Ford Hybrids Not Achieving EPA MPG Ratings: Report

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by ScionRacer

I can't see them getting 70mpg.But diesel has come a way since my brother had his 96' TDI and could get to Boston (700mi)on one tank with miles to spare.He was getting 55 back then on the 1.9L engine.

'96 TDi is rated quite a bit higher at 34/38/44 (revised) vs. 30/34/42 for a '13 Golf TDI ('96 sticker EPA was 41/44/49).
1984 Rabbit diesel is also rated higher combined revised vs. new TDI at 36!

We've come a long way in the wrong direction as far as vehicle size/weight go...

[Gixxersixxerman]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Diesels get much better mileage than gasoline engines, this is not in dispute.
But 27mpg or even 24mpg sustained, real world, not going down a hill, without a continuous tailwind in a Dodge 2500 at 70mph? I doubt it...
At fuelly dot com, most are reporting between 14 and 17mpg for mileage in 2007 Ram Diesels: http://www.fuelly.com/car/dodge/ram%...iesel%20l6/all

There are two outliers above 20, one at 24 and another at 27.
The reported 24 is based on only two fills, so not exactly a reliable figure.
The 27mpg report is based on ONE fill, likely off by a huge margin. My bet is it's off on the high side...

I'll believe 27mpg at 70mph when I experience it myself!

All day every day man.. It is true on one way to work its slightly down in elevation most the way.. And of course up hill back.. I live in the high desert of Cali.. It's mountains all around and I have to go over a pass on the way to work.. The fuel mileage computer reads way high close to 30... I do average closer to the 24.. Best have been closer to 28 when I am leaving Cali heading to Texas.. Take it for what ever you think it's worth.. I don't see the reason I need to lie or exaggerate on a forum.. And as far as I know it's a bone stock truck.. It's been into dodge for its maintenance and a couple reflashes, but I don't think any. Of that would dramatically up fuel mileage

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Diesel fuel has higher energy per unit volume anyways, so 70mpg is not the same as 70mpg on gasoline.

.

Huh? Getting 70 miles out of a gallon of fuel is the same thing regardless of the energy content of the fuel. 70 miles is 70 miles and one gallon is one gallon. It doesn't matter which fuel you're talking about.

[SVTSHC]

"So you mean it won't get 47mpg averaging 85mph uphill? Ford lied, f***ing liars."

Yeah, w/e. I hate the media for this and many other reasons, they'll take anyone they want and demonize them for whatever reason they feel would make people pay attention.

Hybrids are fine, they get roughly the mileage posted. You just need to drive them with some semblance of sanity.

Diesels are incredibly fuel efficient, and in a decent number of cases more so than hybrids. Diesels burn 5 times less fuel idling than petrol vehicles so while they may not be better around town than hybrids they're still better than regular petrol. The variance we see between the godlike numbers they get in Europe and the fairly good numbers we see here are emission based. Safety and emission standards in the states are strict, no one should have to tell anyone that lives here that.

Petrol vehicles are still far from "reaching their max" until volumetric efficiency is 100%, without the use of forced induction there will ALWAYS be innovations to be had.


Hybrids are great, Diesels are great AND torquey, Petrol vehicles are great you just need to drive like you've got a brain.

[Justin.b]

One of the reasons for high MPG figures from Europe is that we get them from the UK. The UK uses a larger gallon than the US (160floz vs 128floz) so any figures from them are 20% higher.

-Justin

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

Safety and emission standards in the states are strict, no one should have to tell anyone that lives here that.

How are they strict?
I consider the US to be far behind (maybe not California)..

In EU most new diesel cars/engines have emissions of roughly
110g CO2 per km
and NOx in the range of 110-150mg per km.

Petrol:
125g CO2 per km
about 30mg NOx per km.

In 2020 the goal is to get CO2 down to an average of 85g CO2 per km. (not sure about NOx)
85g CO2 per km is 3,66l per km (gasoline) which is 65 US mpg.

I think we will see a little shift more towards petrol engines again. Diesel engines have had much better torque and quite lower CO2 emissions. But now there are so many turbo petrol engines that some of the benefits with diesel are lost.
Ive never been a fan of diesel, and considering how good turbo petrol engines are the choice is quite easy for me considering a petrol engine have many benefits.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Huh? Getting 70 miles out of a gallon of fuel is the same thing regardless of the energy content of the fuel. 70 miles is 70 miles and one gallon is one gallon. It doesn't matter which fuel you're talking about.

Comparing fuel economy between different fuels using only volume(gallons) is tricky. Diesel has more energy content per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has less energy per gallon. Plus they don't cost the same.

I use this chart. Diesel #2 has 11% more energy (BTU British Thermal Units) per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has 41% less energy.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by RaceR

How are they strict?
I consider the US to be far behind (maybe not California)..

In EU most new diesel cars/engines have emissions of roughly
110g CO2 per km
and NOx in the range of 110-150mg per km.

Petrol:
125g CO2 per km
about 30mg NOx per km.

In 2020 the goal is to get CO2 down to an average of 85g CO2 per km. (not sure about NOx)
85g CO2 per km is 3,66l per km (gasoline) which is 65 US mpg.

I think we will see a little shift more towards petrol engines again. Diesel engines have had much better torque and quite lower CO2 emissions. But now there are so many turbo petrol engines that some of the benefits with diesel are lost.
Ive never been a fan of diesel, and considering how good turbo petrol engines are the choice is quite easy for me considering a petrol engine have many benefits.

Plus diesel gets a pass on NOX emissions. Balance that by requiring catalysts that convert NOX and CO to CO2, and they lose some more of their advantages, both from engine efficiency (the catalyst obstruction) and the fact that they end up making more CO2 from the catalyst.

[SVTSHC]

Originally Posted by RaceR

How are they strict?
I consider the US to be far behind (maybe not California)..

In EU most new diesel cars/engines have emissions of roughly
110g CO2 per km
and NOx in the range of 110-150mg per km.

Petrol:
125g CO2 per km
about 30mg NOx per km.

In 2020 the goal is to get CO2 down to an average of 85g CO2 per km. (not sure about NOx)
85g CO2 per km is 3,66l per km (gasoline) which is 65 US mpg.

I think we will see a little shift more towards petrol engines again. Diesel engines have had much better torque and quite lower CO2 emissions. But now there are so many turbo petrol engines that some of the benefits with diesel are lost.
Ive never been a fan of diesel, and considering how good turbo petrol engines are the choice is quite easy for me considering a petrol engine have many benefits.

In America, Clean diesels are required to emit .07g per mile of NOx

The current standard in Europe is .29g per mile. That's just over four times as much, in 2014 they're reducing that figure to .13g per mile which is still twice as much.

[SVTSHC]

Actually, just a bit off topic. You know what I find hilarious, here in 'Murika we're 4% of the worlds population (rough figure) and generate 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions. Like a baws

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Comparing fuel economy between different fuels using only volume(gallons) is tricky. Diesel has more energy content per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has less energy per gallon. Plus they don't cost the same.

I use this chart. Diesel #2 has 11% more energy (BTU British Thermal Units) per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has 41% less energy.

As long as we're all buying liquid fuels and the unit of measure is gallons, that's what we're gonna stick with.

Premium and regular gas don't cost the same either. But that's not a problem since nobody is talking about measuring fuel economy in miles per dollar, or, for that matter, in btus per gallon. Compensating for the potential energy of different fuels will only make sense if every engine converted its fuel to mechanical energy with a constant efficiency, which is not the case with internal combustion engines.

So, miles per gallon it is. And when we find a solid, gaseous or electric fuel source, we'll convert that sh*t to miles per gallon too.

-Justin

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

Actually, just a bit off topic. You know what I find hilarious, here in 'Murika we're 4% of the worlds population (rough figure) and generate 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions. Like a baws

The price of progress.

[ZDan]

Diesels emit 14.4% more CO2 per gallon, which partially offsets their mpg advantage. I think that was the point. Europe apparently goes by CO2/km rather than mpg (er, L/100km).

As far as the hybrid gasoline vs. non-hybrid diesel argument, for equivalent price and performance cars, the diesel would likely have a slight edge in fuel mileage on the highway, probably no advantage in CO2 emissions. They hybrid would still have a huge advantage in city driving.

Personally, I'd prefer hybrid gasoline to diesel. I would hate to see diesels get as popular in the US as they are in Europe, where at every fuel pump at the gas station you have to stand on surfaces soaked in diesel fuel (the stuff doesn't evaporate). Yuck.
Also morally against engines that don't rev above 5500rpm :P

[Dimman]

Why don't they have diesel hybrids? Seems that a diesel Prius could make some Hwy mpg gains.