Ford Focus Hated. Who did not see this coming?

[SPYDERLK]

On the 2008 Prius. The battery pack is 120 pounds. Not much bigger than a Deep Cycle RV or Marine battery, just flatter.
When cruising even at high speed the battery is regenerating when the engine doesn't need full power. Rolling country side is actually the best mpg. Engine and battery use up the hill and battery regeneration down the hill. It may take longer to get to the 45-50 mpg but by the end of the tank it's always 45-50 mpg. In town it may go to 60-65 mpg right after a fill up for about 10 miles. By the end of the tank it is always 45-50 mpg. The Prius has a bar gauge that shows how much regeneration has been produced per five minutes previous. It also has a real time mpg usage readout. And a display showing the Power coming from the engine or battery or reneneration or combination

Dont forget the motors. ... The Honda Civic would do 50+ on the road back in the eighties. Could probably squeeze a few extra with todays technology.
larry

 

[IslandTractor]

Dont forget the motors. ... The Honda Civic would do 50+ on the road back in the eighties. Could probably squeeze a few extra with todays technology.
larry

Honda Civic in the 1980's weighed less and had a smaller engine than the 2012 version. Today's cars are quite a bit heavier and higher performing with bigger engines.

1985 Honda Civic Sedan weighed 2510lbs and rated at 26/31mpg city/highway with a 1.5l 76hp motor.

2011 Civic Sedan weighed 2749lbs and rated at 25/36mpg with 1.8l 140hp motor.

 

[IslandTractor]

If anyone thinks we need electronic computers to run an engine at top efficiency, that person has been brainwashed.

I would admit that I believe that the computers are doing something useful. Just looking at the horsepower per liter ratings of fuel injected gas engines twenty five years ago (pre computer) and now shows a doubling of output per liter in ordinary standard sedans. I am aware that there have been a number of other improvements to engine design but I'd still attribute a lot of it to the computerization of fuel delivery and ignition cycle.

 

[powerpace]

Technology File | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION GLOBAL WEBSITE

Prius 2008 weight 2950# is not outrageous. Toyota Camry Hybrid weight is 3800#. Toyota Camry standard 3500#. Honda Civic standard 2500#. 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid 2850#. We could list all but it would make no difference to some.

Someone that throws numbers and unsubstantiated opinions need to go to a Dealer and "drive" the Vehicles they are maligning. It's a free ride. At the very least touch a piece of literature. Credibility.

I drove several brands of vehicles "hybrid and standard" before I bought.

 

[powerpace]

There is technology that we do not know about. What is worse is the technology that has been ignored because of political reasons. If anyone thinks we need electronic computers to run an engine at top efficiency, that person has been brainwashed. If GM did their best to distract the buying public from buying diesels back in the late 70's by building an engine that they knew would self destruct, I hope no one thinks that they wouldn't do their best to ruin other developments if it meant using less gasoline back then. It is most unfortunate that Smokey Yunicks idea of hot vapor burn technology never saw the light of day. Our cars would have gotten 50 miles per gallon from 35 years ago while producing 1.5 hp per cubic inch. So now they want to charge us $49,000 for an economy car but what a boost it gives their C.A.F.E figures to average in an alleged 90 mile per gallon car. As LD1 previously stated, mpg is a hoax and is not a proper barometer of efficiency. What does a car cost to run that includes its purchase price and its gallons per mile and you get a much truer representation of what any auto's true cost is.[/QUOTE'

I used to read Smokey Yunicks articles in Popular Science magazine back in the 60's. I liked his ideas and he wasn't afraid to say what he thought.

 

[arrow]

I would admit that I believe that the computers are doing something useful. Just looking at the horsepower per liter ratings of fuel injected gas engines twenty five years ago (pre computer) and now shows a doubling of output per liter in ordinary standard sedans. I am aware that there have been a number of other improvements to engine design but I'd still attribute a lot of it to the computerization of fuel delivery and ignition cycle.

Island, our efficiency output could have almost tripled 35 years ago and w/o computers. A computer is simply another way to meter fuel and air delivery ratios. Oh and don't forget all the sensors like map flow and camshaft and crank etc.etc. now needed for this module to read. You can attribute an efficiency quotient to them as they are doing that job. Double overhead cams, differentiated cam grinds , lower friction coefficients, better lubricosity, more efficient exhaust scavenging are what the real backbone of increased HP ratings are. Then there are the air delivery and combustion swirl path systems such as turbos and combustion chamber shape along with better and cooler air intake . In the 60's one could derive almost 800 hp from a 4 cylinder Offenhauser engine and this was without computers.What I stated is that they are not needed to achieve these efficiencies. They were simply utilized for this purpose as that what was coming out of engineering schools at the time and the big sell was made to and from Washington that this was the wave of the future. Everyone jumped on it. It was cheap to do and more importantly, everyone (including our politicians) could make big money with it. Isn't it just super that to replace this module costs us $500 to $800. Cheez, just like an Ipad!!!The brain of the engine went from being the camshaft and valve timing and meter flow ratios to this little resin incased PCM. Can you imagine if camshafts with 0 degree overlap were put in cars with intake air being almost as hot as exhaust? There are cycles in internal combustion engines called Otto and Brayton. Hot vapor tech actually began to combine these two to achieve unheard of efficiencies that were scientifically verified. Why it did not come to market reads like a Michael Creighton novel. The rest is all about us being dangled like puppets.

 

[arrow]

There is technology that we do not know about. What is worse is the technology that has been ignored because of political reasons. If anyone thinks we need electronic computers to run an engine at top efficiency, that person has been brainwashed. If GM did their best to distract the buying public from buying diesels back in the late 70's by building an engine that they knew would self destruct, I hope no one thinks that they wouldn't do their best to ruin other developments if it meant using less gasoline back then. It is most unfortunate that Smokey Yunicks idea of hot vapor burn technology never saw the light of day. Our cars would have gotten 50 miles per gallon from 35 years ago while producing 1.5 hp per cubic inch. So now they want to charge us $49,000 for an economy car but what a boost it gives their C.A.F.E figures to average in an alleged 90 mile per gallon car. As LD1 previously stated, mpg is a hoax and is not a proper barometer of efficiency. What does a car cost to run that includes its purchase price and its gallons per mile and you get a much truer representation of what any auto's true cost is.[/QUOTE'

I used to read Smokey Yunicks articles in Popular Science magazine back in the 60's. I liked his ideas and he wasn't afraid to say what he thought.

Dave, this is off subject but remember the time when Smokey bamboozled everyone in the automotive world when he drilled tiny little holes into the headers near the mounting flange. All kinds of theories abounded a to what he was doing from increased scavenging effects ( which would act the opposite for this) to sighting the exhaust flow temp by its color (which makes a whole lot more sense.) Everyone copied him even if they did not know why they were doing so. He was the DaVinci of the internal combustion engine.

 

[arrow]

Honda Civic in the 1980's weighed less and had a smaller engine than the 2012 version. Today's cars are quite a bit heavier and higher performing with bigger engines.

1985 Honda Civic Sedan weighed 2510lbs and rated at 26/31mpg city/highway with a 1.5l 76hp motor.

2011 Civic Sedan weighed 2749lbs and rated at 25/36mpg with 1.8l 140hp motor.

You also have to include aerodynamic improvements, transmission and tranaxle gear ratios along with final drive ratios along with overdrive systems. Cars became like chainsaws. As people clamored for larger interiors, cars had to make more HP just like you need more cc's for a larger bar. Truth of the matter is that cars have 10 times the hp needed to sustain 65 mph but they need some extra grunt to get this larger, heavier mass going

 

[LD1]

There is technology that we do not know about. What is worse is the technology that has been ignored because of political reasons. If anyone thinks we need electronic computers to run an engine at top efficiency, that person has been brainwashed. If GM did their best to distract the buying public from buying diesels back in the late 70's by building

Yep, I think GM ruined this country on diesels and its a shame.

In the big p/u's, like the 250/350, there seems to be this never-ending HP and torque war that I see no end in sight. And it is only bad for fuel mileage. Sure, one can argue that a new diesel gets about the same economy as one from 20 years ago but makes gobs more power, but imagine if we made one today with the power of 20 years ago how MUCH BETTER the economy would be:thumbsup:

And I have probabally said it 100 times.....Why not make a SMALL, say maybe 3.5 or 4 liter diesel with ~250 HP and ~450tq and put in the 1/2 ton trucks. 30MPG+ anyone???? And dont give the BS about engine cost, because I dont imagine the "eco-boost" that ford is using was exactally cheap. And it only gets 22MPG. Build a diesel like that and get 32:thumbsup:

And I was too lazy to search, but what MPG did the guy with the jinma-mazda get??

 

[Diamondpilot]

I would be a buyer of a 1/2 ton F-150 with a diesel that had equal to or better than the Eco Boost if it could get 25% better mpg. If not I will stick with gas.

This is from the owner of 4 diesel trucks. They are expensive to maintain and cost even more to buy upfront. And if they break you better dig deep. Gas is so much simpler, cheaper to buy, and maintain.

There would have to be a significant mpg boost for me to go down the road again.

Chris