Car news.

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
I first thought about posting those at the end of my last post in the G6-bashing thread ( ;-) ), but since they weren't related to the mid-size Pontiac, I figured they deserved a new thread. So :


  • The EPA rating will be changed this summer to better reflect real driving conditions (it will include climatisation and radio/CD listening). Apparently, hybrid cars will take quite a hit. I'm not sure if this is a Canadian-only news though.

    Oh and GM announced that it will invest some 118 million in Hybrid techno. Maybe that will produce more concrete results than the cloud-shovelling fuel-cell marketing campaign.

    Last but certainly not least, the 2007 Camry will inherit the formidable 3.5L V6 from the Avalon. 268HP and only 22/31mpg, wow!
I've read news #1 and #2 on a French-written site, so there's no point in linking them. News #3 was from autoblog.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
I heard about this a couple weeks ago from a friend, I have yet to read anything about it yet. Got any better links?
 

MaxBurn

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
3,245
Location
SC
I wish we had more diesels in the US. They have come a long way.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
I wish you would push bio-diesel harder in the U.S. You have a lot of space to cultivate canola and it is less polluting than ethanol (corn is supposedly an environmentally taxing culture). Bio-diesel still produces global-warming gas, but a lot less other toxic matters. It is a lesser evil and it is feasible now.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,396
Location
Twilight Zone
I read that it takes more energy to convert corn oil to something a car can use, than it saves. I haven't seen a thing about what comes out of the tailpipe though. Looks like it might be just another marketing ploy by GM.
The owners of the hybred cars that I talked to said the gas millage wasn't much better than a conventional car. Maybe 35MPG. I wonder what the maintenance cost will be once the warrenty runs out. High tech usually means high cost in a car. Are the mechanics trained???
Locally, a mechanic found a way to burn used deep fryer oil in his deisel. He gets the stuff for free from resterants (they usually have to pay to dispose of the stuff) The exhaust smells like french fries :D

Bozo :mrgrn:
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Bozo said:
I read that it takes more energy to convert corn oil to something a car can use, than it saves.
I read that too, a couple of days ago; some proffy at some univ in the US made the declaration that for every 2 units of energy required to make biodisel (planting to usable fuel) you get 1 unit of energy out of the usable fuel.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
Locally, a mechanic found a way to burn used deep fryer oil in his deisel.
That's biodiesel, which is a lot easier to make and less polluting than ethanol (corn oil). What I would like to see in the future is more biodiesel-powered vehicles. Supposedly, biodiesel doesn't release much CO2 into the atmosphere, only the one caught by the plants while they growed. So when you burn it, you just complete the cycle ; you don't create more CO2.

Ethanol isn't the sollution. It's just a "feel-good" marketing gimmick.

And 35MPG isn't that bad for a sedan. I get between 32MPG and 37MPG from my Corolla and it's smaller than a Prius (but some 10000$ less too). Most sedans don't achieve better than 27-28MPG average.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
157MPG car.

Only 20HP and 0-60mph in 20 seconds, with a 50HP variant doing the 0-60 in a much more tolerable 9 seconds. The 50HP version still features a very respectable 87MPG rating.

The best thing about this car is the price : 13000$ for the 20HP and 17800$ for the 50HP.

637_loremo.jpg
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
CougTek said:
157MPG car.

Only 20HP and 0-60mph in 20 seconds, with a 50HP variant doing the 0-60 in a much more tolerable 9 seconds. The 50HP version still features a very respectable 87MPG rating.

The best thing about this car is the price : 13000$ for the 20HP and 17800$ for the 50HP.

Zero to 60 in 9 seconds with what kind of weight, a heavy sod like me? I doubt it.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
CougTek said:
157MPG car.

Only 20HP and 0-60mph in 20 seconds, with a 50HP variant doing the 0-60 in a much more tolerable 9 seconds. The 50HP version still features a very respectable 87MPG rating.
The only I really find lacking in the 20 HP version is top speed. 0 to 60 in 20 seconds is certainly adequate for everyday driving although 99 mph isn't really enough if you drive on rural Interstates (although it's plenty for the city). Regardless, great aerodynamics to be able to go 99 mph on only 20 HP. Some SUVs need that much to do 40 mph.

Where's the EV version? Being this light and aerodynamic would make this car a great platform for an EV. A 20 HP electric motor would offer the same 99 mph top speed, but 0 to 60 in probably about 12 seconds. Come to think of it, since the aerodynamics of the EV could be better without the air intakes needed for the ICE version, you could probably get well above 100 mph on 20 HP. Range could be well in excess of 300 miles with the latest batteries. Overall perfectly adequate acceleration, range, and top speed for 99% of trips.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
jtr1962 said:
0 to 60 in 20 seconds is certainly adequate for everyday driving.
You're kidding right? 0 to 60 in 20 seconds will drive other drivers behind you mad at every red light because it means that you'll also make 0-40 more than twice as slow as other cars too.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
CougTek said:
You're kidding right? 0 to 60 in 20 seconds will drive other drivers behind you mad at every red light because it means that you'll also make 0-40 more than twice as slow as other cars too.
No, I'm not, and especially for city driving it's plenty adequate. I frequently pull away from stoplights on my bicycle and cars don't catch me for a few blocks, and then only because my poor aerodynamics means I can't maintain much over 25 mph for any length of time, not because I'm not accelerating fast enough. The cars certainly can accelerate faster than me if they wanted to, but they rarely seem to use their power. BTW, typically from a red light I'll accelerate from 0 to 20 mph in about 6 seconds (under 5 when I'm feeling good). The cars always seem to fall behind. I find in city traffic most cars tend to do 0 to 30 mph in around 12 to 15 seconds unless they're racing each other. If this car can get to 60 in 20 seconds then it can probably hit 30 mph in about 5 or 6 seconds. That's way faster than urban traffic normally moves. I'll also point out that the limit of passenger comfort is around ~5 mph/sec, so you don't want to be accelerating (or decelerating) faster than that, ever, except for emergencies.

As for highway merging I've yet to see any situation where you absolutely have to get to 60 in under 20 seconds for safety or other reasons. Remember that 20 years ago the roads were filled with econoboxes which were lucky to hit 60 in 20 seconds, and they all managed just fine. An aunt of mine drove a VW Beetle without problems. I think it took the better part of a minute to hit 60 mph in that thing. Usually you hit the entrance ramp already moving at 30 or 40 mph so you only have to gain another 20-30 mph of speed to safely merge with traffic. In general traffic tends to accelerate at the rate of the slowest vehicles, which are always buses and heavy trucks. 0 to 60 in 20 seconds is way faster than typical heavy vehicle acceleration. And I'll add that one time I accidently got onto the highway while cycling. I was stuck behind a large van which cut most of the air drag, and my "pedal power" was adequate to keep right on his tail all the way to ~60 mph as he merged onto the highway. Again, he easily could have left me in the dust, but apparently he didn't need to accelerate very fast to merge with traffic, and neither did I.

As for the mad drivers, let them honk. I hate aggressive driving. I'd really love to stick some of these impatient drivers in the slowest vehicle imaginable.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,931
Location
USA
The city is one thing that I can't disagree on, but jtr, I guess you've never tried merging onto a road like 495 or the Mass pike (90), or anything equivalent to that in NYC. No one even drives 60MPH to begin with, so for it to take 20 seconds to GET to 60, you still have another 15+ MPH to get up to. At that rate you'd need one hell of an entrance ramp and behind you will be a stack of cars waiting to get around you.

I'm typically ramping up to 75 within 10 seconds in order to merge into traffic without causing everyone to slam on their brakes. People that don't accelerate fast enough on the entrance ramp are more of a safety risk IMHO. It's not a matter of me being impatient; it's the mechanics of trying to get into fast paced traffic. If I go in at a sloth-like 60MPH and cause 40 cars to slow down, how efficient is that?
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
I agree with Handy. Not only is it difficult to merge with the fast-paced speed of traffic, but during rush hour, all of our on ramps have signal lights -- effectively cutting the length of my acceleration lane to 1/3 or less! My car will do 0-60 in 12 seconds, and I'm always holding up traffic while merging on the freeway.

I really like the concept of this new car, and appreciate the intent of its manufacturers, but it is woefully unrealistic for my small part of the world.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
Handruin said:
No one even drives 60MPH to begin with, so for it to take 20 seconds to GET to 60, you still have another 15+ MPH to get up to. At that rate you'd need one hell of an entrance ramp and behind you will be a stack of cars waiting to get around you.
They go 75 mph even in the slow (right) lane? This seems a bit strange to me because I vividly remember design parameters for Interstate highways taking into account the time for the slowest vehicles to get up to speed. Not disputing you, but this sounds more like a design problem. I'd be damned if I'd pay for a car with more power than I need for steady-state cruising just because some roads are poorly designed (which is really what the problem is). Perhaps the entrance ramps were designed and adequate for when speeds were 60 mph some 50 years ago but legislators stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that speeds have risen since then in order to fix the ramps for today's driving conditions.

I'm typically ramping up to 75 within 10 seconds in order to merge into traffic without causing everyone to slam on their brakes.
What the heck are you driving that can accelerate that fast, and isn't it physically discomforting? I've always found quick starts annoying/disconcerting and quick stops downright vomit inducing. That's one reason I like trains. They're just too heavy to change speeds that quickly.

People that don't accelerate fast enough on the entrance ramp are more of a safety risk IMHO.
While not disagreeing with your assertion I'll offer an alternate opinion here. Accelerating too fast doesn't give you a chance to acclimitize yourself to the speed, and for the first minute or two you're simply more prone to accidents. Facts probably bear me out since most of the accidents on limited access highways are indeed at merges where cars rapidly change speeds. I mentioned before that 5 mph/sec is about the limit for passenger comfort but probably 1 to 2 mph/sec is a safer rate to change your speed at if you want go used to it as you're accelerating rather than after. Again, personal experience bears me out. I can lunge my bike from a dead stop to 25 mph in all of 7 seconds when I feel well but the experience is disconcerting, and I don't get used to the new speed for a while. On the other hand, coasting up to 25 mph over the course of 20 to 30 seconds gets me used to the new speeds as they're changing. Maybe not practical to accelerate as slowly as I suggest, but perhaps we should design roads with this in mind in the future.

It's not a matter of me being impatient; it's the mechanics of trying to get into fast paced traffic. If I go in at a sloth-like 60MPH and cause 40 cars to slow down, how efficient is that?
I agree it isn't efficient at all, but as I said it's poor road design that necessitates you having to accelerate to 75 mph faster than your typical airliner in order to avoid backing up traffic. If I had roads like that I'd be complaining constantly to my legislators until they were fixed.

As an aside, this whole traffic merge situation is about to get very interesting in the next few years/decades as we suddenly can no longer afford to fuel massively overpowered cars. I'm guessing we'll all end up with ultra-aerodynamic vehicles which can cruise at 100 mph on 10 HP, and will probably have all of 15 HP installed. They'll likely make the 157 MPG car Cougtek linked to seem like a sports car acceleration-wise, but will get upwards of 250 MPG or its equivalent. We'll probably start to need mile-long entrance ramps, or the right lane will be solely for entering vehicles to build up to left lane speed (that could work even now if American drivers had better lane discipline).

Getting back on topic the 157 MPG car is certainly well-suited for urban driving, and an EV version would be even better.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
jtr1962 said:
As for highway merging I've yet to see any situation where you absolutely have to get to 60 in under 20 seconds for safety or other reasons.
Come visit California! Adding to what Handruin and Buck said, many ramps slope up towards an elevated freeway. Not only does the car have to go up, it has to accelerate in the time frames Handruin talks about. Many on and off ramps on the oldest freeways are pretty short, truly hazardous if you're not used to that or are expecting ramps like the ones built today. I hate to drive my wife's 1999 Honda Civic (with only 38k miles on it) on the fwy because it feels way underpowered compared to my car.

The California Driver's Handbook clearly states that merging on to a fwy is a 50-50 business; the car merging shall, to the best of it's ability, merge at fwy speeds, and the fwy traffic shall allow such traffic to merge (I'm paraphrasing). In reality, only the first part applies most of the time.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
mubs said:
Adding to what Handruin and Buck said, many ramps slope up towards an elevated freeway.
Up?! :eek: Are the traffic engineers/road designers brain dead? If anything entrances should have a healthy downgrade and exits an equivalent upgrade. Geez, I though New Jersey's roads were bad but what you described borders on the insane. How on Earth do trucks/buses merge when they probably can't even maintain speed on the upgrade, let alone accelerate?

Now I know why 50,000 people a year die on the roads. And to think I blamed only the drivers when the roads are a major factor.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Many sections of the fwy are elevated (on concrete columns) over city streets. When you see a big vehicle looming on the side and you're in the "slow" lane, you

a) change lanes immediately
b) accelerate like mad (if there's space ahead) to get ahead
c) slam on the brakes

Take your pick.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,931
Location
USA
To touch on a couple things.

People do drive 70+ in the slow lane, and the reason IMHO is quite simple. The roads no longer handle the capacity of cars they were designed for some 20 years ago. It's completely common for me (and others) to pass people in the right lane because all 3 lanes are crowded with cars. If the right lane is clear, we’ll use it. Where once the right lane was for slow and merging traffic, the middle lane was the "cruising lane" and the left lane is a passing-only...that can no longer apply. If people adhered to those rules on 495 in MA, traffic would be more of a complete mess and most likely a stand-still. You can’t fit all the cars in the right two lanes and expect progress.

My car is more than capable of reaching 70+ in fewer than 10 seconds. More commonly I'd say I'd have to reach 70+ in more like 15 seconds, but it is not uncommon for me to try and merge under 80-90% throttle resulting in 70MPH speeds in 10 seconds or less.

When you're used to the freeways in any major city, the acclimation period for high speed acceleration is typically a very short 10 seconds...no joke. I'm so used to fast acceleration that it's like flushing a toilet after peeing. I'll have to disagree with the comfort zone for accelerating based only on my own preference. I never have a problem with feeling disoriented with acceleration. Anything short of a 500HP car wouldn't make me think twice, but that I've not yet experienced. Cars these days are more than capable of handling these speeds (with no respect to efficiency).


To add onto mubs saying about the highway ramps...we have many ramps in MA where the entrance ramp is an incline and the exit is a decline. That's not uncommon by any means. jtr, your comment about busses and trucks is dead on...they have trouble merging and cause traffic backups constantly. When one merges, the 30+ cars behind it are forced to change lanes or slow down to 40 MPH. This is exactly what would happen with this super-efficient car you guys are discussing. The 495 highway in MA seems to be raised higher than most adjacent roads in any given area. The reason is unknown to me, but my guess is to allow the highway to cross over all surrounding roads. 495 typically has bridges over other roads, not the other way around.
 

Howell

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
It is very uncommon in my neck of the woods for the interstate to pass below more minor roads. Though the area is hilly so it is probably more common than in more flat terrain.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
So we really are being screwed by the oil and motor companies with the vehicles they currently offer. Not that I didn't know...
 

Sol

Storage is cool
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
960
Location
Cardiff (Wales)
Well it's a great proof of concept but I think I'll wait for the pump price of soy based biodiesel to drop a little before I invest in a conversion kit...
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
CougTek said:
Last but certainly not least, the 2007 Camry will inherit the formidable 3.5L V6 from the Avalon. 268HP and only 22/31mpg, wow!
The canayan web site cites 26/40mpg, which has to be wrong. Based on the metric figures (10.7L/100Km city, 7.0L/100Km highway), my calculator tells me that the real mileage should be 22mpg city and 33mpg highway.

Also, the US web site says the 07 Camry has a 0.28 drag coefficient while it is 0.27 on the canayan portal. They must think that cold air makes less friction or something...
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
CougTek said:
Also, the US web site says the 07 Camry has a 0.28 drag coefficient while it is 0.27 on the canayan portal. They must think that cold air makes less friction or something...
Actually the opposite is true. Cold air is denser, which in turn means more air drag. However, the drag coefficient, which is just the ratio of the drag of the vehicle compared to a flat plate, is the same regardless of temperature. 0.27/0.28 isn't bad, but it's a shame we have stylists dictating body shape instead of engineers. We could make perfectly driveable cars with drag coefficients in the 0.1 area.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
I would be curious to see a 0.1 d.c. car too. The most efficient conceivable car I've seen was the prototype with the shape of a box fish that had a d.c. of around 0.19 IIRC. It was quite roomy and perfectly ergonomical.

But I doubt a 0.1 d.c. car could be practical. It would probably have to look like a missile or a university-made sun-powered car. Driveable? Maybe, but I don't think it would have a great road handling with such a shape.

Show me a picture and maybe I'll change my mind.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,379
Location
Flushing, New York
The now defunct GM Precept had a Cd of 0.16. Looks perfectly driveable to me. I'm guessing it could be even a bit better with fairings over the front well wheels. Here's one with a Cd of 0.10 (the Pac-Car II):

http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/pac_car_nogaro/image

It really the combination of Cd and frontal area which affects drag, and hence energy use. A better way would be to put all the seats in autos in a line so as to reduce frontal area to that of one seat. The resulting thin tube can also be streamlined more easily so you win again.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,744
Location
Horsens, Denmark
jtr1962 said:
A better way would be to put all the seats in autos in a line so as to reduce frontal area to that of one seat. The resulting thin tube can also be streamlined more easily so you win again.

But that car would handle for crap. We need a car with L x W x H Ratios of about 1 x 0.75 x <0.5 for the best performance.
 

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
The moderators have disabled the image tag in your profile since you posted that bored dog picture in the other thread ;-)
 
Top