|
12 May 12 - 11:51 AM (#3349995) Subject: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu 5 min video of a guy talking about US vs UK fuel efficiency. |
|
12 May 12 - 02:28 PM (#3350048) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: Q (Frank Staplin) Gross oversimplification. Octane required higher in some UK models (less petrol/gasoline per bbl. crude). In any case, gasoline/petrol prices much higher in UK. For U. S. models, see government figures, http://www.fueleconomy.gov (remember, these are U. S. gallons, smaller than Imperial gallon of UK and Canada) For Canada, see Natural Resources Canada, Fuel Consumption Guide, http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/oee.nrcan.gc/ca/files/pdf/transportation/fuel-consumption-guide-2011.pdf There are several reasons why figures for U. S. and Canada differ; you might explore that as well. Different calculation factors used, greenhouse gas emissions allowable different, etc. (Also don't forget to calculate difference due to U. S. vs. Imperial gallons). In any case, compare price- higher in UK. Equivalent cost U.S. $4, equivalent in UK about $7 (Canada higher than U.S. because of more taxes). |
|
12 May 12 - 02:41 PM (#3350053) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu Hmmm... question re price of fuel... why does that enter into the discussion? Could the octane difference make THAT much difference in efficiency? Now, I am not gonna bother to research it on accounta I don't have a say in the matter and probably couldn't do the arithmetic without a lot more knowledge about the factors necessary to do so. As for the Canuck ratings, HA! My 2.5 year old Ford gets shit mileage compared to the "ratings" and I drive "easy on the pedal". |
|
12 May 12 - 02:55 PM (#3350060) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: Leadfingers The Manufacturer figures for economy in UK are based on TOTALLY false premises and Laborotary conditions , NOT actual Road driving !! |
|
12 May 12 - 02:58 PM (#3350061) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: Q (Frank Staplin) Is that a Ford Cummings Diesel? |
|
12 May 12 - 04:30 PM (#3350091) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu Ford F150 V8 gas. |
|
12 May 12 - 04:54 PM (#3350101) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: pdq I think you will find that Dodge is the one who offers a Cummins diesel engine in pickup trucks. They have for about 25 years. I believe that Ford has since bought controlling interest in Cummins, but part of the deal was to continue producing the engines that Dodge needed without interruption. |
|
12 May 12 - 06:08 PM (#3350129) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu The "sticker" on the truck said 14.9 l/100km. I am getting an avg of 21. Nearly 50% more gas. Yes, I realize there are "factors" involved but that difference just floors me. I understand it's all relative but it still floors me. |
|
12 May 12 - 09:05 PM (#3350176) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: JohnInKansas I didn't bother with the entire video at the link, but they guy tells you what the whole story is in the first few seconds. The UK, and most Euro countries, have far less stringent emission limits than are in effect in the US, and the spectacular fuel consumptions he reports are for diesel fueled vehicles that can't be obtained or operated legally here. US manufacturers build some of the engines used in Europe, that do get the mileages quoted, but can't legally sell them here. Vehicles made in Europe that get the super consumption can't legally be imported to the US by dealers. Although it's possible for an individual to "bring one in" it generally requires modifications and lots and lots of paperwork, and is seldom worth it - and the modifications required to meet emissions requirements here generally negate any fuel economy advantage. One factor affecting what gets used is that the majority of European countries rely largely on imported fuels, and have difficulty just getting sufficient quantity of crud(e) to refine. They have not imposed restrictions on diesel sulphur emissions as are the rule in the US, and also - due to smaller quantities used - can pick from the few sources that have lower native sulphur content. Despite all the whinging about imports, a fairly high percentage of fuels used in the US are from local sources that, unfortunately, have higher sulphur than what's used elsewhere, so additional devices and methods are needed to clean up exhausts when you burn the end products - whether diesel or gasoline. Higher combustion chamber temperatures generally give higher efficiencies, but also increase SOx emissions, so diesels in Europe generally can run at higher compression ratios (producing higher combustion temps) than those in the US. The same relationship between compression ratios and efficiency are mostly true for gasoline engines, but US regulations mandate that the majority of small vehicles must run on "regular" gasoline (fairly low octane) with strict limits on additives that could raise the octane numbers. This allows using much more of the easily available lower-quality crude that the US has, but that is a smaller fraction of the fuel stocks (crude) that the UK/Euro regions can get easily. If Europe could use the same crude stocks as are common in the US, they would be forced to regulate emissions in order to do so (without killing their people), much as the US has done, and would no longer be able to obtain the "km/l" performance they currently enjoy. In each of the separate regions, the fuel economies obtained are due to different compromises intended to make best use of the differences in resources available, and in both regions the successes obtained have been pretty good, but they can't be interchanged or even compared simplisticly. John |
|
13 May 12 - 03:47 PM (#3350385) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu Thanks JiK. |
|
13 May 12 - 05:01 PM (#3350408) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: Q (Frank Staplin) John gives good explanations. Gnu, check your fuel tank for the ubiquitous petroliferous tapeworm. |
|
13 May 12 - 05:33 PM (#3350421) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu Wanna really have a conspiracy theory squabble? Check this out. I have Serius Satellite Radio and a compass display. That means I am hooked into three satellites every time I start my truck. That means "they" know everywhere I go and when. It also means they can communicate with the computer in my truck. They can put on the check engine light. They can shut my ride down. They can charge me a shitload of money for whatever they say I need to fix my ride and simply reset the light. If I disable the system, I disable the truck. Am I paranoid or are you not paranoid? Discuss. >;-) This oughta be good... hehehehee! |
|
13 May 12 - 06:36 PM (#3350437) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: JohnInKansas The worst thing about the Sirius system is the constant barrage of messages, by phone, email, snail mail, and "urgent warnings" on the vehicle radio insisting that you MUST TURN IT ON FOR YOUR 3 MONTH FREE TRIAL. The problem with turning it on is that they want your credit card number when you agree to the free trial, and promise to bill automatically for the "real" subscription when the "free trial" is over; but REFUSE to tell you whether you'll be able to turn it off if you decide you don't want it. And it took me 9 MONTHS to find the first clue to how much the "regular subscription" would cost.(Just a clue, not a quote.) The advertising claims it's very important that they be able to know when you've been in an accident so that they can send help even if you can't talk or move, with warnings that your cell phone is worthless because it will always fly out of the pocket where you're sitting on it every time you have one of your scheduled weekly accidents. The system also has the ability to disable the vehicles if you report it stolen, but that capability is only on some vehicles that have some other assorted parts of the system, and they REFUSE TO TELL YOU which vehicle models have which features and which of the features aren't even on yours. (I asked the local authorized service dealer about a couple of the "features," and it was obvious that HE COULDN'T TELL EITHER which features are actually on my vehicle.) They don't really have to be able to turn on the check engine light, since there are enough things that turn it on (that aren't even in the "overhaul manual") that will turn on the several such without outside intervention. For most of the "real warnings" it's not too hard to find out what to do about them, including turning them off without "fixing" anything else in most cases. And having looked at the broadcast schedules for the "satellite radio" that they claim you must have to be happy on the road, I couldn't find anything I'd particularly want to listen to anywhere in their listings. (Most long haul truckers, who nearly all do have satellite radio, agree that the programing SUCKS.) I just ignored it. At least the "entertainment" part of it - and most of the urgent doomsday advertising - eventually goes away. John |
|
13 May 12 - 06:59 PM (#3350443) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu "The system also has the ability to disable the vehicles if you report it stolen, but that capability is only on some vehicles that have some other assorted parts of the system..." So far, we have 1 "paranoid" and one "in denial". Hahahahahaa. |
|
13 May 12 - 08:07 PM (#3350468) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: GUEST,Kendall First, this upholstered pogo stick has a lawn mower engine, it's a diesel and he only drove it 45 mph! My Chevy 3500 gets 30 mpg at highway speeds. Anything to crap on Obama. |
|
14 May 12 - 02:23 PM (#3350777) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: Q (Frank Staplin) Sorry, I know little about the Cummings Diesel (or other type). I just guessed that my son-in-law's Ford diesel had it, but it has whatever Ford installed. The behemoth pickup is a 1995 which he uses in haying, I need earplugs when I ride in it. |
|
14 May 12 - 04:54 PM (#3350857) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: gnu 30mpg from a 3500 chev? That's great! What's under the hood, Kendall? |
|
14 May 12 - 05:13 PM (#3350869) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: JohnInKansas There's no question that you can generally get more "miles per gallon" (or km/l) with diesel than with gasoline. The "energy content" that can be extracted form a gallon of diesel fuel is nearly twice the corresponding amount in a gallon of gasoline. In addtion, most diesel engines rely on "compression ignition" and require compression ratios of at least 14:1, with 16:1 or a little higher being fairly common. Higher compression before ignition allows getting more energy out of each piston stroke more efficiently. It also, unfortunately, results in higher combustion temperatures which produce lots of NOx polutants which require very expensive exhaust cleanup. And most diesel fuel contains higher sulphur than gasolines, so SOx pollutants have also been a much more serious problem for diesels than for gasoline engines. The same high compression used in diesels can't be used with gasoline because the gasoline "explodes" instead of burning (i.e. "knocks"), and destroys the engine. In the past "additives" could be used to increase the octane number for gasoline, but the ones previously used have been found to produce very high levels of exhaust pollutants, and most are now prohibited, while the few new additives found are very expensive. Not too long ago in the US, diesel fuel was considered almost of "byproduct" of gasoline production, and usually sold for about 80% or less of the price for the same volume (gallon) of fuel. If the fuel costs half as much and takes you twice as far, that's a 4:1 "cost advantage." Due to increased use of diesel and declining consumption of gasoline (at least as claimed by the producers) diesel in the US currently costs almost twice as much per gallon as gasoline in some places. While the mpg (km/l) difference still exists, doubling the relative price of the diesel vs gasoline just about wipes out any economic advantage. (Maybe that's the real objective of the fuel suppliers' "pricing strategy"?) It's hard to say whether it's "market driven" or actual cost driven, but in general it's still pretty much true that a diesel engine that replaces a gasoline engine in a given vehicle costs about double the price (of the engine) at the point of purchase, and in most "personal vehicle" applications where the swap makes sense the diesel also requires a different transmission that's about 50% more expensive. Initial purchase price probably has quite a bit of effect on the relative popularity of gas vs diesel in US markets, although I can't say whether that's as true everywhere. Q - Cummins Diesel signs are still up on the maintenance shops in my town, and so far as I know both Ford and Dodge light trucks still use them. GM has generally made their own, although recent options may allow other "brands." Cummins is still a favorite in heavy trucks, although many of the vehicle builders claim to build their own engines. Onan, another name, was absorbed by Cummins some time ago. Perkins used to be well known in Europe and I don't know whether it still exists. It was never common for vehicles in the US, other than for a few farm tractors prior to about 1945(?) but was used quite a lot for "stationary engines," and was pretty common on oil well pumps here some time ago. Several "European manufacturers" have published brags about "their new engines" but it's uncertain whether they actually build them themselves or just "brand stamp" what they buy from someone else who builds to their spec. John |
|
14 May 12 - 05:35 PM (#3350876) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: pdq Any Ford fan would be proud to own a 1995 F350 diesel pickup. That was either the first or the second year of the Power Stroke diesel, a serious re-designed turbocharged engine rather and older design with a turbo slapped on. By the end of of the 1990s, the Clinton EPA was after diesel vehicles and a replacement was designed by the maker Navistar (part of the old Imnternational Harvester Company). A smaller and more eco-friendly mill came out about 2001. Let's say it has a few fans and many detractors. Ford started their own in-house diesels in 2010, made in Mexico. I think I would keep the 1995 for as lomg as possible, noise aside. |
|
14 May 12 - 05:53 PM (#3350881) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: dick greenhaus John- Last time I looked, a gallon of gasoline produced 125,000 BTU; a gallon of diesel produced 137,500 BTU. Hardly twice as much. VW has a diesel which meets US standards---It uses urea injection to keep emission pollutants low. Lat figures I saw on that was about 54 mpg. |
|
14 May 12 - 09:05 PM (#3350942) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: JohnInKansas dick - If you read carefully I said "that can be extracted." That's sort of a fuzzy concept, but the higher compression, and a few other common practices, make it a lot easier to wring more of the "chemical" content out of diesel. Neither kind of engine is really very efficient - yet - if you try to put them in terms of the enthalpy ratios. Not too long ago, for comparable vehicle uses, diesels were commonly expected to get at least 40% more mpg, although 70% and up wasn't uncommon. Stationary engines were often close to the 2:1 ratio. for the engines available. Older diesels were not really compatible with widely varying or rapidly changing loads, which is one of the reasons they were most commonly used mostly in long-haul vehicles that spent most of their time running long distances at fairly uniform speed. More recent changes have partially overcome that difference, although you can still get by with 3 or 4 gear ranges on a gasoline auto but the "big boys" in the diesel rigs need 18 or 21 (or more, if you include multiple transfer boxes) for efficient operation over the same range of road speeds. The more advanced gasoline engines, with induced turbulence combustion charges or stratified charge fuel injection, precise fuel metering and feed-back control of mixtures, and such, are becoming somewhat more like diesels in this respect, while the diesels with advanced Inter-cooled turbocharging are pressing quite a bit from the other end. The VW concept of "injected additives" is interesting, but how many miles per gallon of the urea does it get, and how many fuel stops have it handy? John |
|
15 May 12 - 03:50 PM (#3351236) Subject: RE: BS: Fuel efficiency of US autos You Tube From: dick greenhaus Continuously-variable transmisssions are becoming common (on both diesel and gasoline-fueled vehicles), and can provide some remarkable improvements in gallons/per mile consumption. |