What is Digg?224 Comments
- ghank, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6235 MPG? So what. I had a 1978 Ford ltd that got 32-38 MPG, and that's 30 years old. I'm sure we can do better than this.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -6/+47Making a small car get good gas mileage? Not so hard.
Making the average giant American car get good gas mileage?. . .requires serious technological innovation.
It's just like GM putting hybrid systems in all their vehicles (my favorite: the Escalade Hybrid). Maybe it's time we just built smaller, more efficient, and (often) safer cars? Either way, this kind of technology will help. - darksydxx, on 05/02/2008, -1/+36Great now that 4' tall single mom in her Ford Excursion driving by herself and 1 child in the fast lane recklessly holding starbucks and on the cell phone can have extra cash to buy new shoes at the mall.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -0/+31The 1987 Honda CRX recieved an EPA estimated 57 miles per gallon. It's a death trap by todays standards, but it's stupid to think that we can't improve or meet the fuel economy of a 20 year old Honda.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_ ... - Ebjius, on 05/02/2008, -1/+21Why aim so low? the new EU requirements for new passenger car fuel efficiency by 2012 are 47 mpg (US) for gasoline and 52 mpg (US) for diesel. And also 8 years earlier then the US 35 MPG goals, which I find kinda weird because cars are much more vital for Americans.
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 05/02/2008, -2/+22Honda Civics have been getting 35+ mpg for over 20 years. 35 MPG by 2020 is ***** *****. we should have infinity MPG by 2020
- failedprototype, on 05/02/2008, -1/+17"As the automakers scramble to make plans for achieving 35 MPG by 2020..."
Scramble? You have to be kidding me. More like ponderously lumbering into 2020 with periodic naps. It's not even that all cars have to have 35 MPG, it's that the average has to be 35 MPG. We'll still have 7 MPG sports utility tanks roaming America suburbia as long as some hybrids even things out. Then again, if companies like Chevron and Shell can be considered green if they put out commercials with slow motion montages of seagulls flying and children smiling, the standard is already pretty low. - borninda818, on 05/02/2008, -1/+17http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_n ...
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_ ...
50 MPG Jetta TDI coming next year. - peestandingup, on 05/02/2008, -1/+16Wow, 35MPG by 2020. Way to low ball it, America.
- ogremidget, on 05/02/2008, -0/+13That's it? ONLY 35 mpg? My 1992 Honda Civic gets 35 mpg. How about 100 mpg?
- Coven, on 05/02/2008, -3/+16Honestly, my 2007 Civic gets 35+ mpg avg. The 2006 model (no changes in the 07) was named car and driver's car of the year. The Civic is one of the safest cars on the road and has plenty of room. i'm 5'7", but my 6'3" best friend fits just fine in the backseat, with legroom to spare. and this is the coupe we're talking about.
I love my Civic. - InfidelAl, on 05/02/2008, -2/+11Why not? Because the consumer wants the Escalades. They build what people want to buy. Though that does seem to be swinging the other way of late as prices continue.
- RuffRidr, on 05/02/2008, -8/+16If you could somehow convert smug to energy, you'd be set for life!
- pencilneck, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8Some of these things sound pretty slick but VW TDI diesels have been kicking ass since the 90's. I've got a 2004 Jetta wagon with the TDI PD engine and the worst milage I've ever seen was 30 MPH running at Deal's Gap (Tail of the Dragon, 318 curves in 11 miles). I normally get 36MPG city driving and I'm hammering the pedal all the time. My best MPG was highway driving, 56 MPG. Until you drive a VW TDI diesel, you'll never understand.
- triskele, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7It'd be a piece of cake if the powers that be in this country would get their heads out of their asses and embrace diesel. We'll have to wait and see what happens when the Jetta TDI comes out next year.
- nosecohn, on 05/02/2008, -1/+8Not to get too political, but does it strike anyone that all these innovations are coming as a direct result of higher fuel prices, while the politicians are all talking about trying to lower them? Honestly, it seems like gas is still too cheap. The most efficient cars all come from countries where gasoline is more expensive than in the US. Now that America is suffering at the pump too, American companies are coming up with solutions. The rising prices have a positive side effect (OMG... George Bush is an evil genius!). So, even if gas prices start to go down again, perhaps we should tax the hell out of it for a couple years and give a bunch of the revenue as research grants for efficient, domestic transportation technologies. It'd be tough for a few years, but in the end, we'd be energy-independent instead of relying on imports from countries that hate us. Plus, we could sell our home-grown technology abroad to all those other countries who are in the same boat.
- HMTKSteve, on 05/02/2008, -2/+9New technology? My 1994 GEO Metro (stick shift) got 50MPG easy.
- VIPAccess, on 05/02/2008, -0/+635MPG by 2020? Don't you think it will be too ***** late? Diesels have been doing this for years. Europe has clearly understood this.
- KokomoNYC, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7My country, 'tis of thee
- dusanmal, on 05/02/2008, -0/+6Sorry, but I must comment on the death trap issue. I owned 1987 Honda CRX. It didn't do 57 mpg, but it regularly did over 50 mpg in NYC wider area mixed (mostly hwy.) traffic. Also, in its 174000 miles lifetime it have had only ONE mechanical problem. Alternator died at 117000 miles.
The car died a valiant death at 174000 miles. I was driving down long and steep downhill highway on-ramp (NYC residents: entrance from GW Bridge to rt. 80/95 where it splits from rt.4). Tractor-trailer in front of me lost control and jacknifed. Despite breaking, there was no escape but the collision at about 40-45 mph. CRX was totaled. However, I didn't have a scratch. Despite flattened front end I could calmly open driver side door and the front panel haven't budged an inch toward me. Car did what it was designed to do and hat down from me to Honda engineers.
It is a mistake to assume that small car equals a death trap. I couldn't have been hit by anything much larger on USA roads... It is not luck or size. It is design. Which is where we go back to the original story. - GoatMonkey2112, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6Car and Driver doesn't have a "Car of the Year" award. It was in the "10 Best Cars" though.
- tomatensaft, on 05/02/2008, -7/+12Sure, being a 300lbs+ swine, you can't really fit in anything smaller than an Escalade! :) Sorry for being rude, but it had to be said...
The popularity of bigger cars in USA seems to be consistent with obesity problems... - KokomoNYC, on 05/02/2008, -2/+7Like all those obese basketball players in their Escalades?
- dsmx, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5A VW lupo diesel hits 75mpg if you drive it normally, hell even Jeremy Clarkson managed to get that audi diesel V8 up to 40mpg.
- Artimusbill, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6I doubt giving more cash to the federal government is going to fix anything. I'm sure they will gladly take the money though.
- furly37, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5Most people that drive big cars like SUVs and Trucks that I know are people with families who like to have one vehicle that they can put the whole family in, use it on the weekends to pick up large tools or supplies, or tow their wave runners/boats/atvs around with. Granted that is not what everyone has SUVs for but there are some people that get them for a reason. But I guess the truth doesn't make for a good witty comment on Digg.
- inactive, on 05/02/2008, -12/+17Hey, my bicycle uses no gasoline at all, and the bus uses just a little for each passenger trip.
- swiftheart, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5The article didn't spell out the fact that the 35MPG goal is for the fleet average for an automaker. Yes, Honda makes several outstanding 35+MPG vehicles. Their fleet average however is more in the 26MPG (depending on how it's calculated.)
If anything, fleet averages are overall down for all automakers. - elnerdo, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I've had the same idea a lot of times. I've thought that maybe if we artificially made driving very expensive, it would encourage change, but it doesn't work like that. Yeah, most driving is unnecessary, but that doesn't change that a LOT of it is very important. Trucks are used to ship things all over the country, and many areas don't have mass transit for workers to commute to work without a car. A large tax on gas or cars would unreasonably hurt the working class, plus those unable to afford more efficient cars would be even MORE disadvantaged due to the higher tax.
The best bet is to (I apologize for the RonPaulite tone of this message) wait and let the free market sort out the problems. It will slowly work itself out if we don't screw with it too much. - inactive, on 05/02/2008, -1/+51. Motorcycles
2. Motorcycles
3. Motorcycles
4. Motorcycles
5. Motorcycles
6. Motorcycles
There, I just got 70 MPG, and outran those damn ricers at the same time. - KeepSwinging, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4There's also some old technologies to get 35 mpg, Honda and Toyota.
- DeepSkyDiver, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Thing is .. the Big Dumb Truck is a market cornered by the US carmakers. They are the only ones really doing it and the last thing they want is to compete. It's too easy for them right now. So the target will remain low.
- Mononuclear, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Funny I just got finished reading http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/01/2 ... about the Automotive X-Prize for cars over 100mpg
- jmkiii, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6Why did you sound smug when I read that?
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Some of the colleges used to do a contest for efficiency, they'd get up to 2000 or 3000 mpg..... but the games they played to do that were stupid IMO. Make a torpedo shaped 300lb car, put a tuned briggs's straton on it, firet it up, accelerate on a test track, turn it off, coast for a long ass time.... repeat.
At some point the laws of physics have to be faced. Accelerating 2 or 3,000 pounds to the speeds that make vehicles practical takes a ton of energy period. - killbert24, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Chevy Volt or Tesla > All Six of These Parts... combined!
- Roger, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5I appreciate you and your comments, also your education and brain...
- elnerdo, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7*****, more likely.
- deanimate, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4are you ***** kidding me? ***** hell...this is one of the reasons why america gets such a hard time.
35 - ***** - MPG.....***** sake.
double that and yeah fair enough.
You often hear americans going on about how they need their cars because of the bigger distances they need to travel to get to work. well surely a vehicle should have been developed years and years ago that is very efficient on fuel consumption that means articles like this are not news. - xZongx, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4The *****?
Yeah...being 6'5" + is kind the reason for the exception there. You know, NOT BEING ABLE TO FIT IN A NORMAL CAR and all that jazz.
WTF man. - LinuxGalore, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3I was recently watching a english TV show called fifth gear and they were comparing medium sized SUV's and they all used Diesel. What surprised me is many (including a Korean made unit) all did over 35-42mpg already. So saying getting a SUV over the 35mpg mark is hard tells me exactly why the US car industry is getting slaughtered by outside car makers.
- Pandalume, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3It was my impression that all the modern safety equipment that comes on modern cars has made them a lot heavier than than your old CRXs and LTDs. I doubt a CRX or LTD would get very good ratings in todays side-impact, front-impact, etc crash tests. The challenge facing automakers today is to make safe (heavy) cars that get mileage comparable to yesterday's lighter versions.
- jonfleck88, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3The aim is low because American consumers only in the past couple years have started caring about high mileage vehicles.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Absolutely, that LTD didn't have airbargs (all varieties), abs, a comfortable interior, gps, state-of-the-art sound system, air conditioning, and all the other ***** people expect when they buy a new car these days. That's not to mention all of the emissions equipment that must be included by law and hurts mileage. The manufactures are trying to carry all that around at 35mpg, and it's damned impressive when they get it done.
- RawCoyote, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Where could you drive 100mph long enough to get valid data points? I would have a tough time designing an experiment to validate that unless I had access to a track. I'm not saying you didn't get those numbers, I'm just curious how you derived them.
- bowe, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3that already exists, it doesn't work that great though. It's called variable displacement, which allows you to switch from 8 cylinders to 6 to 4 to whatever. It's found in current GM products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_displacement - cowsgonemadd3, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3I have a 2001 civic and at a average of 60mph I get 34-37mpg. Plenty of power and room....
- bitcloud, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6cute. now go find a girlfriend
- christor, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5Agreed - 35mpg by 2020 is unbelievably lame. Modest proposal: Federal car tax = $640,000,000 / x^4, where x = average fuel economy. (Tax on 60mpg = $49, Tax on 35mpg = $426, Tax on 20mpg = $4000, Tax on 15mpg = $12,642.) Adjust exponent and numerator as needed. Also, increase gas tax. Both are needed to try to internalize all of the external costs of driving and gas consumption.
- bowe, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3That's a British show, they use imperial gallons which are larger. Diesel fuel also is more expensive, has more energy per gallon than gasoline, and therefore produces more CO2 per gallon.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 224 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is