Does anyone else get a little pissed....?

[mlee]

Originally Posted by GILL MAN

HERE IN PHOENIX AZ. THE GAS IS 3:65 A GAL. FOR PRM. MYCAMARO GETS ABOUT 18. THATS NOT BAD FOR 426HP. ON THE FREWAY. LOVE THE CAR BUT HOPE THE GAS PRICE GO DOWN SOON.BUT EVEN IF IT DON'T I AM STILL GOING TO RIDE.

Nice First Post... Welcome


I got 26 pretty regular after break-in and a Diablo tune...

...after turning AFM off and not keeping my foot out of it 18 - 20 is about it... Best I've ever gotten in ANY car... V6 included...

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Not at all...it's the way of things...technology is necessary before somethings can happen. It's like crossing a gorge...you can SEE the other side...but good luck getting there without a rope or a bridge or something...

There is no conspiracy, there was no 200mpg carburetor, computers weren't around until recently for precise injection control, machining tolerances and techniques weren't readily available for efficient head-design...and design alone (whether it's electronic fuel mapping or physical design of components) takes decades if not CENTURIES to perfect anything...it's a long, drawn-out process all hinging on what the technology of the time is.

Don't forget, either...it seems like every time a great advancement was made in engine design...emissions regulations cracks the whip and demands them to be cleanER....which suffocates that newfound 'thing'. And so the process starts again to overcome that...it's kinda like shifting gears.....

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Don't forget the advancements made in CAD/CAE in addition to CAM. Computational fluid dynamics to improve flow, stress analysis to reduce component weight, thermal analysis to provide better cooling and reduce intake temperature, and a whole host of other analytical tools. Computer aided design and engineering software has turned much of that from what was arguably an art into a precise science.

Though I understand what you guys are saying, I'm not buying it in the least. Considering the staggering technology that's been available, it's just happening too slow.

All of a sudden, the car companies get their asses handed to them and are threatened to fail and PRESTO...... all of a sudden they are making instant gains.

I think they got complacent and got punched in the face and had to work hard again.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by PQ

Though I understand what you guys are saying, I'm not buying it in the least. Considering the staggering technology that's been available, it's just happening too slow.

All of a sudden, the car companies get their asses handed to them and are threatened to fail and PRESTO...... all of a sudden they are making instant gains.

I think they got complacent and got punched in the face and had to work hard again.

I'm confused. You don't get instant gains from tech thats been around.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'm confused. You don't get instant gains from tech thats been around.

Yes you do. IF you haven't been USING the technology. That's what I'm saying.

Name something on the new cars that enhance the fuel mileage that couldn't have been done 15 years ago.

It's been around, but they seem to have been so happy selling cars the way they were that they didn't even TRY to put them together better till they were forced to.

[2010SLVRBULIT]

um..I guess so...it's been pretty much tuner city(imports) to get power+gas mileage, which is OK. just widens the AM scene now..

[ddunerider]

Originally Posted by PQ

My average is around 18.3, I just got the 26 on a long trip and only once I got to 65 mph.

My Average is about the same 18 city..And I can get 24 open Highway like my to trips to Vegas...But at the road course ..9mpg but way fun !!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by PQ

Yes you do. IF you haven't been USING the technology. That's what I'm saying.

Name something on the new cars that enhance the fuel mileage that couldn't have been done 15 years ago.

It's been around, but they seem to have been so happy selling cars the way they were that they didn't even TRY to put them together better till they were forced to.

Cylinder deactivation on a V6

[PQ]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Cylinder deactivation on a V6

Huh?

I never said anything about a V6.

But I surmize that there is PLENTY they could have done way sooner than now.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by PQ

Huh?

I never said anything about a V6.

But I surmize that there is PLENTY they could have done way sooner than now.

Your question never mentioned any engine configuration, either excluding V6's or specifying any other type. So, I provided one thing that OEM's couldn't have done 15 years ago (and had it actually work well)

Anyway, I'm sure there is plenty that could have been done sooner too. But not at the same price. And when gas was $1 - $1.50 a gallon, not too many people would have cared to pay for an extra 2 mpg in their Camaro if it cost them power.

[turboguy327]

There are many things that could have been done years ago to improve milage. Diesel fuel the use of turbochargers. Any high performance turbo car can prove it. I can make over 800 hp and still get almost 30 mpg. I would love to see a n/a engine do that. And how many american cars are turbo?? Not many. My cummins gets 24 mpg on the highway unloaded. What more proof does anybody need that manufactures have been holding alot back in terms of fuel economy.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Your question never mentioned any engine configuration, either excluding V6's or specifying any other type. So, I provided one thing that OEM's couldn't have done 15 years ago (and had it actually work well)

Anyway, I'm sure there is plenty that could have been done sooner too. But not at the same price. And when gas was $1 - $1.50 a gallon, not too many people would have cared to pay for an extra 2 mpg in their Camaro if it cost them power.

Well, that's what I'm kinda talking about.

Surely these global car companies knew what the rest of the world knew that gas prices, like everything else, would go up. And on these big engines, had they had the sense of urgency sooner, they would have made these gains way sooner.

We bought them, sure, but I can remember them advertizing gas mileage and people talking about gas mileage since I can remember. And I'm 40 years old.

To me, it's a big fat fail for them to have gained their sense of urgency so late in the game because I believe they could have had these engines way sooner. Even the V6s.

[SleepWarz]

Accountants prevent advancement to line their own pockets. Until there is more money to be made by making the switch we will be held back.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by turboguy327

There are many things that could have been done years ago to improve milage. Diesel fuel the use of turbochargers. Any high performance turbo car can prove it. I can make over 800 hp and still get almost 30 mpg. I would love to see a n/a engine do that. And how many american cars are turbo?? Not many. My cummins gets 24 mpg on the highway unloaded. What more proof does anybody need that manufactures have been holding alot back in terms of fuel economy.

Its the diesel fuel and sky high compression that give your truck its fuel economy, not the turbo charger. I'd explain why, but its not terribly important

Originally Posted by PQ

Well, that's what I'm kinda talking about.

Surely these global car companies knew what the rest of the world knew that gas prices, like everything else, would go up. And on these big engines, had they had the sense of urgency sooner, they would have made these gains way sooner.

We bought them, sure, but I can remember them advertizing gas mileage and people talking about gas mileage since I can remember. And I'm 40 years old.

To me, it's a big fat fail for them to have gained their sense of urgency so late in the game because I believe they could have had these engines way sooner. Even the V6s.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that automakers should have invested billions of dollars worth of R&D into fuel economy because ... umm ... why would they be doing it?

I guess they probably could have made the progress curve a bit steeper by investing more into it. But doing that would take away from other things, like quality, performance, safety, and improving in-demand vehicles (like SUV's). They only have so much in the coffers. They invest the R&D money into the areas that appear to have the greatest payout. If the pay out is low, whats the point is putting a ton of effort into it? That holds true in every segment of every market for every product (or service) around the world.

As an analogy ... lets think of Hooters. The customers probably wouldn't mind if the waitresses had a masters degree ... but that sits pretty low on their priority list. They're more concerned about the girls being attractive and personable. If she is smart enough to not screw up the order, they're happy. It wouldn't make sense for Hooters management to sacrifice qualities important to the customer in favour of something they hardly care about. I don't think many would like it if all of a sudden they've got a homely looking girl who is socially awkward serving them, and they'd really be upset if the price of their food has just gone up specifically to pay her salary. They'd walk out and find some other place that gives them what they want.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

Accountants prevent advancement to line their own pockets. Until there is more money to be made by making the switch we will be held back.

Yes but ... engineers can always find something else to do to improve a product or system. Unfortunately, when nobody tells them to stop they'll just keep on improving it, continually adding to the R&D costs with no end in sight. There is always something to tweak, something to change until you realize that there is an even better way to do things and you start with a whole new clean sheet design and start the process over again (to engineers, this is known as 'fun' ). Keep paying an engineer, and he'll keep tinkering. Actually, he'll probably keep tinkering for a while after you stop paying him.