Mazda Claims 70 mpg For New Engine, No Hybrid Needed 576
thecarchik writes "There's no word on when the new version of the Mazda2 will finally reach the US but when it does we can reveal that it will return a fuel economy of 70 mpg — without the aid of any electric motors. This is because the car will feature Mazda's next-generation of drivetrain, body and chassis technologies, dubbed SKYACTIV. The new Mazda 2 will come powered by a SKYACTIV-G engine, Mazda's next-generation direct injection gasoline mill that achieves significantly improved fuel efficiency thanks to a high compression ratio of 14.0:1 (the world's highest for a production gasoline engine)." I wonder if a real-life-real-drivers 70 mpg car is what will actually arrive, or if such promises will dissolve like Chevy's promises about the Volt did.
Diesels already do this. (Score:3, Informative)
Plenty of diesel cars already do 60-70MPG. With the advantage of having no ignition system to go wrong and lots of torque, horse power is a misleading gauge of power, torque is what turns the wheels.
Sure, some people don't like diesels due to the noise they make. They are typically quieter when cruising as the RPM is often about 1000RPM lower than a petrol engine.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
WTF is this news?
VW Polo [volkswagen.co.uk]
70 miles per US gallon highway.
60 MPUSG combined.
50 MPUSG City.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
I actually RTF(2nd)A, and it says:
"Mazda expects it to come in at 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway with the five-speed manual, and 1 mpg less on highway mileage with the automatic."
Does not compute.
Re: (Score:2)
UPvote, I noticed this as well.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
That's for the Mazda2 you can buy right now, not the one coming down the pipeline.
Re: (Score:2)
But then if you made this engine a hybrid you would get even better consumption. Even the honda system which stops the petrol engine at red lights, then gets you going initially with an electric motor would save a lot of fuel in the city cycle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I saw this yesterday:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/article2494299.ece [nyteknik.se]
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494304.ece/BINARY/original/airmotion700.jpg [nyteknik.se]
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494301.ece/BINARY/w468/airmotion468.jpg [nyteknik.se]
Also this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepares-for-production-run/ [engadget.com]
"68MPH and a range of 125 miles"
On pressurized air ..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw this yesterday:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/article2494299.ece [nyteknik.se]
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494304.ece/BINARY/original/airmotion700.jpg [nyteknik.se]
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article2494301.ece/BINARY/w468/airmotion468.jpg [nyteknik.se]
Also this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepares-for-production-run/ [engadget.com]
"68MPH and a range of 125 miles"
On pressurized air ..
The thing to keep in mind, is you still need a form of energy to compress the air. Usually we're talking electricity. Granted, this tech + a huge power plant is probably still more efficient and green.
IMHO though, the real ticket would be if they combined this with a solar-powered compressor that could run while the car was sitting out in the parking lot for 8 hours, and in the driveway for another 3 or 4 (plug-in ability is for a back up). For the daily commute and around-town trips for the average pers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, if your compressed-air car is running low and you're desperate, almost any US gas station that does car repairs has a compressed-air pump and you might be able to pay them for some air. There are also pumps for inflating tires, but those are usually reduced pressure so they don't explode your tires.
I rate it as somewhere between highly unlikely and fucking impossible that the local gas station will have more than about 150 psi on tap, and that's only for those which do repairs, the typical tire fill being maybe 100 psi tops as some heavier light trucks will use up to 80 or so PSI (only about a max of 65 PSI for me, and I have what may be the heaviest light pickup truck ever made... hmm no, the four door version is probably heavier, I have a super cab.) The MDI air car technology runs on over 3,000 PSI
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Funny)
"Mazda expects it to come in at 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway with the five-speed manual, and 1 mpg less on highway mileage with the automatic."
Does not compute.
28 + 35 = 63. That's not quite 70, but it's still a pretty respectable number.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
(1) Remember that diesel has about 1/3rd more BTUs per gallon than gasoline, so achieving 70mpg is no great feat. VW sold a Lupo that got 88mpg highway, and built a three-person family prototype that had 120 mpg.
(2) 70mpg is a challenge for gasoline, but it can be done. Suzuki and Honda have both made 70mpg engines, using 2 or 3 cylinders. My Insight averages almost 90mpg, even with the battery turned off. (The Insight SULEV has also been rated world's cleanest car by greenercars.org.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I believe GP misspoke with regards to BTUs/gal - diesel engines tend to be more efficient than petrol engines, to the tune of ~30%.
I'd give you a quote and link you to Wikipedia, but
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only the first-gens really had this problem, and even then it was only particularly bad in the first couple/few years. Second-gen RX-7s and beyond have had very reliable Wankel powertrains (albeit with a need to do a fairly expensive overhaul at around 100k miles to renew the apex seals). Mazda's problems on the later ones had much more to do with electrical and accessories than with the Wankel.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Diesel contains significantly more energy per gallon than gasoline, so "MPG" comparisons to gasoline vehicles are totally useless.
Also, the UK fuel economy ratings are hopelessly optimistic, as are the Japanese tests.
The Third-Generation (ZVW30) Prius gets 59 MPUSG combined according to the UK tests, but 50 MPGUS according to the US tests. Anyone who actually drives their vehicle normally will tell you that the US tests are a lot closer to reality.
Whenever someone announces that a vehicle "beats" the Prius
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason the UK tests give a higher MPG figure is because a "gallon" is defined differently in the UK..
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
As long as a gallon of gas and a gallon of diesel cost close to the same at the pump, of course a head to head comparison is fair to some extent. At the end of the day, MPG is just a proxy for some cost per mile, and if a higher diesel mpg means a lower per mile cost, the fact that diesel is more energy dense then gasoline is somewhat academic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Diesel contains significantly more energy per gallon than gasoline, so "MPG" comparisons to gasoline vehicles are totally useless.
I have to disagree. The comparison may be imbalanced in terms of energy / volume, but as a consumer it is very useful because both can be reduced to miles per dollar.
Example:
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Car-2 costs $5,000 more than Car-1 (Note Golf vs Golf TDI)
You may be saving $.03 per mile, but that's going to take you over 150,000 miles to pay back.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to be a party pooper, but those numbers all stack up.
A US gallon is 83% of a UK gallon, so the the MPG figures are going to vary.
50 MPG (US) is roughly the same as 59 MPG (UK).
When using US gallons, its hardly surprising that you reach the US figure, rather than the UK figure.
Not everybody does things your way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Its one of their famous farming subsidies which keep farmers happy.
No, road diesel isn't taxed at a lower rate. You can get red diesel which has identical properties but has a red dye added (looks like snakebite and blackcurrant, hence the name "Diesel" for that drink) but which is taxed at a lower rate. You can't use red diesel in road vehicles.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They take into account different driving conditions. Diesels are good for hiway cruising, but are terrible in stop-and-go traffic. Hybrids are basically the opposite, and traditional petrol is somewhere in between.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They take into account different driving conditions. Diesels are good for hiway cruising, but are terrible in stop-and-go traffic. Hybrids are basically the opposite, and traditional petrol is somewhere in between.
I disagree with this. My old man had a Mitsubishi turbo diesel pickup back in the 80's. It would get close to 40mpg during normal driving, and had enough power that you could spin the rear tires on dry pavement when shifting to 2nd gear under heavy acceleration. It drove just like a gas-powered vehicle, other than having more torque. I also have a buddy that drives a 3/4 ton 4 wheel drive Chevy with the Duramax diesel. It also drives like a gas-powered vehicle.
There is very little difference between dr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
0-60 times really have nothing to do with the situation you describe. Diesels tend not to be so hot on them, because before the turbo spins up they can be sluggish. Try looking at the 30-70 in-gear time, which more closely replicates pulling into fast-moving traffic, and you'll find that they perform very nicely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The spread on the gasoline powered GTI is greater than the spread on the diesel GTD. The very opposite of what you think the case is.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-gti-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption [volkswagen.co.uk]
To look at those figures in another way, for urban driving the Diesel engine is getting 45% more mpg than the gasoline engine. For highway, diesel is getting only 28% more mpg.
Contrary to what you imagine, diesel gives it's greatest benefit for city driving.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
You just CONFIRMED what he said, not contradicted it. Diesel DOES have more energy per volume - more than 10% more.
I mean... yes, I read the numbers; I did post them after all. Still, it's the higher compression ratio that's the dominant factor, which is what my point had been.
Here, look at the 2010 Volkswagon Jetta. Here are the numbers for more-or-less identical vehicles, one with a diesel engine, one with a gasoline one (and a fairly high-compression one at that):
4 cyl, 2.0 L, Manual 6-spd, Diesel......41 mpg hwy
4 cyl, 2.0 L, Manual 6-spd, Premium.....31 mpg hwy
To drive one mile, it takes the gasoline-engined car 32% more fuel. By comparison, the diesel fuel itself has only 14% more energy per gallon. Energy density of the fuel alone is not sufficient to explain the difference. The difference comes from the efficiency of the engine.
I should note that this is in spite of the fact that the Otto cycle (which approximates gasoline engine operation) is more efficient than the Diesel cycle (which approximates the operation of real diesel engines) at the same compression ratio. Diesels, in practice, simply have compression ratios that are high enough to overwhelm that advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read between the lines, what she's really saying is "We'll get the "good stuff" over here when we're no longer governed by the oil companies. Or, when gasoline hits $9.50/gal in Lincoln, Nebraska. Or, when pigs fly".
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of diesel cars already do 60-70MPG
Well given diesel has higher energy density, they damn well better get better mileage compared to a typical gasoline-powered vehicle.
Sure, some people don't like diesels due to the noise they make.
You also neglected to point out:
a) ULSD wasn't available in the US until relatively recently, which meant:
i) It was difficult to hit emissions standards in a diesel engine
ii) Manufacturers couldn't simply bring over European models, as they ne
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that Diesel has done this for a while. But, while you cite no ignition system to go wrong, I cite cheap maintenance costs (oil change on a diesel is much more expensive, and a recurring cost), and I live in Canada and can't be bothered to worry
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is about the same as a '95 Protege. The question is, "why couldn't they improve the mileage in the course of a decade when gas prices were rising fast"?
Re: (Score:2)
I hear this a lot... but I cannot buy one at a local dealership in the USA.
So they are irrelevant to me (and most of the rest of Slashdot's readers.)
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. In a modern turbo diesel you get the torque from the engine exactly when you need it. And turbo lag is nothing like as bad as your exaggeration suggests. And if you actually like driving and have a manual box, the pulling out on a busy roundabout situation you described should never happen as one is able to have the engine (and turbo) spinning at sufficient speed this is never going to happen.
Put it this way, unless something big changes, I'll never buy another petrol engined car.
Re: (Score:2)
In a modern turbo diesel you get the torque from the engine exactly when you need it.
Which is why the Golf TDI get's a 0-60 time of 5 seconds. Oh, wait . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hybrid with a CVT. I can basically out accelerate almost anything on the road (except for true sports cars) from a standstill to the speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
A good driver and a manual box can overcome most of the aspects of turbo lag, but that assumes a good driver or about 1% of people on the roads... A lot of people can't even drive a manual. And with an auto, even on highend diesel vehicles you still get some considerable lag, i was driving a 2009 audi q7 (4.2ltr turbo diesel) recently which had a noticeable lag even when you switched the gearbox into sport mode.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about turbo lag, which happens on any vehicle with a turbocharger, not just diesels.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you drove a diesel? 1974?
They're considerably more refined these days, with very minimal turbo lag and decent all-range torque.
Re: (Score:2)
Just power brake a bit to spool up the turbo.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can produce more torque than a diesel engine with my hands and a long spanner
That's a nonargument.
Torque figures are just as useful as power figures for comparing cars, i.e. not very much. The meaningful items are the torque curve, which tells you how responsive the engine is over its operating range, and the power-to-weight ratio, which tells you what effect the engine will have in terms of accelleration.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:4, Informative)
That's nonsense.
1. they have caught on very well, thank you very much, everywhere except the US, and that's because the US was slow in adopting the low-sulfur diesel fuel needed by modern diesels.
2. if anything, the diesel will have longer gearing than the petrol version to take advantage of all that torque at low revs. Since turbochargers have become common on diesel engines sometime in the '80s, diesels have had easily enough power to cope with the most demanding driving conditions.
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, everywhere EXCEPT that one big place where the majority of all cars (and miles driven) are...
And even that's not true... Diesels have caught on in EUROPE. Why? Because...
No, it's because the taxes on fuel in most European countries is greater than the actual cost of fuel, and therefore the fuel with slightly less tax burden turned into the most economical by-far. Nowhere outside of Europe is there such high adoption of diesel cars. It's all because of the taxes.
IMHO, all non-CVT vehicles should die off ASAP. You need much less horsepower when you don't get "stuck" in a high gear while trying to accelerate. Not to mention the much more predictable behavior on slick (rain/snow/ice) roads, and less dangerous behavior in cruise control. CVT is so frickin' overdue, it's hard to believe old automatics are still being made.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CVT doesn't have transmission lock, where most decent automatics do, totally eliminating the 'cost' of running an automatic at high speeds.
CVT wastes some energy, energy not lost when using a manual transmission, or when cruising at highway speeds in a modern automatic.
CVTs are cool and fun, especially in-town, but people who drive automatics with autostick transmissions can outperform them as well as manuals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like all 6 gas stations here in a town of 4000 people? (Interstate on the edge of town with 4 stations located right next to it (and avoided by most of the town residents because of the traffic), the other two are "in town" and usually a bit cheaper)
And then there's the various rail depots out in the countryside catering to farmers, which consist of a small grain elevator, a few large diesel tanks (mostly diesel labeled "for offroad use only" which isn't taxed as high, but usually one "road-use" t
Re:Diesels already do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Chicago is an unusual case, but I don't recall seeing any gas stations where you can't buy diesel.
So what fuel is needed (Score:4, Informative)
Normally high compression engines require high octane fuel, which costs more to produce. In the past they used to add a lead compound to (cheaply) improve the octane rating. Won't be allowed to do that these days...
It might get more MPG, but if the fuel costs more than teice as much per gallon you aren't going to save $$$
Re:So what fuel is needed (Score:5, Informative)
Pre detonation doesn't matter. It's a direct injection engine. Fuel isn't injected until it's wanted, like diesels.
Normal gasoline engines have the air/fuel mixture inserted before the compression stroke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it is, in essence, a diesel engine - that runs on gasoline. IIRC, diesel engines are around 14:1-16:1 for a DI diesel. I'd wager a guess that they offer (or will offer) a Mazda 2 overseas with the same engine running diesel (with glow instead of spark plugs, of course).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's four times what my current car gets. Even if I had to buy premium gas at double the price (it seems to be ~20% higher usually), I'd save quite a bit of money. In fuel anyway.
I save money by purchasing cheap used cars. I'm betting I would have to drive the Mazda a long time before I ever broke even on the purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S., at least, premium is nowhere near twice the cost of regular. http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/ [fuelgaugereport.com]
It's actually pretty similar to the cost of diesel, currently.
Golf Diesel (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if a real-life-real-drivers 70 mpg car is what will actually arrive, or if such promises will dissolve like Chevy's promises about the Volt did.
I used to drive an 85 VW Golf Diesel, that Car reliably got (actually got, under real world driving conditions) 47 mpg (5l/100km). That's a car that was build 25 years ago. Volkswagen also sold the Lupo 3L which got 78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon [wikipedia.org]
It boggles my mind that 25 years later most cars I can buy in the US get half of what my 25 year old car got. If that. It also means that getting 70 shouldn't be impossible. Thats 3.3l/100km, and it's been done.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:5, Insightful)
Older cars were so economical because they were so light. Newer cars are far more robust in an accident.
Safety or economy, choose one.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at the IIHS crash test ratings for the Smart Fortwo.
It's modern engineering features that make for safer cars -- not just pure mass.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's because for the last 25 years automakers have catered to people's very marketable desire to go faster over their only recently discovered desire to go "green". Fuel was more expensive in Europe, and money less plentiful in the rest of the world, so they focused more on efficiency. Over here in the states we had plenty of money, and plenty of cheap gas, so we designed our cars for that environment. All engines have gotten more efficient over the years, but where a Euro might use that extra efficiency to save gas, we used it to go faster. What's worse is that American drivers now think that if their basic commuter car can't outrun a sports car from 25 years ago, they're getting cheated somehow.
1984 Porsche 944 - 150hp, 2900lbs
2011 Honda Accord EX - 190hp, 3300lbs
There's zero reason for a commuter car to have a 0-60 time 8 seconds, or a top speed of 120mph+, yet that's become a totally normal performance envelope. You have to push boundaries that would have been muscle car territory not that long ago to officially be considered "sporty".
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, fast cars are fun. I've owned my share, and they have their place. There's no replacement for displacement, as they say.
But it's like volume: if the only thing that makes your music listenable is to turn it up louder, you're probably listening to bad music. If the only thing that makes your car enjoyable is adding horsepower, you're probably driving a crap car.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:4, Informative)
Those older vehicles were not light. The bodies were made from cold rolled steel, with solid I-beam construction.
That was my first reaction too, but I looked it up. The VW Golf debuted at under 1900 lbs, and stayed under 2200 through the mid 80s. The current Golf weights over 2900 lbs. Older economy cars were definitely lighter than the current ones, which is what he was talking about.
They got similar or better fuel mileage due to the lack of restrictive emission add-ons
I don't buy that. The emissions add-ons were the worst in the 70's right after they were first required, and have gotten better since then. My parents got 50% better gas millage by removing the air-to-exhaust-injection system and catalytic converter on their Jeep J-10 pickup. Loosing the catalytic converter on a current Toyota Tacoma had negligible affect on fuel efficiency.
Furthermore, newer cars aren't "safer". They handle better and are more controllable due to innovations in suspension and steering, and have a safer compartment resulting in better safety, but the vehicles themselves are less likely to survive even a 'mild' fender bender without thousands of dollars in a rebuild.
In other words they are safer in every way, but they sacrifice durability to obtain it.
Re:Golf Diesel (Score:5, Informative)
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and 2009 Chevrolet Malibu in 40 mph frontal offset crash test [iihs.org]
Video [youtube.com]
1959 Bel Air after crash [blogcdn.com]
2009 Malibu after same crash [blogcdn.com]
I realize that is a greater difference in years, and safety features, than you were specifically talking about, but the principle still stands.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you serious? Have you actually seen an accident before? How about a vehicle made in the 90s or 80s?
Those older vehicles were not light. The bodies were made from cold rolled steel, with solid I-beam construction. They were much, much safer than most modern unibody designs, if only due to mass. They got similar or better fuel mileage due to the lack of restrictive emission add-ons.
Furthermore, newer cars aren't "safer". They handle better and are more controllable due to innovations in suspension and steering, and have a safer compartment resulting in better safety, but the vehicles themselves are less likely to survive even a 'mild' fender bender without thousands of dollars in a rebuild.
Have you actually been in an accident? Those older vehicles (80s and earlier) wouldn't crunch up, while they look better after an accident, the occupants would be worse off. They were quite simply, death traps. Even wearing seatbelts people died in accidents that are highly survivable today. All other things being equal the road death tolls have come down a long way due to car design. So I know what I'd pick over repair ability any day.
Mass? Yeah that helps kill the other people and not you. Then If you
Re: (Score:2)
17 year ago, when I drove a Geo Metro (manual transmission, no AC), it was rated for 49/50 MPG, and that's exactly what I got. However, it spoiled me for other cars. I hear people rave about how great their cars do... at 28-30 MPG, and I think "that's TERRIBLE". For various reasons, for this year only, I'm stuck in a Ford 500. I average 20MPG. I feel guilty every time I start the engine.
Is the ICE always running? (Score:2)
Please wake me up when this engine can stop and start on demand, like it does in current hybrids. Burning fuel while stopped can never be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stopping and starting an engine also wastes energy.
It's certainly true if you repeatedly start and stop a car made in 1960's.
But it won't be true if the ICE is designed for that. For example, Prius has no 1900-era DC brush starter, and the ICE can be started with electrical energy or the mechanical energy produced by the inertia of the car. The energy "wasted" to compress the air in the cylinder before first ignition is returned thousandfold in a millisecond.
Re:Is the ICE always running? (Score:5, Insightful)
Burning fuel while stopped can never be a good thing.
Yeah, right. Try starting and stopping the engine at every stop light when it's forty below zero outside... even aside from the lack of heat inside we quite often see cars that have stalled in those temperatures and simply won't start again.
Re: (Score:2)
Code fix. If external_temp -20F, don't shutdown. Wow, that was *extremely* difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Code fix. If external_temp -20F, don't shutdown. Wow, that was *extremely* difficult.
Which part of 'burning fuel while stopped can never be a good thing' are you having a hard time understanding?
Absolutes never hold in all situations (Score:3, Informative)
Code fix. If external_temp -20F, don't shutdown. Wow, that was *extremely* difficult.
Which part of 'burning fuel while stopped can never be a good thing' are you having a hard time understanding?
Probably the part where that statement is always true in all situations. Absolutes are rarely correct.
At extremely low temperatures, you need the waste heat from the engine to provide passenger compartment heat for defrosting the windows. If your heater doesn't work correctly around here in the coldest part of winter, it's very possible to have frost form on the inside of the windows as well as the outside.
Battery performance is also lower in extreme cold weather, so you really need the alternator produci
Re:Is the ICE always running? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, right. Try starting and stopping the engine at every stop light when it's forty below zero outside
It's a trivial engineering task. Prius, for example, has auxiliary electric heaters, and it maintains the engine temperature (and battery charge) automatically. If it's -40C outside the ICE will run a bit more, and that's all. This shouldn't be of any concern to the driver unless he lives in Alaska; then he'd be getting worse MPG than people in California do.
And on the subject of starting a cold ICE in cold weather. Hybrids start the ICE at higher RPM, and they have 100x power of a standard starter. So if the ICE in a hybrid doesn't start it's because something is broken, not because your battery is frozen solid and the starter barely spins the crankshaft.
BMWs already do this (Score:3, Informative)
Called "auto start stop".
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/technologies/auto_start_stop.html [bmw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Were you awake in 1999?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo [wikipedia.org]
The Lupo 3L was a special-edition made with the intent of being the world's first car in series production consuming as little as 3 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres (78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon). To achieve this the 3L was significantly changed from the standard Lupo to include:
1.2 litre 3-cylinder diesel engine with turbocharger and direct injection (61 hp, 140 Nm)
Use of light-weight aluminum and magnesium alloys
Re: (Score:2)
Engine start/stop automatic to avoid long idling periods
The key word is "this engine", not some other engine. Unless you imply that Lupo 3L, back in 1999, used exactly this Mazda engine.
patents (Score:2)
I don't see too many reasons why they wouldn't be able to apply similar technology to this Mazda.
I do.
1989 CRX-HF (Score:2)
Could get 50mpg backin 1989. Yes 70 is pretty nice but its taken 21 YEARS to improve 20mpg.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
***Crash head-on with another vehicle in a 1989 Honda CRX and you are DEAD.***
No, I'm 98% sure that the CRX was unibody construction with crumple zones just like modern cars. Not as safe probably although it actually did pretty well in NHTSA safety testing. Cars have improved some. But not as much as you seem to think.
***but you are putting out hundreds of times more CO2 and other pollutants for every litre you burn than modern cars.***
I doubt it. CO2 in particular should be almost directly proportional
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't the amount of CO2 a direct consequence of the amount of fuel (and the type of fuel) you burn? I doubt a 1980 car would emit more CO2 at 60 MPG than a 2010 car. The other pollutants, you're probably right about that.
"real-life-real-drivers" (Score:2)
You mean everyone doesn't always drive down hill, with a 200 mph hurricane wind at their backs?
Oh, and that sail? Well, we call that 'bling'. What do you mean you don't have one too?
Probably not on regular gas (Score:2)
A high-compression ratio engine is a classic situation where your are recommended, even REQUIRED to fill up with premium. Nevermind mpg, what about dollars per mile?
It's about damned time. (Score:2)
I've got a 1998 Nissan 200SX in the garage right now.
This was the cheap POS Nissan at the time--more of a student's car than a smugmobile.
40MPG without even trying, and I can get 42 out of it if I keep the speed down and coast a lot.
WHY, 13 years later, do I have to pay $40K for a giant toxic battery that will wear out after 5 years in order to get the same damned mileage I already get?
I don't believe the 70MPG claim. If they made a car where trip odometer / gas pump number = 70 every time, they'd tell us
Hah. They lied. FTA: (Score:2)
While the EPA hasn't rated 2011 cars for gas mileage yet, Mazda expects it to come in at 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway with the five-speed manual, and 1 mpg less on highway mileage with the automatic.
Not even close to what we got over a decade ago.
WTF happened? Environmental restrictions?
I have to get my car smogged every 2 years in the county where I live. It passes first time every time.
What's the problem with the new cars?
While this would be great... (Score:2)
I'll believe it when I see it.
Too many foreign cars have promised really high mileage, only to be dropped significantly once U.S. requirements are tacked on.
Personally, I just want to see engine auto-stop added to all cars. It would require only a slightly bigger standard 12V battery, and a slightly bigger starter. And you could cut city gas usage by a decent amount. Heck, assuming 70 MPG means highway, it could probably hit at least 60 MPG city with engine auto-stop added.
That's 37mpg based on the US test cycle (Score:3, Informative)
src : http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/mazda-next-generation-mazda-2-will-get-70-m-p-g/ [nytimes.com]
-- cut --
The Mazda release said the car would achieve 70 miles per gallon, but that number was based on the Japanese test cycle, meaning American mileage would be lower. A 15 percent increase from the existing Mazda 2 would result in a combined 37 m.p.g. (For comparison, the Toyota Prius, which gets a combined 50 m.p.g. from the Environmental Protection Agency, achieves 89 m.p.g. in the Japanese test.)
-- cut --
Meh... kicking a dead horse. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not knocking progress but...
This merely represents an improvement in dead-end technology (burning things to go places).
--Richard
Lighter is better (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't sound amazingly impressive (Score:3, Interesting)
70mpg sounds good. But is it a huge leap forward? I have a 4-year-old Toyota Corolla Verso 2.2-litre turbo diesel and I get 66mpg cruising.
Re: (Score:2)
If you get hit by another car, which driver will be more injured? Also, how fast does it achieve 100km/h? You don't need that in a city, but going to another city that's 300km away I sure like being able to drive near the speed limit (in my country it's 90-130 km/h depending on the road).
Re:My car gets 1000 MPG (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather take the risk of being killed by someone else than the risk of killing someone else. Moreover, I have serious misgivings regarding the morality of the contrary position.
But how often do you do that? If (like me) you only leave town twice a year, it makes more sense to rent on those occasions.
Re: (Score:2)
If (like me) you only leave town twice a year, it makes more sense to rent on those occasions.
For me it's very variable. However, I usually like to buy things (pay money, the item is now my property) than rent (pay (less) money, but have to give the item back).
Re:My car gets 1000 MPG (Score:5, Insightful)
"Indirectly"? There's nothing indirect about a car crash.
As for my views regarding self-preservation, we would live in a far better world if they were shared. Let me make it clear -- I have no problem with killing in legitimate self-defense, or killing in the course of a just war... but choosing a heavier vehicle and increasing risk to the lives of innocent third parties just to decrease risk to yourself leads to a snowball effect where everyone is less safe.
Re:My car gets 1000 MPG (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the first, foremost and primary reason my first motor vehicle was a motorcycle rather than a car -- I honestly was scared that I'd kill someone else -- and one among the many reasons I do most of my commuting by bicycle today. I'm happy to be judged by my actions rather than my words.
(Funny about "collectivist"; when I was younger, I considered elevating the well-being of others above myself part of being a good Christian, and modern western Christians certainly don't tend to consider themselves friends of political "collectivists").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because there's a tradition of high speed heavy vehicles doesn't mean it makes sense or is the optimum form of transportation.
However, high speed vehicles overtook horses as a method of transport mainly because of convenience, speed and range. You can travel 300km on a horse, but that would take you more than a day (because your horse will need to rest), but in a car, you can get there in less than 3 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
The complainer often does not know that patents are public record, and when I inform them of this, they often do not want to talk about it any more until they can "search for these patents" because "they must be there."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My favorite one being the poster's uncle's-brother's-cousin's-father somehow "stacking" carbs back in the '70s to improve fuel atomization, yet somehow the oil industry always buried the patents. Except that fuel injectors do a better job of atomization than any silly arrangement of carbs.
The origin of this apparently started around 1930. The patent would now be public domain. It was never used, not because the oil companies buried it, but because it does not, in fact, work:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/busi [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From what I remember the >70 mpg European Smart cars are diesel, not gasoline.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More importantly, how much is it in furlongs per fluid ounce?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give them a break. They just converted from rods per hogshead.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tier-2 Diesels have a high pressure fuel injection system... something along the lines of 1000 psi. There is a lot that can go wrong with them though.
Re: (Score:2)
Wha? Inefficient compared to what? Carburetors? No way, even the most primitive injectors do a better job atomizing fuel than almost any carb. The one and only downside to injectors over carbs is throttle response.
The improved injection they're talking about is direct injectors (which have been around for a while) combined with a higher compression ratio (which hasn't). Direct injectors up until recently have mostly been slapped onto old engine designs. Which is still an improvement, but it didn't max out t