Smallest Oil Pan? (Mine = 2.4 quarts)

[keith]

I think the basis of the earlier question is this:

Why not dump the heavy battery pack and other dual power complexities? With the reduced weight you will get even better highway mpg, and perhaps less city mpg. The car will be a lot cheaper and lighter without those batteries, and I personally doubt the battery pack will last too long before it won't hold much of a charge - few years at best. I expect 10 years life out of my cars at a minimum. Would still have my 1991 Volvo if it didn't get totalled two years ago

The Insight is an interesting technology demonstration, and could be practical if most of your driving is in city.

I would much rather see high tech low pollution diesels until such time as fuel cell power is practical.

Keith.

 

[Bror Jace]

I'm another who wonders if the hybrids are really worth it ... the technology in general, I mean. What does a new Honda Civic Hybrid get for mileage ... 36mpg? That's it?

My '95 Civic DX Coupe would routinely get 45mpg in mixed driving in the summer ... and that's with a short-ratio tranny. I bet I could have gotten another 5 MPG with a 6 speed or a higher drive 5th gear. I think at 75mph, the car was turning 4,000 RPMs or more. Cut that down by 1,000 RPMs and mileage would have improved significantly at the same speed.

Bogatyr has a Civic hatchback (1991?) which (at least used to) get 50mpg ... but a lot of that is is driving habits (rural, moderate speeds, little traffic, a lot of highway, etc ...).

And of course, you pay a fair amount for the hybrid technology ... and even then, the price may be subsidized by the manufacturer. I'm not sure if this is made clear for each model or not. And what about replacing some of these major components when the mileage mounts? 100,000 miles? 150,000? 200,000 or more?

If they made a 1,800 pound gasoline-powered car with a 40-50 horsepower motor (1.0L) using all the fuel injection, ignition and VTEC technology available to us today, they could make it cheaply (I bet $12,000-14,000 or less), make it reliable (simple, straight-forward design) and it would get astounding mileage.

Problem is, almost no one would buy it in this day and age 'cept for a few of us weirdos.

--- Bror Jace

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

I think the idea here is to get better fuel economy without sacrificing size, performance, or comfort.

The Civic hybrid gets around 45 mpg or so; the Insight, 70-80. By comparison my Honda Rebel motorcycle also gets about 70 mpg. To me, getting a car (even a smallish car) with all the modern amenities to match the fuel economy of a 300-lb motorcycle is pretty darn good. The Insight also has triple the horsepower, but then again it needs it because of its extra mass... my motorcycle will still handily walk away from it.

Sure, you could get an old CRX or Geo Metro with like 60 hp and 55 mpg... but come on. Do you really want to drive a Metro? The Civic hybrid is down only 10 mpg and behaves like a modern car, and both of them are priced in line with today's cars, whether subsidized or no. Those old fuel misers were miserable little cars and I doubt that modern variants of them would sell well enough for anyone to make any money off them.

Technology has blurred the lines for fuel economy. My 1.8L, 133-hp Miata could squeak out 30 mpg on the highway... my 5.7L, 310-hp Camaro can get 28 mpg on the highway.

Sometimes I do wonder what's the point of the current horsepower war. Do we really all need 255-hp Maximas? Come on. But it's all about freedom of choice eh?

Out of the dozens of cars I've owned, the formula I've found that works pretty well for a regular car (not an enthusiast car) seems to be about 150-170 hp, at or under 3000 lbs, regular gas, and seating for five plus cargo. That gives enough power to haul the car around fully laden without having to slow down for hills or worry about passing coal trucks, while not possessing so much surplus horsepower that the tuning favors power over economy. For me, at least, the best fuel economy you can get while still maintaining that formula would be a winner.

Sorry for rambling on, give yourself a little gold star if you read the whole thing.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3 Mad Ponchos:


Technology has blurred the lines for fuel economy. My 1.8L, 133-hp Miata could squeak out 30 mpg on the highway... my 5.7L, 310-hp Camaro can get 28 mpg on the highway.

---

It constantly amazed me how good the gas mileage was with the LS1 V8 in my 98 Formula! My best ever was 31.0 MPG, at a steady 70mph in 6th gear. Even when I changed the rear end gears to 4.10s, I could still squeak out 27-28MPG! Not bad for a car making about 375hp! (it ran 12.68 at 110.6 mph in the quarter mile)

 

[acranox]

My old 94 Civic CX was a great car. 45MPG, it didn't have a lot of power, but the peak torque came in at 2000RPM, so it was real easy to drive. It got a little slower with 2 or 3 people in the car (which was about twice a year for me) but for a 9 year old car to get the same mileage as a much more expensive Civic hybrid, or Toyota Prius, it was one fine car.

 

[rpn453]

Glad to see so much thoughtful response to my question.

quote:

---

I don't know. Your paragraph doesn't make much sense. Removing the electric motor/installing a larger engine would cause lower MPGs for the Insight. So you're paragraphic does not make much sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it?

---

One thing that the 5.7 in the corvette and firebirds/camaros proves is that a large engine does not mean poor fuel economy. I don't think a 1.2 litre engine would use significantly more fuel if it used a similar design to the 1.0 litre. Or you could just change some internals to allow higher revving when necessary.

I guess all I'm saying is that it is too bad that a company has to use expensive technology to get public attention, when a similar but simpler car would do almost as well in the fuel economy department and be accessible to many more people.

An interesting note: In 1995 Honda made a hatchback based on the CX called the VX, with an ultra efficient engine. It's EPA rated for 56 highway mpg and 47 city (the 2003 Civic Hybrid is rated for 51 highway, 46 city). It was down 10hp, had skinny tires, and was a little more expensive than the regular civic. I guess it just didn't sell well enough.

[ May 28, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: rpn453 ]

 

[troy_heagy]

Anyway, here's a quick comparison:

Civic HX (lean-burn) = 44mpg = 117hp engine
Civic Hybrid = 51mpg highway = 85 hp engine

As you can see, using the smaller engine is probably the *main* reason for the Hybrid's +7 mpgs.

 

[Jimbo]

Troy,

It looks like I hijacked your thread with my comments. Lots of good, if off-topic discussion.

What is the horsepower of the gasoline engine in your Insight? Do you get at least the EPA estimated mpg?

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by troy_heagy:
Anyway, here's a quick comparison:

Civic HX (lean-burn) = 44mpg = 117hp engine
Civic Hybrid = 51mpg highway = 85 hp engine

As you can see, using the smaller engine is probably the *main* reason for the Hybrid's +7 mpgs.

---

Many more factors that are also contributing than just engine size though.

 

[tom slick]

i am amazed that my 1988 grand am with a 150hp 2.3l quad4 with 206,000 miles on the ticker gets 30 mpg.
my 2002 mazda protege5 with a 135hp, 2.0l makes 20 less hp and only get 29 mpg at best?

back to the original topic, my motorcycle only holds 1/4 of a pint in the engine, it holds 2 quarts in the frame though

 

[Bror Jace]

"Sure, you could get an old (Honda) CRX or Geo Metro with like 60 hp and 55 mpg ... but come on. Do you really want to drive a Metro?"

I think that's part of the problem. Most people don't want these small cars ... but if those old designs with early fuel injection systems (or even carburetors

) were replaced with newer (conventional) models using currently available engine technology, fuel economy could increase 15-20%, possibly more.

"The Civic hybrid is down only 10 mpg and behaves like a modern car, and both of them are priced in line with today's cars, whether subsidized or no."

I've never driven a Civic Hybrid. I know the newest Civics (7th generation) are up in weight about 500-600lbs.+ over the 5th generation (1992-95). I drove a 2002 Civic Si and didn't find it a noticeably more "substantial" car than my '95.

Oh, and don't shrug off the fact that some of these pseudo-experimental models are subsidized to one extent or another. It's actually critical to the car's very existence. They are possible only because they are low-volume, "niche" cars. This approach won't be feasible once these machines are expected to be a significant part of the national fleet ... which is where a lot of people want to see this hybrid "exercise" end up. The auto companies can take a loss of a few (perhaps several) thousand dollars on each of these specialty cars ... as long as they make up for it by selling a lot of fuel guzzling SUVs and sportier cars the public will pay a premium for. Do away with the popular gas guzzlers and increase the price of the hybrids to what they actually cost to manufacture. Then you'll see their price skyrocket. Then we'll be seeing sticker prices of $25,000 - $30,000 for a tiny, aerodynamic econobox ... with a very uncertain maintenance/repair future.

"Those old fuel misers were miserable little cars and I doubt that modern variants of them would sell well enough for anyone to make any money off them."

This sort of makes my point about subsidizing. Anyway you look at it, these tiny transporters are a niche market. So, do we get their using subsidized hybrid technology or more convnetional gas (or diesel) engines?

And as for being sutiable for families (3+ people) I can see your point. But for singles needing cheap transportation, they were ideal ... except for the skimpy image that few tolerate these days.

Besides, with newer, more efficient body structures (more rigidity with less steel), a new generation of mileage misers could be made more liveable than the tiny models you cited.

--- Bror Jace

[ May 28, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Bror Jace ]

 

[troy_heagy]

Let me re-phrase:

Anyway, here's a quick comparison:

Civic HX - manual = 44mpg = 117hp lean-burn engine
Civic Hybrid manual = 51mpg highway = 85 hp lean-burn engine

As you can see [WITH ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL] using the smaller engine is probably the *main* reason for the Hybrid's +7 mpgs. I'm comparing a Civic to a Civic which are identical in aerodynamics, virtually equal in weight, et cetera.

The only real difference is the powerplant: The Civic Hybrid uses a smaller engine which boosts its highway mileage +7 mpg (the electric is not used on the highway).

Troy

[ May 29, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: troy_heagy ]

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

The only real difference is the powerplant: The Civic Hybrid uses a smaller engine which boosts its highway mileage +7 mpg (the electric is not used on the highway).

Yes but the reason it can get away with a smaller engine for highway use is that it has the electric boost to give it some extra go around town. Without that it would be miserable around town and no one would want one.

Oh, and don't shrug off the fact that some of these pseudo-experimental models are subsidized to one extent or another. It's actually critical to the car's very existence. They are possible only because they are low-volume, "niche" cars. This approach won't be feasible once these machines are expected to be a significant part of the national fleet ... which is where a lot of people want to see this hybrid "exercise" end up.

An interesting point, and I don't know where that's going to go. I recall as of a few years ago (don't know whether it is still true) compact cars such as the Neon were also subsidized... DC was willing to sell a bunch of Neons at a loss to keep the fleet fuel economy within CAFE regs, so they could sell more inefficient but highly profitable trucks.

There will get to a point where the truck market will slow down which I think will actually cause car prices to rise slightly across the board. OTOH if the hybrid technology works then it will become more cost-effective as it spreads to more vehicles. So there will probably be some sort of equilibrium, higher than the current subsidized price, but lower than the current unsubsizided price.

I'm slow to condemn the newer technology because people said the same things about catalytic converters, ABS, OBD2, etc. and all that stuff is working out pretty well in the long run. Especially with Honda, I'm not too inclined to worry much. I know one person with an Insight and two people with Civic hybrids so we'll see soon enough.

I'm especially looking forward to the Ford Escape hybrid. They promise V6-equivalent power and 40 mpg in a small truck. Cool. I hope it works out.

Cheers, 3MP

 

[Patman]

Moving this topic to mechanical section.