Sad Story - Fuel Economy

[MAXIMAN]

TOUCHE!!!

We agree totally on that my friend. Nuclear energy is in fact a very robust method for power generation.

But the sad truth is the enviro-wacks have so scared the dumb masses (or dumb asses whatever the case) that it will not happen in our lives.

So try again.

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Crazcnuk
One day, someone will crack a sustainable fusion reaction, and everything we know now will go out the window.

ONE DAY? ONE DAY? That's a real nice thought. Kinda makes ya feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it?

But it is still pie in the sky. The cold hardfact is it's not here YET. And so until said time we are chained to conventional heat.

JUST GET OVER IT!

[Crazcnuk]

No... we should be chained to Fission reaction, until Fusion is ready.

We have realized that all the other wyas we have to generate are self-destructive.

We have no more hydro-electric to do, burning anything just adds to the mess.

With Nuclear we could phase out all the coal burners, and Nat gas burners, etc. We can keep on using the dams we have now, but no more will be built.

Wind and solar will not take up the slack, not even close. Either one would become it's own environmental hazard if we tried to use any where near enough to make a real difference in our production of electricity.

I worry about Geothermal causing major repercussions, down the road too.

I don't think we should be advocating anything that hastens the cooling of the crust on a wide scale, slows down wind patterns, or tampers with the balancing act between the sun and outerspace.

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Crazcnuk
No... we should be chained to Fission reaction, until Fusion is ready.

Again we agree. But like I said before..."That ain't gonna happen because of you know who..."

We might "should be" chained to fission. Be we never will be because of the fear of it. So as it stands we are indeed chained to conventional HC forms of "E".

Oh well...or is it "Oil Well"...

[MAXIMAN]

Back on topic here...

Does anyone know of any other cars that actually achieve 50+ mpg. I know the Prius claims it but I also have three friends that say own them and say they'll get nowhere near that.

[Crazcnuk]

Actually, here they are looking at building a nuclear power plant for the tarsands. If they are smart they will make it as big as they can. No point in building a small plant.

[Crazcnuk]

Don't know about 50+. Most of the cars that have gone over that are soon phased out.

I think Honda has a Civic model that is rated up there.

My Dodge SX2.0 is rated at 48mpg (imp again) but best I've had so far is 45mpg @ 70mph.

The Chevrolet Malibu Max is rated in the upper 45+ range (Imp gallon, I assume).

The rest are diesels. Diesels are too expensive though, to go for just fuel economy. You pay so much for them that the fuel savings are just helping pay the extra.

The forte of diesels is longevity. They make sense if your going to put 500K+ on them within 10 years. Then the long life adds to the fuel economy over many miles.

[Jerry]

Does anyone know of any other cars that actually achieve 50+ mpg.

2nd hand info here...

One of my nieces and her husband have a 3-cylinder Geo, don't know if it is a Metro or the Spectrum, but has the Suzuki engine. They claim to get 52 - 53 mpg with it, max speed limit in their part of the world is 65. (Northern Illinois.) Don't know if this is freeway, commuting, or combination, suspect combination. They also claim performance is adequate for city driving.

Another old buggy that got - if I recall correctly - excellent mileage for the time was the 2-cycle Saab form the late '60s, would not pass smog standards so was discontinued in the US by 1970, I think. I had a HS instructor that had one, think it turned in the high 40s, smoked a lot and not much performance. Was marketed against the VW Beetle of the time. Very interesting sound from that engine.

[Crazcnuk]

It was probably the Geo Swift. That was the equivelent to the Pontiac firefly. 3 cyl, 1000cc.

The carbbed ones were in the 50's and the fuel injected ones could hit the 60's with the IMP gallons up here.

[mn2346]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN
Back on topic here...

Does anyone know of any other cars that actually achieve 50+ mpg....

Some figures from our goverments database, don't know if these are available in your area.
See how the d for diesel is almost in all of these...

71MPG+
smart fortwo cdi

53.4MPG
Peugeot 206 Oxygo HDi
Mini Cooper D R56
Opel Corsa Essentia 1.3 CDTI

52.6MPG
Toyota Yaris 1.4 D-4D
Citroën C3 HDi

51.1MPG
Citroën C1 1,0i SX
Honda Civic 4D 1.4i CVT AT Hybrid
Peugeot 107 Trendy 1.0
Toyota AYGO + 1.0 VVT
Skoda Fabia 1.4 TDI
Hyundai GETZ 1.5 CRDi
Ford Fiesta 1.4TDCi
Renault Clio 1,5 dCi
Volkswagen Polo 1.4 TDI

50.0MPG
BMW 118d E81
Kia cee´d 1,6 CRDi
Nissan Micra 1.5 dCi
Ford Fusion 1.4TDCi

This is the combined consumption not the best highway numbers...

In our side of the world the European Union is considering to mandate the manufacturers to make the average CO emission level to be max 120g/100km, FIAT is the only to achieve this currently. Mercedes and BMW etc. are not too happy.

[AlanB]

Hi Guys,

Still on topic; SWMBOs daily driver is an Audi A2. now discontinued, and I don't know if they ever made it to the states?

Ours is a 2003 75bhp 1.4l 3-cyl Turbo Diesel. Built of aluminium (like the A8 - and in the same plant!) It is lighter and bigger than the polo, but uses a similar engine, differently tuned.

"The boss" is the harshest driver I have ever met, but she still gets 55/60 MPG-Imperial.

I can get closer to 70 mpg in normal driving; Guys on the A2 forum claim a regular 75 mpg (Imperial)

Driving these vehicles may not replace extra nuclear plants, but it has to help a bit.....

It also proves that the technology to give Quick, Fun, Interesting......and Economical vehicles has existed for many years.

AlanB

[Crazcnuk]

Or we just convert to hydrogen and drive all the nasty late 60's muscle cars, or 24ft land yacht Lincolns and SUVs we want to...and still put out less pollution than your A2.

[AlanB]

Hi Cnuk;

Remind me; Where does the electricity for the production of all the hydrogen come from?

AlanB

[Crazcnuk]

Please, read all the entire thread.

[AlanB]

Hi Cnuk,

LOL; I just wanted you to say again that you wanted the plants on your doorstep; Not as far from me as I would like, but a reasonable admission that Canada would not be much altered by nuclear "problems".

I have reduced my energy consumption by around 25% over the last four years, and have not increased my personal population, But if canada chooses to make lots of cheap power, I might buy some..........

AlanB