Comments on: The Efficiency Paradox: A Review of “Two Billion Cars” http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:38:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: MikeOnBike http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6881 MikeOnBike Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:00:54 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6881 We've heard of "hypermiling", driving in a way to eek out the minimum fuel usage. I think Aaron is talking about something different. But I'm not sure. What does it mean to "use" horsepower? What sort of bottlenecks should we be horsepowering through? We’ve heard of “hypermiling”, driving in a way to eek out the minimum fuel usage.

I think Aaron is talking about something different. But I’m not sure. What does it mean to “use” horsepower? What sort of bottlenecks should we be horsepowering through?

]]> By: aaron http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6875 aaron Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:29:26 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6875 Eric, transmission is a different issue. Eric, transmission is a different issue.

]]> By: aaron http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6874 aaron Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:42:27 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6874 Jack rabbit startS are very different than accelerating quickly. Increased throughput with faster acceleration is common sense. See any industry/operations text book, or read The Goal. You can also see that gasoline consumption over vehicle miles traveled has declined over the past several years as gas prices rose and people drove slower. Jack rabbit startS are very different than accelerating quickly. Increased throughput with faster acceleration is common sense. See any industry/operations text book, or read The Goal. You can also see that gasoline consumption over vehicle miles traveled has declined over the past several years as gas prices rose and people drove slower.

]]> By: Rix http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6863 Rix Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:43:20 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6863 A year or two ago, a car mag tested the acceleration of a 1984 Ferrari against a new Hyundai Entourage minivan. The Ferrari won, but not by much. Truly, that is automotive progress. A year or two ago, a car mag tested the acceleration of a 1984 Ferrari against a new Hyundai Entourage minivan. The Ferrari won, but not by much.

Truly, that is automotive progress.

]]> By: Eric http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6861 Eric Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:38:32 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6861 @aaron, Once again I think you're making stuff up. More horsepower does not necessarily mean more efficient. Take a look what Gordon said in comment #6. By changing the gear ratio, you get slower acceleration and yet better fuel efficiency. And it's widely known that jackrabbit starts are bad for fuel efficiency. You also make a vague claim that acceleration is "the *most* sgnificant [sic] factor in throuput [sic] at bottlenecks" (emphasis added). You'll have to be clearer as to what you need, and back up the claim that you've identified the "most" signficant factor. @aaron,

Once again I think you’re making stuff up. More horsepower does not necessarily mean more efficient. Take a look what Gordon said in comment #6. By changing the gear ratio, you get slower acceleration and yet better fuel efficiency. And it’s widely known that jackrabbit starts are bad for fuel efficiency.

You also make a vague claim that acceleration is “the *most* sgnificant [sic] factor in throuput [sic] at bottlenecks” (emphasis added). You’ll have to be clearer as to what you need, and back up the claim that you’ve identified the “most” signficant factor.

]]> By: Stephens http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6859 Stephens Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:22:28 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6859 Yep. I wish the 1989 Honda Civic hatchback had never gone out of production. My 2001 Civic gets worse gas mileage. Yep. I wish the 1989 Honda Civic hatchback had never gone out of production. My 2001 Civic gets worse gas mileage.

]]> By: aaron http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6857 aaron Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:36:52 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6857 Horse power means more efficient and faster acceleration, the most fuel intensive part of driving and most sgnificant factor in throuput at bottlenecks. Horse power means more efficient and faster acceleration, the most fuel intensive part of driving and most sgnificant factor in throuput at bottlenecks.

]]> By: Gordon http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6856 Gordon Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:17:08 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6856 Horsepower is somewhat meaningless. Getting more HP from an engine does not mean that it will use more fuel. The more efficient the engine is the more power it will produce to a point. Example, take a Chevy v8 from 1955 and measure the power output. Now update that same engine with all the latest electronic controls and fuel injection systems that are used on todays engines and use the new cylinder heads. It will produce more power. It will also use less fuel. Cars are way to heavy and have too much air drag. Google Renault Vesta and Daihatsu UFE 2. Most people also DEMAND hard acceleration. That requires lower gearing and more power, bump the gears from say 3.5:1 to something like 2.5:1 and fuel efficiency will go way up. But rocket like acceleration will be gone. Depending where that horsepower is being produced also will come into play. If the engine is producing 300 HP at 3,000 rpm or 6,000 rpm. How big is the engine? 15cubic inch or 500 cubic inch? Getting high fuel mileage is no big deal, does the public want it? Horsepower is somewhat meaningless.
Getting more HP from an engine does not mean that it will use more fuel.
The more efficient the engine is the more power it will produce to a point. Example, take a Chevy v8 from 1955 and measure the power output. Now update that same engine with all the latest electronic controls and fuel injection systems that are used on todays engines and use the new cylinder heads. It will produce more power. It will also use less fuel.
Cars are way to heavy and have too much air drag.
Google Renault Vesta and Daihatsu UFE 2.
Most people also DEMAND hard acceleration. That requires lower gearing and more power, bump the gears from say 3.5:1 to something like 2.5:1 and fuel efficiency will go way up. But rocket like acceleration will be gone.
Depending where that horsepower is being produced also will come into play. If the engine is producing 300 HP at 3,000 rpm or 6,000 rpm. How big is the engine? 15cubic inch or 500 cubic inch?
Getting high fuel mileage is no big deal, does the public want it?

]]> By: Eric http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6855 Eric Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:48:43 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6855 @aaron, I don't think you understand what horsepower is for. Horsepower is not a significant matter in maintaining your speed. If you're maintaining 70mph as you go down the highway, it doesn't matter how much horsepower you have. Horsepower is meaningful in a few circumstances -- acceleration, going up steeper inclines, towing something heavy. As your vehicle weight goes up, you need greater horsepower to maintain similar performance. So in fact greater horsepower is more of a factor in stop-and-go driving than it is holding a fixed speed. Would you please explain your claim that greater horsepower leads to better fuel economy provided it's used? @aaron,

I don’t think you understand what horsepower is for. Horsepower is not a significant matter in maintaining your speed. If you’re maintaining 70mph as you go down the highway, it doesn’t matter how much horsepower you have.

Horsepower is meaningful in a few circumstances — acceleration, going up steeper inclines, towing something heavy. As your vehicle weight goes up, you need greater horsepower to maintain similar performance.

So in fact greater horsepower is more of a factor in stop-and-go driving than it is holding a fixed speed.

Would you please explain your claim that greater horsepower leads to better fuel economy provided it’s used?

]]> By: Jack http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/07/the-efficiency-paradox-a-review-of-two-billion-cars/#comment-6854 Jack Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:58:23 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=791#comment-6854 I remember the good old days in the 60-70s when cycling on streets meant that the fastest cars were little 911s that a cyclists could see over and easily share a lane with safely. The "fast" vehicles as defined by driving habits are now monster SUVs and pickup trucks that cannot be seen over and too big to share a lane. Then there's cell phones, horsepower and road rage to deal with today that didn't exist before. Getting better gas mileage, better efficiency, were the desired objectives but these tech gains were used for unintended purposes. Tech policies were not balanced-supported with other governmental policies (like toll roads, higher fuel taxes, mileage taxes, etc.) to capture the ultimate prize, a reduction in total fuel consumption. Highways were expanded and widen while cycling infrastructure-law enforcement were conveniently ignored. Since fuelish behavior was subsidized via federal policies, we got more of it, not less. Until these bad habits become expensive (higher taxes or higher gas prices), Americans will choose the path of lowest costs-highest convenience. I remember the good old days in the 60-70s when cycling on streets meant that the fastest cars were little 911s that a cyclists could see over and easily share a lane with safely. The “fast” vehicles as defined by driving habits are now monster SUVs and pickup trucks that cannot be seen over and too big to share a lane. Then there’s cell phones, horsepower and road rage to deal with today that didn’t exist before.

Getting better gas mileage, better efficiency, were the desired objectives but these tech gains were used for unintended purposes. Tech policies were not balanced-supported with other governmental policies (like toll roads, higher fuel taxes, mileage taxes, etc.) to capture the ultimate prize, a reduction in total fuel consumption. Highways were expanded and widen while cycling infrastructure-law enforcement were conveniently ignored. Since fuelish behavior was subsidized via federal policies, we got more of it, not less. Until these bad habits become expensive (higher taxes or higher gas prices), Americans will choose the path of lowest costs-highest convenience.

]]>