I'm a car guy. Three daily drivers, all three 4.2 or 4.4 liter V8s. Three "fun hobby cars" are all 4 cylinders....two 2 liter cars and one 1.6, although I'm currently looking to expand that to one more....a 4.8 liter V12.
:). I dont think anyone has an electric car with 100,000km on it yet..... Sent from my iPad On Feb 5, 2013, at 7:59, Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> wrote: > A fuel consumption comparison among same make and model cars are not > straight-forward because it involves the variations due drivers (lead foot or > feather foot), load, road type, weather, etc. Then it is even more difficult > to compare different cars and, worse yet, ele., steam, and other types of > cars. The mentioned 140 000 km driver must have been a feather foot person. > To illustrate, SAE compiled and extensive survey to compare diesel and > gasoline vehicles. Only. I am attaching it. It shows the dependence of the > vehicle mass on fuel consumption. The scatter of data (not shown) was > enormous - gas data dots in the diesel area and vice v. The above suggest > some of the reason for that scatter. > The SAE lines were the average of volumetric consumption. I added the green > line to show the comparison as energy consumption (to compensate for the > higher energy content of the diesel). > I believe the SAE study points out the disadvantage el. cars will always > have. While liquid fuel cars carry the equivalent of a child (tank 1/2 full) > on the average, battery cars carry much higher mass, charged or "dead." This > is one of the fixed disadvantages when it comes to energy consumption > according to the graph. > Note: > I understand it was not clear in my table where it said ..... both vehicles > rate about the same in both cost-per-distance and energy-per-distance ... > Here are the numbers: The cost-per-distance was 0.047 $/km (diesel) vs. 0.046 > $/km (ele.) Energy-per-dist. was 3.5 MJ/km vs. 3.9 MJ/km. > PS: > Nobody sent me the electricity consumption of a 100 000 km el. car. Maybe I > want too much. How about 50 000 km. Or 10 000 km? None of us drives an el. > car? Know nobody who does? > Stan Jakuba > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:17 PM, John M. Steele <[email protected]> > wrote: > Sorry, all the units got me confused. I meant to say MJ/km or per 100 km, or > even per megameter, energy/distance in any case. > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, January 28, 2013 12:08:35 PM > Subject: Re: [USMA:52272] Re: Fuel economy in the real world getting farther > away from EPA estimates | cleveland.com > > Interesting. I'm not sure who your audience is or whether you are looking > for feedback. However, here are some thoughts. > > *Is the Passat an older car? Your reported fuel economy is MUCH better than > the current Monroney sticker for a 2013 diesel Passat (city/combined/highway) > 31/35/43. In the past few years, a lot of emissions technology has been > added to diesels to meet the current US standard. I don't know if that > explains the difference. > > *I agree with your tank-to-wheels and socket-to-wheels terminology and that > it reflects the way the vehicle's "fuel" economy is measured. However, both > petroleum products and electricity are metered at point of sale. The term > "meter-to-wheels" might be applied to either. Just a thought, as it > certainly isn't standard terminology yet. > > *I find presenting the data in every unit possible very confusing and hard to > read. My recommendation is to start with Monroney sticker info and price per > unit as used in the US, transform to proper SI, and do the comparison in > km/MJ. If your audience includes the metric-impaired, do an auxilliary table > underneath in US units, but avoid the flipping back and forth on units. > > *From the Monroney sticker, I would include the Leaf's (99) MPGe rating as > well as the 34 kWh/100 miles and then expand on the story of mine-to-wheels > vs meter-to-wheels. Superficially, the Leaf sounds twice as good as the > Passat but is worse on a total life cycle basis (just looking at fuel, not > even thinking about manufacture of car and battery). I think that is the key > point, but perhaps it needs emphasis. > > *As diesel has a higher heat content than gasoline, there may be a slight > problem comparing diesel miles per gallon vs "gasoline equivalent" miles per > gallon. A gallon of diesel is about 1.137 gasoline equivalent gallons based > on Lower Heating Value. Of course, once you reduce all data to km/MJ, > problem solved. > > From: Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, January 28, 2013 10:27:34 AM > Subject: [USMA:52272] Re: Fuel economy in the real world getting farther away > from EPA estimates | cleveland.com > > Attached is a detail comparison between a diesel and electric car. It may not > be easy to read, but so it is not easy to make the comparison. Try. > Stan Jakuba > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Kilopascal <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/01/fuel_economy_in_the_real_world.html > > It seems that the fuel consumption ratings for the Ford Fusion aren't working > out to what the EPA has published. Could this have anything to do with the > fallacy of using mpg to measure consumption from a battery and not actual > fuel usage? > > Those who might know more about the subject may wish to post a comment at the > bottom of the article. Here is our chance to expose the fallacy of mpg when > used in areas it doesn't belong in and offer a proper metric unit to give > correct results. > > I might post later, if I'm convinced it is the use of mpg to measure > something mpg is not intended and then mention the proper unit to use when I > find out what it is. > > > > > > <z.xls>
