Another Vote For Traditional PFI Engines !

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I keep saying: if so many people in the '90s and '00s didn't intentionally buy vehicles that were heavier than necessary, we'd have no need for things like DI regardless of CAFE standards, and everyone would be better off for it...


Right.
It would have been ever so much better had they bought something smaller and lighter with an outsized appetite for fuel

I know what you mean by this and I don't think it's entirely unfair, but I actually can make that argument. Just for the record.

You made the argument in another thread that you started.
I understand.
I came really close to buying a very clean low mileage second gen RX7 ragtop the year I bought the BMW.
I know where that car went and it's sitting with a dead engine, so it's probably good that I passed on it.
I've always wanted to own a Wankel, and the heck with the high fuel consumption.
Still, guys driving Suburbans, Tahoes and half ton pickups as their commuters can also make that argument.
Whether it's a valid argument in my view doesn't matter, since it's their money, as well as yours, going into the tank.

 

[d00df00d]

It's not just about the fuel economy of any one vehicle.

Big, heavy vehicles require more resources to build, transport, and maintain. They generate more wear and tear on the roads, increasing the upkeep requirements. And of course, the thing that really stings: because there are so many of those behemoths, all OTHER cars have to be larger and heavier just for crash compatibility and/or to make the occupants feel safe.

That's the difference between a 3,000 lb sports car getting 16 MPG and a 6,000 lb SUV getting 16 MPG. They both increase the owner's resource consumption, but the SUV contributes to everyone else's as well.

 

[artificialist]

Some cars may have been forced to use GDI for smog reasons. That has been the reason for equipping many car engines with newer technologies for many years. Don't forget that diesel engines also had to have more complex injection systems as well. At one time, a simple distributor pump or inline pump was enough. Next, those pumps were equipped with electronics. Some engines used MEUI or HEUI systems which required more components than any distributor or mechanical pumps. Finally, they had to use common rail injection. With each step, the engines became more expensive to build and repair.

 

[fdcg27]

Lifetime fuel consumption is far more significant a factor in determining the overall environmental and social impact of a vehicle than is anything else.
Marginal wear on the roads of a Tahoe versus an RX-8 is of no consequence when you consider the huge number of commercial trucks using our roads every day everywhere.
The marginal environmental cost of the materials needed to build a large SUV over those used in constructing a smaller vehicle are also inconsequencial over their respective lives, and no RX-8 will live as long on its original engine as any SUV will.
The crash safety thing could ironically resolve the problem of too many people choosing these outsize vehicles as daily drivers.
Make all vehicles aside from heavy trucks comply with uniform standards for the heighth of headlights, hoods and bumpers.
Bring all vehicles into the same range of crumple zone heights.
This would eliminate the tough guy appeal of current trucks and thereby restrict their purchase to those who really need them.
Easy resoloution of what has been a silly problem based only upon light truck styling.
Take the style out of light trucks and watch sales limit themselves to those who actually need a truck.
The automakers could hardly object, since at least two of the domestic ones exist only because the government helped them to.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
It's not just about the fuel economy of any one vehicle.

Big, heavy vehicles require more resources to build, transport, and maintain. They generate more wear and tear on the roads, increasing the upkeep requirements. And of course, the thing that really stings: because there are so many of those behemoths, all OTHER cars have to be larger and heavier just for crash compatibility and/or to make the occupants feel safe.

That's the difference between a 3,000 lb sports car getting 16 MPG and a 6,000 lb SUV getting 16 MPG. They both increase the owner's resource consumption, but the SUV contributes to everyone else's as well.


They are building everything bigger though. A new half ton truck is the same size as a 3/4 or 1 ton truck of a few years ago. There are newer sedans out there that weigh a lot more than my 14 year old Jeep does.

 

[Nick R]

I dunno, I have 30,600 miles on my DI Focus, and thus far I haven't noticed any performance issues, and fuel economy is as good as ever (42+mpg on a recent 1000 mile trip to/from NJ from Ohio) I haven't stuck a camera in or disassembled the Intake Manifold so I don't know 100% for sure, but I'd think if I had massive deposits it would have affected power or fuel economy somewhat by now.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It is foolish to think that mfgrs would EVER do anything to hurt their truck sales. The Big 3 depend on trucks to make their money, it is far and away their most profitable segment.

I am thankful that many people here have no say in the auto market, their company would quickly fold...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
They are building everything bigger though. A new half ton truck is the same size as a 3/4 or 1 ton truck of a few years ago. There are newer sedans out there that weigh a lot more than my 14 year old Jeep does.

That's exactly my point. Everything is bigger and heavier. Part of that -- not all of it, but part of it -- is because of the SUV craze.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Marginal wear on the roads of a Tahoe versus an RX-8 is of no consequence when you consider the huge number of commercial trucks using our roads every day everywhere.

Well, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, starting with the friendliest possible scenario to what you're arguing here.

Let's say a stretch of interstate highway sees 100,000 cars per day. From what I can tell, about 40% will be trucks and buses, and about 60% will be smaller vehicles. For the trucks and buses as a group, let's assume an average weight of 60,000 lbs. That's 2,400,000,000 lbs per day. For the smaller vehicles, an average weight of 3500 lbs puts the total at 210,000,000, or about 9% of the total mass on the road. Increasing that average weight by just 500 lbs puts the total at 240,000,000, or 10% of the total mass on the road. 1% of the total financial and environmental cost of maintaining roads is not small.

And that's a highway. On smaller urban and suburban roads, which see lower proportions of buses and trucks, the relative impact of the mass of cars and SUVs will be higher.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The marginal environmental cost of the materials needed to build a large SUV over those used in constructing a smaller vehicle are also inconsequencial over their respective lives, and no RX-8 will live as long on its original engine as any SUV will.

Either you're still trying to make this about me, or you really do have to harp on the worst possible example of a 3,000 lb car to make your point. Neither scenario looks good, man.

Still, let's go with it. Let's pick a really unfortunate first-model-year RX-8 that needs two engine replacements by 200,000 miles. That's 3,000 + (2 * 300) lbs, or 3,600 lbs. That's about 1,000 lbs less than a moderately sized SUV, or 2,000++ lbs less than a big one.

Dare you to try that comparison with a sensible 3,000 lb car now.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The crash safety thing could ironically resolve the problem of too many people choosing these outsize vehicles as daily drivers.
Make all vehicles aside from heavy trucks comply with uniform standards for the heighth of headlights, hoods and bumpers.
Bring all vehicles into the same range of crumple zone heights.
This would eliminate the tough guy appeal of current trucks and thereby restrict their purchase to those who really need them.
Easy resoloution of what has been a silly problem based only upon light truck styling.
Take the style out of light trucks and watch sales limit themselves to those who actually need a truck.
The automakers could hardly object, since at least two of the domestic ones exist only because the government helped them to.

Okay, now I know you're kidding...

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It is foolish to think that mfgrs would EVER do anything to hurt their truck sales. The Big 3 depend on trucks to make their money, it is far and away their most profitable segment.

I am thankful that many people here have no say in the auto market, their company would quickly fold...


This thread gave me a good idea. I should charge my fat tenants more! Because they are fat they cause more wear and tear on my stairs and floors. Thats got be worth an extra fiver a month.

With all thats going on in the world and the US today, the Middle East in on fire, the Russians and Chicoms are making noise, the health insurance debacle, unemployment, illegals, etc i cant believe some people actually bothers about the impact of friggin pick up trucks on paved roads.
I wonder if anyone has done a study on the effect of a nuclear bomb on the highways. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

 

[demarpaint]

Traditional for me. I'll take the slight hit in HP and fuel economy and be very happy with traditional PFI engines. Give DI some more time. I'm sure one day it will be just as problem free as PFI, and give the additional fuel economy and power that everyone wants.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
It's not just about the fuel economy of any one vehicle.

Big, heavy vehicles require more resources to build, transport, and maintain. They generate more wear and tear on the roads, increasing the upkeep requirements. And of course, the thing that really stings: because there are so many of those behemoths, all OTHER cars have to be larger and heavier just for crash compatibility and/or to make the occupants feel safe.

That's the difference between a 3,000 lb sports car getting 16 MPG and a 6,000 lb SUV getting 16 MPG. They both increase the owner's resource consumption, but the SUV contributes to everyone else's as well.


A bit of perspective here. Big heavy vehicles pay far more taxes, both in registrations and fuel. They may even cost more and thus pay far more sales taxes. Wear and tear on the roads is a baloney argument because only the real behemoths, that would be commercial trucks, really damage roadways any significant amount. And they pay dearly, too.

The government sets crash standards. They are NOT so simplistically applied so that they make small cars heavier just because larger vehicles exist. That's ludicrous. Vehicles have gotten steadily heavier since around 1968-70, as more and more crash standards were brought online.

Make that Spark survivable in an accident with an 80,000 pound truck? Think about that...

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: stranger706


Intake valves aside (and I agree with you there), the numbers don't really add up.

Take the Fusion for example, and compare the 1.5 EB vs the 2.5 NA motor. The 1.5 EB adds $795 to the price tag. The 1.5 EB gets 36 mpg hwy, the 2.5 NA motor gets 34 mpg hwy. If you drive 20,000 miles/ per year on the highway, like I do, then it would take you 8 years to break even on the additional $795 for the 1.5 EB motor.

Why do they even offer the 1.5 EB motor? (I wonder how the 1.0 EB would do in this car. It would make more sense if you're going for economy)


Here in Denver, the turbo charged engine will provide better performance at high altitude than the NA engine will. So, those of us up here will be able to get up to speed, and climb to higher altitudes while using less fuel at the exact same acceleration rate.

BC.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I'll stick with my port injected engines ...


Same here. I'll never buy a car with a DFI engine.

 

[fdcg27]

Try running your back of the envelope road load computations by a couple of traffic engineers. Most of them can use a laugh.
I have no bone to pick with you over your choice of a small car with the fuel economy of a truck, since in the part of my post that you didn't bother to quote, I noted that it was your choice as to where you wanted to spend your money. If you want to pump it into the fuel tank, that's your priviledge.
You also missed the part about the impact of lifetime fuel use outweighing the significance of the materials used in building any passenger vehicle, but that would have detracted from your point.
WRT light trucks, if we return them to their utilitarian roots, then only those who need trucks for work or hobbies requiring one will buy them. Most people who have to use trucks for work are utterly blown away with the practical advantages of something from the 'seventies over current models.
So much easier to load the bed, to see out of them, to connect a trailer and to work on the engine without needing something to stand on.
I wasn't kidding at all.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
A bit of perspective here. Big heavy vehicles pay far more taxes, both in registrations and fuel. They may even cost more and thus pay far more sales taxes. Wear and tear on the roads is a baloney argument because only the real behemoths, that would be commercial trucks, really damage roadways any significant amount. And they pay dearly, too.

I'm aware. Tax money doesn't put metal and petroleum back into the ground, does it?

I don't think so, nor does it reverse the fact that manufacturers are having to try to meet CAFE standards with vehicles that are inherently heavier and less aerodynamic. Compare an X3 to a 3-Series wagon and it should be instantly clear which should be easier to pull fuel economy out of, all else equal.


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The government sets crash standards. They are NOT so simplistically applied so that they make small cars heavier just because larger vehicles exist. That's ludicrous. Vehicles have gotten steadily heavier since around 1968-70, as more and more crash standards were brought online.

Didn't say it was because they exist. I said it was because they are prevalent. Nor did I say there was a change in the crash standards per se. I said it was a factor in how cars are made.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You also missed the part about the impact of lifetime fuel use outweighing the significance of the materials used in building any passenger vehicle, but that would have detracted from your point.

I try to limit my responses to points on which I see scope for productive discussion. You might be right on this point, but I don't have any way to assess it and I haven't seen that you do, either. If I'm wrong about that, please feel free to correct me.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27
WRT light trucks, if we return them to their utilitarian roots, then only those who need trucks for work or hobbies requiring one will buy them. Most people who have to use trucks for work are utterly blown away with the practical advantages of something from the 'seventies over current models.
So much easier to load the bed, to see out of them, to connect a trailer and to work on the engine without needing something to stand on.

I have no shortage of friends who tow/haul regularly. I also have friends and acquaintances who need tall vehicles for physiological reasons. All of them will tell you that I endorse their choice of an SUV or truck heartily.

In my experience, those folks are in a very small minority. Virtually all of the truck/SUV/crossover drivers I've met never tow or haul anything but themselves. Of those that do haul things, almost all would be better served by a wagon or minivan, and they are usually happy to admit it; the only reason they don't go that route, they say, is the image associated with wagons and minivans.

What's even more universal is that they tend to like the imposing feeling of driving an extraneously large/tall vehicle. They like the feeling that other motorists are at their mercy. You'll have to accept my apologies if I find it hard to respect that.

I would never endorse any action to positively limit people's buying options, either directly or in a roundabout way. I find that idea silly (which is why I thought you were kidding about your proposal -- my apologies). I just think the big-vehicle boom was not the best thing to have happened to the automotive landscape, and that everyone is worse off for it. If we were smarter about our choice of vehicles, we wouldn't have to worry about fuel economy as much as we do, and maybe we wouldn't have to be futzing around with $3500 fuel pumps and intake system deposits.

 

[fdcg27]

Lifetime fuel consumption for any vehicle is pretty easy to calculate.
The 3100 pounds of plastic, steel and alloy that comprised our late '99 Accord is as nothing compared to the ~6K gallons, or 38,000 pounds of refined fuel it consumed in the 175K we drove it. Not too hard to calculate.
WRT large vehicles, many owners do use them as a form of compensation, subconciously in most cases.
We've had two minivans, both of which were great and both of which were used heavily as commuters by me, since my wife never liked driving them, especially in winter conditions.
I guess I'm fairly secure as a man.
Many people in outsized vehicles think that they can intimidate other drivers. That they would feel the need or the desirability of doing so is sad and this only works if the other drivers are tentative and timid.
Crowd me with your truck and see just how slowly I can drive while enjoying your increasingly red face in my rear view mirror.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Lifetime fuel consumption for any vehicle is pretty easy to calculate.
The 3100 pounds of plastic, steel and alloy that comprised our late '99 Accord is as nothing compared to the ~6K gallons, or 38,000 pounds of refined fuel it consumed in the 175K we drove it.

This is slightly but significantly missing my point.

Isn't it blindingly obvious that 3100 lbs and 6k gallons is less than, say, 4500 lbs and 6k gallons? Moreover, isn't it similarly obvious that it takes more trickery to squeeze MPG out of a large 4500 lb vehicle than it does to get the same MPG out of a 3100 lb vehicle with less frontal area?

I'm not saying lightness is a substitute for fuel economy. I'm saying lighter means fewer resources consumed, even holding MPG constant. You might not agree that the difference is meaningful, but I hope you're not saying there's no difference in the first place.

 

[fdcg27]

You made no point on the significance of lifetime fuel consumption, so you made no point that anyone could miss.
You said as much in your post where you said that you had no way to assess it.
It's blindingly obvious that fuel efficiency tracks closely with vehicle weight.
To make this really simple, there are no 4500 lbs vehicles that would use only 6K gallons of fuel in 15K miles.
Your car is an exception, but Wankels are inherently inefficient and that has been the case since the first 'seventies NSU and Mazda Wankel engined street cars, or even the NSU Sport Prince Spyder of the 'sixties.
Spurious reasoning doesn't make for a valid argument.