Gasoline vehicle with 100 MPG possible ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
19,528
Location
Lake Forest, CA
Can any company be able to make a gasoline vehicle that can carry 4 person for less than $50k and pass US emission but achieve 100 MPG ?

As of now the best hybrid can do is about 50-52 MPG on highway, a little better in city.

A Physics Professor Emeritus named Richard A. Muller at UC Berkeley said this on Quora forum and reprinted by Newsweek:

Quote:
Let me warn you—whenever I write about electric cars I draw furious and angry responses from many people. It is remarkable how deep is the love of the electric car concept, and how many people consider my view to be blasphemy! Many people will argue that I am wrong, or don’t have any vision. I respond by saying that the proponents of electric cars show “optimism bias.” That is, they believe that the serious problems inherent in electric cars will be solved, yet they choose to be pessimistic about similar improvements in gasoline cars (e.g. 100 mpg gas mileage, which are well within the technology).

He said gasoline cars, not hybrids.

Quote:
The batteries are too expensive and not decreasing rapidly in price. The expense of running such a car comes from the battery replacement cost, which happens after 500 to 1000 full recharges. (Tesla builds a one-time replacement cost into their initial high price to cover this issue. That keeps the initial cost high.) There is little to no environmental benefit, since in most of the world the electricity is derived from coal. An electric car in China produces more CO2 than does a gasoline car.

Tesla has free 1 time battery replacement for their model S and X ? As far as I know Tesla doesn't provide free battery replacement after bumper to bumper warranty of 5 years unlimited mileage.

Coal power plants are replaced by cleaner power plants everywhere, it is slow now but most countries committed to clean source of power in the future.

Quote:
I think we are observing a Ponzi scheme in which companies like Tesla continue to grow because the early investors made money—but only because later investors came in. That will stop, and then the fad will collapse. The subsidies are soon to end. When that happens, and the fad goes away, the electric car enthusiasts have their answer ready: they were driven out of the market by the unexpected and environmentally harmful drop in the price of oil and gas. They will blame the demise of the electric car, once again, on the oil and gas industry.

What did he mean by this sentence "the unexpected and environmentally harmful drop in the price of oil and gas" ?

Quote:
I am a real enthusiast for hybrid automobiles, cars that use electricity only for those short moments when it provides a true benefit. I think the hybrid car will be widespread.

Is this true ? A standard hybrid like Prius uses electricity only for those short moments when it provides a true benefit ? I am not talking about plug-in hybrid like Chevy Volt.


http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-i...an-tesla-476122

Either someone claimed that he is "A Physics Professor at UC Berkeley" or the real Professor is smoking something very unusual.
 
What he meant by the "environmentally harmful drop in oil and gas prices" was that people buy bigger, less fuel efficient cars when gas is cheap. There is little incentive to find alternative sources of energy when gas is so cheap and works so well. If it was $5 a gallon that would be a different story.
 
I don't think 100 mpg gasoline engine is possible with the 4 person requirement. Maybe a one seater because of the requirements of being Ultra light.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I don't think 100 mpg gasoline engine is possible with the 4 person requirement. Maybe a one seater because of the requirements of being Ultra light.


It's not really that hard. Just think of a Geo Metro with a direct injection engine, 0-60 in the 14-16 second range and an aluminum body. No one would buy it though.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Posted on the levelised cost of storage for batteries (and others) the other day.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ora#Post4141423

Lifecycle costs, even with free electricity, diesel wins...

The problem with diesel especially for California is emission. Very small percentage of new vehicles sold in California is diesel, probably less than 1-2%.

California and about 10 states and Washington DC require a certain percentage of ZEV sold in the state. Currently only BEV and FCV(Fuel Cell Vehicle) are zero emission vehicle, problem with FCV is not many hydrogen filling station are available. Most of about 20 hydrogen stations are in California, and even this is not enough for a fairly large(and very long about 800 miles) state. Cost to build a hydrogen station is estimated about $2-5 million, and currently very few FCV are sold, nobody wants to invest $2 million to have fewer than 50-100 customers filling their tank a week.

By default BEV is needed to satisfy states ZEV requirement.

Current state of battery is not so good, it is in needed of improvement to make BEV an alternate choice to ICE vehicle.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I don't think 100 mpg gasoline engine is possible with the 4 person requirement. Maybe a one seater because of the requirements of being Ultra light.

The reason I have 4 person requirement is Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3 can carry 4 person with reasonable comfort, both will cost less than $40k before incentive(s), so I set $50k for gasoline car limit.

Currently, gasoline car that can carry 4 person with highest EPA highway gas mileage is about 45 MPG. To more than double this gas mileage a new technology is needed, and I don't know what that is.

Who is this professor ? Does he serious about what he write ?
 
Last edited:
There's a point of diminishing returns and we're already close to it. We need to focus on allowing people to work closer to home. Its insane the traffic in and out of Boston. Why do people need to drive into the city and work in some massive very expensive building in tiny cubicles like rats?
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There's a point of diminishing returns and we're already close to it. We need to focus on allowing people to work closer to home. Its insane the traffic in and out of Boston. Why do people need to drive into the city and work in some massive very expensive building in tiny cubicles like rats?

If you think that traffic in Boston is bad, you're lucky for not driving on I405 near Los Angeles area, the only time we have light traffic around I405 and I10 is between 11:00PM and 3:00AM. It is stop and go between 3:00AM til 11:00PM 7 days a week.

It is so bad we call it a very long parking lot.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There's a point of diminishing returns and we're already close to it.

Agreed. Didn't you mention in a similar thread already that this is problematic unless someone wants to drive a massively underpowered econobox at no more than 40 mph?
 
I'll play...

the original mini was a genuine 4 seater (been there done that), and could do 72MPH with 25KW...65MPH, a decent modern tranny, low rolling resistance tyres, say 15KW at the flywheel is needed to get 100MPG highway...1.54 hours to get the 100 miles.

15,000W x 3,600s/h x 1.54 = 83MJ of energy used to traverse the distance.

1 US Gal contains 132MJ of energy typically...so the engine would have to be 83/132 = 63% efficient.

Even modern CCGTs are only just knocking on that benchmark.

So, no I don't believe that 100MPG in what we would term and use as a 4 seat car is possible.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There's a point of diminishing returns and we're already close to it. We need to focus on allowing people to work closer to home. Its insane the traffic in and out of Boston. Why do people need to drive into the city and work in some massive very expensive building in tiny cubicles like rats?


Agree wholeheartedly tv.

First, on the diminishing returns, 1MPG when the US fleet is getting 20 is pretty cheap, and a 5% improvement...1MPG in a 35MPG fleet is a LOT more expensive, and less than 3% change.

Fuel is too cheap, people from Oz capital cities are moving 80 miles away to avoid housing costs...costs incurred by the former workforce not moving away in their retirement, and getting subsidised transport, medical, property taxes et al. (problem for another day).

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
California and about 10 states and Washington DC require a certain percentage of ZEV sold in the state. Currently only BEV and FCV(Fuel Cell Vehicle) are zero emission vehicle, problem with FCV is not many hydrogen filling station are available. Most of about 20 hydrogen stations are in California, and even this is not enough for a fairly large(and very long about 800 miles) state. Cost to build a hydrogen station is estimated about $2-5 million, and currently very few FCV are sold, nobody wants to invest $2 million to have fewer than 50-100 customers filling their tank a week.

By default BEV is needed to satisfy states ZEV requirement.

Current state of battery is not so good, it is in needed of improvement to make BEV an alternate choice to ICE vehicle.


My point was that diesel was simply cheaper than the cost of charging and discharging a batter multiple times, given the cost of purchase...Tesla throwing in the odd free battery doesn't make batteries more cost effective, it's just like warranty costs EVERY buyer.

As per my analysis above, and that new "efficient" stations can't get the 63% efficiency required for the 100MPG 4 seater, EVs can't in any way, shape of form be considered Zero Emission...it's just a feel good NIMBY boondoggle...as for hydrogen...even more so.

If batteries are 80-90% round trip efficient, "better" batteries are simply on the diminishing returns end of the scale...they don't make a good car, a cost effective car, or an environmentally friendly car.
 
More messing around, the Nissan LEAF is 30KWhr/100 miles.

That's 108MJ to do the job (so my Mini wasn't too far off the mark).

108MJ, throw in 90% efficient return path in the battery, 90% transmission delivery, and 62% thermal efficiency at the power station (current absolute industry best practice, and less than a handful of stations have made that)...215MJ of gas would be required to traverse the 100 miles.

215/132 = 1.63 gallons of gas to traverse the 100 miles...OR..61MPG.

For the most efficient power station in the world (not the US) to move a Nissan LEAF.

AND the leaf owner, rather than having to just fill up and run, has to worry about range, recharge time, and ultimately, how many cycles to depletion the batteries will take before it's hand in the pocket for a new battery.

So the OP question is 100MPG gas cars ?

Best EV's don't get much more than half that on state of the art technology...the LEAF, on current US technology is running at 38MPG equivalent...and again, you own the batteries.
 
http://www.aerocivic.com/

Quote:
What fuel economy does it get?

The approximate mileage on a level road burning non-ethanol gasoline at 85 degrees F ambient (29.4 degrees C) is:

95 mpg (US) at 65 mph
(2.5 L/100 km at 105 km/h ... 40.4 km/L ... 114 mpg (Imp.))
85 mpg (US) at 70 mph
(2.8 L/100 km at 113 km/h ... 36.1 km/L ... 102.1 mpg (Imp.))
65 mpg (US) at 80 mph
(3.6 L/100 km at 129 km/h ... 27.6 km/L ... 78.1 mpg (Imp.))
50 mpg (US) at 90 mph
(4.7 L/100 km at 145 km/h ... 21.3 km/L ... 60.1 mpg (Imp.))
Using E10 (10% ethanol/gasoline blend) drops these numbers by about 5 mpg. It was averaging mileage in the low 70's until E10 was introduced and is now averaging high 60's (see current fuel economy log).


With a professionally designed body, an a small 2 or 3 cylinder DI turbo motor designed for fuel economy, a factory version might get into the 80's on the EPA highway cycle?
A Mitsubishi Mirage meets all the safety standards at 2000lbs, so even just putting a body kit and a advanced motor on one might get it into 60-70's for highway miles.
Also if we get into self driving cars, drafting is an easy gain, also taking advantage of the terrain and using basic hypermiling techniques, and stopping the engine when it isn't needed starts to add up pretty fast.
With a clean sheet of paper and no concessions to normal seating configurations, I'd think 100mpg is possible. A 100mpg car that looks like a Camry and driven the normal inefficient way isn't possible.
 
1) Physics is not engineering.
2) Being a professor at a big name school, if true, doesn't mean you understand a specific area particularly well.
3) Liquid fuels are far more energy dense than batteries, even future batteries, will be.
4) I agree that hybrids are the best option, since start/stop, idling, and braking are huge energy wasters.

Diesels can be in excess of 50% thermal efficiency. Fuel cells and combined systems possibly higher. I'm stil a believer that if one understands the limitations of something like the BMW i3, the undersized engine with a battery pack is a better option than some other things, like Tesla's pure battery solution.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There's a point of diminishing returns and we're already close to it. We need to focus on allowing people to work closer to home. Its insane the traffic in and out of Boston. Why do people need to drive into the city and work in some massive very expensive building in tiny cubicles like rats?



Living in a city often entails living in a cubicle-sized apartment, and being in a herd of people constantly. Yet the pay from working in the city might afford one to put their family outside of it. The tradeoff of course is the time spent traveling.

Work where you live is a great concept, but if you can make an extra $10k/year with a long commute (let alone if the pay difference is more) then it becomes pretty attractive.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Can any company ... make a gasoline vehicle that can carry 4 person for less than $50k and pass US emission but achieve 100 MPG ?



Not yet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top