# Why 60 MPG Is Good For Us



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

OpEd by NRDC's Roland Hwang on economic benefits of developing higher fuel economy cars.

More...


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2010)

I remember when I got my Austin Mini Cooper in 77. 850cc engine dual Su Carbs, 5 Gallon fuel tank and it would do 95 mph just fine and best of all it got a cool 52 mpg. No computers no electronics or any modern gadgetry and it got 50 + mpg and the car was a 62 Mini. If they could do that back in 62 then why the hell aren't we already in the 60 + mpg gallon range with our nicer modern vehicles. Yes I feel with some tweaking we could do this with ease and with a larger vehicle. Best of all the Mini was also front wheel drive and side mounted engine. Why did it take so damn long to become common here in the states besides the fact that Detroit wanted to push the fat trucks on us. 

Pete


----------



## mhud (Oct 19, 2009)

Hey Pete, ever think of converting a mini? I actually wanted to try that but ended up doing the beetle because:

Parts are available and cheap
Didn't want to 'ruin' a rare classic

We buy big because it's cheap. So why not?

In 2006-07, when gas prices were crazy, people were paying good money for efficient cars. I remember hearing of people buying used Priuses for more than the new price. I have always driven economic cars, and it's always frustrated me that I couldn't get better mileage in a new car. My '95 Tercel averages 35mpg. Where do you go from there without buying a Prius? Well, the DIY electric car site, for me...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The honda CRX HF version could also deliver hybrid like mileage in its time but like the original mini, its unlikely either could be made legal for sale to the general public due to modern crash safety standards or emission controls.

Problem is the ass end of most cars today is just too big producing a huge trailing wake.

But I do agree that there is something wrong with this picture if the current state of automotive fuel efficiency is the best that can be done. I drive a 6000lb (6150 with full load of fuel) diesel pickup that will consistently deliver 24 MPG or better @ 55 MPH. Its not a stretch at all to expect a 3000lb car with a modest 0.3 drag coefficient to double that at least. Drop the weight to 2000lbs or less with 0.2 CD and 75 MPG should be within easy reach.

I don't see that happening any time soon however.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Or Americans could educate themselves about diesel engines and join the rest of the free world. Then all of us can can enjoy high mileage vehicles. 

So far the EPA is having no part of it. They do not want us to hive clean high mileage efficient vehicles. But we are dumb Americans. Who in their right mind would want something like a Honda Accord that gets 62 mpg like Japan and all of Europe have?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

So far the EPA has some of the most strict, if not the most strict rules in the world. Surpassed perhaps only by california.

Its how the "pollution" is measured that is the real question. The EPA has placed a higher priority on direct tailpipe particulate emissions. Diesels might produce more visible particulates due to the nature of their fuel, but they actually produce less incomplete burn than gasoline engines when operated correctly. The catch is higher Nox emissions due to the high temperature and high pressure burn of the fuel.

On the one hand it makes diesels more able to properly convert more fuel into usable work, but on the other hand that same advantage causes higher Nox emission counts.

Standards in other parts of the developed world tend to generally revolve around the availability of fuel so they focus on direct "carbon pollution". In other words carbon dioxide. Unless you drive around with a huge compressor and pressure tank on your car, there is no way to reduce CO2 emissions other than by directly reducing fuel consumption. Emission controls almost always consume some energy from the engine, so they actually increase CO2 emissions.

In either case, domestic politics and economics dictate what was the most tolerable form of regulation. The EPA is less influenced by fuel shortages or high fuel prices than places like the EU or asia, so they focus on particulate emissions. On the flip side, focusing on carbon dioxide allows regulatory regimes elsewhere to have rules just as strict, just - different such that MPGs are favored a little more than absolute particulates. Although as a side note, pay attention to what size gallon is used in MPG claims from places off shore or in canada. US gallons are quite small at only 3.78L.

There was a great proliferation of diesels in the mid 1980s in north america that allowed many european and japanese diesels to finally show their stuff in light duty passenger vehicles in domestic north america. This was due mostly from the aftermath of the 70s fuel crisis on the realization of a surplus of diesel fuel on the market. However by 1987 and after many years of lower and stable fuel prices, the EPA clamped down on them and only high GVW vehicles like the successor to my truck still survived. Cars like diesel ford rangers or chevy S10s, along with diesel chevettes and tempos were no more. Most of them were not all that great but some like the second diesel ranger with its turbocharged SOHC engine were fast and economical (dodge ram50 and mitsubishi mighty max of the era shared the same engine and delivered similar results). 

By 2007 even those heavier pickups (8600GVW or higher) were also forced to have the same particulate standards as gasoline engines. The result was the diesel particulate filter. It does what it claims but at a high cost of fuel economy. Although in many states and municipalities that do not have emission testing on vehicles already sold, they have a tendency to "fall off" thanks to aftermarket DPF delete kits. DPFs work by injecting fuel directly into the exhaust if the DPF cools down too far and can't purge by natural EGTs alone. Again, more emphasis placed on particulates, not as much consideration of the lost fuel economy. Before 2007 each of the big three had 20 MPG diesel trucks....after, 15 and under was the average. You can tell when one of these trucks is in regen due to the smell they give off. If you have been near an airport with turbine or jet powered planes, you will find the scent familiar.
You can tell when a regen cycle starts by the white cloud of raw fuel they throw out the tailpipe right at the beginning - you can't miss it.

Now comes 2010 and things have reset once more forcing the introduction of urea injection, which is refined out of cow urine. You pay for it by the gallon and fill up a separate fuel tank in the vehicle. The system is fully integrated into the main engine controls complete with its own injection system for delivery into the exhaust stream. This allows the vehicle to run at higher EGT further improving combustion efficiency for reasons mentioned above. This means less reliance on the DPF regenerating and more hot burning direct in the chamber. The problem is that high temperature causes high Nox counts. Much higher than 2007 compliant diesels so a fixed amount of urea is needed to chemically eliminate them in the tailpipe. 

The good news is MPGs on 2010 engines are generally better than 2007 diesels. The bad news is much of that fuel savings is offset by having to purchase a separate consumable fluid to top up your urea tank periodically. When this idea was first pitched it was said that the tank will need to be refilled roughly every oil change. Real world experience doesn't seem to agree however.

Everyone seems to agree that there is room for more light duty diesels in north america, but for now they will come at a high price and I wonder what the EPA will demand next. We live in an era when even an all star electric car company like tesla can get slapped with a fine from the EPA on a minor technicality even though none of their cars are even capable of polluting. The question I have is are they really helping at this point? Some rules are good and there are plenty in place right now but are these new rules every few years starting to be counter productive?


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> So far the EPA has some of the most strict, if not the most strict rules in the world. Surpassed perhaps only by california.


No offense offered but that is an understatement  IMO the EPA needs a good house cleaning and have the reset button pushed. I am in my early 50's now. When I was a kid of 13 I started working and saving money for my first car. I know that sounds strange to some of you younger folks, but back in my day, you had to buy your own car with cash and take care of it yourself. Anyway by the age of 16 and entering 10th grade, my first vehicle was a brand new 1974 Toyota 4 cylinder diesel pick up truck. Being in somewhat a farming community kids made a bit of fun of me for having a Rice Burner as most farm boys drove old beat up Ford F-100 pick ups. That is what they could afford. But hey mine was brand new, paid $2300 cash 

That ole Toyota had a 11 gallon tank, cost all of less than $3 to fill up with a range of 500 miles. I drove that thing until after I graduated college when it had over 250,000 miles and I sold it to another 16 year ole farm boy who put another 100,000 miles on it before wrecking it. 

After that I bought a slightly used 1980 Mercedes 240D in 1981. Drove that sucker 200,000 miles. Like the Toyota I only changed oil, tires, and wiper blades. So I have somewhat a lover affair with diesels, they are great reliable engines and like to run.



david85 said:


> Now comes 2010 and things have reset once more forcing the introduction of urea injection, which is refined out of cow urine.


Well I think a lot of the negative attitudes for diesels in the USA came from lousy US built vehicles by all the big 3. They basically converted their V8 gas burners into diesel engines. Not only were they loud, slow, but burnt up quickly as they were not really designed for the high compression ratios. 

Back to the Urea thing. It is BS for the automakers to have to jump through that hoop. I keep using the Honda Accord as an example because I have been waiting for 5 years for the USA release. It does not need the urea to meet USA standards. However each time Honda makes it ready for release in the USA like other manufactures, our good friends at the EPA up the bar and change the rules to block any such release. Honda has given up on a USA release as many other auto manufactures have. It is clear to me the EPA wants no part of clean burning fuel efficient light passenger vehicles in this country.

OK I will quit moaning and groaning now. My comments are not directed at anyone here, so don't go off on me.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

I run a Skoda Octavia Estate 1.9TDi.
It is completely standard but carries a bit of extra weight, inverter, compressor, safety gear, roof racks, tow hitch, a few tools etc in the boot.

On my daily commute I get 62-67mpg. On a good run I can get that up to 70mpg. The best I did was 84mpg.
Granted I am using imperial gallons but modern cars can get relatively good economy. 
The thing that concerns me is why the fuel economy isn't into three figures yet?


----------

