real world fuel consumption

ecenomic driving just keep the engine in the 2000 to 3000 rev range in every gear , be light on the brakes , use anticipation lots, flow driving without sudden changes.

I drove the new Toyota Auris recently... with a 1.4 litre 90 HP diesel.. and between my "light on the throttle" driving and "change up when the ECU tells you" driving there was almost 1 litre per 100 km difference, in computers advantage... and I had to keep the engine below 2000 rpm..

Magoo- I did not state that intentional acts in violation of laws or regulations are legal, proper, ethical or moral, in any circumstance. What I said was that I have no issue with auto companies taking full advantage of the regulations as written to get their product designs certified.

Couldn't disagree more. When corporations approach the law the way Colin Chapman attacked the rulebook, it's always human beings who suffer the consequences for the actions. Society is not a system to be gamed and the community is not a crop to be harvested.

By definition, "taking full advantage of the regulations as written" precludes ethical and moral considerations. Hang scruples, if we can touch the letter of the law we're good to go.

Edited by Magoo, 24 March 2013 - 00:08.

yes but three points

- would that imply that Colin chapman was a " crook" when it came to designing cars (not finances) so all the Lotus victories are as null and void as Lance Armstrong's?

- I think the way its MEANT to work is that legistlators create laws ( often imperfect in hindsight) and courts rule on behavior versus those laws. If gaps in law are revealed either the judges plug them within their power ( common law) or the legistalture goes back and fixes the poor/out of date law ( statutory law)

- The very commercial survival of a mfr. now depends on passing these tests. Of course that creates pressure to cheat which why the tests are govt contolled. If mfr. wont work tight up against the rules and thereby fail to sell cars not just "evil" corporate shareholders but thousands of workers lose thier jobs which doesn't usually help society much.

I think the whole " cheating " thing is being exagertted. The differneces are probably very minor e.g OEMs now use 0w - 30W type oils to help cold drag. Thats what you put in the car at services - the stuff costs a fortune each replacement vs older oils, so in terms of damaging society I doubt there is a " cheater oil" which gets drag much below 0W - 30W and its th rules which cost society double price for replacement oil.

Edited by mariner, 24 March 2013 - 09:18.

yes but three points

- would that imply that Colin chapman was a " crook" when it came to designing cars (not finances) so all the Lotus victories are as null and void as Lance Armstrong's?

Motor racing has traditionally held a different set of ethical standards than the world at large -- that was my point. In racing, people have liked to say "It's not cheating unless you get caught." Maybe so in that particular realm, but we would be horrified to hear bank managers and food processors and pharmaceutical manufacturers saying that.

And this is a problem in the business world today. People are openly espousing the idea that if the basic regulatory standards have been technically met, then they have done their duty and if anything goes wrong from that point, it must be the government's fault for setting the bar too low. What a reprehensible way to run an enterprise.

- The very commercial survival of a mfr. now depends on passing these tests. Of course that creates pressure to cheat which why the tests are govt contolled. If mfr. wont work tight up against the rules and thereby fail to sell cars not just "evil" corporate shareholders but thousands of workers lose thier jobs which doesn't usually help society much.

Everyone on God's green earth must exercise moral judgement, from the Chairman of BP to the single mother waiting tables. Both stare into the cash drawer each hour and both have a decision to make. People who run businesses are absolutely nothing special in that regard. They just think they're special.

The people who operate car companies, like the people who run all companies, don't care anything about jobs and workers. It's their responsibility to not care. If they can reduce the payroll from 10,000 to 9998, that's what they will do. Bet on it. Their job is to eliminate as many jobs as possible to maximize "shareholder value," not that they give one **** about the shareholders either. That's why we must give them zillions of dollars in bonuses and stock options, to compel them to care. Otherwise, they would have insufficient motivation, they tell us.

When executives lose their moral compass, it's seldom because they were overly concerned about their employees or customers. Almost invariably, the motive is personal gain. If the employees and stakeholders were really first in their minds, they wouldn't put the enterprise at risk.

Edited by Magoo, 24 March 2013 - 11:10.

I think the whole " cheating " thing is being exagertted.

I'm sure it is. I think the report was packaged a certain way for marketing purposes.

Everyone on God's green earth must exercise moral judgement, from the Chairman of BP to the single mother waiting tables. Both stare into the cash drawer each hour and both have a decision to make. People who run businesses are absolutely nothing special in that regard. They just think they're special.

The people who operate car companies, like the people who run all companies, don't care anything about jobs and workers. It's their responsibility to not care. If they can reduce the payroll from 10,000 to 9998, that's what they will do. Bet on it. Their job is to eliminate as many jobs as possible to maximize "shareholder value," not that they give one shit about the shareholders either. That's why we must give them zillions of dollars in bonuses and stock options, to compel them to care. Otherwise, they would have insufficient motivation, they tell us.

When executives lose their moral compass, it's seldom because they were overly concerned about their employees or customers. Almost invariably, the motive is personal gain. If the employees and stakeholders were really first in their minds, they wouldn't put the enterprise at risk.

This is all sadly true. The sociopathy is baked into the incentives. It's almost impossible for non-sociopaths to effectively function within that competitive milieu. Instead of admiring, making role models out of and giving respect to "savvy businessmen" we should instead treat them like fire-- an amoral resource of some potential use, but also huge potential danger that must constantly be watched over and controlled. Business executives are almost literally the last people on earth you'd want your children to emulate as role models. I'm not sure how we came to romanticize them or project virtue of any stripe onto them.

I saw an article in a recent Road & Track (I think) about the EPA fuel consumption testing, and that suggested that the testing methodo;ogy was out of date in respect real world speeds that modern traffic goes at now a days. Things like the 55 mph speed limit disappearing, and most people not adhering to it. It suggested that for the Hybrid cars, as at higher speeds, their fuel consumption increases faster than a straight gasoline car because the battery is not assisting.

Well...because they (those types) run the media at large, thus shaping our perception as a society. Get a better education to get a better job and make more money. Not to enrich or contribute to society, not to do something that you love, not to spend more time with each other (which is surely the most valuable use of our time), but to make more money so you can buy stuff. No wonder our moral compass is sticky.

This is all sadly true. The sociopathy is baked into the incentives. It's almost impossible for non-sociopaths to effectively function within that competitive milieu. Instead of admiring, making role models out of and giving respect to "savvy businessmen" we should instead treat them like fire-- an amoral resource of some potential use, but also huge potential danger that must constantly be watched over and controlled. Business executives are almost literally the last people on earth you'd want your children to emulate as role models. I'm not sure how we came to romanticize them or project virtue of any stripe onto them.

I don't know that businessmen and entrepreneurs are appreciably more or less moral than anyone else. (Being one myself, I am skeptical either way.) I only object to the suggestion that rules don't apply to them because they are the precious vessels of commerce and must operate unfettered by ordinary moral considerations like everyone else -- like, say, paying taxes or following laws.

In recent years they have presented themselves as the high priesthood of "job creators" -- which, unless you are an idiot, you know is a crock. Employers don't create jobs, consumers create jobs. Economics 101. Employers strive to reduce costs, employment being one. Honestly, if you have ever operated a newspaper route, you must break out laughing every time Donald Trump or Mitt Romney opens his mouth. How this crowd keeps a straight face when they talk this malarkey is a mystery to me.

I saw an article in a recent Road & Track (I think) about the EPA fuel consumption testing, and that suggested that the testing methodo;ogy was out of date in respect real world speeds that modern traffic goes at now a days. Things like the 55 mph speed limit disappearing, and most people not adhering to it. It suggested that for the Hybrid cars, as at higher speeds, their fuel consumption increases faster than a straight gasoline car because the battery is not assisting.

I also wonder if people are becoming poorer drivers all the time, with lower sensitivity to vehicle load and traffic flow.

I also wonder if people are becoming poorer drivers all the time, with lower sensitivity to vehicle load and traffic flow.

In my experience, they are. No one seems interested in doing anything properly, not just in driving. It horrifies me that every new car launch that I see concentrates more on in-car entertainment than almost any other feature, apart from accelerartion and top speed. Touch screens seems to be the latest must-have in the dash. How is this safer than texting?

In my experience, they are. No one seems interested in doing anything properly, not just in driving. It horrifies me that every new car launch that I see concentrates more on in-car entertainment than almost any other feature, apart from accelerartion and top speed. Touch screens seems to be the latest must-have in the dash. How is this safer than texting?

Agreed. And trying to use a trendy touch screen when driving can be hard work trying to coordinate your movements. I must be getting old but tuning the radio, changing tapes or discs , adjusting the heat is getting harder.And with these dopey touch screeens or up and down buttons is harder than a simple knob or slide. Though with my distance glasses focusing is hard work up close.
Here in Oz any claim to speed etc is not PC. Holden got in the poop for showing a ute doing cicle work, I am surprised there was little reaction to dirt drifting from the Subota. Top speed figures are never quoted. Top Gear amazes me with all the reputed top speeds!

I also wonder if people are becoming poorer drivers all the time, with lower sensitivity to vehicle load and traffic flow.

I think we have concensus here. An increasing proportion of drivers are too silly to get out of their own way,or anybody else's way. They can't even move off promptly when the lights turn green,let alone exhibit any form of being attuned to driving a car, or accomodating their fellow motorists . Now that virtually everybody "drives",the type of person who probably would not have been able to get a license in your average
1950s or 60s car are now blundering around with power steering,auto trans,park assist,in car entertainment,sat nav,mobile phone,and probably a bowl of Meusli and a Decaff Soy Latte beside them while trying to "save the planet" driving little Nathan and Dakota to school 20km away.

Edited by johnny yuma, 25 March 2013 - 01:29.

I think we have concensus here.

Of course we have concensus here!

All contributors to the technical forum have "above average" driving ability and are therefore uniquely qualified to pass judgement on the 3% of drivers who are average or below. I might even start a poll just to confirm that for you all.

I think we have concensus here. An increasing proportion of drivers are too silly to get out of their own way,or anybody else's way. They can't even move off promptly when the lights turn green,let alone exhibit any form of being attuned to driving a car, or accomodating their fellow motorists . Now that virtually everybody "drives",the type of person who probably would not have been able to get a license in your average
1950s or 60s car are now blundering around with power steering,auto trans,park assist,in car entertainment,sat nav,mobile phone,and probably a bowl of Meusli and a Decaff Soy Latte beside them while trying to "save the planet" driving little Nathan and Dakota to school 20km away in their 2000kg 'SUV'.

Grunt, no need to waste electrons, take it as read

Green Machine, we must be soul mates. I was thinking exactly along the lines of your "2000kg SUV" edit.

...while trying to "save the planet" driving little Nathan and Dakota to school 20km away.

In suburban UK it is mor likely to be between 200m and 2 km. Wayne and Sheryl are more likely names...

In suburban UK it is mor likely to be between 200m and 2 km. Wayne and Sheryl are more likely names...

You're not suggesting Nathan and Dakota go to the local government school are you ? Heaven forbid.
And walk there ? You commie.

SUV-driving mothers and their children will be the first up against the wall come the revolution, comrade.

SUV-driving mothers and their children will be the first up against the wall come the revolution, comrade.

Exactly. Petite bourgeoisie running dogs for the repressive ruling elites.

So do we say "We have met the enemy and they are ours" or "We have seen the enemy and they are us" ?

......By definition, "taking full advantage of the regulations as written" precludes ethical and moral considerations. Hang scruples, if we can touch the letter of the law we're good to go.....

Magoo,

You are incorrect. Since the concept of ethics and morality are entirely subjective, and vary greatly from one society to another, there is no established universal definition or norm.

I would also propose that you consider the inverse situation when it comes to auto companies submitting their products for approval by government regulators. Let's say that an auto company product submitted for compliance testing fails to meet government standards by a tiny fraction that could legitimately be interpreted to fall within the testing standard's margin of error. If the auto company made a good faith effort in submitting their product for evaluation, do the government officials overseeing the test have an "ethical" and "moral" obligation to give their approval?

Isn't it a two-way street?

Magoo,

You are incorrect. Since the concept of ethics and morality are entirely subjective, and vary greatly from one society to another, there is no established universal definition or norm.

I would also propose that you consider the inverse situation when it comes to auto companies submitting their products for approval by government regulators. Let's say that an auto company product submitted for compliance testing fails to meet government standards by a tiny fraction that could legitimately be interpreted to fall within the testing standard's margin of error. If the auto company made a good faith effort in submitting their product for evaluation, do the government officials overseeing the test have an "ethical" and "moral" obligation to give their approval?

Isn't it a two-way street?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is being assessed here ? The fuel economy on test,or the emissions of particles and gases perceived as hazards to be reduced,as done since the seventies in California,and a good thing.
Does the US at State or Federal level demand a certain Miles per Gallon,or is it just a Star Rating to stick on the windscreen they oversee ?

Edited by johnny yuma, 26 March 2013 - 09:10.

Magoo,

You are incorrect. Since the concept of ethics and morality are entirely subjective, and vary greatly from one society to another, there is no established universal definition or norm.

I would also propose that you consider the inverse situation when it comes to auto companies submitting their products for approval by government regulators. Let's say that an auto company product submitted for compliance testing fails to meet government standards by a tiny fraction that could legitimately be interpreted to fall within the testing standard's margin of error. If the auto company made a good faith effort in submitting their product for evaluation, do the government officials overseeing the test have an "ethical" and "moral" obligation to give their approval?

Isn't it a two-way street?

Your scenario seems contrived in a way that logically isn't possible. If the test spec is X with a margin of error Y and the specimen falls short of X but within Y then it has not failed. On the other hand, if you've put your best foot forward, made every effort and still failed then piss off - you've failed. There's no marks for trying or being nice - this isn't primary school. Go back and do it over until it's right. Or - the test needs to be evaluated, but if you're the only one that's failed, see above. It would be morally abhorrent to give you a pass because you're a nice guy and tried hard but introduced a product that was inferior.

SUV-driving mothers and their children will be the first up against the wall come the revolution, comrade.

I am ok then, I drive a 4wd. not a bloody SUV whatever they may be. As for 2 ton, that is the family sedan!

In suburban UK it is mor likely to be between 200m and 2 km. Wayne and Sheryl are more likely names...

When I was a kid I used to walk to school. Excellent fuel mileage! Probably considered much too dangerous now in UK
cities.

QUOTE (Magoo @ Mar 23 2013, 17:05)
......By definition, "taking full advantage of the regulations as written" precludes ethical and moral considerations. Hang scruples, if we can touch the letter of the law we're good to go.....


I am sure most people apply this thinking when filling in their tax forms, no?

So if it is good for them why is it not applicable to others? Including companies.

Edited by Dipster, 27 March 2013 - 06:47.

I am ok then, I drive a 4wd. not a bloody SUV whatever they may be. As for 2 ton, that is the family sedan!

I too drive a 4WD, a Diesel LR Defender (certainly no SUV!). I get about 30 mpg. This can increase or decrease dramatically on trips. Motorway driving with a loaded car and roof rack sees that drop to about 23 - 25. Pootling along in the wilds can see me get 1000kms fron a 80 litre tank of diesel - loaded. I think that is about 35 to the (UK) gallon.

I was tempted recently to look at the Audi A6 as it claimed 50+ mpg. Now I am no longer working I actually thought to replace my 4WD with something more mainstream.

But when I saw the purchase price I began to have doubts. When I investigated servicing and parts costs I was really hestating. When I saw all the (to me) totally unrequired gizmos that the thing came with I walked away.

As I have moved on in years I am less interested in useless and pointless gadgets. As a man who, when travelling for my work, voluntarily downgraded himself (more than once) from 5 star to 3 star hotels to enable me to actually be able to use the shower in the posh bathroom I did not think I could live with that car.

So the idea of saving fuel and, perhaps the planet, is lost when you think of all the costs entailed to acheve this.

I am sure most people apply this thinking when filling in their tax forms, no?
So if it is good for them why is it not applicable to others? Including companies.

Stretching the rules on your tax return is one person vs the big bad govt'. (No "the big bad govt" isn't really the rest of the community)
Stretching the rules on a mpg test is a big bad corporation vs helpless consumers.

So obviously different ethical standards should apply.

Stretching the rules on your tax return is one person vs the big bad govt'. (No "the big bad govt" isn't really the rest of the community)
Stretching the rules on a mpg test is a big bad corporation vs helpless consumers.

So obviously different ethical standards should apply.

I think not. Going OT I feel I should reply.

Taxes are levied and collected for the common good. By governments that, I suspect happily for most of us on this forum, were democratically elected.

Tax rules should not be stretched (inferring, in my interpretation, trying to get a benefit that is not allowable in the rules) but applied. The taxes collected are used to supply services and facilities for all citizens.

How is that "not really for the rest of the community"?

http://www.thedetroi...easure-mileage/

Hmmm, real mileage.

I was going through old magazines the other day and found that a Shelby 1966 GT350 got 16mpg, while my old 1974 Ford Full size got 16.5 mpg.

Now those are real world mpg, as when I had my Boss 302 and checked mileage 16 was the number I came up with most often, whereas while I never actually checked mileage of the Ford, I could tell by how much gas it took me to drive a 50 mile trip I took often that the Ford was getting better mileage than the 1966 Dodge Polara it replaced, and I did check, which got 16 mpg if it hds a strong.
tale-wind on a level road.

I was happy when it got 15 mpg.

At the same time the Dodge replaced a 1966 Plymouth Fury with the Canadian block 318.
That rarely got less than 18 mpg.
These are combined numbers, not just highway numbers.

The last Ford I drove, a pretty basic new Focus, kept a near real time accounting of fuel mileage that could accessed through the dashboard computer--instantaneous and trip at the least. How hard would it be to have the data downloaded at scheduled services and get empirical data from to build a nearly definitive real world data base? It looks to me like the hardware is pretty much already in place. I assume other makers have similar capabilities built into their new cars, why not mandate this data be collected and given to whomever is tasked with publishing the numbers?

What they do with this data? Maybe, simplest, create a simple fudge(s) applied to the current testing methodology. Or--and this surely is the hard way--try to use the data to validate/invalidate the current testing methodology to optimize it vs. the empirical data.

The last Ford I drove, a pretty basic new Focus, kept a near real time accounting of fuel mileage that could accessed through the dashboard computer--instantaneous and trip at the least. How hard would it be to have the data downloaded at scheduled services and get empirical data from to build a nearly definitive real world data base? It looks to me like the hardware is pretty much already in place. I assume other makers have similar capabilities built into their new cars, why not mandate this data be collected and given to whomever is tasked with publishing the numbers?

What they do with this data? Maybe, simplest, create a simple fudge(s) applied to the current testing methodology. Or--and this surely is the hard way--try to use the data to validate/invalidate the current testing methodology to optimize it vs. the empirical data.

Your database would also have to track tire pressure and tire model. I replaced the absolutely horrid LRR Michelins that came stock on my car with a set of summer-only Bridgestones. I live in a very wet climate (~50" of rain/yr), and I don't like nearly hydroplaning into the guardrail every single time it rains. The new tires dropped my mileage from 32-34 MPG to 25-27 MPG. It's a small price to pay for actually maintaining control of my car.

If you just use the data to generate a crude numerical fudge (which I would suggest is a more robust approach than trying to delve into the data to more accurately model the problem), you don't need to get into any of the variables such as drivers, tires, speeds, usages etc. etc. You just look at each manufacturer's recent empirical data, compare it against their EPA test ratings across their range and apply a calculated fudge to the EPA rating to make the two agree, then update the fudge annually along with the EPA mileage ratings. Simple and fair, no?

If you just use the data to generate a crude numerical fudge (which I would suggest is a more robust approach than trying to delve into the data to more accurately model the problem), you don't need to get into any of the variables such as drivers, tires, speeds, usages etc. etc. You just look at each manufacturer's recent empirical data, compare it against their EPA test ratings across their range and apply a calculated fudge to the EPA rating to make the two agree, then update the fudge annually along with the EPA mileage ratings. Simple and fair, no?

Yes, and you loose the ability to immediately compare data across years.

If you want to compare your mileage with that of a current model car, you either have to go through a mathematical/research project to make the comparison. At the minimum, you have to go somewhere and look it up.

I don't see why. Just make the fudge correction public information and compare unfudged figures apples to apples if you must make comparisons bridging the changeover. And you only need to do this for comparisons spanning the changeover. Once the fudge is implemented, comparisons going forward would be both like to like and more grounded in empirical reality and comparisons with pre-changeover cars would soon and increasingly become of little interest or utility to potential car buyers.

How is that "not really for the rest of the community"?

The smiley face should be a hint. Does no one here recognise irony or sarcasm?

The last Ford I drove, a pretty basic new Focus, kept a near real time accounting of fuel mileage that could accessed through the dashboard computer--instantaneous and trip at the least. How hard would it be to have the data downloaded at scheduled services and get empirical data from to build a nearly definitive real world data base? It looks to me like the hardware is pretty much already in place. I assume other makers have similar capabilities built into their new cars, why not mandate this data be collected and given to whomever is tasked with publishing the numbers?

What they do with this data? Maybe, simplest, create a simple fudge(s) applied to the current testing methodology. Or--and this surely is the hard way--try to use the data to validate/invalidate the current testing methodology to optimize it vs. the empirical data.

How would you correct for driver demographic? We all know certain models attract lead-foot buyers while others are favoured by retirees.

If the driver demographic is a significant factor, why not include it as representative of real world mileage? The average buyer wants to know what sort of mileage they'd likely get, not what an artificial model of a driver or the type of driver unlikely to buy one would get. You don't need to painstakingly engineer a model based on innumerable likely variables, you just need to see what happens in the real world and apply a little commonsense. Having engineers involved at all might be counterproductive.

I think you'd have trouble convincing the makers that their product deserves a lousy mpg rating because a high percentage of rev-heads chose to own it.

It would at least be an honest representation of what one might expect in real-world use.

Yes, do you want figures the manufacturers want or ones that are real world accurate? One obviously can't have both. Why, in fact, would or should one care at all what the automakers might think about the methodology chosen?

And - it's not as if it's an unfair representation. Hell - take the middle 80% and thow out the drag racers and the hyper-milers. If you're a typical driver, this is what to expect. One could go further and break it into average speed categories (thereby implying traffic conditions) for those looking for something more specific to their personal scenario. The wife's vehicle should get excellent mileage in the city residential school run, groceries and so on where 99% of the mileage is accumulated. Mine should get good highway mileage as that's what it's used for.

Your scenario seems contrived in a way that logically isn't possible. If the test spec is X with a margin of error Y and the specimen falls short of X but within Y then it has not failed. On the other hand, if you've put your best foot forward, made every effort and still failed then piss off - you've failed. There's no marks for trying or being nice - this isn't primary school. Go back and do it over until it's right. Or - the test needs to be evaluated, but if you're the only one that's failed, see above. It would be morally abhorrent to give you a pass because you're a nice guy and tried hard but introduced a product that was inferior.

Canuck- In any philosophical debate all "scenarios" are contrived. However, maybe I did not do a god job of making my point.

Let's say that the published test standard for fuel consumption is 35.00mpg with a margin of error of +/-1%, and with a good faith effort on the part of the manufacturer the vehicle test result is 34.64mpg. Given the benefit of the full margin of error, the vehicle test result would still only be 34.99mpg. Would that 0.01mpg shortfall in meeting an arbitrary test standard really make a difference? And would it really be "morally abhorrent" for the government regulators to give the vehicle a passing grade?

It would be wrong, irrespective of it's impact. As I noted, perhaps the standard needs to be addressed in your scenario if the result of being +\- 3% is negligible to the current 1%. It is like being dead or pregnant - you are or you are not - there are no half measures. It meets the spec or it doesn't.

If we decide that the spec is foolish and ignore it rather than address it, we are being dishonest. If we are willing to be dishonest about that, where do we draw no-longer-acceptably-dishonest line? I once had a customer "encourage" me to pad his insurance damage estimate so that he would get a larger payout on his motorcycle. I ignored it until he was so bold as to confront me on why I wasn't playing ball. My answer to him was simple - if I'm going to be dishonest with them and rip them off, what makes you think I won't be dishonest with you? He got the message.

Your database would also have to track tire pressure and tire model. I replaced the absolutely horrid LRR Michelins that came stock on my car with a set of summer-only Bridgestones. I live in a very wet climate (~50" of rain/yr), and I don't like nearly hydroplaning into the guardrail every single time it rains. The new tires dropped my mileage from 32-34 MPG to 25-27 MPG. It's a small price to pay for actually maintaining control of my car.

This is one of my bugbears. The noise that a tire generates is strongly related to its rolling resistance for a given level of technology and so on in the tire. The stopping distance for a tire is also strongly related. So a noisy tire has better braking, and uses less fuel.

This means we are directly trading off a safety related property (stopping distance) in order to get cars that are quiet enough to pass driveby noise regs, which are already so effective that cars that pass them are not a significant contributor to traffic noise, and in order to get good fuel consumption and emissions figures, which are legislated. So that particular ethical/moral dilemma is created by the regs, not the industry. All you can do realistically is meet the standards, and excel at the attributes that you think will help sell cars. Something like 30000 car firms have tried to sell you the cars they want to build because you ought to prefer them , the remaining 7(? or maybe 20 depending on how you count) try to build the car you will actually buy. The 29980+ are now nameplates or history.

With the Euro driveby regs, a car accelerates from 50 kph in 2nd and 3rd gear. Full throttle. The loudest noise you will hear is tire noise and aero, with a bit of transmission whine. Somewhere underneath it all is the engine noise they were originally trying to get rid of. If you listen to a modern car driving past you in a suburban street, you don't hear the engine, you hear tire roar.

"uses less fuel"? Did you mean to write "uses more fuel"?

This is one of my bugbears. The noise that a tire generates is strongly related to its rolling resistance for a given level of technology and so on in the tire. The stopping distance for a tire is also strongly related. So a noisy tire has better braking, and uses less fuel.

This means we are directly trading off a safety related property (stopping distance) in order to get cars that are quiet enough to pass driveby noise regs, which are already so effective that cars that pass them are not a significant contributor to traffic noise, and in order to get good fuel consumption and emissions figures, which are legislated. So that particular ethical/moral dilemma is created by the regs, not the industry. All you can do realistically is meet the standards, and excel at the attributes that you think will help sell cars. Something like 30000 car firms have tried to sell you the cars they want to build because you ought to prefer them , the remaining 7(? or maybe 20 depending on how you count) try to build the car you will actually buy. The 29980+ are now nameplates or history.

With the Euro driveby regs, a car accelerates from 50 kph in 2nd and 3rd gear. Full throttle. The loudest noise you will hear is tire noise and aero, with a bit of transmission whine. Somewhere underneath it all is the engine noise they were originally trying to get rid of. If you listen to a modern car driving past you in a suburban street, you don't hear the engine, you hear tire roar.

http://www.moderntir...px?prestitial=1