2025 government mandated 54.5 mpg

[LX289]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: LX289
It actually wouldn't be hard if we switched all to TDI diesels. If you can get at least 50 in a VW Jetta TDI it shouldn't be that hard. America needs to figure out small diesel engines and put them in vehicles. There are diesels all over europe getting around 40-50 mpg's. I thought they were more worried about emissions rather than mpg's. Why don't they go with hydrogen. The tailpipe emissions is zero because what comes out is steam.


You can't pump hydrogen out of the ground, no infrastructure, ..... Hydrogen is a dream that will never come.


Never said it had to come out of the ground. I think that hydrogen might come to existence. What is wrong with it? Just because it is highly flammable doesn't mean much. So is gasoline.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Hydrogen requires a considerable amount of electricity to make. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It's the ethanol food-for-fuel scam all over again.

 

[Silverado12]

With ethanol, if the gov't was smart they would just have farmers use their fields that are normally paid to be idle to produce crops used to make fuel.

 

[Silverado12]

I'm all for less pollution and better mileage, but the selfish part of me bought my old school 4.3 Silverado truck mainly for simplicity and reliability, not necessarily for less pollution and mileage.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: eljefino
With GPSs a car would know if it was in LA or not and could adjust its NOx output to save fuel or run slightly cleaner. Heck, if a region were having a particularly bad atmospheric day, onstar or an FM radio subcarrier could alert the car to further detune itself temprorarily.

CARB is its own multi-headed monster and would have to be appeased to meet reality.

CAFE was great in the 90s, it subsidized escorts and cavaliers, saving us all some fuel. Now the Focus and Cruze are upper middle market and we have some worse crackerboxes... sonics and fiestas, huh? Why are they shaped so wierd (eg short wheelbase) and yet only get 40 MPG?


They are geared more for "city people" than those who go on the highway. Aerodynamics and axle gearing are more for city driving than highway.

The fiestas are at like 3000RPM at 70


So? Who cares what it's spinning if it's designed to do so? Hondas ran 3000RPM at 60 for decades. Heck, my Burgman is running 7000RPM at 70.


That takes a bit away from highway fuel economy. It wouldn't bother me - the car already gets excellent mileage.




Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: eljefino
With GPSs a car would know if it was in LA or not and could adjust its NOx output to save fuel or run slightly cleaner. Heck, if a region were having a particularly bad atmospheric day, onstar or an FM radio subcarrier could alert the car to further detune itself temprorarily.

CARB is its own multi-headed monster and would have to be appeased to meet reality.

CAFE was great in the 90s, it subsidized escorts and cavaliers, saving us all some fuel. Now the Focus and Cruze are upper middle market and we have some worse crackerboxes... sonics and fiestas, huh? Why are they shaped so wierd (eg short wheelbase) and yet only get 40 MPG?


They are geared more for "city people" than those who go on the highway. Aerodynamics and axle gearing are more for city driving than highway.

The fiestas are at like 3000RPM at 70


Shame they can't fix that with another gear. But then the EPA test would indicate low mpg, or people would complain about too many gears.


I know the Mirage is available in Europe with a much taller final drive. Still a 5 speed, so clutch life would suffer.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: LX289
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: LX289
It actually wouldn't be hard if we switched all to TDI diesels. If you can get at least 50 in a VW Jetta TDI it shouldn't be that hard. America needs to figure out small diesel engines and put them in vehicles. There are diesels all over europe getting around 40-50 mpg's. I thought they were more worried about emissions rather than mpg's. Why don't they go with hydrogen. The tailpipe emissions is zero because what comes out is steam.


You can't pump hydrogen out of the ground, no infrastructure, ..... Hydrogen is a dream that will never come.


Never said it had to come out of the ground. I think that hydrogen might come to existence. What is wrong with it? Just because it is highly flammable doesn't mean much. So is gasoline.


As another poster mentioned you have to make hydrogen. The same is true for gasoline in that it requires a lot of processing before it gets to the pump but that investment already happened. Regardless it will require a huge investment in production and infrastructure for filling stations.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LX289
I think that hydrogen might come to existence. What is wrong with it? Just because it is highly flammable doesn't mean much. So is gasoline.

1. Takes a lot of energy to make.

2. Leaks are HIGHLY likely and hard to detect.

3. Can ignite spontaneously on contact with air.

4. Has a very hot and invisible flame.

5. Contaminates metals and can make them brittle.


I wish it worked, too, but it just doesn't seem worthwhile. Maybe far in the future.

 

[kschachn]

The thermodynamics of hydrogen production are nothing like crude oil extraction and refining. You are not even close.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
As another poster mentioned you have to make hydrogen. The same is true for gasoline in that it requires a lot of processing before it gets to the pump but that investment already happened. Regardless it will require a huge investment in production and infrastructure for filling stations.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thermodynamics of hydrogen production are nothing like crude oil extraction and refining. You are not even close.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
As another poster mentioned you have to make hydrogen. The same is true for gasoline in that it requires a lot of processing before it gets to the pump but that investment already happened. Regardless it will require a huge investment in production and infrastructure for filling stations.


Thanks. I don't need it explained to me how the processes work. You completely missed my point. My point is that to make either hydrogen or gasoline requires significant investments in both production and distribution. Since the investment has already been made in gasoline the entrance barrier is huge. The level of investment for H2 to make a dent as a transportation fuel would be so huge I believe it will never happen.

 

[kschachn]

I was agreeing with you. And I also agree the infrastructure cost is enormous, especially since it is a gas and not a liquid. Liquids are intrinsically convenient for storage, transport and distribution.

Every time someone discusses hydrogen, the first question should be "where are you getting it from?"

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The thermodynamics of hydrogen production are nothing like crude oil extraction and refining. You are not even close.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
As another poster mentioned you have to make hydrogen. The same is true for gasoline in that it requires a lot of processing before it gets to the pump but that investment already happened. Regardless it will require a huge investment in production and infrastructure for filling stations.

Thanks. I don't need it explained to me how the processes work. You completely missed my point. My point is that to make either hydrogen or gasoline requires significant investments in both production and distribution. Since the investment has already been made in gasoline the entrance barrier is huge. The level of investment for H2 to make a dent as a transportation fuel would be so huge I believe it will never happen.

 

[Merkava_4]

That just means they have to make one car that will get 54.4 miles per gallon -- the rest can be guzzlers.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Hydrogen requires a considerable amount of electricity to make. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It's the ethanol food-for-fuel scam all over again.


No, hydrogen is basically an expensive, inefficient, and complex way to burn natural gas. Because that's how most of it is produced.

You could just skip the whole hydrogen charade and burn natural gas in cars instead.

 

[Bear]

Originally Posted By: Trav
They wont be satisfied till we are all driving lawnmowers with seats.


Just slightly larger than the mower, but I had a 1971 Fiat 850 coupe that got 60 mpg on the highway and not much less with prudent city driving. I was much lighter and nimble back then.
But no bull on the mpg. I actually read a small car comparison article in Playboy that got the same mileage results. Wish I still had that car, and the magazine.

 

[mjoekingz28]

Where you been Bear? 72 posts in 11 years......

 

[Bear]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Where you been Bear? 72 posts in 11 years......


Funny you mention that. I just posted my 100th post on a crossbow forum and mentioned that it normally takes me years to get to that milestone.
Believe me, I learned a lot here over the years and like this site. Wish I had more to contribute and normally don't post unless I have something to offer or I have a question.

 

[fdcg27]

You already own a car that with a modern head design and a modern engine control system could probably do it.
I could average 40 mpg+ with our '86 Civic Wagon on my commute, so a with a modern four valve design (not three plus a golf tee) and GDI instead of a fiendishly complicated carb, I could see this as a car that could meet this standard.
There were others as well, with the Geo or Chevy Metro an obvious example.
There are cars available right now that could be tweaked to meet this standard.
There is no question that it can be done.
The question is why it shouldn't be done.
It isn't all about carbon emissions or the environment either.
There are significant military, diplomatic and economic costs to using the imported fuel upon which we still largely rely.
Reducing our consumption of fuel used in transportation is one component in reducing our overall use of fuel, which will in turn allow us to reduce our dependance on imported fuel.