Fuel Saving Thread: Motoring Tips & Tricks

[mheslep]

...You can now bid on a 150mpg Toyota Prius plug in hybrid on ebay.

150 seems inflated. The PHEV Prius modified by google reports ~93mpg avg, 115mpg peak.
http://www.google.org/recharge/experiment/

 

[russ_watters]

150 seems inflated. The PHEV Prius modified by google reports ~93mpg avg, 115mpg peak.
http://www.google.org/recharge/experiment/

It's not inflated, it's just that "fuel economy" is a completely meaningless concept when talking about plug-in hybrids. If you take a short trip and never need to turn on the engine, the "fuel economy" would be infinite. If you take a long trip and run on the engine for 90% of it, the fuel economy will be more like 35-40 mpg.

There are federal standards for fuel economy ratings, but they probably have not been updated to cover plug-in hybrids and electrics. They need to be. For pure electric vehicles, you need range and miles per kWh(a direct replacement for mpg that could even use the same test) under city and highway driving. For plug-in hybrids, you need the same thing, plus and city and highway mpg for pure engine operation.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's not inflated, it's just that "fuel economy" is a completely meaningless concept when talking about plug-in hybrids. If you take a short trip and never need to turn on the engine, the "fuel economy" would be infinite. If you take a long trip and run on the engine for 90% of it, the fuel economy will be more like 35-40 mpg.

There are federal standards for fuel economy ratings, but they probably have not been updated to cover plug-in hybrids and electrics. They need to be. For pure electric vehicles, you need range and miles per kWh(a direct replacement for mpg that could even use the same test) under city and highway driving. For plug-in hybrids, you need the same thing, plus and city and highway mpg for pure engine operation.

Since the graph and statement appear to have been generated by the company which performed the modifications to the Prius, I'd say there is room for suspicion.

EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) Test Results Show 150+ MPG with L5 PCM​

They don't appear to include the energy of the battery pack in the calculations.
At 5kwh rated, it would have expended about 50 cents worth of energy over the 29.4 miles of the test. The general rule is to convert the value of the electricity into equivalent petrol costs. At $2.50/gal, this equates to 1/5 gallon. Which over 29.4 miles yields 147 mpg.

When combined with the mpg of the gas engine, we get about 75 mpg.

Still, not bad.

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't "L5 PCM" the battery capacity?? The way I read the situation is:

What a Prius mod seems to do is change the formula for mixing the battery and gas power, allowing the battery to run down further than it would under normal hybrid mode. But since the Prius wasn't designed from the ground-up to be a plug-in hybrid, it just doesn't have the range on pure battery power to run for very long. So they run with both - just with less engine than in normal hybrid mode. This gives it what appears to be about 25 mi before exhausting the battery.

It would be beneficial for a consumer to actually be able to adjust the gas/electric mix based on their commute. If they only drive 20 miles, they aren't getting the best "fuel economy" they could because they could be runnig more on battery. If they drive more than 30, they also get hurt by not having any battery power left to help accelerate - basically losing the entire main benefit of a hybrid.

 

[mgb_phys]

Even running on batteries the Prius will occasionally run the engine - I think this is to keep the cat at the correct temperature.
The prius we had at work wasn't particularly impressive - overall mileage was worse than a European sub-compact, their excuse was that it was tuned to meet emissions specs in california which only counted the emissions when it was running on gas, not the overall average.

 

[OmCheeto]

Isn't "L5 PCM" the battery capacity??

I can't keep up with acronym's anymore. Everyone seems to be speaking in them.

It would be beneficial for a consumer to actually be able to adjust the gas/electric mix based on their commute.

That's exactly how I would do it.

A 3 mode switch on the dash with little symbols for the driving situation:

: pure electric(good for dashes to the corner store, stuck in rush hour traffic, going down hills, Sunday driving): 150 mpg equivalent
: can't tell it from a pure gas fueled car(dynamic, uncertain situations): 75 mpg equivalent
: 1/4 mile dragster mode(getting on the freeway, eluding the cops, testosterone overloads): 25 mpg equivalent

The electric sections have the advantage of putting energy back into the battery pack.
Until we can figure out how to convert CO₂ and H₂O back into methane on the fly, ICE's are on my poop list.

Even running on batteries the Prius will occasionally run the engine - I think this is to keep the cat at the correct temperature.
The prius we had at work wasn't particularly impressive - overall mileage was worse than a European sub-compact, their excuse was that it was tuned to meet emissions specs in california which only counted the emissions when it was running on gas, not the overall average.

I'd say company cars would be the worst example of potential for gas mileage. I've driven with my companies couriers. If they're not paying for the gas, it's mode all day long.

I'll see if I can't get the mpg numbers from our "fleet services" department.

 

[Topher925]

The prius we had at work wasn't particularly impressive - overall mileage was worse than a European sub-compact,

You comparing apples and pumpkins. The prius is not a subcompact and is actually a fairly good sized car. Most of those 50+mpg European cars can't even hold a bag of golf clubs let alone comfortably sit 4 people.

 

[mgb_phys]

Oh I agree - it was more that 'hybrid' doesn't automatically mean super fuel economy.
A small car VW Lupo, Nissan Micra with a 1.2litre diesel will do 70mpg for a fraction of the cost.

Even in city driving VW's approach of leaving out the batteries and having a small diesel engine that can start almost instantly and so turns off if you are stationary for more than a few seconds is possibly a better aproach.

 

[brewnog]

There are federal standards for fuel economy ratings, but they probably have not been updated to cover plug-in hybrids and electrics. They need to be.

A recent article I read (I forget where, possibly The Engineer) interviewed two or three chief engineers working on hybrids. This was the primary complaint from all of them, and all their respective companies are currently lobbying governments to address this issue.

I'll try and find the article at work tomorrow, you'd find it good reading.

 

[mgb_phys]

There are federal standards for fuel economy ratings, but they probably have not been updated to cover plug-in hybrids and electrics.

They also need to be adjusted both ways - a lot of places have tax incentives for hybrids without considering how green they really are:
So Mercedes now have a hybrid option for their s400 luxury salon - it's a 300hp V6 gasoline with an 20hp electric motor, in case your CEO needs to reduce your CO2 emissions.

Our safety team has a hybrid Ford truck that is completely useless. If you go above 5mph or turn on the AC it starts the gas engine to provide enough power - the batteries can just about run the electric windows. I think the logic was, environment is good, safety is good therefore the safety guys must have a green vehicle!

 

[Topher925]

So Mercedes now have a hybrid option for their s400 luxury salon - it's a 300hp V6 gasoline with an 20hp electric motor, in case your CEO needs to reduce your CO2 emissions.

They probably have AA's powering the electric motor too. Sadly there is a lot be bureaucracy that comes with "going green". A lot of people spend money on crap like that just so they can think they are trendy and are making a difference. If you really want to save some fuel, then ride your bike like me.

 

[mgb_phys]

The UK introduced company car taxes based on the CO2 emission to discourage huge luxury company cars (or to tax the poor oppressed CEOs depending on you POV).
I'm betting Merc has found a loophole somewhere that you don't pay tax on hybrid company cars.

 

[baywax]

Side lights are compulsory over here.
Strangley my car turns them off when you put the handbrake on - even if the engine is running. It's a manual and I learned in the UK so I put the brake on like a good little safe driver everytime I stop.

Having a manual here is a great anti-theft device - people steal your car and drive off in first gear. It also means you don't have all that safety interlock crap where you can only start of the seatbelt is on, car is in neutral, feet are on the brake and you whistle the "star spangled banner" three times.

Hee hee. I dig standard for all those reasons and more... its also more gas efficient. However, you can't do cruise control which is highway gas efficient.

Yah, my solution is the Extreme Miser Driving School of Hard Knocks. This includes coasting up to red lights or... if on a hill... not accelerating. It also means coasting with no acceleration down hill. And never exceeding 50k (30mph) where posted since it is optimum (so we're told) for fuel saving measures. This gets the aggressors more aggressive so... in the long run and looking at the whole... perhaps it doesn't save gas because it gives the aggressive driver a reason to gun it!

 

[baywax]

Let's get drastic. Electric cars will save lots of gas. The first city in North America to allow completely electric cars on its streets was Oak Bay just outside of Victoria BC in Canada. The next is Vancouver. We have electric truck and car manufacturers on the Island and Mainland who are doing better and better these days. Their getting some major speed out of these things and distances of about 180 k (kilometres). This is mostly for fleet vehicles mind you. There are some fuel cell fleet vehicles trolling around as well out of Vanc.

 

[brewnog]

Hee hee. I dig standard for all those reasons and more... its also more gas efficient. However, you can't do cruise control which is highway gas efficient.

Hmm, my manual has cruise control...

 

[FredGarvin]

My manual has cruise too.

 

[turbo]

So does my wife's Subaru Legacy, and unless the terrain is very hilly, that little sucker stays right on target within a mph or 2.

 

[baywax]

Hmm, my manual has cruise control...

I had no idea. Well, it is Canada.

 

[Topher925]

I had no idea. Well, it is Canada.

Well that says it all right there.

 

[mheslep]

Let's get drastic. Electric cars will save lots of gas. The first city in North America to allow completely electric cars on its streets was Oak Bay just outside of Victoria BC in Canada. The next is Vancouver. We have electric truck and car manufacturers on the Island and Mainland who are doing better and better these days. Their getting some major speed out of these things and distances of about 180 k (kilometres). ...

Great! You buy the first round though.

 

[baywax]

Great! You buy the first round though.

They are actually converting Ford F150s and the like.

Here are some manufactured from the ground up in Quebec (home of Bombardier)

http://www.zenncars.com/

Here's the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association.

http://www.veva.bc.ca/home/index.php

Here's the full story about "Electric-car conversion alive on Vancouver Island"

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/driving/story.html?id=e0190a0b-62d6-4d09-8eb7-0ac67ae8547d

He started out converting S10s (?) and now will convert any car as long as its lighter in weight. Looks like he got some of his inspiration from the State of Arnold (California).

But, I'll buy the first round!

Anyone ignoring or frightened by the prospect of getting off gas as a propellant is going to miss out on the multitude of new opportunities that will inevitably sweep the world. The same way gasoline exploded as an economic engine, sustainable electricity will be the next wave. Would Cold Fusion help in some way in this project? If so, can it actually happen?

 

[OmCheeto]

Anyone ignoring or frightened by the prospect of getting off gas as a propellant is going to miss out on the multitude of new opportunities that will inevitably sweep the world.

I'm not afraid.

I built an electric boat this year.

hmm... well, not totally unafraid...

I only invested $80...

And 70 of that was for that battery that I didn't pull out of my chia-boat.

 

[mgb_phys]

Vancouver just chnaged the rules it allowed light electric vehicles on roads where the speed limit was <40kmh - it just raised that to 50km/h (ie 30mph) to encourage them. Unfortunately there are a lot of bridges in Vancouver and the speed limit on all of them is 60km/h - so you can have an electric vehicle here, you just can't get it in or out of the city. (you can ride 50km/h limited gas powered scooters on the bridges)

 

[baywax]

I'm not afraid.

I built an electric boat this year.

hmm... well, not totally unafraid...

I only invested $80...

And 70 of that was for that battery that I didn't pull out of my chia-boat.

Whoa cool!

Solar panels instead of sails!

 

[baywax]

Vancouver just chnaged the rules it allowed light electric vehicles on roads where the speed limit was <40kmh - it just raised that to 50km/h (ie 30mph) to encourage them. Unfortunately there are a lot of bridges in Vancouver and the speed limit on all of them is 60km/h - so you can have an electric vehicle here, you just can't get it in or out of the city. (you can ride 50km/h limited gas powered scooters on the bridges)

That's true. Tons of bridges. Officially it would be a traffic violation. Unofficially there are scooters, electric scooters and Honda Passports on them all the time that don't do more than 40 kmph.

Sorry for side-railing the topic. This is supposed to be about saving fuel, not eliminating it from the diet. There's probably a while to go on gas before plugging into electricland.

Have U.S. car makers been aware of a way to manufacture highly efficient engines, yet have been held back from this practice by their main supplier of fuel, the oil industry? There's always rumours about that. How would one find out? Freedom of info?

 

[OmCheeto]

Whoa cool!

Solar panels instead of sails!

They can function as both.

I would say more, but that would be like giving away already known secrets.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what many people I know use: http://www.scangauge.com/

Love my new toy, thanks.

I'd be remis, however, if I didn't consider if such a device is worth the money for someone who buys it purely to improve fuel economy. So a little payback calculation:

I drive a Mazda 6i (2.4l, 160hp) that typically gets around 27 mpg. Let's say I am able to improve my fuel conomy by 5% and gas will cost an average of $2.50 a gallon for a while.

For every thousand miles I drive, I burn 37 gal at a cost of $92.60. So I'd save about $4.60 per thousand miles. The scangauge costs $170, so it will take 37,000 miles of driving to break even at that rate.

 

[gmax137]

Have U.S. car makers been aware of a way to manufacture highly efficient engines, yet have been held back from this practice by their main supplier of fuel, the oil industry? There's always rumours about that. How would one find out? Freedom of info?

This is just trash talk. For one thing, "freedom of information" applies to information that the government has. You can't knock on Ford's door and demand to see anything in their research files. For another, what do you mean by "their main supplier of fuel"?? The oil companies sell gasoline to you and me, not to Ford. Finally, the car manufacturers are in business to sell cars, not gasoline. If they could build a car that was identical in every way to an existing model, but used less gas, they would do it without hesitation.

The fact is, in America anyway, the customers have been choosing to buy big heavy "cars" (ie, SUVs and pickups) because we like the size and the performance. Suggesting that the manufacturers have been coercing us into this is just denial. Look back at the cheep cars marketed in the early 1980s (ford fiesta, renault 'le car', etc). These were popular for about six months and then were relegated to "sh*tbox" status. They are slow, with lousy acceleration, and you feel like nobody will let you merge into traffic, and once you are in traffic everyone is passing you. This goes against our "competitive spirit" and general machismo. Driving powerful cars is fun.

 

[Topher925]

The fact is, in America anyway, the customers have been choosing to buy big heavy "cars" (ie, SUVs and pickups) because we like the size and the performance. Suggesting that the manufacturers have been coercing us into this is just denial. Look back at the cheep cars marketed in the early 1980s (ford fiesta, renault 'le car', etc). These were popular for about six months and then were relegated to "sh*tbox" status. They are slow, with lousy acceleration, and you feel like nobody will let you merge into traffic, and once you are in traffic everyone is passing you. This goes against our "competitive spirit" and general machismo. Driving powerful cars is fun.

So you're saying that if we want cars that get gets good gas mileage I should not buy a huge SUV that looks like an army truck? Gmax, how much are the oil companies paying you to say this?

I'm always amazed that when it comes to gas supply and prices, everyone points their finger at the oil companies or the auto manufacturers and never at themselves. People have been saying for years that the price of gas is so high because the demand is so high. No one listened and still blamed OPEC. Now that the economy has gone strait to hell and there has been a sharp decrease in demand, a gallon of crude is about $64 now I think? Perhaps the solution to the energy crisis is just to keep the world in a permanent recession.

 

[OmCheeto]

Look back at the cheep cars marketed in the early 1980s (ford fiesta, renault 'le car', etc). These were popular for about six months and then were relegated to "sh*tbox" status. They are slow, with lousy acceleration, and you feel like nobody will let you merge into traffic, and once you are in traffic everyone is passing you. This goes against our "competitive spirit" and general machismo. Driving powerful cars is fun.

hmmm...
The most fun I've had was in a pedal powered go-cart when I was 11.
My favorite automobile(I've owned about 10) was a 1972 Toyota Corolla, 5 speed, with a 1.6 liter hemi-engine. Even when towing my boat, it would effortlessly cruise at over 90mph.
Before that I owned a 1.2 liter corolla. Quite the little "sh*tbox". But I could get around 40mpg driving back and forth between Portland and Seattle.
I drove the two Toy's for about 10 years. If I could find one of the hemi's today, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
My least favorite car is the one I'm driving now. A lumbering, 3500 pound behemoth, with more horsepower than my last 4 cars combined.

I've never owned an SUV, so I don't know what the attraction is. My guess is that people want the utility of a station wagon, but they don't want to be seen in a station wagon, so they buy a station wagon that has a different, cooler name. And they keep getting bigger because those tiny little SUV's make really crappy station wagons. Perhaps they should have bought mini-van's in the first place.

 

[mgb_phys]

I've never owned an SUV, so I don't know what the attraction is.

The image that any day after work you are going to take off into the mountains to go surfing or drive across the beach to go rock climbing. Ironically of course anybody that does this drives an old battered Volvo station wagon, something that holds lots of gear but doesn't waste money that could be spend on new climbing / surfing gear.

And safety - which is ironic given how unsafe SUVs are. I live near an expensive private school, it seems there is a policy that a single 5year old can only be picked up in a vehicle that weighs more than 2.5tons.

 

[baywax]

So the rumours are trash talk. That's too bad since it would have been a good idea if Ford had come up with the commuter's version of a fuel efficient car before Toyota and Honda.

The oil companies sell gasoline to you and me, not to Ford.

If Ford doesn't buy gas, how do they test their engines?

The fact is, in America anyway, the customers have been choosing to buy big heavy "cars" (ie, SUVs and pickups) because we like the size and the performance. Suggesting that the manufacturers have been coercing us into this is just denial. Look back at the cheep cars marketed in the early 1980s (ford fiesta, renault 'le car', etc). These were popular for about six months and then were relegated to "sh*tbox" status. They are slow, with lousy acceleration, and you feel like nobody will let you merge into traffic, and once you are in traffic everyone is passing you. This goes against our "competitive spirit" and general machismo. Driving powerful cars is fun.

I see. Its funny how the FDA has no problem getting people to stop making foods with trans-fats yet there is no department for stopping people manufacturing gas-hogs or from buying them.

 

[mgb_phys]

The fact is, in America anyway, the customers have been choosing to buy big heavy "cars" (ie, SUVs and pickups) because we like the size and the performance. Suggesting that the manufacturers have been coercing us into this is just denial.

The manufacturers produce what will make the most profit. SUVS are extremely cheap to build and very expensive to buy. They then spend a fortune on ads to convince you that this is what you want to buy, ironically by selling their safety.

I see. Its funny how the FDA has no problem getting people to stop making foods with trans-fats yet there is no department for stopping people manufacturing gas-hogs or from buying them.

There used to be - it used to mandate an improvement in the fuel efficency every year. It then came under political pressure to be 'more responsive to industry needs' and so the crash ratings were adjusted to favour larger vehicles and the emissions ratings to favour large gas engines over small diesel ones.

 

[turbo]

Car manufacturers also play games to avoid having to meet CAFE standards. The PT Cruiser is a little light-weight station wagon built on the Neon platform. It is classified as a truck so that its fuel economy could be averaged in with Chysler's truck fleet - if you bought a PT Cruiser, you have helped ensure that the fuel consumption of Dodge RAM trucks didn't have to be reduced.

 

[gmax137]

well maybe I was being too subtle, but I was trying to point my finger at myself...If we buy cars that are too big and use too much gas, we should blame ourselves. We don't need to blame ford for not making smaller cars, and we sure don't need to blame the feds for not protecting us from ourselves.

My only point was that, while its true that "The manufacturers produce what will make the most profit," they don't make anything on the products we don't buy (witness the current situation). The corrollary is, they try to build what we are buying (duh ?) I guess 4$/gal is some kind of tipping point where most people baulk. Now if gas stays down at 2.25 a gallon for awhile the sales will jump back up.

 

[baywax]

Its fun to watch Dodge make 28 mpg look sexy when there are much higher mpg ratings for other makes.

I don't see why oil and others haven't used all their profit to begin preparing for the next accelerant, electric. (fingers crossed)

Electric will get everybody out of each other's backyards and back home, researching the best ways to generate the power that will be needed to replace oil.

 

[russ_watters]

Have U.S. car makers been aware of a way to manufacture highly efficient engines, yet have been held back from this practice by their main supplier of fuel, the oil industry? There's always rumours about that. How would one find out? Freedom of info?

Well, if one already knew some thermodynamics, the simplest way would be to do an efficiency calculation. Then they'd realize that it isn't possible.

But even a non-engineer can apply a little business logic to the situation: how could it be possible for Toyota and GM to be in bed with each other on this issue? Especially since GM is about ready to fold up their tent and go home. If they could squeeze another 5-10% efficiency out of their vehicles without spending too much money or compromising performance, it could just save the company.

If Ford doesn't buy gas, how do they test their engines?

C'mon Baywax, you're better than that. The fuel that Ford buys makes up a small fraction of the cost of the car (most is for transporting the raw materials and finished product). Perhaps 10% But a car owner might spend half as much to fuel a car as it cost to buy it. Thus, it is car owners, not car makers who have by far the bigger impact on the oil market.

 

[russ_watters]

I've never owned an SUV, so I don't know what the attraction is. My guess is that people want the utility of a station wagon, but they don't want to be seen in a station wagon, so they buy a station wagon that has a different, cooler name. And they keep getting bigger because those tiny little SUV's make really crappy station wagons. Perhaps they should have bought mini-van's in the first place.

That's basically it. My parents owned two, starting when I was in middle school or junior high. They just got rid of the second and got a Caddy, but they are lamenting the loss of cargo space.

In the northeast, 4wd and good ground clearance can be legitimate issues as well: They are avid skiiers and up until a few years ago, they owned a townhouse in the pocono mountains.

I see. Its funny how the FDA has no problem getting people to stop making foods with trans-fats yet there is no department for stopping people manufacturing gas-hogs or from buying them.

Efficiency is federally regulated.

 

[Proton Soup]

Car manufacturers also play games to avoid having to meet CAFE standards. The PT Cruiser is a little light-weight station wagon built on the Neon platform. It is classified as a truck so that its fuel economy could be averaged in with Chysler's truck fleet - if you bought a PT Cruiser, you have helped ensure that the fuel consumption of Dodge RAM trucks didn't have to be reduced.

the demise of the station wagon is one of my favorite gripes. i think it was the Carter Era fuel crisis that started it. carburetors were still in style back then, and the big V8 engines in vehicles weren't as efficient as they are today. CAFE required vehicles classed as cars to meet minimum MPG standards, and station wagons were forced out. but middle class folk still needed an all-purpose vehicle to pour all the kids into and pull a boat on the weekend. some put campers on trucks, which were exempt. and then the automakers decided to build the camper into the vehicle, knock out the rear cab wall, and add seating. the replacement of the station wagon is born, the SUV. the politics of the whole thing are funny, too. go look up some graphs at the dept of transportation, and you'll see that SUV sales exploded during the Clinton years. why didn't they just change CAFE if they hated SUVs so much? would be less to complain about i guess. but it would make sense to exempt station wagons in the same way you exempt light trucks because it's impossible to build the trucks as fuel efficient as the wagons. this is because trucks are tall and have a larger front cross-sectional area. build a shorter vehicle with less CSA and you get less drag and higher MPG ratings. but you've got to change CAFE, first.

 

[mgb_phys]

But tax breaks on light trucks like the PT cruiser and Hummer are necessary because they are only driven by small businesses that make up 'real america'.

 

[Proton Soup]

But tax breaks on light trucks like the PT cruiser and Hummer are necessary because they are only driven by small businesses that make up 'real america'.

heh, you mean like doctors and lawyers that can't move their heavy equipment and supplies around without their Escalades?

 

[baywax]

C'mon Baywax, you're better than that. The fuel that Ford buys makes up a small fraction of the cost of the car (most is for transporting the raw materials and finished product). Perhaps 10% But a car owner might spend half as much to fuel a car as it cost to buy it. Thus, it is car owners, not car makers who have by far the bigger impact on the oil market.

What I meant was Ford creates the need for gas by building combustion engines. If the engines got 100 miles to a litre, the gas companies would be selling less gas. Its not hard to imagine a deal between auto/oil to keep the consumption of gas at a nice profitable level.

 

[misgfool]

What I meant was Ford creates the need for gas by building combustion engines. If the engines got 100 miles to a litre, the gas companies would be selling less gas. Its not hard to imagine a deal between auto/oil to keep the consumption of gas at a nice profitable level.

What would Ford gain from such agreement?

 

[baywax]

What would Ford gain from such agreement?

That's not hard to imagine.

 

[brewnog]

If Ford doesn't buy gas, how do they test their engines?

Ford would love to spend less on fuel to develop their products. The fact is, however, that market demands and forecasts dictate what Ford (and all the others) put the bulk of their R&D investment into. To suggest that the engine manufacturers have some cartel with the oil companies is ridiculous.

 

[russ_watters]

What I meant was Ford creates the need for gas by building combustion engines. If the engines got 100 miles to a litre, the gas companies would be selling less gas. Its not hard to imagine a deal between auto/oil to keep the consumption of gas at a nice profitable level.

It is hard to imagine if that deal means they sell only half as many cars and are in danger of going out of business, which is roughly the situation they are in right now.

This would also require collusion among companies across international lines (ie, Ford and Toyota would both have to be in on it, even though the deal is hurting Ford much more than Toyota). It just isn't possible.

That's not hard to imagine. [what Ford could gain]

If your idea is right, what Ford is currently "gaining" is the real possibility of going out of business.

 

[baywax]

Ford would love to spend less on fuel to develop their products. The fact is, however, that market demands and forecasts dictate what Ford (and all the others) put the bulk of their R&D investment into. To suggest that the engine manufacturers have some cartel with the oil companies is ridiculous.

That is your suggestion. But I do see how market demand can keep efficiency performance on a back burner in favour of manufacturing the big, shiny and protective vehicles the consumer seemed to want when gas was as available as air.

 

[baywax]

It is hard to imagine if that deal means they sell only half as many cars and are in danger of going out of business, which is roughly the situation they are in right now.

This would also require collusion among companies across international lines (ie, Ford and Toyota would both have to be in on it, even though the deal is hurting Ford much more than Toyota). It just isn't possible. If your idea is right, what Ford is currently "gaining" is the real possibility of going out of business.

That deal would be beneficial to both parties. More cars; more demand for oil. Cheap oil; more demand for cars. I don't know if the price of oil went up because of speculation like the OPEC head suggested or if it went up because it is getting harder to produce. Its down now and some say that's because demand diminished.

I've been waiting for America to stand up to the auto makers who get the 50 mpg ratings by unveiling their secret gas miser car that delivers on performance and bling. The closest I've seen is the Volt which is very cool. The next would be the Aveos and Waves that resemble Japanese designs but their milage stats are still around 15 mpg lower than the Echo and Yaris or Fit. (As far as I know.)

 

[baywax]

I see that Euro Ford has come up with a winner in my books... the Ka...

Some great specs on MPG etc...

http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/ka/Ka_models/ka_models/-/-/-/-

Trouble is, its only in Europe right now.

 

[mgb_phys]

Why sell them a $10K Ka when you can sell them a $25K Explorer?