have a slower steadier pull.

[MineralMan]

3. I had a car that made 40 hp.

It was a 1959 Triumph 10 (Standard 10 in England). It was tiny, but could barely get out of its own way. Top speed about 60 mph, but that was scary. It was OK around town, but a hazard on the highway.



However, it was a definite chick magnet, I have to say. It had beveled glass on the rear view mirror, a little vase on the pillar between the front and rear seats, and was just devilishly cute.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I used to tell people that my Datsun 210 wouldn't get less than 35 MPG if I tried

On road trips I routinely got over 40 MPG, and that was not feathering the accelerator.

It had plenty of pep, a five speed manual transmission and its engine ran like a top! I loved that car. Too bad the front end rusted out.

[madrchsod]

6. i had every model of the late 50`s french simca

great cars little car,easy on 35ct a gallon gasoline,and top speed of about 60mph. Chrysler bought them in the earlier 60`s and promptly ruined the company.

it`s a good thing engine and fuel management technology has advanced to the point that we are now. engines are more fuel efficient than the ones in the past and will be more efficient in the future

[liberal N proud]

8. And what is that 15 hp going to do when it hits a 5% grade?

I remember the 2 liter 4 cylinder engines of the early 80's. You had to travel in the truck lane going up steep grades.

[.... callchet ....]

10. Down shift just like a truck does.

And I said give them 40 hp.

[liberal N proud]

11. Those cars would only downshift so far

[.... callchet ....]

13. 40 hp would get a volkswagen up that hill with no problem.

[phantom power]

9. You are describing the economy of scale.

It's why mass transit is desirable. You can't just do that with a car, because you lose economy of scale.

[.... callchet ....]

12. Well you don't need 0 to 60 in 7 seconds. There

is a lot of room for improvement before the the law of diminishing returns kicks in. There were lots of cars that got good mileage and the last was the GEO got easily 55 mpg on the highway. Everything is there except the co-operation. DO you notice how much Resistance there is to getting good mileage.

[liberal N proud]

15. If you are pulling out of my driveway you do

Either that or you can get run over

[.... callchet ....]

20. See post # 7 Great little fun car.

On road trips I routinely got over 40 MPG, and that was not feathering the accelerator.

It had plenty of pep, a five speed manual transmission and its engine ran like a top! I loved that car. Too bad the front end rusted out.

[phantom power]

16. Yes, you can definitely trade acceleration for better mileage.

We could build smaller engines, smaller cars, and get 50-60mpg. I think it would be hard to do much better than that, unless you start moving into motorcycle/scooter territory, which are efficient because you are sizing the engine for exactly one person, instead of one driver and four passengers which are usually empty, etc.

The thing about tractor-trailors, or railroads, or shipping barges, etc, is that they get very good (mass*miles)/gallon, because they are large, and as you say they sacrifice acceleration. Rail and shipping especially have very very low delta-v, but their cargo-miles/gallon are enormous.

[.... callchet ....]

21. GEO got 55 highway and was totally suitable car.

They couldn't make any money on it, Hardly ever broke and easy to fix.

[SheilaT]

14. I've been in rural areas and

been caught behind a tractor on the road. They may get good gas mileage, but top speed seems to be maybe 15mph.

Those of us who drive smaller, fuel efficient cars, are doing okay. Plus, I drive a manual transmission (refuse to even consider an automatic) and I've got plenty of pick-up in my Honda Civic to accelerate as I need.

[.... callchet ....]

25. Talking about over the road trucks,

commonly referred to as tractor trailers. The tractor is the truck called a tractor because it is pulling a load.

[SheilaT]

43. Oh.

I grew up in the dairy farming part of Upstate New York, so when I see the word tractor I think those almost cute little things they used for plowing and hauling loads of hay back in the day.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Not exactly a fair comparison

Frontal area of a tractor trailer is 13'6" by 8'6" or 115 ft^2. Car is perhaps 6' by 5' or 30 ft^2. So 1/4th the frontal area, if it was linear would give the car 20mpg. Since at highway speeds Fluidic Friction with Air is the dominant frictional force the engine must overcome.

[.... callchet ....]

19. Truck weighs 80 thousand pounds

Cars average about 3000 pounds.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. On a level surface that means?

On a level surface at constant speed the incremental fuel in a tractor trailer between empty and full load is Zero. So except in mountainous regions it costs nearly the same to run a tractor trailer empty as full.

[.... callchet ....]

26. Point ?

[One_Life_To_Give]

27. Can't base fuel comparison on weight alone

Onless we are talking about cost of moving freight. (In which case train or barge beats truck) You can't directly compare a tractor trailer rig to a passenger car based solely upon one parameter.

[.... callchet ....]

28. My point is if you use mechanical technology

involving small engines with big loads and multi speed transmissions you can dramatically improve mpg figures. Autos are grossly overpowered and under developed. It would be no problem to gert high mileage cars. The GEO was a great example. It got 55 on the highway and was easy to fix and reliable. Look at the junk they put out with the front wheel drive. Took a fail proof system with rear wheel drive and turned it in the biggest money maker in auto repairs with the front wheel drive. Absolutely no reason in the world to have front wheel drive. There is no guidance in the auto industry.

[CRF450]

31. The GEO was a small LIGHTWEIGHT car.

Thats why it got good fuel economy. The problem is not the fault of todays engines, in fact even though they're getting more powerful AND more efficient at the same time, cars are also getting bigger and heavier at the same time, and thats killing any gains in efficiency of the engine itself. The 350hp 5.7 v8 in my car averages around 23mpg, my truck has a 4.7 235hp v8 and averages 16mpg. Put that same motor in a 3500 pound car and it would get the same fuel milage as the 5.7 in my current car. Size and HP rating of an engine alone doesn't automatically means its gas guzzler or not. In fact Boss Hog motorcycles which are around 1000 pounds have v8's and they get around 35mpg easily.

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Airodynamics is more important than just engine displacement

The Chevy Sprint/Geo Metro owes much of it's fuel economy to Low Frontal Area and Low Weight. And since some ungodly number of people can't handle a 4 or 5 speed. Putting a 32 speed gearbox/drive-axel into passenger cars won't work in the US. One reason for the early V-8's was solely so people wouldn't have to shift the transmission.

There are many reasons why the auto companies offer the current crop of cars to the consumer. Nissan dropped the B210, Honda the CRX, Civic is huge compared to it's 1970's version. People spend something around an extra 10 hours per week in their car than in the 70's. As I get older the mileage of the Sprint was nice, but my body is not so up to taking the punishment of driving/rideing in it.

On the topic of mileage. Traffic jams and Hybrid Tech are a perfect match. On the long haul, highway driving it's higher compression ratio's (thermal efficiency)and Airodynamics. (IMNSHO)

[One_Life_To_Give]

22. Add $2 per gallon Federal Tax

and the tecchnical details will work themselves out.

[tinrobot]

38. Bingo.

[CRF450]

29. Thats the stupidest comparison if I ever saw one.

Tractor trailers have a high HP rating for sure, even HIGHER torque ratings, massive surface area, engine that has a narrow powerband, 15 gears in the transmission to use that short rpm range, and basically built to haul heavy loads. 15hp is only enough to keep a car moving down the road, but when you need to accelerate, that number easily reaches 100+hp. Having a higher revving 200hp engine mated to a 5 or 6 speed 3000lbs car is more practical for said vehicle because its not built to move massive amounts of loads.

Sorry, I like my 5.7 350hp v8, which honestly gets 30mpg easy on the highways.

[montanto]

30. It doesn't work that way.

"If cars got the same economy as tractor trailers they would get 150 miles per gallon.

Tractor trailers have 400 hp and pull 80 thousand pounds. That is 200 lbs per horsepower. Translate that into what a car needs. Car weighs about

3000 pounds. Divide that by 200 lbs per horsepower. You get 15 hp. That is all you need to move a car around. A tractor trailer moves 3000lbs at

150 mpg."

For one thing, vehicular locomotion is all about torque, not horsepower. Tractor engines are high torque engines. They do a lot of work at low RPM and relatively low HP. Tractors have lots more gears than car engines because they put out tons of torque in a short RPM range. The many gears keep the engine focused at its peak torque, not peak HP zone. Auto engines work over a wider RPM range and are generally lower in torque than tractors because the work load is lower and the operating zone wider (as someone else posted, a low perf car is ok in the city, but a hazard on the highway). High performance motorcycle engines can put out over 200HP and have really low torque compared to the other two (and btw, get pretty good gas mileage at high output). Put a 200HP M/C engine in a 3000# car and you'll rev the engine to 14,000RPM, fry the clutch, and still not move the car very quickly; Conversely, put a 400HP diesel in your 3000# car and it will go from zero to 20mph in a fraction of a second but the rest of the ride to 120mph is gonna get pretty boring. Keep the 200HP engine it came with, and it works just fine except when trying to pull a 77,000# trailer. Torque is applied force, HP is energy for work or a measure of consumption of energy.

For another thing, you can't simply divide the work that a tractor can do (move 80k#) by HP (400). The resulting number is meaningless as an application to anything other than itself.

[CRF450]

32. This guy hit the nail on the head.

Nothing more to say. :applause:

[DainBramaged]

34. You might as well be talking to a brick all, people here don't give a shit

they have their minds made up that Domestic Auto industry, bad, Japanese auto industry, good, no matter how bad they both suck at giving us what we need.

[.... callchet ....]

35. Made me laugh. Thanks

[.... callchet ....]

36. Wrong wrong

All you need is gears and transmissions. If you had a direct injected gasoline engine of 40 horsepower and a continuously variable transmission you could do anything you wanted to do if you made the top speed of the car the legal speed limit of 70 MPH. BTW the Smart car has a motorcycles engine in it, Explain that. And I know you will. If you put a 200 HP motorcycle engine in a car, all you have to do is increase the weight of the flywheel to get it moving. Once moving Have Fun.

[CRF450]

37. 40hp is not going to work out well in today regular cars no matter how many gears

When your on the highway, its still gonna turn 1500 to 2000rpm. When accelerating the engine still needs to rev up to 2500 to 3000+rpm to make the power for accelerating. Theirs a reason why cars weighing 3500 to 2 tons come with 200+hp engines. HP sells, and it has to MOVE good enough for the engine to not work hard. A 40hp engine is gonna get less fuel milage than you think unless the car weighs way less than 1 ton.

And I highly doubt the Smart Car's engine came strait out of a motorcycle.

Edit: In fact I call bullshit on that claim cause I see a rated output of 70hp @ 5800rpm and 68 lb ft of torque at 4500rpm. Motorcycle engines typically rev over twice as much, they have hardly any low end grunt to move an 1800lbs car.

[.... callchet ....]

40. Its a motorcycle engine.

"Smart cars have been modified by Brabus of Germany, resulting in Brabus production models. Other companies modify the Smart to use motorcycle engines, such as the Suzuki Hayabusa 1340 cc inline four-cylinder. These cars are known as Smartuki. The most powerful models can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph (0 to 100 km/h) in less than 3.5 seconds."

It is only logical to assume that if we are talking about mileage, and a small engine we would put it in a small car. After all this is the environment/energy forum. A Geo could easily get 100 mpg with a direct injected engine and continuously variable transmission. Both technologies are available and being used. The direct injection on gasoline outboards has given those engines fuel consumptions ad good as or better than same size diesel boats. Motorcycles don't get that good of fuel figures because they are way overkill. I had a Big Dog K9 that had 130 hp. Still got 40 mpg.
SOme of the little motor bikes get 200 mpg. The technology is there to get good MPG. And the hybrids could even double what they get except for the demand of performance.

[Fledermaus]

39. Um...Tractor trailers don't get 150 mpg. Its more like 7 to 10 mpg

[.... callchet ....]

41. Nobody said tractor trailers

get 150 mpg. That was saying what cars would get if they used tractor trailer technology.

[Fledermaus]

44. From your original post.

A tractor trailer moves 3000lbs at

150 mpg.

[.... callchet ....]

46. From my original post

A tractor trailer moves "3000lbs" at 150 mpg. Note the 3000 lbs not "tractor trailer".. Then note "Tractor trailers have

400 hp and pull 80 thousand pounds". 3000 lbs is moved at 150 mpg. Not the tractor trailer. 3000 lbs. The tractor trialer weighs

80,000 lbs. The average car weighs about 3000 lbs. If you divide 3000 into 80000 you get 27. A tractor trailer represents 27 cars.

If the tractor trailer gets 5 mpg, then that is like moving 27 cars 5 miles on one gallon of gas. Or moving one car 5 miles on 1/27

gallon of gas. To find the distance for one gallon multiply multiply 5 miles per 1/27th gallon by 27 to get one gallon.

That is 27 times 5 or 155mpg.

[Fledermaus]

49. Gosh, tractor trailers move large loads at 5mpg. Don't get me wrong.

I think reducing the size of personal transportation is a good idea. Its one of my personal hobbies. www.fledermaus.us

But, gosh, what you have proven, in a round about way, is why traveling by bus, that gets 5 mpg, is better than a personal car, that gets 20 mpg. Heck, car pooling five people, in the same car, would yield 100 mpg per person. Not a car that gets 100 mpg.

[happyslug]

42. I remember reading Popular Mechanics in the 1970s, their car guy said the same thing

I might be wrong, it may have been Popular Science (My brother subscribed to both so I had a chance to read both) but for an older gentleman in the 1970s to say there was no need for anyone to have a car with an engine larger then 2.5 liters was a shock. Today 2.0 is more then large enough for most people. If you need more pay extra for the larger engine, if you truly need more you will gladly pay the extra tax (i.e. I mean double price for any engine over 2.5 liters, with a $100 surcharge for every .1 liter over 2.5, i.e 2.5 liter engine cost $1000, a 2.6 will cost $1000, add a $1000 tax and then add a surcharge of 1x100 or a total price of $2100. A 3.0 would be $2000 (engine plus tax) and add 5x100 for a total of $2500.

If the above should to hard, then add a $100 surcharge for every .1 liter over 2.0, thus a 3.0 engine will be the cost of the engine PLUS $1000. A 4.0 would be the cost of the engine PLUS $2000.

Now this HAS to be in addition to a high Gasoline tax, for many people will pay the extra money upfront to have the larger engine, but it is the OPERATION of that engine that will convince them to trade down in size (I.e. any engine tax will be included in the price of the car, financed on a month basis, but high gasoline prices is something the operator of that car will face every month, whether the car is paid for or NOT. Thus the best way to address this issue is to tax engines over 2.0 BUT also to increase Gasoline taxes.

[CRF450]

47. You know I'm all for eco friendly cars, but we DO NOT need taxes like this!

That is a bullshit way to fuck people over forcing them to drive something that will not appeal to them.

[Nihil]

48. You're right but it's a seriously uphill struggle, even around here ...

> If you need more pay extra for the larger engine, if you truly need
> more you will gladly pay the extra tax
...
> Thus the best way to address this issue is to tax engines over 2.0
> BUT also to increase Gasoline taxes.

Exactly right.

You have solved the first problem.

Your next problems are:

1) Persuade domestic manufacturers to focus on these models rather than
the (high profit, low efficiency) guzzlers.

2) Persuade the bought-out dogs in Congress & Senate to enact the laws.

3) Persuade the petrol-heads that this is *NOT* an attack on their penis-size
but a strategy to save both the US economy and the planet.

Good luck!
:toast:

[Oerdin]

50. Diesel.

Then make 50% of the cars diesel like the EU has.