Autoblog: For the Lutz

Night_Hawk said:
As for him calling the other guy an idiot, as far as I can tell he's just referring to the whole "do a little here and do a little there" idea not always solving our problems. And that's true because we can only go so far when it comes to making something like an Impala get upwards of 35mpg combined. or the 42mpg that he says is physically impossible for that matter.
Click to expand...

"Very little effort" needs to be viewed in car-development terms. I'll obviously use Skoda as an example, they introduced new engines in the Octavia Mk2 facelift. The old 1.6 with 102hp was rated at 7.4l/100km or 31.7mpg, the new 1.2TSI with 105hp is rated at 5.7l/100km or 41.2mpg. Now, these are Euro cycle numbers and not comparable to EPA numbers. However, they do show how much a smarter engine can change. The car is the same, but it gets TEN MPG more. I'll even go as far as saying the TSI will deliver better performance due to more low-down torque, so you get more every-day power on top.

If a plucky Czech company with mild backing by one of the largest car companies ... in the world can do it, why can Americans not do it?


About the Impala, that's a large "sports sedan" (whatever that is), it would be on the thirstier side of the passenger car average. If that thing achieved the target figure then the real average would be much higher.
I'll bite though. Let's compare it to the first similar car that comes to my mind: The US 528i, pretty much the same size. The Impala does 230hp, the 5 does 240hp - basically the same. The Impala is rated at 17/27mpg, the 5 is supposed to do 22/32. +5mpg for pretty much the same car size and power. Either BMW is so much smarter than Chevy, or it really is "very little effort".



PS: I just looked it up, the 1.2TSI is 1.5s faster to 100 than the old 1.6 with pretty much the same peak power. How can more weeeeeeeee for less dino-weewee be bad?
 
Last edited:
very small or medium-size cars with very small turbocharged engines
Click to expand...

At least he gets this bit right... anyone for a 200bhp 60mpg 80g 1.2l 3 cylinder (they exist already)?
 
narf said:
"Very little effort" needs to be viewed in car-development terms. I'll obviously use Skoda as an example, they introduced new engines in the Octavia Mk2 facelift. The old 1.6 with 102hp was rated at 7.4l/100km or 31.7mpg, the new 1.2TSI with 105hp is rated at 5.7l/100km or 41.2mpg. Now, these are Euro cycle numbers and not comparable to EPA numbers. However, they do show how much a smarter engine can change. The car is the same, but it gets TEN MPG more. I'll even go as far as saying the TSI will deliver better performance due to more low-down torque, so you get more every-day power on top.

If a plucky Czech company with mild backing by one of the largest car companies ... in the world can do it, why can Americans not do it?


About the Impala, that's a large "sports sedan" (whatever that is), it would be on the thirstier side of the passenger car average. If that thing achieved the target figure then the real average would be much higher.
I'll bite though. Let's compare it to the first similar car that comes to my mind: The US 528i, pretty much the same size. The Impala does 230hp, the 5 does 240hp - basically the same. The Impala is rated at 17/27mpg, the 5 is supposed to do 22/32. +5mpg for pretty much the same car size and power. Either BMW is so much smarter than Chevy, or it really is "very little effort".



PS: I just looked it up, the 1.2TSI is 1.5s faster to 100 than the old 1.6 with pretty much the same peak power. How can more weeeeeeeee for less dino-weewee be bad?
Click to expand...

The Impala has been the same pos car for the last ever. I am sure someone know these things as I cannot be bothered to look it up.
 
Americans have caught up in other areas, too, so it's not exactly impossible. The latest V6 Camaro gets 17/29 mpg out of 312 HP, while the BMW 135i gets 20/28 mpg out of 300 HP (and weighs a few hundred pounds less). While I'm no fan of CAFE, the market itself is enough reason that GM had to get off their asses one way or another.
 
narf said:
If a plucky Czech company with mild backing by one of the largest car companies ... in the world can do it, why can Americans not do it?
Click to expand...


Except for some interior bits and a different grill along with other minor changes all Skodas were designed and developed by VW in Germany. The only thing mild about badge engineering are the differences between the cars.

Dr_Grip said:
GM even pioneered V6 engines with the Buick 3800 engine well know to this forum, which debuted in 1962, a dozen years before CAFE.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough they used the 90 degree V6 up until '09 beating the V8 version (Buick 215 later Rover V8) in longevity by five years.
 
narf said:
tl;dr: "Fuel-efficient vehicles? That sounds hard, let's not even try. USA! USA! USA!"
Click to expand...

We have a thirst for power over here, and unfortunately, big heavy cars as well. Those do not bode well for fuel economy. What I find funny is that my 99 Z28 I sold a few months ago got better (experienced) gas mileage with modifications than the new Camaro V6 does, not to mention a bunch of other cars. Shit, my friend's dad has got an average of 33mpg on a tank of pure highway. Let's remember, that's 427 cubic inch, 500hp V8 getting 33mpg. Anyways, back to the topic at hand. It's not that the automakers over here don't want to try, it's just that they see it as Lutz does. An arbitrary fleetwide standard is retarded, especially over here. Just as he suggested, the best plan is to make a goal for each class. The 42mpg goal is attainable, but then there is a need for a huge mpg car because of the amount of trucks sold over here.


Everyone is in favor of achievable improvements in each vehicle class, but an arbitrary fleet average of 42 mpg is totally ridiculous.
Click to expand...

A+ idea Bob, though some other comments in that article are questionable.
 
The problem is that Americans love big cars. Big cars will eat up more fuel no matter what is under the hood.
 
Last edited:
argatoga said:
images
Click to expand...

Sigh. I am quite aware of how badge engineering works. The "mild backing" was an obvious sarcastic understatement. The "O RLY?" continued along those lines of obvious sarcasm.

...and they say we have no sense of humour :dunno:
 
narf said:
Sigh. I am quite aware of how badge engineering works. The "mild backing" was an obvious sarcastic understatement. The "O RLY?" continued along those lines of obvious sarcasm.

...and they say we have no sense of humour :dunno:
Click to expand...

In my defense 9/10 sarcasm doesn't work over the Interweb. :p
 
argatoga said:
The problem is that Americans love big cars. Big cars will eat up more fuel no matter what is under the hood.
Click to expand...

Just the love for big cars is not the problem.

Combining big, heavy cars with huge, thirsty and ridiculously powerful petrol engines to make that pile of wasted resources at least mildly fast, is the real killer. It has something very obscene to it.

Appealing... but obscene.
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
Just the love for big cars is not the problem.

Combining big, heavy cars with huge, thirsty and ridiculously powerful petrol engines to make that pile of wasted resources at least mildly fast, is the real killer. It has something very obscene to it.

Appealing... but obscene.
Click to expand...

800px-Mercedes_S_320_CDI_20090808_front.JPG
 
As a diesel that one does 30 MPG -- under realistic conditions. When you floor it, it will still do 24 MPG.

But for some reasons Americans cannot buy it. I wonder why...
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
But for some reasons Americans cannot buy it. I wonder why...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are implying there, but blame Mercedes for not importing it.
 
Yes, you know what I am implying ;) And you also know, why Mercedes isn't importing it :p

Besides, it's not a valid point anyway. The S-Class is a big, heavy luxury car and their numbers are limited by its price tag alone. The problem are the cheap big vehicles, that are sold in masses and I'm quite sure you -- being an intelligent person -- got that point already from my first post on this page.

It would be refreshing for a change, when people could resist the temptation of twisting the meaning of what others wrote, when they know better.
 
Last edited:
American automakers had to tear up their entire product lines, downsize, go from full-frame to unitized bodies, V8s to V6s, rear- to front-wheel drive with transverse transmissions. It was the biggest technological tear-up in history, and it triggered a lot of subsequent problems
Click to expand...

Don't buy it.
 
Aircooled said:
Don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. Normally I like Lutz but in this case he sounds like an idiot living in a fantasy world especially since the Oldsmobile Toronado wasn't forced on them by anyone and was in development since the late 1950's.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
It's funny he doesn't use the D-word once. Migrate to that and you get lots of mpgiesel for free, but I'm sure he has some far-fetched horror scenario for that as well.
Click to expand...

GM's hastily converted from gas to diesel engine back in the 70's /80's soured the public on diesels for years. People have a long memory, not helping the case for diesel because prospective buyers will ask and hear horror stories from their parents and grandparents.

Other diesels were far better, but dinged for feeling slow.

Add in the fact that because there are so few modern diesels on the road that are in cars here, and people equate diesel = truck = noisy and slow so I pass them on the highway.

Today, only VW manage to sell diesel cars (not pickup trucks: one other consumer segment where diesel tends to be more common on heavy-duty variants) with any appreciable sales numbers here. Perhaps Merc and BMW sell a few but its not earthshattering for sure.

Another nail in the coffin is the higher price of diesel here compaired to gas. While you'll obviously go further on a gallon of diesel, seeing the higher price displayed alongside the rest of the gas prices at the gas station is a large psycological barrier to the average American driver who focuses more on price than range because they don't realize right away that one does get more range out of a diesel.
 
Diesel price is all over the place and not necessarily higher than gas. Yesterday it was the lowest price fuel at the pump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top