70mpg Autos Made in USA...but you're not allowed to have them..

[TM7]

VW, Ford, and other manufacturers, make 70 or 80mpg vehicles,,,even right here in the good ole US of A but you're not allowed to have one...so says this report:
.
fyi...TM7
.
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/uBnlXGvA1Wk[/embed]

 
.

[Casull]

Must be true.  It's on youtube. 

[hillbill]

well i already knew all that stuff and was already ticked off about it! thanks for reminding me!

[Cuts Crooked]

Kinda makes you think about the light bulbs they want us to use here........that can't be manufactured here. 

[NYRebel13]

I just compared the beetles and the city mileage in the UK versions is what the highway mileage in the US is.

[Empty Quiver]

It has been decided for us that what we shall drive is pollutant free, it is also designed to save us from our own stupidity. It has been decided that burning ten gallons of gasoline pollutant free is better than burning 4 gallons of diesel fuel relatively pollutant free.


Further it has been decided we drive entirely too much. We are too danged wealthy and independant minded to have our travel plans dictated to us. The only real control is the price of fuel. Fuel prices will rise until we begin to behave ourselves as "civilized Euro peons".


All this would not be so hard to swallow if it were based on truth and true supply demand forces. Sadly, I find that hard to believe at this point.

[coyotejoe]

I checked a UK auto site and they listed 6 autos which get 70 mpg or better, a couple were really tiny, like the Mini Cooper but there were some mid size including the VW referred to. Heck, if it only gets 60 mpg that's four times what I'm getting with my '92 GMC pickup. Problem is, I drive that old GMC because I can't afford to even think about buying a new car.

[BUGEYE]

fuel acts as a coolant and lubricant.  you can "lean out" a lot of engines and get double your normal mileage.  however, the engine would last about half the time with that fuel/air mixture.

off-road bikes and enduros can run cool with the fins completely packed with mud.
2-stroke engines run great without a crankcase.
you CAN up your mileage, but you WILL burn up that motor.

[hillbill]

something else kind of interesting to research are diesel motorcycles. i beleive royal enfield sells one in the UK that gets over 100 mpg. lots of brits build their own as well and have some very interesting designs.

[Sourdough]

Volkswagen has been doing work on diesels for years.  When everyone else was looking at hybrids and electric, VW decided to work on diesel.  I've driven diesel powered Audies that were screamers.  Really high performance cars.  Then there was the lowly Lupa, about the size of a Smart Car, but with four seats.  The Lupa got 80mpg.  Not the fastest car going down the road, and really slow in the hills.  But it got there.  We ran the heck out of that little thing, and kept that little three cylinder engine screaming.  Still got 80mpg.  Two grown men in the back seat and you cut your highway speed in half.

[LONGTOM]

fuel acts as a coolant and lubricant.  you can "lean out" a lot of engines and get double your normal mileage.  however, the engine would last about half the time with that fuel/air mixture.

off-road bikes and enduros can run cool with the fins completely packed with mud.
2-stroke engines run great without a crankcase.
you CAN up your mileage, but you WILL burn up that motor.

The same thing was said back during WWII about trying to lean out the engines on the P38 Lightning but Charles Linbergh proved it could be done without any harm to them on many occasions.
Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group
 
No reason it can't be done on an auto engine and has been done before.
 
 
LONGTOM

[Raptor]

Well for those are hoping for more diesels sold here, are getting their wish, jeep, cadillac, chevy, mercedes and mazda will be saleing diesel cars and SUV,s here this fall.

[R.W.Dale]

Are we comparing gallons imperial to US gallons here?

A gallon in Europe or Canada = 1.2 of our gallons.

[Tommyt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/25172/volkswagen-introduces-worlds-most-economical-car/
 
While we don’t have a great deal of information available at this stage, we do know that Volkswagen is set to reveal the world’s most economical non-hybrid car to shareholders attending the 42nd annual general meeting of Volkswagen AG in Hamburg.

The single-seater is capable of 0.91 litres per 100km (or 258mpg in the old measure) and can manage a top speed of 123km/h.
The prototype, as shown here, was built in conditions of such great secrecy that little more is known about the car, but we’ll be sure to keep you posted after next week’s meeting.

[BUGEYE]

 
The same thing was said back during WWII about trying to lean out the engines on the P38 Lightning but Charles Linbergh proved it could be done without any harm to them on many occasions.
Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group
 
No reason it can't be done on an auto engine and has been done before.
 
 
LONGTOM

yeah, I read where pilots would lean out their engines to gain distance. they are up where it's cooler and had to remember to richen it up before they started their dog-fights, and I suppose they leaned them up for the trip home.
however, continued lean mixtures will damage the engine.
http://constructionmanuals.tpub.com/14264/css/14264_110.htm

[fatercat]

been hearing these stories over 60 years.  had a vw back in the 60's that got aroud 30 mpg. even heard that the oil co's. bought up all the rights on the high mileage tech. stuff.

[BUGEYE]

been hearing these stories over 60 years.  had a vw back in the 60's that got aroud 30 mpg. even heard that the oil co's. bought up all the rights on the high mileage tech. stuff.

all those high-MPG contraptions were for trapping the un-wary.  however, a properly designed high-MPG diesel would be the answer.  big oil might welcome them because diesel is cheaper to refine.
it's american car buyers that insist on a fire-breathing V-8 or bigger gas engine.
since I drive slow, a three cylinder diesel would be perfect for my little truck.

[BUGEYE]

TM7, scroll down a couple of clicks and it's on the right side.

or, google this, "fuel/air mixture damage" and read till your hearts content.

also you must have missed my post extolling the virtues of diesel engines.  I wish I had a small diesel in my truck.

after I retired from Delta Airlines, I drove a school bus for a few years.  I started out with a 7.3 liter V8 diesel. it was old and wouldn't pull the hat off your head.
then they gave me a new 125HP in-line 6 cylinder with a super-charger.  wow, what power.
my little truck has 110HP and it'll pull about 1/10 of that diesel.
 

[Old Fart]

This is slightly off subject but this thread reminded me of a Renualt LeCar I had while in college.
It was rated at 30 mpg when I bought it.
That thing did 50mpg + all day long on the hi-way.
My F-I-L had a VW diesel car that did 50mpg easy also.
Both of these were back in the late 70's early 80's.

[BUGEYE]

This is slightly off subject but this thread reminded me of a Renualt LeCar I had while in college.
It was rated at 30 mpg when I bought it.
That thing did 50mpg + all day long on the hi-way.
My F-I-L had a VW diesel car that did 50mpg easy also.
Both of these were back in the late 70's early 80's.

I don't know why people now won't accept diesel.  a well maintained diesel doesn't pollute much and they run forever.
I guess our "throw away" mentality extends to our cars.

[magooch]

I'll believe some of those fantastic mpg claims when I see them.  It's all about physics, guys; there's no free lunch.  It takes a given amount of energy to produce a given amount of work.  You can tinker around the fringe, but there's always a price to pay, or a lot of compromise.  Sure, you can lean em out, lighten them up and shrink the size of the engines, but in the end you have to choose your level of comfort and driveability.
 
Anyone who thinks that the auto manufacturers are holding back on the technology to increase efficiency hasn't looked under the hood of some of the new models.  My daughter just bought a new Chevy Cruse that has this dinky little 1.4 liter engine which is unbelievably high tech; it's even turbo charged.  It is supposed to get about 38 mpg highway, but I wouldn't bet on it--at least not with any passengers and not in the mountains.  There is a price too; the sheet metal the body is made of is so thin that her front fender now has a dent from a soccer ball stike.  I can only imagine what a minor hail storm would do to it, or hitting a tweety bird.
 
 

[LONGTOM]

I know from past experience that back in the mid 70s that GM leaned their 454 truck engines back so far that the tail pipes would actually turn white on a long trip.
I owned several of these engines in 1 ton duallys with 373 gear ratio and a 4 speed trans.
Averaged a little over 100,000 miles per year on each of them towing a 53' drop deck trailer loaded up to as much as 41,000 lbs gross with no problems except that they would crack the exhaust manifolds from the exhaust heat but never had a problem with the engines themself.
They did run and pull better than any pickup diesel on the road at the time.
Of course back then I really didn't care all that much about MPGs as long as it would get me there and back real fast!!! 
 
 
LONGTOM

[yellowtail3]

Light weight low power high tire pressure  high tech modest speeds and maybe mild hybrid equals good mpg. It is easy, once you sort out your priorities.


Most cars these days have a LOT of power which is nice, but gas is expensive. Heck, I think a four cyl accord would prob dust a 1970 chevelle w a 350.  I am a great fan of wagons.. I have gone through two escort wagons.

[ppine]

There are plenty of cars in the world that can get more than 60 mpg.  They don't come close to passing EPA smog requirements.  I am a retired environmental consultant and worked on lots of air quality studies over the years.  This thread illustrates a good example of Government overstepping its bounds especially given the new economic conditions.  We could ease up on the air q regs enough to accomodate some of these cars. 

The air quality however in places like Europe, not to mention China and Japan is abyssmal compared to the US.  I believe in diesel technology but do not care for the new sulfur requirements which inhibit the lubricity of the new fuels.  The price we pay for oil imports goes way beyond the cost at the pump.  Our foreign policy decisions are linked to energy production.  The US is an exporter of reifned fuels for the first time since 1948.  If we relax the air pollution laws somewhat we will make a large jump in fleet mileage which will definitely help our political situation and and further reduce oil imports.

[Old Fart]

This is slightly off subject but this thread reminded me of a Renualt LeCar I had while in college.
It was rated at 30 mpg when I bought it.
That thing did 50mpg + all day long on the hi-way.
My F-I-L had a VW diesel car that did 50mpg easy also.
Both of these were back in the late 70's early 80's.

Just to be clear....
I'm not saying this was the norm for these cars.
As a matter of fact the dealer at the Renualt place told me they were more likely to struggle to get the rated mpg. 

[Empty Quiver]

 
The same thing was said back during WWII about trying to lean out the engines on the P38 Lightning but Charles Linbergh proved it could be done without any harm to them on many occasions.
Charles Lindbergh and the 475th Fighter Group
 
No reason it can't be done on an auto engine and has been done before.
 
 
LONGTOM

yeah, I read where pilots would lean out their engines to gain distance. they are up where it's cooler and had to remember to richen it up before they started their dog-fights, and I suppose they leaned them up for the trip home.
however, continued lean mixtures will damage the engine.
http://constructionmanuals.tpub.com/14264/css/14264_110.htm

There is another problem to leaning an engine out. There is a limit to the air fuel ratio below which the fuel will not ignite. Nothing to be done about it it simply will not ignite. This is why you can smoke around open containers of gasoline, or leaking propane grills for that matter.


I believe thermal efficiency is where the engine makers will be going. As long as the exhaust is hot you are leaving money on the table so to speak. Detroit Diesel attacked this in the mid '90's I suppose and were hailed as the most economical powerplants for over the road tractors. Now I'm talking engines of equal output, the Detroits simply burned less fuel, while doing the same amount of work.


When you are prepared to drive a car that performs like a semi you will get great fuel economy. My tractor has a fourteen litre engine and gets roughly 6.7mpg. It runs at 62mph at 1380rpm, .82 overdriven trans. It will not run 63, it goes from 0 - 62 in roughly 3.5 minutes.    It will do this on level ground at a gross weight of 79,800#. Imagine if you will your 1/2 ton p/u with a 1 litre mill and you sorta get the idea (that would be a gvw of about 5600#). Oh and by the way your P/U isn't 13'6" tall and 102" wide, a pretty good hole to knock in the wind.

[hillbill]

Light weight low power high tire pressure  high tech modest speeds and maybe mild hybrid equals good mpg. It is easy, once you sort out your priorities.


Most cars these days have a LOT of power which is nice, but gas is expensive. Heck, I think a four cyl accord would prob dust a 1970 chevelle w a 350.  I am a great fan of wagons.. I have gone through two escort wagons.

power to weight ratio is indeed a factor. years ago i had a toyota tercel 2 door with a 1.5 and a 4 speed. they guys at work used to make fun of my lil hoopdi! so i challenged them to a race. i raced both a 64 283 impala and a 350 chevy shortbed.both heavy rigs with auto trans. niether one could outrun me.i could not pass them, but they could not pull away from me either. we ran up to about 100mph and shut them down.

[blind ear]

I think a main consideration of car design is building in obsloesence and short working life. They have to keep sales volume up. The cousumer mindset and throw away society attitude of the American consumer has been slowly indoctrinated into us ever since WWII.
-
As the post war recovery began so did the Interstate Highway System,  a move away from heavy freight movement by a regulated rail system to a massive turcking system. With the trucks came the ever increaseing consumption of fuels. Massive ammounts of fuel consumption and manufactureing. Post war brought on the every family car and more fuel consumption. This to was aided by the Interstate.
-
This consumer spending led the way to sales volume increases that led the way to a new marketing strategy. Don't make products that last an excessivly long time with iron clad dependability, make products with new features that will generate sales and resales at a more freaquent rate. We became accustomed to "new and shiney" rather than "built in America to last forever". Every segment of American marketing/manufactureing was and is geared toward this resale and aftersale generation and the new manufactureing strategies were designed to support it.
_
A car that gets 100 MPG but has the same or greater costs invloved in manufacture, upkeep and repair as the fuel consumption cost, in all manners, as older design may help the fuel consumption but it does not help the consumers pocketbook nor the toll on resources or the enviornment. Many over the road trucks are considered to be throw aways by truckers now.
-
Our problems are driven by our lack of responsibility to our needs rather than our wants. Many here say it, I can afford it and I will do it if I want to. They are expressing thier great concern for the future of the planet and it's resources and inhabitants. ear

[LONGTOM]

Empty Quiver

 Oh and by the way your P/U isn't 13'6" tall and 102" wide, a pretty good hole to knock in the wind.

No my pickup wasn't but what I was hauling on my trailer made me 13' 5" tall and 96" wide!
I didn't have any of those new style aero panels on my truck/trailer either.
 
 
LONGTOM

[Casull]

I think a main consideration of car design is building in obsloesence and short working life.

 
 
In many products, I would agree.  But, when we talk about vehicles, I think you're wrong on this one.  Today's cars tend to last LONGER than those built decades ago.  And, before anyone says "my old chevy/ford/mopar/etc. ran forever", I remember the '60s and 70's when a car MIGHT make 100,000 miles and would probably be rusted out in 5 years.  Sure, there were exceptions, but those were EXCEPTIONS.  Take a look around now and you'll see 10 and 11 year old cars with 250,000 or more miles and NO RUST.