I agree…
There’s something missing.
Just as a bus is a far more efficient way to transport 60 people but a far less efficient way to transport 2 people, perhaps a power plant is a far more efficient way to power 10,000 cars than gasoline for 10,000 cars.
And perhaps the evolution of batteries for automobiles will change that equation even more.
I think the jury is still out. It’s early yet.
2 Likes
Another factor we need to consider is the weight of electric cars. Having a nearly 5000 lb curb weight is the price a Tesla S pays for having enough batteries to push it 250 or so miles. A percentage of the energy used is used to move the battery itself. If you try to extend the range by adding more batteries, you soon reach a point where your car is a battery on wheels, and from that point on, adding even more batteries only results in a bigger battery on wheels and the extra weight consumes most of the extra energy resulting in diminishing returns as far as range is concerned.
It’s possible that a 2800 pound car powered by an ICE that has a 40% thermal efficiency might burn less fuel than a 5000 pound EV that has an overall thermal efficiency of 50%.
Also you have to consider the energy sunk into making the vehicle.
My motorcycle with its 300 cc engine likely has a pretty low engine efficiency, but because it only weighs 370 pounds, it still uses little fuel, plus, only 370 pounds of stuff was needed to make the bike and when its useful life is over, only 370 pounds of stuff is going to be needed to be recycled or disposed of.
I hear it takes about 13 kwh of energy to smelt one kilogram of aluminum. How much aluminum is in your car?
The base of a large wind turbine requires the pouring of close to 1000 tons of concrete and concrete manufacturing is one of the most energy intensive industries around. How long does a wind turbine have to be online before it pays back its energy debt? Do they even manage to pay back their energy debt?
I have a friend who owns a Chevy Volt and works 3rd shift. Commute is about 25 miles each way…so the engine rarely kicks in. When he gets home he plugs it in - and during the day (when he’s asleep) the house runs almost completely on his solar panels. That’s about as environmentally friendly as you’re going to get.
2 Likes
Your friend is in the perfect position to capitalize on the car’s abilities. And being a Volt, he can drive it across country in the conventional manner by pumping gas into the tank every 300 miles or so. Given the average commute time in the US is 25 minutes each way, he is a statistical outlier, not the average. His short commute gives him the ability to use the Volt’s electric range most effectively where most can’t. That may explain the low volumes for the Volt. well, that and the $40,000 price tag.
Even without the solar panels, a plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicle covers 100% of the operational expectations of the conventional car owner rather than the 90% that the best of the EV’s can claim.
But they offend EV purists.
1 Like
Anybody offended by them is too easily offended!!
1 Like
That average is the national average. And it really can’t be applied to everywhere in the US. Each region has their own average commute time. Very difficult to lump them all into the national average. And it gets even more granular. While Massachusetts may average one of the longer commute times, Boston is one of the shortest - mainly due to public transportation. Southern NH is completely different then anything North of Concord. Based on my region he’s well within average commute range.
Being offended seems to have become a national pastime.
If you have to live with the Suburban, the initial outlay will not be peanuts but it can be done very reasonable by a small town mechanic. What year is the Suburban and do you do any towing with it?
'99. No towing.
The engine has a lot of exhaust restriction from the factory exhaust manifolds that are on it now. A long set of long tube headers will scavenge the burned fuel much more efficiently out of the cylinders and the fuel coming in will have less of the last burn mixing with the new fuel. With the headers and a low duel exhaust it will make a difference. Your ECM will probably have to be adjusted some.
I have a 79 Chev 3/4 ton that I purchased new and did this same thing that the results were way beyond my expectations. However I had to go back to the original factory set up when California implemented smog checks every 2 years. The verbiage of the law here is even an altered system meets or is less pollutant but the components are not California Certified, it is not legal. Fortunately it is not driven much as I could not sustain its’ 10 MPG at best on the flattest roads: it really burns the fuel going over the mountains to visit family in Nevada.
I suggest that this be searched out on the internet and find a Suburban Forum that may have had someone that has already gone down this same road.
Another thought-Is your Suburban 4 wheel drive?
No and thanks for the exhaust advice. That one goes on the list.
Go to gearvendors on the internet: these units can change the ratio to the rear end. With reduced revolutions, the slower the motor turns thus the better fuel mileage. Units attach to the back of the transmission.
Both the overdrive unit and the headers may help a bit but both are quite costly. The savings won’t justify the cost. You could trade for a later model Suburban that has fewer miles and better economy for similar money.
3 Likes
A later model Suburban will not be cost effective. As stated with other posts, if one drives one, even a 2017 it is a gas guzzler, period. Chevrolet does not care how fuel inefficient these units are. They sell as they are. However, there are a few buyers that do care about gas mileage but hope the real cheap gas that certain parts of the country have experienced will be more of the norm than the exception. Circumstances change when a buyer buys one. The post states why he has it. The need for it is definite. So let everyone put in their opinion and let this man decide if someone has put forth something that he has been adding to his list for thought. He may trash all of our opinions.
But the EPA does. There have been pretty strong improvements over the years with these vehicles. Take for example, a 2004 Suburban with a 5.3 liter V8 and a 4 speed automatic, it is rated at 15 mpg combined. By contrast, the 2010 Suburban with a 6 speed transmission, is rated at 19 mpg combined.
That 4 mpg improvement from an '04 to a '10 is better than you’d get from a $1500 set of headers and a $3000 GV overdrive together.
5 Likes
I think GM cares about fuel efficiency, but there is just so much you can do with a big truck like a Suburban. As @Mustangman said, mileage improved by almost 30% over six years. How fuel efficient can a 7500 # truck be?
2 Likes
What is on a window sticker is seldom what a vehicle MPG will get. Run down some of these Suburban drivers and let them tell you what the real world is all about.
jtsanders
September 25 |
I think GM cares about fuel efficiency, but there is just so much you can do with a big truck like a Suburban. As @Mustangman said, mileage improved by almost 30% over six years. How fuel efficient can a 7500 # truck be? Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
In Reply To
graybeard47
September 25 |
A later model Suburban will not be cost effective. As stated with other posts, if one drives one, even a 2017 it is a gas guzzler, period. Chevrolet does not care how fuel inefficient these units are. They sell as they are. However, there are a few buyers that do care about gas mileage but hope the … Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond. To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.