On Feb 16, 1:38 am, "Rodan" <Ro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Steve" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> .... the mileage on a 400-HP Corvette is better than a 4-cylinder
Citation
> back in the 80s. A truly efficient engine only uses as much fuel as
is
> demanded of it. Whether it is capable of 50 HP or 450 HP doesn't make
> that much difference when its only being asked to deliver 25 HP.
> With today's cars, the shape and weight of the chassis itself is a FAR
> bigger factor in fuel economy than engine size.
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> The greatest increases in mileage over the past 30 years have been
attained
> by making cars smaller to decrease vehicle WEIGHT. Carmakers had to
switch
> to more costly and more failure-prone FWD in these smaller cars to
recapture
> the space taken up by the driveshaft tunnel. A lesser but quite
im****tant
> improvement in mileage was gained by computer controlled fuel mixtures.
>
Aerodynamics have also improved. 6-speed automatics (and 6-speed
manuals), even 7- and 8-speeds, also help.
> Virtually all fuel management mileage improvement has been attained.
The only
> thing left is cutting more WEIGHT. Smaller displacement engines do not
provide
> better mileage, except for the contribution of their lower block WEIGHT.
>
Actually they do. Why do you think some engines now switch to 3 or 4
cylinders if not to save fuel?
> There are no alternate fuels approaching the efficiency of petroleum in
dollars
> per mile total cost to produce, except for solar power, which is not
available in
> sufficient quantity, and nuclear power, which is religiously feared and
shunned.
>
> The car of the future will be small, small, small.
>
> Rodan. <---- Go ahead; pry my cold dead hands from my '92 Roadmaster.
Or hybrid. Or diesel. Maybe diesel-hybrid.
|
