steve2002

Performance shouldn't be an issue for most cars on the road. At the very least, there should have been (years ago) more options for people who simply want to get around town, and nothing more.


We need to build more nuclear power plants. We have plenty of have-nothing states, like New Mexico and North Dakota. Many of them have military bases that have closed down, right? At the very least, Texas and NEvada can build a few. If not, why not let canada do it for us? Or MEXICO? I'm sure Mexico wont have any problems with unemployed hippies protesting the job development and lower electrical bills. The republicans control the senate, house, and white house, and still nothing. I'm not trying to politicize it, but I'm just trying to bring awareness of the influence of PAC's. Having them available, as they are now, will not be revolutionary, but it is: 1. something consumers will grow familiar with 2. something we need to do for the sake of national security (yeah, political I guess).


I've heard this from many professors, but Goldman-Sachs recently stated that oil prices are bound to double.

Ken, I'm with you completely. I wouldn't care if we used spotted owls for fuel, but what bothers me, as you, is this dependency on foreign oil. If I was a republican president, with a republican house and senate, I'd build a new nuclear powerplant for every state, and three for California. Chris brought up the rates of Nuke usage. I'm not sure if those percentages are right (I'm sure they are, they sound right) but the REASON for having so much nuke power is what WE should be thinking, if we want to stop losing our dominance in the world, and stop dependence on those that hate us.

I'm very conservative, and I hate all taxes, and I think the republicans are too liberal...but on this issue, I think that, for the sake of the country (not to sound political, but it does have to do with the future of the automotive production), I would have no problem with tripling the gas tax. In california, half of what we pay is already state, fed, and other taxation.


Like I said, what is significant is the manufacturers responses, which hasn't changed in decades.

PacerX

Gotta account for something there...

There is no doubt whatsoever that a 6.0 liter V8 putting out 400hp is inhaling MUCH more fuel at PEAK power than the 2.0 liter turd Honda is inhaling at it's... ***AHEM***... "peak" power.

The issue is the question of which one is using less fuel during normal driving conditions - and even given the differences inherent in the two cars (Corvette is larger, heavier, and has higher frontal area) there is no appreciable difference in the EPA cycle. F4's and S2000's were within 1mpg of each other on the EPA cycle when F4's were being produced. Here are the current numbers, Corvette vs. S2000:

Corvette @ 400hp: 18 city / 28 highway - 22.5mpg weighted average
S2000 @ 240hp: 20 city / 25 highway - 22mpg weighted average

Now, the Corvette has roughly 160 more horsepower, is heavier and larger, and ends up in a dead heat in fuel economy with a car that has an engine ONE THIRD it's displacement.

I'll tell you one thing, folks that believe in the infallibility of Japanese engineering better take a hard look at those numbers, because GM's "dinosaur" pushrod V8 stomps Honda's "techno-marvel" super-motor right into the primordial ooze.

So, buy a Corvette and do you part for the environment... and still crush Honda S2000's like the roadkill they are.

NEWBIE T/A

Change that to read :

"So, go buy a Camaro/Firebird and do you part for the environment... and still crush Honda S2000's like the roadkill they are."


Then , I am w/ you all the way.

BTW - on the above Suburban example:

I have a '91 4 x , and it is still a pig - 14 highway is the best it has ever gotten.

Problem is the cheap TBI system that GM used in their ever present quest to keep their costs cheap, and rack in more profits.

In '98 ( I ) they went to a SFI on the 350 , and that should have resulted in higher fuel economy.

I have a hard time believeing the new Subs can't get better mileage than the old ones as when I compare the perceived weight of the cargo door on my '91 to that of my brother in law's '95 , mine is definitely heavier - I'd assume that the rest of the vehicle follows suit.

Problem is that I really , really like a solid front axle on a 4 x 4 - GM has moved away from that for weight reasons and for packaging reasons - w/ an independent front end the vehicle can sit lower w/ a similar ground clearance, and the components weigh less.

However -

How many CV boots have ever been ripped off of a solid front axle while off roading ?

Britt

NewbieWar

but when are they going to come out w/ a full size SUV that creates mid 20's in fuel ecconomy while still keeping a large amount of HP...

i'd like to see what the LS2 gets in the trail blazer, i bet its great gas mileage...

PacerX

Right about the time full-size SUV's stop clocking in north of 5000 lbs., don't the aerodynamic capabilities of a barn running sideways down an interstate and can still perform all the functions they have to today.

Full size SUV's need their size (and associated weight) to do two things in particular - one is towing, the other is providing seating for 9.

Unless someone comes up with a way to shrink people or everyone switches to inflatable boats.

I.e. not for a long, long time.

I'll bet it actually does pretty darned well, and the difference between the 5.3 and the LS2 is not anywhere near what you think it's going to be - as long as they don't go nutty with the gearing.

Chris 96 WS6

6 speed automatics should help. Imagine getting the same OD gear in a t56 in an automatic. Only engines w/enough tq to drive the tall OD can pull it off though

steve2002

OPEC production... http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/venezuela_opec.html?.v=1

By the way, my puny Duratec 2.3L with 140? hp gets the same fuel efficiency as the S2000/Corvette, and its in a damn Ranger. Thats the 2003 model also. I don't race in it...I rice in it (race people who dont know we're racing).

back on topic, we can see from this article why the cost of oil/barrel is going to reach $100. Along with that the lack of refineries to make them into 87 octane, and our sole dependence on fossil fuels for automotive needs, you have the future looking bleak if the corporations keep delaying technological investments.

MissedShift

Even with Jet A up near $3 a gallon, (Even for the airlines) the 737-600/700/800/900 series can do less than $0.04 per seat mile on trips of more than 1000 miles... At 500 miles, its something like $0.06 per seat mile.

Thats stupidly low. Blows cars out of the water. The 787 is supposed to be something like 30% MORE efficient than even that.

The republican party believes, as do a great many americans, including myself, that the government has NO PLACE spending tax dollars on development such as that. Building things, other than for the military and government, is not the place of the government. The private sector will build them, when the demand is there. If anything, the oat-bran eating hippies with their "no-nukes" posters are the ones that are holding the proccess up. They've succeeded in getting enough red tape in place that its damn near impossible for a new nuclear plant to be economical.

Not even gonna touch that, because it's a flat out lie.

steve2002

I didn't say we should finance the development of the technology. Go re-read what I said. If anything, as I said, I'd have a new nuclear power plant built in every state, and three in California.

There is A LOT the government can do to help out the people, including getting rid of the stupid taxes that go nowhere anyways. In California, half of what we pay is tax dollars. In some places with local taxes (other than state and federal) they pay more than half of it in taxes. Ever heard of 'double taxation'? It's in the constitution yet its everywhere.

Bush is a complete failure of a President, and the only reason he got re-elected is because most Americans are brain-numb puppets of mass media and Kerry was almost as bad a baffoon.

This is just a sampler of what I would say if I wanted to 'politicize' it, so in hindsight, you'd have to agree with me that I did a good job in my first two commentaries


edit: and in reply to the stuff that wasn't towards me, the jet fuel stuff, the problem isn't the efficiency of fuel when they're flying at full capacity, but the fact that airlines refuse to accept the laws of capitalism and cut lines that are unprofitable. Government regulation is making airline industries go bankrupt and they both deserve it. Viva Air France! Heil Lufthansa! Let the frog-eaters and krauts show you how socialism is done! what's the seat/mile price of fuel when there's only 7 people on the whole plane (767 if I remember right) going from SF to Hawaii, as has happened to me once!

90rocz

That's my point.... why has the milage NOT significantly improved?
I have hit upwards of 18mpg on a trip to Crew, Virginia just a couple of years ago, at 65+mph...(..that would give me a tail wind, I don't know if it helped..)
With the additions of: SFI, better inductions, better heads, ECM's, E-tranny's, etc etc...?
(I have a K&N filter and stock 3.42 gears in solid axles/manual lock-outs, stock 31/10.50/15 tires on 10" deep stock rims, Firestone Wilderness A/T's@44psi)

steve2002

You spelled Chevrolet wrong in your sig. Maybe you should buy a Ford

NewbieWar

as i suggested earlier the implementation of the sterling motor would significantly increase power w/o increasing any fuel consumption... someone said that if it was worth while GM would be using it, and I disagree GM has been aposed to hybrid technology for some reason or another, but now they seem to be thinking in that direction... I'd just like to see something new being put to use... its nice to have the Displacement on Demand, but they can go further then that i think, to create a more economical solution... we will see

PacerX

In cars, it certainly has.

Point me to a vehicle in 1998 that was ULEV compliant, made good horsepower, and knocked down around 30 mpg hwy. Simply put, there weren't any.

There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. Any improvements in getting more of that energy out and wasting less are bumping up against the law of diminishing returns. If a system is 60% efficient after 100 years of development, the rule of thumb says that getting the next 20% out will cost as much money as ALL the development performed in the first 100 years that got you to 60%.

NEWBIE T/A

A '91 Suburban is the last of the old body style - I.E. the truck body used ( basically ) from '73 thru '87. Yeah, they freshened the front end in '81 , but still.

At any rate, my point was that if the cargo doors are that much heaver on the old rig, I would assume the rest of the sheet metal is as well.

Heavier vehicle = less mileage, all things being equal. Lighter vehicle ( Suburban ) plus more efficient engine = better mileage.

Make any sense ?

Britt

muckz

I fail to see how anyone WOULD want a teardrop-shaped car. Federal standards or not, I think people would not welcome such drastic changes to current car designs. You came out and said that that was FLAT OUT WRONG, and proceeded to cite a list of reasons, as if federal standards were the ONLY thing holding back the production of teardrop shaped cars.


No point. Never disagreed with you on practicality.

Which, again, shows that the teardrop design is better for Cd than normal car shapes. Forget practicality. The discussion was about Cd.

I don't remember seeing "lazy/stupid" in his comments. Did he imply it? Or did you think he implied it? Maybe we took his statement two different ways, you and I.

Which brings up his point again, who would want them? Hardly anybody.

Exactly.




That is arrogantly assuming of you that what you were saying were indeed pearls. By the way, as a sidepoint, do you know the whole point of that illustration? The shame lies, not with the swine who received pearls, but with the senseless feeder who decided to cast pearls before the swine. The joke would be on you, if you weren't simply throwing faux pearls, Swarovski type.



And of course, the removal of pop-up headlights qualifies it as a drastic design change? COrvette would not be subject to experimental teardrop shape changes. Corvette is subject to great scrutiny to squeeze out Cd out of the contemporary car shape it has.

Derailing? Who cars whether they looked into it?

Ideal shape to suit all the variables with the best possible fit and the least number of compromises. Teardrop shape will have the lowest Cd, but will have highest compromises in other areas.

I really don't understand why you fail to acknowledge that, simply put, teardrop shape will surpass any contemporary shape in Cd. Everything else you say has nothing to do with this.


Higher power = 400 HP. Its fuel economy = 28mpg. Lower power = 103 HP. Its fuel economy = 35 mpg. 28 mpg is less than 35 mpg. Hence, more power = less fuel economy.

Efficiency, on the other hand... oh, wait. NewbieWar said this: "if the vett, with 400 hp can get 30mpg, then GM should be able get lower hp engines to get better gas mileage," I am sorry, he did not talk about efficiency. That was something you introduced, and you still continue to confuse efficiency with economy.

Even with your equation above... 400 HP/28 mpg = 14.28 HP per mile per gallon. What you essentially have is 14.28 hp*g/mile. That makes a lot of practical sense (?) Just what is that variable telling you? At best, it shows that LS2 is very efficient for the power it produces and the fuel economy it provides. But it also shows that it is also less economincal because 28 is less than 35 no matter how you twist your equations.


Honda S2000 engine and LS2 have about as much in common as a tractor-trailer engine and a train engine. <i may have exaggerated>


If you want your comparison to be valid, once again, take a two identical motors and bore/stroke one of them. Optimize both. Test fuel economy. QED.