[lt1silverhawk]

Originally Posted by rsfyj

>> got 23 mpg with a 1953 Lincoln v/8 way back in the 50's. I remember him calculating every time he got gas. I think we should be a lot farther ahead than we are now

I unfortunately cannot remember the name of the magazine, but I do recall recently reading an issue from the early 60's where a heavy 4-door heavy vehicle with a base V8 was driven to find its best mileage and got about 35 mpg. Apparently this was regularly done back in the day on many vehicles by this magazine or group, can't remember who. I must admit I was shocked when I read that number. But it was all in the style of driving, of course, which is what Brian (MARTINSR) was discussing here: "Quit your complaining about gas cost and change your driving habits!".

[robin58]

lt1silverhawk, while driving habits have an impact, we also need to be aware that because of safety regulations and crash test requirements increasing weight, we're needing more power to simply move the same sized vehicle. Also, just observe the display on any vehicle that can give "instant consumption" read outs, there really is a sweet spot at which going slower makes no improvement on your consumption. We're just lucky that technology has advanced enough that we're really only ending up with the same gas mileage as was achievable 40-50 years ago.

This article draws some pretty good conclusions:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/citroen-2cv.html

and I'll quote the relevant section here:

Compared to the first 2CV models, the weight of the smallest Citroën today has almost doubled, while the top speed more than doubled and the maximum power output rose by a factor of eight.

Surprisingly, the fuel consumption remained more or less the same. The C1 consumes 4.6 litres per 100 kilometres (61 miles per gallon), the 2CV consumed on average 4.4 litres (64 miles per gallon).

It is obvious that the engine of the C1 is many times more energy efficient than the engine of the 2CV, since the latter needed the same amount of fuel to power a much lighter and much slower vehicle.

In other words: if we would apply this modern technology in a car that is as light and slow as a 2CV from the fifties, we would now drive cars that scarcely burn any gasoline. Unfortunately, all technological progress was devoured by more weight, more power, more speed, more comfort and more electronics.

Nobody really wants to go back to some of those Euro 1950's and 1960's vehicles from a comfort point of view, but the author does have a point. If we would give up our desire to have sub-10 second times to 60mph and find ways to save weight, we'd really be increasing our mileage.

[dinger]

Popular Science used to do articles on the Shell Mileage Marathon. http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/.
Check out this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-marathon
147 mpg with a 47 Studie in 1949!
The current record is 12665 mpg.

[deckofficer]

Originally Posted by robin58

lt1silverhawk, while driving habits have an impact, we also need to be aware that because of safety regulations and crash test requirements increasing weight, we're needing more power to simply move the same sized vehicle. Also, just observe the display on any vehicle that can give "instant consumption" read outs, there really is a sweet spot at which going slower makes no improvement on your consumption. We're just lucky that technology has advanced enough that we're really only ending up with the same gas mileage as was achievable 40-50 years ago.

This article draws some pretty good conclusions:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/citroen-2cv.html

and I'll quote the relevant section here:



Nobody really wants to go back to some of those Euro 1950's and 1960's vehicles from a comfort point of view, but the author does have a point. If we would give up our desire to have sub-10 second times to 60mph and find ways to save weight, we'd really be increasing our mileage.

That is why I built my engine and geared my Track-T the way I did. Creature comforts, none, horn, windshield wiper, turn signals, nada. But weight of only 1790 lbs, 383 stroker sbc into a Tremec TKO 600 0.64 OD, geared so high that 65 mph happens at 1550 rpm.

The results, on a level highway at steady 65 mph, breaks 30 mpg, and 11.4 in the quarter. With the old high revving 355 and Muncie 4 speed, 12 mpg, 10.8@132. I was happy to give up 6/10 of a second for the sweet street manners the 383 has over the 355.

This is pulling a hill in top gear, unlike my CTS-V, this car pulls at 1000 rpm just fine.

[lt1silverhawk]

Originally Posted by robin58

lt1silverhawk, while driving habits have an impact, we also need to be aware that because of safety regulations and crash test requirements increasing weight, we're needing more power to simply move the same sized vehicle. Also, just observe the display on any vehicle that can give "instant consumption" read outs, there really is a sweet spot at which going slower makes no improvement on your consumption. We're just lucky that technology has advanced enough that we're really only ending up with the same gas mileage as was achievable 40-50 years ago.

Yes. And I have often wondered what the gas mileage would be like if a modern engine and transmission were dropped into an older, lighter vehicle. I find that idea to be as environmentally friendly as it gets, but that's because I can do without the modern frills. Of course, this question was answered in the same article you found:

"It is obvious that the engine of the C1 is many times more energy efficient than the engine of the 2CV, since the latter needed the same amount of fuel to power a much lighter and much slower vehicle.

In other words: if we would apply this modern technology in a car that is as light and slow as a 2CV from the fifties, we would now drive cars that scarcely burn any gasoline. Unfortunately, all technological progress was devoured by more weight, more power, more speed, more comfort and more electronics."

Originally Posted by robin58

This article draws some pretty good conclusions:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/citroen-2cv.html

and I'll quote the relevant section here:



Nobody really wants to go back to some of those Euro 1950's and 1960's vehicles from a comfort point of view, but the author does have a point. If we would give up our desire to have sub-10 second times to 60mph and find ways to save weight, we'd really be increasing our mileage.

Agree 1000000%. The "I have the biggest hammer" issue is definitely a society problem. I would know. I bought a '96 Z28 while it was still fast very fast for that reason, among others. Then, just when I thought I had matured, I bought a'95 Impala SS with a 383 -yep - for that same reason being one of them.

[deckofficer]

lt1silverhawk,

I would have preferred a modern EFI LS engine, but only a small block will fit under my engine cover.


Bob

[lt1silverhawk]

@ deckofficer,

Is the LS block actually larger than the original small-block? Or is it the intake manifold and EFI stuff that takes up more space? More than once I've thought about swapping the stock 350 in my '77 truck with an LS 5.3 and perhaps a 4L60e with a stand-alone computer. I'm hoping the rise on gas prices may just lead to a good find to swap in. But its just day dream stuff for now.


Quite off topic, but how often do you drive the T? Or I guess a better question is, which one is your "commuter" car? I know you run the Smart down here in SoCal.

[deckofficer]

@
lt1silverhawk

Too wide at the front of the engine. Was going to use the LS and measured a new one on a pallet at the shop. Height would fit, aft width fits.

[rsfyj]

Originally Posted by topwrench

well I see the Volt died today
I never thought many would be bought.
I just thought the price was too high
The storsge of power not right
Further complications by having to plug it in
And of course all the reported safety issues
All in all id rather drive a Corvair than a Volt!

>> the spider heheh 2 carbs fun car

[deckofficer]

A commuting scenario in the Volt

80 miles per day, employer allows plug in for his tax break. You drive to work 40 miles on your dime, $2 worth of electricity, plug in, drive home on your boss's $2. If your gas car got 20 mpg, at current California gas prices, $5000 a year for fuel vs $500 a year for electricity. 9 years and what you saved in gas pays in full for the Volt.

[lt1silverhawk]

On a related note: "Tennessee Professor Tries to Drive Across US on 10 Gallons of Gas".

"He said those costs would likely go down if gasoline-free vehicles ever went into mass production.

How well will the equipment work? That, said Ricketts, is why he's westbound today.

"A lot of professors just do research," he said. "We've got to get out there on the front lines. The rubber has to meet the road.""

[35terraplane]

Why are people against the volt or like cars, they are not they just don't care. Look at this thread over 6600 people have stopped and looked only 340 have posted, and most of them are just a handful of people that are posting.

People don't want small cars, it will take another generation before you get them to. They are down sizing the cars now, but they still make some bigger ones, for us old folk, when we are gone and our kids are gone then they will be ready for small cars.

This same thing happened in the 70's, when gas went up everyone started getting smaller cars, but US car makers were not ready for it, so they got Jap cars. Then they came out with the Pinto, Corvair and Colt. People soon got tired of them, gas went back down, they made big cars again and everyone was happy. Well this time gas won't go back down. And can someone tell me with gas at $4.50+ a gallon why the hell do we have to have cars that are pushing out 500 + HP from a company we bailed out, or any other car for that matter.

Bob

[lt1silverhawk]

Originally Posted by 35terraplane

And can someone tell me with gas at $4.50+ a gallon why the hell do we have to have cars that are pushing out 500 + HP from a company we bailed out, or any other car for that matter.

Bob

Horsepower wars and a competitive presence in the recent surge in the pony car wars, specifically between the Camaro and the Mustang. Do we need it? No. Does the company need it to compete with the GT 500? Yes.

[Northstar T]

Originally Posted by 35terraplane

People don't want small cars, it will take another generation before you get them to. They are down sizing the cars now, but they still make some bigger ones, for us old folk, when we are gone and our kids are gone then they will be ready for small cars.

Bob

I want small cars. If I could buy a new TRUE Micro car in the US, I would buy one. I've liked the idea of micro cars for commuting since WAY before gas was $2.50 a gallon. It irritates me when a car manufacture builds a pretty cool new econo car, but then over the next few years it keeps getting bigger, more powerfull, more options and 1/4 the milage it first had, at which point people quit buying it and the manufacture says "the public wasn't interested in an economy car so we quit building it". I'm still not interested in the electric cars, for reasons I've pointed out earlier, but I do want a small, super basic GAS economy commuter car. I currently own a 99 Suzuki Swift (Geo Metro) that I use to commute with, and it's 35-40+ MPG is still way better than most of the new "economy" cars built today, including some hybrids. Some people think the Suzuki/Metro is beneath them to drive, but I just stuck a Cadillac emblem on the rear hatch and stick my nose up in the air when I drive it. we blend right in that way and I smile as I pass every gas station.

Russ

[evolvo]

Well, all us old farts are being drug into the future whether we like it or not. The Volt didn't sell well now, but it will in the not to distant future. Blacksmiths didn't think that the horseless carriage would catch on, radio didn't think TV would last, Blockbuster Video didn't anticipate NetFlix, on and on.
So I bet my electric car is faster than your electric car, that competition will never end.
I didn't read all 23 pages of this thread, so if this is a repost, sorry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOTewHnwVGI