These Are the Top 10 Most Fuel Efficient Cars

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]Not true, the 'engine' propelling the bike (a human) actually consumes about a quart per mile instead of miles per gallon (depending on the temperature)![/citation]

yes, but what is the carbon footprint? 4mpg isn't that bad when the carbon produced isn't much higher then with walking. if your really serious, just peddle really fast and run on lactic acid instead of oxygen, it will hurt like hell, but who said doing the right thing was easy!
 
[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]So what is the msrp if you mass produce that truck? Car companies are trying to decrease the price of hybrids and I failed to see how you can compare a mass produced product with a one off build. A few years back I think Toyota managed to get a Prius to 90+mpg but concluded that the technology is too costly to mass produce. Honda Insight is now the lowest priced high mpg hybrid because Honda decided not to compete with Toyota on mpg but on price (reminds you of ATI vs. Nvidia)[/citation]

Ok, lets think about this from a manufacturers viewpoint. EVERY single piece on this truck except for the front crossmember and the exhaust system are either stock Dodge pieces or cheaper aftermarket pieces. This means that the R&D cost to bring this vehicle into production would be almost nothing, save for the time spent trying to find a tune that makes everyone happy and will suit all the potential customers. The parts themselves would cost no more than standard parts because they are all basically the same parts from a stock dodge truck. The only exception would be the twin compound turbos which is something that Ford has already done on their diesel trucks. Also the injectors were different. From an Manufacturers perspective this would be a ridiculously cheap truck to produce. Naturally this includes that the manufacturers would not have custom wheels or the sweet custom paint (which were probably the most expensive things on the vehicle) so really you would be left with a very powerful, very efficient, and reasonably equipped/priced half ton pickup. In a car, this would be even cheaper to do.

I doubt that this particular truck cost any more than $40,000 MAYBE $50,000 to build, including the price of the original truck and it's gas drivetrain. And that also include the custom work that no manufacturer would do. With the technology that a manufacturer posses, I can easily see how this truck could be sold for around $30,000. In a car, even less. The problem that one encounters here is all of the ridiculous laws that exist. (see below)

One thing that most manufacturers seem to be unable to do is realize the fuel mileage gains that are achieved with the proper application of big horsepower and gearing.

The problem with American auto makers is the fact that Americans seem to love to screw themselves over and over again with laws and regulations. If America would fix the federal government and redo all the ridiculous codes, rules, and regulations into small condensed and more effective versions, the country would run better and suck less. You could blame the special hypocritical/facist special interest groups, but I blame the idiot politicians that give into all of their crap and make everyone suffer.

California is the worst of them all at this. You can not build a new diesel vehicle without a catalytic converter, Diesel Particulate Filter, muffler, or whatever other emissions crap you have to meet. Even one off customs have to follow these rules here. That or you can never drive/register them. That is one reason why classic cars are cool here in California because they don't have to meet any of the emissions rules and regulations of other cars/trucks. For some reason the American politicians seem to believe that if we tax ourselves to death then we will make the world a better place.

This is all a part of the single greatest hoax of all time.

We don't have THAT bad diesel fuel here. Car and Driver bought a couple of the European diesels that requirement the European diesel, then they drove them and fueled them in America for several months, and they were perfectly fine.

The "clean" diesel performance movement is starting to pickup with companies like Banks building awesome race vehicles and aftermarket parts that don't spew black smoke everywhere. They currently have a dragster that runs the 6.6L V8 Diesel that GM puts in all of their trucks. It makes over 1300HP and a ridiculous amount of torque. Watch the video on this page. This was filmed just outside of where I live. None of these were complete passes because they fragged the sliders in the Transmission every time.
 
I get 8mpg, when I push it, 15-16 around the town for short runs and around 30 mpg on the long runs, who gives a shit I have 340 BHP at use
 
[citation][nom]ikefu[/nom]One thing that I think is cool is that the 2010 Chevy Equinox gets 32 mpg highway and IS NOT a hybrid. That's almost tied with the Lexus and Camry hybrids.After years of bad gm vehicles I'm glad to see them pack with an awesome line up and putting up great gas mileage for normal (non-hybrid) vehicles.[/citation]


Hell, my 14yo Chevy S10 (4cyl, 5sp) gets 30 mpg on the highway. You would think there would be a lot more improvement than that in all those years. At 200,000 miles it still beats it original EPA estimates, much less the new "more accurate" rating. I'm still waiting for someone to make a compact pickup that does better.
 
dioxide. anyway, i thought the easiest way to make hydrogen was from gas because of all the hydrogen in it... i dont remember were i heard they made hydrogen from gas, but it was old anyway.
 
[citation][nom]m4rmite[/nom]where you get that idea from???Industrially, hydrogen gas is made using two methods, usually one after the other. In the first reaction, called steam reforming, methane is reacted with water to form hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide.CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 .[/citation]

True. but most of methane used in industries was from the nature gas (which is also counted as one type of fossol fule).

Though just like you said, we can make H2 by breaking down the water molecules. However, not many people will mass produce H2 in that way, due to the cost issue.

I am not saying H2 fule is bad... It is just...... still has a long way to go.
 
I can't bring myself to use any of the numbers cited in the article and 'efficient' in the same sentence.

Granted these are hybrid, petrol, cars and might use - slightly - different testing methods but even so these numbers are what I'd expect from a 20 year old middle-class vehicle.

But then again we're paying the equivalent of $5+ per, US, gallon as well.
 
[citation][nom]kingtoid[/nom]You can not build a new diesel vehicle without a catalytic converter, Diesel Particulate Filter, muffler, or whatever other emissions crap you have to meet.[/citation]

Now, I may be a bit biased here because I work for a company who develops and manufactures your so-called "emissions crap," but if you're a diesel enthusiast and want more diesels in North America, they need to be clean. This isn't an option. If diesels don't clean up, they will die.

Emissions aren’t a one-sided story. I know it's the "in" thing to talk about, but there's more to it than C02 and fuel economy. You read Diesel Power magazine, I'm sure you know this. Without the "emissions crap," diesels spew particulate matter and NOX. We're not talking a little bit more... we're talking about 66% of particulate matter and 33% of NOX from on-road vehicles comes from diesels. This is from vehicles that make up less than 5% of the on-road vehicles traveling our highways (that's all on-road vehicles, heavy trucks included).

Even with all the new emissions components, like cooled EGR, diesel particulate filters, catalytic converters, and selective catalyst reduction (urea injection), diesels are still only required to meet Tier 2 Bin 5 emission standards. The absolute cleanest diesel is required to meet the emissions for the absolute DIRTIEST gasoline engine.

Again, if you're a diesel enthusiast, you really need to embrace some of the technologies. If diesel emission technology isn't embraced, the diesel itself will go away. You may fault the government for a lot, but I thank them for not (fully) jumping on the C02 bandwagon and replacing greenhouse gasses with toxic carcinogens and ozone-depleting VOCs.

As for your example truck, I could give you dozens of reasons why it'd never fly from a manufacturer. Heavily hot-rodded diesels are really poor examples of what a manufacturer should produce, as the build is typically after only one thing: going faster. A diesel sold by a manufacturer has to start in the coldest Alberta winters, pull 15,000 lbs. in the hottest Arizona heat, be quiet, meet emissions, and be as inexpensive as possible, while still be reliable enough to do all the above.

Since you chose a Dodge, I'll stick with that. Since Cummins started supplying engines to Dodge with the 12V 5.9L in 1989, horsepower has increased 120% and torque has increased 62% with today's 6.7L. All this while meeting far stricter emissions (diesel emissions were nearly unregulated in 1989), being much quieter, and, likely having better fuel economy. That's a pretty damn impressive feat. Certainly nothing to get all bent out of shape over and accuse the manufacturers of not knowing what they're doing.
 
Diesels are not as promenient in America for several reasons.
1rst off, back in the 70s during the oil crisis, our wonderful auto companies decided to make some horrendous diesels, that were just poorly designed.
Secondly, NOx is more strictly regulated here than it is in Europe. Europes regulation plan for the emission known as NOx is more reasonable and achievable than the one in the states. Diesels use higher pressures thus higher temperatures, with a higher air to fuel ratio to be extremely thermal and volumetrically efficient. Ploys, such as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) have to be used to lower combustion temperature to reduce NOx production, hence lowering power and to some extent efficiency.
I wish America would adopt the current plan Europe has to control NOx production with ammonia. Cause I love the torque Diesels provide 😀.
 
MrHorspwer, thank you for restating all of my points in a formal fashion as counterpoints.

I agree with everything you just said. I don't think that clean(er) diesels are bad, I am just mad that the Federal and State governments are forcing all of the emissions and efficiency standards on everyone. I really am mad that all of these standards create rules that prevent anyone from being allowed to customize their vehicle's drivetrain in any way. (go ahead, try to do an engine swap in a newer car in California and then get it registered, really try it, I want to see what they tell you/how long it takes) I personally don't appreciate the crazy lifted trucks with the aftermarket stacks spewing black smoke everywhere. I live in the place that (formerly the worst) has the 2nd/3rd worst air quality in the nation. I LIKE clean air, I just don't believe that blaming cars and trucks for it and punishing them is the way to fix it. I live in the bottom of the San Joaquin Valley where all of the crud in the air from about San Francsico to here gets pushed down and caught in the base of the valley. And we get blamed for it even though we have pushed more for "green" energy, and applied it, more then any of these places. It is not our fault crap runs down hill.

But like the video I linked to, I know that it is completely unfeasible at the moment, I mean THEY can't even to get it to make a complete pull down the quarter mile, but the fact that there was nothing visibly exiting the exhaust, that's a big improvement to me. And about the different things that must be considered when a manufacturer builds a truck, I did say that. I get that and I think about that when I design things. But there was nothing on that truck that I linked to that could not be done by a manufacturer for a reasonable cost and meet all of the requirements, save for certain emissions items. And as to the question of why? Look at the ZR1 Corvette. People seem to be buying it. And it is a luxury vehicle with a lot of custom parts that you really have no need for unless you are racing and want an extra couple thousandths off of your lap times. The truck that I am describing could be built for much less.

But as you were saying, we have seen a 120% increase in torque since the first 5.9L. This is good. But it can be better, as evidenced by the truck that I showed. So this begs the question, why did they need to up it to 6.7 and use more fuel decreasing fuel economy by a good 5 MPG? Because they needed to maintain power levels while compensating for the new 2010 emissions requirements.

I love clean air, but their are better ways of getting it then dumbing down our engines and making them less efficient. In California, the idiot politicians are basically screwing everything except priuses (what, as you were saying, a manufacturer "should" produce). It is just stupid to sign a bill for cars/trucks to get at least 30 MPG and cut the emissions in half at the same time. The politicians in question here make up the majority of the ones that you hear about, who only care about what other people think of them. They all do these stupid things because the global warmers are pressuring them to. Look at Barack Obama, he drove a Chrysler 300C with the 5.7HEMI for a while, as did John McCain, and several other politicians. When he started his run for president people told him that he was "hurting the environment" so he bought a ford Escape Hybrid, which, because in part of his buying it, he was elected president, and now he never has to drive it (non fuel efficient bulletproof Cadillac limos anyone?). The reason for all of this is because of one theory. (wait for the firestorm of hate, wait for it) Global Warming, (or Climate Change, if you choose, the media has switched back already,) is (and if you study Meteorology or any form of Geology, or if you work for NASA or the EPA and ever read the news (not on the mass media but from the source itself) in regards to your company you probably already know this) not real. (here comes the firestorm of hate comments) Al Gore himself even said this, he openly admitted that, in his famous video, they overinflated certain numbers and values to "make a point", and of course you never saw this on the news because they make a buttload of cash whenever they publish a story on Global Warming, all of this and he still won the Nobel Prize, but then again, so did Barack Obama (second firestorm of hate comments).

But, in short, my point is that all of the laws, standards, and regulations are preventing manufacturers from being able to produce a really efficient and generally good vehicle anymore. They are getting much better, but if you look at cars after 1970, it is just sad what happened.
 
Pretty sure this chart is wrong. It should be 100% made up of tiny little cars they drive in Europe that are slightly bigger than a bicycle. When will American public realize, that with the internal combustion engine technology so mature, the only way to increase mpg is to cut down the weight of the car. Of course, in America we don't really give a crap about that--we like our cars heavy and comfortable and with AC.
 
another BS crap pushed by the the US lobbyist ...
Jetta TDI gets better mileage than all those .. and it runs on Dieles which is , at least att he moment cheaper than gas in US ... not to mention it is actually a real car that drives well and is much safer than the friggin ghey Prius ...
 
"FFS, semi/tractors in most of Europe still run on unleaded."

ive never seen or heard of a semi/tractor running on unleaded.
100% i have seen or companies i have worked at run diesel.. and thats in a 21 year work history..
heel when i was 8 and went with my father to work 29 years ago he drove a diesel wagon ( bedford )
and yeah they were as dirty as hell and most still are

and to answer the origins of diesel engines being creating in the US...
In 1898, Rudolf Diesel was granted patent #608,845 for an "internal combustion engine" the Diesel engine. Born in France, grew up in Germany.
as far as i can see they are european countries
 
[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]Not according to the seriously flawed formula used by the EPA. According the the EPA formula, no liquid fuel used = infinite MPG.Thanks, EPA, for protecting us from having meaningful energy efficiency ratings.[/citation]

Nah, you are wrong, drinks DO contain energy just like fuels do and humans need it same reason as cars.
I'm talking about drinks and foods too.
 
The EPA is on crack, I have a 2009 Honda Civic LX that does over 29 in town and over 36 on the highway. This beats out several of the hybrids listed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.