« Canadian Wood Chip Cellulosic Ethanol Company Shoots for $30-Million US DOE Grant | Main | TNT Pilots Two Electric Trucks in Rotterdam »
All New Nissan Models to Feature Fuel Efficiency Gauge
21 August 2007
|
| Sample fuel economy gauge (for the Infiniti). Click to enlarge. |
Nissan Motor announced that all future new models will be equipped with a fuel efficiency gauge to give drivers more information on how their driving style directly relates to fuel economy. The fuel efficiency gauge will also be equipped in current models scheduled for minor product freshenings, including the Skyline, Lafesta and Atlas in Japan, and the Altima and Infiniti G35 in the US.
The gauge provides the driver with both instant fuel-efficiency and average efficiency readings. For example, by accelerating, the driver would instantly see an increase in fuel consumption reflected on the gauge.
Based on Nissan’s trials, drivers have tended to improve their eco-driving habits over time, prompted by the real-time fuel-efficiency readings. Driving improvements also included smoother acceleration and braking, which potentially could lead to an average 10% improvement in fuel-efficiency, based on internal testing at Nissan.
 |
| Sample gauge for HDD navigation system, which is compatible with CARWINGS. (Fuel consumption here in l/100km.) Click to enlarge. |
In January 2007, Nissan introduced the eco-driving information service through its CARWINGS navigation system to promote more economical driving habits. (Earlier post.) Through the installation of the fuel efficiency gauge on the instrument-cluster as a standard feature on all new models, Nissan says it will extend the awareness of eco-driving to a wider driving audience.
Nissan says that its introduction of the fuel efficiency gauge is in line with the company’s overall efforts to launch a wide range of environmental technologies under the Nissan Green Program 2010 mid-term environmental action plan.
August 21, 2007 in Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (83) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20980107
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All New Nissan Models to Feature Fuel Efficiency Gauge:
Comments
A very good idea. This should be required on all new cars sold.
Posted by: KJD | Aug 21, 2007 6:39:53 AM
Naturally the Prius always had this and yes, it will help you learn to optimize your fuel mileage. A company in Florida sells cool stuff for the Prius, one of the items being a light that comes on whenever the friction brakes are being used. One of the keys to getting fantastic around town mileage in a Prius is in the stopping. The car provides a surprising amount of dynamic braking....
Posted by: Bud Johns | Aug 21, 2007 6:46:24 AM
This is similar to the trip computer fitted on the Yaris since it was first released back in '98. If they could fit it on such an affordable car, it really can't cost so much and as mentioned would be a worthy addition to any car, even so you know how long you can drive b4 you run out of fuel.
Posted by: rog | Aug 21, 2007 6:58:25 AM
I use a product called scanguage in my car. It plugs into the OBDII port so it can be moved from car to car. It's a great way to learn how to drive with gas efficiency in mind.
Posted by: | Aug 21, 2007 7:31:39 AM
I agree that this is a great idea! I also wish that this was standard in every new vehicle. I have one in my Camry Hybrid, and just being knowing what I am getting for mileage at the time in different circumstances makes a difference in my driving habits and also allows me to pick better routes for better mileage.
Bud Johns,
Do you happen to have a website for the company in Florida that sells the Prius stuff? Thank you!
Posted by: Travis Rassat | Aug 21, 2007 7:55:19 AM
http://www.coastaletech.com/ That's the site. I bought a stealth mode kit for my '04 prius that makes it work like in europe, if you wish, but I found out it would void the warranty so I decided to wait. There's nothing like driving away from someone and watching the befuddled look on thier face. Anyway, that Prius was totaled courtesy of my then 16 year old son (nobody got hurt) so I now have an '05 model, but I'm gonna leave it alone. Anybody want the kit, make me an offer. I paid 50 bucks for it from these people......
Posted by: Bud Johns | Aug 21, 2007 8:09:59 AM
While it may improve driving efficiency (at least initially while it is a novelty) by giving instant feedback on the results of their driving habits, but I don’t think that will last very long. Similar mileage meters are already available in currently available vehicles, and owners of them have told me that although they watched it when they first got it, they now just ignore it and have the display set to the outside temperature instead of MPG readings. And while people are paying attention to the MPG readings, they are paying less attention to the other vehicles around them and end up being worse drivers who get into more accidents. I test drove a Prius and found myself staring way to much at the display that showed whether the wheels were being powered by the electric motor or the gas engine, and whether the batteries were being charged or discharged. You thought cell phones were a distraction… just wait until lawmakers start trying to ban MPG readouts because they are too distracting and cause accidents.
Posted by: dwf | Aug 21, 2007 8:17:06 AM
It can be distracting. On the Prius you simply shut off the screen and it only briefly displays things when you adjust the cabin temperature or the cd player, etc. and goes back off right away on that setting. I always have it in this mode at night.
Posted by: Bud Johns | Aug 21, 2007 8:24:51 AM
It may be distracting, but it is worth it as it gets it home to people the cost of aggressive acceleration.
They should probably be mandatory.
If you can change people's driving habits, you should be able to get a 1-3% increase in mpg without any engineering.
It is not that much, but it is there for the taking.
P.s. does anyone have tables of tyre rolling resistance ?
Posted by: mahonj | Aug 21, 2007 8:47:20 AM
My Peugeot 307 and my Renault Laguna, both from 2002, are showing instant and average fuel efficiency.
This is an information most of european cars have been giving for years (+ remaining milage).
Very useful and less distracting than listening to the radio for ex. Who thinks radios and cd players should be forbidden in personnal cars ?
Posted by: gag | Aug 21, 2007 8:52:48 AM
While it may improve driving efficiency (at least initially while it is a novelty) by giving instant feedback on the results of their driving habits, but I don’t think that will last very long.
Obviously, one person's experience is meaningless in the overall picture, but in our case this has proved to not be true.
Our '04 RX330 (which we purchased new) has this feature in the trip computer, although we leave it set to show the overall MPG across the whole tank, not the instantaneous gas mileage. Even so, whenever my wife and I switch drivers during a trip, we usually chide each other not to mess up the gas mileage that the other person achieved.
Perhaps partly as a result of this, we actually got slightly above the EPA highway estimate for a couple of tankfuls on our recent Atlanta-Syracuse road trip.
Posted by: Matthew | Aug 21, 2007 8:53:55 AM
Many cars have a instant/average mpg readout on an information display somewhere...the difference here appears to be that it would be a guage that is "always on" and not one of many selections from an information display.
I like the idea of taking the info and making it always present.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 21, 2007 9:04:06 AM
dwf,
How obtuse, perhaps we should get rid of the speedometer because people look at it too much, and definitely get rid of the radio because its sole purpose is to distract drivers, and we should definitely get rid of cell phones regardless of whether they are hands free or not. I think it would be a great idea to only allow individuals in cars, so they cannot be distracted by passengers, especially children, they can be really annoying. We should also get a health check before driving because of the distractions caused by colds and flu etc.
So here is my thinking, you cannot manage your fuel consumption without data, so this addition is key, and a great move by Nissan, I remember some Toyota research that said this alone would improve fuel consumption by at least 4%, I also believe that everybody is short of cash sometimes (at the end of the month etc) so even if it was only used to stretch the fuel under these circumstances it is overall a worthwhile contribution to overall energy policy
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 21, 2007 9:06:41 AM
What is the chance of shaking off the ICE paradigm and reporting miles per mega joule?
Posted by: jcwinnie | Aug 21, 2007 9:07:34 AM
I once owned a 1984 Audi with this feature.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 21, 2007 9:23:13 AM
Gigits like this help Nissan improve its image as a company concerned with mileage and buys time while they develop higher mileage cars. As you might know they licence their present hybrid technology system from Toyota and that can be a PR slap in the face. From my readings, it appears that most of the auto companies will be standing pat for the 2008 model year and the next moves will be to diesel ICEs and HEVs. Only Toyota has announced a PHEV and it's very enmic with a very small NiMH battery pack.
It is also interesting to see that our American makers are stuck having to produce big SUVs and freight car sized trucks because they can't build efficient vehicles. Instead they persist in financing non-value-added projects using Lawyers, lobbyists and PR firms instead of funding R&D. I'm keeping the old Volvo and waiting for them to wise up and start building efficient electric powered autos. If enough of us keep our old cars, they might get the message.
Posted by: Lad | Aug 21, 2007 9:42:43 AM
Bob,
I love it. 1984! I also had a 2001 Oldsmobile (yes, GM) that had this feature. Now, 6 years later, or 23 for your example, it is a great move for Nissan? What a joke, it just shows they are trying to play catch up and preserve their public image. Funny how that image thing works, isn't it, too bad GM's marketing team didn't through the "eco-driving habits" label on it, or they could have had this exact article 6 years ago.
The one dimensional comments on here never cease to provide my daily entertainment. thanks
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 21, 2007 9:49:16 AM
Oh yeah, and I was getting 31 mpg with that Oldsmobile, with a 3.5L V6. You don't see many imports putting up those numbers on a 3500+ lb car even today.
So yes, detroit can and does make efficient vehicles, they just prefer to sell trucks.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 21, 2007 9:52:19 AM
Oh yeah, and I was getting 31 mpg with that Oldsmobile, with a 3.5L V6. You don't see many imports putting up those numbers on a 3500+ lb car even today.
What was the model?
Posted by: jack | Aug 21, 2007 10:59:38 AM
Kevin,
I wasn't saying that it should be banned because it was distracting. I was saying that some politician (or liberal protectionist group) would want it banned because it was distracting (but really because it is just one more way to control people). But that wasn't the MAIN POINT of my post anyway. The MAIN POINT was that after the novelty wears off, most people WILL IGNORE IT and just concentrate on getting where they are going. They know that different driving styles result in better/worse mileage, but in the end they DO NOT REALLY CARE because it all averages out in the end. The techniques required to get the good mileage are rarely compatible with what they are trying to do with their driving at the time. They NEED to carry a heavy load, or "NEED" to get in front of some other vehicle, or NEED to keep traffic moving at a reasonable and acceptable rate. All those things will drive down their MPG, but good MPG is not the goal at that particular moment, so they ignore the readout and say 'Oh, well... Que Sera Sera...'
P.S. to Lad: I've heard of gadgets, but what are gigits? ;-)
Posted by: dwf | Aug 21, 2007 11:31:20 AM
Kevin, my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88. I'm not sure what the EPA numbers were. Contrast this with, for example, the new Accords which are smaller weight wise, with smaller displacement engines, yet are rated at only low 20's mpg. I think the issue comes down mainly to horsepower and gearing. That old 3.8 with cam in block was only rated at less than 150 HP, but the new, smaller and higher tech V6's are pumping out 250+. Also, the gearing was pretty high on most of those older cars, because the torque curve of the engine still provided a responsive feel. The gearing of newer V6 sedans is probably also lower than necessary to make 0-60 times look sexy for magazine reviews. That combined with a cam profile necessary to produce 250 ponies out of an engine that size means sacrificing low end torque, which will need to be compensated for, again, by reduced gearing. When did we decide that our 4-door sedans, minivans, SUVs and pickups need to have sports car performance.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 21, 2007 11:42:55 AM
Kevin, my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88.
That's incredible! 30 mpg from a car that gets 19 mpg!
Your Dad sure is some driver!
Posted by: jack | Aug 21, 2007 12:13:01 PM
A relative has a 90's Oldsmobile with V6 engine. It has a MPG meter(average and instant reading) in it. He routinely averages 25 to 28 MPG.
I would not doubt that if your took some care in driving you could get the car up over 30mpg average.
Posted by: Rich | Aug 21, 2007 12:48:53 PM
A relative has a 90's Oldsmobile with V6 engine. It has a MPG meter(average and instant reading) in it. He routinely averages 25 to 28 MPG. I would not doubt that if your took some care in driving you could get the car up over 30mpg average.
These people should start driving academies. Think of all the money they can make!
"We'll teach you how to get 30 mpg out of a 19 mpg vehicle with little or no effort. Just $69.95 for two easy lessons. Call today!"
Posted by: jack | Aug 21, 2007 1:05:28 PM
dwf
I am not sure about the effect wearing off, if people concentrate early on, that sets their expectation, I agree that when they NEED to do something, they will do it, but at least they understand the price. I think in the long run they will try and get to their expected figure, and fail sometimes, this is still probably a better situation than if they have no information.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 21, 2007 1:34:17 PM
Yes, it's amazing to think that someone could actually get more than 19 mpg out of a car that had an EPA estimated rating of 18 mpg city. Never mind the fact that the same car was rated at 27 (estimated) and 35 (unadjusted) mpg highway, and the driver never did any city driving at all, and was very conscious about vehicle maintenance and economic driving. It's impossible I tell you, and anyone who dare disagree is a liar. It seems as though certain posters have no agenda other than to try to start flame wars.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 21, 2007 2:51:12 PM
I've been observing how people drive for more years than I'd like to admit. It seems almost genetic. Some drivers think they always have to depress a pedal -- accelerator/brake/repeat. One time I asked a friend why she didn't just coast up to the stop sign. She looked at me like I was from Mars. I learned NOT to comment on other people's driving habits, since most do take it personally.
Instantaneous MPG readouts present some low-hanging fruit for improved driving. It's better to have a computer telling someone they have a lead foot instead of their know-it-all friend. :-)
Posted by: JamesEE | Aug 21, 2007 3:43:20 PM
Yes, it's amazing to think that someone could actually get more than 19 mpg out of a car that had an EPA estimated rating of 18 mpg city. Never mind the fact that the same car was rated at 27 (estimated) and 35 (unadjusted) mpg highway, and the driver never did any city driving at all, and was very conscious about vehicle maintenance and economic driving. It's impossible I tell you, and anyone who dare disagree is a liar. It seems as though certain posters have no agenda other than to try to start flame wars.
You're full of crap, so you claim I want to start a flame war? Nice try, Bastard.
Please calculate the probability that a car rated at 19 mpg will achieve 30 mpg on average.
The '87 Delta 88 is rated at 25 mpg highway, btw, not 27 mpg. As for no city driving, did your Dad ride with his cruise control on in his driveway? Never encountered a stop sign? More fairy tales from you.
Posted by: jack | Aug 21, 2007 4:47:36 PM
well said dwf:
"When did we decide that our 4-door sedans, minivans, SUVs and pickups need to have sports car performance."
This is the crux of much of what is wrong with motoring in the "west" and the USA in particular - who decided that more or less all car types need high performance ?
If people backed off on performance, most of which is just numbers for boys in magazines, we could have considerably more economical cars, and still reach our destinations in the time it takes now.
I guess it is the genius of Detroit marketing that has everyone driving cars about 1.5 - 2x more powerful than they need.
Posted by: mahonj | Aug 21, 2007 4:55:05 PM
If I put in the effort my 99 Mitsubishi Mirage LS coupe 5spd can manage 42-43mpg with 99% highway driving (avg speed - 65mph). This is of course after significant modifications which cost more than what the car is worth today. With 60-70% city driving I manage 35-36mpg.
Originally the vehicle was rated at somewhere near 27mpg city and 35mpg highway.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 21, 2007 5:03:04 PM
Just to make this easier for you, Bastard, here's the basic math.
30/19-1= 57.9%
So, start by going to Greenhybrid and looking at their fuel economy data. Compare the average number with the high outliers. Tell me how many vehicles and tanks in their database exceed the average number by 57.9% or more. Right now I've found 5 vehicles and 14 tanks out of 5,594 vehicles and 65,937 tanks. So, that comes to a 0.02-0.09% probability, depending on whether you want to count tanks or vehicles. Keep in mind, too, that this dataset includes hypermilers who are doing completely whacked things to get high mileage. Note that the low ratio of tanks to vehicles also indicates that no vehicle data that's been frequently updated meets the criteria.
Like I said, you're full of it.
Posted by: jack | Aug 21, 2007 5:15:14 PM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Here's what was originally said:
"Kevin, my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88."
Let's examine this for a second, using maybe 3 or 4 neurons to do so:
He used the word "REGULARLY".
That is as subjective a term as you can get. So yes, if he regularly drove it on the highway, and regularly kept it below 65 or 55, and was regularly steady on the throttle, 30MPG on that meter is not at all unreasonable.
He in no way said that this was the average his dad was getting.
My parents had a 1984 Crown Vic station wagon for 18 years. Had an LED computer with real-time and average MPG. They were always so glad when it was getting a consistent 25mpg and bragged about it all the time. Even then I pointed out that it was only that way on the long stretches of interstate where my mom stayed in the right lane doing 50.
So Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: Noname | Aug 22, 2007 5:03:12 AM
When your argument fails, whip out a sockpuppet troll. Yawn.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 5:32:29 AM
Hey douchebag, I'm on my own here.
So take that at face value and manup to making a fool of yourself for reading more into that original post than was actually there.
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: Noname | Aug 22, 2007 5:36:54 AM
Jack, I got my numbers from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/87guide.txt
The numbers for the delta 88 are:
Estimated: 18 City, 27 Hwy, 21 combined.
Unadjusted: 20 City, 35 Hwy, 25 combined.
This means that whoever tested the car for the EPA achieved 35 mpg on their highway test cycle, which is 5 miles per gallon better than what I'm claiming my father used to often achieve driving at 45-55 mph on open roads during his commute to work. If you don't like it, take it up with the federal government. I'm not going to get sucked into another one of your infantile flame wars. Go ahead and have the last word boy.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 22, 2007 6:00:28 AM
The numbers for the delta 88 are
No, under the current EPA methodology, it is 16/25/19.
This means that whoever tested the car for the EPA achieved 35 mpg on their highway test cycle, which is 5 miles per gallon better than what I'm claiming my father used to often achieve driving at 45-55 mph on open roads during his commute to work.
You realize they do this in a lab, right? That there's a reason that unadjusted numbers aren't used in final figures?
All of this is neither here nor there. While it is remotely possible that somehow your father achieved miraculous fuel economy, it is HIGHLY improbable. I've already shown that exceeding the average by 58% happens 2/10,000 of the time -- and that's with outlier data that is highly suspect (either because of the small number of tanks) or because it's someone intentionally using hypermile techniques. So, in reality, in real driving, I am confident that it is functionally impossible to average 58% more than the rated average.
I'm not going to get sucked into another one of your infantile flame wars. Go ahead and have the last word boy.
No problem, boy. Thanks for losing.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 6:32:08 AM
dwf, I don't find it hard to believe that your dad was able to achieve those MPG figures. When looking at individual cases, it has less to do with probability/statistics, and more to do with driver intent & skill, and the vehicle in question.
As you have said, your dad did most of his (intentionally economically minded) driving in a well maintained vehicle on the open road at lower average speeds which likely happen to be very close to the vehicle's maximum fuel economy potential at cruise.
As a point of reference, using a ScanGauge I plotted my own car's fuel consumption in top gear on cruise in 5 km/h increments, and at the equivalent of 47 mph, it returns fuel economy that is 33% above the car's EPA "highway" rating. At 40 mph it's 49% over EPA (using "old" EPA figures).
Posted by: djc | Aug 22, 2007 9:04:52 AM
Sorry, my reply should have been addressed to Bob Bastard.
Posted by: djc | Aug 22, 2007 9:07:12 AM
I'd like to see some kind of controlled study that shows the effect over time, if any, on fuel consumption by giving drivers fuel economy instrumentation.
I suspect that the difference is small but real, and worth pursuing (as does Nissan, obviously).
GCC has now reported on 2 automakers taking this approach - Nissan & Toyota (which has added an "Eco Drive Indicator" in all its JDM automatic-equipped cars). Both claim "trials" or studies that back their decisions, and it would be very interesting to know the details of the research.
Along similar lines, I'm aware of a controlled Ontario study that showed around a 5% decrease in energy consumption where homeowners simply had consumption meters/feedback installed inside their homes (with no other incentives to reduce energy use). I don't know the length of the study though (ie. if the change in behaviour was permanent).
Posted by: djc | Aug 22, 2007 9:36:30 AM
Not to fan the flames any more, but in answer to the question, it was a 2001 Olds Aurora, 3.5L. And according to edmunds.com, it's rated at 19/28, probably under the old system.
And since some people drive ~50 miles to work at ~65mph with only a single acceleration up to speed, it is certainly within reach to get 30+mpg.
My new car is an '07 nissan sentra which is rated at 28/34 and also has a mileage computer. On one tank of fuel driving completely secondary highways (~45-55mph) with stop lights and towns along the way, I reached 37mpg. On the other end, I have also burned through a whole tank at 25mpg.
The point is, it comes down to driving style and conditions, I have average 32.5mpg now for the past 3 months of mixed driving.
Now Jack, pull out some bogus statistics and tell me I'm wrong. I love to watch idiots jam their feet in their mouths.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 22, 2007 9:43:54 AM
Now Jack, pull out some bogus statistics and tell me I'm wrong. I love to watch idiots jam their feet in their mouths.
Having a hissy?
Please indicate which of the statistics I've presented to this point are "bogus."
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 9:49:46 AM
Kevin, my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88. I'm not sure what the EPA numbers were. Contrast this with, for example, the new Accords which are smaller weight wise, with smaller displacement engines, yet are rated at only low 20's mpg.
1987 Olds Delta 88 v 2007 Honda Accord (4cyl/auto)
Weight: Olds - 3,121, Honda - 3,191
HP: Olds - 150, Honda - 166
EPA Hwy: Olds - 25, Honda - 31
EPA Cmb: Olds - 19, Honda -25
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 10:03:23 AM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: noname | Aug 22, 2007 10:05:39 AM
As they say, "when something's too good to be true, it's usually is."
EPA's old testing standard gived consistently better-than-average mpg rating than real-life, due to the fact that the cars are new and in good condition, no AC used, lower hwy speed used by the EPA than real-life hwy speed, and no short trips which waste energy warming up the engine. That's why EPA recently changed to a new testing standard reflecting real-life conditions, with lower mpg ratings for all cars.
When you kept getting better mpg than old EPA rating, check your odometer's accuracy. It may be optimistic by as much as 10% in some cars. A simple GPS device will do. I've found many optimistic speedometers and odometers that way.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 22, 2007 10:59:46 AM
Roger, that's a good point about odometer accuracy. That's something that no one mentioned. Another thing that we should remember is that the speed limit was 55 mph back in 1987. The higher average highway speeds are no doubt one of the reasons for the revision of the EPA numbers. Seeing someone barreling down the interstate at 95 mph in a Ford SuperDuty or Nissan Armada is something I don't recall seeing commonly back then.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 22, 2007 11:24:28 AM
That's something that no one mentioned. Another thing that we should remember is that the speed limit was 55 mph back in 1987. The higher average highway speeds are no doubt one of the reasons for the revision of the EPA numbers. Seeing someone barreling down the interstate at 95 mph in a Ford SuperDuty or Nissan Armada is something I don't recall seeing commonly back then.
They revised city numbers down a large amount as well.
People had big cars and sped in 1987, just like they do today. I recall seeing it commonly back then.
The reason the numbers have gotten revised downwards is more likely due to more congestion, including on highways, which means more stop-and-go driving, or at least more speed-changing.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 12:15:41 PM
2007 Camry Hybrid v 1987 Olds Delta 88
18% more weight
25% more power
79% higher fuel economy
5% higher price
Ah... the good old days.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 12:21:45 PM
2007 Camry Hybrid v 1987 base Camry (4 cyl 5spd):
EPA City: 2007 - 28, 1987 - 27
EPA Hwy: 2007 - 35, 1987 - 34
Ain't progress beautiful?
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 22, 2007 1:35:04 PM
Hey Bob - here's an apple and an orange for you. Just like you like it.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 2:13:38 PM
2007 Camry Hybrid v 1987 base Camry (4 cyl 5spd):
EPA City: 2007 - 28, 1987 - 27
EPA Hwy: 2007 - 35, 1987 - 34
Ain't progress beautiful?
Bob, do you intentionally lie about numbers, or are you just incapable of going to the fueleconomy website of the EPA and getting the actual numbers?
Here in reality:
Camry Hybrid - 33/34/34
'87 Camry (manual) - 23/31/26
'87 Camry (auto) - 22/28/24
Since the Camry Hybrid doesn't come with a manual version, one properly compares the automatic to it.
31% more weight
63% more power
42% better fuel economy
3.0 inches higher
6.1 inches longer
6.9 inches longer wheelbase
4.4 inches wider
7% higher price
Much bigger, much stronger, and much higher fuel economy -- all at around the same price. All with super low emissions and excellent safety and quality.
Yes, progress is beautiful. Keep looking in your distorted rearview, Bob.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 2:37:04 PM
Jack, I posted a link to where I got my numbers in a previous post. You posted nothing in that regard. As far as apples and oranges, you previously made the comparison above:
1987 Olds Delta 88 v 2007 Honda Accord (4cyl/auto)
Since you seem a bit too obtuse to comprehend the point I am trying to make, I'll spell it out for you:
I'm not trying to claim that the 87 olds or 87 accord are better or higher tech cars. What I am saying is that most of the technology gains wrt thermal efficiency of the ICE over the last 20 years have been squandered on bigger, heavier, higher horsepower vehicles, rather than giving us substantial gains in fuel economy (with the exception of vehicles like the Prius.) I also wanted to point out that this technology offered by Nissan (the subject of the article, which you long ago managed to derail the thread from) is by no means new or cutting edge tech, but however, the newness of the technology is by no means the only factor that determines fuel economy. Proper application of the technology by automakers, as well as individual driver behavior also have a large impact on how much fuel the vehicle will consume, and therefore how much C02 it will release into the atmosphere.
I'm sure you will find something to squabble about in this post as well. Starting arguments seems to be your sole purpose for posting here.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 22, 2007 3:01:28 PM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: noname | Aug 22, 2007 3:04:53 PM
As far as apples and oranges, you previously made the comparison above:
1987 Olds Delta 88 v 2007 Honda Accord (4cyl/auto)
LOL. YOU made that comparison initially, Bob.
"my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88. I'm not sure what the EPA numbers were. Contrast this with, for example, the new Accords..." - you
You posted nothing in that regard.
Go to fueleconomy.gov and prove me wrong. That's where the numbers are from, Bob.
Since you seem a bit too obtuse to comprehend the point I am trying to make
If in doubt, insult. It's not like you have any credibility with regards to the facts.
What I am saying is that most of the technology gains wrt thermal efficiency of the ICE over the last 20 years have been squandered on bigger, heavier, higher horsepower vehicles, rather than giving us substantial gains in fuel economy (with the exception of vehicles like the Prius.)
That's not at all what you were saying. You were saying that somehow things haven't improved and that your Daddy had a Magic Delta which got 58% higher fuel economy than its rating, despite that being functionally impossible. Regardless, it's no mystery that cars are bigger and more powerful than 20 years ago (DUH), or that fuel economy gains for the average fleet haven't improved much. That's a far far cry from the reality that technology has brought us vehicles that are much bigger, much more powerful, and with much much better fuel economy than 20 years ago, all without much price inflation, if any, and with far superior emissions, safety, quality, comfort, and enjoyable technology.
I also wanted to point out that this technology offered by Nissan (the subject of the article, which you long ago managed to derail the thread from) is by no means new or cutting edge tech
Duh again. Pretty much everyone knows that, Bob.
Proper application of the technology by automakers, as well as individual driver behavior also have a large impact on how much fuel the vehicle will consume, and therefore how much C02 it will release into the atmosphere.
Duh once more. Show me anyone here who doesn't know that already.
I'm sure you will find something to squabble about in this post as well. Starting arguments seems to be your sole purpose for posting here.
Bob, I'm so sorry that you can't grasp reality very well. Facts aren't going to bend to your perceptions. That you keep slinging little insults does nothing to cover that up -- in fact, it just makes you look sadder than you already do.
58% higher fuel economy than the average... you crack me up. That's up there with the guy who denies that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere keep going up.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 3:19:00 PM
'07 Civic Hybrid v '87 Toyota Camry
2% more weight
4% less power
75% better fuel economy
1.8 inches taller
6.4 inches shorter length
3.9 inches longer wheelbase
1.7 inches wider
17% lower price
I [heart] Progress!
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 3:24:31 PM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: noname | Aug 22, 2007 3:32:35 PM
Hello,
Sorry to interject, but I found it irresistible once I saw this thread this morning.
My uncle currently owns a 1987, blue/black 88 3.8L.
This morning I saw where this thread was going, so I decided to stop by his house and go for a ride. He keeps the thing in immaculate condition, garaged, typical old car guy's car. 177K miles.
Took it out and here's what I got:
In around his neighborhood: crappy. Maybe 18mpg, but fluctuated all over. Whatever.
On the highway, what do you know? Cruised along at 65 and got a consistent 29mpg. Yea, hills would effect it some, but I wanted to see what it did in general, and there you go.
I'm sure the hostile one here is going to call me a liar, that's all he can possibly do. Well, I guess he could just admit he was being a jerk, but I won't hold my breath.
Cheers!
Posted by: Sam S. | Aug 22, 2007 3:45:00 PM
Sad...
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 3:50:14 PM
I can think of several European cars which had these:
All BMWs have had them for years and the Fiat Uno had a needle that would swing between green, yellow and red. Other cars used green (good) and yellow (poor) lights on the dash: Petrol (gas), not diesel, Corollas, Starlets, Ford Escort 1.1 Economy, Peugeot 505 with its "Econoscope", some Renault 18s and there are probably more.
Posted by: Peter | Aug 22, 2007 4:02:40 PM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: noname | Aug 22, 2007 4:16:54 PM
Sam,
Thanks for showing scientific spirit. Is it possible that a worn-out engine with 177k miles in a car running at 10 mph faster than EPA hwy testing can get higher than actual EPA rating? If so, we should blame the guys at Olds for not protesting the EPA for unfair bias against a domestic make and give too low a hwy rating. No wonder Oldsmobile no longer exists!
More likely, Sam, the folks at EPA didn't use the car's actual odometer for distance measurement. They have their own bicycle wheel sticking out from the back of the car, or something. Get actual distance readout from a GPS unit, and then we'll see.
It's also possible that the gasoline now has more energy content per gallon than back then, but I doubt it seriously, since 10% ethanol actually lowers the energy content by a small amount.
Then, how did you measure the actual amount of fuel consumed, Sam? Let me guess, the car's fuel gauge, ha ha ha! Oh, well, you probably used the fuel economy gauge in the car, which is by no mean calibrated by the FTC or Dept of Agriculture...The optimistic reading from the MPG gauge is suspect...since the folks at the EPA didn't go by the MPG gauge when they gave that car the hwy rating, either, he he he!
Well, as they say, "If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is."
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 22, 2007 4:46:07 PM
Hey, "Sam S." Welcome to GCC! Glad to see a "new" commenter here.
Tell me, "Sam S.", where is the fuel economy monitor located in your uncle's '87 Delta? Maybe you could snap a photo of this mystical device and upload it for us.
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 7:43:41 PM
Before this degenerated into the all too usual who has the bigger one contest, some interesting points were raised dealing with human factors. Driver distraction and queue utilization don’t seem to be that interesting to many, but I think they are of real significance.
Most vehicle systems require a change in focal point, i.e. to mirrors, dash indicators, etc. For a long time now, many aircraft have used heads-up systems to facilitate queuing. Modern cars, vans, trucks have eliminated much of the auditory and tactile feedback that was present 30 years ago. A reasonably well designed system doesn’t seem -- at least to me -- to be beyond practical cost when produced in significant volume. While, it won’t solve the make-up application or book-reading problems of some commuters, it might just be capable of providing a useful level of information.
Imagine a $, Euro, etc increasing in size in your peripheral vision, slightly below your normal sight line, as you mash a petal.
Posted by: WhiteBeard | Aug 23, 2007 1:33:39 AM
Roger,
Sorry I was not more clear. Yes, I was just going by that old school LED display. Reminded me of the old hand held computer games I had as a kid. I just wanted to see what it said on the highway. I did say that it was all over the place in local driving, so you should have realized that I was looking at the readout.
My uncle says the computer is spot on. He says that once in a while he resets his odometer when he refills the tank. Then runs it to almost empty. Fills up and does the math to figure out how many miles he drove on how much gas. He also uses some kind of gas treatment in every other tank since the car is old.
To the angry jerk, I'll bite if I can. I don't own a digital camera, but my uncle has one and maybe I'll get a chance to do the test one more time in the next couple of days. You really are a jerk, and you know that, but it would give me great pleasure to post a picture of it with those blue LED numbers 29. But, I assume at that point you'll demand a full length video. Jerk.
To everyone else, is there a way to post pictures here?
Posted by: Sam S. | Aug 23, 2007 5:12:41 AM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: noname | Aug 23, 2007 6:34:24 AM
Yes, I was just going by that old school LED display.
A digital fuel gauge in an '87 Delta? There's Magical Deltas everywhere.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:07:04 AM
fuel ECONOMY gauge
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:07:41 AM
2008 Ford Escape Hybrid v 1990 Ford Bronco II
11% more weight
11% more power
88% better fuel economy
13 inches longer
3 inches wider
1 extra seating space
every interior measurement larger (sometimes significantly) except front leg room
6% higher price
Great progress, Ford!
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:31:35 AM
Jack stop being a DICK... and a DUMBASS:
http://www.carsurvey.org/review_44939.html
Seems this guy had another Unicorn as far as you're concerned, and he posted about it, its electronic cluster, and his magic MPG, back in 2003.
HAHAHA, you're a DUMBASS!!! :D
Posted by: noname | Aug 23, 2007 7:40:00 AM
Seems this guy had another Unicorn as far as you're concerned, and he posted about it, its electronic cluster, and his magic MPG, back in 2003.
Yep, people lie about their fuel economy all the time. It's like fishermen and men in locker rooms.
Where did this tale-spinner talk about the mythical fuel economy gauge on the vehicle? Right - he didn't, because it doesn't exist.
I commend you for not using the word "dick" for once, troll. You're obsessed with dicks. Sorry to hear that.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:51:29 AM
And since I know it's critical to your well-being for you to have the last word, and since you've killed this thread long ago, and since Bob's tall tale has been decisively dissected into nothing, I leave you the last word you desperately need, troll.
Make sure you say "dick" again.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:53:55 AM
Wow, a DICK, a DUMBASS, and BLIND.
First off, yes I did use the word DICK in my last post. Missed it? Well, looks like you missed this key quote from that guy's review:
"It is actually more along the lines of a Cadillac with a digital linear speedometer (press a button to switch from English to metric), Cadillac Brougham-like seats, a totally electronic instrument cluster (fuel, engine temperature, inside/outside temperature, trip odometer) with a climate control system. (Only drawback to the electronic control cluster is that GM took off the accessory function of the ignition key because of battery consumption if there were, as per the instruction manual.)"
Look closely, BLIND DUMBASS, see the word FUEL? Common, I know you can do it.
And odd how his MPG numbers match up nicely with the other claims here. I guess they all lie to the exact same degree.
HAHAHAHA....DUMBASS :D
Posted by: noname | Aug 23, 2007 7:56:24 AM
Thanks, Sam, for the follow up.
I guess "they don't make 'em the way they used to." Blame it on GM's stockholders owning a lot more stocks in Big Oil?
Since the Olds engine prefers higher octane fuel, I would image it has higher compression than other non-high-performance engine. I have never been able to exceed EPA hwy rating on any cars that I've owned. Driven carefully and slow (55-60) without AC, and I've been able to get close to hwy EPA rating.
To load picture, since this posting is done in html language, I would imagine using proper syntax and click and paste the digital picture on the comment page is all you have to do. Besure to have it in 640x480 size or else the file size will be too big. Check with Mike Milikin, the website owner, for additional info.
Thanks, Noname for the great reviews at:
http://www.carsurvey.org/review_44939.html
but, isn't D.I.C.K an honor more fit for our Vice President after what he and his company did for our country? I recalled hearing somewhere: "Clinton screwed a few women...whereas, you-know-who screws with our whole country"
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 23, 2007 9:58:43 AM
My uncle currently owns a 1987, blue/black 88 3.8L.
This morning I saw where this thread was going, so I decided to stop by his house and go for a ride. He keeps the thing in immaculate condition, garaged, typical old car guy's car. 177K miles.
Took it out and here's what I got:
In around his neighborhood: crappy. Maybe 18mpg, but fluctuated all over. Whatever.
On the highway, what do you know? Cruised along at 65 and got a consistent 29mpg. Yea, hills would effect it some, but I wanted to see what it did in general, and there you go.
I'm sure the hostile one here is going to call me a liar, that's all he can possibly do. Well, I guess he could just admit he was being a jerk, but I won't hold my breath.
"Oldsmobile's optional Trip-Calculator (U40) provides useful travel information on fuel economy, time and distance. It is also a handy clock/calendar and a four-function calculator.
The brightness of the display will vary with the amount of outside light. During darkness when the headlights or parking lights are on, the display brightness is controlled by the wheel next to the headlight switch....
The average fuel economy feature is not a continuous display as are other functions. Instead, use this feature when you add fuel to determine fuel economy since the last time you filled the fuel tank.
After filling the tank, turn on the ignition and press the 'MPG/-' button. The display will show the words 'ENT FUEL;' use the numeric keys to enter the amount of fuel just added to the tank, to the nearest tenth of a unit. (Be sure the display is set for the appropriate measure -- gallons or liters. Also, when entering tenths of a gallon/liter, the decimal point will not appear when you push the 'Decimal Point' button; it will appear when you push the numeric key for tenths.
Now push 'MPG/-" again. Based on the mileage recorded by the distance since fill feature, the Trip-Calculator will determine your average fuel economy since the last time the fuel tank was filled."
from "Oldsmobile Auto Service Manual", pp. 9H-3 and 9H-4
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 3:03:32 PM
Jerk, I don't know where you came up with that, but that's not what's in his car. He's got a square display towards the center of the dash by the radio that has 4 buttons surrounding it. You can select real-time or average, and it has 2 memories for average, and an electronic compass.
Noname, great job at showing us all what a jerk this jerk is.
My uncle told me he'd happily give jerk a ride, show him the MPG, then take him out to the meadowlands and introduce him to his Louisville slugger for a few minutes of etiquette lessons. He's an old Italian, what can I say?
Posted by: Sam S. | Aug 23, 2007 7:32:54 PM
"Noname, great job at showing us all what a jerk this jerk is."
Uh...Sam, and Noname, no need for ugly name-calling here nor any threat of violence!
Jack has supported every of his arguments with factual data and references.
He has been a superb "truth police" in this forum, to question the potential BS, misinformation and disinformation so that we all can benefit.
What about the picture, Sam, or how about a reference in the service manual of your uncle's Olds 88 regarding the instantaneous MPG meter?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 23, 2007 8:14:12 PM
What about the picture, Sam, or how about a reference in the service manual of your uncle's Olds 88 regarding the instantaneous MPG meter?
That would be another magic moment, since the selection I just shared is from the official service manual for an '87 Delta 88 and Ninety-Eight Regency ("C"/"H" car).
The troll performance on this thread has been very poor, IMO. You'd think they'd at least make some modicum of effort for appearance sake, but instead it's just foul language, threats of violence, multiple identities, and silly stories which don't even pass the first smell test.
I guess if someone's a loser without a job or a woman and not a lick of sense between their ears, all those foolish troll antics would somehow be entertaining.
Just wanted to set the record straight for you, Roger, in case you had your doubts.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 9:31:05 PM
That settles it! More than just "truth police," Jack's caliber of evidences now rises to the level of the DA's, having searched the official service manual for said vehicle without finding any mentioning of the "mysterious MPG meter."
How do you plead, Sam? Guilty as charged?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 23, 2007 10:59:42 PM
Roger, I'm getting the feeling you're kind of having fun stoking the fires. That's not cool.
Jerk, that's less of an insult than it is an accurate description. Deal with it. My uncle said what he said in a semi-joking fashion, but I bet if he did meet you he would smack you on the back of the head and yell "what's wrong with you?" in Italian.
Give us the link to that manual. And I know you'll jump all over this, but he doesn't have the original users manual. Car got broken into about 10 years ago and it got stolen. For my pictures, like I told you, it may take a couple of days. I also found out you can't post pictures here.
I just can't figure out what makes jerks like you tick. I'm sure in person you're meek, maybe even likable. But get behind a computer and you turn into a raving crank. There are professionals out there that can help you with this. I'm actually in school to become one, hopefully.
Got to go, time for school.
Posted by: Sam S. | Aug 24, 2007 5:07:27 AM
"I'm sure in person you're meek, maybe even likable. But get behind a computer and you turn into a raving crank." -- "Sam S." / Aug 24, 2007
"You are offensive and a bully. I suspect you are meek and inconsequential in real life." -- "Mark Vincent" / Aug 19, 2006
Posted by: jack | Aug 24, 2007 9:02:44 AM
Jack, stop being a DICK, and stop being so CRAZY! You're really creeping me out now.
Posted by: noname | Aug 24, 2007 9:37:24 AM
I'm a dick.
Posted by: Billy Wino | Aug 25, 2007 9:02:17 AM
its worth noting that General Motors has been doing this in its high end cars since 1975, so this isnt really news
Posted by: jo | Nov 23, 2007 2:32:01 PM
ad-aware license crack
A breakdown in security at any company, large or small, has much larger implications than the typical spyware attack against home computers, and thus requires a more powerful anti-spyware program. Even the most advanced home users will appreciate the power of Ad-Aware 2007 Pro.
WORKS WITH VISTA
What's New in Ad-Aware 2007 Pro?
* Redesigned Engine - Benefit from superior program flexibility and more accurate scanning methods with all-new program architecture.
* Improved Code Sequence Identification (CSI) Technology - Boost your privacy protection with precise detection of embedded malware, including known and emerging threats.
* The Scheduler - Set automatic scans and updates to fit your personalized needs.
* Incremental Definition File Updates - Save precious time and resources with smaller update files resulting in faster download times.
* Ad-Watch RegShield - Improved protection against attempted registry changes, a favorite target for many forms of malware.
* Ad-Watch Connect - Open a new channel to identify keyloggers and identity theft attempts with this convenient snapshot of programs actively connected to other networks.
* TrackSweep - Control privacy by erasing tracks left behind while surfing the Web on Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera, with one easy click.
* Hosts File Editor - Take control of your Web navigation by blocking advertisement sites, reversing browser hijack entries, assisting with parental controls, and creating navigation shortcuts.
* Multiple Browser Support - Choose Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Opera with expanded browser support.
* New Straightforward User Interface - Effortlessly maneuver the complexities of malware detection and removal with our new user-friendly interface.
More Key Features
* User-Controlled Spyware Removal - Decide for yourself what to delete from your system and what to keep.
* Extensive Detection Database - Stay protected with priority updates from our extensive library of identified and analyzed spyware.
* Ad-Watch Real-Time Monitor - Proactively detect malware and parasites so malicious applications are intercepted before they install on your PC.
* Process Watch Module- View an in-depth snapshot of all running processes and quickly stop known offenders.
* Customized Scans - Save time by scanning selected areas where known spyware programs are located – RAM, registry, hard drives, external storage devices, and optical drives.
* Detailed Scan Reports - Conveniently export scan reports to XML and log files as text files.
* Advanced Command Line Support- Scan and remove spyware without launching the interface window.
http://www.uploadgeek.com/uploads456/10/0.gif
http://rapidshare.com/files/95546089/ad-aware_license_crack.rar.html
for u torrent ppl
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/1787041/ad-aware+license+crack.rar.torrent
Posted by: weedcrakzr | Feb 29, 2008 8:55:02 AM
