It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New cars guzzle more gas than predicted

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

New cars guzzle more gas than predicted


www.cbc.ca

Some new vehicle owners are complaining their cars consistently use much more gas than they were led to believe they would.

“I had done my whole budget based on what this car was supposed to get in fuel economy,” said Julie Fennell,of Langley,B.C.

“Now,it’s an extra 100 dollars in gas a month that I didn’t budget on. To me,that’s groceries for my kids.”
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
So what we have known all along has finally been confirmed. These companies have been caught red handed.

The cars are all dyno tested form gas mileage and while this is an industry standard it doesn't accurately predict real world mileage.

The problem with this is that now cars are purchased based on these numbers alone. Everyone from the engineering and manufacturing departments down to the salesmen all know that these numbers are wrong yet they continue to tell customers that this is exactly what they will get.

Over 100 years of internal combustion engines and yet they still can't seem to bring the efficiency over 30%. When the hell is this technology going to become obsolete??

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


There are dozens of factors though that dictate fuel mileage. Not only the vehicle running on the road, but the kind of road, the kind of tire on the vehicle, the weight inside the vehicle, road conditions, temperature etc..

It's almost impossible for the industry to test real life scenarios with vehicles. The reported fuel mileage on any vehicle is clearly the max possible in the best possible conditions.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Over 100 years of internal combustion engines and yet they still can't seem to bring the efficiency over 30%. When the hell is this technology going to become obsolete??


If you remove the emissions equipment, the efficiency rises to between 35% to 45%. I don't know what types of power systems that you use, but, the internal combustion engine is one of the most efficient systems in existence.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Most cars are tested with gasoline base

And many states now have only gasoline with 10 to 20% ethanol in it and they don't get the full gas mileage.

One gal of gasoline base = 1.019 gal of gas with 10% ethanol = 1.39 E85
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Then you have to factor in humidity, speed and traffic.

Everyone of my cars always got better MPG when it was raining, 100% humidity

This is why i put a water injection kit on them because i live in the desert.

I also put 2 psi more air in the tires

edit on 28-11-2011 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I was listening to the radio portion of this topic on cbc radio this morning and what they are suggesting the companies do to correct this is allow a calculation for real world results in the final number. Like a percentage of tolerance that it can deviate between so consumers end up with a fair number while purchasing a vehicle.

Like I said, we know a controlled test is never going to produce an accurate real world result but why put that number in the specifications if they know it isn't anywhere near the real world number?? This in itself is just a shady marketing tactic. Ten years ago something like this wouldn't have mattered but in today's world it is a big deal. People are starting to wake up to this.

Its not like these companies don't make money. We spend a fortune on the vehicles thinking they are going to save us a few bucks here and there. The companies can at least provide us with a more realistic result. Its within their power to do so.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


You cannot remove the emissions equipment in many places. If your vehicle is under warranty. This is sure to void it. In Canada there are places where emmisions equipment and testing is required. I'm unsure about how it is in the us. I know where I am in northern Ontario we don't do e testing for certification so on a vehicle that isn't under warranty one could remove it if they wanted to.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


It isn't completely impossible to do a real world test. Get someone to drive each model for a few thousand kilometers on a highway and compare the difference in numbers to the dyno test. Its not super accurate but would provide a more realistic percentage.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


I'm not talking about the owner of the vehicle removing the emissions equipment. I am talking about producing the cars WITHOUT emissions equipment. With the changes in refining technology and the increased burning efficiency of newer engines, emissions equipment is more of a POLITICAL issue than a technological issue.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Unfortunately this is something that won't be done. Politics rule with an iron fist. The uproar from the tree nuggets will be fierce.

What we should be doing is being creative with transportation logistics. More emphasis on mass transit but in such a way that it is a realistic option for most people.

Also we need to get these lazy pricks to stop taking their car to the corner store that's only half a block from their house. People do this where I live all the time. Its absolutely insane. And lazy



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Honestly if people don't realize by now that the number on that window sticker is just a suggestion at best its their own fault. More importantly why are people still buying up new cars like fools when so much money could be saved by buying a used car, plus then you can simply ask the previous owner how it was on gas.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


Sometimes a used car is cheaper.

Ive owned some that were money pits mind you. And I do all my own repair work. Cars just aren't built to last for the long haul anymore. Most of them you can't even repair yourself anymore. You have to lift the engine out to change alternators and spark plugs now. Crazy.

What burns me is these people who buy new cars every year to stay fashionable. Insane.
edit on 11/11/28 by metaldemon2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


I don't buy into the public transportation BS. We don't have the energy shortage that the politicians want you to think we do. One thing that I could never figure out was the purpose of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. Supposedly the objective was to reduce pollution by making people carpool and reward them by saving their time on their way into and out of the city. How is this supposed to reduce pollution? if you want to reduce pollution let everybody use the lanes. That would reduce the amount of time that many vehicles are running instead of a few.

I believe that alot of this crap is a plan to force people to move back into the cities by making it too expensive or inconvient for them to continue to live in the suburbs. When I hear Obama say that they need the price of gasoline to rise to $6 to $7 dollars per gallon, I have to wonder why?



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Nonsense. By which means do emission control means dramatically reduce the thermo-dynamic efficiency of a vehicle?



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Nonsense. By which means do emission control means dramatically reduce the thermo-dynamic efficiency of a vehicle?


The same way a muffler does... increased back pressure in the exhaust system causes the engine to lose a bit of power pushing the exhaust gasses out of the combustion chamber. That and the power required to run the monitoring computer and sensors. Typically there is some tuning done to accomodate for this, but it does still shave a few points off the maximum efficiency to the wheels.

I agree, though, that it is not the largest factor in efficiency, nor is it a major contributing factor.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Over 100 years of internal combustion engines and yet they still can't seem to bring the efficiency over 30%. When the hell is this technology going to become obsolete??


If you remove the emissions equipment, the efficiency rises to between 35% to 45%. I don't know what types of power systems that you use, but, the internal combustion engine is one of the most efficient systems in existence.


Just how would you go about removing the "emissions equipment". The design of the fuel system is basically the emissions system.

The requirements that spelled out higher emissions have actually made the engines more efficient and way more powerful per cubic in. Last week end I drove a 600hp v6 - try finding that horsepower in a "pre emissions" engine. Driving habits make all the difference in the world, my fun car gets anywhere from 10 mpg to 26 mpg depending on the driving -- this car is way pre emission and is no way efficient.

By the way the steam engine is almost twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine and electric cars do even better.

www.teslamotors.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


Because Canada doesn't have as strict miles per gallon / kilometer as the United States. No one in the US would believe a Yaris (go-kart) would get 50mpg.. The US just changed their laws to better reflect mpg for domestic vehicles as well .. so now all are in line with the EPA's measuring system .. I know I've never had an issue with my cars not meeting expectations.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If you remove the emissions equipment, the efficiency rises to between 35% to 45%. I don't know what types of power systems that you use, but, the internal combustion engine is one of the most efficient systems in existence.


You might want to let the electric motor crowd know. Their efficiency charts don't even start until 70%+ for the vast majority.

ICE engines are terribly inefficient, we just accept it because gasoline is a very efficient fuel. Where as electric motors are wonderfully efficient, but their fuel storage (electricity) is very inefficient.

The difference:
An inefficient engine with an efficient fuel source is logistically superior to an efficient motor with an inefficient fuel source.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
They should change the rules so that automanufacturers have to supply two things in detail (one of which they already do):

Fuel consumption per given RPM's (by 500's would be sufficient, 500, 1000, 1500, etc.)

Transmission and final drive ratios.

With those two items you can get within an easy 5% of what your actual mileage will be based on your specific driving style/conditions.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Fuel use by RPM is not valid at all -- so much depends on weight and aerodynamics.. quit buying those damn SUVs

Even the vehicles size is not definitive my car weighs 1400 lbs and can get as little as 10 mpg

Expect to see more 8 and more speed gear boxes the most efficient way to run an internal combustion engine is at a constant RPM
edit on 28-11-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join