BUT, my opinion is that we've had the tech to get better mpg's or not even need gas for decades but big oil has kept that effort out of business.
I’m not too sure we already have the tech…but I also do believe that if the manufacturing companies put effort into it…they can do a LOT better. That’s why I keep saying…they need to be pushed.
I recall my '79 Honda had a belt which if I had ever thought of replacing it, seems like it would have been a half hour job for a shade tree mechanic. LOL, I used to slip the belt of the camshaft pulley to try different valve timings, mostly advanced by one tooth, just to see how the torque curve changed (though I didn't think of it in similar words). Those were the more carefree days for me, indeed!
Interesting comment. Even today’s difficult to change timing belts can be temporarily moved off the pulleys and replaced in a different position to change the valve timing fairly easily. At least it would be fairly easy on my Corolla. It’s dealing with the engine mount when installing a new belt that is the problem. Just curious, does anybody know how Honda was able to make it easy to replace the timing belt on that car? Did they use some kind of unusual belt routing so the belt didn’t go around the engine mount? I assume the poster means there was no need to remove the engine mount.
70’s gasoline Rabbits … 30-35 mpg on the freeway. Not what they were rated, based on personal experience. It was the diesel Rabbits that got unusually high mpg. Around 50 was the freeway rating I think.
Personally, I loved the diesel Rabbits as they were money makers. Injection pump timing, timing belts, compression tests, injector rebuilds, head gaskets; all gravy money.
Total pigs to drive though. A sloth full of barbituates could outrun a diesel Rabbit…
When I was about 20 I had a friend with a Rabbit diesel. I think the injector timing was off, because it was slower than most. One night 5 of us decided to go out for burgers in that thing–most of us were pretty drunk. After slogging a few blocks one guy decided he could run faster than the car, so he got out at a red light. When it turned green that Rabbit with 4 big guys could barely keep up with the sprinting dude for 2 blocks.
The gasoline VW buses were painful enough, and you had to be a complete masochist to buy the diesel. Did they make the Westfalia in a diesel version, too? That would have been even worse. Modern turbo diesels seem to work very well in passenger cars, but they’re still not as clean. I guess the Europeans are happy with them as they make up over half of all passenger car sales in Western Europe. Yes, it’s partly subsidies and diesel fuel being taxed at a lower rate, but it also appears that the cars drive pretty well, especially in city driving, where low-speed acceleration is more important than high-speed performance. As others have noted, the stretches of the autobahn without speed limits have been shrinking. Once the highway is swallowed by an urban area or the traffic gets heavy enough, they automatically impose speed limits. And enforce them strictly. Diesels can keep up with the fast traffic in those stretches.
I’ve convinced that designers have gotten just about all they can from ICE cars. A bit higher mileage could be obtained, but the car would perform unacceptably and nobody would buy it.
Superchargers & turbos with smaller engines will help, but I think the real gains now will be with hybrids. A combination of the three might be the evolutionary result.
I agree with Mike. I know about some stuff going on in the R&D world of engines right now. How about gasoline diesels?? How about turbo and supercharged engines? A particular project I have knowledge about has trouble lighting off the catalytic convertor because the exhaust is so cool. A big part of the energy loss of current ICE’s goes down the exhaust so when it is cool, it is a very efficient engine.
There are also developments in a new style of rotary engine. See the link.
We can get more MPG out of a gas engine, but we need to start asking tough questions about what we really want, and we’re willing to give up for that.
Mileage, safety, low emissions…all of these are “good” things, and people without specific understanding of engineering (like most politicians) just say “more of the above” W/R/T all of that.
The problem with that sort of thinking is that gains in one area tend to offset another. Safety adds weight, which decreases MPG. High efficiency is generally found running lean and hot, which produces currently unacceptable levels of NOx.
I think we could, today, readily design a 1600#, GDI lean-burn hatch that gets 50 MPG combined cycle or better…but we’d have to scrap safety and emissions standards to get there.
@GeorgeSanJose , that is just my impression considering that the engine was small, at 1.2 liter, and that it seemed pretty simple a layout. I don’t know if the engine mount had to be removed or not on that Civic.
I have always thought that, hypothetically we could have a 1 cylinder engine, but an incredible transmission to make the right torque ratios throughout. I guess we have the CVT’s but we all know those feel like junk.
With the right gearing, couldn’t a transmission make the torque to move something incredibly heavy with a small engine? I know that doesn’t equate to road driving but I feel there’s room for improvement. I think manufacturers are just getting around to better trans technology.