DailyTech - Peugeot Diesel-Electric Hybrid to Achieve 70+ MPG

Submit News

Auto Peugeot Diesel-Electric Hybrid to Achieve 70+ MPG
Brandon Hill (Blog) - June 13, 2007 1:19 AM

86 comment(s) - last by encia.. on Jun 15 at 9:08 AM

Peugeot 308

Peugeot to release diesel-electric hybrid by the end of this decade

Last week, we learned that Honda is ditching its slow-selling Accord Hybrid in favor of a Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel engine for the 2008 redesign. Although the "clean diesel" engine isn't likely to show up on the options sheet until the 2009 model year, the anticipation of a Honda mid-sized sedan with great fuel economy and decent low-end torque has automotive enthusiasts abuzz.

French carmaker Peugeot, however, is combining the technology that Honda is abandoning on the Accord with a diesel engine. The diesel-electric hybrid powertrain will first be used in the recently announced 308 hatchback.

Peugeot claims that the diesel-electric hybrid 308 will achieve over 70 MPG on the European cycle (58.29 MPG US). This compares with the 65.7 MPG (54.70 MPG US) figure for the Toyota Prius on the European cycle.

The release of a mainstream diesel-electric hybrid could throw some water on the fuel economy flame wars that have been taking over the web. By combining near-silent operation of all-electric power around town with the efficiency of a diesel motor during high-demand driving scenarios, customers will get the best of both worlds when it comes to fuel economy.

Peugeot hopes to have the diesel-electric hybrid 308 on European streets by the end of the decade. Currently, "all the work going on now is to reduce the cost," according to Peugeot head Frédéric St Geours.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

a step

By derdon on 6/13/2007 3:08:44 AM , Rating: 3

That translates to about 4 litres per 100km for those that do not know what to do with MPG. With careful driving I achieve a regular 4.5 litres per 100km on a Ford Focus with 110hp Diesel engine (including particle filter), that's an MPG of about 50.... No hybridization, just driving and accelerating a little slower, switching to higher gears faster and generally thinking ahead.
Everyone can do this, but a lot of people use 3rd gear while cruising at 60kph, 4th gear still at 80kph. I drove a Toyota Yaris once and you could switch to 5th gear at 50kph(!), if you didn't need any acceleration at that moment this was perfect just for staying at the same speed. Higher gears at lower speeds result in a lot less fuel consumption....

RE: a step

By derdon on 6/13/2007 3:10:40 AM , Rating: 2

Another benefit is that the car will be much more silent when you're switching to higher gears faster.

Parent

RE: a step

By BladeVenom on 6/13/2007 11:58:18 AM , Rating: 2

And you get that great diesel smell.

Parent

RE: a step

By otispunkmeyer on 6/13/2007 3:54:12 AM , Rating: 3

i got 52MPg out of a 2.2 TDCi mondeo

6 speed FTW and that was at 80-85 on the motorway.

i reckon you could definately pull 60+ by sticking in high gears and gentle acceleration around town.

thats the thing though, you can get any car to return decent milage with a kind driving style. if you drive a prius like a nutter its no better than the equivalent focus...making all the "im a goody goody becuase i drive a prius" all a waste of time.

i could get a renault megane 1.5Dci (90bhp) and with careful driving im sure it'll do the 60+ mpg quoted.

but the thing is how many people drive like that? most probably dont even know that their driving style affects stuff like this...they probably thing you turn the key and magic happens and you move.

also everyones in a rush these days, they wanna get places quickly, so they drive accordingly.

so really, what im saying is...its not really an achievement getting good mpg by driving like a nun. almost anyone can do it. a Z06 will return good milage (for its engine size) if you pootle around in 6th.

it will be a real achievement if this can do 70mpg under normal driving styles (ie brisk acceleration, poor gear choice, doing at 80-85 instead of 70)

Parent

RE: a step

By theapparition on 6/13/2007 9:06:29 AM , Rating: 3

Thank you, someone else actually gets it.

I've been screaming all along that EPA estimates are just that, a baseline for comparing models. These estimates in no way translate into the mileage that you will get. Driving style and conditions signifigantly impact that estimate.

A 7.0L Z06 can achieve better fuel economy than any hybrid, under the right driving conditions. The hybrid owner driving like an idiot, racing from stoplight to stoplight won't get anywhere near the car's rating, while the vette driving more sensibly, will get much better than EPA rating. I'm not saying that I think the vette a more efficient car, I'm just saying that ratings are just a baseline and many people quote them as milage that they are actually getting.

I average over 30mpg on my '07 Z06, and that's even with the supercharger pushing it close to 800hp. At 70 on the highway, I'm only pushing 1300RPM. But I'll also be the first to admit, that all goes away when the pedal goes down, but my smile increases. And when I'm driving, there's usually a smile on my face :-)

On a serious note though, driving like a jerk and poor maintenance will affect MPG than any other factors. And commuting close with a less efficient vehicule may be more enviromentally friendly than commuting long with an efficient one.

Parent

RE: a step

By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 9:25:39 AM , Rating: 2

Hybrids put a real hold on the fun to drive factor at this point. Maybe if they would put out more cars along the lines of the Honda Accord hybrid I would consider one.

The way I see it, the Accord hybrid is closer to what I'm looking for because it has decent acceleration when you want it and decent gas mileage when you don't care. It's a good middle ground, but should get a little better mileage. Now if they would make a smaller lighter weight version. Maybe use a turbo 4. Then add a transmission that is more fun to use, like a VW DSG style transmission. It could even be a diesel.

Hybrids don't need to be boring. It's too bad that most of them are so far.

Parent

RE: a step

By ChristopherO on 6/13/2007 1:33:17 PM , Rating: 4

Actually, as far as I can tell, Hybrids *do* need to be boring.

If you look at the Lexus GS350 and GS450h (basically the same 3.5L V6, the 450 being a hybrid). The car is fun to drive but lo and behold the non-hybrid version gets better performance than the hybrid (with less bhp) and the 450h costs $10K more and gives (drum roll please...) 6% better fuel economy.

Hybrid technology is useless in larger cars that many Americans and successful people world-wide prefer to drive. The epitome of this stupidity is the new Lexus hybrid flagship. It gives 5% better fuel economy (on a V8) with something like a $30,000 price premium over the same V8 sans the hybrid system.

A lot of the savings comes from weight savings, reducing survivability during a crash, sound dampening, luxury interiors, etc.

Diesel is clearly a better choice for larger and "more fun" cars.

Unfortunately "Hybrid" is an inane "trendy" word. People don't realize that a single power train will *always* be fundamentally more efficient, cheaper to make, and cheaper to maintain.

Instead of marketing towards a misinformed public, the auto makers should be looking to do diesel and/or diesel electric with a pure electric drive system (non-hybrid as the electric motor would be the only propulsion system). Later you can take those same diesel electric vehicles and swap the diesel for a fuel cell and maintain the overall engineering integrity of the original design.

Parent

RE: a step

By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 2:15:24 PM , Rating: 2

There seem to be some newer variations on the hybrid theme that could be interesting. There are hybrid systems that pretty much all they do is run the air conditioner and whatever other electronics you have through the energy stored in batteries from regenerative braking. I think the 2008 Jetta is supposed to have something like that, and a few other cars.

Parent

RE: a step

By Hoser McMoose on 6/13/2007 2:18:41 PM , Rating: 2

The problem with the Lexus GS450h, from what I can see at least, is not with it's hybrid system specifically but rather that the hybrid drive system is mated to an automatic transmission.

For hybrids to achieve good fuel efficiency a Constantly Variable Transmissions (CVT) is pretty much required, particularly with the way that the Toyota Hybrid drive system works. That is why you can't even buy another transmission option on any of Toyota's other hybrid vehicles.

I do agree with your final point though, the best way forward seems to be a diesel electric setup with a pure electric drive (whether someone calls this a 'hybrid' or not is more a marketing decision than a technical one). Much more efficient design (case-in-point, the GM Volt prototype gets the same fuel economy, AFTER any plug-in charge has been used up, as a Prius but with an extra 40+ rated horsepower and even better performance than that number suggests due to it's pure electric drive). Unfortunately I don't think that this Peugeot is following that model, as best as I can tell it's just like the Toyota setup but with a diesel ICE in place of the petrol one.

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 9:35:11 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
I average over 30mpg on my '07 Z06, and that's even with the supercharger pushing it close to 800hp. At 70 on the highway, I'm only pushing 1300RPM. But I'll also be the first to admit, that all goes away when the pedal goes down, but my smile increases. And when I'm driving, there's usually a smile on my face :-)

That's an excellent point. But as an article about one of the first Callaway Turbo GTI's pointed out - How often do you see eagles walking? :-)

Clearly you have excellent self control, that's not something I think the majority can rely on.

quote:
On a serious note though, driving like a jerk and poor maintenance will affect MPG than any other factors.

I exceed my highway EPA highway estimate as well, and I just passed 215,000 miles. By the way, as you put it, those drivers who drive like jerks think the government is a bunch of jerks for publishing mileage ratings they can't achieve.

Parent

RE: a step

By FITCamaro on 6/13/2007 10:31:35 AM , Rating: 2

Can I have a ride? :)

I'm with you man. Driving habits are always the big factor in mileage. You drive around town and a lot of people aren't accelerating slowly. They zoom from light to light. I have a Cobalt SS 2.4L and average 27-28 mpg with city and highway driving. Its rated at 24 and 32 so I'm pretty much in the middle as I should be. All highway I generally get 31. But yes this shows you that a bigger engine doesn't always mean poor mileage as well since you're getting the same mileage on the highway as me with over 600hp more. Granted your car costs 4x as much as mine.

The biggest factors in mileage are tuning, gearing, proper maintenance, and most of all, driving habits.

Parent

RE: a step

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 10:36:55 AM , Rating: 2

> "The biggest factors in mileage are tuning, gearing, proper maintenance, and most of all, driving habits. "

And the largest factor of all in total gas consumption isn't even mileage, but how many miles you drive. Even if you drive like Moses in a well-maintained hybrid, if you're driving 800-1200 miles per week like many people do, your fuel consumption is going to be astronomical.

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/07, Rating: 0

RE: a step

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 10:59:21 AM , Rating: 2

> "you may be driving a scooter..."

But we're talking about automobiles here, not mopeds. For autos, mileage varies from around 10 to 50 mpg. That's a variance of 500%.

Mileage, however, can easily vary from 50 miles/week (my mother probably does less than this), up to 2000 miles/week or more. That's a variance of 4000%, a far larger factor.

> "Since the government couldn't possibly make all the calculations required to tax people fairly on your basis..."

When did I suggest taxing people? I'm merely pointing out the flaw in the opposite hypothesis...that proposals to tax people based on vehicle MPG are off base. Its not what you drive, but how far you drive that impacts your consumption most of all.

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/07, Rating: 0

RE: a step

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/07, Rating: 0

RE: a step

By theapparition on 6/13/2007 12:07:15 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
...and I don't believe I have any "followers" here or elsewhere.

Don't be too hasty there.....you might be able to get a tax exempt status if you play your cards right :-)

Parent

RE: a step

By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 1:36:07 PM , Rating: 2

The church of potato preparation?

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 1:41:31 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I think you've missed the point. Some vehicles get twice as much mileage as others. But some drivers drive two hundred times as much as others. There are no cars that get 200X the mileage as any other.

And there are still cars on the road with 2 4 barrels on big blocks and 4.56 final gears. And there will be cars that routinely get 65 mpg on the highway at some point. The magnitude of the factor still depends. But very few people drive these cars (old style superchargers are hard to miss), just as very few people drive 200 times more than 15,000 miles. (60*24*365=525,600 assuming no sleep at all.)

quote:
Just trying to stay in practice?

Well....

quote:
But some drivers drive two hundred times as much as others. There are no cars that get 200X the mileage as any other.

Are you trying to prove nothing more than the extremist mentality? Can one assume that's nothing more than one upmanship?

If I buy a Hummer and never drive it, just leave it in view in the driveway then everyone else uses more resources. What does that prove anyways?

Parent

RE: a step

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 2:25:27 PM , Rating: 1

> "just as very few people drive 200 times more than 15,000 miles..."

Where did you get this 15K figure? I said certain people drive 200 times more than some others. Some people drive 1000 miles/year. Some people drive 200,000 miles per year. I personally know someone who logged 350K miles one year.

There is not that kind of variance in vehicle mileage. A person who drives 200K miles per year will use a huge amount of gas no matter what he drives. And a person who drives 1000 miles/yr will use very little...again, no matter what he drives.

It's a very simple to understand, irrefutable point. Your choice of vehicle affects your gas consumption...but the amount of driving you choose to do has a far larger impact.

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 3:33:33 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
It's a very simple to understand, irrefutable point. Your choice of vehicle affects your gas consumption...but the amount of driving you choose to do has a far larger impact

And what's the statistical significance of somebody driving less than 1000 miles per year? The same as the supercharged big block with the 4.56 gears? Sorry I'm having trouble finding a microscope to focus on a point that small.

Parent

RE: a step

By ZmaxDP on 6/13/2007 2:01:24 PM , Rating: 2

Just because you agree with someone, doesn't mean you are their "follower"...

But, I'd follow masher anywhere!
(Yes, that's a joke...)

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/07, Rating: 0

RE: a step

By theapparition on 6/13/2007 12:03:25 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
And the largest factor of all in total gas consumption isn't even mileage, but how many miles you drive.

quote:
....that proposals to tax people based on vehicle MPG are off base. Its not what you drive, but how far you drive that impacts your consumption most of all.

Completely agree. However, it is worth mentioning that the eco-terrorist contrary argument to this is to "force" every car to meet minimum standards, so that even your mom (who drive less than 50miles/week), saves resources (little that it may be).

That is......if you don't care about such things like choice and personal freedom. I will choose free will.

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/14/2007 4:00:24 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
That is......if you don't care about such things like choice and personal freedom. I will choose free will.

That's only one side of the freedom coin. If mandatory seat belts results in lower insurance rates, many would prefer they keep this money. They did not voluntarily decide to spend the money on insurance and now have the "freedom" to spend it as they please. But as noted by others mom can drive a Dodge Neon, save money and still be in a dangerous place.

"it is worth mentioning that the eco-terrorist contrary argument "
How does name calling suggest objectivity in your reponse?

You know it's the same old story. I used to see this motorcycle rider pull up for gas once a week. Every week he cursed his helmut and filled the tank. One week he showed up, took it off, and look at the side where it was smashed in. He came back with a nice shiny new helmut. Never cursed it again.

You could say the helmut gave him the "freedom" to stop being stupid, no?

Parent

RE: a step

By michal1980 on 6/13/2007 1:39:27 PM , Rating: 1

people are accutally being taxed fairly based on how much they pollute.

its brilliant actually. The gas tax is a tax per gallon, So the less efficent your car, the more tax you pay.

Its a flat tax. I wish all our taxes were flat, then even the poor would throw in 2 cents to help the country out.

plus whats not fair about a flat tax?

Parent

RE: a step

By Ringold on 6/13/2007 2:27:49 PM , Rating: 1

Flat taxes are regressive, first of all, and progressive taxes are much, much more effective at bringing about positive overall changes for society. That's assuming, of course, a benevolent government. In the real world.. it could be debated.

The current tax though is not a pollution tax. It's an arbitrary tax derived with a line of thinking something like this: We can raise X dollars for general revenue, which will fund Y number of pork barrel projects and thereby appease Z number of special-interest campaign contributors while only upsetting N number of voters!

The government might disagree with that assesment but it's probably as accurate as whatever fluffy measure they actually used.

I don't personally think it's possible to be done with accuracy in the real world but if they could find the average pollution released by a gallon of gasoline and determine ALL the externalities caused by it's consumption and assign accurate dollar values to all those externalities, they then could do one of the following

1) Set a per-gallon tax rate high enough to fund measures to counteract the pollutions impact on the country
2) Set a per-gallon tax rate high enough to reduce consumption to a level where theres an optimum trade off between the benefits of consumption and the costs of doing so not baked in to the retail cost
3) Implement a cap-and-trade consumption license system where we all buy at a market-determined rate the the right to consume an amount of gasoline, with the number of gallons capped by the government at a level that achieves the same goal at #2.

Of the three, none are easy, 1 and 3 are probably impossible, and number 2 would be extremely difficult. Not impossible but given the level of uncertainty in climate models not easy.

The best method is probably tinkering with gas mileage.. It's probably a crude tool, but at least easy to work with, and voters understand it.

Parent

RE: a step

By Hoser McMoose on 6/13/2007 4:21:44 PM , Rating: 2

Generally speaking tax on gasoline is actually a regressive tax, not flat. The more you earn the less you tend to pay as a percentage of your income. As an example, someone might earn $30,000 and drive a Honda Civic vs. someone earning $150,000 driving a Hummer. Sure the drive of the Hummer will use 3 or 4 times as much gas and therefore pay 3 or 4 times as much tax, but they earn 5 times as much so they pay less as a percentage of their income.

That being said, I strongly agree that the place for taxes should be at the gas pump since that is the most direct way to couple paying for pollution. Certainly it's not 100% perfect as some cars (particularly slightly older cars) will generate more pollution per gallon of gasoline than others. However it's the closest we'll come without a REALLY complicated system.

The trick to go along with this though, in my opinion, is to reduce income taxes, particularly for the poorest. I'd argue that we should make income tax MORE progressive (by reducing tax on the poorest most, no increases for the rich) to make up for additional regressive taxing on consumption. The idea here is to basically keep our current status quo which is a roughly flat tax system (add up all taxes paid and it's MUCH flatter than most people will have you believe, it is flat for ~$35,000 to $250,000 income earners).

Parent

RE: a step

By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 10:56:58 AM , Rating: 2

The Corvette, especially the Z06 version, gets good gas mileage through use of exotic lightweight materials also.

So what Toyota needs to do is make a carbon fiber Prius. Then make all of the seats removable. Get rid of useless things like power windows/locks, stereos, air conditioners, spare tires. Put it on a real weight loss program like you see in race cars. Then make the engine a diesel, and install one of those rooftop solar panels. We could be looking at well over 100mpg. It would probably handle and brake better too.

Parent

RE: a step

By Hoser McMoose on 6/13/2007 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 2

The Corvette is light when compared to some of it's competitors, but it's not really THAT light. Here are some curb weights (in pounds, all 2007 models with manual transmission unless otherwise noted):

Chevy Corvette Z06: 3132
Lotus Elise: 1984
Ferrari F430 Coupe: 3197
Ford Shelby GT500: 3920

Hyundai Accent GS: 2366
Honda Civic DX Coupe: 2586
Honda Civic Hybrid (CVT): 2875
Toyota Prius: 2932
Honda Accord Sedan VP: 3124

So as you can see, the Corvette with it's big V8 engine is comparable weight to the Accord with an I4, so obviously they're finding some weight savings. The comparison with the Ferrari is particularly interesting as both use exotic materials, as demonstrated by having almost exactly the same curb weight, and both offer very similar levels of performance. However where the Corvette is rated for 14/24 mpg (new EPA ratings), the Ferrari is only rated for 11/16 mpg.

Ohh, and just for the fun of it:

2006 Hummer H1 Wagon (automatic): 7558

Parent

RE: a step

By GoatMonkey on 6/14/2007 9:59:34 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
almost exactly the same curb weight, and both offer very similar levels of performance. However where the Corvette is rated for 14/24 mpg (new EPA ratings), the Ferrari is only rated for 11/16 mpg.

I have to agree. It shows that the smaller engine with more power per liter is not necessarily more efficient. The transmission ratios have a lot to do with this particular case, but I hear a lot of import fans talk about efficiency based on power per liter and it's not that clear cut.

Parent

RE: a step

By theapparition on 6/14/2007 8:34:56 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Can I have a ride? :)

It's the least I could do for a fellow FIT allum.

Parent

RE: a step

By Rovemelt on 6/13/2007 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 2

I can't get better than 22mpg (city) on my subaru impreza. It's an automatic and I pretty much only drive on surface roads in the city. However, when I had my old 325 BMW (200k+ miles), I was able to get routinely into the high 30's (highway) with careful driving. That car was a manual and had a gauge that showed fuel consumption. And it had a more powerful engine than the subaru. Some cars, coupled with automatic transmission and AWD just don't get good mileage. I hate it...no matter how carefully I drive the Subaru, I never see those sorts of fuel savings despite the fact that it's got a relatively small engine and it's a sedan.

I'll be in the market for a new car within a few years, so hopefully cars like the one featured here will be available soon.

Parent

RE: a step

By Samus on 6/13/2007 1:27:09 PM , Rating: 2

and the mondeo is bigger and heavier than the peugot 300's

Parent

RE: a step

By astrodemoniac on 6/13/2007 4:32:43 AM , Rating: 2

I couldn't agree more. I have a 1.6 Golf IV Petrol automatic which is rated to do 6.2/8.2./11.2.

Just by careful driving, taping the accelerator and the most important thing you mentioned: "thinking ahead" I can beat the mark and get it to do 6.2/ 7.5/10.1

I just don't see why people have to accelerate to 80Kph when the traffic light in front of them turned red. It's silly.

Oh you forgot to mention tyre pressures; that's another very important aspect of driving economically. Always keep them in check :)

Parent

RE: a step

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 9:53:21 AM , Rating: 3

> "That translates to about 4 litres per 100km for those that do not know what to do with MPG. With careful driving I achieve a regular 4.5 litres per 100km on a Ford Focus.."

Actually, it translates to 3.4 l/100 km, which is considerably better than the 4.5 you're getting now.

If only it wasn't a Peugeot...

Parent

RE: a step

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 10:48:32 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
If only it wasn't a Peugeot...

Amen to that.

Parent

RE: a step

By cpeter38 on 6/13/2007 10:56:54 AM , Rating: 2

Shame on you Masher!!! :-)

I see you have a personal problem with starting a close personal relationship with your Peugeot mechanic. Don't you want to make him wealthy?

Parent

RE: a step

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 2:06:16 PM , Rating: 2

Long ago, I made a Fiat mechanic wealthy...that was enough for me.

Parent

RE: a step

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 6/14/2007 4:12:54 PM , Rating: 2

FIX IT AGAIN TOM!

Parent

Hi gear driving

By DeepBlue1975 on 6/13/2007 8:27:45 AM , Rating: 2

Hi gear, slow speed driving is something you, the diesel engine car owners, can do.
But for those of us driving cars with petrol engines, it could be plain frustrating...
In the case of my own car, the sweet spot for a "gentle driving mode" gear change is between 2000 - 3000rpm... And the highest torque output gets around 4000rpm.
If you change gears at too low a speed, in an acceleration manoeuvre you will end up using more fuel than if you had just waited a little bit more to go one gear up. Not to talk about irregular driveways with pronounced climbs...

RE: Hi gear driving

By rippleyaliens on 6/13/07, Rating: 0

RE: Hi gear driving

By paydirt on 6/13/2007 9:06:56 AM , Rating: 2

Hello, I'm NOT going to be driving an SUV or buick/cadillac gas guzzler because I would be worried or fearful that an SUV will crash into me.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 9:46:38 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Getting slammed by a suv, or a full size care, is priceless,

The question is how far do you take that logic? Do you buy a mid size car, the biggest Volvo, a Hummer, a used school bus, a used Trailways?

Another question - Suppose soccer mom drives a Hummer and she's running late. She knows she's safe, and the kids are yelling, so she runs a few lights. She slams a normal size car and kills a few people. If she was driving a normal size vehicle as well she may not have killed anyone. Does she sleep as well that night after killing people? You tell me.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/07, Rating: 0

RE: Hi gear driving

By RjBass on 6/13/2007 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 2

Ha, you should see all the soccer moms doing the crazy driving aorund my house on a weekend.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 10:58:38 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
The people running red lights are typically not soccer moms with several kids in the back seat of a luxury SUV

1. I said suppose. I did not take one example and turn it into a broad generalization.

2. The remainder of your comments don't address the ramifications of driver a Hummer. Even if the Hummer is not at fault and the kid in the 2 door coupe dies and if he would not have died if you drive a mid size car, you don't feel bad?

3. Soccer moms may not be the biggest bunch, but all that means is they aren't the biggest bunch, and not one single thing more than that.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 12:20:08 PM , Rating: 2

> "Even if the Hummer is not at fault and the kid in the 2 door coupe dies and if he would not have died if you drive a mid size car, you don't feel bad?"

If you're in an accident severe enough to kill the other driver, then had you been driving a much smaller vehicle, you yourself certainly would have been severely injured, if not killed. In that case, if the accident was not my fault, then while I certainly may mourn the other driver, I certainly don't feel obligated to exchange positions with him.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I certainly don't feel obligated to exchange positions with him.

And who suggested you should?

Not me you extremist.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 2:01:49 PM , Rating: 2

We should all drive bumper-cars limited to 20mph and wear safety helmets and full fireproof racing suits, then get strapped into a 5 point harness and have at least 10 airbags per person.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 2:12:20 PM , Rating: 2

But then you would need that metal ceiling everywhere and that strange smell at those places.

Easier to buy a surplus tank.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 2:30:04 PM , Rating: 2

> "And who suggested you should? Not me..."

You suggested it when you implied that one should choose a smaller vehicle, so that-- even if you weren't at fault in a collision-- the other driver would suffer less.

If the other driver suffers less, you suffer more.
Simple physics: Σp = Σp'.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 3:43:24 PM , Rating: 1

I was asking what would happen if instead of a Hummer contacting a Dodge Neon with the teenager say a full size Volvo contact one instead. How much do the injuries change with the change in balance?

quote:
If the other driver suffers less, you suffer more.

Yes it's more. Bit how much? A bruise? A sprain? Shall we all drive tanks to insure abvsolute zero injuries to ourselves in most cases?

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By Egger on 6/13/2007 10:33:42 AM , Rating: 2

What most American consumers fail to understand consistently is that the safety of a vehicle is not governed primarily by the size of the vehicle. When hitting a concrete wall you are less likely to be injured in a Toyota Yaris than in a GMC Suburban or Hummer. The main reason for this is that larger vehicles require comparatively stiffer chassis and larger engines to get them moving. As I once read/heard somewhere, speed doesn't kill you. Suddenly becoming stationary, however, does. Therefore in a ginormous SUV, if the vehicle has a high rate of deceleration on impact (which means when you hit something if it instantly stops) you are more likely to be injured, mainly because your body will be hurtled foreward as the vehicle itself stops instantaneously. The occupants of the Yaris, however, will be decelerating more gradually, and with a lower rate of deceleration it will be like falling on a soft bead of feathers (satire alert for the obvious alerters).

My point is as you say, size does not necessarily take the hit.

Not to mention the fact that at highway speeds the cars that you state that have no power to aviod accidents are most likely much lighter and agile, hence they can change lanes/swerve/stop faster than the gargantuan 'hi I'm a beluga' SUV, not to mention SUV's have tons of power yet still can't accelerate for crap.

On a different note, diesels have been on the up in Europe for quite some time now. The BMW 3 series diesel has been more powerful than its petrol equivalent for a few years now (163hp as opposed to 150 from the 2l sedan). Common rail injection and forced induction systems have brough diesels on par with petrol engines. Now all we have to do is get rid of the diesel gurgle and extend the service intervals and I'd say diesel would be the better alternative all way around.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 11:02:11 AM , Rating: 1

Unfortunately a vehicle's avoidance capabilities are often limited to the abilities of it's driver.

IE we're doomed.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By Egger on 6/13/2007 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 2

Unfortunately, yes I agree: we're doomed.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By masher2

(blog) on 6/13/2007 11:10:43 AM , Rating: 1

> "When hitting a concrete wall you are less likely to be injured in a Toyota Yaris than in a GMC Suburban or Hummer..."

But most accidents don't occur between a vehicle and a concrete wall; they occur between two different vehicles. In this case, the relative masses of each vehicle are a crucial factor in the effect on the occupants. There are countless news reports of head-on collisions between compact cars and large SUVs, in which the occupants of the former were killed instantly, whereas those in the latter were untouched.

Obviously, in highway 'sideswipe' type accidents, the disparity is far smaller, and maneuverability plays a much larger role.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By Egger on 6/13/2007 3:42:54 PM , Rating: 2

Touche, sir.

Yes the relative masses of the colliding vehicles comes into play, hence a Hummer will send a Smart flying moments after impact. However in an ideal crash scenario (which cars are supposedly designed for) the impact zones of both vehicles would coincide. In reality, however. The Smart Roadster would act like a wedge, thereby the occupants of the Hummer would feel as if they went over a fairly large speed bump. Meanwhile the Roadster occupants would be reduced to pancakes, as the rollbars and roof of the drop-top is not designed to withstand behemoths of elephantian proportions.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By theapparition on 6/13/2007 3:10:49 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
As I once read/heard somewhere, speed doesn't kill you. Suddenly becoming stationary, however, does.

Completely correct.

quote:
When hitting a concrete wall you are less likely to be injured in a Toyota Yaris than in a GMC Suburban or Hummer. The main reason for this is that larger vehicles require comparatively stiffer chassis and larger engines to get them moving.

Completely incorrect. Even in the concrete wall example, an occupant of a hypothetical SUV of 2X the mass of a compact car can potentially survive that crash better than the compact. It has less to do with overall mass, than how that energy is dissipated. That is shy modern cars are all designed with crumple zones to slow the rate of deceleration and lessen impact on the human body. These crumple zones require mass to work effectively, and one car model may have a better design than another. Also, the vehicule with less mass may not be able disipate enough energy to be effective (read as, the occupant cabin is crushed). So just a blanket statement that the heavier it is, the less safe is incorrect.

Now in the event of a collision (inelastic) between the 2X mass SUV and compact car, the compact car will experience much higher shock loads. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that.

I'm not knocking either choice, just blanket statements that heavy/light or big/small is either good or bad. Many factors go into safety and is beyond the scope of this reply.

There are advantages to both. However, the biggest safety advantage to being light is in braking, one that a heavy car cannot match (all else equal).

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By Egger on 6/13/2007 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 2

My comment stating that the chassis rigidity of the SUV would negatively affect standing-object impacts was related to the dissipation of momentum and rate of deceleration. Despite having more room for crumple zones, many SUVs have higher torsional rigidity throughout their frames, chassis and components. The larger engines actually reduce the volume allowed for crumple zones, hence the SUV is usually a more static object than it is elastic, resulting in a 'harder' impact. Naturally a ten year old Dodge Ram will not have the safety design elements of a new Mercedes A class. Despite being the smaller car, the A class would dissipate its energy better than the Ram, therefore hitting a concrete wall could be life-threatening in a Ram at 40, whereas the A class occupants would be comparatively less dead. Ram vs A class would probably get the job done though ;)

Hence my fave in this situation is the Subaru Forester. Large/high enough for its impact areas to match most collision obstacles (read Ford F150) and it is nimble like half an Impreza (which is more than average).

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By theapparition on 6/14/2007 8:41:22 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
My comment stating that the chassis rigidity of the SUV would negatively affect standing-object impacts was related to the dissipation of momentum and rate of deceleration. Despite having more room for crumple zones, many SUVs have higher torsional rigidity throughout their frames, chassis and components. The larger engines actually reduce the volume allowed for crumple zones, hence the SUV is usually a more static object than it is elastic, resulting in a 'harder' impact.

There is no direct corolation. There are many large SUV's that get very good safety ratings, and many compacts that get poor ratings. Size/mass is only one point in the equations.
Chassis structural rigidity does not reflect in crumple zones, if designed properly. Another way of saying that, is that I can design a chassis frame, that is very stiff, yet will crumple easily upon a crash. This does not mean that a large stiff structure has to be built like a '76 Buick.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By TheGreek on 6/14/2007 3:48:47 PM , Rating: 2

Drivers should be mandated to take courses in emergency accident avoidance to get their license. The payoff may be better, but it's not done because you can't teach Joe Average much of anything.

Parent

RE: Hi gear driving

By encia on 6/15/2007 8:49:22 AM , Rating: 2

2007 Toyota Auris T180's 2.2L diesel engine produces 175bhp (177 DIN hp)...

Parent

My Record Consumption

By neocristi on 6/13/2007 5:33:01 AM , Rating: 2

Hi, I am Cristi from Romania and I have a VW Golf IV 1.9TDI 90hp. I do 3.5l/100km outside the city regularly. My record is 3.3l/100km and when I speed up (worst case consumption) I do 4.3-4.5l/100km. My highest consumption is 5.0l/100 km but I won't tell you the speed I drove with for 2 hours cause it might incriminate me :)

The secret is:

1.Make sure your tires are having a little more pressure than they should e.g. 2.5 bar instead of 2.0.

2.Make sure you use synthetic oil and change it once a year (also change dust filters).

3.Do not accelerate rapidly. The car can build high speed slowly if you control the foot a little bit :)

4.Use acclimatization in ECO mode if you have it.

5.DO NOT use high gears on low revs cause the engine will destroy itself in time. So... do not change into high gears much faster that you should, but on the other hand, do not over rev the engine cause the combustion is not efficient @high revs. BALANCE. Learn to change gears in the "sweet spot", you will find you car rev "sweet spot" in time.

Hope I could be of help. I wish you all the best.
Cristi.

RE: My Record Consumption

By Duraz0rz on 6/13/2007 9:30:14 AM , Rating: 2

Once a year oil change? Even synthetic oil will wear out before then.

I drive an automatic, but I usually get ~25mpg combined with my 3.0L V6. I think that's pretty good, and I'm usually light on the gas, too...staying below 3500rpm for the most part.

And how will the engine destroy itself over time when you shift up at a slower speed than you should? It shouldn't really matter when you shift. I mean, if you shift TOO low, you run the risk of stalling the engine, I do believe, but that's about it.

Parent

RE: My Record Consumption

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 9:49:18 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Once a year oil change? Even synthetic oil will wear out before then.

You need a synthetic especially designed for diesel engines, far more additives.

Parent

RE: My Record Consumption

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 11:45:33 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
And how will the engine destroy itself over time when you shift up at a slower speed than you should? It shouldn't really matter when you shift. I mean, if you shift TOO low, you run the risk of stalling the engine, I do believe, but that's about it.

Lugging an engine is very bad, and I've only heard it below 1000 rpm. Best to run the engine at peak torque, when efficiency is maximized. But in the case of a huge V8 1300 rpm, if it's not lugging can be OK, because as far as the engine is concerned, cruising on highway like that is an insignificant load.

Parent

RE: My Record Consumption

By miekedmr on 6/14/2007 11:47:41 AM , Rating: 2

The torque peak of an engine only maximizes efficiency when you are at maximum output. At lower throttle and less output, the losses (except thermal) are still the same, so overall efficiency drops rapidly.

The most efficient way to drive a car is to shift as low as possible, minimizing losses from reciprocating parts, friction, etc. Only spin it fast enough to make the power you need.

As you mentioned, running at too low of an rpm can be damaging to an engine.
Fuel systems and air intake designs often do not allow stable operation at very low rpms. Also, oil pressure and coolant flow can be inadequate for a given load at lower rpms.

Parent

RE: My Record Consumption

By TheGreek on 6/14/2007 3:43:33 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
The most efficient way to drive a car is to shift as low as possible, minimizing losses from reciprocating parts, friction, etc. Only spin it fast enough to make the power you need.

I suspect the Corvette's top gear applies this method. I also suspect the engine has a very flat very broad torque curve as well. That's doesn't hurt either.

It would be interesting, if the US had 75mpg speed limits, what kind of mileage the Corvette would get if geared for 1300rpm at 75mph. The 1979 Z-28, on the other hand, with a 350 4 barrel and 3.77 gears, and did 3000 rpm at 60mph. It was a tad thristy.

You know when I was in Greece I never heard anyone complain about the price of gas, even though it's double the price here. They understood if they go out on the highway and choose to do a constant 75-90 mph that they were a major cause of their own expenses, not that this fact slowed any of them down. I asked twice "Hows the mileage?", both times above 100mph. I just got just a smile back.

Parent

On future vs future comparison.

By encia on 6/13/2007 6:23:39 AM , Rating: 2

On future vs future comparison, Peugeot’s MPG goal would be an easy beat for Prius v3.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-prius-to-offer-11...

RE: On future vs future comparison.

By Lord Sear on 6/13/2007 6:52:45 AM , Rating: 2

I drive a Cirteon C4 1.6 Turbo Diesel which has variable boost from the Turbo.

I drive 50 miles each way to work, mixture of motorway and cross country. Motorway speeds reach 90mph in places and it average 62mpg according to the computer.

Mind you, you have to keep the A/C off for that and it does have one of the lowest drag co-efficients in it's class.

Parent

RE: On future vs future comparison.

By GoatMonkey on 6/13/2007 9:16:02 AM , Rating: 2

What kind of gallons are displayed in a Citroen? Do you ever measure it at the gas station to see how accurate the computer is? Very good results BTW, but that brand is not an option for me.

Parent

RE: On future vs future comparison.

By encia on 6/15/2007 9:08:36 AM , Rating: 2

Depend on how you drive and other factors e.g. tire pressure, crosswinds and 'etc'

In http://www.greenhybrid.com/share/files/1/5/0/Six10...
This Prius V2 reached 100MPG.

The context is from http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/1-200-miles-100...

Parent

RE: On future vs future comparison.

By Lord Sear on 6/13/2007 6:53:34 AM , Rating: 2

Parent

mybrid confusion

By Drexial on 6/13/2007 4:16:19 AM , Rating: 2

now the thing i never understood about hybrid is that before i knew what it was years ago i had a concept, that was apparently really wrong from what it is.

positives of electric cars....
no gas consumption quieter drive, faster acceleration

Positives of gas...
refuel anywhere, no worry about batters everywhere in the car longer ranges.

now when i heard about hybrids my idea was that they were going to make an electric car that had a generator in it. this way the range of the car was extended and fuel consumption was near nil. but for some reason the hybrids we have now the acceleration blows and uses the gas engine to accelerate and the only time the electric is used is when the gas engine is using its least amount of fuel.

i mean using a generator would mean you don't have to worry about needing a refueling station for electric cars cause you can get gas from standard station to refuel the generator that recharges the batteries you do have. if they have small generators that can power a house i'm sure they can have ones that will keep batteries charged on a ride anywhere.

if i seem to have some sort of flaw in my thinking here feel free to dispute my logic here.

RE: mybrid confusion

By GreenEnvt on 6/13/2007 7:04:52 AM , Rating: 2

GM is working on just that.
One of their concepts, I think it is the volt, uses all electric power to propel itself, but has a generator to power recharge the batteries.

The generator could be pretty much any source, gas, diesel, hydrogen, fuel cell, etc...
It could allow for the car to improve as technology does, without buying a whole new car.
Think about it, buy a Volt now, with a gas generator in it. 5 years from now, say fuel cells have come along and there is a refueling network. You just replace the gas generator with a fuel cell, maybe a couple pieces of electronics like a voltage regulator, and you have a clean car.

Parent

RE: mybrid confusion

By redlotus on 6/13/2007 8:15:02 AM , Rating: 2

Sorry, but you're a little off. Here is how the hybrid drive works (once the engine has warmed up):
Take-off is handled by the electric or electric+gas. The electric motor has better torque at the lower RPMs. The gas engine is then used for cruising, where higher horse power is needed compared to torque. Both motors are used when going up hills. When braking or coasting, the wheels are used to generate electricity for recharging the batteries.

Another positive of the Prius Hybrid is the planetary gear system (a form of CVT). It lets the car "gear up" so that you aren't revving the engine when you don't need to.

If you really want to learn more about the Prius and other Hybrids, check out www.priuschat.com.

Parent

So is it viable?

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 10:06:24 AM , Rating: 2

What's the price? The 0-60 times? The interior size? Weight? Airbags extra?

A plain old Civic with a 5 speed auto weighs 2800 pounds, it's no micro car, and EPA estimates are 30/40. Price is $18,000. Say the out of door price is $20,000. All the airbags are included.

RE: So is it viable?

By adeadparrot on 6/14/2007 9:30:35 AM , Rating: 2

I've only had it a week. MSRP is 23K (US), I got it for $21600. I compared it with the Prius and went Honda. The main difference is Prius has an electric engine with gas assist. Honda has a gas engine with electric assist. Both cars are top of the line in crash ratings and air bags, etc. Even tho Prius claims it's a mid-size, it's a compact and Mass usually wins in a collision.
0-60 times don't matter in a hybrid because the whole purpose of driving a hybrid is to eek out MPG. They have live MPG gauges and you can directly see the relationship between the pedal and the MPH and MPG. You tend to drive more like a grandma. Otherwise you'll just get 40 MPG if you jack rabbit between red lights.

Parent

RE: So is it viable?

By adeadparrot on 6/14/2007 9:30:52 AM , Rating: 2

Parent

its stil a peugeot

By otispunkmeyer on 6/13/2007 3:46:03 AM , Rating: 2

and its still gonna break down.

plus it looks fugly, the whole peugeot line up looks fugly apart from the 407 coupe which looks rather tasty at the back.

its because of these pedestrian safety rules we have in the EU.... your car has to be as nice as possible to a ped when you mow them down. as a result peugeots have these huge front ends, theres a lot of empty space behind them so the bonnet can deform nicely around that drunk blokes head on a friday night.

hybrids are a waste of time. i mean how unfair is this. the london conjestion charge. drive a lexus R400h (3.5 V6 + hybrid drive) = you dont pay the conjestion charge. drive a small diesel powered run around, that typically produces only half the Co2 of the lexus (despite its hybrid) = you pay the full charge.

i mean really those hybrid systems that lexus have arent really about saving fuel, its about performance. i think most of the hybrid powered lexii are faster 0-60 than the standard petrol/diesels.

peugeot do make really good diesel engines, their HDi systems have been very good.

RE: its stil a peugeot

By encia on 6/13/2007 6:18:47 AM , Rating: 2

Factor in NOx

Parent

RE: its stil a peugeot

By TheGreek on 6/13/2007 11:39:10 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
plus it looks fugly

Given the 20 inch chrome rims people put on their vehicles these days it seems they actually like fugly.

Parent

hybridcars.com

By adeadparrot on 6/13/2007 9:29:35 AM , Rating: 2

Check out hybridcars.com for decent forums. It isn't all about the Prius. I bought a 07 Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) and am learning the technique called "hypermiling". That's where you drive like most people are saying and watch your gauges and watch your MPG soar. When my wife drives the car, it gets about 40 mpg. When I drive, it's 60+ mpg because I adjust the pedal all the time. I'm going to drive cross country this summer. Should be fun.