What cars to consider - with mileage > 40 mpg?
OhioGuy
It only had a 50 horsepower engine, but I was spoiled as far as
efficiency - it got 40 miles per gallon on the highway. I carried an
extra small can of Diesel in the back, and could go 500 miles before
having to fill up again at a station. The car cost $900 (was about 5
years old), and I used it for 5 years before selling it.
Of course, I gauge everything I see today by that 40 MPG standard. I
see new cars getting 30 mpg highway, and think of them as fuel wasters.
Of course, many of them are not Diesel, nor are they manual
transmission. I realize that having a manual transmission adds about 3
mpg to your car's efficiency, and that having a Diesel adds roughly 30%.
(just because it has more energy per gallon of fuel)
Anyway, I'm beginning the initial stages of looking for a new to us
used vehicle. This is partly because we will likely be moving to the
country next year, and my wife will have a commute probably between 30
and 60 minutes total driving each day. We already have a van, but would
like a smaller vehicle primarily for her to commute to work and back.
I'd like it to get at least 40 mpg highway, be a Diesel, and have
manual transmission. I think the 40 mpg should be a starting point -
I'm assuming they have improved efficiencies in the past 30 years, and
that they can probably do better than that now, but we'd be happy with 40+.
Can anyone recommend a car that would make us happy?
Lou
here, diesel is substantially more expensive than gasoline thirty or
forty cents per gallon. Don't look at the just the mileage a particular
vehicle gets, consider the fuel cost to drive a mile. It may be that a
lower mpg with regular gas ends up costing less to drive.
max
> My first car was a 1981 VW Rabbit Diesel, with manual transmission.
> It only had a 50 horsepower engine, but I was spoiled as far as
> efficiency - it got 40 miles per gallon on the highway. [...]
>
> Can anyone recommend a car that would make us happy?
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm> is a good place to start.
Data goes back to 1985.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
John Weiss
>
> I'd like it to get at least 40 mpg highway, be a Diesel, and have
> manual transmission. I think the 40 mpg should be a starting point - I'm
> assuming they have improved efficiencies in the past 30 years, and that
> they can probably do better than that now, but we'd be happy with 40+.
>
> Can anyone recommend a car that would make us happy?
VW Jetta Diesel.
If you want to look at gas, a Honda Insight may be OK. They're not as
popular as the Prius (only 2 seats), so that may make them cheaper on the
used-car market.
A first-generation Prius (based on the Echo) may be an option, too, for the
same reason.
curly'q
Yes, but first you have to move to Europe or Asia :-)
or
Find a good Ford Festiva/Aspire with a stick for around 1000-1500 and
invest what ever it takes to get it in prime running condition. You'll
have tough little reliable car that consistently get over 40 mpg for a
fraction of the price of a late model hybrid or diesel.
Curly
James
Here is an interesting read for you - the 50 litre challenge.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/main.htm
Take 13 economy cars (no diesel or hybrids) under $20,000 (CDN) and
see how far they can get on a tank of gas (50 litres). Bear in mind
that imperial gallons are larger than American gallons but the
interesting thing is the deltas. This is a real world test, and they
swapped drivers every hour to make sure that driving habits didn't
play a role. The Corolla went 1017 kms on 50 litres, the Dodge Calibre
went 653, the Suzuki SX 4 went 637.
You won't see many VW diesels out there, the new ones are now on the
market, but weren't sold for a couple of years, so the old ones still
get a premium and don't end up on the market as much.
James
OhioGuy
>forty cents per gallon. Don't look at the just the mileage a
>particular vehicle gets, consider the fuel cost to drive a mile.
Ok, I've got to respond to that. Yes, Diesel is often 30 or 40 cents
more than gasoline in the USA. This is mostly artificial, due to higher
taxes that are levied on it - they assume that mostly huge rigs are
using Diesel, and putting most of the wear on the highways.
Anyway, you are talking about maybe a 10% difference in price.
Diesel fuel has about 30% more energy in it per gallon, which is most of
what gives a Diesel more miles per gallon. This greater miles per
gallon more than makes up for the difference in fuel price.
When you add to the fact that Diesels often go 400,000 to 500,000
miles when given regular maintenance, it would seem obvious that a
Diesel would be a better long term investment. My Uncle had a VW Rabbit
Diesel that had nearly 500,000 miles on the odometer. Engine would
still start and run, but the floor finally rusted out.
Rod Speed
>> here, diesel is substantially more expensive than gasoline thirty or
>> forty cents per gallon. Don't look at the just the mileage a
>> particular vehicle gets, consider the fuel cost to drive a mile.
>
> Ok, I've got to respond to that. Yes, Diesel is often 30 or 40
> cents more than gasoline in the USA. This is mostly artificial, due
> to higher taxes that are levied on it
Nope, thats true right thruout the first world now.
> - they assume that mostly huge rigs are using Diesel, and putting most of the wear on the highways.
Have fun explaining how come diesel is higher priced right
thruout the first world now, even in countrys that dont do that.
Lou
> >here, diesel is substantially more expensive than gasoline thirty or
> >forty cents per gallon. Don't look at the just the mileage a
> >particular vehicle gets, consider the fuel cost to drive a mile.
>
> Ok, I've got to respond to that. Yes, Diesel is often 30 or 40 cents
> more than gasoline in the USA. This is mostly artificial, due to higher
> taxes that are levied on it - they assume that mostly huge rigs are
> using Diesel, and putting most of the wear on the highways.
It doesn't matter if the price is "artificial" or not, the differential
is still there at the moment.
>
> Anyway, you are talking about maybe a 10% difference in price. Diesel
> fuel has about 30% more energy in it per gallon, which is most of what
> gives a Diesel more miles per gallon. This greater miles per gallon
> more than makes up for the difference in fuel price.
According to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html a
gallon of gas contains 115000 BTU and a gallon of diesel contains 130500
BTU. That's a difference of around 12% - the usual figure I've seen
quoted is 11%. On the face of it, in terms of energy content, diesel
and gas cost pretty much the same, if diesel is 10% more expensive per
gallon than gasoline.
I'm not really talking about a 10% difference in price - that was the
difference at the station where I generally fuel up last week. Today,
at http://www.ohiogasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D for the first station
on the list, the prices were diesel $3.79 and gas $3.19 - that's almost
a 19% premium for diesel over regular gas. I have no idea what the
prices are in your area, or how they'd affect your perception of which
fuel cost less to drive per mile.
A diesel engine will give you more miles per gallon than a gas engine,
but you'd expect 11%-12% greater mileage simply based on the energy content.
> When you add to the fact that Diesels often go 400,000 to 500,000
> miles when given regular maintenance, it would seem obvious that a
> Diesel would be a better long term investment. My Uncle had a VW Rabbit
> Diesel that had nearly 500,000 miles on the odometer. Engine would
> still start and run, but the floor finally rusted out.
I don't know if that lifetime is accurate or not, or whether it's a mean
time before failure estimate or just that some percentage of diesel cars
(not trucks) last that long (and what's the percentage?) Anecdotes don't
really prove anything - my mother-in-law drove the same Ford Granada for
23 years. Would you believe me if I said Fords last a couple of decades?
In any case, all I was doing was mentioning that diesel costs more than
gas. And the price of diesel has gone up faster than gas (not too many
years ago, diesel was cheaper than gas). The recommendation is that you
consider not only mileage, but acquisition cost (diesels tend to cost
more), maintenance, longevity, etc. if you want to get the most for your
transportation dollar.
Don Klipstein
> >here, diesel is substantially more expensive than gasoline thirty or
> >forty cents per gallon. Don't look at the just the mileage a
> >particular vehicle gets, consider the fuel cost to drive a mile.
>
> Ok, I've got to respond to that. Yes, Diesel is often 30 or 40 cents
>more than gasoline in the USA. This is mostly artificial, due to higher
>taxes that are levied on it - they assume that mostly huge rigs are
>using Diesel, and putting most of the wear on the highways.
>
> Anyway, you are talking about maybe a 10% difference in price.
>Diesel fuel has about 30% more energy in it per gallon, which is most of
>what gives a Diesel more miles per gallon. This greater miles per
>gallon more than makes up for the difference in fuel price.
Diesel has about 11% more energy per gallon than gasoline, or about 15%
more energy per gallon than 90%-gasoline-10%-ethanol.
Much of the difference between diesel MPG and gasoline MPG comes from
diesel engines having a higher compression ratio than gasoline engines, to
get higher efficiency of converting heat energy to mechanical energy.
But if you don't have to go too far out of your way to get a diesel car
filled up, it's probably a good idea to get one.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>OhioGuy wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I've got to respond to that. Yes, Diesel is often 30 or 40 cents
>> more than gasoline in the USA. This is mostly artificial, due to higher
>> taxes that are levied on it - they assume that mostly huge rigs are
>> using Diesel, and putting most of the wear on the highways.
>
>It doesn't matter if the price is "artificial" or not, the differential
>is still there at the moment.
>
>> Anyway, you are talking about maybe a 10% difference in price. Diesel
>> fuel has about 30% more energy in it per gallon, which is most of what
>> gives a Diesel more miles per gallon. This greater miles per gallon
>> more than makes up for the difference in fuel price.
>
>According to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html a
>gallon of gas contains 115000 BTU and a gallon of diesel contains 130500
>BTU. That's a difference of around 12% - the usual figure I've seen
>quoted is 11%. On the face of it, in terms of energy content, diesel
>and gas cost pretty much the same, if diesel is 10% more expensive per
>gallon than gasoline.
Except that diesel engines tend to have higher efficiency of converting
BTUs to mechanical energy due to typically having a higher compression
ratio.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
SMS
> But if you don't have to go too far out of your way to get a diesel car
> filled up, it's probably a good idea to get one.
Plus, for now, you can make bio-diesel for well under $1 per gallon. I
say "for now" because apparently many cities have discovered that
running their buses on bio-diesel is a good idea, and are going to be
sucking up all that waste cooking oil that is now available free from
restaurants.
My friend has a diesel Mercedes that can run on bio-diesel or straight
vegetable oil (you have to start it and stop it on diesel, then when the
engine is warm you can switch to pure vegetable oil). However not many
people are going to go through the trouble of two fuel tanks and
switching between them. They took the "Diesel" plate off the back and
put on one that says "Veggie." They said that the best used oil is from
Japanese restaurants because they change the frying oil often.
Vic Smith
wrote:
Companies contracting to pick up that cooking oil for motor use have
been around for a while already.
For the tinkerer, it was fun and cheap while it lasted, but is pretty
silly as a long-range solution for anybody.
Restaurant cooking oil doesn't add up to much.
Whenever I heard guys bragging about it, I always thought,
"You should keep your mouth shut."
It's like saying, "Hey guys, I got a bunch of gold I found laying
around Sutter's Creek. Check it out."
--Vic
Seerialmom
I definitely second that on the Festiva. Unfortunately around here in
Northern CA there's some guy that constantly has an ad (for the past
12 years or so) offering to buy Festivas; what he does with them I
really have no idea (maybe he ships them to Mexico?). Anyway, I had
my last Festiva for over 10 years and it was still running
strong...and very thrifty, gas wise. I was likely getting around
45MPG (not a lead foot). The added advantage to that car is it's very
roomy and great for hauling stuff (not heavy...though I did load a
bunch of 12x12 pavers home from a garage sale in it, not a good thing
to do but it was less than a mile from my house).
The Aspire, on the other hand, doesn't get as good mileage from what I
understand and seems to be cheaper made in the body. Most Festivas
I've seen running still look in decent shape, the Aspires look worn
out and seem to have a higher than average amount of dents? Plus
Consumer Reports always recommended the Festiva for a "used" car; I
don't recall seeing the same for the Aspire.
curly'q
I think it's more likely that he takes the relatively rust free west
coast cars to the midwest where they are fixed up for resale. There was
a Minneapolis PBS piece about a guy who does just that(fixes up Metros
as well). One of his customers was a woman from Boston, I believe, who
flew out to The Cities and drove it back home.
Anyway, I had
> my last Festiva for over 10 years and it was still running
> strong...and very thrifty, gas wise. I was likely getting around
> 45MPG (not a lead foot). The added advantage to that car is it's very
> roomy and great for hauling stuff (not heavy...though I did load a
> bunch of 12x12 pavers home from a garage sale in it, not a good thing
> to do but it was less than a mile from my house).
Excellent. We bought one new in '93 and it still runs like champ. Of
course it only has 190k on it. It is amazing the bulky items they can
carry. I average about 42mpg
> The Aspire, on the other hand, doesn't get as good mileage from what I
> understand
The Aspire is heavier but the drivetrain is identical. I think that's
part of it
and seems to be cheaper made in the body. Most Festivas
> I've seen running still look in decent shape, the Aspires look worn
> out and seem to have a higher than average amount of dents?
That's interesting. Festivas seem to have a 'following', maybe folks
just invest more in them........just speculating
Plus
> Consumer Reports always recommended the Festiva for a "used" car; I
> don't recall seeing the same for the Aspire.
Aspires do have improved brakes and suspension over the Festiva. The
shape certainly isn't as practical as the Festiva box. Could be they
never tested one. From what I know, other then looks, they are pretty
much the same.... ceptin' the most important part.......... Festiva got
mojo and the Aspire aint :-)
Curly
Lou
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnge8l4...@manx.misty.com...
You might notice that I said interms of energy content, which has nothing
much to do with the efficiency of converting BTU's to work.
Gasoline engines used to have higher compression ratios, which were reduced
to cut down on NOx emissions. Diesels produce more NOx than present day gas
engines as a result.
Seerialmom
Must be the mojo that kept me from buying the Aspire. Plus, it didn't
seem to be as handy as the Festiva when it came to cargo room. And I
wasn't crazy about the way it looked (the Festiva struck me as a micro-
mini van). I was definitely disappointed when I saw Kia was still
selling the "Pride" which was the twin of the Festiva when Ford went
to the Aspire.
James
> "Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnge8l4...@manx.misty.com...
>
>
>
>
>
The new diesels coming out, like the Mercdes Benz Bluetec (also in the
Jeep Grand Cherokee), VW Clean Diesel etc have a method to reduce NOx
to better than gasoline levels - thought in the case of Bluetec there
is an additive you have to use - not expensive but it means you have
to keep going back to the dealer every third or fourth oil change. The
savings in fuel costs versus a V8 gas engine might be worth it.
The new diesel standards apply now, this obviously doesn't help if
you want to buy an older vehicle.
James
Don Klipstein
I thought gasoline engines with higher compression ratios than modern
ones that can take 87 octane gas (or 86 or whatever in high altitude areas
like Denver) required higher octane gas in order to not knock.
But I do agree that diesels generally produce more NOx than gasoline
engines because of higher compression ratio.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
John Weiss
>
> I thought gasoline engines with higher compression ratios than modern
> ones that can take 87 octane gas (or 86 or whatever in high altitude areas
> like Denver) required higher octane gas in order to not knock.
That is true. While the "101 octane" of some of the old leaded gasolines was
based on a different measurement system than the current, standardized system,
it would still probably measure 95+ by today's standard...
A couple things contributed to the reduction of compression ratios: elimination
of lead from gas and EPA NOx emission standards.
Unleaded fuel has lower octane rating than leaded, and the other additives used
to increase octane these days are more expensive and less effective in raising
the octane. Hence, there is a limit to the compression ratio that can be used
without knocking.
Also, higher compression yields higher temperature, which results in increased
NOx creation even as the engine gets more efficient. So, mfgrs have to engineer
a balance of power, efficiency, drivability, emissions and after-treatment
(e.g., catalytic converters) to meet all the standards.
Don Klipstein
Thanks for the explanation, especially in terms of the old leaded gas
having higher octane than we get now!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Lou
NOx emissions would be to exclude nitrogen from the combustion chamber.
Why couldn't an oxygen concentrator be used to filter out the nitrogen
and supply oxygen and residual inert gases to the engine?
John Weiss
>
> It would seem to me, in my naiveté, that a relatively easy way to reduce NOx
> emissions would be to exclude nitrogen from the combustion chamber. Why
> couldn't an oxygen concentrator be used to filter out the nitrogen and supply
> oxygen and residual inert gases to the engine?
Would you want to pay for that on your car?
Jeff
I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that and, of course,
Don knew. There's a few tricks for coaching high compression ratios out
of gasoline
Diesel is currently more expensive than gas, and ethanol is a
terrible idea. But I see that Obama has mentioned biodiesel more than
once, and I have to think, smart...
Now, I know what I would I would buy and it wouldn't be diesel. I'd
buy a Honda Civic HX. I suppose the modern equivalent is the FIT.
Variable Valve Timing tuned for efficiency, not power. Built to last...
Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Lou
news:gcea67$vi6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I don't know - what would it cost? My thought is that you could get rid of
the catalytic converter because gas would burn more efficiently in an oxygen
atmosphere. Without nitrogen in the combustion chamber the compression
ratio could be raised as high as practicable, the burn temperature could
increase, and efficiency would go up - in other words, more miles per
gallon.
Since I'm not any kind of engineer, I don't know how much such a device
would cost to mass-produce, or how much harder the engine would have to work
to operate it. But zeolite has to be cheaper than platinum, and the idea of
adding a catalytic converter to a car to clean up the products of incomplete
combustion always struck me as like wearing rubber gloves becuase your
fountain pen leaked (but then, I'm old enough to remember using fountain
pens).
I also can't help but suspect that part of the reason we have catalytic
converters on our cars is because we've always done it that way (well, ever
since pollutants from cars began to be controlled).
Lou
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:zoidncwlCO3lWnfV...@earthlink.com...
I think biodiesel is a marginal idea at best. The current estimate is that
25% of all land based photosynthesis goes to support people. That's food,
fiber, and habitat not available to support that non-human part of the
natural world. I'm by no means a tree-hugger, but that figure strikes me as
astounding and probably unsustainable, and making it larger is even less
tenable. Is it a coincidence that it's also estimated that 25% of all
mammal species are in danger of extinction?
max
different perspective: seperating out N2 from air requires a great deal
of power, because it has to be done with a molecular sieve, a
differentially permiable membrane. This requires a great deal of
differential pressure, which requires power.
To get enough 02 flow through the system you would need a *very* large
sieve, and a very great amount of power. Mileage would drop by 50~95%,
probably.
Also, consider that N2 acts as a working fluid in an engine, helping to
convert the heat of combustion into pressure -- there's a certain point
in combustion where your increased combustion temps will give
diminishing returns wrt to cylinder pressure. N2 takes that heat and
gives it something to work with. (sorry for the hand waving).
A catalytic converter, otoh, has very little airflow impedance compaired
to a molecular sieve, and operates off the waste energy in the exhaust
(once it's up to temp, some have preheaters).
.max
Rod Speed
More fool you.
> The current estimate is that 25% of all land based photosynthesis goes to support people.
Thats a number straight from someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.
> That's food, fiber, and habitat not available to support that non-human part of the natural world. I'm by no means a
> tree-hugger, but that figure strikes me as astounding and probably unsustainable,
Nothing like unsustainable.
> and making it larger is even less tenable.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Is it a coincidence that it's also estimated that 25% of all mammal species are in danger of extinction?
Yep, pure coincidence and its also another number plucked from someone's arse.
Perfectly possible to avoid extinctions and grow biodiesel if we choose to do that.
John Weiss
>
> I think biodiesel is a marginal idea at best. The current estimate is that
> 25% of all land based photosynthesis goes to support people. That's food,
> fiber, and habitat not available to support that non-human part of the natural
> world. I'm by no means a tree-hugger, but that figure strikes me as
> astounding and probably unsustainable, and making it larger is even less
> tenable. Is it a coincidence that it's also estimated that 25% of all mammal
> species are in danger of extinction?
One idea that could be explored is to get all the "poor people who have no other
options" to convert their coca and heroin poppy farms to a plant from which
ethanol could be made via the newer cellulosic process. Then they could make
"legitimate" money and help rid the world of the drug scourge!
Gary Heston
[ ... ]
>It would seem to me, in my naiveté, that a relatively easy way to reduce
>NOx emissions would be to exclude nitrogen from the combustion chamber.
> Why couldn't an oxygen concentrator be used to filter out the nitrogen
>and supply oxygen and residual inert gases to the engine?
Do a web search on "oxygen nitrogen separator" and get some idea of what
you'd be trying to stuff under a car hood. One that I found required a
pressure differential of 155bar--almost 2300PSI--to operate! And that was
for about 900 cubic feet PER HOUR. Air intake into automobile engines is
measured into hundreds of cubic feet _per minute_.
Briefly: It's not practical or cost effective.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Why is it that these days, the words "What idiot" are so frequently
followed by the words "at Microsoft"?