2011 Mustang: First car with 300 hp and 30 mpg.
- Thread starter nintenho
- Start date
Well the steering wheel is on the wrong side... 
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
For that matter, the US Focus and Euro Focus have long been different cars, but Ford is talking about killing the US Focus and basically bringing the Euro Focus to the US this year as a 2011 model.
That would be nice. The US version is a piece of sh*t.
Mintmaster
Veteran
In general, turbines are less efficient than reciprocating engines. They can't achieve as high pressure and aren't positive displacement, so they can't extract as much work from an expanding gas. They're used in aircraft because they are far more reliable (basically one moving part) and have high power to weight ratios.
Well, only when accelerating. That's going to impact efficiency very little, as air resistance, rolling resistance, cruising BSFC, and excessive braking are the primary factors affecting fuel consumption. If you accelerate at 3 m/s^2 for 5 seconds or 1 m/s^2 for 15 seconds, the difference in fuel consumption is pretty minimal.
Unless you're talking about diesel vs gas in general as opposed to the virtues of low rev torque.
Yeah, but acceleration is on the enjoyment side as far as I'm concerned. If you're looking for more low rev acceleration than a gasoline engine can provide, then I'm thinking that you're looking for a little fun. You're never going to need low end torque in rush hour traffic.
Wait, how do you figure that consumption will be down as a result of switchover? The whole point of my assertion is that if 1000 people switch over to diesel, prices will shift until 1000 switch over to gas to balance it out.
Yeah, but this argument goes both ways. High revs give the perception of power, as does the bigger HP number in the specs.
On highways, sure, but not in the city. Hybrids have an advantage there due to regenerative braking, and diesels have the advantage during cruising because it has 20% more energy per gallon. But this is besides the point I was making.
If, for example, hybrids never came about and everyone who has a hybrid now instead bought VW TDI model, global fuel efficiency would be worse. The reason is that they would just force other would-be diesel buyers to gasoline after the price of diesel rises relative to gasoline, and we wouldn't have batteries displacing fuel. Humanity needs a certain number of miles to be traversed each year, and we use a fixed ratio of diesel to gasoline to get it done. Who uses diesel and who uses gasoline doesn't really matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
Well, you pretty much need the added complexity of a regenerator to even get that much thermodynamic efficiency out of a turbine in the first place, but the point was simply about the "extreme-ness" of your counterarguments, which is why I went as extreme as a common gas turbine. I suppose if you worked with a Tesla turbine, you could get a little less fuel consumption due to being able to run pulsed ignition on them as long as your power targets aren't massively high as people might otherwise aim. But of course, getting good efficiency out of a Tesla turbine is in many ways a harder problem. Regardless, when you're talking turbines in a car, a direct drive mechanism just doesn't work because whatever type of turbine you're talking about, it has a pretty narrow range in which it really operates both effectively and efficiently, so they're best suited to series hybrids.
I was actually talking about diesel vs. gas in general.
Unless you're towing... or if you're driving pretty much anywhere in San Francisco ;-). Moreover, there's still highway driving where it is valuable in general. There's a certain value in also being able to get that "fun" in a range where the engine actually operates with decent efficiency and low fuel consumption. The exact polar opposite is true of gasoline spark ignition. The other thing is that diesel of course has broader operating ranges of fuel mixture than gasoline ever, which means that you can really control fuel consumption much more broadly through injector flow rate alone at any rpm. You can quite significantly hold power back much more effectively any time it isn't called for, and pull it out as necessary any time it is... and anywhere in between. With a gasoline engine, there are only two ways to do that -- dynamic displacement/cylinder deactivation and/or a hell of a lot more gear range.
You presume that the additional thousand to switch from diesel to gas actually exist. Perhaps in a country which already has a deep penetration of diesel in the consumer personal transportation market like India, I could see that as a possibility. In a country like the U.S. where diesel is largely relegated to industrial uses completely unrelated to personal transportation, and in that market, there will never be a switch back.
Also, your notion of a fixed ratio of diesel to gasoline is neglective of biodiesel, tbh. Yes there are valid arguments against biodiesel in terms of cost and agricultural impact, but when there's a market for it, there's a market for it. The same would apply to E85 or hydrogen or whatever. While getting gasoline engines to be able to run on E85 takes modifications to a lot of existing vehicles, running a diesel on a higher-proportion-of-biodiesel blend all the way up to at least B70 takes precisely zero effort, so the adoption thereof is instantaneous. That said, the impact isn't going to be small by any measure, but at the very least you wouldn't have the mirroring shift going on.
The other thing is that how people drive in general plays a role in how significant the difference is in fuel consumption. For instance, many European countries have such high fuel prices as it is that the average consumer in the Europe would qualify as a hypermiler by American standards. As such a mass switch from gas to diesel across the EU wouldn't yield that big a difference. A similar change in the U.S. would be because they have driving habits better suited to diesel in the first place and generally aren't as stingy to begin with but would become so when the resulting price hike occurs.
Higher revs also give the perception of a struggling engine as well. As well as giving the impression that the owner of that vehicle is a douchebag of some sort. But you know the saying about American buyers -- they buy horsepower and drive torque. It's a fundamental flaw of looking only at the spec figures because you'll basically be basing the decision on a spec that 99.95% of the time will never be even so much as witnessed let alone used functionally. The main reason why peak horsepower ends up mattering at all is because high peak horsepower also follows along with more power in the range that actually gets used, and as long as there is only one type of drivetrain to choose from, the relationship is assumed to be fairly constant, which isn't always accurate, but it will always be assumed as such.
It's one of the reasons why peak horsepower/torque ratings need to be completely and in every way abolished without exception in favor of total power/torque curve charts instead. For those who can grasp such data, they get far more information out of it. And for those who can't, they're left with the sole recourse of basing their perception of power on actual test drives. Win-win.
Mintmaster
Veteran
That's why I said worldwide emissions. Supply and demand will necessitate that somewhere on the planet people will switch.
If biodiesel can be produced economically, then yes, my argument is out the window. However, governments will not subsidize it if it becomes that big of a market, so it needs to get a lot cheaper before that happens.
I can buy that, but hp@2krpm would be almost as good. Including the origin and peak hp, that gives you three points, which is enough to get a good idea of the curve.
Peak torque is just such an arbitrary point and never apples to apples.
But can it do corners?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL2MYm1bjto
I never understood "muscle" cars with poor handling...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL2MYm1bjto
I never understood "muscle" cars with poor handling...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
This happened in the early 80's when Diesel cars started to gain some traction (lead by the VW Rabbit
). Prior to that diesel was generally quite cheap around 0.60-0.70 USD a gallon while regular gasoline was around 0.95 - 1.00 a gallon. However, it only took a year or two of diesel cars being bought (due to cheap diesel) before diesel matched and sometimes exceeded regular gasoline.The US Focus and Euro Focus used to share the same platform. But it was either the last model or the model before that, where they decided to split the platforms.
In the US they got rid of the SVT (low demand) and couldn't use the diesel (emmissions being higher in the US than in Europe). As well, more cost cutting on the US Focus to lower cost in the face of extremely high US autoworker wages and US buyer price sensitivity.
In Europe they got to keep the SVT, got the diesels and got higher cost components (better suspension, better body styling, etc.).
For that you have to understand muscle cars in the US. Muscle cars in the US traditionally have focused on buyers being able to customize and work on every facet of their car. From displacement, to valves, to carbs, to whatever. So the most popular cars were ones that were cheap and easy to work on. Thus things like dual overhead cam, multiple valves, etc. were unpopular with people that wanted a muscle car. Instead the most popular muscle cars would feature standard block engines that were very easy to modify and work on. Thus why American V8's have traditionally seriously lagged in fuel efficiency with regards to European V8's.
Ah but that doesn't touch on handling. Good suspensions aren't cheap. And American's generally don't want expensive muscle cars. Especially when they want to tear them apart and modify them after buying them. So for a long time, american automakers focused on hitting under 20k USD. And then 30k USD. Only rarely does an American muscle car go for more. The Dodge Viper and Chevy Corvette for example. But even with those, you'll see quite a few cost cutting measures to try to keep the price down. Again, suspension being quite expensive for sophisticated setups, again with many American's gearheads wanting to tear it apart and redo it after they buy it anyways.
How many people buy a Mercedes or BMW and start tearing apart the engine and suspension?
However, that said, things have been gradually changing in the US as the baby boomers get older and pass away, and the newer generations being born being less likely to want to work on their own cars. So expect things to gradually change in the US... Although the high wages for Union autoworkers will probably still prevent the US automakers from going full bore to match foreign car makers point for point. Foreign automakers in the US (Toyota and Honda for instance) don't hire Union Autoworkers, and thus can make cars more cheaply and for the same price pack in more features. Like better suspension.
Regards,
SB
This happened in the early 80's when Diesel cars started to gain some traction (lead by the VW Rabbit
The US Focus and Euro Focus used to share the same platform. But it was either the last model or the model before that, where they decided to split the platforms.
In the US they got rid of the SVT (low demand) and couldn't use the diesel (emmissions being higher in the US than in Europe). As well, more cost cutting on the US Focus to lower cost in the face of extremely high US autoworker wages and US buyer price sensitivity.
In Europe they got to keep the SVT, got the diesels and got higher cost components (better suspension, better body styling, etc.).
For that you have to understand muscle cars in the US. Muscle cars in the US traditionally have focused on buyers being able to customize and work on every facet of their car. From displacement, to valves, to carbs, to whatever. So the most popular cars were ones that were cheap and easy to work on. Thus things like dual overhead cam, multiple valves, etc. were unpopular with people that wanted a muscle car. Instead the most popular muscle cars would feature standard block engines that were very easy to modify and work on. Thus why American V8's have traditionally seriously lagged in fuel efficiency with regards to European V8's.
Ah but that doesn't touch on handling. Good suspensions aren't cheap. And American's generally don't want expensive muscle cars. Especially when they want to tear them apart and modify them after buying them. So for a long time, american automakers focused on hitting under 20k USD. And then 30k USD. Only rarely does an American muscle car go for more. The Dodge Viper and Chevy Corvette for example. But even with those, you'll see quite a few cost cutting measures to try to keep the price down. Again, suspension being quite expensive for sophisticated setups, again with many American's gearheads wanting to tear it apart and redo it after they buy it anyways.
How many people buy a Mercedes or BMW and start tearing apart the engine and suspension?
However, that said, things have been gradually changing in the US as the baby boomers get older and pass away, and the newer generations being born being less likely to want to work on their own cars. So expect things to gradually change in the US... Although the high wages for Union autoworkers will probably still prevent the US automakers from going full bore to match foreign car makers point for point. Foreign automakers in the US (Toyota and Honda for instance) don't hire Union Autoworkers, and thus can make cars more cheaply and for the same price pack in more features. Like better suspension.
Regards,
SB
Erhmm...europeans mod cars like all others?
They take these euro-cars...and push them even futher along in handling/performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q83leOI_R-s
Mintmaster
Veteran
Even "poor handling" performance cars can go twice the speed limit on any turn on public roads. Acceleration is something you can enjoy more often than handling unless you go to the track.
Your example is pretty ludicrous given the price difference and even the size difference. Most people don't want a car that small.
Yeah dragracing is so much more fun than F1..oh wait.
It must be something cultural, because i don't get NASCAR either...
Mintmaster
Veteran
Well if that's how you feel then basically any car with average handling will offer more than enough performance for you on public roads, even if you exceed the limit by 20 mph.
Handling really only makes a difference in sports cars if you go to a race track or drive very illegally. Acceleration is not only enjoyable without getting your license suspended, but sometime necessary. Near my house, we have a freeway with stop signs literally 20 ft from where the entering lane merges. You either need speedy acceleration or have to wait for a really big gap between cars before starting.
Yeah, neither do I.
Well there's a lake around here that has a great "16 mph" windy road going around it that I love driving around. You don't need to speed to enjoy driving around that.
I can not get why people watch nascar but oval-racing is very fun to actually do and does require a lot of skill.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure, and do you see people doing that in just about every neighborhood in just about every city? It's definitely not uncommon to go to any neighborhood anywhere in the US and find multiple homes with people tearing apart their motors and working on them. I'm not talking about just doing simple bolt ons, but full engine rebuilds. As well as modifying the engine block itself.
Something that video doesn't even come remotely close to representing.
As I've noticed it isn't something Europeans will "generally" understand though some of them do get it.
Drag racing is also something that gives a very real thrill without being nearly as dangerous as racing on a winding track. Then again that same danger of knowing at any corner you could go flying off the road and t-bone your vehicle on a tree, or go flying off a cliff has an adrenaline rush all its own.
If you haven't seen it before, check out a show like Overhaulin' from the US. If you can't understand why that show is popular, you'll never know why American Muscle Cars have dominated the imagination of Baby Boomers in the US.
Or check out sites like hotrod.com.
Other contributing factors is that in the US there are many, many long stretches of road that are relatively straight where it's really easy to enjoy the thrill of going stupidly fast without much risk. Especially when you go back 60+ years to when this all started to gain increasing popularity.
And, of course, there's always the Bonneville salt flats. Where you can go even more stupidly fast. Even the Top Gear guys were addicted to that.
And that was just going in a straight line over and over and over again.It's something an everyday Joe who might be a good mechanic but a poor driver can do without much risk to their car (other than blowing their engine).
Traditional European roads require cornering ability in order to go fast, American roads generally don't.
BTW - I get more of a thrill out of cornering also, but I do understand the thrill of drag racing. It's also quite thrilling to just go really stupidly fast very quickly. And as Mintmaster noted you don't need a sportscar to get a thrill out of cornering. Mazda for many years made stupidly good cornering cars with almost no power for under 20K. But if you want speed + cornering, that's going to start costing you. Not only for the car, but likely for the tickets and possible crashes you'll have actually pushing the cornering limitations of your car on regular roads. But the same can be said for going in straight line at 150+ MPH.
Simple quarter mile drag races however, are not only easier to find a track for, but even on a country road, you do it for such a short distance that it's unlikely you'll get caught.Regards,
SB
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally depends on what kind of power you are packing.
I love giving full throttle, engine kicking down, and feel the acceleration pushing you down in the seat.
For semi-legal driving, you will never really enjoy handling at all. You can enjoy acceleration. Overtaking can be fun.
Handling? I dunno. I haven't really ever driven a car on public roads to the limits handling wise. Mostly because it requires ridiculous speeds compared to what is set by law. You actually need to go all out racing to enjoy handling (unless your really into drifting).
I don't know where you don't drive, but there are curvy mountain roads all over the US where you can push a good car and have tons of fun while being essentially legal. In many states a peel out start is actually a moving violation (exhibition of speed), but taking a 25 mph *recommended* turn in a 45 mph zone at 45 is perfectly legal and far more fun. Something about having both feet and hands engaged in the maneuver, rather than just your right foot.
