Rental car gets 62 mpg

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

My husband John had to make a trip to England. I talked to him this morning and he was telling me about his rental car. It is a Nissan Micro and the onboard computer says his average fuel consumption is 62 mpg. This is NOT a hybrid.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Is It A Diesel?

That's my bet. They get mileage as good as a hybrid.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. I have a diesel, and my mileage is always 5-10 mpg less than the computer says.

usually closer to ten

very disappointed, but I still get close to 40, sometimes more, on a longer drive, in warm weather

[Solar_Power]

37. the 2007 Prius is the most fuel efficient car sold in the U.S

with a combined city and highway fuel economy of 46 mpg

[Realityhack]

5. often better

hybrid milage is often deceptive for typical driving.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

6. Nope.

NOT a diesel.

[Gold Metal Flake]

2. It's not a hybrid but it IS Imperial gallons.

An Imperial gallon is 1.20 Merkin gallons.

Imperial gallons think they are sooo superior.

[lvx35]

4. interesting. still 50 mpg (right?) is impressive. nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. It's on the web!

http://www.nissan.co.uk/home/vehicles/passenger/K12/index.html?ln=/en_GB

Lots of multimedia. Dial-up beware.

[lvx35]

9. I want one! mt

[deadmessengers]

8. 1.25 actually, and that works out to 49.6MPG

That's great mileage, and without the horrible environmental damage that producing lithium batteries causes! They've got to be thrifty with fuel over there - it's about $8 for a US gallon.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

10. Why can't we have something like that in the US?

Gad, I'd buy one.

[deadmessengers]

12. Look at the Honda Fit

It gets pretty close(I want to say 43mpg?), and has been sold in Europe for about 10 years. I'm looking at the Nissan Versa, myself - it gets in the high 30s on the highway.

[krispos42]

15. Because it's a tiny tin can that won't sell very well.

People don't want to be scraped off of the front bumper of an F-150, Magnum, or Suburban with a squeegee.


With my current lifestyle, I could get buy with something like a SmartCar or a Mini Cooper, as long a I could deactivate the passenger airbag for a kid's seat.

I'm not going to, though, even if I had the money. Too damn small. And not because I'm particulary fat (I'm heavy, but that's it) or because I'm particular tall (a shade less than six feet). It's because I don't want to look like a beer can at a frat party after a collision.

In order to get cars that perform at that level of MPG, way too much room, power, ride, cargo capacity, and such has to be sacrificed. My 1989 Olds Regency gets about 25 MPG. It seats six and has room for all of their luggage in the trunk, to boot.

Not that my car is particulary nice... the miles have not been particularly kind to it. It's a beater. When I'm done with it, it gets given away or donated to a good cause.

Have no fear, though. The SmartCar is being sold here soon, I believe through Chrysler dealerships. So there's your chance.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

19. I drive a MINI and I feel safer in it

Odd, huh? But I feel like this car is much more nimble and can get out of the way of things with ease. Best acceleration and braking in any car I've ever driven.

[krispos42]

20. There is something to that...

My car is boat-ish, partly because it's an Olsmobile from before they reinvented themselves, so it's naturally cushy and floatly. An it's just not a sports car. But I'm not bothered by that, particularly. I've done most of my driving in largish cars.

But I know what would happen to you if I ran a stoplight, versus what would happen to me if you ran a stoplight. I'd be injured, you'd be in the ICU.

It's a lot to give up for an extra 20% miles per gallon. For many people, until very recently, it wasn't worth it.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

23. I dunno

The MINI comes standard with six airbags. I hate the idea that people won't buy a small efficient car based on fear of big cars.

The nimbleness to get out of the way of trouble that I spoke of, has been tested, too.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

24. I had a Buick Regal in the 80's

It was like driving a waterbed.

[pansypoo53219]

27. shame

i had a 72' delta 88 and a 73' delta 88 and woo baby, i took my 4 doors on some rides. sigh. i miss my boats. now the 73' new yorker? that was a barge, but i got that puppy flying too.
but yes, in europe, smaller cars, but everything is smaller, so it's safer to drive the minis. even the 'semi' are smaller.

[madokie]

39. thats what I want too

pretty much for the same reasons

[AdHocSolver]

30. In the 1970's the government mandated safety features that made even a smaller car safer.

There were five-mile an hour bumpers and reinforced door panels to reduce damage in side crashes. Reagan overturned all of these rules.

Those techniques worked. The Olds Cutlass I owned had real metal bumpers mounted to the stub frame with shock absorbers. I hit a deer with that car while moving at 50 MPH (it was night time and snowing heavily) and the bumper wasn't even dented. It absorbed the shock very well and we barely felt the impact. Of course, the grill, head lights, radiator, and hood were damaged. Yet the structure of the car was undamaged.

Today, cars have plastic covered polyurethane foam bumpers, and hardly any side protection. Instead, the cars today are structurally weak and they put air bags in for "protection". This is a joke. The structure of a car today is constructed from little more than rice paper, and they give you exploding marshmallows to protect you from injury.

Statistics show that in many types of accidents, people in big SUV's are no more safer than people in smaller cars. In fact, in a rollover accident, which tippy, high-center-of-gravity vehicles are prone to, the occupants of such a vehicle are more likely to suffer serious injury because the structure of these vehicles is too weak to support the excessive weight of these vehicles. SUV's and trucks are exempt from safety features like a roof that can support the vehicle's weight in a rollover.

Moreover, in the 1970's, the government designed a safe vehicle based on a compact car platform. It used engineering techniques such as doors comprised of sheet metal over a light-weight, honey-comb frame. It provided rigidity and strength with light weight and minimal use of materials. This technology was offered to the auto companies, but they turned it down. Instead, the auto companies followed Ford's lead in producing cars like the Pinto with the exploding gas tank.

[bullwinkle428]

16. The Prius does NOT use lithium batteries - they use nickel metal hydride!

Here is some info on the environmental impact of the production of these batteries:

"The Mail on Sunday newspaper retracted an article linking Toyota's Ni-MH battery production to environmental damage said to have been caused by nickel mining at a facility now owned by Inco at Sudbury, "in order to prevent further misinterpretation", and publishing in its place a rebuttal letter from Dave Rado. Rado accuses the article of inaccuracy, and notes that nickel is used for countless other purposes and that any damage occurred more than thirty years ago, long before the Prius was made.<33> However, the article's charges were repeated by followup articles in other publications, and provoked heated debate in online forums.<34> <35>

A question often raised about the battery is whether it can, or will be, recycled and whether it will be source of pollution.<36><37> Toyota themselves state on their website: "Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 'bounty' for each battery."<38>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius

[AdHocSolver]

29. Your standard 12-volt car battery is made out of LEAD - and someone is complaining about nickel. n/t

[seasat]

17. Curious, what is the environmental problem with lithium ion batteries?

I've heard nothing but good things about the new batteries such as those from A123 that are lithium iron phosphate. They're supposedly biodegradable and don't have toxic metals like NiCads or conventional lead acid. 3M is supposed to be coming out with a lithium-ion battery that uses silicate on the anode that is supposed to have a 30% better charge density than the iron/phosphate batteries.

What have you heard about them? The reason I ask is I'm researching how to build an electric car when I finish my dissertation and catch up on a lot of neglected projects around the house. I figured that about the time I got ready to build one in a couple of years, the li-ion battery technology may have come down in price and I could use them.

[krispos42]

21. You might like to look at this, then

My idea for an electric car with an auxillary generator on it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krispos42/2

[AdHocSolver]

33. The car you describe is the only technology that is economically and technically viable.

A vehicle that uses only an electric motor for motive power is the most efficient and cost effective technology. Being able to plug it in to your house electrical system or use a small fuel efficient engine to operate a generator to recharge the batteries is the most cost effective method of operation. It has an added benefit of eliminating your dependence on the oil companies.

This kind of vehicle technology is available now and should not be used as just a stop-gap on the way to hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Hydrogen powered fuel cells are a scam promoted by the oil and auto companies. First, they are nowhere near being able to implement this technology, which will require a complicated and expensive infrastructure. It will still require using large quantities of ever-scarcer fossil fuels, meaning it will be expensive and polluting. It will still require dependence on the oil companies.

The electric vehicle that can be plugged into the electric grid or recharged with a small, fuel efficient motor-generator combination can be built economically today and provide immediate environmental and cost-saving benefits. That is why the oil companies promote hydrogen fuel cell technology - it is years away and still allows them to rip us off.

If you are interested, the concept of a mass-produced electric vehicle that can be plugged into your house current for recharging is over 95 years old. It was proposed in 1912 by Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. Edison worked on design and development in his laboratory, and Ford was planning on adding an assembly line at his factory. The plan came to an end after a mysterious explosion and fire at Edison's laboratory. You can read about it in Edwin Black's book "Internal Combustion".

[krispos42]

34. With lithium-ion batteries, that will overcome the previous range limitations

Lead-acid, nickel-cadnium, and nickel-metal-hydride batteries don't have the oomph needed to make them run largely generator-free.

The only problem is that industry has to ramp up production of lithium-ion batteries. They are currently being used in everything portable. Cell phones, iPods, laptops, PDAs, etc. When you add in the fact that we would need 17 million automotive battery pack a year, each weighing a thousand pounds or so...

Well, that's a lot of added production.

As to the hydrogen fuel-cell car, we won't have that until we have nuclear fusion so we can make both electricity and hydrogen pollution-free. Just run current through water to get hydrogen. Not really that efficient, but when the power from a fusion plant is both pollution-free and fueled from unlimited domestic sources, efficiency doesn't matter that much.

As a point of interest, I later thought of a way to overcome the range limitations of my car, so that the driver could drive long ranges without needing to stop to recharge.

A 50-horsepower generator on a small trailer, with a 15-gallon tank, that outputs 300 volts DC right into the motor/battery circuit. Such a generator would be able to supply all the power for cruising propulsion and accessories such as air-conditioning and lighting as well as pump a little into the battery as well. When the car does something high-drain, like passing, merging, or climbing a grade, the motor would draw the extra power from the batteries for the surge.

Such a generator could be standardized and available for rental for long trips.

[MADem]

26. Imperial gallons makes a big difference... nt

[TexasProgresive]

11. We drove a rented diesel Ford Fiesta in Ireland

in 1994 and it got an unbelievable 80MPG and was reasonably peppy. It was great as diesel was selling for less then gasoline - we just drove all over the place without worry about cost. BTW the milage was determined by miles driven divided by fuel taken - no on board computer.

[onehandle]

13. Micro vehicles are common all over Europe and Asia.

Over here we have Hummers and other monster SUVs.

America, Fuck Yeah!

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

14. I drive a MINI

I'm getting about 32 - I drive almost all highway driving.

[onehandle]

25. Mini's are pretty big compared to micro vehicles.

Most get twice the mileage or more.

[Colorado Progressive]

18. I prefer to not get scraped off someone else's bumper...

so I chose a small but not tiny Subaru Sport. It gets the kids to school (7 miles away) with good gas mileage, and I think I might survive an accident with a HUmmer, oh hell I wouldnt survive shit. who am I kidding. but at least with the awd we make it up the driveway in winter. Friggin Hummers and F350s I hate them. They could at least give them enough clearance for my car to go underneath!!!!!

[tabasco]

22. My car gets 50 mpg and it's not a hybrid.

Toyota Echo and I drive like Grandma Moses.

[AdHocSolver]

28. Technologically, all cars sold in America could be designed to get better gas mileage. They are not.

The problem is economics, not technology. The same people who invest in oil companies are the same people who invest in auto companies. This fact should explain all.

However, for the technically minded, I will expand on this further. Many years ago, I owned a full-sized Ford, a 4000-plus pound car. It sported a heavy iron-block 289 cu-in. V-8 engine, a very inefficient 3-speed automatic transmission, and sported a trunk you could put your dining room set in. It used an inefficient, gas wasting carburetor, mechanical ignition points, and push-rod operated valves. If you wanted to design a car to waste gas, this was it. In moderate weather, I regularly got 15 MPG in city driving and 19 MPG on the highway. Since gas cost about 25 cents a gallon, I could fill its 20-gallon tank for $5.00.

Fast forward to 2007. (Actually, you only needed to fast-forward to 1990's technology.) Since the early 1990's, we have computer-controlled, light-weight over-head cam six-cylinder engines, with multiple valves per cylinder, electronic ignitions, electronic fuel injection, 4- and 5-speed computer-controlled transmissions with built in over-drive, and locking torque converters, new light-weight materials, and stream-lined cabins to reduce wind resistance. These engines can produce considerably more horse-power than that old Ford engine. And, theoretically, should get much better gas mileage.

Yet, many vehicles today of comparable weight, have less room inside, and get no better gas mileage than my old Ford. Why? Because the auto makers don't want their buddies over at big oil to lose profit. (and, of course, their own investment in oil would be less profitable.)

The auto companies keep maintaining that people don't want to pay for good gas mileage. How many of you have gone to a car dealer and demanded to see only cars that get lousy gas mileage? You don't need to pay extra. The technology for good mileage is already built into the cars. They just won't give it to you.

What to do? Pass laws mandating higher, realistic, fuel efficiency standards and enforce them. By realistic, I mean 50% better gas mileage for all cars within 5 years. It is technically and economically doable with current technology at NO additional cost.

[AdHocSolver]

31. Adding ethanol to gasoline reduces miles-per-gallon. It's a scam that is increasing the cost of food

When they first started putting ethanol in gasoline a few years back, we were told it was done to reduce air pollution. Previously, oil refiners put MBTE in the gas for that purpose, but it is toxic and it was getting in the water supply, so oil companies switched to ethanol.

When they switched over, I noticed that my car got fewer MPG. So, I experimented by buying gas at a staion that still had MBTE in the gas, and then filled up at a station that used ethanol. The car consistently got better gas mileage without ethanol, as much as 3 to 4 MPG difference.

I recently took a road trip and filled the gas tank with ethanol-free gas at a station in a small town. (The gas pump had a sign "100% gas".) I noticed an increase in pick up and the mileage on the next fill up went up by about 4 MPG of what it usually is. On the return trip I noticed the same improved mileage without ethanol.

I have no doubt that mileage suffers when ethanol is added to the gas. The gas tank in my car holds 13 gallons, with 12 gallons usable. Therefore, my car goes as much as 48 fewer miles less on a fill up. Since my car has a range of about 400 miles with ethanol gas, I have to buy 12 percent more fuel to go the same distance. So, I am using more fuel to drive the same distance when the gas contains 10 percent ethanol. More oil consumption and higher cost for me. What am I missing here?

It gets worse. The ethanol is made from corn. Farmers and ranchers use corn to feed cows, pigs, and chickens. Corn is also used to make corn syrup (sweetener used in soft drinks, baked goods, candy), cereal, dry pet food, and snack food. When you burn the corn up in cars, you create a shortage of supply for these other uses, so the price goes up. That is why the cost of milk and other dairy products has gone up so fast.

The world oil supply is still being depleted at the same rate, the pollution and green house gasses are being produced at the same rate, gas prices are still high, oil company profits are still rising, and now the cost of our food is rising because we are burning the corn in our cars.

[johnaries]

35. What about all those farmers getting paid NOT to plant corn?

I'm tired of this myth being spread by Exxon that using ethanol increases the price of food. It's NOT TRUE! Stop spreading lies!

[misanthrope]

32. I rented a Pontiac Vibe in February...

...that got 50 mpg on my trip. Additional factors might be that I carried only one piece of luggage, never had to run the air conditioner and 95% of the miles were on the interstate highway however 50 mpg is still pretty good.

[tammywammy]

36. I get 42 - 46 mpg, but it's a diesel

:)

[and-justice-for-all]

38. Do you mean Nissan MICRA?

http://www.nissan.co.uk/home/microsite/micracc/index.html?ln=/en_GB