fuel economy in car commercials

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >starter motor generator, with generative braking capability). VW/Audi also
> >has a highly efficient direct shift gearbox, which is essentially a computer
> >controlled manual transmission.
>
> Which I'm sure they've patented out the wazoo. And which is unlikely
> to improve economy all that much.

Hmm..since my 15 yearr old tractor has a transmission that
is essentially a conventional gearbox that is shifted
hydraulically by a computer, I can't imagine that VW can
patent the whole concept.

Ed

In article >,
C. E. White > wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> >starter motor generator, with generative braking capability). VW/Audi also
>> >has a highly efficient direct shift gearbox, which is essentially a computer
>> >controlled manual transmission.
>>
>> Which I'm sure they've patented out the wazoo. And which is unlikely
>> to improve economy all that much.
>
>Hmm..since my 15 yearr old tractor has a transmission that
>is essentially a conventional gearbox that is shifted
>hydraulically by a computer, I can't imagine that VW can
>patent the whole concept.

No, they can't. But they can patent the specifics of their version.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>Come on, a 1978 Chevy Caprice?
>>
>>The alternatives include not letting any of those vintage cars on the
>>road, or having the government define "classic".
>>Which is your preference?

> No, the alternative is they must pass whatever emissions regs were in
> effect in the year in which they were made, regardless of cost.

So much for helping the poor people..... So I take it you oppose the
exemption for China et al in the kyoto treaty as well?

Then again a car that might not make it's emissions test may be better
for the environment than replacing it with a new car. (and somewhere up
the stream it's a new car that comes online even if the owner of the '78
replaces it with a newer used car) Just consider the pollution and
energy used in manufacturing a new car.

Not to mention, a truely poor running car is a self correcting 'problem'. It
will expire in short order on it's own or be repaired without
intervention from the state.

But it doesn't solve the problem. The person with the crap car goes out
and buys another crap car for 1000 dollars. In every other country people
who cannot afford cars or won't mantain them just use public transportation.
This doesn't always work in the US.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> Not all Hondas have VVT, and it isn't appropriate for all engines.
> Honda uses it for increasing power without sacrificing economy;

On the Civic? Compare the Civic to the Ford Focus, the Civic has much
better fuel economy by a wide margin (high 30's vs. mid 20's). The Civic
also has a little less horsepower, I believe. Maybe on the Camrys and
Accords they are going the power route, but still, they have better fuel
economy than big American cars.

> Which I'm sure they've patented out the wazoo. And which is unlikely
> to improve economy all that much.

Every little bit of efficiency adds up. Depending on how it's geared of
course. Alot of automatic transmissions are geared so that the final drive
ratio is taller than the manual transmission- this offsets the efficiency
losses at the cost of performance. If the DSG is setup so the final drive
ratio is for fast acceleration, it won't necessarily be more efficient. But
in terms of basic mechanical efficiency, it is better than an auto with a
torque converter.

> The _real_ bottom line is that we've reached a point of diminishing
returns,
> where every improvement in economy means significant sacrifices in
> size, power, and/or increased cost.

More improvement in efficiency won't necessarily jack up cost, not if it
involves re-engineering from the ground up. A starter motor generator
might sound expensive, but it also involves replacing the starter and the
alternator with one part- that simplifies the design alot. Low rolling
resistance tires also practically pay for themselves in fuel savings- unless
you just have to have that ultra-cushy ride.

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> "Magnulus" > wrote:

> >The bottom line is it will take higher fuel prices to motivate people to
> >change. You are starting to see that pressure with gas averaging over 2.12
> >per gallon, but it will take higher prices to really push people. Only by
> >ending subsidies to the oil industry and forcing drivers pay the full costs
> >of using the roads will people make better choices. Of course, higher gas
> >taxes are politically hot water.

If you give the government money, they will waste it. We can waste it
better ourselves.

> Exactly. But I'd rather pay a higher price and have some of it go to build
> roads, fund health care, etc., than go to Exxon and Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, like that will happen. More likely we would see more fact-finding
missions to Aruba for congress and its staff in order to research
traffic-calming methods, or dam-building projects in the Utah desert or
subsidies to the National Egg Council for studies leading to improving
egg production by hormone injections to roosters.

You think anybody in power cares about those potholes? Yeah, right.

--
Cheers,
Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Lottery: the closest thing we have to
a tax on stupidity.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >Hmm..since my 15 yearr old tractor has a transmission that is
> >essentially a conventional gearbox that is shifted hydraulically by a
> >computer, I can't imagine that VW can patent the whole concept.
>
> No, they can't. But they can patent the specifics of their version.

Especially in the US, where the Patent Office has ceased to serve its
intended function and now rubberstamps even the flimsiest, most
ridiculously obvious and pre-existing patent applications, letting the
affected parties duke it out in court.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> for some reason, politicians won't pass laws to get the worst offenders
> off the roads. In Atlanta, for example, autos older than 24 years are
> exempt from inspections. And if your car fails, all you have to do is
> show you spent around $700 trying to fix it and you'll get your sticker.

Non-sequitur and untrue.

Reams and reams of data collected by Federal and individual-state EPAs
show that the worst polluters are in the 4-to-14-year-old age group, so
that's where I/M programs focus. No matter how many times you parrot it,
Lloyd, it simply is not the case that cars older than <fill in the blank>
years are necessarily gross polluters, while cars newer than <fill in the
blank> are necessarily clean.

As a percentage of the on-road fleet, vanishingly few cars older than 25
years remain in existence, and only a small fraction of those are driven
on a daily basis. Most such cars are kept as collector vehicles and are
fastidiously maintained.

I and others have been pointing you at EPA's data on this for *years* now
in various Usenet forums. That you persist in plugging your ears and going
"LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!" does not make you any more
correct on the matter now than you were five years ago.

DS

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Magnulus wrote:

> A modern diesel makes less pollution than a gasoline engine from a few
> decades ago.

That depends on both engines' state of repair and the type of fuel burned.
Remember, North America still has filthy high-sulphur diesel fuel.

> Given that over half of air pollution is due to old, worn-out cars and
> trucks on the road

FABRICATED STATISTIC ALERT! aWHOOga! aWHOOOga!

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Magnulus wrote:

> 60 percent of air pollution is caused by 10 percent of the cars on the
> road. These cars are overwhelmingly old

Say it a few dozen more times; I'm sure others will catch on and start
parroting it for you.