TALKING MILEAGE STANDARDS WITH AUTOMAKERS...

[fdcg27]

1. Tall overall gearing in top brings enhanced constant speed fuel economy through reduced pumping and bearing frictional losses. The number of ratios the gearbox provides is not a factor and many of the eight speed autos shift with every twitch of the loud pedal, reducing passenger comfort at highway speeds.

2. Even if we agree that TGDI=LSPI and fuel dilution, what possible effect would this have on passenger safety or comfort?

3. CVTs allow for very tall overall gearing without the need for a bunch of discrete ratios. As such, they may be the answer to achieving very tall overall gearing without the annoyance of shifts with every change in pedal position or grade.

 

[Claud]

What America does about its car manufacturing is becoming less important every year.
When half or more of the total cars made worldwide came from the USA, and the big three owned a substantial part of European manufacturing too, then it mattered. What fraction of the total car production is built in the USA today?.
By insisting on building big trucks and SUV's Ford, GM, and Chrysler will satisfy their home market until the next big hike in gas prices. Then what?.

Claud.

 

[jhs914]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
One problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that they were initiated by executive action, not by Congress, so they can be rescinded just as easily.
Another problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that it was never explained in the regulations how the CO2 emissions standards could be created to force automakers to meet a 54 mpg fuel economy goal without changing the CAFE standards, which Congress must act to change, and they never did. The EPA basically usurped the power when they issued the finding that CO2 is a gas they have the authority to regulate, even though long-standing emissions laws never regulate it.

What needs to happen is the elimination of California's authority to enact their own emissions standards. Then the automakers won't have to develop cars to meet two sets of emissions standards.
A well informed and well reasoned response to the question at hand.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

2. Even if we agree that TGDI=LSPI and fuel dilution, what possible effect would this have on passenger safety or comfort?


Abruptly seized engine at highway speeds, with no warnings whatsoever -> safety

Eau de Gasoline smell in your cabin - > comfort

 

[nap]

Let’s see whether California takes any measures to restrict the use of this hazardous substance:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0710.html

If not, then one could suspect double standards.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
People will buy what's available. I know that there are those here who'll say that they'll just keep their current vehicles forever, but that isn't a realistic proposition for 99% of those who own and use vehicles.

As you know, however, there is major resistance to econoboxes; look at the derision piled upon them throughout North America.

I've suggested before, too, of returning the exemption for trucks for CAFE, but, in that regard, for CAFE purposes a "truck" would have, a rubber floor, crank windows, manual door locks, and so forth, not leather interiors and DVD players. Relaxing requirements for "city cars" could be of benefit, too.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

2. Even if we agree that TGDI=LSPI and fuel dilution, what possible effect would this have on passenger safety or comfort?


Abruptly seized engine at highway speeds, with no warnings whatsoever -> safety

Eau de Gasoline smell in your cabin - > comfort




Since neither of these occur in practice and there are now millions of DI engines, many mit turboladen in use every day, you haven't made any real world point.

 

[HYUNDAIFAN0001]

Originally Posted By: jhs914
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
One problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that they were initiated by executive action, not by Congress, so they can be rescinded just as easily.
Another problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that it was never explained in the regulations how the CO2 emissions standards could be created to force automakers to meet a 54 mpg fuel economy goal without changing the CAFE standards, which Congress must act to change, and they never did. The EPA basically usurped the power when they issued the finding that CO2 is a gas they have the authority to regulate, even though long-standing emissions laws never regulate it.

What needs to happen is the elimination of California's authority to enact their own emissions standards. Then the automakers won't have to develop cars to meet two sets of emissions standards.
A well informed and well reasoned response to the question at hand.

AMEN.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
People will buy what's available. I know that there are those here who'll say that they'll just keep their current vehicles forever, but that isn't a realistic proposition for 99% of those who own and use vehicles.

As you know, however, there is major resistance to econoboxes; look at the derision piled upon them throughout North America.

I've suggested before, too, of returning the exemption for trucks for CAFE, but, in that regard, for CAFE purposes a "truck" would have, a rubber floor, crank windows, manual door locks, and so forth, not leather interiors and DVD players. Relaxing requirements for "city cars" could be of benefit, too.


It's my opinion that the truck/SUV/CUV market is oversaturated, with three or four or even more sizes/classes of models from every major manufacturer putting pressure on margins. These vehicles are also in good supply on any used car lot, which means that anyone who can afford wheels can afford one. Once everyone has one, any cache these vehicles once had is lost.
Vehicle purchases are typically as much about emotion as they are about practical considerations. In an era where most families have no more than two children, any real need for a large hauler is questionable, so once you take away the chic, the appeal of these vehicles is limited.
This is the reason that companies like Honda and Toyota will be far better positioned to weather the next fuel price spike profitably while some others will find their business models swirling around the drain. Focusing on what looks to be profitable now while ignoring future needs seems a very dim business strategy.

 

[Garak]

It's definitely oversaturated. Like I posted before, maybe now is a time for me to replace the F-150.

However, finding one these days with simply a regular cab and minimal options is a bit of a chore.

I had a laugh recently, seeing a guy trying to sell a 7 year old example, with very low mileage, granted, but the work truck package, power nothing and the bottom engine choice. He wanted more money for it than I could get a brand new work truck from the dealer. Sheesh. Was there a sack of $10,000 behind the seat that went with the purchase or something?

The automakers will ignore more "ordinary" cars at their peril, I agree. Now, being single, my vehicle choices are a little different than what a family may choose, but some of the points are similar. I'm not shopping for fuel economy, per se, but for a daily driver, I don't need something huge, either. While I do see the benefits of something with 4 wheel drive in some adverse conditions, I have little need for a six passenger truck with dual DVD players, particularly as a daily driver.

The Big Three did this dim business strategy before, and it cost them all very dearly. Even aside from fuel prices and emissions and vehicle costs, the solution to congestion is hardly having everyone drive a Suburban. I see Ford has learned nothing from its ill fated experiments with the Excursion and the Blackwood. The only Excursion that was the slightest bit appealing to me at the time was the one with the 7.3 Powerstroke.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Since neither of these occur in practice and there are now millions of DI engines, many mit turboladen in use every day, you haven't made any real world point.


Then I suggest you call GM to let them know that this thing dexos1g2 is unnecessary.

 

[benjy]

efficiency has come a long way, but moving a 3 ton 4WD will never be efficient in stop + go!! as noted lighter simple trucks aka standard cabs with minimal junk could get better mpg's while selling at reasonable prices, BUT as long as people buy these 4 dr TANKS they will build them!! we will see what $4 a gal gas does to these thirsty compared to a midsize sedan does!! those that can share a ride are ok but like myself when i was putting 1,000 weekly on my ride it was VW Jetta to the rescue, monthly savings was half my car payment!!!

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Since neither of these occur in practice and there are now millions of DI engines, many mit turboladen in use every day, you haven't made any real world point.


Then I suggest you call GM to let them know that this thing dexos1g2 is unnecessary.


dexos has nothing to do with your absurd claims of the smell of gasoline in car cabins nor with that of engines seizing without warning at highway speeds.
The only call I needed to make was on your nonsense post and I made it.

 

[nap]

Have you done any research on the subject?

Or are you just speaking out of ignorance? Or maybe just

 

[fdcg27]

Oh please.
You're the one who asserted that the interiors of DI vehicles were pervaded with the scent of gasoline and that DI engines were seizing at highway speeds without warning.
Since you made the claim, one which flies in the face of the real world experience of millions of these engines, it's up to you to back it up.
Who's speaking out of ignorance here and who's trolling?

 

[nap]

I am old enough to know that one has to support only unusual claims. Here it is for the gasoline smell:

https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2017/lawsuit-2015-2017-honda-cr-v-fuel-odor-problems.shtml

You can find more with some minimal and basic research.

Otherwise I don’t have to prove that water is wet every time someone is denying it, for trolling or other similar purposes.

Regarding LSPI you are making the unusual claim that it doesn’t exist and / or cannot conduct to seized engines.

You prove it.

 

[fdcg27]

You've got this backwards again.
It was you who made the absurd claim that DI resulted in fuel odors in the car interior as well as engines seizing without warning at highway speeds.
I called you on this and demonstrated that your claims lacked merit.
It was up to you to demonstrate the validity of your claims, not I.
You have failed to do so, and as with many newbies, you would probably be well advised to either post elsewhere or to lay back and learn a bit about what's acceptable here and what will inevitably be challenged.
A single link to a flake site does nothing to prove your point, and DI may not be the issue in the case you cite anyway.

 

[nap]

You haven’t demonstrated anything. You just played the “I haven’t heard of it thus it doesn’t exist” game. To the ridiculous extent of denying that LSPI exist and/or has any effects.

 

[fdcg27]

Well, Ford has been producing DI turbo engines for nearly a decade now and millions of them are used every day.
No sign of fuel smell in the cabins and no rash of LSPI failures. Is that enough for ya?
I've written this before above, but you must have missed it.
DI turbo engines already represent a majority of the powerplants found in newly introduced models and will become universal within the next five years.
Hope that's demo enough for ya.
If not, then I really don't know what to tell you, since your continuing to argue theory against proven fact doesn't make for a point that's any more than laughable.

 

[nap]

Facts:

- http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f207/fa20dit-engine-knock-misfire-detonation-events-382962/

- A separate Subaru recall was issued for 2015 WRX to address "pre-ignition issues"

- The IAV has published a compendium of >400 pages of scientific papers on LSPI

- dexos1 gen2 specification is produced in order to address several issues, including LSPI issues

Yet, according to you, LSPI does not exist outside labs, and all the above are addressing an imaginary issue.

Either you're trolling me, or you're running some pretty thick engine oil there.