"Bubba" <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in message
news:1vir51ts415j1tk7lsua42evsife2p844u@4ax.com...
> Higher horsepower will translate into poorer fuel economy. I think for the
> moment at least the muscle car era could be temporarily on hold.

That's not always true. Higher horsepower allows the engine to work less and
to maintain a more consistent speed while doing so, at least that is the way
it works with trucks. A tractor trailer with an engine turning out 500-600
hp returns higher mpg than a truck putting out 400 hp.

Brian

 

"Bubba" <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in message
news:1vir51ts415j1tk7lsua42evsife2p844u@4ax.com...
> Higher horsepower will translate into poorer fuel economy. I think for the
> moment at least the muscle car era could be temporarily on hold.

That's not always true. Higher horsepower allows the engine to work less and
to maintain a more consistent speed while doing so, at least that is the way
it works with trucks. A tractor trailer with an engine turning out 500-600
hp returns higher mpg than a truck putting out 400 hp.

Brian

 

In article <vwt7e.38435$jR3.34501@edtnps84>, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

> "Bubba" <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in message
> news:1vir51ts415j1tk7lsua42evsife2p844u@4ax.com...
> > Higher horsepower will translate into poorer fuel economy. I think for the
> > moment at least the muscle car era could be temporarily on hold.
>
> That's not always true. Higher horsepower allows the engine to work less and
> to maintain a more consistent speed while doing so, at least that is the way
> it works with trucks. A tractor trailer with an engine turning out 500-600
> hp returns higher mpg than a truck putting out 400 hp.
>
> Brian

Brian,
Great point. Over 30 years ago, my brother had a Chevy that had the
smallest 8 cyld. motor made by GM--it may have been a 327 but am not sure.
The gas mileage was about 18 MPG. About 2 years later, he traded it in on
a new Chevy that had a 350 engine which was about the largest 8 cyld.
motor made by GM--at that time. He was able to get about 21 miles per
gallon. I asked a professor at the local college about this since no one
in our family could figure it out. He explained the same points that you
made in your post. A larger engine does not has to work as hard as a
really small engine--esp. when it involves going up and down mountains
like we had in West Virginia.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <vwt7e.38435$jR3.34501@edtnps84>, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

> "Bubba" <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in message
> news:1vir51ts415j1tk7lsua42evsife2p844u@4ax.com...
> > Higher horsepower will translate into poorer fuel economy. I think for the
> > moment at least the muscle car era could be temporarily on hold.
>
> That's not always true. Higher horsepower allows the engine to work less and
> to maintain a more consistent speed while doing so, at least that is the way
> it works with trucks. A tractor trailer with an engine turning out 500-600
> hp returns higher mpg than a truck putting out 400 hp.
>
> Brian

Brian,
Great point. Over 30 years ago, my brother had a Chevy that had the
smallest 8 cyld. motor made by GM--it may have been a 327 but am not sure.
The gas mileage was about 18 MPG. About 2 years later, he traded it in on
a new Chevy that had a 350 engine which was about the largest 8 cyld.
motor made by GM--at that time. He was able to get about 21 miles per
gallon. I asked a professor at the local college about this since no one
in our family could figure it out. He explained the same points that you
made in your post. A larger engine does not has to work as hard as a
really small engine--esp. when it involves going up and down mountains
like we had in West Virginia.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

tony kujawa wrote:
| "tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
|| a Tree Hugger (driving an old Civic when I drive)
|
| homo

homophobe

 

tony kujawa wrote:
| "tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
|| a Tree Hugger (driving an old Civic when I drive)
|
| homo

homophobe

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
| I'm a conservative myself, and a skeptic of the Hubbert curve. (The
| "superspike" doesn't fit the curve at all.) I also feel it is just
| as well we haven't been conserving gasoline up to this point,
| because conserving a resource that is limited by production (as oil
| is in the contemporary sense) during times of plenty has the same
| effect as wasting it does during times of shortage. Because of the
| free-spending usage in our past we have room to conserve now.

I don't quite understand your reasoning here. Yes, it's been the beginning
of the end ever since the first barrel, but it *is* a limited resource, and
thinking about the developing and threshold countries with their billions of
people all wanting SUVs makes me shiver. The earlier we "get it", the better
for our children and grandchildren and beyond.

Just because I have 10 million dollars (not really doesn't mean I need to
throw it out of the window.

We need to be thinking about how to quench our thirst for energy. Oil is
stored solar energy. Solar alone is not going to be enough. Are we going to
have to go nuclear? How long until Chernobyl II?

Where are we going to get all of our plastic from? Most of it comes from the
petrochemical industries. Where's that keyboard of yours that you're typing
on? Your sneakers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun4.html is an
interesting article on this topic. The probably most honest point in it is,
" Unfortunately, politicians and policymakers have ignored Hubbert's Peak
and have no plans to deal with it: If it's beyond the next election, forget
it."


| In 2002 my wife and I saw that whatever was going to happen to gas
| prices it wasn't going to be good. Gasoline was about $1.50 per
| gallon and the price was becoming unstable. We did the research and
| decided on our second new car in 30 years: a Toyota Prius.

Smart people.

| I have been a proponent of hybridization since I heard about it
| around 20 years ago. It is only now becoming ready for prime time.

The problem is still the efficiency of the batteries. Considering the amount
of energy you put into the battery, it's rather disappointing to see what
you get back out. The rest is just heat. But it's a start and heading in the
right direction. It's pretty impressive what Toyota put together and made
work.

| The concept of using a 200 hp engine to drag a 5 passenger car
| around town or to cruise at freeway speeds is ludicrous.

Yeah, especially a 5 passenger car filled with one single person. Look at
what the car companies are doing in Europe. Honda's Jazz is small, the Smart
(coming to North America soon. see http://www.smart.com), even BMW's
1-series and Mercedes' A class, not to mention Daihatsu that uses the slogan
"bigger is stupid".

| Sizing the
| engine for freeway hill climbs and using electric drive for the low
| power needs and to provide acceleration is a lot smarter.

Agreed. Thanks for your points, Mike!

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
| I'm a conservative myself, and a skeptic of the Hubbert curve. (The
| "superspike" doesn't fit the curve at all.) I also feel it is just
| as well we haven't been conserving gasoline up to this point,
| because conserving a resource that is limited by production (as oil
| is in the contemporary sense) during times of plenty has the same
| effect as wasting it does during times of shortage. Because of the
| free-spending usage in our past we have room to conserve now.

I don't quite understand your reasoning here. Yes, it's been the beginning
of the end ever since the first barrel, but it *is* a limited resource, and
thinking about the developing and threshold countries with their billions of
people all wanting SUVs makes me shiver. The earlier we "get it", the better
for our children and grandchildren and beyond.

Just because I have 10 million dollars (not really doesn't mean I need to
throw it out of the window.

We need to be thinking about how to quench our thirst for energy. Oil is
stored solar energy. Solar alone is not going to be enough. Are we going to
have to go nuclear? How long until Chernobyl II?

Where are we going to get all of our plastic from? Most of it comes from the
petrochemical industries. Where's that keyboard of yours that you're typing
on? Your sneakers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun4.html is an
interesting article on this topic. The probably most honest point in it is,
" Unfortunately, politicians and policymakers have ignored Hubbert's Peak
and have no plans to deal with it: If it's beyond the next election, forget
it."


| In 2002 my wife and I saw that whatever was going to happen to gas
| prices it wasn't going to be good. Gasoline was about $1.50 per
| gallon and the price was becoming unstable. We did the research and
| decided on our second new car in 30 years: a Toyota Prius.

Smart people.

| I have been a proponent of hybridization since I heard about it
| around 20 years ago. It is only now becoming ready for prime time.

The problem is still the efficiency of the batteries. Considering the amount
of energy you put into the battery, it's rather disappointing to see what
you get back out. The rest is just heat. But it's a start and heading in the
right direction. It's pretty impressive what Toyota put together and made
work.

| The concept of using a 200 hp engine to drag a 5 passenger car
| around town or to cruise at freeway speeds is ludicrous.

Yeah, especially a 5 passenger car filled with one single person. Look at
what the car companies are doing in Europe. Honda's Jazz is small, the Smart
(coming to North America soon. see http://www.smart.com), even BMW's
1-series and Mercedes' A class, not to mention Daihatsu that uses the slogan
"bigger is stupid".

| Sizing the
| engine for freeway hill climbs and using electric drive for the low
| power needs and to provide acceleration is a lot smarter.

Agreed. Thanks for your points, Mike!

 

"tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tPK7e.1919$J12.895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ...
> tony kujawa wrote:
> | "tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> || a Tree Hugger (driving an old Civic when I drive)
> |
> | homo
>
> homophobe
>
>

Just as I suspected. homo

 

"tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tPK7e.1919$J12.895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ...
> tony kujawa wrote:
> | "tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> || a Tree Hugger (driving an old Civic when I drive)
> |
> | homo
>
> homophobe
>
>

Just as I suspected. homo

 

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1404051015100001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>
> Brian,
> Great point. Over 30 years ago, my brother had a Chevy that had the
> smallest 8 cyld. motor made by GM--it may have been a 327 but am not sure.
> The gas mileage was about 18 MPG. About 2 years later, he traded it in on
> a new Chevy that had a 350 engine which was about the largest 8 cyld.
> motor made by GM--at that time. He was able to get about 21 miles per
> gallon. I asked a professor at the local college about this since no one
> in our family could figure it out. He explained the same points that you
> made in your post. A larger engine does not has to work as hard as a
> really small engine--esp. when it involves going up and down mountains
> like we had in West Virginia.

It's a common misconception that a lot of people have, that a bigger engine
means more fuel consumed.

 

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1404051015100001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>
> Brian,
> Great point. Over 30 years ago, my brother had a Chevy that had the
> smallest 8 cyld. motor made by GM--it may have been a 327 but am not sure.
> The gas mileage was about 18 MPG. About 2 years later, he traded it in on
> a new Chevy that had a 350 engine which was about the largest 8 cyld.
> motor made by GM--at that time. He was able to get about 21 miles per
> gallon. I asked a professor at the local college about this since no one
> in our family could figure it out. He explained the same points that you
> made in your post. A larger engine does not has to work as hard as a
> really small engine--esp. when it involves going up and down mountains
> like we had in West Virginia.

It's a common misconception that a lot of people have, that a bigger engine
means more fuel consumed.

 

Wow - this is a particularly worthless exchange. The better man is the one
who moves on first.

Mike

 

Wow - this is a particularly worthless exchange. The better man is the one
who moves on first.

Mike

 

Brian Smith wrote:
> "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:jason-1404051015100001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>
>>Brian,
>>Great point. Over 30 years ago, my brother had a Chevy that had the
>>smallest 8 cyld. motor made by GM--it may have been a 327 but am not sure.
>>The gas mileage was about 18 MPG. About 2 years later, he traded it in on
>>a new Chevy that had a 350 engine which was about the largest 8 cyld.
>>motor made by GM--at that time. He was able to get about 21 miles per
>>gallon. I asked a professor at the local college about this since no one
>>in our family could figure it out. He explained the same points that you
>>made in your post. A larger engine does not has to work as hard as a
>>really small engine--esp. when it involves going up and down mountains
>>like we had in West Virginia.
>
>
> It's a common misconception that a lot of people have, that a bigger engine
> means more fuel consumed.
>
>
wow, that's an awesomely underinformed pair of statements. the
fundamental fact is that bigger engines have more friction & more
reciprocating mass, therefore they /do/ require more energy to run. 8
cylinders take more energy to run than 4 cylinders for the same reasons.
the "improvement" experienced between those two motors was entirely
due to differences in ignition & fuel/air delivery technology, not some
bizarre local distortion in the fundamental rules of physics.