The fuel economny sham

[WickedLou9]

Something struck me as odd as I was reading about the engine in my little Honda Fit. As I was beeming about the 38mpg that I managed to coax out of it this past week, I started to read about the technology that made it possible. Amoung other things like molybdenum coated pistons and such, Honda has this system called "lean burn technology". It just means that the computer allows the engine to run very lean at low rpms, like when you are cruising on the highway at a constant speed. The stiociometic ratio for combustion of gasoline is ideally 14.7 to 1. Lean burn can allow it to operate much much leaner. 20-or 30 to 1. This saves fuel. ALOT of fuel.

However I came to find out that this is not new technology. This has been around since the late 1970's. Chrysler, Honda and Mitsubishi all played around with it. In fact in 1992 Honda produced a Civic "VX" which was able to get 44mpg CITY and 55mpg HIGHWAY. Well shit, that is economy that only Toyota Prius owners are familiar with... and it's from a little Civic made 15 years ago with a conventional combustion motor.

The new Chevy Volt that is supposed to come out some years from now is a real plug in electric vehicle with an onboard generator. If you were running the car on the generator as you drove you would get.... 50MPG. Not even as good as the little Honda Civic from 1992.

Why? Lean burn technology, while amazingly efficient, produces alot of NOx emissions... our EPA set strict limits for NOx emissions and as such forced that amazing little civic into obsolesence.
Then we go and require all of these safety features that make a car safer... and heavier. My tiny little Honda Fit weighs in at 2500 lbs. For a car it's size, that's actually quite heavy. That 1992 Honda Civic? 2200 lbs.

Yet we continue to demand that auto manufacturers increase fuel efficiency. Congress passes mandates that all cars get atleast Xmpg, while at the same time, we tie auto makers hands, ears and big toes behind thier backs.

People continue to blame governmnet, Oil companies, the Arabs, The auto industry, Al Gore, and everyone else for our problems. Guess what? It's our collective fault. We demanded this. We demanded all of these safety feautres on the cars and didn't ask about the cost. We demanded cleaner emissions and didn't ask about the cost. We demanded that government take action. We demanded SUV's, we demanded big heavy tanks of cars. We demanded it.

[Phantom]

I still have a 1987 4000lb truck that gets 25mpg hwy/20mpg city. The catch is it has a 2.2L 4 cyl engine with only 108hp from the factory.

I think part of the problem is people think they need so much horsepower so that one a year or so they can pass somebody on the highway. Sure 100hp in a 4000lb vehicle is really weak, but people pass on hills etc and I eventually get where I need to go...

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I still have a 1987 4000lb truck that gets 25mpg hwy/20mpg city. The catch is it has a 2.2L 4 cyl engine with only 108hp from the factory.

I think part of the problem is people think they need so much horsepower so that one a year or so they can pass somebody on the highway. Sure 100hp in a 4000lb vehicle is really weak, but people pass on hills etc and I eventually get where I need to go...

It's not even that. My Honda Fit is only marginally more powerful than the 1992 Honda Civic. By all means it should be more efficient with all the technology that has been brought to bear, but it falls FAR FAR Short of the 55mpg mark set by the 1992 Honda Civic. my best tank ever was 38mpg and that involved lots of coasting. never going above 65mph, a little bit of drafting, going down hills in neutral and such. The 1992 Civic would get 55mpg or more doing all of these things. I think I only have 15 HP more than that civic.

[Phantom]

I do remember those civics. They were fun. I bet they are selling for quite a premium these days.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I do remember those civics. They were fun. I bet they are selling for quite a premium these days.

actually they aren't selling them at all. I checked auto trader for that car in a 500 mile radius of my house and there is only one for sale and it had been riced up. If I had a 55mpg car I would certainly not be selling it either.

[Phantom]

Looks like it was the VX that got 48/55 mpg.

1992 Honda Civic specs, auto safety at Edmunds

I would consider picking one up for $1500 or so if I didn't have to worry about the boss killing me over it.

EDIT: City fuel range: 571.2 mi.

[Phantom]

It looks like they were all bought up by ricers and turned into "race" cars. My guess is most ended up wrapped around trees or in collisions with elderly ladies.

[Dispatcher]

I'm probably a bit older than you, but I can still remember when seatbelts were optional equipment on new cars. And forget about air bags and crumple zones. If you hit something, your chest slammed into the steering wheel and your head hit the windshield. In 1974 I was a passenger in a car accident. I was wearing a seatbelt, but back then cars didn't have shoulder belts or airbags. Even with a seatbelt, my chin, chest, and knee hit the dashboard. I suffered broken ribs, a knee fracture, a broken nose, my top 2 teeth went right through my bottom lip, and I was in a coma for 3 days.
My friend who was driving the car wasn't so lucky...he was killed instantly.
Yes, we the people demand safe, fuel efficient cars.
Why? because it's worth it, and because it can be done.

[6SpeedTA95]

Modern engine technology is amazing. In the 1970s when running lean first gained some traction they had major problems with reliability, they were literally burning holes in the tops of pistons. The fix? Forge the pistons instead of making them cast, the problem that is the drastically increased cost especially at the time.

Now running lean especially at highway speeds can be precisely controlled by modern computers which can richen up the mixture if necessary to prevent detonation and overheating of internal components.

Another key factor that you hit on is vehicle weight. In 1992 a base model civic weighed in at just under 2200 lbs as you point out. It came equipped with a 102 horsepower motor. The new base model civic weighs in a 2638lbs and has a 140 horsepower motor. The civic has done the best job at NOT gaining weight over the last 15 years when compared with other vehicles. For every 100lbs you gain, you lose 1mpg city and sometimes the loss is double, so 2 mpg and this is usually true on vehicles with smaller motors (ie the civic). So while the car is nicer, quieter and safer you lose fuel economy due to weight.

One amazing thing though, the car weighs 400lbs more, is a bigger vehicle so it has to push a bigger hole through the air and it makes about 40% more power than the civic of 15 years ago but gets very close to the same mileage on the highway. 38mpg vs 40mpg. That is a pretty amazing feat when you think about it.

Probably more amazing is the changes we've seen in big engine fuel economy over the last 15 or 20 years. In 1985 GM introduced their tuned port injection V8 in the corvette and camaro/firebirds. This was a tremendous leap forward, the motor offered big power and pretty good gas mileage (for the day). The 5.7L 350cu in V8 in the corvette was rated at 345lbft of torque and 245 horsepower. With the auto transmission it got 14 or 15mpg and could get 24mpg on the highway if it was in good tune. These new motors were less fickle and easier to keep in tune than the prior carb'd motors and throttle body injection motors. Mileage gains were huge as was the gain in horsepower. Today the corvette has 430 horsepower a 6.2L V8 and gets 16 mpg city and 28 to 30 on the highway.

Now imagine for a second that we as americans took a step back from the horsepower game...not necessarily for the civic because 140hp is scraping the low side of acceptable....but on big cars...lets say the corvette only had 300hp and instead got 20 or 21 mpg city and 35 to 36 on the highway...its entirely doable with today's technology but americans want power even with 4 dollar gas...

Also since when does a tahoe need to do 0-60mph in 5.6 seconds? Thats insanely quick...you could easily scale the power back intoday's trucks and make them much more fuel friendly.


edit: and on the subject of gasoline to power our vehicles we could easily become independant of middle eastern oil but its going to take a collective effort of mexico, canada, brasil and ourselves to help us get there.