|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:46 am
Ryu_Kaze toyota Volta  Toyota has electrified automotive history with the first high-performance hybrid, named in his honor. The Giugiaro-designed carbon-fiber body seats three people abreast and features "drive-by-wire" controls, allowing you to position the steering wheel and pedals in front of any one of them. And the Volta's 408-hp Hybrid Synergy Drive® (a 3.3-liter V6 with an electric motor for each axle) not only delivers 435 miles on a 13.7-gallon tank, but 0-60 acceleration in a mere four seconds. Somewhere, Count Volta is smiling. So, it gets about 31mpg? That's not bad. However, I'd be welling to bet a fairly large amount of money that that's purely if you were to drive like a normal car. Easy acceleration off the line, smooth breaking, following the speed limit, etc. And, most of the time you will. However, I can garauntee you that the fuel mileage will tank when it's taken out on a track... still a nice car though.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:41 pm
Mallorys Wedgie Friend Something a lot of people don't realize about fuel economy is that many people, with older cars, have underpowered them. A great example would be some of the heavier muscle cars. Some of them were pushing 3,500-4,500lbs. Now, you could get the look and still put a six in some of those cars, but, your mileage could end up tanking because it just didn't have enough power. I was reading about a guy who had a pretty stock 350 in his car but he was only getting something like 6mpg because his car was so heavy. Another guy was running the same car with a larger motor, a little over 400cubes, and he was getting 12mpg no problem, because his car had enough power. There's a multitude of things to consider, but, making sure you have enough power in the first place is key. More power? What about less weight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:00 pm
Mallorys Wedgie Friend So, it gets about 31mpg? That's not bad. However, I'd be welling to bet a fairly large amount of money that that's purely if you were to drive like a normal car. Easy acceleration off the line, smooth breaking, following the speed limit, etc. And, most of the time you will. However, I can garauntee you that the fuel mileage will tank when it's taken out on a track... still a nice car though. Can't be helped, that's physics, but at least you get to choose how you drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:51 am
Masticatius Mallorys Wedgie Friend Something a lot of people don't realize about fuel economy is that many people, with older cars, have underpowered them. A great example would be some of the heavier muscle cars. Some of them were pushing 3,500-4,500lbs. Now, you could get the look and still put a six in some of those cars, but, your mileage could end up tanking because it just didn't have enough power. I was reading about a guy who had a pretty stock 350 in his car but he was only getting something like 6mpg because his car was so heavy. Another guy was running the same car with a larger motor, a little over 400cubes, and he was getting 12mpg no problem, because his car had enough power. There's a multitude of things to consider, but, making sure you have enough power in the first place is key. More power? What about less weight? there's a balance between weight and power... if you overpower a car it can start sucking up fuel if you're driving it hard. It's difficult to explain, and somewhat counter-intuitive... but think about it... some of the supercars out there are lightweight, less than 2,000lbs. sometimes, and they've got 600-1,100hp engines in some of them and the gas mileage just goes in the toilet... you can only do so much with weight. The best, and simplest way to make sure you get good gas mileage is to make sure your tires are always and the proper tire pressure. It's amazing how much just a little tire droopage can suck away gas mileage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:20 am
RX-7's uses 625cc x 2 rotary engines, which means 1.3 liter car with 276HP
...oh...well..... xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:23 am
ryouka_takahashi RX-7's uses 625cc x 2 rotary engines, which means 1.3 liter car with 276HP ...oh...well..... xp Yeah but the mileage still sucks on rotary engines. Mallorys Wedgie Friend if you overpower a car it can start sucking up fuel if you're driving it hard. It's difficult to explain, and somewhat counter-intuitive... but think about it... some of the supercars out there are lightweight, less than 2,000lbs. sometimes, and they've got 600-1,100hp engines in some of them and the gas mileage just goes in the toilet... you can only do so much with weight. That's because of the compression ratios and displacement in those engines. I know what you mean. I had an Integra GSR that got about 29 MPG under conservative driving. The lower-end models definitely got better mileage even though they weighed the same. Nevertheless, no matter how bad the mileage is, it can always be improved by removing weight. Even if there's not all that much improvement, engines get better mileage when they don't have to work as hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:55 am
Masticatius The best way to get good fuel economy from a performance engine is to keep displacement down, and keep weight down on the chassis the engine happens to be sitting in. Case in point: Lotus Elise. 200HP, 0-60 in 4.X secs. It's got control that has sports car fans shitting their pants. It also gets 30 miles per gallon from a combination of the 1.8 liter Celica GT-S engine and the extremely low curb weight. Cars get heavier and bigger every year, the average fuel economy would go way up if all of our cars dropped 200 lbs. Aren't they midship, too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:25 pm
Yep.
Obviously not the most practical car for day-to-day driving, but then again, with a bigger heavier car, the engine doesn't need to be tuned to the breaking point like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:42 am
2007 Tesla Roadster
not the most practical car and i'm not even sure if it's that efficiant but it is a step in the right direction. It's all electric with a 185-kW electric motor and gets 400 km per charge (about 259 miles *correct me if i made a mistake on my conversion*)
really expensive though srry if it's not what you are looking for. costs about $85,000 USD-$120,000 USD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:48 pm
Ryu_Kaze Masticatius If the US wants to improve fuel economy and air quality, it should raise the price of fuel. didn't the US try rationing fuel once? yea, they used stickers similar to food stamps during WW2, they offerd gas by how far you had to drive to work, so they could eliminate driving for fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:06 am
IF U WANT BOTH ECONOMY AND PERFORMANCE I SAY A MUSTANG 17 CITY 26 HIGHWAY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
