What Happens When Cars Go On a Diet?

Everything, including fuel efficiency, get's better.

Sustainable Zoom Zoom

Just recently I came across this bit of info on the Mazda.ca website in the "Upcoming" section:

The Mazda3 is one of Mazda’s core products, with more than two million units of the first generation produced. The design of the new model has a bolder and more dynamic stance; it is agile and confidence-inspiring, enhancing the sense of oneness between the driver and car. It also has high environmental and safety performance levels, exemplifying Mazda’s Sustainable Zoom-Zoom long-term vision to provide cars that are eco-friendly and safe while still being fun to drive.

The Mazda3 with i-stop embodies Sustainable Zoom-Zoom and adds a new eco-friendly option to the lineup. It features the i-stop system in combination with the MZR 2.0 DISI (Direct Injection Spark Ignition) engine. Together, these two Mazda proprietary technologies help the new model achieve approximately 12 percent lower fuel consumption (urban cycle) than the current European Mazda3. By providing great driving performance as well as top-class fuel economy, the Mazda3 with i-stop is a different type of eco-car that will exceed customer expectations.

I've got to say that's great news for those of us that endeavor to make eco-friendly choices, but who aren't willing to give up the joy we get driving! I wrote about this system briefly last year, but this is the first time I've read about their proprietary start/stop system, called i-Stop, on the Mazda Canada site. Now we're left to wonder... is this being published on their site because it's something we can actually look forward to seeing in showrooms soon, or is it - like their diesels - yet another feature we aren't getting here in North America.

Source.

Who Is To Blame For Inefficient Cars?

What could this car do in 1986 that the vast majority of cars today can't?

It got 50 miles per gallon.... and that was without any sort of hybrid technology, special computers to manage the fuel consumption, or the power of a flux capacitor.

Twenty three years later there are just a handful of cars in showrooms across America capable of getting 50 miles per gallon.

And whose fault is that?

The consumers!

And the government.

And the automakers.

Michael Le Roy blames the consumers in his article printed in The Spartan Daily. I'm only partly inclined to agree. He writes:

"Imagine owning a car that achieved 50 miles per gallon. It would not be some fancy hybrid that would have the newest in battery technology or a special computer to manage the mileage. No this car would be a 1986 Honda CRX.

A Honda CRX is tiny, and despite being more than 20 years older than a Smart Fortwo, it gets nearly equal or better gas mileage.

You might be wondering why modern cars such as the Smart Fortwo and Prius are not getting better gas mileage. Where is the technological advancement over the past 20 years?

A reason why modern cars get poor mileage is because they are just too damn heavy."

At this point I totally agree with him. The cars we drive are definitely too heavy.

"Consumer demand for luxury and government safety regulations have weighed down cars. The combination of couch-like comfort and the safety of a Panzer tank have made cars into fat pigs. All this added weight affects gas mileage and the range of electric vehicles.

Modern sedans weigh more than 3,000 pounds. Keeping with the Honda weight comparison, let's look at the Honda Accord.

A first generation model that came out in 1976 weighed around 2,000 pounds. A 2008 model is 3,200 pounds.

If you look back at the Honda CRX there is no wonder it got great gas mileage. It also weighed around 2,000 pounds, did not have to comply with modern emissions requirements and would be crushed like a tin can when hit by a 4,500 pound modern sport utility vehicle."

Again, good points. But read between the lines... "consumer demand for luxury" is only a part of the problem. Consumers also demand size. Everyone wants bigger and better. People are so self-absorbed they aren't willing to make any compromise. They buy the biggest car with the biggest engine they can afford.

Here in North America the many foreign (read: Euro and Japanese) automakers all offer V6 engines in the cars they sell, while those same vehicles sold anywhere else in the world only come with 4 cylinder engines. In some cases, here in North America we can only get the 6 cylinder model, while the rest of the world has smaller, more efficient options available to them. BMW is a perfect example of this... their 1 Series only sells with the 6 cylinder engine in the US and Canada, while Europe gets a seemingly endless list of engine options ranging from fire breathing performance to frugal & efficient.

And who is to blame for that?

Where I really don't agree with the writer is the "I feel safer in a bigger vehicle" argument, which has been proven a fallacy. And besides being false, it wouldn't even be an issue if those 4500 pounds SUVs hadn't been foisted on the general driving population by the greedy automakers looking to sell their highest profit margin vehicles in the first place.

"We can only blame ourselves when it comes to cars on the market having relatively poor gas mileage. Our demand to tack on stuff such as heated seats, emission equipment and side air bags have greatly diminished gas mileage."

On this point I disagree with Michael. The blame isn't only on the consumer. I blame the automakers for pushing their larger engines on us in the first place. The BMW 1 Series is a car I'd happily consider as my next vehicle IF one of the diesel options was available. 75% of my annual driving in my daily commute, and as much as I'd love to drive the hottest baby Beemer available, that would be a total waste of resources. A diesel powered 1 Series would be the best of both worlds for me... the dynamics that I want, with the efficiency I need. Unfortunately for me, BMW doesn't sell any diesels, nor any small displacement engines, in the North American 1 Series, and the last time I asked they said they had no immediate plans to start.

"If federal law and consumer demand allowed, car companies would happily sell high gas mileage models that are currently sold overseas. Japan has a number of 660cc cars that get more than 50 miles per gallon and are far cheaper than a hybrid. The problem is no American would buy them. American consumers have also ignored high gas mileage, diesel-powered cars.

Car companies are trying to release gas-efficient models. They are not evil corporate entities that wish only to destroy the planet. The automotive industry would love to sell you a 200 mile per gallon car as long as they could make a profit."

Again, I can't agree here. Some companies are just starting to look at offering efficient vehicles in North America, but compared to other countries in the world, the US and Canada (to a lesser extent) are far behind. If the car companies really were trying to release more efficient models, where are all the small displacement engines? Why are most North American models now selling with larger engines than there were a decade ago?

Eight years ago I purchased a Mazda Protege5. The only available engine was a 2.0L. That same year the sedan version of the Protege was available with a 1.6L, and a 2.0L. For the 2010 models that are in dealerships now, the only available engine options are a 2.0L and a 2.5L in either the sedan or the hatchback.

In England, the Mazda3 sedan is available with 1.6L or 2.0L (gasoline powered) engines, and the Mazda3 hatchback is available with 1.4L, 1.6L, or 2.0L (gasoline powered) engines, as well as 1.6L and 2.0L (diesel powered) engines.

So who's to blame? The consumers for "demanding" more, or the automakers for only offering more?

"Even though Chevrolet is not doing too well right now, they do have models coming out that provide descent gas mileage. The 2010 Chevy Cruze will have a 1.4 liter turbocharged engine that Chevy claims will get 40 miles per gallon. That is nearly hybrid territory, all without a battery pack. With a base price of around $16,000 the Cruze will be very competitive, providing the car lives up to General Motors' claims. The car will also be relatively light by modern standards, at 2,900 pounds.

The next Prius will get 50 miles per gallon, but the Cruze will still be the better deal. If the next generation Prius comes in at $22,000, the Cruze will still undercut it by $6,000. That much money will buy approximately 80,000 miles worth of gas for the Cruze.

The automobile industry would like to manufacture lighter and more fuel-efficient models, but currently the only way to do that is to either make them less safe or use expensive composite materials.

Higher prices or less safety - pick your poison."

Now the Cruze is my kind of car... except that it's ugly. But that's just a matter of taste. It's small, light, and is propelled by a small engine using turbo technology to give it some extra power when needed. Turbos are a great thing. They give you power when you need it, but don't add any extra consumption when you don't need it (ie: most of the time you're rolling down the highway with the cruise-control on).

The rest of the world gets it! When will we?

Source: The Spartan Daily

Top Gear Reviews the Ford Fiesta...

... as only Top Gear can!



I don't know about you, but capabilities like those would serve me well in a sub-compact hatchback. More than once I've found myself in a situation similar to those pictured and thought "if only my car could...."

Personally, I can't wait to see the Fiesta (as well as it's Mazda sibling, the Mazda2) here in North America. It's coming soon, and is a strong contender to be my next car in 2 years from now. The fuel prices we're seeing today won't last forever, and even though I drive a marginally efficient car now, my next one will be even more frugal, without sacrificing the joy of driving.

Monday News Quickies

I don't have a lot of time today to get into everything I'd like... but I did see a few articles over the weekend that I want to highlight.

First of all, Mazda is working on developing synthetic plastics. Since plastic is a petroleum based product, using it to lighten cars (to improve fuel economy) isn't exactly an entirely winning situation since it still would be reliant on oil. By working to develop synthetic substitutes for plastic, Mazda is effectively working on backing away from any reliance on oil. As I've mentioned here in the past, they're also working on a brilliant start/stop technology (much better than the usual way at least...) which I very much hope will be available sooner rather than later. When my current lease it up I'll be looking for a vehicle with start/stop and Mazda would easily be at the top of my list if theirs is out in Canada by then. Finally, they have a very interesting looking 2.2L diesel in the works too. It'll be sold in Europe sometime in '09, paired with their start/stop tech, which makes me hopeful that it will soon after find it's way to North America.

Next, Audi is working on an intelligent system that communicates with stop-lights on the road ahead and informs you as to what speed you should travel so as to arrive at the light when it's green. This is a fantastic idea that has to potential to greatly improve fuel economy by eliminating the constant stopping and accelerating that's associated with city driving. As you're driving down the road towards an intersection, you would know that if you decelerated a bit to 50kph instead of 65kph, the light ahead would be green when you get there, instead of you driving all the way to the light, coming to a stop only to have to accelerate again 3 seconds later. Maintaining a constant flow would pay dividends in your own fuel economy, as well as help improve traffic flow in general.

FIAT has yet another special edition 500 ready to sell... this time styled by Diesel, not fueled by it. Personally I love small, quirky cars like the FIAT 500, and while this particular edition is pretty nice looking, it's only skin deep. (The upcoming Abarth Edition is much more interesting to me.) The Diesel 500 is nothing more than some new colors, a little badging here and there, and some interior refinement. They call it an "Urban Survival Vehicle"... uh, ok. In any case, at least they're standing by their statement that going green means reducing size! (Image courtesy autoblog.com)

Advertising By Association

Hybrids are cool, right? They're the "in" thing right now. The demand for better fuel economy is increasing exponentially, and since hybrids are perceived as the greenest automobiles around, everyone wants to get on the hybrid bandwagon.

Even if their car isn't a hybrid.

Renault recently announced that they're bring the "micro hybrid" technology called "start-stop" to every model in their lineup by 2010. Great! Shutting down the engine instead of idling at stoplights is a great idea. It's something I do myself at lights I know to be particularly long, especially if I roll up to one just as it's turned red.

But why is Renault calling this a "micro hybrid" technology? There's nothing hybrid about it.

A hybrid, by definition, is "something, such as a computer or power plant, having two kinds of components that produce the same or similar results." Hybrid cars have two different powerplants, both of which are able to propel the car down the road on their own, or together.

BMW has implemented start/stop technology in their conventional gasoline & diesel powered "Efficient Dynamics" cars, and other automakers are working on getting it on their models as well. Mazda developed a start/stop system of their own, ostensibly even more brilliant in that they need neither a battery pack, nor a starter-motor to restart their engines. Their SISS (smart idle stop system) will appear on Mazda models as soon as 2009!

Shutting a gasoline or diesel engine down at a stop is not a hybrid. It's a smart idea, improving fuel economy by up to 10% (or more in city driving) but there's still just one kind of engine motivating that car.

Automakers need to call a spade, a spade and stop trying to greenwash their products, calling them something they aren't!

50 Liter Challenge

CanadianDriver.com in association with Motoring 2008 held their second 50-Liter Challenge earlier this year. The first was held back in 2005... the good ol' days, back when gas was $0.50/L less than it is now.

The premise is very simple. They took 13 cars - all with a fuel tank capacity of at least 50 liters, and all under $20,000 - filled each one up with exactly 50 liters of fuel, and then drove them until they ran dry. The route chosen took them all over eastern Ontario and even into south-western Quebec over a variety of roads ranging from flat highways in the morning rush-hour to steep hills and forested rural roads in the afternoon. I've driven many of those roads myself and I can say they definitely covered a variety of driving conditions. The only thing not included in the test was stop-and-go city traffic.

So which of the 13 went the furthest on 50 liters? And how far did it manage to go? The most fuel efficient of the group didn't come as much of a surprise to me... but the distance it covered was quite impressive. Over one thousand kilometers on just 50 liters!

You can read about the entire test HERE.