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

[TFord]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What about the 300 hp cars getting 30 mpg? Not too long ago, you'd need a V8 to get that power, and a 4 banger to get that economy.

What about the C5 Vette from 2005 untill the LS3 was 400hp with 30mpg (M6) I will agree though across the fleet it should have been better a long time ago.

Originally Posted by acowherd

I am with this guy...I would never see 26 mpg

Last time I drove the car I am somewhere around 17-18 range!

I hope thats city

A lot of it has to do with tuning as well I know people with 500hp and 30mpg highway in 4th gens (M6)

[Mr. Wyndham]

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.

Okay, I guess......I can't combat that sort of logic only because it's just too simple of reasoning...that's not how this all works. This is the sort of mindset that keeps the tinfoil flowing in this country, imho...

Does the competition make for an incentive to do better? Sure...but it's not like most of this stuff has just been sitting their collecting dust...

While "staggering technology" may have been available...how much did it cost when it was NEW? How much sense did it make to apply to cars before it was perfected?

[turboguy327]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

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

Ok. If you think so. Id love to hear why you think thats true. But all of that is regardless in this discussion because american automakers refuse to use diesel in vehicles they sell in america unless its in a truck.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by turboguy327

Ok. If you think so. Id love to hear why you think thats true. But all of that is regardless in this discussion because american automakers refuse to use diesel in vehicles they sell in america unless its in a truck.

Correction: US emissions standards refuse to allow diesels a competitive edge in the market, and thus US consumers refuse to buy them...if it were easy to produce a 50mpg turbo Cruze - they'd do it! The engines are in use in Europe....

[turboguy327]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Correction: US emissions standards refuse to allow diesels a competitive edge in the market, and thus US consumers refuse to buy them...if it were easy to produce a 50mpg turbo Cruze - they'd do it! The engines are in use in Europe....

Im aware they are in use in europe. But how can you say its the high compression and diesel that gives the great fuel economy on my truck yet a ford under the same conditions gets 9 mpg?? And the turbo doesnt matter?? Because without the turbo the truck would barely be able to move. The turbo makes it more efficient. The turbo went out on my old truck my milage went down to 6 or 7. New turbo and back up to 22 just like it was before the turbo went.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by turboguy327

Im aware they are in use in europe. But how can you say its the high compression and diesel that gives the great fuel economy on my truck yet a ford under the same conditions gets 9 mpg?? And the turbo doesnt matter?? Because without the turbo the truck would barely be able to move. The turbo makes it more efficient. The turbo went out on my old truck my milage went down to 6 or 7. New turbo and back up to 22 just like it was before the turbo went.

I didn't say that...but I can see his point...turbos/superchargers only add more air. They don't inherently make an engine more efficient...it's up to the tuning from the factory and many other variables of the engine's design to take advantage of that air.

And the massive energy-density of deisel fuel gives it a clear advantage because you don't need to use as much volume of fuel to release the same amount of heat as gasoline.

The example you gave about your truck losing fuel economy when the turbo broke is a direct result of that engine being designed with the amount of air a turbocharger can provide. So...depending on how you're looking at the operation of an engine...you're both right, imo.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

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?

Yes. I suppose that exactly what I'm saying. How bout being ahead of the competition? Inovative? Advanced? That's what puts businesses out in front. But instead, they just looked at the next guy and figured status quo was good enough. Complacent. I bet there are plenty inside GM and some other companies who would even agree.

Plus, considering GM was "To Big To Fail" they should have been more mindful of it. If you're gonna end up needing taxpayer dollars, you better be more responsible.

And surely you aren't arguing that gas mileage was never important to buyers. HELL yes it was. And so what were the buyers doing? Buying, and falling in love with, the smaller foreign compacts. The love affair with the Toyotas out there stemmed partialy (edit: actually largely) from this.

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.

It's actually a good analogy. My point is it seems like the car companies did just that. Took their employees with masters degrees and had them serving drinks.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Okay, I guess......I can't combat that sort of logic only because it's just too simple of reasoning...that's not how this all works. This is the sort of mindset that keeps the tinfoil flowing in this country, imho...

Does the competition make for an incentive to do better? Sure...but it's not like most of this stuff has just been sitting their collecting dust...

While "staggering technology" may have been available...how much did it cost when it was NEW? How much sense did it make to apply to cars before it was perfected?

Hey, even the tin foil people need job security.

But what I know is the computers in these cars aren't exactly Star Trek quality components. Most still have to pull their fuses after a low oct fill up. And they are still rolling off the assembly line as such.

Push rod V8. Fuel injected. Electronic.

I'm just saying that this could have been done years ago. And if a company really wants to be out in front, then do the R&D and make it happen. But looking to your right and left and just going along par with the other guy is lazy.

I'm not bashing GM here. But ALL of them. And if I'm not mistaken, GM has admitted to some of these mistakes.

[PQ]

And yes, some of these companies like GM did have the 'stuff' but just simply 'let it collect dust' and didn't use it.

"We had the technology to come out with a hybrid at the same time as Toyota," Lutz said Tuesday. "In hindsight, it was a mistake. ... We made the mistake and we won't make it again."
"I think the whole company has learned when you step out and do bold things, you win and when you're cautious and let other people do the bold things, you lose,"

Bob Lutz

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...4485292&page=1

[zebra]

what about the EV1?
big brother literally crushed that one

[spyderbuddy]

I had a 1973 Dodge Charger that my dad and I replaced the engine in.
It had a 440 Six pack (came with a 400 two barrel) when we got finished with it we were happy to get 6 - 8 mpg
Now you can get a V6 that has 312 HP that can get 29 mpg
and a V8 that has 426hp that can get 26 mpg

damn

[SleepWarz]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

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.

That small issue can be rectified with decent management. Plus I don't see anything wrong with trying to improve what already exists. In the long run I believe that will bring out out ahead. As long as its focused on something that will be used at a later date.