backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 232 comment(s) - last by BucDan.. on Feb 3 at 12:51 PM


Bugatti's Veyron produces an astonishing 1001 HP.

This Dodge Viper ACR produces 600 HP.

The Tesla Roadster adds lithium-ion batteries and an electric motor to a Lotus Elise-based chassis.

100 Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles are being distributed to lucky drivers in California, New York, and Washington.

Honda looks to succeed with diesel where the Accord Hybrid failed.
EPA official tells manufacturers to "chill" with the horsepower wars and focus on efficiency

Just a few years ago, 405 HP was seen as an enormous amount of power for a passenger car. That was the heady tally for Chevy's Corvette Z06. A scant eight years later, Dodge and Chevy are dancing around the 600 HP mark with their '08 Dodge Viper and '09 Chevy Corvette ZR-1 respectively. If 600 HP isn’t enough for you, there’s always the ultra-exotic Bugatti Veyron which produces an astonishing 1001 HP.

Despite the fact that vehicles like the Veyron, Viper and Corvette ZR-1 make up an insignificant portion of the millions of the vehicles sold each year, a top-ranking official for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants manufacturers to put an end to the horsepower wars. Instead of funneling money towards the development of vehicles that have the most chest-thumping horsepower and torque, the official suggests that manufacturers look at the opposite end of the spectrum and produce the most ultra-efficient, lowest-polluting vehicles on the planet.

"We must bring about an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year," said Margo Oge, the EPA director for the office of transportation and air quality.

"Smog-producing emissions from new vehicles are almost practically zero," Oge continued. "I believe the one set of product plans automotive engineers must [include] with every new model is, ‘How can I make this produce fewer greenhouse-gas emissions?’”

Oge suggest that automakers use all of their technological know-how along with a younger generation of Americans who are environmentally conscious to produce "greener" vehicles.

"[They] want to create an energy technology revolution," remarked Oge. "But it’s up to you to make those investments and push the technologies to create this kind of revolution. Carbon emissions must be reduced, and we must begin now. It can be done, and this country and Detroit can become the epicenter for the next great industrial revolution and engine for economic growth."

With the new CAFE regulations breathing down auto manufacturers' backs, Oge's pleas to the industry likely won't fall on deaf ears.

Ford and GM have announced their intentions to use smaller, turbocharged four and six cylinder engines to replace more fuel-hungry six and eight cylinder engines respectively. Turbocharging is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. auto market, but its use is not as widespread as in Europe where fuel prices soar into the stratosphere.

Diesel motors are making a comeback in the U.S. market as well. GM is bringing a 4.5 liter Duramax diesel to its half-ton pickups and Toyota will follow suit with a diesel of its own for the Tundra and Sequoia. Honda has diesels in store for its sedans, pickups and crossovers while Nissan will bring over a diesel engine for its next-generation Maxima mid-sized sedan.

Toyota already made the word "hybrid" a household name in the U.S. The company's Prius gasoline-electric hybrid went from a relatively small blip on American radar screens to a vehicle which found its way into 181,000 driveways in 2007.

Likewise, companies like GM, Ford, Honda and Nissan have all embraced hybrids to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles while at the same time decreasing emissions.

Looking towards the near future, there are vehicles like the Chevy Volt and Tesla Roadster which run solely on lithium-ion batteries and a powerful electric motor. And as DailyTech has already demonstrated, fuel cell vehicles are already here and could represent a major breakthrough in vehicle propulsion if the hydrogen infrastructure gets a boost in the U.S.

The new CAFE legislation that President Bush signed into law calls for auto manufacturers to increase average fuel economy from the current 25 MPG to 35 MPG by the year 2020. The move to more fuel efficient vehicles won’t happen overnight considering the wide variety of vehicles that many auto manufacturers include in their lineups. However, auto manufacturers have twelve years to figure out what technologies are in their best interest – and their customers’ best interest – in the strive for the 35 MPG goal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Choice...
By Warren21 on 1/30/2008 12:08:40 AM , Rating: 4
I agree that we could use some more efficient vehicles in North America... Some more diesels like those in Europe enjoy for example.

'End the horsepower arms race' altogether however? I don't think that is completely necessary; a shift in focus to efficiency is a good call, but I don't think it's necessary to stop innovating in one area completely to achieve it.




RE: Choice...
By Bluestealth on 1/30/2008 12:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.
I agree in performance oriented vehicles that efficiency should come second though, however not all segments need to be in a horsepower war in which efficiency falls by the wayside.


RE: Choice...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:20:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.


A 268 HP Camry just seems wrong to me ;)


RE: Choice...
By Samus on 1/30/2008 5:14:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A 268 HP Camry just seems wrong to me ;)


Haha, the Maxima, a similar sized vehicle to the Camry, has had over 250HP for 10+ years.

That Nissan 3.5L V6 is world famous, and it should be. They don't put it in virtually every vehicle they sell (basically the Sentra is the only mainstream Nissan vehicle you CAN'T get that V6 in) because it sucks. It doesn't suck. It sips. My Dad's Altima 3.5L averages 25MPG city/highway. That ain't bad for 270HP or whatever it has. It's looney power for a front-wheel drive car.


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 6:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not knocking on the Altima but I hardly think a car thats EPA rated at best 19/27 is averaging barely below its highway rating. Unless your dad drives 90% on the highway.


RE: Choice...
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2008 8:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
First, EPA numbers don't reflect real world conditions. They are getting better at it, but it's still only an estimate.

Second, not every car of the same make and model can achieve the same mileage. There are many factors ranging from tire pressure to altitude that affect each users results. I know that with my car (2005 Magnum R/T), I can get an average of 22MPG (40%hi/60%ci) on a tank in the summer if I'm driving Miss Daisy, but in the winter... more like 14MPG. (It was negative 18 degrees this morning with a wind chill of God-knows-what.) Without the engine being at prime operating temp, it really sucks the fuel. In the summer, with the engine at 210 degrees and the cruise at 65MPH, I can regularly get over the rated 24MPG hiway. I came close to 30MPG over 20 miles once. Of course, this is affected by hills...

Friends (online and off) of mine with the same car often claim to get better and worse mileage. It's really all over the board.


RE: Choice...
By Blight AC on 1/30/2008 8:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
My Subaru Forester XT also gets some pretty decent gas milage compared to EPA rating, it's rated at:
MPG (city): 18
MPG (highway): 25

My standard driving is relatively mixed, mostly country roads, with about 30% of it going through towns, in hilly country (upstate NY).

I typically get between 23-24 MPG, and I race it a lot, love that Turbo whine, and when the acceleration kicks in, I just love giving it a little more. However, I did drive really conservatively for a full tank and got around 27 MPG. So yes, a properly maintained car can get above EPA ratings, it's only an estimate, not a limit.


RE: Choice...
By fic2 on 1/30/2008 11:55:42 AM , Rating: 3
I drive a '99 Forester non-turbo w/manual tranny and regularly average 27 mpg. Most of my driving is highway, though. Also, if I am driving in the city I tend to look at the stop lights ahead and if it is red take my foot off the gas. Even going in the mountains to snowboard (I live in Denver) I get 25+ mpg. I have nearly 100k miles on the car. Even driving in the moutains the 165HP is enough to be able to do 65-70 uphill without a strain.


RE: Choice...
By Samus on 1/31/2008 1:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
My Focus SVT is supposed to get 19/26 EPA rating (or something like that.)

Does anyone here think a Focus could possibly get 19MPG, no matter how hard you drive it? It's a 2.0L engine and it weighs 2600lbs (ZX3-platform)

I get 30MPG. It's a 15 gallon tank, and I've never gotten anything less than 350 miles on it, even in the coldest winters. The EPA numbers are worthless BS.


RE: Choice...
By ZipSpeed on 1/31/2008 3:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Forester XT myself. Problem is, I have lead foot and that really kills the fuel economy. :P Nothing like seeing the surprised look of people when a family wagon destroys some of the BMWs out there.


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 8:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
My wife drives a 2005 Altima V6. When we take it on long trips, I get 33-34 MPG at 75 MPH. Normal daily use averages about 26 MPG. Of course it also requires premium gas, but it's still a great fuel efficiency to HP rating.

There's a lot of people who spent a lot more on their car that get left in her wake off the line. The looks on their faces is priceless.

When it's cold here in MN (like it has been lately), the mileage drops considerably. She only sees about 22-23 MPG in daily use in the cold.


RE: Choice...
By BioHazardous on 1/30/2008 11:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
^5 diablo! Gas mileage rocks in MN when it's -20 degrees out. I remember reading the article the other day about focusing on putting turbos in cars for increased fuel effeciency. My '04 VW Jetta (1.8T) has been getting about 18mpg with this lovely weather. No I don't go and start my car and leave it run for 10 minutes before I drive it and no I don't race around like an idiot when it's this cold.

I miss my TDI.


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
I used to have a VR6 Jetta (2000, 5 spd manual). I liked driving the car and was happy with the fuel economy (about 25 in daily driving), but I couldn't stand the repair bills! It only had 50,000 miles on it and it had to go in to get some stupid thing (ie - passenger side power window motor, which went up and down maybe twice) fixed every month. It was such a money pit (for silly things) that I doubt I'll own another VW.


RE: Choice...
By BioHazardous on 1/30/2008 2:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know the pain. My TDI was more reliable, and you got the 2000 which was the beginning of the fourth generation Jetta so you probably had a few more problems than the average Jetta owner. It's a fun car to drive while you have a warranty, but outside of that it makes you a little nervous to own it. I'm not sure what I'll switch to next time I get a new car, hopefully something not relying solely on an ICE.


RE: Choice...
By RamboZZo on 1/30/2008 10:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hah! I know exactly what you mean. I had a 96 Jetta GLX VR6 and that thing might as well have come with a credit card machine to just drain your account as you drove along. The power windows would never work for more than 4 - 6 months at a time. Each one was rebuilt at least 3 times. It had who knows how many electrical system failures, overheated on whim, blew gaskets like crazy and went through two full engine rebuilds. For every month on the road it spent a full month in the shop. It was a super fun car to drive, when it actually worked and the gas mileage wasn't too bad getting around 23-24 mpg. Got rid of it and bought a 2002 Subaru Impreza RS which drives like a dream. I've run it to 130K miles and required no more than oil changes and tires. I drive almost only highway and it gets a solid 26-27mpg and I can squeeze out 400 miles out of a full tank when I'm not in lead foot mode.


RE: Choice...
By othercents on 1/30/2008 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Same here 3.5L Altima and I get 24mpg during summer and 22mpg during winter. I drive very aggressive (IE. red line every stoplight) and spend 80% of my drive time in the city and 20% on the highway. When taking long road trips at 80+mph I get around 30-32mpg. This engine is very efficient for the amount of power you get and for the size. Look at Toyota and Honda and you will find a bigger engine doing the same type of work with a lower full efficiency. I even drove one tank very mildly (IE less than 2,500 rpm) and average 27mpg in the city.

Granted who really cares how much MPG I get? If I want to spend my money on speed then I should be able too and you should be able to save your money by buying 55MPG cars. However the biggest thing that the EPA is concerned about is Greenhouse gas which effects everyone. This is why some (if not all) states have emissions standards and maybe these standards should be increased for the newer cars coming out.

The question that has not been answered is if the 600+HP cars actually help develop more efficient engines that produce less Greenhouse gas. From racing organizations I find that many new technologies are tested on the track before they are introduced for the public. Plus the new Tesla is all about HP I hope the EPA isn't up in arms about a non polluting car.

Other


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
No, I want both - power and fuel economy! And I think that market is bigger than the market for those who only want either.

I was using my wife's Altima as an example of a car that delivers both excellent power and good fuel economy.