Tucson Citizen.com
Compound Captive - Missives about life, retirement and HOAs

Five hundred miles per gallon

by on Aug. 26, 2009, under Life

You’ve probably seen the latest hype coming from General Motors (GM) touting their revolutionary Volt automobile available for sale next year, the greenest hybrid car yet because it’s expected to average 230 miles per gallon during city driving. Of course, I was shocked and rightfully so after further research revealed a few unreported facts.

It seems the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers some fairly wide latitude in the way automakers can calculate miles per gallon averages prior to the actual sale of a newly designed vehicle. They’re also fumbling for a formula that accurately calculates mileage for hybrid vehicles. For example, with a gas-electric such as the Volt, GM used a creative method to measure mileage that averaged overall distance covered by combining the two sources of power—electricity and gasoline. Add to that the glossed over driving restrictions the automaker employed to come up with their triple digit calculation and the noteworthy avoidance of mentioning that the EPA hasn’t actually tested the car. By now you’re beginning to get a glimpse of the blurry picture of this costly little transportation marvel that will hit the showrooms with a sticker price of around $40,000. You can buy a very nice used car and a lot of gas for the amount of money.

The Volt’s battery pack is a lithium-ion offering a maximum driving range of about 40 miles that can be recharged in a typical 110v wall outlet. Also under the hood will be a little gasoline engine that assumes the power needs of the car, with substantial limitations such as Interstate highway speeds and steep hills, while concurrently powering a generator that creates electricity and recharges the battery on the roll. GM’s marketing hype states that drivers could travel for days without ever using a drop of gas. That’s nice, but how many people travel less than 40 miles on a perfectly flat road at 20 miles per hour getting back and forth from work, grocery shopping, doctor visits, and various other around-town treks?

Within hours of GM’s announcement Nissan Motor Company served up its plan to roll out the Leaf next year, an electric 110v plug-in rechargeable hatchback car that will get an estimated 367 miles per gallon using the same broad latitude from the EPA’s new draft guidelines. However, unlike the Volt, this model doesn’t have a built-in generator for recharging on the fly; drivers would have to stop and plug it into an outlet after approximately 100 miles of around town driving—even less at higher speeds and if rolling terrain is involved in the trip.

As you may have anticipated, the Feds are already planning to offer the first suckers, excuse me, eco-friendly buyers, a $7,500 tax credit, but that still leaves a hefty balance of twenty-two grand for the Volt. The price of the Leaf will likely be in the same range. But by the time these things hit the streets their marketing mileage estimates could be 500 miles per gallon.

Another interesting conundrum, Americans aren’t getting any smaller, but the automakers seem to be focused on downsizing their vehicle offerings. I recently sat in one of the first scaled down models to hit the streets, the Smart Car. I’m not a big guy according to the height and weight chart hanging on my doctors’ exam room wall, but I felt like a National Basketball Association center while sitting in that thing. And claustrophobia surprisingly emerged within seconds after closing the door. My mind conjured up a collision with a monster vehicle such as a Honda Civic or Toyota Prius. To add additional anxiety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an independent, non-profit, scientific, and educational organization, hasn’t been kind in their crash test ratings for these high mileage shrunken cars. In fact, the stats are downright frightening because the odds of having a collision with another comparatively sized car are miniscule. That alone should raise the fear factor for potential buyers. My suggestion before taking the plunge into triple digit fuel territory is to check with you insurance company prior to signing the bottom line of a car purchase contract. Get their opinion of the mini-model and actual coverage costs compared to other vehicles getting mileage in the more realistic 30+ range, those having enough power to make it over a modestly steep hill more than once, and ones with realistic driving distance estimates per charge and tank of gas.

A plausible option is one of the oncoming modern diesel engine models that are offered in full sized cars and get about 30% greater fuel economy than typical gasoline engines. Not only are the new diesels quieter and cleaner emitting approximately 20% less carbon dioxide, the European refineries have also removed most of the other pollutants from their fuel. Another huge plus is that you don’t need crude oil to produce diesel fuel; it can be made from plain old coal, plant matter or common cooking oil. Seriously, a fairly large restaurant could ship much of their garbage to a modern refinery and have it turned into perfectly good diesel. Here’s another shocker; India has recently successfully turned cow patties, or cow dung if you prefer, into an energy source that has powered a diesel engine car. Talking about stepping in it, they may have done exactly that and come out smelling like freshly printed money.

It gets better yet, there’s a hybrid diesel on the horizon as well. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study concluded that a combination hybrid-diesel engine could far outperform the lithium battery and hydrogen fuel cell engines on both mileage and carbon emissions, and it could become a reality within the next decade. In essence, the GM revolution may lose its charge before it gets a profitable number of cars on the road.

The critical key to success in the modern diesel technology engine will be the company that manages to come up with the cleanest burning version while maintain the power to comfortably propel a full sized vehicle at highway speeds for long distances. Here’s a hint: Pay attention to tail pipe technology and clean coal in the coming years as these will likely be the keys to success for the currently obscure fuel and engine technology.

One final prediction; crude oil is going to rise rapidly and unexpectedly and reports of availability and new oil field discoveries have been blown out of proportion, and in many cases may not exist at all. This can lead to only one thing—much higher gas prices, levels that make the almost forgotten $4 a gallon seem modest.

For now, I’m staying the course in my current five year old clunker that uses regular gas and gets a mere upper twenty something miles per gallon. My insurance company loves it because it’s loaded with safety features so my premiums are reasonable when compared to those of my neighbors who’ve already jumped ship for the higher mileage mini models. Possibly the most attractive feature about my current car is the fact that I didn’t have to get permission from the government to buy it.


  • ado1

    Hi and welcome. I agree with most everything you have stated. I just have a problem understanding how anything can outperform hydrogen when it comes to carbon emissions since hydrogen will burn and leave only water and carbon dioxide as a product of burning. Possibly someone is taking into account the carbon emission produced during the manufacturing of the hydrogen?
    Until such a time as car manufactures get the new car cost affordable, I will stick to buying used ones. Currently I am driving a 1998 FORD Escort ZX2 that regularly delivers a solid 30 mpg, and often a bit better, and still has a good deal of performance and power for a little 4-cylinder.  I picked it up two years ago on eBay Motors with a winning bid of $2,110 and even at 175,000 miles the engine is tight and burns no oil. Oil is something that should be mentioned. IMO, the synthetics far outperform the petrochemical based lubricants both in lubricating ability and frequency of oil changes. I have no doubt they are worth the extra cost at oil change time. Synthetics will deliver more mpg, that’s a fact, and your engine will last much longer.
    I like diesels and the new diesel technology, having taken up driving 18-wheelers as a retirement hobby for fun and profit.  I believe diesel is a great intermediate option the auto makers can take while on the way to a permanent solution to energy independence. IMO, hydrogen will become the ultimate fuel of the future because of its ready availability from water, and also it’s clean burning eco-friendly nature. There are tech issues that need to be dealt with since I have heard hydrogen is currently being produced using petrochemicals as the source. That makes little sense and is counterproductive.
    Well, anyway, welcome again and keep up the interesting articles.

  • compoundcaptive

    Thanks for the welcome and the insightful response.
    I agree that hydrogen has viable potential. However, production procedures and cost will likely prolong its introduction and inhibit market share for the foreseeable future.
    I’ve also used synthetic oil and appreciate the engine wear-reduction, but it is expensive compared to typical consumer grade oil. In addition, several legit mechanics reminded me that even though synthetic is a superior choice from a friction and MPG standpoint, it gets dirty at the same rate as regular oil and needs to be changed on a comparable schedule. They’re opinion is that changing the oil every 3,ooo miles using a standard grade will likely result in a more cost effective outcome over the long term. Like so many things in life, this too become a matter of $$. I have a confession: I bought a lifetime oil change (standard grade oil) at a local business over 15 years ago during the first week it was advertised, and the price at the time was a mind boggling $24.95. I still have it and have been able to transfer it for a nominal fee each time I changed cars (four times so far). Over the years the company added a “shop fee” of $5, but for the time being I’m hooked and remain a regular customer every 3,000 miles.
    Best of luck out there when running with the big dogs, the 18-wheelers.
     

    • ado1

      Hi Jim,



      Thanks for the reply. What I have found to be true with synthetics is that they will deliver better mpg than petroleum based oils because they are more slippery and thus lubricate better . Even at only one(1) mpg more, over the course of 3,000 miles(should you buy into the 3K oil change thing), will more than be a payback for the added cost. By way of example: take a SUV or older car or pickup getting 20 mpg, that will use up 150 gallons in 3K miles if my math is correct. If you can get just a 1 mpg increase, the savings will be about seven gallons. At a pump price of $2.50/gal your savings will be $17.50. I think that would justify the added cost of synthetic completely. Add in the reduced engine wear and and subsequent added miles and years before you have to replace the vehicle and the cost benefit ratio becomes even greater.



      In the example I used a conservative $2.50/gal. for ease of calculating.  As the cost of fuel increases, the savings become even greater(Does anyone really believe fuel costs will remain at the current depressed levels?). It’s also been my personal experience that going to a synthetic lubricant will deliver somewhat better than a one mpg improvement, but again, it made the math easier and is on the conservative side of reality. Incidentally, I have been using synthetics since around 1978 beginning with Amzoil, and moving to MOBIL 1, and currently SYNTEC. With all of them I have changed my oil at around  seven to ten thousand mile intervals with no problems experienced. It’s recommended that should you go to greater intervals, you change out the filter and add a quart. I have not tried that. At any rate, I believe the savings are there to be had with synthetics, just do the math and it becomes obvious. Have a fine weekend.
       
      Regards, Ado

      • compoundcaptive

        Ado:
        I’ve dropped the ball into the EPA’s court by mentioning the three synthetics you reference and asked them to answer the following: 1) Does their test data confirm improved gas mileage, decreased engine wear and an overall cost saving initiative, 2) if so, which of the products might be the best choice for consumers, and 3) what would be the optimum period of time a driver would have to use a synthetic oil in order to recognize an actual cost saving over the use of consumer grade oil with changes at regular 3,000 mile intervals?
        Assuming they respond, it’ll be interesting to see whether or not they directly answer the questions or merely offer a typical, long-winded, bureaucratic rambling that, in the end, doesn’t amount to anything meaningful.
        Jim–

        • ado1

          That’s cool Jim, I will be interested to hear how they field those questions.


          ~ Ado

  • reneeschaferhorton

    Hey Jim, just a shout out from someone who used to share editorial space w/ you at the Explorer. Welcome to the TC community.
    Renee

  • compoundcaptive

    Renee:
    Good morning–great to hear from you, and thanks for the welcome.
    From what I hear you’re at the top of the blogging heap, and that comes as no surprise given my recollection of the high quality columns you produced each week during our time as cohorts at the Explorer.
    Best of luck for continued success,
    Jim–

  • Pingback: casino websites http

  • Pingback: golden casino download http


 

August 2009
M T W T F S S
    Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31