Re: Efficient cars (was Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR)))

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

Also started with a '65 beetle but then moved to Hondas (after a brief stint
with an Audi-Fox--a great car when it wasn't in the shop ;-).  Have had 8
and each one larger than the last.  In fact in '91 we temporarily abandoned
the Accords we had been buying because they had gotten so large and went
back to a Civic that was then about the same size as our '84 Accord.
Mileage increased through the 80's but dropped into the 90's.  However there
are other considerations for which I think the Civic versus Accord makes a
good example (we've had 3 Civics and 5 Accords).  Simply put, the bigger,
more expensive Accords last longer.  The brakes (at 70,000 miles on a '96
with original front disks which the dealer keeps saying are fine) and the
exhaust systems last twice as long.  Certainly the ride, comfort, and safety
are all in favor of the Accords.  To make a big impact, people must be
convinced to drive Civics over Accords, Metros over Monte Carlos, etc.

All this contributes to the problem of trying to achieve a REALLY high
mileage fleet.  I can't see 100 mpg Accords and 80 mpg SUVs in our
foreseeable future.  Refinements in the Insight concept might push ONE model
in a maker's line up near 100 mpg, but that is a long way from getting the
fleet mileage up there.  The sad fact that despite the 28 mpg cited as the
'official' fleet mileage, because of all the loop-holes, the real automotive
fleet mileage is down around 20 mpg.  As I've suggested before, we would
really need to change the 'culture' of the American car buyer to get huge
increases in this fleet mileage.

Rick

**********************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/
PC and MAC software
NEW! Energy Simulator Updates
CD-ROMs now available
******************************************************


----- Original Message -----
From: "RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Efficient cars (was Worrying about the long term (was Global
Warming (NUCLEAR)))


> A piece of real data:
>
> In 1993 I bought a Geo Metro.  For those unfamiliar this was a three
> cylinder 1 liter displacement car that weighed in the neighborhood of 1700
> lb.  It naturally was using 1993 off the shelf technology and was fuel
> injected.
>
> It was a small car, almost scarily so at times in some traffic, and didn't
> have a lot of power, though it could easily go 75 mph on the flat.  Up
hill
> and against a very strong prairie wind (that is somewhat common here in
the
> dakotas) it could reach a terminal velocity of 65 mph.  I think I had up
to
> 80 mph at one time.
>
> Most would say it was underpowered, but having grown up with VW beetles in
> the 50's and 60's it didn't seem that bad to me.  It was more powerful and
> accelerated better etc, than the beetles of that era.   It was a dream to
> park and maneuver in big cities.  Was cramped and had rather large amount
of
> road noise, although, again it was less than the old beetles.
>
> I routinely got 55 mpg out of that vehicle on the interstates.  And my
> record was a few tanks that got 65 mpg (for some reason that I do not
> understand this occured only on trips in Colorado and New Mexico).  This
> mileage was good enough to drive from St. Louis to Atlanta on one tank of
> case (11 gallons) or for about $11 at the time.
>
> I'd conclude from this that fleet averages (for passenger cars) could
easily
> be at this level.  Of course, few wanted to buy the car.  Interestingly
> enough more recent models of the vehicle do not get as good gas mileage.
My
> guess being that they tweaked the motor in later years for power rather
than
> efficiency and also increased the weight of the vehicle by a bit.
>
> Joel Rauber