Non-hybrid cars that give Good Fuel Economy (highway)

Bush killed the program after the Detroit 3 took the money and ran. They knew very well that the car was way too expensive to market. Then they came up with a new money hole aka excuse to send billions to Detroit-- the hydrogen car.

As for the MPG, you are wrong about the aerodynamics, and you are forgetting that those concept cars had no pollution control. The main reason to use diesel was the higher volumetric density. Lastly, you are comparing EPA sticker for the Prius to EPA CAFE for the concept. Look up Prius CAFE for a nice surprise.

 

Ah, I missed where the efficiency discussion switched to combustion.

That could be. Physical properties of the fuel can also be a factor. The injected fuel droplets can be too large to completely burn on the power stroke. Which, after writing that, is just a definitive cause of rich micro-climates.

 

@ Troy - which TDI do you have in the Beetle?

 

We only get the 2L in the US.

 

If he has the previous generation then it came with the 1.9

 

That is why I was asking. The older Beetle (mk4 based) came with the older 1.9 whereas the newer 2012 came with the 140bhp 2.0 TDI

 

So, can you tell me exactly how Bush killed the program? Did he say "Hey Cheney, lets kill that Dodge Intrepid, I don't like it"? Did he sign an executive order killing it? I want to see some proof that George W. Bush killed it. If not, don't make general statements like that. If you have proof, I would love to see it.

 

With a pen.

From wikipedia:

 

Where at in wikipedia did you get that from and, wikipedia is not an end all do all be all source. This short sentence does not tell anyone exactly how "Bush" killed the program. If the statement is true, and you take it on what it says, the automakers (not saying which automakers) asked the Bush Admin to cancel the program and he did. It doesn't tell you how he cancelled it. Nowhere in that statement is there any definitive action that was taken with a pen.

As a matter of fact, that statement doesn't even list the program that Bush supposedly cancelled.

 

The wikipedia article is 'PNGV.'

As I said in my earlier post

As usual, Detroit was in it for the massive government hand-out. Once the prototypes had been built the hand-outs were pretty much over, so Detroit withdrew participation. If Detroit had been serious about actually marketing these cars they would have continued to benefit from research that was coming out of government funded labs that worked on PNGV related projects. I don't know the entire scope, but it was extensive. Certainly materials and battery research.

 

Ok, so what you're saying is, the program was doomed, money was being wasted, the big 3 said stop, so the Bush admin did?

Do you see how that's different from saying the car was great but Bush killed it?

 

I was not trying to apportion political blame -- just setting the facts straight.

To answer your question, to my knowledge no forensics lab has ever identified the blood found on the 4 ft Samurai sword that purportedly was used in the killing, as definitely belonging to PNGV.

No, I am not trying to whitewash Bush.

• The program was doomed because the Detroit 3 never saw the program as leading to a economically viable market; they were in it for the subsidy, while the subsidy lasted. The GM 'Volt' program is similar but not identical: a few cars are in fact being built to satisfy the Obama requirements, but in turn the subsidy was astronomical.
• By the time Bush killed PNGV most of the money had been given away -- the prototypes had been built. Bush could have continued funding the national labs through PNGV, but instead launched 'FreedomCar.'

Now, if you want my political opinion, it is this:
Subsidizing industry is a very poor use of taxpayer money. Subsiding basic research is an excellent use.

Within the range of 'a poor idea',
The Gore PNGV program had technical merit, but it was doomed to failure from the get go for the reasons I outlined above. If PNGV had only resided in basic research labs, with the research made available to Detroit it would have been a good program for many years -- perhaps to the present.
The Bush FreedomCar (AKA hydrogen economy) and Ethanol programs were idiotic, period. All they did was send even more money to Detroit, and for less. The 'fool' aka fuel cell car was a pipe-dream; the ethanol subsidy even more distorted agriculture, environmental degradation, and havoc in the world corn markets.
Obama's continuation of the Ethanol subsidy is no less idiotic.

 

What's interesting now is auto industry voluntary compliance with the 54.5 MPG target, after so many years of adversarial approach. Aluminum F150 coming soon ...who'da thunk.

 

Out of excuses and debunked misconceptions will do that.

 

Don't see how that proves anything. It was a concept, not a production car. It weighted 2250 lbs, and had a 74hp 1.5L diesel engine. It was estimated to get 72mpg EPA combined (on the old cycle). I've also seen claims that its injection molded body had a Cd of 0.19, rather than being less aerodynamic than the Prius.

The Gen 3 Prius weighs over 3000 lbs, and would get about 60mpg combined on the old EPA combined cycle. If it also had an aluminum frame, plastic body, and carbon fiber interior bringing its weight down to 2200 lbs, giving it a lower Cd, and the engine displacement was reduced accordingly, what would it have gotten on that cycle test? My guess is pretty darn close to 72mpg.

Chrysler claimed the first gen ESX operated at 40% efficiency, and got 80mpg at almost 2900 lbs. It also would have cost $70-90k by their estimates. By the third gen, the cost was down to a "$7500" premium, but had lost 10% fuel economy despite shedding almost 25% of its weight. From that, I think we can infer that average drive efficiency had dropped to somewhere in the 35-36% kind of territory. Which interestingly enough is right about where the current Prius operates, and about where the VW TDIs operate at highway sustained speeds.

So, rather than proving that a diesel hybrid Prius would be significantly more efficient than today's Gen 3 Atkinson/HSD, the Intrepid ESX concept seems to prove just what I've been saying. It would be about the same as a current Prius, but would likely be better than a current non-hybrid diesel at least in the city.

Rob

 

As much as I like to blame everything I can on W, I think its pretty clear the American automakers killed these cars because they thought they could make more money on trucks and SUVs. They just convinced W to drop the fuel economy requirements that were forcing them to design these cars. They lacked vision, and opened the door for Toyota and others to eat their lunch.

 

Thought I already replied but guess I didn't. We have a 2012 Civic LX Sedan Auto and at 70mph with cruise control and a/c it will get 41 mpg consistently (as displayed, actually under reports slightly), Central Florida roads/terrain as a reference.

I am now driving it all city (2 mile commute) and getting 28mpg.

 

Sacrificing the PZEV emission-rating for higher MPG isn't worth it.

 

Which is part of the reason for the excitement in the Cummings 2.7L development. The company is aiming for an emissions bin better than the current Prius with it.