- May 3, 2005
- 1,065
- 0
- 71
Linky
OK, wtf? There are plenty of folks that run around screaming the evils of big oil and accusations of them suppressing technology that would have led to much greater fuel efficiency many years ago. After reading this, how do you effectively refute them? I understand that amenities included in modern vehicles would eat up some of the efficiency described here, but are our creature comforts and safety features really costing us ~340 mpg? C'mon. If a 1947 Studebaker can be modified to get 150 mpg I can not realistically believe we can't achieve 100 mpg + in a standard production vehicle today.
What say you?
Simplicity in power
The secret? According to a paper detailing the event (published in 1977), "Firstly, the power needed to propel the vehicle must be kept to an absolute minimum, and secondly the engine and operating conditions must be chosen so that power requirement is met with minimum fuel utilization."
All of the cars listed above were from tests conducted in 1973, 1968 and 1949. Specifically, in 1949 a modified 1947 Studebaker achieved 149.95 miles per gallon. In 1968 a 1959 Fiat 600 (the two-door sports car above) achieved 244.35 miles per gallon. And in 1973, a modified 1959 Opel achieved 376.59 miles per gallon. That's enough fuel economy to drive from Indianapolis to Chicago, and back again, on a single gallon of fuel costing roughly $1.79 using fuel prices found in Indianapolis today.
Citation: Shell Oil Company's "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
OK, wtf? There are plenty of folks that run around screaming the evils of big oil and accusations of them suppressing technology that would have led to much greater fuel efficiency many years ago. After reading this, how do you effectively refute them? I understand that amenities included in modern vehicles would eat up some of the efficiency described here, but are our creature comforts and safety features really costing us ~340 mpg? C'mon. If a 1947 Studebaker can be modified to get 150 mpg I can not realistically believe we can't achieve 100 mpg + in a standard production vehicle today.
What say you?