Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

real world fuel consumption


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#101 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 01 April 2013 - 00:13

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


"Consumers don't fully understand the benefit of low rolling resistant tires. They believe they are forfeiting important aspects of tire performance by opting for low rolling resistant tires, yet don't know how much improvement in fuel efficiency they should expect in return."

Exactly. The consumers are right, by the way. They are either paying more for a LRR tire, or they are accepting a tradeoff in braking performance, ride, noise, life and robustness in return for an unknown improvement in mpg which they might achieve by blowing some nicer tires up a bit.

I was gently nulling over your jibe about clever people defining tests. There is one cracker of an example. The standard EEC test for braking from 60 mph (100 kph) involved starting to brake as you pass a witches hat, and then measuring the distance covered to rest.

The test designed by smart people(German magazine AMS) starts braking at 110 kph. You then read off the distance covered from 100 kph to rest. This eliminates anticipation and buildup to max braking, and measures the effective tire and brake performance more accurately. The spread in results is much smaller. In the real world I agree that buildup does matter, when I'm back at work I'll have a look and see how significant that is (gut feel is not very)

Another example is the driveby test - the American test is far more realistic than the EEC one- you just drive along in D and floor the thing, no defined gear ratios, no silliness.


Advertisement

#102 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 01 April 2013 - 22:57

In an EEC style brake test it takes about 150ms for a test driver to react and the system to respond, and about 200 ms for the decel to build to its steady state value. Those are very fluffy figures.

#103 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:38

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.


Canuck- If everyone were as conscientious as you the world would be a much better place indeed. However, when it comes to enforcing government regulations/laws, things are not quite so black and white. Private companies and individuals have no choice when it comes to complying with laws/regulations. Government officials, on the other hand, are completely free to exercise their own discretion when it comes to enforcing their laws or regulations.

With regards to fuel consumption compliance tests, even a 1% variation can have a huge effect in theory. Consider that the US currently consumes around 134B gallons of gasoline per year.

#104 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 04 April 2013 - 15:47

Porsche have reputation of never exagerating the performance their cars can deliver so I would not imagine they are " cheats" in the EU CO2 test who taped over gaps etc and are thus " immoral" etc etc.

However they are clearly now engineers beyond the mere stunning - positively other worldly.

410bhp, 167 mph, 0 - 60 in 5.2 seconds AND 91 mpg on the EU test!!

http://www.autocar.c...era-offer-91mpg


If anything makes a mockery of the EU test mpg verss real world this car has to be it - the tax benefits in the UK's company tax scheme are amazing



#105 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 04 April 2013 - 23:49

I've just had a 2 hour lecture on tires. For one particular model the quiet tire had the best RR but lousy grip. So my previous rant may have been misleading, it is more complex than I made out.



#106 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:52

There have been many lawsuits filed in the US in the past couple years over mileage numbers certified by EPA testing. The lawsuits involved Honda, Ford, Toyota, Kia and others.

http://www.forbes.co...tomakers-admit/

#107 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:19

The government regulations regarding vehicle emissions or fuel consumption are meaningless in reality, since these standards are set arbitrarily. We should also remember that the auto companies have a far greater number of far more capable engineers designing their vehicles to pass these compliance tests, than the government has engineers writing the standards and regulations. Seriously, why does it matter if your new car only gets 25mpg/hwy instead of the published 26mpg/hwy?

And before any of you criticize the auto companies for taking full advantage of every regulatory "loophole", you should understand just how difficult it is to design an auto chassis and drivetrain capable of meeting modern fuel consumption, emissions and safety standards. A task made even more difficult by the incredibly high levels of reliability and performance that modern auto buyers now demand.

...absolutely correct, and it is a consumer (us), who pays for it, one way or another.

#108 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 April 2013 - 13:41

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


Can't comment on cars, but two of my bikes have demonstrated fuel economy to within 0.1L/100km of the "official" numbers over about 82000km of well-varied road riding. I reckon that's pretty good. The third has had a few economy-affecting mods added (and removed) 51000km or so but is generally pretty close to the quoted figures. All three are Bavarian Money Wasters.

I did notice that two of my bikes are noticeably and reliably more frugal in hot weather. Sometimes a matter of an extra 50-70km range per tank refill. I'm not surprised at the difference, but quite surprised at the degree of difference. Max summer range in both cases is around 410km. Fuel refill is typically 15L or 21L, depending on which bike it is.

If every manufacturer cheats, does it really matter? Much like pro cycling?

#109 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,390 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 09 April 2013 - 20:32

If every manufacturer cheats, does it really matter? Much like pro cycling?

It wouldn't matter so much if they all cheated to the same degree, but how would you know? If FIAT told you that their 500 Multiair was good for 70mpg when it only did 43mpg, but Ford lied less and said their KA was good for 68mpg instead of its real 43mpg, how would you know who to mistrust the most?

My SEAT Ibiza TDi is meant to do 65mpg but the best I have ever seen is 62mpg when cruising on a motorway at 50mph. Overall, I get 50-55mpg.

#110 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:18

It wouldn't matter so much if they all cheated to the same degree, but how would you know? If FIAT told you that their 500 Multiair was good for 70mpg when it only did 43mpg, but Ford lied less and said their KA was good for 68mpg instead of its real 43mpg, how would you know who to mistrust the most?

My SEAT Ibiza TDi is meant to do 65mpg but the best I have ever seen is 62mpg when cruising on a motorway at 50mph. Overall, I get 50-55mpg.


62mpg is pretty awesome for a vehicle with a kerb weight of about five times as much as my F650GS, I don't get any better than that with the F's wonderful Rotax. And the F is abnormally miserly for a bike of its capacity class. Hell, a friend's Honda CB400 Super Four (4cyl, ~400cc, VTEC shiny etc) never achieved better than 36mpg.

Does it degrade rapidly when you add passengers/cargo?

I found that another friend's Defender wagon (3.9L Isuzu NA diesel) never seemed to waver from 22mpg, whether loaded to the gills with boxes of books and pulling a trailer full of motorbikes when I moved interstate, or carrying nothing but myself and a spare tyre. 22mpg. At least it was predictable.

#111 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,818 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:04

Yes, most motorcycles get astonishingly poor mileage. So bad it almost beggars belief. I know they aren't aero, but still.

#112 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:48

Yes, most motorcycles get astonishingly poor mileage. So bad it almost beggars belief. I know they aren't aero, but still.


Yeah, why is that, anyway?

You mentioned the aero factor.

Is reduced rolling inertia a factor as well? Is it the major factor?

Do Lotus 7 clones with standard engines/gearboxes return inferior economy vs. their engine-donor cars?

The things that appear to my unedumucated eye to be on the bike's side

- dramatically lower weight => easier to accelerate
- dramatically reduced tyre contact patch => lower rolling resistance
- mostly chain drive / no diffs => reduced transmission losses

Maybe most bike manufacturers simply don't place economy very high on their priority list, preferring to spend their engineering dollars on trying to achieve a largely unusable 1MW/tonne. Some of them are getting rather worryingly close.

Edited by indigoid, 10 April 2013 - 13:36.


#113 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:36

The constant reference to " cheating" when one car produces wider variations of real world versus test mpg is really a bit silly IMHO.

Both cars go throgh exactly the same test - one has better mpg than the other on that test cycle. If the gap is not related to real world differences then the test is an unrealistic one.

Governments specified the tests long ago, then they decided to use those test regimes to ESTIMATE average corporate fuel consumption/ CO2 per km. Then govenments made meeting a very strict minimum fuel consumption an effective condition of doing business for car companies.

The consequences are obvious and inevitable - mfrs. design to meet the rules imposed on them. Evidence from magazine testing suggets the test to real result gap is growing , witness the Fiat trend. That is exactly what would be predicted from the legistlative approach.

The new Porsche Panamera mentioned above is an extreme example which perfectly illustrates the real problem which is stupid legistlation.

No 410 bhp, 167 mph car is going to acheive 91 mpg in real life BUT I am pretty sure that if any owner drove it exactly acording to the test cycle it would indeed do 91 mpg.

#114 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:19

After reading this whole thing...are you all trying to say that there is a difference between test and reallity to the disadvantage of the customers?

I drive a 14 year old Opel Astra 1.6 75hp with average 0.7 liter less than the manual says. What am I doing wrong?

#115 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 April 2013 - 18:49

Yeah, why is that, anyway?

You mentioned the aero factor.

Is reduced rolling inertia a factor as well? Is it the major factor?

Do Lotus 7 clones with standard engines/gearboxes return inferior economy vs. their engine-donor cars?

The things that appear to my unedumucated eye to be on the bike's side

- dramatically lower weight => easier to accelerate
- dramatically reduced tyre contact patch => lower rolling resistance
- mostly chain drive / no diffs => reduced transmission losses

Maybe most bike manufacturers simply don't place economy very high on their priority list, preferring to spend their engineering dollars on trying to achieve a largely unusable 1MW/tonne. Some of them are getting rather worryingly close.


How good or bad the fuel consumption issue is for a bike vs. a car depends quite a lot, how you compare the two.
I'm reasonable sure, that most bikes will beat a similar powered car in inner city driving/traffic, for the reasons you mention (mainly lower weight, less inertia),
but the car will beat the bike "hands down" at motorway speeds.
The reason is simple, as the resistance will increase with the square of velocity, while the other resistance forces increase only in a linear fashion, or remain more or less constant (independent of velocity)
It's also worth to remember, that the lower weight of the bike, is only/mainly a benefit during acceleration. That's why the bike (a scooter) "wins" during city driving, loads of stop and go, low average speed.
If you cruise at more or less constant speed (motorway driving), this doesn't play a role any longer. As higher the average speed, as more aerodynamic drag comes into this.
You need ~4x the power to double your speed, due to the velocity^2 function.

If you want to test this for your self, rent a convertible for a weekend, and compare the fuel consumption top down vs. top up.



#116 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 10 April 2013 - 22:17

Motorcycles are poor by what standard?

I used to drive an MV 750 America and got plus or minus, depending on how I used the throttle, 40 mpg.

Driving into the worst rain storm I ever drove in, I got 42 mpg.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 11 April 2013 - 04:12.


#117 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 April 2013 - 00:41

Considering their specific output, their fuel consumption is pretty reasonable (unless we're talking certain cylinderly-deprived chrome barges).

#118 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 April 2013 - 03:16

Motorcycles are poor by what standar?

I used to drive an MV 750 America and got plus or minus, depending on how I used the throttle, 40 mpg.

Driving into the worst rain storm I ever drove in, I got 42 mpg.


When comparing mileage between a M/C and car you would need to account for some significant differences. Most obviously, the M/C is not required to meet many of the safety requirements that auto must. The auto must have bumpers, seats that provide restraint of the occupant, windscreens, doors, etc. On the other hand, the auto may have less aero drag per person than the M/C. You alone on your M/C getting 42mpg would be equivalent to an auto with 4 occupants getting 10.5mpg.

#119 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:11

Motorcycles are poor by what standar?

I used to drive an MV 750 America and got plus or minus, depending on how I used the throttle, 40 mpg.

Driving into the worst rain storm I ever drove in, I got 42 mpg.


Depends on your frame of reference, Compared to a full-sized V8 sedan that's great mileage, but for a vehicle of its weight and frontal area it's horrible.


Advertisement

#120 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:16

When comparing mileage between a M/C and car you would need to account for some significant differences. Most obviously, the M/C is not required to meet many of the safety requirements that auto must. The auto must have bumpers, seats that provide restraint of the occupant, windscreens, doors, etc. On the other hand, the auto may have less aero drag per person than the M/C. You alone on your M/C getting 42mpg would be equivalent to an auto with 4 occupants getting 10.5mpg.

That makes no sense at all.


#121 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:51

That makes no sense at all.


Bob Riebe- In your opinion, what part(s) of my post regarding comparisons between motorcycle and auto fuel mileage makes no sense? Does your motorcycle have seatbelts, bumpers, head restraints, doors, windshield wipers, or airbags? Or do you disagree that 4x10.5=42?


#122 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:40

Bob Riebe- In your opinion, what part(s) of my post regarding comparisons between motorcycle and auto fuel mileage makes no sense? Does your motorcycle have seatbelts, bumpers, head restraints, doors, windshield wipers, or airbags? Or do you disagree that 4x10.5=42?


Total drag (in lbs) can be found by multipyling the Cd, dynamic pressure* (q), and the surface area (S).
dynamic pressure is made up from the density ratio (local air density accounting for local altitude, temperature, and barometric pressure measured against standard density) multiplied by the air velocity in knots squared. The resultant of that is then divided by 295.


Dt=Cd(q)S

Drag is determined by five factors. Cd, surface area, local pressure, local temperature, and air speed.

Sports cars generally have Cd numbers in the mid 0.3s. Motorcycles have Cd numbers close to 1.0 depending on the model bike, size of rider, and riding position. Drag is increasing exponentially with speed.

Generic numbers show this better.

Variables: Standard atmosphere (sea level, 15 degree C, and a barometer of 29.92), Car at .35 Cd. Bike at 1.0 Cd. Car surface area at 19 sq. ft. Bike surface area at 7 sq. ft. (surface areas and Cds are approximate numbers).

50 kts

Bike Dt = 59.32 lbs

Car Dt = 56.35 lbs

100 kts:

Bike Dt = 237.3 lbs

Car Dt = 225.44 lbs

150 kts:

Bike Dt = 533.90 lbs

Car Dt = 507.20 lbs




You could take the seat-belts, head restraints, windshield wipers and airbags out of a car and your comparison still means nothing as the fuel mileage change would be at or near zero .



#123 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:54

You could take the seat-belts, head restraints, windshield wipers and airbags out of a car and your comparison still means nothing as the fuel mileage change would be at or near zero .


To the contrary, you must consider the impact of adding all of those safety devices to the motorcycle. The result of doing that would not be "at or near zero" to the fuel economy of the motorcycle.


#124 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:43

To the contrary, you must consider the impact of adding all of those safety devices to the motorcycle. The result of doing that would not be "at or near zero" to the fuel economy of the motorcycle.

Outside of nut-job Joan Claybrook, who was moronic enough to have rear-steer motorcycle built, why in God's green earth would any put any of those devices on a motorcycle.

Removing them from an automobile still has zero effect on the mpg of any automobile making them irrelevant.


#125 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:11

Outside of nut-job Joan Claybrook, who was moronic enough to have rear-steer motorcycle built, why in God's green earth would any put any of those devices on a motorcycle.


Honda have been shipping Goldwings with airbags for a few years now. Too lazy to go hunting numbers, but with the 'Wing already being a fairly heavy bike the weight increase as a percentage of total mass would not be very large. As for why... there are already reports of people walking away essentially unhurt from fairly bad crashes. In at least one of those cases the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. Evolution was cruelly thwarted!

My K1200GT is not so much smaller than a 'Wing, but it is ~141kg lighter. I've observed only minimal increase (about 1.9%) in fuel consumption when carrying a passenger, which sort of makes sense if the aero is the big factor - a passenger sitting right behind me isn't going to increase aero drag very much. Tiina has indicated that if her helmet is right behind mine, she has no need of earplugs. Completely unscientific, of course.

In city riding this would also be affected by having a very different (smoother and slower) riding style when carrying a passenger, but on the highway stretches I observed roughly the same increase in fuel consumption when 2-up.

FWIW the 'Wings also have adjustable air vents for the rider. And a CD player, radio, satnav, and CB transceiver. And cruise control. They are gadget-laden.

Lots of BMW bikes these days have tyre pressure sensors+transmitters in the wheels, with the pressures being displayed on the dash. I wish all cars had this gadget! How many people do you know that check their tyre pressures every single time, without fail, ever, when they drive their car?

#126 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:07

Sports cars generally have Cd numbers in the mid 0.3s. Motorcycles have Cd numbers close to 1.0 depending on the model bike, size of rider, and riding position. Drag is increasing exponentially with speed.


Where does that Cd for motorbikes come from? Research or plain guess?
I searched a bit around and found some numbers. German magazine 'Motorrad' took a bunch of sportbikes and put them in a windtunnel to see what comes out.
Those were the bikes used: Honda CBR 900 RR, MV Agusta F4 750 S/Oro/1+1, Suzuki GSX 1300 R Hayabusa, Suzuki GSX-R 750, Yamaha YZF-R1, Kawasaki ZX-12R.
the Cd mentioned in the article went from 0.48 (Hayabusa w/ rider lying) to 0.56 (MV w/ rider sitting).

BTW: the Ford Model-T had a Cd of 0.9 with the shape of a brick...

#127 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,390 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 13 April 2013 - 16:47

How many people do you know that check their tyre pressures every single time, without fail, ever, when they drive their car?

None. But I really, really want to be friends with someone who does. They would be wonderful to know - a riot of madcap fun!

#128 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 756 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 April 2013 - 22:40

My K1200GT is not so much smaller than a 'Wing, but it is ~141kg lighter. I've observed only minimal increase (about 1.9%) in fuel consumption when carrying a passenger, which sort of makes sense if the aero is the big factor - a passenger sitting right behind me isn't going to increase aero drag very much. Tiina has indicated that if her helmet is right behind mine, she has no need of earplugs. Completely unscientific, of course.


In fact it could improve the drag number, by improving the fineness ratio. The contra-indication is that your fuel consumption increase is the same in both in-town and country riding, so I suspect the fineness ration is not improved enough.

Where does that Cd for motorbikes come from? Research or plain guess?
I searched a bit around and found some numbers. German magazine 'Motorrad' took a bunch of sportbikes and put them in a windtunnel to see what comes out.
Those were the bikes used: Honda CBR 900 RR, MV Agusta F4 750 S/Oro/1+1, Suzuki GSX 1300 R Hayabusa, Suzuki GSX-R 750, Yamaha YZF-R1, Kawasaki ZX-12R.
the Cd mentioned in the article went from 0.48 (Hayabusa w/ rider lying) to 0.56 (MV w/ rider sitting).

BTW: the Ford Model-T had a Cd of 0.9 with the shape of a brick...



Of course, we all know the Cd needs to be multiplied by area to produce a total drag figure, and as a result the bike's total drag is still quite low (at least comapred to most cars).



#129 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 April 2013 - 00:58

A couple of thoughts on why motorcycles have poor fuel consumption.

- Higher aero drag as mentioned already.
- Compared to a car, overcoming road-loads is accomplished using a very small fraction of engine output which puts the engine in a lower efficiency region
- Motorcycle engines are designed for high specific output which necessitates efficiency tradeoffs.
- Emission reg's are looser for MCs in most jurisdictions. This may allow a less efficient tune.
- Lack of legislation to drive economy improvements
- Lack of consumer demand for better economy (fuel is not a major expense)

#130 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:24

A couple of thoughts on why motorcycles have poor fuel consumption.


I did not claim that motorcycles have poor fuel consumption in simple terms. What I argued was that if the fuel consumption of a motorcycle was adjusted to compensate for factors that autos are subjected to, then their fuel consumption is not quite so great in comparison. For example, consider the BSFC of the best motorcycle engine versus the best auto engine. The best auto engine wins hands down.


#131 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:30

Because fuel isn't a driving development factor in motorcycles - or hasn't been. Money goes into trying to get 4-strokes to perform like 2-strokes as the latter get legislated out, into trying to wring 200hp/l from the 900cc engine instead of just the 600cc version, of trying to get the 2100cc 700+ pound luxury barge to act like it's a sportbike in the twisties and a Newell motorcoach on the straights. No...fuel consumption in motorcycles gets only a passing reference.

#132 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:45

I did not claim that motorcycles have poor fuel consumption in simple terms

In that case I will.

Motorcycles have poor fuel consumption in simple terms.

#133 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 19 April 2013 - 07:51

Because fuel isn't a driving development factor in motorcycles - or hasn't been. Money goes into trying to get 4-strokes to perform like 2-strokes as the latter get legislated out, into trying to wring 200hp/l from the 900cc engine instead of just the 600cc version, of trying to get the 2100cc 700+ pound luxury barge to act like it's a sportbike in the twisties and a Newell motorcoach on the straights. No...fuel consumption in motorcycles gets only a passing reference.


We've come a long, long way since 2-strokes. I think the focus on fuel consumption will arrive. It may take the imposition of strict emissions laws to get there.

Few bikes are truly cheaper to operate than an economical car. And in some places (Australia) there are tax breaks available to car owners that are not available for motorcycle owners.

#134 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 July 2013 - 00:03

Reviving this thread on "cheating" in scare quotes to show a recent real-world result. Make no mistake, this is a big deal. In the sports world, bending the rules is called "cheating." In the business world, bending the rules could be a felony.

For those who don't know, Sam Winegarden is, make that was, the number one engine man at General Motors, big boss man. Among his positive achievements I believe he was one of the leading guys on the LS V8 program, CE or DRE. Also, he's a really nice guy--always was to me, anyway. This is a very sad way to end a career.

http://www.freep.com...hevrolet-tavera

#135 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 July 2013 - 01:08

http://www.freep.com...hevrolet-tavera

“Over a period of time some employees of the company engaged in the practice of identifying engines with lower emission which were fine-tuned and kept aside to be used for installation on vehicles during inspection.”

Who'da thunk it?

Just goes to show, the only sure way to obtain a representative vehicle for testing is to buy one from the showroom floor.

Edited by gruntguru, 29 July 2013 - 01:10.


#136 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 July 2013 - 01:32

“Over a period of time some employees of the company engaged in the practice of identifying engines with lower emission which were fine-tuned and kept aside to be used for installation on vehicles during inspection.”

Who'da thunk it?

Just goes to show, the only sure way to obtain a representative vehicle for testing is to buy one from the showroom floor.


Let's say you are global VP of engines for a multinational auto manufacturer, and the CEO asks you, "Do our vehicles pass emissions?" If your answer requires more than 25 words, you might be doing it wrong.


#137 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:41

Let's say you are global VP of engines for a multinational auto manufacturer, and the CEO asks you, "Do our vehicles pass emissions?" If your answer requires more than 25 words, you might be doing it wrong.

Sadly that isn't the question we are asked. The question is more usually, are you confident that by the time we hit Job 1 all possible variants of this model will pass emissions in the jurisdictions in which they are on sale?

So, given that you can't test every variant (300 powertrain/ mass combinations in a Transit at a rough guess) , and given that the software is in a state of flux, and that some of the hardware combinations have never existed except on paper, the answer often takes several reams of paper.



#138 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 August 2013 - 14:04

Sadly that isn't the question we are asked. The question is more usually, are you confident that by the time we hit Job 1 all possible variants of this model will pass emissions in the jurisdictions in which they are on sale?

So, given that you can't test every variant (300 powertrain/ mass combinations in a Transit at a rough guess) , and given that the software is in a state of flux, and that some of the hardware combinations have never existed except on paper, the answer often takes several reams of paper.



Sure, but none of that has anything to do with this issue. GM employees were caught red-handed in the wanton circumvention of the regulations. They were not caught in the act of beavering away in a sincere effort to meet the regs, as suggested above. Their plan was to get around all that, hmm. And I'm sure they invented a dozen rationalizations to justify their actions, which evaporated into thin air the moment they were caught.

Edited by Magoo, 14 August 2013 - 14:05.


#139 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 14 August 2013 - 15:00

All of this is fascinating--and I'm not being sarcastic or even ironic.

To me, real world fuel consumption is what I get out of my own vehicle the way I use it. I usually do a fuel check when i buy a car just out of curiosity. I did such a check on my 2+ tons of vintage Rolls-Royce some years ago and got around 15 miles per imperial gal around town, 17 cruising in the country, about what you'd expect from 6.3 litres and auto plus all the bells and whistles. I have no idea what the car would deliver on an official cycle. Don't care, either.

When I was riding a BMW 1 litre boxer bike some years ago I didn't check officially, so to speak, but I noticed that I had to refill with amazing frequency. On the 2,500 mile haul across Australia I guesstimate around 40-45 mpg at best. And I was cruising at around 110 km/h, with an occasional tweak to 140 (rarely--the sight of that rough tarmac streaming past below me worried me, and when I got airborne over a cattle grid I decided 100-110 was the better part of valor.)

My best trick was getting close to 26 mpg (imperial) out of a 1973 Australian Ford Fairlane with a 302 Cleveland and auto box, and only because I was in the middle of nowhere when I realised I was showing empty on the gauge. When I refuelled in Ceduna, the car took on two litres more than than the maximum tank capacity, so I was running on memory by the time I rolled into the service station. That figure, by the way was for the entire run from fill to fill, not just the last few hundred yards. I know, because I logged that trip in a notebook.

My current daily hack, a 4.0 litre Aussie Falcon six, is amazingly economical for such a big car, no doubt due to a tall top gear. At this state's legal limit of 110 km/h she's pulling a little over 2000 rpm. Of course, EFI, computers, tall ratios and a somewhat sleeker shape than the R-R all contribute mightily.

To be honest, I'm not the slightest bit interested in comparing "official" fuel consumption between cars when I buy. I know a big, heavy car with a big motor is going to be thirsty, and a small econobox not very thirsty, but the differences from car to car in the same class don't influence me in the least, because they really are irrelevant.

The adventure with the Fairlane above, which normally delivered around 17-18 mpg, shows that a carefully controlled foot on the loud pedal makes far more difference.

Edited by Terry Walker, 14 August 2013 - 15:02.


Advertisement

#140 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 14 August 2013 - 18:37

All of this is fascinating--and I'm not being sarcastic or even ironic.

To me, real world fuel consumption is what I get out of my own vehicle the way I use it. I usually do a fuel check when i buy a car just out of curiosity. I did such a check on my 2+ tons of vintage Rolls-Royce some years ago and got around 15 miles per imperial gal around town, 17 cruising in the country, about what you'd expect from 6.3 litres and auto plus all the bells and whistles. I have no idea what the car would deliver on an official cycle. Don't care, either.

For true full-size old vehicle that is truly wonderful mileage.

I would take that and all the advantages that come with a full-size car to a 30 mpg econo-box any day.



#141 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 August 2013 - 02:34

In Australia fuel--petrol--is around $1.50 a litre.If you drive 20,000km per year,the extra cost to you for fuel in driving a full-size car ,with a biggish engine over a small car,if you take real world comparison between 12 litres/100km combined for the big car city/country,and 8 litres/100 km ditto for the small car would be in the order of $1000.Ive always taken the big car option for room,comfort and driveability...what better way is there to spend $1000 if you enjoy road trips with friends or family?

#142 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 16 August 2013 - 04:45

Timely!

"Ford Motor Co. is cutting the stated fuel-economy rating of its C-Max Hybrid car 8.5 percent to 43 mpg from 47 mpg -- a rare and costly move that Ford spent months feverishly working to avoid."

http://www.dailytech...rticle33185.htm

...which in turn links to:

http://www.autonews....d#axzz2c3ZIYed1

Edited by RogerGraham, 16 August 2013 - 04:47.


#143 indigoid

indigoid
  • Member

  • 381 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 17 August 2013 - 05:44

My current daily hack, a 4.0 litre Aussie Falcon six, is amazingly economical for such a big car, no doubt due to a tall top gear. At this state's legal limit of 110 km/h she's pulling a little over 2000 rpm. Of course, EFI, computers, tall ratios and a somewhat sleeker shape than the R-R all contribute mightily.


A guy I used to pit crew for used a VT Commodore SS (LS1/6-speed manual) to tow his IPRANSW racecar. On the highway the VT would yield ~8L/100km unloaded, and with the trailer + racecar hooked up, around 15-16L/100km. Pretty good really for a tow-car with sparkplugs.

Of course the VT was total garbage in other areas. You could see the panel gaps change with your naked eye when the trailer was hooked up, even with the OEM heavy-duty towing kit, airbags to correctly adjust rear ride height, and a carefully balanced trailer. Sometimes the rear doors would pop open. Definitely not the right tool for the job.

#144 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:44

"Ford Motor Co. is cutting the stated fuel-economy rating of its C-Max Hybrid car 8.5 percent to 43 mpg from 47 mpg -- a rare and costly move that Ford spent months feverishly working to avoid."


It's a pity I'm not at work (yes yet another two month round the world holiday) I'd love to find out who is going to get promoted above their Peter Principle level as a result of this. Hopefully they'll be put in charge of ashtrays. I doubt they'll get sacked, if you follow the rules even when the rules are stupid then that indicates an appropriate corporate management mindset. Barf.

#145 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,047 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:13

38.75mpg!
1999 Opel Astra 1.6i 75hp.

Where is the f***ing progress?

Edited to add: A friend of mine has a Corvette C6. He says that he gets 'a lot of smiles per gallon.'

Edited by Duc-Man, 17 August 2013 - 09:17.


#146 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:48

38.75mpg!
1999 Opel Astra 1.6i 75hp.

Where is the f***ing progress?


I thought I might Google that for you.

"Last year’s emissions improved 3.6% year-on-year to 133.1g/km CO2 (equivalent to 53.4mpg), down more than 26% since the year 2000." ie 39.5mpg in 2000


http://www.am-online...nce-2000/32538/

Edited by gruntguru, 17 August 2013 - 09:54.


#147 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 August 2013 - 00:48

A guy I used to pit crew for used a VT Commodore SS (LS1/6-speed manual) to tow his IPRANSW racecar. On the highway the VT would yield ~8L/100km unloaded, and with the trailer + racecar hooked up, around 15-16L/100km. Pretty good really for a tow-car with sparkplugs.

Of course the VT was total garbage in other areas. You could see the panel gaps change with your naked eye when the trailer was hooked up, even with the OEM heavy-duty towing kit, airbags to correctly adjust rear ride height, and a carefully balanced trailer. Sometimes the rear doors would pop open. Definitely not the right tool for the job.

Same bollocks some people have liked spreading since the first Holdens ever appeared.FJ Holdens were reputed to jam the back doors after pulling a caravan,that was drivel too.