gas mileage Europe made cars/ auto
 

Fuel mileage per-car in Europe they say (Glen beck) a SUV or small compact car two door get 65 miles on one gallon of fuel, how much for real can you drive on 1gal or 2leters fuel

Here in the USA we are lucky if we can get 12mpg-15mpg on one gallon of fuel.

I have to fuel up like every 3 days

Steve and mike speak up; love to hear from you as will on this besides other.

i can't imagine how much gasoline is over there .. isn't it like 5 pounds / euros per liter? that's gotta be like three times what i pay here

petrol = 111.9p litre (lowest)
diesel = 123.9p litre (lowest)

those are the lowest ive seen in my area

with my car i can get about 360 miles out of a tank (40 litres) which costs about £45 to fill up so on average i can get 9 miles out of a litre

its not that bad yet VooDoo :).. lol

In my company car i have 50 litre tank, and i can drive a rough 600 to 700 kilometers with it.
So my average is 1 on 12 to 1 on 14 ( kilometers)

dont yall find it very strange, that over 80yrs ago cars were capable of getting over 40mpg but today we can barely hold 26mpg.


and even 80yrs ago there was a electric car ,that is now in the smithsonian i think, but it would go for over 100miles b4 it needed charge, why cant the state of the art tech that we have now get more?



go to, i think youtube, and look up, Who Killed The Electric Car.


ither youtube or google it.



and they want to do ethanol, ethanol takes more energy to make than get out of it.

the btu rating of gas compared to ethanol is a whole lot more.

the btu of corn ethanol is around 7,000btu

the new found wonderful switchgrass, is around 6,400btu

crude gas is 18,400btu

coal is 10,450btu


a plant that would produce 80million gallons of ethanol anually, would take over 1million tons of corn, to be practicl ya would need to plant atleast half of the US in corn, just for fuel needs.

that much corn to transport would take, 67,000semi trucks, or 187 trucks per day, the plants output would be equevelent to 53million gallons of gas or just 0.04% of the US anual gas consumption.


and the other thing, alge they want to culture, it would take atleast 28.5 milliom acres to be halfway practical, and the cost would quickly go into the glazed over eye ammounts.


that being said, if you have a engine that is internal combusion, and are getting 30mpg on crude fuels, it would drop to around 10-15mpg on ethanol, it burns cooler meaning you need more to make the same power, meaning you have to fillup twice or 3 times more often, defeating the pourpose.



source.
Leland Teschler, Machine design magazine.

just got a new car on a temp basis, TBH i don't even know the engine size, average is 44miles per gallon (diesel) (mostly motorway). [UK gallon is different to a US gallon, but i don't know if that is a factor or not.].

can't imagine many cars can do 65miles per gallon, Smart maybe??

Re: gas mileage Europe made cars/ auto
 

geez what car do you drive on 5 miles to one gallon of fuel? lol

1952 M-37 truck.

.http://www.dodgepowerwagonm880.com/b...er%20Wagon.jpg

around 5MPG lol.



used to have 1 of these, was gona restore but gas would have killed me.

i would love to take that 4-wheeling

:D :D :D

i get 45mpg in my Pontiac g5 with 18 inch rims

sweet

my jeep gets **** mileage ...

Mauser i find it pretty far fetched that a engine that is in his "birth" stage, that it will run 80 miles on a gallon..
Seeing as the ford T did a rough 13 to 21 mpg..

I mean, were talking about crude engines, with each cylinder in a separate casting.. Which was usual for that time. ( not the model T, that had 4 en bloc )

Im content with my 16 mpg in my Explorer...but i wouldnt mind going 26mpg

guess mike down under AUS, they must got really bad cars down there, no reply from him at this time lol

btw Steve
Glen Beck said it no joke, that European cars get 65mpg

umm, where did you get 80mpg, i said almost 40mpg at 80+yrs ago, lol.


off of the want to know websites.

1908 Ford Model T:

2.9 Liter
4 Cylinder Flat Head
20 HP

Top speed of 45MPH

MPG 25-28


ill have to look up my book but there were some other cars in 1908-1914 that got even better, with that said why is it so hard to make a fuel effeciant car today?



and the 100yr old electric car i was talking about, take ya pick there were many.

the Baker Electric dates back nearly 100 years,

an Owen Magnetic, 1915, witch is the ancestor of the modern hybrid, they make it like it is new tech but it is over 80yrs+.

all this info is very old, i find it odd and strange that with the advances today they cant beat the older stuff.

it all comes down to the idiots that cant do anything ecept on cadcam, it they cant do it on CadCam it cant be done to their thinking.

thing about CadCam it doesnt take into account all the varibles that can effect the performance of a car.

like they think that direct port injection is the best thing in the world, that is fartherest from the truth, what does a engine run on? it runs on gas most of the time, what form is the gas when it is burnt in the engine, it is gas vapor suspended in a stream of air.

it has to be vapor to burn corectly, that is what the carbeurator did, it vaporized the gas and mixed it with the incomeing air, if all your doing is dumping raw fuel in the cylnder you are wasting the fuel, for the engine wont burn the liquid fuel.


ya can actually add a spacer to raise the carburator a few inches and get a better effectm if ya leave the spacer open in the center ya engine sees all barrels of the carb and it increases performance a good bit.

infact if the carb and spacer is vaporizing the fuel well enough you will develope condensation on the spacer, for the vaporization takes heat away from the spacer and cools it, much like a A\C system.

that is why the tunnel ram intake worked so well, it had long runners that allowed the fuel to vaporize compleatly b4 it entered the chambre.

thats the reason you will never see a race car with direct port injection in the upper classes, they know it is ****.

of corse it looks good in a CadCam program if ya havnt got a clue as to how a engine works.


and that is the only reason for the catastrophic converter, it burns all the unburned fuel that goes streight thru the engine, if the fuel is vaporized properly ya get more power per charge, and waste less fuel gaining MPG, if they would mount the sprayers for the fuel injection on long tubes like some of the high performance cars, it would pick up power and MPG.


i got a 80s dodge pickup Mizer, that will get 28MPG with a 318ci motor and a 2 barrel carb, because it is better tech? no, because i know how it is supposed to work, and can tune it and make it work like it is supposed to.


i got a water heated spacer under the carburetor, i got a air dam/front spoiler and also some weel disk to cover the rims and sut down on drag, i also got lexane covers over the headlight buckets to take care of the catchers of air, and a 4 speed tranny.

this **** isnt rocket science , but they want to make it like it is.


and the motor wasnt in its birth 80+yrs ago, ever heard of a hit and miss? it was a internal combustion engine made in the 1800s, it replaced the steam engines for pump and other stationary devices.

oil MFG like it to sell more fuel to the public! they make money faster if people use it up more, the more people go to the pump there more money they make.

MPG depnds as much on the driver as it does the car. The Toyotas supposedly 'Green' car the Prius claims to get 65 mpg but that was only achieved in test conditions. No Prius owner gets 65mpg on actual roads.

Top Gear did a test in the last series. Toyota Prius racing a 6000cc monster suped up Merc. The Prius raced around the track and the Merc simply followed it at the same speed. At the end of the test the Prius had used LOADS more fuel than the Merc.

Simply put if you rag even the greenest car it burns fuel like candy.
The only way to get BIG mpg is to travel constanly at low revs so as Stevie says with his 44mpg - on a motorway at constant speed in 5th gear with revs at around 3000 (I'm guessing).
You won't get 44mpg if you just drive round a city. Too much stopping and starting. 1st and 2nd gears burn fuel no matter what you drive.

Generally speaking the impression I get is that european cars being used by the general european public have smaller engines and are smaller altogether than the American public would be happy with.
Certainly in the UK I don't see any point in having a big car with a big engine because there are very few places where the power would be justified or indeed utilised. There aren't any 1000 mile freeways over here!

There is a lot of evidence the european manufacturers are doing more to improve fuel efficiency than their American counterparts. Mercedes Benz spends 10 Million pounds a day on research and development ($18M), however since the daimler-chrysler merger both sides of the Atlantic presumably benefit.
I suspect as fuel prices creep up in the US then the emphasis on fuel efficiency will rise as with all things it is market led and punters want money in their pocket at the end of the day.

I would say though Mr Chief that a massive proportion of european cars are produced by the predominantly American owned GM and Ford.

If a European is getting better mileage than you are sir.
It's cos he's driving Japanese.

Or just using the gear's more visely, which is possible with a manual stick more so then an automatic :) As zz said, it's the revs that draws gas, higher revs more gas used by the car.

In Sweden it's more or less a must to lern eco driving when you lern to drive.

Modern cars don't take any gas into the engine while you use the engine to break. So by using the engine to break you save alot of gas.

I've misread Mauser, i switched the 80 years and 40 mpg.. My bad.