MPG: up the ante

[NEOWatcher]

What would drive for the ultimate fuel economy?
150 MPG (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/69027-150-miles-per-gallon.html)?
No wait...there's more.
157 MPG (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/38863-157-mpg-car-go-sale-germany-3.html)?
But we don't stop there, how about
1800 MPG (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/16034-hydrogen-car-gets-1800-mpg.html)?

We can now offer you 3000 miles per gallon (http://www.wkyc.com/news/national/news_article.aspx?storyid=87759)!!! Yes sir. For just one low price of extensive engineering, and lots of publicity and hype, you too can own a one of a kind product to cloud the issue of what the vehicle really runs on.

[Larry Jacks]

Shell Oil Company has been sponsoring these mileage contests for years. The fact that an oil company is sponsoring it might be illuminating about the practicality of these ultra-efficient vehicles (none). They're great learning exercises for the students who build them but totally, utterly impractical as actual vehicles on real highways.

[NEOWatcher]

Shell Oil Company has been sponsoring these mileage contests for years...
Exactly; And I'm sure the contest entries have a clause that give them some right to the technology, so that it can't be used against them. :shifty::whistle:;)

[korjik]

How possibly could a 3000MPG car be used against an oil company? By the company allowing the tech to be developed so that they look like they are part of the solution instead of part of the problem and getting congress all up their backsides?

Oil companies know best how much product they have to sell. They know how long it will last. Since they are out to make big piles of money, they are really not interested in a suicide pact by running out the oil.

Tell me, how do you make more money, by selling a trillion gallons of oil as quickly as possible, or by selling a trillion gallons of oil slowly and by getting a payment for every car sold because of the patent you developed into a tech that obsoleted every other car ever made?

[Neverfly]

How possibly could a 3000MPG car be used against an oil company? By the company allowing the tech to be developed so that they look like they are part of the solution instead of part of the problem and getting congress all up their backsides?

Oil companies know best how much product they have to sell. They know how long it will last. Since they are out to make big piles of money, they are really not interested in a suicide pact by running out the oil.

Tell me, how do you make more money, by selling a trillion gallons of oil as quickly as possible, or by selling a trillion gallons of oil slowly and by getting a payment for every car sold because of the patent you developed into a tech that obsoleted every other car ever made?

That and also in getting the market for alternative energy. If your market's drying up, you want to adapt.

[Moose]

Oil companies know best how much product they have to sell. They know how long it will last. Since they are out to make big piles of money, they are really not interested in a suicide pact by running out the oil.

From a technical perspective, running out of oil is roughly equivalent to a massive switch to a new technology. But from an oil company's perspective, a run-out will drive demand (and prices) way up until the switch happens. A societal paradigm change would drive demand (and prices) way down.

Running low is very much in Big Oil's interests, because they can then use that money to leverage themselves deeply into whatever new transportation technology gains traction (either due to popularity or raw necessity).

But to get there from here, they're going to need money. Lots of it. A run-out, artificial or natural, will get them there. Minimizing refining capability is one way to sneak in margin raises. Speculation churn and worldwide instability are others.

I guess I don't disagree with you (much), but I do disagree that a run-out is necessarily a suicide pact for Big Oil. It is not.

[Larry Jacks]

One important thing to understand is what business you're in. 100 years or so ago, railroad executives were proud to be known as "railroad men." They didn't understand that they were in the transportation business. By limiting their focus to just railroads, they didn't adapt well when technology changed. The same thing is happening to many of the legacy newspapers. If they think they're in the newspaper business instead of the news/information/data business, then they're in trouble (as their declining revenues suggest).

If the executives at Shell, BP, and the other big name oil companies think they're just in the oil business, then in the long term, they're in trouble. They're in the energy business. That's why you see companies like BP advertising how they're investing in alternative energy sources. The better companies will adapt to changing technology and regulatory environments to survive. The rest will get clobbered.

The old myths about oil companies buying up patents for 100 MPG carbs and the like are just myths. Consider who also has a vested interest in higher mileage vehicles, say the auto companies. Back in the 1970s following the OPEC oil embargo, the price of gasoline doubled practically overnight. Suddenly, a lot of American auto buyers were interested in buying more efficient cars. The top 3 small cars made in America at the time were the Chevy Vega, the Ford Pinto, and the AMC Gremlin (winners, all). A lot of buyers started looking seriously at small cars made by companies with funny names like Toyota, Datsun (now Nissan), and Honda and liked what they saw. In short order, imported cars made up over 25% of the cars sold in America.

For the American auto makers, it's been all downhill ever since. If there were easy technology to suddenly make high gas mileage cars, don't you think they'd adopt it ASAP? After all, they have everything to lose.

[korjik]

From a technical perspective, running out of oil is roughly equivalent to a massive switch to a new technology. But from an oil company's perspective, a run-out will drive demand (and prices) way up until the switch happens. A societal paradigm change would drive demand (and prices) way down.

Running low is very much in Big Oil's interests, because they can then use that money to leverage themselves deeply into whatever new transportation technology gains traction (either due to popularity or raw necessity).

But to get there from here, they're going to need money. Lots of it. A run-out, artificial or natural, will get them there. Minimizing refining capability is one way to sneak in margin raises. Speculation churn and worldwide instability are others.

I guess I don't disagree with you (much), but I do disagree that a run-out is necessarily a suicide pact for Big Oil. It is not.

Seems like the only difference between us is that I think that the oil corps are trying to develop the replacement for oil now, instead of in the future.

[Moose]

Seems like the only difference between us is that I think that the oil corps are trying to develop the replacement for oil now, instead of in the future.

It's absolutely clear to me they are.

The real difference between our positions is that I suspect you're understanding my hypothesis as some future thing. The hypothesis I described above is based on my observations of what's happening right now.

I think I 'heard' the first rumblings of Big Oil shifting from their "slow-and-steady" position to "leverage all alternatives" sometime around 1995.

[korjik]

It's absolutely clear to me they are.

The real difference between our positions is that I suspect you're understanding my hypothesis as some future thing. The hypothesis I described above is based on my observations of what's happening right now.

I think I 'heard' the first rumblings of Big Oil shifting from their "slow-and-steady" position to "leverage all alternatives" sometime around 1995.

Technically, that would mean that we said exactly the same thing :)

[mike alexander]

Larry Jacks wrote:

For the American auto makers, it's been all downhill ever since. If there were easy technology to suddenly make high gas mileage cars, don't you think they'd adopt it ASAP? After all, they have everything to lose.

Not necessarily. I remember the Japanese 'invasion' and the response by Detroit was to go to Congress to get import quotas. Summed up well here:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0107/ijee/stokes.htm

In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. auto industry faced its first major challenge from foreign competition as Japanese automakers aggressively entered the American market. As Japan's share of the U.S. market grew, the Big Three U.S. automakers—Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors—convinced the federal government to impose a cap on the number of cars Japan could ship to the United States. In 1981, the Reagan administration agreed to impose such restraints, despite President Reagan's free market philosophy, because the auto and auto parts industries were major employers in the United States. Moreover, such employment was largely concentrated in a number of politically pivotal states—Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois—that exerted a great deal of influence in Congress and in presidential elections.

The annual import limit had the perverse effect of encouraging Japanese car companies to change the product mix of vehicles they shipped to the United States, sending more upscale models, where the profits were greatest, and fewer smaller, cheaper cars. It is estimated that, at its peak in the early 1980s, the quota was transferring $5 billion a year in additional profits to Japanese automakers, who could sell their quota-limited cars at a premium. Despite this protection, the U.S. auto industry continued to lose market share to Japanese producers because Toyota, Nissan, and Honda simply jumped over the trade barrier and began manufacturing cars in the United States.

[Trebuchet]

I've been convinced for years that during the 1970's and 1980's the big three automakers deliberately and consciously made bad small cars so that customers would buy the more profitable large ones. Hence the Vega, Pinto, and all too many others. They ended up turning the market over to Japan, Inc.

My wife had a Chevette when we married. A complete piece of junk, for which she had paid $1000 more than I had for my first-generation Honda Accord at about the same time. And hers was a demo with 5000 miles on it.

Back slightly on topic, I did watch the video. Apparently in the TV business, 2800 MPG = 3000 MPG. Round numbers are just easier. At least they acknowledged that the vehicles are impractical.

[Kaptain K]

After all, they have everything to lose.

The US auto industry has nothing to lose except (US) employees which they consider "liabilities" anyway.As long as they can operate offshore plants and buy cars from foreign mfrs, they don't care! The only ones with anything to lose are the "grunts" who actually build the cars!

Ford, GM and Chrysler (already a division of Daimler-Benz) are not in the business of making cars. They are in the business of making money and if they can do that without having to deal with the dirty business of actually building them, that's fine with them (especially if top management can still get their obscene salaries for making such brilliant business decisions).

[mugaliens]

There are 3.94 kilocalories per gram.

When I right my bicycle, I average around 20 mph, which according to this calculator (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm)says I'm generating 337 watts and burning 1159 calories per hour, which is 1.159 kilocalories per hour. (the kilocalorie, or "large calorie" is the one commonly referred to as the "calorie" with respect to food).

Thus, I consume about 3.399482312 grams of sugar per hour to go 20 mph on a level surface.

That's just 0.11991321 ounces of sugar per hour, or 166.7872956 miles per ounce; also 2668.596729 miles per pound.

I don't know what the density of sugar is, otherwise I'd give you a figure for miles per gallon of sugar...

Sounds pretty efficient to me.

[Dragon Star]

http://www.sugartech.co.za/density/index.php

You could probably go with that for an estimate.

[Nick Theodorakis]

... Chrysler (already a division of Daimler-Benz) ...

Not any more.

Nick

[Neverfly]

Mildly altered:
Not any more.

Nick

Kaptain K also recently said "Ma Bell.":lol:

[Amber Robot]

When I right my bicycle, I average around 20 mph, which according to this calculator (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm)says I'm generating 337 watts and burning 1159 calories per hour, which is 1.159 kilocalories per hour. (the kilocalorie, or "large calorie" is the one commonly referred to as the "calorie" with respect to food).

It looks to me like that calculator displays its answer in kilocalories, not calories. So you might be off by a factor of 1000.

[SpaceShot]

The US auto industry has nothing to lose except (US) employees which they consider "liabilities" anyway.As long as they can operate offshore plants and buy cars from foreign mfrs, they don't care! The only ones with anything to lose are the "grunts" who actually build the cars!

I thought the big foreign auto makers moved manufacturing onshore precisely to get around import/export restrictions. So workers here in the US are "manufacturing" the car. This is a loose term.

Can Americans Still Build Cars? (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/can-americans-s.html)

Disclaimer: As a short survey article, there is likely another side to the story that more "foreign" plants are opening here.

[mike alexander]

mugaliens wrote:

There are 3.94 kilocalories per gram.

When I right my bicycle, I average around 20 mph, which according to this calculator says I'm generating 337 watts and burning 1159 calories per hour, which is 1.159 kilocalories per hour. (the kilocalorie, or "large calorie" is the one commonly referred to as the "calorie" with respect to food).

Thus, I consume about 3.399482312 grams of sugar per hour to go 20 mph on a level surface.

That's just 0.11991321 ounces of sugar per hour, or 166.7872956 miles per ounce; also 2668.596729 miles per pound.

I don't know what the density of sugar is, otherwise I'd give you a figure for miles per gallon of sugar...

Sounds pretty efficient to me.

I think you have an error in your calculation. The caloric content of 1 gram of sugar is 4 Calories as noted, but that value (large C) is in kilocalories. If you are generating 337 watts as you ride, that's 337 watt-hours after one hour. 1 watt-hour is equivalent to 0.86 Calories (860 calories), so you are burning approx 290 Calories, needing 72 grams of sugar, or about 2.5 ounces.

A back of the envelope calculation for a 2,400 lb car with 20 mi/gal consumption driving at 20 mph for 1 hr looks like it uses the equivalent of 4-5 oz of sugar per hour(estimating different energy density for hydrocarbons) per 160 lb of car (to compare with a 160 lb human). So roughly the human appears to be about twice as efficient as the car on a per-pound basis.

But remember that a lot of your heat generation is to keep you warm, not to do work.

(someone else might want to check my numbers. I did them quick)

[doghater]

I think you have an error in your calculation. The caloric content of 1 gram of sugar is 4 Calories as noted, but that value (large C) is in kilocalories. If you are generating 337 watts as you ride, that's 337 watt-hours after one hour. 1 watt-hour is equivalent to 0.86 Calories (860 calories), so you are burning approx 290 Calories, needing 72 grams of sugar, or about 2.5 ounces.

A back of the envelope calculation for a 2,400 lb car with 20 mi/gal consumption driving at 20 mph for 1 hr looks like it uses the equivalent of 4-5 oz of sugar per hour(estimating different energy density for hydrocarbons) per 160 lb of car (to compare with a 160 lb human). So roughly the human appears to be about twice as efficient as the car on a per-pound basis.

But remember that a lot of your heat generation is to keep you warm, not to do work.

(someone else might want to check my numbers. I did them quick)

I lack the ability to determine who is more efficient. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the end result were to be that a purpose-built machine to move a person from one place to another is more efficient than muscle power. But even if that were the case, I think the whole discussion rather misses a somewhat important point - if you had to ride a bicycle or walk everywhere, would you travel as much as you do when you have a car?

[mike alexander]

doghater wrote:

I think the whole discussion rather misses a somewhat important point - if you had to ride a bicycle or walk everywhere, would you travel as much as you do when you have a car?

But it's fun to occasionally use all that stuff you learned back in high school...

[Kaptain K]

Not any more.

Nick

I stand corrected! That happened while I was in the hospital and very "out of the loop".

[Tuckerfan]

There are 3.94 kilocalories per gram.

When I right my bicycle, I average around 20 mph, which according to this calculator (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm)says I'm generating 337 watts and burning 1159 calories per hour, which is 1.159 kilocalories per hour. (the kilocalorie, or "large calorie" is the one commonly referred to as the "calorie" with respect to food).

Thus, I consume about 3.399482312 grams of sugar per hour to go 20 mph on a level surface.

That's just 0.11991321 ounces of sugar per hour, or 166.7872956 miles per ounce; also 2668.596729 miles per pound.

I don't know what the density of sugar is, otherwise I'd give you a figure for miles per gallon of sugar...

Sounds pretty efficient to me.
Someone did a "real world" test and figured out that humans get around 600 MPG. A gallon of gas contains something like 33,000 calories, so the guy strapped on a calorie monitor and rode his bicycle until he'd burned that many calories and the mileage came out to around 600.

Car makers and oil companies suffer the same thing that plague many corporations: We've always done it this way, so we don't see any reason to change. Heck, the hybrid car was invented by Porsche back in 1899, but didn't take off until just a few years ago. I remember watching an interview with an auto executive talking about surprising things that they'd learned from focus groups that never occured to them. They said that consumers cared more about cars looking different from one another (i.e. a Chevy looks different from a Pontiac, etc.) than they did about the mechanicals being different, and that this was radically going to change how they designed cars. In short, this means that they couldn't grasp on their own that the owner of Cadillac wasn't bothered if the door handle mechanism on his car was the same as used on a Chevy, provided that his Caddy didn't look like a Chevy!

They fight mandated mileage increases saying that they'll never be able to meet those new levels and yet somehow always do. Back in the 1960s, Toyota developed an idle cutoff switch which improved mileage by 10%. (http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/idlecutoff.jpg) It didn't show up on cars until they started building hybrids. Oh, and don't let them kid you that they can't make hybrids get better mileage. If you don't mind voiding the warranty, it seems you can get 100 MPG in a Prius. (http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/06/mileage-maniacs-hack-toyotas-prius-for-116-mpg/)In a presumed attempt to prove questionable reports about the Prius' true fuel efficiency dead wrong, a Japanese group of mileage maniacs (or nenpimania) have assembled to push their hybrids to the brink and utilize a sly combination of hackery and zen-ish ways to elicit extreme miles per gallon figures. One such enthusiast burns his gas money on special tires, cardboard surround for the engine bay (saywha?), and blocks of foam rubber that occupy the grill, and somehow manages about 100 mpg by "hacking into the Toyota's computer" and carefully manipulating the accelerator with just his large toe.

[Larry Jacks]

Not necessarily. I remember the Japanese 'invasion' and the response by Detroit was to go to Congress to get import quotas.

Yes, and they continued to lose market share. Had they had the magic technology that allowed them to suddenly make high gas mileage cars, it would've been in their interest to use it. That was my point. To imply that the auto companies would willingly decline to use such technology (in some benevalent gesture to the oil companies, perhaps?) at their own expense is stretching belief quite thin.

The US auto industry has nothing to lose except (US) employees which they consider "liabilities" anyway.As long as they can operate offshore plants and buy cars from foreign mfrs, they don't care! The only ones with anything to lose are the "grunts" who actually build the cars!

Ford, GM and Chrysler (already a division of Daimler-Benz) are not in the business of making cars. They are in the business of making money and if they can do that without having to deal with the dirty business of actually building them, that's fine with them (especially if top management can still get their obscene salaries for making such brilliant business decisions).

For many years, American auto companies produced poorly assembled, poorly designed and overpriced junk. While the poorly designed part wasn't the fault of the factory workers, the poorly assembled part was. When American car buyers saw the opportunity to purchase cars that weren't junk, they jumped to the imports. Most will likely never go back. The American auto companies (execs and their employees) have ultimately screwed themselves.

[NEOWatcher]

... Oh, and don't let them kid you that they can't make hybrids get better mileage. If you don't mind voiding the warranty, it seems you can get 100 MPG in a Prius. (http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/06/mileage-maniacs-hack-toyotas-prius-for-116-mpg/)
Well; did you see how that group drives? There's no way your going to get anyone to drive that way.

There was a video report linked somewhere on the board on this group, but I can't find it. I thought it was in this one here (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/44784-who-killed-electric-car-2.html) somewhere...
But; one of the things they did was to add a plug for recharging (I'd like to verify that). At that point it's no longer a fair comparison.

Plus; how many of those tweaks can be made reliable enough to pass tough transportation safety regulations, strong enough to withstand years of use, or good enough to not get a bad reputation for falling apart, or not cost a fortune in warrenty repairs? (inhale)

I am disappointed that they aren't combining technologies yet. I'd like to see a lot of choices in a plug-in, flex-fuel, hybrid car.

[Larry Jacks]

I am disappointed that they aren't combining technologies yet. I'd like to see a lot of choices in a plug-in, flex-fuel, hybrid car.

I don't know if you've heard of it, but Chevy (of all companies) is working on an interesting car called the Volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt). Unlike hybrids by Toyota or others, the Volt is primarily an electric car. However, it can carry a small internal combustion engine to supplement the battery power and extend the range. The engine can be gas, flex fuel, or even a diesel. Another possibility a bit further in the future is to use a fuel cell to augment the battery power. It's a pretty interesting concept that Chevy hopes to have ready for the market within the next few years. Of course, with any electric car, battery technology is the limiting factor but they seem to be making good progress. If they can make them for a reasonable price and assemble them so they don't fall apart, I'll seriously consider buying one for my next car.

[Kaptain K]

For many years, American auto companies produced poorly assembled, poorly designed and overpriced junk. While the poorly designed part wasn't the fault of the factory workers, the poorly assembled part was. When American car buyers saw the opportunity to purchase cars that weren't junk, they jumped to the imports. Most will likely never go back. The American auto companies (execs and their employees) have ultimately screwed themselves.

Although I agree with you, most of your points still reflect back on management attitudes.

Yes, cars were poorly designed, Why? Because engineers couldn't get an idea past management unless it made the cars cheaper to build.

Again, cars were poorly built because those at the top were more concerned with build quantity than build quantity. Lord help the assembly worker who stopped the line to correct an error (we'll fix it in final inspection!).

I am one of those that will never go back! Japan Inc is not only on the cutting edge of technology, but their employees are encouraged to screw them together right the first time! South Korean companies have learned (and are still learning) from Japan and are moving up fast!

[NEOWatcher]

I don't know if you've heard of it, but Chevy (of all companies) is working on an interesting car called the Volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt).
Yes; I am very well aware of it.
It is also very expensive, and seems like it's the only one reaching the market. Now; I understand the expensive part, and hopefully this is the start of the trickle of affordibility. (in the way HDTV has dropped in price)

But; we have been hearing them "work on it" for decades with many technologies, primarily each time there is an energy crunch. What happens? They either don't make it happen, or do something to make it fall flat on thier face.
Examples;
The Wankel engine...the result was the Monza.
The Cadillac V8-6-4... it finally took them 2-1/2 decades to get that one working.
The GM's answer to diesel cars...

The other issue I have, is that the hybrid has now been out for years, and really hasn't improved. There have been no incremental improvements (seemingly). Again; what would it take to add a plug-in option to Prius? With my driving habits, even a 10 mile range will leave me with 50% driving off the grid.

[Tuckerfan]

Well; did you see how that group drives? There's no way your going to get anyone to drive that way.

There was a video report linked somewhere on the board on this group, but I can't find it. I thought it was in this one here (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/44784-who-killed-electric-car-2.html) somewhere...
But; one of the things they did was to add a plug for recharging (I'd like to verify that). At that point it's no longer a fair comparison.

Plus; how many of those tweaks can be made reliable enough to pass tough transportation safety regulations, strong enough to withstand years of use, or good enough to not get a bad reputation for falling apart, or not cost a fortune in warrenty repairs? (inhale)

I am disappointed that they aren't combining technologies yet. I'd like to see a lot of choices in a plug-in, flex-fuel, hybrid car.
There's a number of folks hacking their hybrids to add things like plug-in capability, and they're not just kids, but engineers (that just happened to be the link I had handy), and I doubt that the mods the engineers make are ones which won't be reliable.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the Chevy Volt, GM's lowering expectations about when they'll be released and their price. Seems battery technology is turning out to be a bit of a bugaboo for them. Also, if they were adopted en masse, the electrical grid would implode in some places as it wouldn't be able to handle the added demand.

If you don't mind looking like a goofball, you can build a car like this (http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6omtd/jorysquibb/) and get around 100 MPG.

[novaderrik]

Yes; I am very well aware of it.
It is also very expensive, and seems like it's the only one reaching the market. Now; I understand the expensive part, and hopefully this is the start of the trickle of affordibility. (in the way HDTV has dropped in price)

But; we have been hearing them "work on it" for decades with many technologies, primarily each time there is an energy crunch. What happens? They either don't make it happen, or do something to make it fall flat on thier face.
Examples;
The Wankel engine...the result was the Monza.
The Cadillac V8-6-4... it finally took them 2-1/2 decades to get that one working.
The GM's answer to diesel cars...

The other issue I have, is that the hybrid has now been out for years, and really hasn't improved. There have been no incremental improvements (seemingly). Again; what would it take to add a plug-in option to Prius? With my driving habits, even a 10 mile range will leave me with 50% driving off the grid.

earlier on, someone dissed the Vega, and now you are dissing it's H body sibling the Monza..
they were good cars- but they came out in a time when everything else was HUGE and overbuilt. yeah, some of them fell apart after 5 or 6 years- mostly due to the owners not taking care of them like they should have- but they were GM's first tentative steps into a totally new way of building cars. but the best part of the Vega/Monza is that a big gas guzzling V8 practically drops right in once the stock 4 cylinder dies..
everyone always says how crappy the quality of American cars is, but take a look around sometime and take a tally of what kinds of cars you see out there that are more than 5 years old. the average 5 year old Honda will be in much worse shape than the average 5 year old Chevy or Ford. my 94 Chrysler LHS has over 160,000 miles on it and still drives like new and is probably the most comfortable road car i've ever had. i'm now driving a 1997 Chevy Cavalier that has 175,000 miles on it and it has no creaks or rattles, drives straight and true, has very little rust, and the engine- a 2.2 liter cam in block, pushrod activated OHV 2 valve design that does back to about 1982- runs pretty dang good and knocks down over 30mpg. show me an 11 year old Honda or Mazda or Toyota in the same category with similar mileage that still works as well as my Cavvy does, and i'll be impressed...

[NEOWatcher]

earlier on, someone dissed the Vega, and now you are dissing it's H body sibling the Monza..
Well; my slam was intened to target the GM's rotary attempt. You do make some good points, but there are many local variations on your whole theme. Around here, in that era, very few cars lasted 5 years and it had nothing to do with maintenance. (I would guess your area isn't much different, although we have had more pollutants historically)

I had a Vega myself. It was a good performing economical car for the time, even though it drank oil like it was going out of style. Aluminum blocks were still being perfected. But; In the end, the frame virtually disintigrated and rest of the car (including body panels) were still in good shape.

everyone always says how crappy the quality of American cars is, but take a look around sometime and take a tally of what kinds of cars you see out there that are more than 5 years old.
That depends very highly on the type of car, the model year or era and region. I see foreign trucks not hold up, but I normally see foreign small cars hold up. But; that's an impression throughout many decades.
Some of us older folks remember the 70's and 80's when the US was trying to match the imports (efficiency-wise). There were many flops that remain in peoples minds.
On the other hand, foriegn cars have some bad memories of parts availability.
In the end, I would love to see some confirmation on the numbers in a detailed manner.
...my 94 Chrysler LHS ...i'm now driving a 1997 Chevy Cavalier...
Have you owned an import to see if you can match the same success? I've known a few people with 6 figure milage on Hondas as well as domestic.
I had an '87 cav myself. 7 years, never been to a mechanic. My ex had an '87 also... we had lots of problems with that one.

[Kaptain K]

show me an 11 year old Honda or Mazda or Toyota in the same category with similar mileage that still works as well as my Cavvy does, and i'll be impressed...
Mine, for one! 96 Honda Civic DX, 160K miles, 30-36mpg!

[Trebuchet]

I drive an '85 Honda CRX and an '88 Mazda pickup. (This was when Mazda pickups were actually Mazdas, not rebadged Fords.) Both are still solid. The last American car I had (or will ever have) was an '86 Mercury Sable. What a piece of junk, although comfortable to ride in.

Honda in particular had rust problems in the '70s, but those days are long gone.

[Larry Jacks]

Again, cars were poorly built because those at the top were more concerned with build quantity than build quantity. Lord help the assembly worker who stopped the line to correct an error (we'll fix it in final inspection!).

A lot of the blame for poorly built cars has to go to the employees on the assembly line. Remember the concerns about buying a car built on a Monday or a Friday? According to what I read, you didn't want to buy a Monday car because a significant percentage of the employees were still hung over from the weekend. You didn't want a Friday car either because they were looking forward to the weekend and were doing shoddy work. Eliminating the Monday and Friday cars from consideration was effectively ridding 40% of their production. Hard to blame management for that.

I've known people who worked on the assembly lines. One guy told me that he wasn't allowed to join the union until he'd worked there for some time (perhaps 3 months, IIRC). He said his job was to put on a metal plate held on by 4 screws. It was so easy that he could work ahead of the line and then take a break. When his probationary period was over, the union shop steward told him to knock it off because he was making the other employees look bad. He was told that he really didn't need to put in all 4 of those screws, either. At the time, they practically had to have another assembly line (with many more employees) to go correct the crap that was produced the first time through. Hard to blame management for that, either.

After a while, he quit the job. He said that he talked to some friends still working there. The guy they hired to replace him couldn't keep up with the line even when only putting in 2 of the screws so they had to hire another guy to help him. Hard to blame management for that.

Admittedly, this story was told to me a long time ago. The quality of American built cars is much better today. But the Japanese didn't stop improving their quality either. I believe that car commercial (Ford?) that claims their quality is better than Toyota is a flat out lie.

The American auto industry is in trouble. Management sure is responsible for much of the problems but many problems are the fault of the workers and the unions. They were so convinced that they could continue to build crap and that people would keep on buying it.

[Dragon Star]

I cruise around in my 2007 Dodge Ram Single Cab V6 SXT, with aftermarket chip and forced air intake, I get around 19-24mpg. :) Not bad for a truck, IMO. Costs me about $70 to fill it up on empty though with a 26 gallon tank. :(

[Larry Jacks]

everyone always says how crappy the quality of American cars is, but take a look around sometime and take a tally of what kinds of cars you see out there that are more than 5 years old. the average 5 year old Honda will be in much worse shape than the average 5 year old Chevy or Ford. my 94 Chrysler LHS has over 160,000 miles on it and still drives like new and is probably the most comfortable road car i've ever had. i'm now driving a 1997 Chevy Cavalier that has 175,000 miles on it and it has no creaks or rattles, drives straight and true, has very little rust, and the engine- a 2.2 liter cam in block, pushrod activated OHV 2 valve design that does back to about 1982- runs pretty dang good and knocks down over 30mpg. show me an 11 year old Honda or Mazda or Toyota in the same category with similar mileage that still works as well as my Cavvy does, and i'll be impressed...

My coworker had well over 160,000 miles in his Toyota Camry (about 15 years old) when he wrecked it. Until that time, it had never needed anything more than routine maintenance (tires, brakes, etc). Show me an American car that can make that claim and I'll be impressed.

I've owned both American built vehicles and imports. My current car is a 2001 Honda CRV with 82,000 miles on it. Other than routine maintenance and repairs from getting caught in a hailstorm, it has been completely trouble free. No American built vehicle that I've ever owned came close to that level of quality. My Honda still holds a high percentage of its original value unlike every American built vehicle's resale value at a similar age. The ability to hold resale value is based on the market perception of quality. Toyota and Honda hold their values very well. I've never seen an American built car that did as well.

[mike alexander]

Larry Jacks wrote:

Remember the concerns about buying a car built on a Monday or a Friday? According to what I read, you didn't want to buy a Monday car because a significant percentage of the employees were still hung over from the weekend. You didn't want a Friday car either because they were looking forward to the weekend and were doing shoddy work. Eliminating the Monday and Friday cars from consideration was effectively ridding 40% of their production. Hard to blame management for that.

I remember stories about it. I don't recall hard followups to show it was true (perhaps akin to the discovery that 40% of sick days were taken on Monday or Friday, or that half of all workers are below average). The stretch to eliminating the entire production of those days seems a... stretch. Unless it was those hordes of drunken Irishmen staggering into the plant on Monday morning, arms linked and singing "Mother Machree" in poor harmony.

He said his job was to put on a metal plate held on by 4 screws. It was so easy that he could work ahead of the line and then take a break. When his probationary period was over, the union shop steward told him to knock it off because he was making the other employees look bad. He was told that he really didn't need to put in all 4 of those screws, either. At the time, they practically had to have another assembly line (with many more employees) to go correct the crap that was produced the first time through. Hard to blame management for that, either.

Depending on how I parse the above, I can certainly blame management. If jobs are so terribly unbalanced in a production sequence that intermediates pile up at a given station they have either hired incompetent production engineers or aren't listening to them.

[Larry Jacks]

You can't seem to hold workers responsible for poor work habits and sloppy workmanship. No, it seems you blame management for everything. If that's your opinion, fine, but it doesn't excuse the employees for doing shoddy work IMO. People have to accept responsibility for their actions and that includes the workers and the unions that represent them.

[Moose]

My coworker had well over 160,000 miles in his Toyota Camry (about 15 years old) when he wrecked it. Until that time, it had never needed anything more than routine maintenance (tires, brakes, etc). Show me an American car that can make that claim and I'll be impressed.

I fully expect to make it that far with my own Corolla. Only 70,000kms, just about to complete my fifth year now, the thing is still in the same superb condition it was in when I got it.

My father is on his third Toyota (well, two Toyotas and a Lexus). He had no trouble at all with any of them, nor did he have any trouble with the Datsun. The Capri was okay, but as it was built by three car makers from three different countries, I'm told it was a major pain to get parts for.

The GMs and Fords he had beforehand, however... The Lumina was a lemon, pure and simple. So was the Ford Monarch, which didn't even make it home from the dealership.) The '76 (wait, it might have been a ' 67, let me think about it) Cutlass was a tank and lasted a good while, and I had fond memories of it, but the '88 Cutlass was pure meh.

[NEOWatcher]

So was the Ford Monarch, which didn't even make it home from the dealership.)
oooH. Help us with that one. Over here it was the Mercury Monarch, and the model spanned two drastically different models (in other words a drastic remake or re-labelling). It equated to the Ford Granada, and the Ford Fairmont. Maybe a year will help. We had a 78 Fairmont (the 4cyl version). We got it to last a while, but it was lacking in many ways the whole time.

[Spock Jenkins]

....average 5 year old Honda will be in much worse shape than the average 5 year old Chevy or Ford. my 94 Chrysler LHS has over 160,000 miles on it and still drives like new and is probably the most comfortable road car i've ever had. i'm now driving a 1997 Chevy Cavalier that has 175,000 miles on it and it has no creaks or rattles, drives straight and true, has very little rust, and the engine- a 2.2 liter cam in block, pushrod activated OHV 2 valve design that does back to about 1982- runs pretty dang good and knocks down over 30mpg. show me an 11 year old Honda or Mazda or Toyota in the same category with similar mileage that still works as well as my Cavvy does, and i'll be impressed...

Having been a life long American car consumer who grew up in the heart of the domestic auto industry - I disagree. I recently switched to buying Honda's over domestic. My wife had a Chevy and an Oldsmobile. I've driven three different Chevy's and one old Dodge. We only had one American Car that wasn't suffering from either brake issues very early or electrical issues throughout the life of the vehicle. One car in particular was drivable after 100,000 miles only in the sense that I was familiar with it enough that I could handle all the wiggles and shakes. It wasn't worth pouring money into to get it road worthy again because domestics lose resale value so fast. The Oldsmobile in particular started having electrical issues inside of 10,000 miles. We replaced the battery under warranty, then had the same issues. We finally got a Diehard battery because the GM product was so bad. Other issues still continued. Unreliable starts, brakes quick to wear out, interior quality was horrible. We less than 65,000 miles on it when we got rid of that one.

Our Honda has almost 50,000 miles on it. So far, other than standard filter replacements and tire rotation, we put gas in it and change the oil regularly. Not a lick of trouble. The only domestic we didn't have trouble with we ended up parting with for practical reasons so it had less than 50,000 miles. Can't say what would've come of it if we kept it. Might have been fine - but I'm just as happy not knowing. Besides - our domestics were mostly built in Canada while our foreign cars are built in the United States - so I'm supporting the domestic worker.

[Kaptain K]

You can't seem to hold workers responsible for poor work habits and sloppy workmanship. No, it seems you blame management for everything. If that's your opinion, fine, but it doesn't excuse the employees for doing shoddy work IMO. People have to accept responsibility for their actions and that includes the workers and the unions that represent them.

Why shouldn't we hold management responsible for all the bad? They take all the credit for anything good that happens, and reward themselves with obscene bonuses and/or raises for them!

[Spock Jenkins]

[I]The American auto industry is in trouble. Management sure is responsible for much of the problems but many problems are the fault of the workers and the unions. They were so convinced that they could continue to build crap and that people would keep on buying it.

And as bad as Michigan's economy is relative to the rest of the nation, and the jobs leaving by the thousands - the Union's still advertise here. "Right to work. It's bad for Michigan's workers and bad for Michigan." No - it's bad for the Unions. Some jobs might actually stay if it wasn't a forced Union situation here.

Might be getting in to politics though.

[Moose]

The guy they hired to replace him couldn't keep up with the line even when only putting in 2 of the screws so they had to hire another guy to help him. Hard to blame management for that.

Not hard at all. They put him on the assembly line before they were certain he could handle the work they expected him to do. That worker didn't hire himself.

[Moose]

oooH. Help us with that one.

Late 60s model, I think, maybe as late as '72. Dad bought it (and returned it) before I was born. Dad never really felt the need to talk about it very much, but he mentioned it a few times in my lifetime. I've never actually seen one on the road (and given Dad's story, I never really expected to.) He referred to it as a "Ford Monarch", but it's possible he was fudging the name the same way one might called a Chev or Olds a GM. Or maybe I'm misremembering the telling entirely.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

I think it depends on the specific car. My mom's C5 'Vettes and my fourth generation F-bodies held up great, some over 100k miles, without a single non-scheduled maintenance trip. Then again, my 2 year old Grand Prix GXP, with just over 20k miles, is already showing signs of a variety of problems. Some of my friends, who drive mostly imports, have reported the same variation in quality from model to model. I'd love to see some unbiased statistics on this to see what the truth really is, but I doubt you'll see the same level of quality across any company's entire product line.

I've decided not to buy from GM ever again, but that's more due to their handling of the situation with my GXP than any perception of inferior quality. Still hoping I can trade up to a 'Bluestar' once Tesla gets that far...

[Larry Jacks]

Why shouldn't we hold management responsible for all the bad? They take all the credit for anything good that happens, and reward themselves with obscene bonuses and/or raises for them!

And I guess you believe that the unions, union rules, and strikes have nothing to do with the auto industry's problems?

[novaderrik]

Well; my slam was intened to target the GM's rotary attempt. You do make some good points, but there are many local variations on your whole theme. Around here, in that era, very few cars lasted 5 years and it had nothing to do with maintenance. (I would guess your area isn't much different, although we have had more pollutants historically)

I had a Vega myself. It was a good performing economical car for the time, even though it drank oil like it was going out of style. Aluminum blocks were still being perfected. But; In the end, the frame virtually disintigrated and rest of the car (including body panels) were still in good shape.


That depends very highly on the type of car, the model year or era and region. I see foreign trucks not hold up, but I normally see foreign small cars hold up. But; that's an impression throughout many decades.
Some of us older folks remember the 70's and 80's when the US was trying to match the imports (efficiency-wise). There were many flops that remain in peoples minds.
On the other hand, foriegn cars have some bad memories of parts availability.
In the end, I would love to see some confirmation on the numbers in a detailed manner.

Have you owned an import to see if you can match the same success? I've known a few people with 6 figure milage on Hondas as well as domestic.
I had an '87 cav myself. 7 years, never been to a mechanic. My ex had an '87 also... we had lots of problems with that one.
i don't own imports- the only 2 imports i've ever had were a mid 90's Mazda 323 and an early 90's Subaru. i got them cheap (like $200 each cheap) and pounded them mercilessly for about a month each before deciding that i hated driving them- even at 35mpg. and the way the Mazda had a relay for each relay on each individual circuit- which made for some neat electrical gremlins- and ignition modules that went out about once a week kind of put me off of them.
but my observation about the durability of cars wasn't based on my experience or people i know- it's what i see every day. the people i know take care of their cars so they tend to last, but the general public isn't usually so good about things like that, so by just paying attention to what you see you can notice some trends.
granted, i don't live in a major metropolitan area where imported cars are more prevalent, but the imports i do see- the Hondas and Mazdas and Toyotas and Hyundais and what not- tend to look pretty ragged by the time they hit about 5 years old, where more of the domestic cars i see- the Chevies and Fords and Dodges and what not- tend to hold up better over time. and i hardly ever see any Japanese cars that are over 10 years old, but there are a LOT of older American cars running around these parts- cars like mid 80's Chevy Citations and Ford Tempos and what not. hell, there are even a few old Monza's running around these parts. granted, they are all rusty and looking pretty ragged- but i see at least one of them every day.
and knowing a few people that work as mechanics, i've heard stories about how expensive it can be to own a "reliable" japanese car.. a junkyard transmission that might cost $500 installed for an American car will be a few thousand $$$ for a Honda, and heaven forbid you warp the head on that Honda with VTEC (or whatever it's called).

[Moose]

And I guess you believe that the unions, union rules, and strikes have nothing to do with the auto industry's problems?

False dichotomy, and a bit... odd... since you appear to be arguing the polar opposite.

[Larry Jacks]

When I see a new car with poorly hung doors, I blame the workers who put on the doors, not the manager who may not be able to do anything due to union work rules.

[Dragon Star]

You can say I'm biased, but in my life Dodge has been a very good vehicle. I can only actually vouch for the trucks from personal experience though. My dad's boss about 11 years ago now bought a Dodge 2500 and beat the hell out of that thing, it was used as a personal truck for him for 4 years, and then he assigned the truck as promotional/work truck for his company. (he was a Contractor).

11 years, a few big dents, towing loads (heavy machinery) twice the towing capacity rating on a regular basis, 212,000 miles, a tornado, and numerous insane off-road stories later... still runs like a champ through the hills of Ohio. Tough? I think so...and this is why I drive a Dodge today. :)

At the same time we had a 96' Dodge Ram 3500 V10 dually ourselves, which didn't die until around 140,000 miles when the guy who bought it drove it into a telephone pole at an estimated 45mph. Guy didn't have much injury all things considered, but the truck wasn't so lucky.

[sarongsong]

There's a number of folks hacking their hybrids...Hmmh...April 25, 2008
Troy Anderson was at the gas pump and couldn't have been happier, filling up at a rate of $5 per tank...paying 63.8 cents per gallon equivalent for compressed natural gas, making Utah [where the fuel is cheap] a hot market for vehicles that run on the fuel...
physorg (http://physorg.com/news128317046.html)

[Tuckerfan]

And AZ nearly went bankrupt handing out tax credits to folks who bought such vehicles. There's plenty of alternatives out there, what's lacking is the will to actually use those things. The argument thrown out by those who claim the alternatives "aren't ready for prime time" is that we lack the infrastructure, which, to some extent is true, however, in many cases, it's not all that difficult to correct this. Switching a car over to propane isn't all that difficult (and the costs could be taken care of with tax credits for folks who can't afford to pay for the conversion), and many gas stations sell tanks of propane. Propane kits and diesel engines can easily be incorporated into assembly lines, so the costs to automakers to produce new vehicles so equipped would be minimal.

[Kaptain K]

Why shouldn't we hold management responsible for all the bad? They take all the credit for anything good that happens, and reward themselves with obscene bonuses and/or raises for them!

And I guess you believe that the unions, union rules, and strikes have nothing to do with the auto industry's problems?

Unions and union leaders are closer to management than they are to the workers they "represent".

[danscope]

earlier on, someone dissed the Vega, and now you are dissing it's H body sibling the Monza..
they were good cars- but they came out in a time when everything else was HUGE and overbuilt. yeah, some of them fell apart after 5 or 6 years- mostly due to the owners not taking care of them like they should have- but they were GM's first tentative steps into a totally new way of building cars. but the best part of the Vega/Monza is that a big gas guzzling V8 practically drops right in once the stock 4 cylinder dies..
everyone always says how crappy the quality of American cars is, but take a look around sometime and take a tally of what kinds of cars you see out there that are more than 5 years old. the average 5 year old Honda will be in much worse shape than the average 5 year old Chevy or Ford. my 94 Chrysler LHS has over 160,000 miles on it and still drives like new and is probably the most comfortable road car i've ever had. i'm now driving a 1997 Chevy Cavalier that has 175,000 miles on it and it has no creaks or rattles, drives straight and true, has very little rust, and the engine- a 2.2 liter cam in block, pushrod activated OHV 2 valve design that does back to about 1982- runs pretty dang good and knocks down over 30mpg. show me an 11 year old Honda or Mazda or Toyota in the same category with similar mileage that still works as well as my Cavvy does, and i'll be impressed...

Hi, I had a 75 monza with a 262 V-8 in it. Loved the car. Put a hundred miles on it every day. I cried when the front end rusted beyond redemption.
But I only paid $450 for it in the first place....so....:)

A pity we can't have a chassis to bolt stuff on to. :(
I just found an 8 Jeep CJ 5 . Yep, it has a chassis, and I can plow with it
without an air bag killing me..and.....it has a carburator!!!!!!!! :):):):)
My Grand Cherokee can't plow....no way...no how..
Life in the sticks.
Best regards, Dan

[neilzero]

What would drive for the ultimate fuel economy?
150 MPG (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/69027-150-miles-per-gallon.html)?
No wait...there's more.
157 MPG (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/38863-157-mpg-car-go-sale-germany-3.html)?
But we don't stop there, how about
1800 MPG (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/16034-hydrogen-car-gets-1800-mpg.html)?

We can now offer you 3000 miles per gallon (http://www.wkyc.com/news/national/news_article.aspx?storyid=87759)!!! Yes sir. For just one low price of extensive engineering, and lots of publicity and hype, you too can own a one of a kind product to cloud the issue of what the vehicle really runs on.
Most of the MPG = miles per gallon improvements that are practical have already been made. We get 100 MPG by making the vehical smaller, lighter, costlier, slower, less convenient, less safe, reduced accelleration, and/or more areodynamic. Carried to extreems the vehicle has little utility for most customers applications resulting in reduced sales and mostly unhappy owners. Neil

[Kaptain K]

There is one way to significantly improve gas mileage. Both propane and natural gas have very high "octane" ratings (resistance to detonation - knocking). An engine optimized for these fuels can use very high compression ratios without ill effects. Although most think of high compression in terms of horsepower, it also improves mileage in engines that are optimized for it.

[sarongsong]

Thanks!...An engine optimized for these fuels...Elaborating on "optimized", from an engine conversion-kit supplier (http://www.omnitekcorp.com/altfuel.htm):...enables diesel and gasoline engines to operate on natural gas or Propane...The key to the technology is a sophisticated electronic control unit (ECU) which senses engine parameters in real time and instantly adjusts to deliver the correct amount of fuel and the correct ignition timing...Complete Kit only $1,828...
Schematic Product Sheet (http://www.omnitekcorp.com/images/systemCU468.pdf) (.pdf)

[Tuckerfan]

Its a little more complicated than that. A converted engine will work fine, of course, but it doesn't have quite the torque (or "oomph" in non-automotive parlance) as a gasoline engine. Scratch building one with the idea that it will run on propane/CNG would correct this.

[danscope]

We have to optimize our engine designs for the fuels we can get with an eye toward MPG vs costs , and be willing to step into a modern world. If you are still
lugging 6500 pounds around to commute to work by yourself, you are not adjusting. You are jousting with the general public . Along with smaller cars with better aerodynamics is a society that clamps down on the type A nut jobs
trying to run everyone down while doing 90mph. Their days are numbered.
The "Privilige" of driving a motor vehicle will be safely laid in the deserving
hands of people who drive "nice" and have manners such that everyone can drive safely to their destination in a 1000 pound vehicle without fear of
some nut tailgating them . The nuts will be riding the bus. Times are changing.

Dan

[sarongsong]

Its a little more complicated than that...Scratch building one with the idea that it will run on propane/CNG would correct this.Omnitek offers those, too, but no mention of price that I could find on their site:...Under Solution #2 (#1 being the conversion kits), Omnitek supplies complete low-polluting alternative fuel engines in 4 and 6 cylinder configurations...The dedicated alternative fuel engines can meet EURO II, EURO III and EURO IV standards...Can't be cheap! :)

[NEOWatcher]

Most of the MPG = miles per gallon improvements that are practical have already been made. We get 100 MPG by making the vehical smaller, lighter, costlier, slower, less convenient, less safe, reduced accelleration, and/or more areodynamic...
That depends on what you consider practical. Currently, around 1% of a vehicle's power is to propel the driver*. Now; we will never recoup the other 99% of that; but, I'm sure there can be continued improvements on that with a certain level of acceptance.
Carried to extreems the vehicle has little utility for most customers applications resulting in reduced sales and mostly unhappy owners. Neil
Right: and part of the issue is that for such a large expenditure, you need to buy at least what you will need for the most vigorous use you will encounter. (some go way beyond that, but that's another issue).
There are other solutions to overcome this, but it's a major change in the way of thinking.

*Statistic from NOVA: Car of the future (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/) (hosted Click and Clack, the Car Talk guys)
They discussed a lot of the issues in technology, infrastructure, and perception. Very informative. Unfortunately, I was left with the impression that the technology is not progressing as fast as I thought it was.