[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/o/ - Auto


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: Lupo 3L.jpg (198 KB, 1600x1097)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
In the late 90s they were able to make cars that got 3l/100km which is 78.4 american mpg. They were able to get this from a late 90s 1.2 liter diesel engine? Then why the hell did they just stop making very fuel efficient cars and we went to hybrid, ev and SUV crap?
>>
File: image (7).png (1.82 MB, 1920x1080)
1.82 MB
1.82 MB PNG
>>25611839
because 90s cars weigh a lot less not only due to less safety equipment, sound deadening and isolation, etc., but also because they are way smaller than today's counterparts

if you had an IQ above 10 you'd figure that out yourself instead of making aimless "why can't they just" shitposts
>>
>>25611839
jevon's paradox
>>
Euro 2 emissions standards diesel car (1996-2000) could emit twice the CO2, three times more hydrocarbons and it had no standards on NOx emissions compared to Euro 6 standard car (2014->). Meeting those standards makes producing cheap and light cars economically imposible.

Anyways, a Peugeot 1,6 BlueHDI 206 should get you to around 3l/100km. Polo 1.4 TDI could get there but is officially at 3.1/100. Octavias and Golfs can do 3.2-ish.
>>
>>25611839
because stop questioning, sell your gas guzzler and buy an ev
>>
>>25612102
>Anyways, a Peugeot 1,6 BlueHDI 206 should get you to around 3l/100km. Polo 1.4 TDI could get there but is officially at 3.1/100. Octavias and Golfs can do 3.2-ish.
Imagine swapping one of those engines into something tiny but still vaguely aerodynamic like a facelifted Geo Metro. Modern fuel efficiency and no weight to haul around? 90 mpg ez
>>
>>25612102
tldr the retarded basedentists and bugmen envirofaggots created laws that end up wasting more fuel because they're retarded. then instead of admitting their retardation they just shill for electricuckery instead.
>>
>>25611839
People didn't buy them because they had bigger initial price tag compared to slightly less efficient cars, just like they aren't buying modern hybrids/evs/suvs because they are efficient. They are buying them because it's fashionable.

And efficiency for the sake of it was never fashionable.
>>
File: m1fyhfnbhgmk[1].jpg (121 KB, 800x533)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>25611839
>sub-2000lbs
>partial alu construction
>ultra low drag coefficient
Too bad they're a pain in the dick to work on, I think they're kinda neat.
>>
Because that car is slow as fuck and something like that would be borderline deadly on the highway
>>
>>25614545
never understood this cope, you've never actually driven a car with 150 or 70hp if you think it can't easily accelerate to highway speeds, it's not like you enter the highway from a standing start and need to go 0-60, you can speed up as/before you enter
>>
>>25614547
that car has 60hp
and yeah I've driven slow cars and it was painful
>>
>>25614551
depends on the weight of the car because i've driven a 2020 something mirage with 70hp and it was fine, totally safe.
>>
>>25614442
>because it's fashionable
Rather because its a better driving experience requiring less compromises.

Even if Karen doesn't really care about driving, she understands that her Toyota Rav4 Prime hybrid doesn't cost much for her to drive it daily, and still has the high seating position and massive amount of room she desires when she drives it around by herself. There's no major visual difference, and normal people can't really explain the differences between a mild hybrid and a PHEV.

>efficiency for the sake of it was never fashionable.
For the people who do really care about efficiency, there's no reason to drive a gas guzzling 75mpg car, when a Tesla Model 3 gets 141mpge.
>>
>>25614565
>Better driving experience with less compromises.

I wouldn't go that far...If it was just high driving position and massive amount of room then you would be seing minivans everywhere, and suv's compromise a lot of their interior space, ride confort for the sake of style (huge wheels) and lateral grip (stiff springs and anti roll bars). And having shorter range with longer charging times is also the opposite of requiring less compromises.

As for the teslas, i'll just point out that they are not more popular than previous electric cars because they are more efficient (gm ev1 had 300wh/mi or 135 mpge even without state art engines, batteries or controllers), it's because they were sold as the car version of the iphone.
>>
>>25614407
Every time
>>
File: kys.png (24 KB, 722x369)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>>25611839
>90s 1.2L Diesel
neck yourself now, hybrids are just better. 60hp isnt even half of what a fucking Prius puts out, not to mention far less comfortable than the based Prius. Volts and the other Toyota car hybrids are also based and regularly do 40-60mpg
>>
>>25614442
I saved 500$/mo on gas switching from this thing to a hybrid corolla idk what you want thats more than most people's car payments and the Corolla doesn't break down on a somewhat regular basis.
>>
>>25614646
>gm ev1 had 300wh/mi or 135 mpge even without state art engines, batteries or controllers
You may want to check your math there. 300 Wh/mi is 112mpge, and the EV1 had range similar to modern short range EVs like the 24kWh Leaf.
The whole reason that Tesla sells is they were the first company who managed to deliver enough range and the charging network to make an EV work for the vast majority of people as their only car.
Previous EVs like the EV-1 had basically only been able to handle short trips around town.

Tesla sells their cars on range, charging, and performance. Where the below 250 Wh/mi efficiency is a big factor in the range.

>it's because they were sold as the car version of the iphone.
I see this misconception a lot from people who have never driven a Tesla, but their built-in GNU/Linux PC is nothing like an iPhone other than in the vaguest sense that most people's first experience with a UNIX system that can be easily updated was probably a mobile device.
>>
>>25614691
300Wh/mi or 112mpge was given as highway range, at which the most efficient model 3 it's 132 mpge (but NOT the latest, that's 126). The long range performance version that people want drops to 107mpge with 20inch wheels, so clearly 112 mpge is within the ballpark...

As for the iphone comparison it's not due to the actual operating system they run on, but more due to the business model they built, which is sell products enclosed in their proprietary technology with lots of new features payed for by questionable build quality and agressively marketed with numbers that are true in a certain point of view.

I mean props to them for building a business where there where a lot of estabilished competitors that didn't make the same risks, but i don't see them as elon's gift to mankind and I find it frankly obnoxious they are sold as such.
>>
>>25611839
PSA had some 1.5 and 1.6 diesels that could do that.
The problem was that to get cars that efficiently needed to drop a fuck ton of weight, and lots of aluminium, both cost lots for a cheap shitbox, and there are crash regs which mandate certain substructures, which means more weight
>>
>>25614742
>300Wh/mi or 112mpge was given as highway range
My Model 3 really only gets up to 300 Wh/mi in winter, this is unlike the EV-1 which was lucky to get 300 Wh/mi in good weather.
I'm averaging right at 250 Wh/mi lifetime, right where my car was rated.

>so clearly 112 mpge is within the ballpark
That's the number if you're driving flat out basically all the time. It takes real effort to get a Model 3 that low as the annual figure. So while that is realistic for some trips, it goes both ways. I routinely make a 100 mile round trip to visit my elderly parents, and average around 180 Wh/mi in good weather, that's coincidentally about 180 mpge.

>products enclosed in their proprietary technology
Very little of Tesla's stuff is really heavily proprietary. Their charging protocol is just a straightforward extension on CAN bus. Their plug was offered under FRAND licensing terms and is approaching the patent expiring in a few years. Their OS as already established is a fairly ordinary Debian based GNU/Linux distribution. Their motors and controller hardware are improved versions of GMs out of patent designs from 20 years ago.
They do maintain a bit too tight control over the Supercharger network, but even that seems to be opening up.

>agressively marketed
Tesla spends basically nothing on marketing. Only way you run into it is if you go to their website or a Tesla store.

>numbers that are true in a certain point of view.
I will agree that the numbers used aren't the best, but that's really on the EPA. They need to come up with a better way to communicate consumption than annual city / highway mpge.
Personally I like the EV Database since they provide better real-world figures for different types of driving in different conditions.

I get people not liking Elon, and its important to understand that he didn't create Tesla or engineer the cars himself, its just a company he bought and isn't really that involved with the technical side of things.
>>
>>25614669
y no fenders in the back?
>>
>>25614809
As a side note The ev-1 300 wh/mi wasn't optimistic; it's less than half that at constant speed.
http://thejaffes.org/sites/all/files/ev1_eva.pdf

the problem with real life usage of the ev-1 were the lead acid batteries, which were inneficient to charge to more than 90%, and hold it there (li ion doesn't waste power in electrolysis), so they often started with less charge than advertised.
The 2nd gem ev-1s used nimh batteries and went farther and were more consistent in doing so.

Regardless the key to tesla isn't efficiency above else, they wouldn't have made the model x if that were the case. They are far more interested in higher acceleration for more money because electric motors don't have the part throttle inneficiency issue that ic engines have.

Which makes me question why manufactures didn't go out and offer cars with two ic engines, one very small to run accessories in traffic and hold constant speed and a big one for big acceleration on demand, kinda like a hybrid without the weight and cost of batteries. Cylinder deactivation and forced induction help but are not enough.
>>
>>25615078
Probably because such a system would be very mechanically complex without introducing something like an electric transmission, and once you've gone that far with modern technology it makes more sense to use a battery buffer for peak power delivery and low end torque to start the car moving.
>>
>2900 lb fwd shitbox
>29 mpg
>>
>>25615078
>Which makes me question why manufactures didn't go out and offer cars with two ic engines
nigga wat?
>>
because nu-males cannot drive a car without all the useless crap that adds half a ton of weight.
I drive my 1.9 TDI from 2001 with 4.5 l/100km.
>>
>>25615104
You could use the normal gearbox, and couple the two engines in series, only clutching the bigger engine to the smaller engine when needed.

>>25615115
It's been done before to provide 4wd, look up the 2cv sahara...
>>
>>25615186
yeah but it isn't efficient at all
nigga
>>
>>25615135
>2001
>1.9 tdi

literal poorfag cope
>>
>>25615190
Because it wasn't done for economy?
>>
>>25614846
a tree fell on it so some retarded PO put a flatbed on it
>>
>>25614442
I mean yeah. The Audi A2 3L and VW Lupo 3L both costed more than regular A2 or Lupo. And there were many drawbacks to these. For example I think the Lupo 3L had no glovebox to save weight. And it still costed more.
>>
>>25611839
>Open up Automation
>Design a 2010 era sporty shitbox
>RWD, 55 mpg(us), 2000 lbs, 140 horsepower, no exotic materials, estimated market price around $30k
>Cry because no one ever felt like making it for real
>>
File: file.png (18 KB, 377x288)
18 KB
18 KB PNG
>>25612102
>Anyways, a Peugeot 1,6 BlueHDI 206 should get you to around 3l/100km. Polo 1.4 TDI could get there but is officially at 3.1/100. Octavias and Golfs can do 3.2-ish.
something smelled fishy when /o/tard, consumption and german enginiggering appeared on the same post.
the 1.4 diesel from toyota inside the yaris/vitz, aygo and the rest of their fleet does 3.7, which means that with your units is about 2.9l/100km
bullshit aside,
https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-specs/Nissan/108287/Nissan-Micra-K14-15-dCi-90HP-S-S.html
the new micra does 3.1 l/100km, and combined sits at 3.2 l/100km.
>>
>>25616757
So an mx-5 with a fixed roof, or a slower brz?
>>
>>25611839
Because 1L diesel in a tiny 1000 pound car that does a 15 second 0-60. They don’t make that anymore. A Yaris is more efficient considering it is much faster and heavier.
>>
>>25611839
>car manufactures trying to meet regulations and government standards over the years
>>
>>25612161
>tiny but still vaguely aerodynamic
CRX with a diesel would be the ultimate mileage machine
>>
>>25614665
>Prius
>comfortable
I’ve driven in a Prius, its stiff as fuck.
>>
>>25617466
If you're going for mpegees, why not an Insight?
>>
File: 1585800786855.jpg (89 KB, 906x577)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>americans
HAHA poor fag europoors driving small shitty diesels

>also Americans
Whats the best small shitty diesel?
>>
>>25616836
The city mileage of the Micra seems too high, but maybe not. Anyway, heres an early 00s Astra with higher gearing and some factory aero.
>>
>>25617505
Only gets good mpegees in the city
>>
>>25611839
Older diesels has higher compression ratios due to NOx emmisions not being a concern at the time



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.