backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Oct 5 at 10:40 AM


Toyota Camry SE
Toyota is finally going to catch up to the competition

Toyota is known for producing boring family sedans and SUVs that appeal to a large audience. The company is also known for its fuel efficient Prius family of hybrid vehicles. Vehicles like the Prius/Prius c manage to achieve 50mpg on the highway thanks to a fuel-sipping gasoline engine backed with a continuously variable transmission (CVT) and an electric motor/battery.

Toyota has largely ignored making significant advances in its traditional gasoline engine/powertrain department; with efficient transmission/engine offerings lagging the competition (the Toyota Corolla still uses a 4-speed automatic transmission when the competition has moved to 6-speed units and CVTs).

However, no longer will its traditional vehicles take a backseat to its hybrids according to Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's product development chief. "By 2015, through improvement in the engine and powertrain alone, we aim to achieve a fuel-efficiency improvement of 10 percent to 20 percent on the models adopting the improvements," said Uchiyamada.


The Toyota Corolla still uses an archaic four-speed automatic transmission and lags behind the competition in fuel economy

Competitors like Ford have already embraced direct injection and turbocharging across much of the produce range (see EcoBoost), and Toyota is following suit. Toyota plans to introduce a direct injection version of its 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine (this new engine will first see duty in hybrid models). The engine will also find its way into vehicles like the Camry, RAV4, and Venza.

In addition, Toyota will also introduce a 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder engine that will likely take the place of the 3.5-liter V6 currently found in midsize Toyota sedans and crossovers.

Toyota is also looking to add 6- and 8-speed automatic transmission to its vehicles. This should help vehicles like that aforementioned Corolla with its archaic transmission boost fuel efficiency ratings. The company will also add CVTs to more of its models, a move that has long been championed by Nissan. Nissan provides CVTs in everything from its tiny Versa subcompact to the large Pathfinder crossover.

All of these moves largely see Toyota playing catch-up with the rest of the automotive industry. Toyota has for too long placed all of its fuel efficiency eggs in the hybrid basket, while neglecting its bread and butter vehicles. With the competition now fiercer than ever, it now looks as though Toyota has finally realized that not everyone wants to purchase a hybrid in order to get increased fuel efficiency.

Source: AutoWeek



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Car makers have little choice
By EricMartello on 10/4/2012 2:08:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They aren't asking companies to provide double efficiency. Think closer to 50% efficiency increases for most vehicles, at most.


A car that gets 25 MPG would need 120% increase in fuel economy to meet the proposed standard. Most cars that are not stodgy, boring econoboxes are not getting much over 30 MPG.

If you have 5 cars with seemingly good fuel economy numbers except for 1:

1) 25 MPG
2) 45 MPG
3) 19 MPG
4) 30 MPG
5) 28 MPG

Average of the above set is 29 MPG, which means you would need 190% improvement in fuel economy, on average, to hit the 55 MPG standard. That's quite a stretch from adding seatbelts or doing "a few tweaks" here and there.

quote:
Furthermore, cars like the prius and cr-z already meet the standard and people purchase those vehicles.


These cars are not top sellers of their respective manufacturers, and while Obama was successful in spiking hybrid sales by allowing our fuel prices to nearly double to $4 / gallon, they are not representative of the cars people actually want to buy. Nor are these vehicles practical for people with a family.

quote:
Given that most people wouldn't notice the difference in common driving between a BMW with 300hp and a BMW with a 150hp engine.


You'd have to be quite dense not to notice the difference between 300 and 150 HP, especially when accelerating to the pace of traffic as you enter a highway or passing another car at highway speeds. You'll also notice the lack of power if your car has a load and you're traveling up any sort of incline.

quote:
People still could buy high performance cars under the new standard, but it would not be at the current numbers now. Buying a performance car under the new CAFE is probably going to be more like buying a Lotus Elise or a BMW M3 vs the common practice of buying a Mustang or Camaro at $30k.


Performance cars are the cars most people want - but many opt for what they need since they can't afford more than one.

The CAFE standard would be more reasonable if low sales volume vehicles could be excluded so that auto companies are not discouraged from building cars that are actually awesome. They already hit a lot of performance cars with a "gas guzzler" tax - utter BS if you ask me.


RE: Car makers have little choice
By Ryrod on 10/4/2012 5:39:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
A car that gets 25 MPG would need 120% increase in fuel economy to meet the proposed standard. Most cars that are not stodgy, boring econoboxes are not getting much over 30 MPG.

You're assuming that the 25mpg car needs to hit that 54.5mpg target. How about we look at the Hyundai Sonata. It gets 28mpg (epa combined) which is close to your example of 25mpg. Now under CAFE, the Sonata gets about 36-38mpg. By 2025, it has to hit around 53mpg CAFE due to its size. So the difference is only about 15-17mpg CAFE which translates to about 12mpg EPA so going from 28 to 40 isn't the 100% jump that you are talking about. The Sonata is also one of Hyundai's top selling vehicles. So all Hyundai has to do is increase the EPA mpg by 1 each year to meet the standard.
If you look at a Taurus, which is around 22mpg EPA, then you are looking at about 29mpg CAFE. It will probably only require about 45mpg CAFE in 2025, due to its size, which is about a 16mpg CAFE increase or a 12mpg EPA increase which could also be met by increasing 1mpg EPA per year. In both these cases you're only looking at about a 50% increase.
quote:
Average of the above set is 29 MPG, which means you would need 190% improvement in fuel economy, on average, to hit the 55 MPG standard. 

They stopped doing fleet wide averages in 2007 and it is now based on vehicle footprint. So you're example means nothing in this context, unless you are talking about credit shifting within a manufacturer to meet a standard failure in a specific class.
quote:
Obama was successful in spiking hybrid sales by allowing our fuel prices to nearly double to $4 / gallon

That is a myth perpetuated by the Right. Obama didn't double gas. It was $4.11 in July 2008 while Bush was still in office. The $2 gas was a market effect of the recession and decreased demand. Furthermore, Presidents have little effect on the price of gas, outside of going to war with our main exporter of oil, i.e. Canada.
quote:
You'd have to be quite dense not to notice the difference between 300 and 150 HP, especially when accelerating to the pace of traffic as you enter a highway or passing another car at highway speeds. You'll also notice the lack of power if your car has a load and you're traveling up any sort of incline.

People spend most of their time commuting which often means heavy backed up traffic. I don't need 500 ponies to travel 10ft at any given moment. Furthermore, most people don't hit their powerbands when getting on the highway because few are smart enough to drop a gear and would rather let their automatic transmission do he shifting for them as they speed up to merge. Outside of a powerband, cars act predominantly the same because you aren't going to be able to get a massive hp difference in the first 2500rpm. You might see a 20hp difference and this is why I say that most wouldn't notice the difference between the 150hp car and the 300hp car. Of course car enthusiasts are going to notice the difference, but most of them won't be driving high horsepower cars as their basic commuter car.
quote:
Performance cars are the cars most people want - but many opt for what they need since they can't afford more than one.

This is what has killed more sports cars than anything else, even government regulation. When people have a choice between a Camry and a Mustang GT, they are going to want the Mustang, but will buy the Camry because it is more practical, especially when it comes to people with families. As middle class income continues to shrink, more people will be unlikely to buy impractical sports cars. It the nature of the market, not some nasty scheme by the government. For example, look at the MR2 Spyder by Toyota. The government didn't kill that. It was the lack of sales because people with families couldn't justify buying it to complement the minivan. Same with a lot of other sports cars like the S2000. That is why you see the Camry and its competitors selling the most. It's because the Camry is practical and reliable, not because it is fun to drive. If people wanted fun to drive they buy BMWs and Mercedes.
quote:
The CAFE standard would be more reasonable if low sales volume vehicles could be excluded so that auto companies are not discouraged from building cars that are actually awesome. They already hit a lot of performance cars with a "gas guzzler" tax - utter BS if you ask me.

Nothing is stopping a car manufacturer from building a sweet sports car. The CAFE rules would allow credit shifting where a manufacturer could make up for a class failure i.e. a sportscar by producing a higher mpg than required in a separate class. However, most manufacturers won't build a sportscar because they would have to pass on the cost to the consumer and would be unlikely to make a substantial amount of money off a low volume seller compared to the amount it would take to design and develop the car. Since they would be unlikely to recover the R&D costs, the car company probably wouldn't want to take the gamble, especially in this economy.


RE: Car makers have little choice
By EricMartello on 10/4/2012 10:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're assuming that the 25mpg car needs to hit that 54.5mpg target.


No. What I am saying is that the current average fuel economy is low relative to he 55 MPG standard, and raising the average fuel economy to 55 MPG is going to require that most cars have substantially higher fuel economy ratings than they do now.

quote:
They stopped doing fleet wide averages in 2007 and it is now based on vehicle footprint. So you're example means nothing in this context, unless you are talking about credit shifting within a manufacturer to meet a standard failure in a specific class.


No, it's not "based on vehicle footprint". They still calculate average fuel economy across the vehicles in the fleet of the same model year.

The vehicle footprint refers to the formula used to calculate the target MPG rating based on the size of the vehicle...but if the manufacturer does not offset the "gas guzzlers" with econoboxes they will still have a low CAFE rating.

The footprint thing was designed to prevent manufacturers from offsetting cars with low MPG ratings by adding one or two high MPG cars to the lineup...but that opens the door for them to make big cars with dinky 4-banger engines so that they can boost the MPG for a given "category" of cars.

quote:
That is a myth perpetuated by the Right. Obama didn't double gas. It was $4.11 in July 2008 while Bush was still in office. The $2 gas was a market effect of the recession and decreased demand.


Did you get that from barackobama.com?

Gas prices on average under Bush remained below $3/gal for the majority of his two terms. They did shoot up in July of 08, but before Bush left office they went back down to $2/gal where they stayed until the softened demand faded.

Gas prices now are on average higher than they have been under Bush - consistently over $3/gal.

Obama has been trying to force "green energy" policies on America to the exclusion of something practical like domestic oil production. Don't buy into the nonsense that a president's policies have no effect on the price of gas because it's a load of crap.

quote:
Furthermore, Presidents have little effect on the price of gas


This is only true when Obama is president, or so he tells you.

quote:
People spend most of their time commuting which often means heavy backed up traffic. I don't need 500 ponies to travel 10ft at any given moment.


Well aren't you Mr. Sensible. You don't need a car, actually. You can walk, ride a bike or get a bike-car. Point? You have a car as a matter of convenience not necessity...so if convenience is a valid reason so is fun.

quote:
Outside of a powerband, cars act predominantly the same because you aren't going to be able to get a massive hp difference in the first 2500rpm.


So a turbo car or a V8 which has 70-100% of its peak torque at 2,500 RPM is going to "feel the same" as your econoturd? Riiiight... What are you going to say next? That Obama DOMINATED the debates last night. LOL This is one of those tangents where you would have been better off not elaborating on it.

quote:
As middle class income continues to shrink, more people will be unlikely to buy impractical sports cars. It the nature of the market, not some nasty scheme by the government.


You say that and yet these days you can buy cars like:

Camaro ZL1
Mustang GT500
SRT Viper (I'm gettin this one)
Mitsubishi Evo X
Subaru WRX STI
Scion FR-S
Corvette ZR1 (sweet but the Viper is just too sexy)

Not only can you buy these vehicles but people actually do even with the obamaconomy holding the middle class hostage. So don't tell me that there is no demand for such cars or that they're relics of the past. People still want them and will buy them, impractical as they may be.

quote:
That is why you see the Camry and its competitors selling the most. It's because the Camry is practical and reliable, not because it is fun to drive. If people wanted fun to drive they buy BMWs and Mercedes.


That's pretty much stating the obvious and I don't think I or anyone was suggesting that practical vehicles consistently outsell fun-but-less-practical vehicles.

quote:
However, most manufacturers won't build a sportscar because they would have to pass on the cost to the consumer and would be unlikely to make a substantial amount of money off a low volume seller compared to the amount it would take to design and develop the car.


That's the wrong way to look at it. If your nameplate doesn't have some kind of awesomeness associated with it, it's going to be a boring brand that doesn't get much attention.

Look at what happened to GM after they axed the Camaro and Trans Am - they needed to be bailed out. OK That was more about being overburdened by union labor and poor management, but Chevy did revive the Camaro in the middle of a recession. Why? It seems to contradict your "logical analysis".


RE: Car makers have little choice
By Ryrod on 10/4/2012 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The footprint thing was designed to prevent manufacturers from offsetting cars with low MPG ratings by adding one or two high MPG cars to the lineup...but that opens the door for them to make big cars with dinky 4-banger engines so that they can boost the MPG for a given "category" of cars.

That's not even close to the reason why. The reason we do the footprint method is so that automakers like Ford, Chevy, and Dodge can still make trucks. There is no longer a fleet wide mandate as we had in the 80s. Now they determine it based on footprint within the class. This is why VW hates the system because they have to hit around 54mpg CAFE while Ford has to hit around 40-45mpg CAFE because Ford sells trucks and VW doesn't. You might want to read some of the 1994 page rule if you don't understand the new system. Furthermore, this law isn't set in stone. The most it can currently affected is up to MY2017 and if Obama gets reelected then it only applies up to MY2021 because they can only sent CAFE standards 5yrs in advance and th current 2025 standards are merely proposed standards.
The whole idea is that given the current car sales by class, mpg per class will rise and if car to truck sales eventually hit 68%/32% of all sales then the fleet wide economy will hit 54.5mpg which is why they tout that number. However, current car and truck sales put US around 50/50 which is why the fleet mpg is in the high 20s. The government isn't saying that all cars sold have to equal 54.5mpg by 2025. The 54.5 is just an estimate of what it will be if the standards are met and the shift to cars does actually occur. That's why you have different metrics for each class with subcompacts like the Fit being forced to hit 60mpg CAFE (45mpg EPA) while larger cars like the Camry have to hit about 45mpg CAFE (30mpg EPA).
quote:
Obama has been trying to force "green energy" policies on America to the exclusion of something practical like domestic oil production. Don't buy into the nonsense that a president's policies have no effect on the price of gas because it's a load of crap.

Why don't you go to politifact and look up Obama $2 gas. Gas is a internationally trade commodity. Do you think we could actually hit $2 again? If you do, then you're insane. Oil production is controlled by private companies and an oil cartel. The government doesn't drill for oil itself and can't control the producers or consumers of oil. Obama can't tell China to stop importing oil any more than he can tell OPEC to produce more crude. Sure, we could drillmore domestically, but that wouldn't make much of a difference because OPEC would cut exports to the rest of the world and Exxon would go sell a good portion of their oil to Europe at a higher cost. That is why I say presidents have little control over gas prices. It has nothing to do with Obama being in office, it's just simple economics.
quote:
Not only can you buy these vehicles but people actually do even with the obamaconomy holding the middle class hostage. So don't tell me that there is no demand for such cars or that they're relics of the past. People still want them and will buy them, impractical as they may be.

I never said that people didn't buy cars like the ones you mentioned, but as middle class income shrinks (and it not all Obama's fault because the income shrunk during Bush too), you're going to see fewer sports cars on the road because people will not want to buy a minivan, commuter with good gas mileage, and a sports car that gets about 15mpg. As fewerppeople buy them, you're going to see less models on the road. Think about how many have the base V6 Mustang vs the V8 Mustang. It's not because they don't want the V8, its because with gas around $3.50-$4, it doesn't make sense to go for the bigger engine. So you can point out the SRT Viper and the Corvette ZR1, but consider that those cars are sold in exceedingly small numbers and the only way they will survive in the future is to sell them with 4 or 6 cylinders to a mass market or to sell them at a high price, with development costs factored in, to a small group of wealthier individuals.
quote:
That's the wrong way to look at it. If your nameplate doesn't have some kind of awesomeness associated with it, it's going to be a boring brand that doesn't get much attention.

A better example would be to look at Toyota which went for about 7yrs without the MR2 or the Supra and took to volume selling crown from GM. They built their company on reliability, or the perception thereof, and outsold a company which had the XLR/CTS and Corvette. An amazing car doesn't sell the brand. Corvettes help sell cars but not as much as a solid line of reliable models.
quote:
So a turbo car or a V8 which has 70-100% of its peak torque at 2,500 RPM is going to "feel the same" as your econoturd? Riiiight... 

I am right that you won't see a huge difference between hp at the 2500rpm range. However, I'm glad you mentioned torque because, yes there is a massive difference when going from a V8 on torque to a 4 cylinder. However, when comparing economies to full size cars, you are also forgetting that a full size car will weigh about 1000lbs more than an econobox. So the increase in torque has to match or exceed the ratio to weight to derive a benefit from the increased torque. So an econobox with 150hp could still feel equivalent to a 300hp V8 if the torque to weight ratios were similar. Drag coefficients could also play a difference because econo cars typically have better drag coefficients compared to V8 cars because econoboxes focus on gas mileage while V8 cars focus more on aesthetics. Car enthusiasts are still going to notice a difference between an anemic I4 in a tuna can vs a V8 in a tank, but do you think that a soccer mom is going to be able to tell the difference?


RE: Car makers have little choice
By EricMartello on 10/5/2012 1:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason we do the footprint method is so that automakers like Ford, Chevy, and Dodge can still make trucks.


CAFE standards were applicable to vehicles under 8,500 lbs AND there "light trucks" were graded differently than "cars". So no, this is not the reason. It's what you believe to be the reason.

quote:
Now they determine it based on footprint within the class.


And the classes are still "car" or "light truck". They did shift SUVs from "light trucks" to "cars" .

quote:
That's why you have different metrics for each class with subcompacts like the Fit being forced to hit 60mpg CAFE (45mpg EPA) while larger cars like the Camry have to hit about 45mpg CAFE (30mpg EPA).


You can be concise and still make a point, if you have one. If you don't have a point you tend to bury it in a wall of text.

So for all that you said, the basic fact remains that manufacturers are going to have to choose between building cars people want or cars the government decided they are allowed to have.

It doesn't really matter if small econo cars are required to have higher MPG standards because the correlation of wheelbase to fuel economy is not a linear relationship - so it's easier to get a fit to hit the standard than it is for something like a BMW 5 series. The larger the vehicle, the more difficult it is to improve the average fuel economy while still maintaining a level of comfort and convenience that customers have come to expect.

quote:
Why don't you go to politifact and look up Obama $2 gas.


Why don't you just look at the historical prices of gas at the pump from 2000-2008 and 2008-2012?

quote:
Gas is a internationally trade commodity. Do you think we could actually hit $2 again?


Absolutely; you're insane to think we couldn't. Obama and the left do not want this to happen because it would really kill their floundering "green energy" push.

quote:
The government doesn't drill for oil itself and can't control the producers or consumers of oil. Obama can't tell China to stop importing oil any more than he can tell OPEC to produce more crude.


Clever; you cite two "options" that Obama cannot do, and then talk as if those two options are the only possibilities.

If we are drilling oil locally we can tax oil exports and credit domestically sold oil to make it more cost effective to sell oil that is drilled in the US within the US.

quote:
That is why I say presidents have little control over gas prices. It has nothing to do with Obama being in office, it's just simple economics.


Simple rithmetic, right? 2+2=1. Yeah, the left seems to be clamoring for a mathletes award...but you're pretty much reciting talking points and not actually thinking about the situation. It's not "simple economics" because if it were the price of oil would be around $2/gal right now. LOL

quote:
So you can point out the SRT Viper and the Corvette ZR1, but consider that those cars are sold in exceedingly small numbers and the only way they will survive in the future is to sell them with 4 or 6 cylinders to a mass market or to sell them at a high price, with development costs factored in, to a small group of wealthier individuals.


What your narrow mind isn't considering is that the technology and R&D costs exist regardless of whether a car is a hot seller or a low volume loss leader.

The technology developed and implemented in pinnacle vehicles like the Corvette ZR1 and SRT Viper can be applied to all vehicles throughout the model lineup in some way. So while the investment in developing these cars may not be recouped from sales of said vehicles - the knowledge gained allows them to produce better cars overall.

Whether it is suspension geometry, a type of alloy, engine intake design, port configuration. I don't know of any econo-vettes or 4-banger vipers in the works. Let's hope that never happens.

quote:
A better example would be to look at Toyota which went for about 7yrs without the MR2 or the Supra and took to volume selling crown from GM.


What was Toyota pushing during the muscle car era? The corolla, which overheated often. Toyota was never a "performance brand" and despite producing some decent cars, they don't have much in the way of a racing heritage in the USA.

quote:
An amazing car doesn't sell the brand. Corvettes help sell cars but not as much as a solid line of reliable models.


How about that camry with optional brakes? Toyo-taaaaaaahhhh.

New cars being sold today are relatively equal in terms of reliability...it's not like the old days where some cars were prone to weekly breakdowns.

quote:
I am right that you won't see a huge difference between hp at the 2500rpm range. However, I'm glad you mentioned torque because, yes there is a massive difference when going from a V8 on torque to a 4 cylinder. However, when comparing economies to full size cars, you are also forgetting that a full size car will weigh about 1000lbs more than an econobox. So the increase in torque has to match or exceed the ratio to weight to derive a benefit from the increased torque.


More simple rithmetic I presume? You're incorrect btw.

Let's go with your numbers

Honda Fit
----------------
1.5 L I4
117 HP @ 6600 RPM
106 ft-lbs @ 4,800 RPM
Weighs ~2,500 lbs

Camaro SS
----------------
6.2 L V8
426 HP @ 5900 RPM
420 ft-lbs at 4600 RPM
Weighs ~3,800 lbs

Now without a dyno graph of each car in front of me we're going to have to speculate a bit, but since we know the Fit's engine is small displacement and has no forced induction, it's going to have a steep curve for HP and TQ and narrow power band.

Let's say at 2,500 RPM both cars have 50% of their torque, even though in reality the Camaro would be closer to 70%.

Fit - 53 ft-lbs @ 2,500 RPM
Camaro - 210 ft-lbs @ 2,500 RPM

The camaro has nearly 400% more torque at 2,500 RPM and only weighs 52% more more.

2500 / 53 = 47
So the fit has to move 47 pounds for every ft-lb of torque it's producing.

3800 / 210 = 18
Which means that every ft-lb of torque the camaro is making only nees to move 18 lbs.

That is a huge and substantial difference in both torque and horsepower. You don't need to be an enthusiast to notice - but you would have to be a corpse not to notice.

We can safely conclude that you have never driven anything other than an econo car or maybe a "sporty import", but noting truly fast like an Evo or WRX STI.


RE: Car makers have little choice
By Ryrod on 10/5/2012 5:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
CAFE standards were applicable to vehicles under 8,500 lbs AND there "light trucks" were graded differently than "cars". So no, this is not the reason. It's what you believe to be the reason.

The footprint applies to trucks too because there is quite a difference between the Colorado and the 3500. Now Chevy doesn't have to sell three Colorado to every one 3500 to meet the standard just like they don't need to sell 4 Aveo for every Camaro. That is how the footprint method applies. Read up on it.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numb...
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/faq-new-corpor...
quote:
Why don't you just look at the historical prices of gas at the pump from 2000-2008 and 2008-2012?

Why don't you? Then you can see how it was $4 per gallon right before it plummeted to $2, along with the economy. Wow! Now I understand what you mean, the best way to get gas down to $2 is to crash our economy and kill demand, right?
quote:
If we are drilling oil locally we can tax oil exports and credit domestically sold oil to make it more cost effective to sell oil that is drilled in the US within the US.

So we can violate the world trade agreement we signed onto and pay fines to oil producing countries? You can't go protective like you're talking about while remaining part of the WTO. You're excellent idea is not possible with our economy. As I mentioned earlier, it's simple economics with a demand and supply curve dictated by the rise in demand in China and the limiting of supply by OPEC. Most experts agree that domestic oil production would drop prices around $.10 a gallon about 5 years from now. This is because the OPEC cartel essentially sets the world price and oil companies are out to make a profit, not to supply you with cheap gas.
quote:
The technology developed and implemented in pinnacle vehicles like the Corvette ZR1 and SRT Viper can be applied to all vehicles throughout the model lineup in some way. So while the investment in developing these cars may not be recouped from sales of said vehicles - the knowledge gained allows them to produce better cars overall.

The engines are not investments that can be applied to all vehicles because you would be stupid to put a 426hp engine in a Malibu. The engine development tends to be one of the largest costs associated with development of a new car, but is spread out over one or two decades. You can learn a lot about the technologies from the Corvette et al, but they are often impractical for most vehicles and they often see revisions to lower costs. So by making a Corvette version and a mainstream version you are increasing R&D costs.
quote:
More simple rithmetic I presume? You're incorrect btw.

You are comparing a V8 super car to an anemic I4. My original example was a 150hp vs a 300hp. So a better comparison would be your V6 Camaro and the I4 Accent. You add 50% more weight for 60% increase in hp and torque. If there were better examples.I would use them but they are a rough selection. Ofcourse a 425hp car is going to beat a 100hp car unless it is 4 times the weight. I never said an econobox with near equal weight and a quarter of the power would be the same. Your example is more like comparing a Veyron to a Prius.
quote:
We can safely conclude that you have never driven anything other than an econo car or maybe a "sporty import", but noting truly fast like an Evo or WRX STI.

I've driven a Mustang GT, a Corvette coupe, a WRX STI, and Dodge Charger. I know what cars drive like, and I could easily tell the difference between the Charger and the Corvette based primarily because of the weight difference. Now if you drive those vehicles outside of their proper power bands like 2500 rpms vs 4500 rpms, they feel sluggish like driving a normal mid size car within its power band. That is the point I am trying to make. Any car outside its power band will always feel sluggish because you are slinging a car with little torque relative to its weight.


By EricMartello on 10/5/2012 10:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The footprint applies to trucks too because there is quite a difference between the Colorado and the 3500. Now Chevy doesn't have to sell three Colorado to every one 3500 to meet the standard just like they don't need to sell 4 Aveo for every Camaro. That is how the footprint method applies. Read up on it.


You're really off-topic here and don't seem to pick up on the fact that I'm not interested in this minutia about how the CAFE standard is applied.

The original point I made and maintain is that even seemingly small improvements in fuel economy become increasingly more difficult to realize as the size/quality level of a vehicle increases.

Getting a full size pickup truck to deliver 25 MPG would be quite a feat in itself if you want to do this without compromising its capabilities to tow or haul cargo. Get it? Most full-size trucks, even something like the Ford F150 with turbo V6, gets 15-19 MPG. Taking it to 20-25 MPG would mean a 20% improvement - that's not small.

quote:
Why don't you? Then you can see how it was $4 per gallon right before it plummeted to $2, along with the economy. Wow! Now I understand what you mean, the best way to get gas down to $2 is to crash our economy and kill demand, right?


I did, and I also said that the average price of fuel was lower under Bush than it has been under Obama - which it was. You're hinging on the last 6 months of a campaign year and ignoring the preceding 7.5 years of relatively low gas prices as if you're making some "brilliant" point.

quote:
So we can violate the world trade agreement we signed onto and pay fines to oil producing countries? You can't go protective like you're talking about while remaining part of the WTO.


What do you think they're going to do if we don't pay fines? These are "games" we play with countries that think they're big sh1t because they happen to live on top of a much-needed resource. We let them sell that oil to us, but if we wanted to, we could just take it...in fact, we probably did to some extent. The wars you hear about on TV are not necessarily clear cut.

quote:
You're excellent idea is not possible with our economy. As I mentioned earlier, it's simple economics with a demand and supply curve dictated by the rise in demand in China and the limiting of supply by OPEC.


It's absolutely possible...and if the US starts supply themselves with oil, China becomes OPEC's only big customer and I don't think China is going to play as nice with them as we have. IN fact, if we dropped OPEC altogether China and Russia would probably move in and take over. Speculative, but likely.

My point remains - we could get gas down to $2/gallon again even in this economy and without a recession...so what if the method requires a bit of creativity.

quote:
The engines are not investments that can be applied to all vehicles because you would be stupid to put a 426hp engine in a Malibu.


Actually, you'd be surprised to learn that engine technology is largely transferable between various car models and their varying engine types.

For example you would not put the V8 into a Malibu, but the principles learned in squeezing more power out of the V8 can be applied to a V6 and in some cases an I4.

The shape of the intake/exhaust ports, the materials used, variable valve-train calibrations...these things can be transposed across an entire product line.

quote:
You are comparing a V8 super car to an anemic I4. My original example was a 150hp vs a 300hp. So a better comparison would be your V6 Camaro and the I4 Accent. You add 50% more weight for 60% increase in hp and torque. If there were better examples.I would use them but they are a rough selection. Ofcourse a 425hp car is going to beat a 100hp car unless it is 4 times the weight. I never said an econobox with near equal weight and a quarter of the power would be the same. Your example is more like comparing a Veyron to a Prius.


I'm comparing two real cars - your main thing was that the lighter econo car would "feel the same" as the heavier, but more powerful, sports car. You were claiming that nobody would notice the difference at low RPM and I completely disagree with that assessment.

V6 engines are quite torque-y, that was one of their big selling points when cars were either I4 or V8. They were touted as being efficient like an I4 with the power of a V8...and in some instances it is true.

The bottom line is that a NA 4-cyl engine has steep HP/TQ curves and a narrow power band. Both V6 and V8 engines have broader power bands and are noticeably more responsive at lower RPMs.

quote:
I've driven a Mustang GT, a Corvette coupe, a WRX STI, and Dodge Charger. I know what cars drive like, and I could easily tell the difference between the Charger and the Corvette based primarily because of the weight difference. Now if you drive those vehicles outside of their proper power bands like 2500 rpms vs 4500 rpms, they feel sluggish like driving a normal mid size car within its power band. That is the point I am trying to make. Any car outside its power band will always feel sluggish because you are slinging a car with little torque relative to its weight.


Sorry but no dice here. You're not selling me on this one. Driving a Corvette slowly doesn't feel "sluggish" because at any moment you want to drop the hammer you are going to break the rear end...and if you gain traction you will be firmly planted back in your seat as you accelerate with ferocious vigor - that's not sluggish and you need to exercise restraint while driving slowly.

Do the same thing in your Honda Fit - the car rattles and whines but you barely feel anything. As you scream past 35 MPH you feel like you may doze off. Once you pass 35 MPH the car struggles to 60 MPH after which its acceleration can be measured in minutes rather than seconds - THIS is what we could call sluggish.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki