Monday 9 January 2012

"LA Woman sues Honda over false 50 mpg claim"

Mombers reminded me about this story (nice to see that the character from a Doors song is still alive and well!) with his comment to an earlier post:

It can be argued that global warming is a myth or won't be that bad but two things can't be argued:

1.Mercury, lead and other chemicals in the air are never a good thing

2.Mahmoud Ahmajinedad, Hugo Chavez et al are real and they're not our mates. Giving them billions of dollars a day is not in our best interests. I think improving efficiency is lower hanging fruit in terms of reducing pollution and petrodollars. Doesn't sell as well as fancy green energy projects though.


1. Agreed. Not so much lead any more though, I thought.

2. Broadly agreed, but...

a) We (the UK) do not give them "billions of dollars a day". We consume approx. 600 million barrels of oil a year, and each barrel earns the producer country about $113 = £73 (£1 = $1.55 as at today's date), so that's about £44 billion a year (3% of GDP).

Maths check: One barrel crude = $113 = £73 ÷ 159 litres/barrel = 46p per litre. Fuel duty 60p + VAT 22p/litre = 82p + plus 7p for refining, transport, retail margin etc = £1.35/litre pump price. Total VAT + fuel duty receipts are about £55 billion a year. Which would give us a figure of 46/82 x £55 billion for cost of crude oil = £31 billion, so let's round that £44 billion down to £40 billion for crude oil imports.

b) As far as cars are concerned, there is little or no low hanging fruit left. I think we have pretty much reached the upper limit in terms of fuel efficiency in miles per gallon, assuming you want to travel with any dignity. Honda can't even manage to make cars which achieve 50 mpg (or maybe they can and LA Woman drives like an idiot).

IIRC, when I was a lad, 30 mpg counted as good. My 1997 VW Golf Mk II achieves around 40 mpg overall. It has a 2 litre engine, which is not small relative to size of car or engine sizes in the 1970s or earlier, and I'm sure it's far less efficient than it was when it was new, or less efficient than a new car today.

So even if we could improve our overall average mpg from 40 mpg to 50 mpg*, this would only reduce the money we send abroad to people who are, frankly, "not our mates", by about £8 billion a year at current prices, which is £129 per capita. I mean, it's worth having, but nothing to lose sleep over; the cost of replacing all our cars would far outweigh this - The Golden Rule is to drive sparingly and to run your car until it falls to pieces.

* Derek in the comments points out that they mean smaller US gallons, and that 50 miles/US gallon = 60 miles/Imperial gallon.

16 comments:

Lola said...

Your (b) I do not agree with. Essentially its all about three things - thermal efficiency and vehicle efficiency and cargo mass.

There is still a lot more to come from the thermal efficiency of the IC Engine. Plus new fule mixes improve economy.

Cars with things like low rolling restistance tyres and very clever auto boxes will improve MPG. But the Next Big Thing is weight. Light cars use shed loads less fuel than heavy ones. I reckon another 10% will come from this alone at least.

As for cargo, that is people but as people are a relatively small mass compared to vehicle mass and most journeys are one man ones, all one has to do is go on a diet. Not me, obviously, you.

Jer said...

"drive sparingly"

Check!

"run your car until it falls to pieces"

Nearly there!

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, what do you think we can achieve in the medium term for mpg? 50 mpg? 60 mpg? The former would save us £8 billion a year, the latter would save us a further £5 billion. Not huge numbers, really.

J, you and me both.

mombers said...

Driving gets in the way of my consumption of other carbohydrates (alcohol) :-)
MW, is it Mombers or Heather Peters or someone else who's in a The Doors song? Thought it was a unique moniker...

A K Haart said...

You are right about lead. Emissions have declined by 98% since 1990 - mercury by 81% (NAEI figures).

Lola said...

MW. Yep, I reckon 60 mpg. Polo Blue Motion'll do that as long as you don't have a lead foot. Mrs Lola's Jag X Type 2.2 diesel does 42 average easy on touring holidays. I can get it up to the late 40's possibly 50 on motorways.

Bayard said...

AFAICS, the future lies in series hybrids, where the clutch, gearbox and differential is replaced by a generator and electric motors. This means you get the flat torque "curve" of the electric motor for sparkling performance, plus regenerative braking (where you get back nearly all the energy you put into getting up the hill when you go down the other side) for high mpg. IMHO any other form of hybrid is a waste of time.

Derek said...

Watch out for a bit of unit confusion here. Although LA Woman is suing over Honda's claims of 50 mpg, she means US gallons, as does Honda. And Imperial gallons are about 1.2 US gallons, so in British terms she's talking about 60 mpg which a small diesel should be able to achieve with careful driving. However it wouldn't take much to cut that substantially (as she has found out) whether we're talking diesel or hybrid.

On the subject of hybrids generally, I agree with Bayard that series is the way to go. However I am not a big fan of hybrids generally because of their complexity. Longterm that will make them even more likely to breakdown than petrol cars. The car manufacturers like that because it provides a bigger spare parts market. However simplicity is better for car owners since it means less to go wrong and for that reason I'd far rather have a diesel or an electric. Once engineers develop a decent battery at any rate.

Bayard said...

Derek, I agree, hybrids are complex, but they need not be. The series hybrid concept has been used on the railways since the late '50s so it's not something radical and new. Also many straight IC cars are horrendously complex and computer-controlled these days. The point of a series hybrid is that you can get performance and economy without complexity, but I don't think the motor manufactureres want their customers to know that. They prefer the line "It's a hybrid, so it has to be complex, which is why we are charging you so much money for it".

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, re BlueMotion, my caveat was "assuming you want to travel with any dignity", so the upper limit is something like mid 40s mpg?

D: "However I am not a big fan of hybrids generally because of their complexity. Longterm that will make them even more likely to breakdown than petrol cars. The car manufacturers like that because it provides a bigger spare parts market."

I don't know enough about hybrid cars, but that does remind me of the Euro:

"I am not a big fan of hybrid currencies generally because of their complexity. Longterm that will make a currency union even more likely to breakdown than sovereign currencies. The bankers like that because it provides a bigger market for bail outs and advisory fees. With the chance of getting placemen in as caretaker PMs of Greece, Italy or the ECB."

B, I'm even more baffled as to the difference between "hybrid" and "series hybrid". Can you illustrate the difference by reference to currency systems?

Lola said...

B & D - I think I've seen that both Lotus and Jaguar are working on series hybrids. Meanwhile small high speed diesels are less complex and get very decent mpg.

MW Don't knock small cars. The Polo is reputably a little gem. My daily car is a 2004 Yaris 4 door auto top of the range spec with aircon etc. It's like a mini limo and perfectly acceptable for longer journeys. (mind you my other car is an LR Defender 110 - so pretty well anything is sophisticatd compared with that).

In re the LR, early petrol 109's did about 14 mpg and about 70 flat out. The 110 does 26 / 28 mpg, and about 80 flat out. Such is progress.

Derek said...

Glad to hear it, Lola. I prefer diesel engines to petrol engines because of the greater reliability which comes from their relative simplicity. So if I was to buy a hybrid, I'd be looking for a series hybrid with a diesel engine. I owned diesel cars right up until I moved to Canada (where they used to be a little more difficult to find in the medium-sized vehicles that I prefer). And I take Bayard's point that a properly designed series hybrid cuts out the clutch, gearbox and diff. So the extra hybrid complexity could be balanced out to a large extent by reduced drive train complexity. I just hope that Lotus, Jaguar, Toyota, etc. are going down that line. It would be outstanding if they were.

Pogo said...

Sounds like "Mrs Lola" has a lead foot! My Mondeo turbo diesel [1] never returns worse than 50mpg and on my regular UK midlands to Barcelona run usually averages 54 - 55 mpg.

[1] - To quote a mate "in the trade" - "an X-Type Jaguar is only a Mondeo in a party frock". :-)

Anonymous said...

Even travelling with dignity, the upper limit is definitely not upper 40s mpg. The new Range Rover Evoque gets 56.5 mpg on the combined cycle in its 2 wheel drive form (OK - official figures - real world a bit less).

Jaguar XF 2.2 diesel gets 52.3 mpg.

And those are currently available luxury vehicles. I'm sure we can get to 75 mpg, with internal combustion powered cars.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AC, this whole debate was getting a bit beyond me, but if that is true, then i am cheered up enormously. So we can still travel in style and not give Chavez et al so much money. Win-win.

Derek said...

Good to see that the lady concerned has won her case and received nearly $10,000 in compensation.