Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In 1912 a properly maintained Ford Model - T...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 05:44 AM
Original message
In 1912 a properly maintained Ford Model - T...
...got 34 MPG. Today the most fuel efficient model available get just 35 MPG. Think about it.

Are you suffering from an "Acute Military Industrial Petroleum Complex"?

(thanks and credit to Radio Sub Rosa)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. In the last decade
fuel efficiency has gone down for a majority of cars (this from my mechanic husband). I think it is ironic that our 1990 Geo Prizm, with nearly 200,000 miles, still gets around 33 mpg in the Ozark Mountains, where the roads are steep and winding, and one cannot go fast. On the few occasions we've taken it on a four lane highway, we get around 40, sometimes more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's not so much that cars get worse mileage...
but they are ordered with the bigger engines and more weighty options. Get the Four instead of the Six and see what happens.

Speed still sells, not fuel economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I admit it freely.
I drive a small truck with a 6 in it. Unlike most people with similar configuration I actually use mine for what it's designed. I used to own a truck with a 4 in it, but have you ever tried hauling a full load of sheet goods, concrete and dimensional lumber with a 4 cylinder engine?

*shrug* I'd own something more fuel efficient to drive on non-hauling days, but there is that whole underpaid thingy.

Still...it does get 22 - 28 MPG. Not bad for a truck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. OK, but...
would you really want to drive one? Top speed and acceleration weren't all that hot. Nor was much else, including the heater.

More to the point would be a modern Lincoln Town Car actually gets an average of over 20mpg in normal driving. Compare that with, say, a '66 El Dorado.

A stripped '60s Chevelle with GM's ancient 6 got 25mpg at best. I've got a very nice, and bigger, power-everything Saturn that gives me over 30.

Apples and oranges, innit.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. No, not really.
You aren't actually saying that in nearly 100 years of development, during which we went to the Moon, that the best we could is is what we have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I am saying that.
It's simple physics.

No matter how you cut it, there is the theoretical maximum efficiency of the gasoline internal combustion engine, which is somewhere in the 20's. Diesels are a little higher.

Not only do we never actually reach the theoretical efficiency, it takes a certain amount of torque and horsepower to move a certain amount of mass. Better engines, transmissions and tires and more aerodynamic styling help, but don't change the basic physics.

So, there's a built-in limit to gas mileage using the same engine type as in the Model-T no matter how advanced we get. Modern engines are far more efficient and cleaner than older ones, but it takes an entirely different concept, like fuel cells, tubines, or things we don't imagine yet, to seriously impact overall efficiency. Even hybrids run into the problem of waste heat and friction since they get primary power the same old type of engine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. and you still haven't addressed...
...what that upper limit is though.

It's a bit, just a bit, higher than they are willing to let you use. Just a bit. Like, oh, ten MPG or so. Maybe as low as 15. But we canna have that can we? Yes? No? Mm, no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. See VW's 235 mpg car
VW did this as a experiment to see how much fuel economy you can get out of existing technology. This car has no fuel cells or other exotic engine/fuel/transmission system, but shows what you can do with existing technology to develop a high mileage car (and what cost you incur in performance to get that high mileage)

VW's 235mpg car (8.5 HP, 588 pounds):
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/article/0,12543,32036...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Huh?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

A gasoline piston engine can only extract around 25% of the energy in the gasoline for real work. the rest is waste heat and friction.

In the real world, that 25% or so is never actually reached, and it's not only engine design, but driving itself that wastes much of the energy. Modern engines are at the state of the art in getting maximum efficiency, and improvements can only come from new technologies. Computer controls, electronic ignitions, multiple valves and variable valve timing, better fuel injection systems, etc, have given us more reliable and efficient engines.

They're not deliberately giving us inefficient engines, although admittedly some of the older designs still in use are slightly less efficient.

As someone else already mentioned, Model-T's were not that efficient after all. Nor were any engines until we started to see some real improvements in the late 80's.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Apples and Oranges in some cases
If you're comparing the T to a hybrid or diesel VW, I dunno.

But, on the other hand, if you're talking about the Escalade, or the Ford Excresence or the GMC Yukon, you've got a point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Green93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. and they would run on alcohol or kerosene
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. The Model T did not get 33 MPG
Models varried over the years and unlike most cars today, HOW you drove it made a huge difference (you controled ignition timing with a foot pedal for goodness sake).

But they got between 15 and 25 MPG. Ford says 13-21.

It also had 20 horsepower, a top speed around 45MPH and very little luggage capacity.

Let's not pretend we haven't made ANY progress.

My civic gets close to 50MPG.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. My father told me of the time when the Model A replaced the Model T
Edited on Tue Aug-03-04 05:29 PM by happyslug
He was not even a teenager when it occurred but saw the results all through the 1930s. When the Model T was the dominate car, it had a Small radiator. Do to these small radiators the Model T could NOT climb even a Pennsylvania Mountain without having to stop halfway up the mountain and having its radiator refilled. Thus on most of the long grades on US 30 and US 40 in the Mountains of Maryland and Pennsylvania half way up the hill you had businesses that catered to these Model T Drivers (By providing them water and other refreshments as the engine cooled down).

When I traveled with my father you could still see these old (by than Abandoned) businesses. With the Model A's larger engine, the Model A could go up and down those same mountains WITHOUT overheating.

If you look at modern cars, they ALL have engines that can take on a Western Mountain in addition to our lower Eastern Mountains. Even your Civic can do so. The advantage of the Model T was its engine was turned to the roads of its day (1900-1920) which did not permit high speeds. If you kept the speed low (But high enough to stay in the Model T's highest gear) you could get great full economy. My father in the 1970s when gas was last going through the roof, remembered driving his 1949 Ford with overdrive. In that car he obtained 30mpg on the highway in the 1950s. This was just before the Interstate highway system was started so speeds on most roads was restricted by the design of the road not the car. As the Roads improved, the speeds cars could go improved, so people wanted faster cars. The Interstate Highways system really increased the demand for speed (Look at the climb of the Muscle cars in the 1960s, as the first, and easiest, part of the Interstate Highway system was finished).

In 1999 the owner of the Tenth Millionth Model T retraced the route it was driven in 1924. His biggest complaint was driving Interstate highway type roads. Roads the Model T was NOT design to be driven on. In many ways he was a road hazards on such roads (But once he was off the Interstate type highways his speed was competitive, slow but competitive).

My point here is we drive cars that reflect what we have to drive on. When the Model T was the car to buy, most roads were dirt (US 30 was only completed paved nationwide in 1926, and its cross state rival, US 22, was only paved in Pennsylvania in 1929). Today most people have NEVER driven on a dirt road and theirs cars were NOT design for driving on dirt (and this is true for many of the SUVs out there, some I would hesitate to take on a dirt road). Cars today reflect the roads condition we face today, paved over crowded highways (thus why we have A/C and Radios in the car). If we would accept a true limit of 50mph we would all drive cars with much smaller engines, smaller engines means smaller transmissions and frame to hold the engine and transmission. You could do this by restricting the size of the engine to 2 liters or smaller. Traffic will slow down do to the smaller cars with smaller engines, but not by much given todays gridlock. The worse part I read a proposal to limit car engines to 2 liters in the 1970s in Popular Mechanics (Which has always like its big cars) and that by their gun guru of the time period. This is also how Volkswagen did its 235mpg experimental car a few years ago. Very small engine small car, no acceleration but great fuel economy.

That will be the answer more than the exotic being pushed right now, very small engine (1-2 liters) powering very small cars for people to go and from work in at speeds not exceeding 30-35mph. Sounds like the Model T? Yes, but it will get 200mpg, not the Model T's 10 % of that.

One last comment, the VW 235 mpg car weigh 588 pounds with a 8.5hp engine, 101 pounds being pulled for each hp, the Model T Weigh 1200 pounds with a 20 hp engine for 60 pounds for each hp to pull, a Honda Civic weigh 2456 with a 115 hp engine or 21.35 pounds per hp being pulled). Thus the Model T is doing better than your Civic but at many of the costs of the VW 235mpg car.

The Model T Club:
http://www.modelt.org/tcars.html

Lincoln Highway and the 10th Millionth Model T
http://www.warsawcity.net/lincolnhwy.htm

1908 Model T Speciafications (It had a 20hp engine, weighed 1200 pounds):
http://www.cob.montevallo.edu/LeeBS/specs.htm

Honda Civic (Horse power is 115):
http://www.hondacars.com/models/specifications.asp?ModelName=Civic+Coupe

So a Civic has almost SIX times the power of a Model T (through on another site it does list Civic TORGUE HP as 13.6).
http://www.autoprestigemotors.com/civicspecs.html

History of PA US 22:
http://www.pahighways.com/USHwys/US22.html

A history of PA US 30 (a lot of duplications for in the Pittsburgh Area these two highways have been the same since 1925, but vastly different in the rest of the state):
http://www.pahighways.com/USHwys/US30.html

VW's 235mpg car (8.5 HP, 588 pounds):
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/article/0,12543,320360,00.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC