Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by unit91 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

unit91

The fuel economy situation today is vastly different though. Sticking with the Ford line,

In 2000:

Taurus sedan: 20/28

Taurus wagon: 19/27

F-150: 16/21

In 2018:

Escape SE: 23/30

Edge SE: 21/29

F-150: 20/26

There are (not all, for sure) crossovers and pickups today doing, fuel-wise, what sedans did when gas was $1 a gallon.

Note: I don't work for Ford, never have, no plans to. I don't own one, never have, but I do have plans to.

View on HN

Is that supposed to show improvement or something? I think that's pathetic. The equivalent sedan of today, Fusion Hybrid, gets 45 mpg, a ~50% improvement from 2000. Meanwhile the F-150 has eked out a 20% improvement because of fundamental issues with SUVs & Trucks being aerodynamically inefficient.

This is a real loss for the environment and cutting greenhouse gases.

Yep. In addition, a modern plug-in hybrid gets over 50mpg on gas alone and ~110mpge on electricity. (something like a Chevy Volt or Hyundai Ioniq or Toyota Prius or similar)

You don't even have to go full electric -- If the average driver just switched to driving a plug-in hybrid and charged roughly nightly on a regular 120v US household outlet, you could erase ~75% of all emissions from personal vehicles nationwide, without changing anyone's commutes or driving patterns in any way. (Even if we still use dirty sources for the electricity during the switchover to renewable electricity)

Or you could buy a 2018 F-150 pickup truck with the fuel economy of a 20 year old sedan -- a fuel economy so low it's actually slightly below fleet average for all existing US cars driven today...

I think it's somewhat of an exaggeration to say "a modern plug-in hybrid gets over 50 mpg" rather than "the Prius Prime gets around 50 mpg". The Honda Clarity and the Chevy Volt are more like 40 mpg, I believe. I'm not sure of the reasons, but both seem to have larger batteries than the Prius.

Why wouldn't the increased electricity demands negate most of the environmental benefits of hybrids versus similarly-sized fuel-burning vehicles? The same work is being done to the vehicle cabin, no matter whether the fossil fuels are being burned at the vehicle or at the powerplant...

There are two reasons: (1) electricity can be, and often is, produced using methods such as hydro and nuclear that use less carbon and produce less pollution, and (2) pollution control on carbon-intensive sources can be more effective at a central location.

I don't think that stated figures for Ford hybrids are representative. I rented a Fusion Hybrid and got more like mid 30s. Really, no better than a non-hybrid Altima. It's been widely reported in the automotive press that the Fusion and C-Max don't live up to their EPA figures.

And my figure is based on the mpg computer - in every car I've ever calculated using actual gas put in vs the tripmeter, mileage is even less than the automatically calculated figure.

> There are (not all, for sure) crossovers and pickups today doing, fuel-wise, what sedans did when gas was $1 a gallon.

Gas prices crossed $1 around 1989-1990 and never crossed back, so your description doesn't match your vehicle comparison.

I know for a fact that gas was $0.98/gallon in the late 90s, at least in my hometown. We went on a trip to Montana and I remember wondering how people afforded to drive with gas at the $1.28/gallon or whatever it was there.

Perhaps you were using 82 octane gas? When you get into parts of the Southwest, gas stations down there offer some really low octane gas. I personally always go for premium (92 octane) at a large chain like Costco when going cross country if the local gas stations are slinging anything below 87 octane gas (which is the lowest commonly offered on the West Coast), as it leads me to think the gas offered at that station/in that city is all of lower caliber. Obvs not selling lots of high or normal octane gas at least!

I have seen 85 octane, never 82. Probably in Colorado. The theory seems to be that lower octane is tolerable at high altitude, so you see it in some of the western mountain areas. But there seems to be some dispute over whether lower octane is acceptable in modern cars.

It pretty much doesn't matter in a fuel injected engine. The non-design octane can be lower efficiency/lower power/worse emissions, but the engine management system prevents knocking, so it isn't a big deal.

Putting higher octane fuel in an engine that isn't designed for it is just a waste because the engine won't develop more power with it (the whole point of higher octane).

I use higher octane fuel than necessary for one of my cars, because I feel it's prudent to use ethanol-free gas which is only available at the highest octane level. According to what I've read, the ethanol that's standard today can degrade the rubber in older cars' fuel lines sometimes and that can lead to a leak and catastrophic fire. It's also rumored that higher octane gas may (sometimes) have more detergents or something.

In any case, I wouldn't trust even a modern engine computer to handle gas that is definitely too low in octane, because as far as I know, it's going to compensate after it detects pre-ignition, which is suboptimal.

I think the concern about older fuel system components is real.

The engine management system will compensate in milliseconds, so meh on that part.

87 / 89 were the two options (Iowa).

No 92 octane gas? Very odd, must not be many higher end cars in that part of Iowa.

You can buy it, just have to go out of your way a little for it. And yes, higher end cars are pretty rare.

I filled up for less than a dollar in AZ in the very late 90s. It was a temporary phenomenon though, and may have never gotten that low in some parts of the country.

In the south, gas was cheaper than that up until the mid-90s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com