BF2S Forums What a joke (fuel efficiency)

Does the ordinary person know this? This whole thing is about sending price signals. They generally don't work if no one recognises the signal.

You can save 2-10% fuel without changing your car at all in most cases...

Varegg wrote:

Hopeless tbh

See yourself in a scenario were every American selects a car just one size smaller than the one he or she have now, a car that uses 2% - 10% less fuel than the one you have now and still can do all the things you need on a daily basis ... doesn't matter what make it is, that's what we are talking about ... what you think you need, what you are used to need and what you actually need are different ...

Can you define 95% of what you use your car for and honestly say the car you have today isn't a tad to big, could you not rent a car for the last 5% of what the new car can't do ...

We need to rethink the use of cars and maybe change the pattern in the future ... I'm not against US auto industry if that's what you think ...

Hopeless is right. How you can ignore the impact of literally millions of vehicles in a class that has no large scale 1.4 liter or hybrid option option is truly beyond me. I'm not saying you are against the US auto industry, although at this point it seems to be the only logical conclusion. These efforts should be championed as part of a larger solution. Instead you bring up another class that has more options.. including the beloved hybrids.

You are looking at this story as the only thing that is going on. I have tried over and over to explain to you that this is not the only thing happening... BUT it can address the immediate problems. Problems that we are trying to address.

Varegg wrote:

the full potential of pure electric cars

There is no potential for pure electric cars. Fine for a do it yourself home project or a quirky car, but a completely failed concept for mass transit. If you want to get off oil based fuels, the clear stand favourite is, and has been for the last 40 odd years hydrogen.

Kmarion wrote:

[*] The Ford Focus with its 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine and manual transmission delivers 35 mpg on the highway, 5 mpg better than Toyota Corolla’s 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine and 2 mpg better than Honda Fit’s 1.5-liter 4-cylinder, both also with manual transmissions

Yet ford Euro's ford focus has a combined mpg of 39.8. And if you get the smaller engines (not available in the US) you can get up to 42.8 mpg combined. http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Focus/FuelEc … O2Emission

DrunkFace wrote:

Varegg wrote:

the full potential of pure electric cars

There is no potential for pure electric cars. Fine for a do it yourself home project or a quirky car, but a completely failed concept for mass transit. If you want to get off oil based fuels, the clear stand favourite is, and has been for the last 40 odd years hydrogen.

I agree, pure electric cars imo is for inner city use only and if you can use electricity from a clean source ...

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Hopeless tbh

See yourself in a scenario were every American selects a car just one size smaller than the one he or she have now, a car that uses 2% - 10% less fuel than the one you have now and still can do all the things you need on a daily basis ... doesn't matter what make it is, that's what we are talking about ... what you think you need, what you are used to need and what you actually need are different ...

Can you define 95% of what you use your car for and honestly say the car you have today isn't a tad to big, could you not rent a car for the last 5% of what the new car can't do ...

We need to rethink the use of cars and maybe change the pattern in the future ... I'm not against US auto industry if that's what you think ...

Hopeless is right. How you can ignore the impact of literally millions of vehicles in a class that has no large scale 1.4 liter or hybrid option option is truly beyond me. I'm not saying you are against the US auto industry, although at this point it seems to be the only logical conclusion. These efforts should be championed as part of a larger solution. Instead you bring up another class that has more options.. including the beloved hybrids.

You are looking at this story as the only thing that is going on. I have tried over and over to explain to you that this is not the only thing happening... BUT it can address the immediate problems. Problems that we are trying to address.

I stated there is no one solution Kmar ... if so please point to the post ...

In the US you sell a lot of cars in the commercial segment that are not used as commercial vehicles that's why your stats on those sales are higher than elsewhere ... and your commercial segment is filled with cars that are overpowered and oversized, you have commercial cars that don't have 200+ hp that can do the same job in many cases equally good ...

And the 1,4 liter engine and hybrid option was for passenger cars, not commercial trucks ... the fact that I need to point that out is rather idiotic ...

What you did was continue to retreat back to the passenger car category whenever I presented this as an option for the millions that had no options. The stats I provided were registered as fleet vehicles. You can't just register a vehicle as commercial here in the US. In fact you have to carry more insurance, costing you more money if you do.  So again, there are millions of trucks/vans that could benefit from this. If you take the time to look at my link you will see the the VAST MAJORITY of those cars are not of the 200hp+. That makes no business sense and it is in fact idiotic for a company to buy an over performing vehicle they don't need. In the consumer sector it is for enjoyment. In the business sector it's the bottom line. That includes fuel cost.

The point I have always contended is that this is not for the 1.4 option. Go back and read the yellow, bold, and underlined words I wrote 2 pages ago. You're inability to see that and you're desire to bring up hybrids is the reason I felt the need to reiterate that this will apply more towards a commercial fleet of vehicles. I have done everything in my power to show you what is ALSO going on to address passenger vehicle concern. .. despite the fact that it's not even relevant to my contention.

@drunkhead we are. We could and should expand on it of course.

Yes and no. You can't build a long-term scheme based purely on taxing people.

Its worked fine in Europe, hence there are plenty of fuel efficient - compared with the US - cars in mass production there.

You have to reward people for buying more efficent vehicles, that's a true price signal.

Why so?
You don't reward people for not commiting crimes, not smoking, for going to work.
Why do you have to 'reward' them for using less fuel? Its not a right to burn the stuff.

People need to drive smaller cars, and drive them less.
Who needs 300BHP exactly?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-03-02 03:50:25)

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Hopeless is right. How you can ignore the impact of literally millions of vehicles in a class that has no large scale 1.4 liter or hybrid option option is truly beyond me. I'm not saying you are against the US auto industry, although at this point it seems to be the only logical conclusion. These efforts should be championed as part of a larger solution. Instead you bring up another class that has more options.. including the beloved hybrids.

You are looking at this story as the only thing that is going on. I have tried over and over to explain to you that this is not the only thing happening... BUT it can address the immediate problems. Problems that we are trying to address.

I stated there is no one solution Kmar ... if so please point to the post ...

In the US you sell a lot of cars in the commercial segment that are not used as commercial vehicles that's why your stats on those sales are higher than elsewhere ... and your commercial segment is filled with cars that are overpowered and oversized, you have commercial cars that don't have 200+ hp that can do the same job in many cases equally good ...

And the 1,4 liter engine and hybrid option was for passenger cars, not commercial trucks ... the fact that I need to point that out is rather idiotic ...

What you did was continue to retreat back to the passenger car category whenever I presented this as an option for the millions that had no options. The stats I provided were registered as fleet vehicles. You can't just register a vehicle as commercial here in the US. In fact you have to carry more insurance, costing you more money if you do.  So again, there are millions of trucks/vans that could benefit from this. If you take the time to look at my link you will see the the VAST MAJORITY of those cars are not of the 200hp+. That makes no business sense and it is in fact idiotic for a company to buy an over performing vehicle they don't need. In the consumer sector it is for enjoyment. In the business sector it's the bottom line. That includes fuel cost.

The point I have always contended is that this is not for the 1.4 option. Go back and read the yellow, bold, and underlined words I wrote 2 pages ago. You're inability to see that and you're desire to bring up hybrids is the reason I felt the need to reiterate that this will apply more towards a commercial fleet of vehicles. I have done everything in my power to show you what is ALSO going on to address passenger vehicle concern. .. despite the fact that it's not even relevant to my contention.

@drunkhead we are. We could and should expand on it of course.

Eh ... inability? ... is it a sport of yours to sound condecending because you have been doing it more as of late ... totally uncalled for in a discussion like this, in any discussion tbh ...

... again where did I say 1,4 liter engines and hybrid tech was a solution for commercial vehicles, why do you keep stressing a point I've never stated ... I said that was the option for passenger cars and passenger cars are the biggest segment of car sales, not commercial cars ... and for commercial cars one should go for new diesel tech, new engines not refit old engines with semi sucessful tech that will not amount to much ... I'm sure hybrid tech of some sort will find it's way into commercial vehichles also shortly, that is the next natural step to take ...

1.4L engines arent necessarily gutless cars.
Case in point, the new VW golf
It has a 1.4 L turbocharged and supercharged engine. Can get to 100km/hr ( 60mph) in 8.0 seconds ( the previous model was faster). The acceleration is the same for auto and manual. Fuel comsumption is also great at 6.3L/100km. (37.34 MPG).
This sort of thing is the way of the future.  European cars are moving towards smaller engines that are turbocharged /supercharged so that you get great economy in normal driving, and performance when you need it.

Who actually cares if a car is 'gutless'?
My old 1.6 Cavalier was awesome, my 2.0 Volvo had bags of power, I decline to lug around a huge lump of oversized metal solely for the two seconds a week that I might think I need it.

Whether you can impress random strangers by spinning you wheels away from the lights seems entirely futile TBH.
Excess power and an over-heavy engine get you into trouble more often than they get you out.
Acceleration makes negligible difference to journey time, and most average cars will do the speed limit with ease.

Obviously if you're a micro-dicked Jeremy Clarkson wannabe then you have a problem, and not just in the trouser dept.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-03-02 04:21:44)

my 3.2 l v6 tl gets 20/30

Pity here in Aus Ford's cars look shite compared to Holden's (GM).

Seem like the better buy too.