Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top 2012 US MPG's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Top 2012 US MPG's

    Detroit News....

    Chevy Volt, Mitsubishi i-MiEV top fuel efficiency list

    Washington -- The Obama administration's fueleconomy.gov website on Friday named the extended-range Chevrolet Volt as the most fuel efficient vehicle with a gasoline engine and the 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV as the most efficient electric vehicle.

    The government's fueleconomy.gov website -- funded by the Energy Department and operated with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency -- has named its most fuel efficiency vehicles built between 1984 and the present.

    Many of the most efficient models have gone out of the production -- and even some hybrid models have been beaten by older non-hybrid models.

    "What's new this year is that half the vehicles on the all-time list are 2012 model year vehicles currently available for purchase. Older, low-tech vehicles are being replaced by newer, high-tech models," said Bo Saulsbury of the National Transportation Research Center.

    The Volt -- which travels on about the first 35 miles on a single electric charge before switching to the gasoline engine -- has an overall combined EPA rating of 60 mpg, including 58 city and 62 highway.

    In second, is the 2000 Honda Insight with a 53 mpg combined EPA rating.

    The 2010-2012 Toyota Prius is third at 50 mpg combined, followed by the manual 1986 Chevrolet Sprint ER at 48 mpg and then the manual 1986 Geo Metro at 47 mpg.

    In sixth, the 1986-87 Honda Civic CRX HF was rated at 46 mpg combined.

    That model beat the 2012 2Honda Civic Hybrid, which is ranked seventh at 44 mpg. Eighth is the manual 1994-1995 Honda Civic Hybrid at 43 mpg.

    In ninth, the 2012 Toyota Prius V at 42 mpg combined followed by the 2011-2012 Lexus CT 200h at 42 mpg.

    Among electric vehicles, more new models dominate.

    The i-MiEV has an EPA rating of 112 miles per gallon equivalent, with 126 mpg in the city and 99 on the highway. The Nissan Leaf is second with a 99 mpg equivalent combined rating, including 106 in the city and 92 on the highway.

    The 2008 Mini E was third with a 98 mpg equivalent rating, followed by the Smart ForTwo electric with a 87 mpg rating.

    The 2000 Nissan Altra EV and 1999 GM EV1 followed behind with 85 mpg equivalent ratings. Next was the 2002-03 Toyota RAV-4 EV at 78 mpg, followed by the Nissan Hyper-Mini at 75 mpg. The 2001 Ford Think was ninth at 65 mpg followed by the 2012 Azure Dynamics Transit Connect Wagon at 62 mpg.

    EPA measures miles per gallon equivalent assuming 33.7 kwh equals the amount of energy in one gallon of gasoline.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    I do wonder why there is no more research ongoing in air-fuel synthesis:
    Turning a greenhouse gas into a clean energy fuel is the Holy Grail of energy research. UC San Diego chemists have a prototype they think is an important milestone. Their device captures energy from the sun, converts it to electrical energy and "splits" carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen.

    (the process to do it have been known since the '20s)


    I saw it on NGC a few years ago, and using the device from the last link, they manage to produce fuel that can be used in regular cars.
    Well, maybe there is ongoing research, but almost nobody knows about this... And it would allow to create a closed cycle of energy use, without having to change any distribution or consumption infrastructure...
    pixar
    Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

    Comment


    • #3
      The whole business of mpg or l/100 km is absolutely ridiculous with EVs and with HEVs which can run on electricity alone. The criterion should be overall CO2 emissions, assuming a world average mix of 60% coal fired, 25% gas fired, 5% oil fired and 10% others (HE, nuclear, wind, solar etc.). The EPA equivalence is in theoretical energy at the pump or wall plug, not in CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it does not take into account other pollutions (sulfur, ash and soot particles, radioactive particles, NOx etc.) emitted freely generating electricity while cars are somewhat "cleaner".

      In reality, there are so many fiddle factors that it is almost impossible to compare even diesel engines with petrol engines, let alone electric motors, simply because torque and energy curves are so different, requiring different drive trains.
      Brian (the devil incarnate)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by VJ View Post
        I do wonder why there is no more research ongoing in air-fuel synthesis:
        Turning a greenhouse gas into a clean energy fuel is the Holy Grail of energy research. UC San Diego chemists have a prototype they think is an important milestone. Their device captures energy from the sun, converts it to electrical energy and "splits" carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen.

        (the process to do it have been known since the '20s)


        I saw it on NGC a few years ago, and using the device from the last link, they manage to produce fuel that can be used in regular cars.
        Well, maybe there is ongoing research, but almost nobody knows about this... And it would allow to create a closed cycle of energy use, without having to change any distribution or consumption infrastructure...
        I'm sorry, this may sound OK to the layman, but the chemical energy bound up in a litre of petrol or diesel fuel is enormous. To create such a liquid requires you to capture the same amount of energy. Yes, it is technically possible but, no, the whole process would be so energy-inefficient that it could never be either economic or practical. Just think, the CO2 at the start of the process is in air at ~400 ppm. To obtain just 1 m³ of CO2 would require processing 2,500 m³ of air, assuming the capture efficiency to be 100% (in reality, it would require 2-3 times this volume, assuming a recycling monoethanolamine process which, in itself, would require a few kWh to drive the ventilator, rotate the membrane and thermally drive off the CO2). Once you have this CO2 it requires a molecular sieve to eliminate other gases. Remember the CO2 thus obtained still has no added energy. By definition, a catalyst cannot add or take away energy, so that can alter nothing except the rate at which a reaction will occur, so yes, you may be able to split 2CO2 into 2CO + O2 faster with a catalytic reaction using large amounts of solar energy but you are still a long way away from an organic fuel molecule which requires loads of added energy. Even that is not easy, creating hydrocarbon covalent bonds.

        At an educated guess, I would say that the energy efficiency of creating a viable motor fuel from atmospheric CO2 would be far less than 1% ie, you would have to put in more than 100 kWh to obtain 1 kWh of fuel. Much better to use conventional solar panels with an energy efficiency of 15% and charge the batteries of an EV with it!
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
          At an educated guess, I would say that the energy efficiency of creating a viable motor fuel from atmospheric CO2 would be far less than 1% ie, you would have to put in more than 100 kWh to obtain 1 kWh of fuel.
          The second link contains the numbers:
          It will be the energy requirements that largely determine the cost of the fuel. From the descriptions below it takes 21.4KWh to make 1L of fuel (petrol or similar). This equates to an energy input of 2.2kWh to synthesise fuel with an energy content of 1 kWh, which might be interpreted as a conversion efficiency of 45%.
          pixar
          Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

          Comment


          • #6
            I get 8L/100km or 35mpg with the old passat, and 10-12L/100km or 23-28mpg with the Mondeo V6.
            The clio Diesel does about 6L/100km or 47mpg.
            PC-1 Fractal Design Arc Mini R2, 3800X, Asus B450M-PRO mATX, 2x8GB B-die@3800C16, AMD Vega64, Seasonic 850W Gold, Black Ice Nemesis/Laing DDC/EKWB 240 Loop (VRM>CPU>GPU), Noctua Fans.
            Nas : i3/itx/2x4GB/8x4TB BTRFS/Raid6 (7 + Hotspare) Xpenology
            +++ : FSP Nano 800VA (Pi's+switch) + 1600VA (PC-1+Nas)

            Comment


            • #7
              I think my brothers Pontiac GTO gets about 2.5 or 5mpg, 50 or 100L/100km.
              He doesn't drive it that often lol.
              PC-1 Fractal Design Arc Mini R2, 3800X, Asus B450M-PRO mATX, 2x8GB B-die@3800C16, AMD Vega64, Seasonic 850W Gold, Black Ice Nemesis/Laing DDC/EKWB 240 Loop (VRM>CPU>GPU), Noctua Fans.
              Nas : i3/itx/2x4GB/8x4TB BTRFS/Raid6 (7 + Hotspare) Xpenology
              +++ : FSP Nano 800VA (Pi's+switch) + 1600VA (PC-1+Nas)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by VJ View Post
                The second link contains the numbers:
                And they are all wrong!

                The Fischer-Tropsch reaction is NOT with CO2 but with CO. To split off the oxygen atom from CO2 is not banal and is very energy-intensive. Just look at the reverse reaction:
                2CO + O2 > 2CO2
                You can see this reaction by burning, say, charcoal with a relatively restricted airflow, in the form of intensely hot blue flames (sufficiently hot that the gases ionise, as you can see if you put the electrodes of an ohmmeter into the flame, which becomes conductive). This exothermy is the conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy. It is not easy to split CO2 into CO and it is an endothermic reaction, requiring a great deal of external energy to sustain.

                Furthermore, I would never dream of using sodium hydroxide for CO2 capture in a scrubber, as Na2CO3 has a very strong ionic bond. I would use a much weaker base, such as monoethanolamine, whose bond is weaker and the CO2 can be much more easily recovered by slightly heating it. A small heat pump can be used in commercially available CO2 scrubbers which would use only a fraction of the energy of a sodium carbonate electrolyser without any admixture of oxygen.

                Quite frankly, I don't believe these guys.

                If it were as easy as these guys pretend, it would have been done many decades ago.
                Brian (the devil incarnate)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
                  If it were as easy as these guys pretend, it would have been done many decades ago.
                  I agree with that one...
                  pixar
                  Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The criterion should be cost of energy per 100km.

                    Also with EVs the criterion should be if driving long ranges cost of loss of time for recharging. Someone whose time is very valuable cannot afford to spend 2, 4 or 8 hours recharging his car every few 100km. Or a corporate taxi or city delivery fleet made of EVs should account for extra EVs while the empty ones are recharging and extra cost or environmental impact should be taken in consideration.

                    Also with hybrids and EVs if you account the higher price of car, even at all-time high fuel prices, the price difference can still buy you a few year's worth supply of oil. So buy a Skoda Diesel and spend the 9000 Euro difference to an equivalent EV on oil futures.

                    With CO2 - considerable amount of electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, so you only shift energy generation from more efficient direct gas into kinetic energy conversion into less efficient coal/earth gas/oil to electricity to battery to kinetic energy conversion.

                    I get 5.6l/100km (42mpg) with 11-year old VW Polo on highway cruising and 7.5l (31.3 mpg) during girl-impressing city driving. Overall about 6.5 l/100km (36 mpg)
                    Last edited by UtwigMU; 21 November 2011, 13:53.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by UtwigMU View Post
                      The criterion should be cost of energy per 100km.
                      Sorry! Disagree!

                      As it is the EPA that does the figures in the USA, it should be the holistic cost to the environment that counts, from wellhead/mine to the wheels/road. This should include fine particles, including the aerosol dust from tyres/road surface/brake linings, as well as the environmental cost of making replacement tyres and repairing roads. neither of which are negligible. Do you realise that a set of tyres can generate about 7.5 kg of sub-micrometre dust in their lifetime and as much again from a bitumen aggregate road surface. Both of these contain carcinogenic chemicals. Again, diesels are at a disadvantage as the filters on modern cars do not remove the sub-micrometre particles.
                      Brian (the devil incarnate)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        For the record....

                        BASF’s Catalyzed SCR Filter invention wins 2011 Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award

                        ISELIN , NJ , November 11, 2011 – The Research and Development Council of New Jersey has awarded a team of BASF catalyst inventors with the prestigious 2011 Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award for outstanding environmental contributions. The award was presented at a ceremony held last evening at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, New Jersey. The BASF inventors honored at the ceremony include Joseph A. Patchett, Joseph C. Dettling and Elizabeth A. Przybylski.

                        This team’s invention is an emission treatment system that can remove harmful nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter from diesel engine exhaust using just one system component. This solution saves space while also reducing weight and backpressure, which can lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions compared to existing systems that require two separate components. A technology based on this patent is scheduled for commercial production by year-end 2011.
                        >
                        Dr. Mordrid
                        ----------------------------
                        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
                          it should be the holistic cost to the environment that counts, from wellhead/mine to the wheels/road. This should include fine particles, [...]
                          And how would we weigh all the different factors? I would think there could be many tradeoffs, e.g., decrease CO2 emission at the expense of increasing carcinogenic submicro particles. I am not disagreeing with you but to me it seems to be quite a challenge.
                          Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                          [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Of course it should be the cost.
                            But the real cost, including the long term and camouflaged costs that energy companies take for granted that they can ignore and pass on to the public in future generations.
                            Chuck
                            秋音的爸爸

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK, so what is the cost of 1 tonne of soot particles emissions?
                              Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                              [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X