Rich,
When I was first looking for a car back in the 90's, I saw an ad for a car, a Sprint or Spirit or something that was listed as getting 60MPG. Where was this listed as the MPG? In a national publication used by car buyers and sellers everywhere. I believe it was an 86 or 87. Manufacturer was AMC.
I know someone who has worked in the auto industry a decade or 2 longer than you have, who told an interesting story of an experimental prototype that was accidental sold. It was sought out and bought back by the manufacturer for a rather nice profit.
"There is no way that any company would not release such a product."
Of course there is. If there is more money to be made in products that need regular replacing, who would make one that doesn't? I have first hand knowledge of one company who made a rock solid low maint product. They went under because their competition sold cheaper less reliable products.
How to Get 70 MPG Out of a Honda Civic
How to Get 76 MPG
376.59 MPG Car Found In Museum (It Was Built In 1959)
Germans Release 117 MPG Diesel Sportscar: Biodiesel, Anyone?
Lets Pay Detroit To Bring Their Gas Sipping Cars Home To The U.S.A.
150 MPG Hybrid SUV Company Claims it is Being Muzzled
Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy
'60 Minutes' video: Governator's green challenge
Bottom line Rich is, I think it's easier for them to sell the same old stuff, than to really innovate. I don't consider a dvd player in the car an innovation. I don't consider making it so you need a hoist to lift your engine out to change your spark plugs, progress. Home brewers have been doing what GM and Ford don't want to do. Eeking out those boosts to fuel efficicncy far beyond the miniscule "Federal Requirements". If some backyard mechanic can do it, why can't the brain trusts at the experts do it? I think you yourself answered that one. Economics. It's cheaper to continue to move forward by millimeters, than to leap ahead in a bound. After all, who buy's $100,000 electric cars? Not the average joe out there who's wondering how much profit is still on the able with Fords recent big price drops. I've heard 40% is a fair commision at a dealership (again, same national car expert book).
So, how much does it cost to make a car today in the US, really?
If that's true, there's still a nice profit margin built in there paying for those corporate jets, private flight crews, hanger storage, etc.
I'm in the wrong business. My private plane sits in a display case and cost me $13.
The 3 cylinder Sprint markets by GM as a GEO manufactured by Korea Daewoo. It got 60 MPG. If you drove it on a flat surfice at 45 mph and measured the fuel economy at speed or spent about 15 minutes getting to speed. I can get 22 mpg today on my Z71 2003 Extended CAB which is fully loaded and has the 4x4 equipment including the extra skid plates. If the engine is warm and I fuel up and then slowly climb up to speed, i.e. 45 to 50 mph, I can get 21 to 22 easy and get 22.4 many times.
If you drive any car well and for fuel economy it does better.
As to that proto-type - My Family and friends have been in the field for generations. I have talked to guys with 45 plus years of experience at GM and this is the one thing they all laugh at. Hence my request for a private talk with them. I am willing to learn, but a single source point not confirmed is to be questioned. I know you would.
GM had the electric vehicle, and is discussed other places here on MT. It got 00 mpg. Why as it could not be rated. Now all the electric vehicle claim either 150 mpg or 200 mpg or 300 mpg. I find this hard to believe until it is broken down to energy unit to charge versus the battery efficiency versus energy output rates which includes temperature. Batteries have a very drastic change in performance based upon temperature. Take any one of those High Hybrids that the small companies claim and run it in Buffalo and find out how poor it would perform and how upset you would be.
Small companies can build one or two, and claim to be able to do it. To make it safe and meet regulations for large number / volumes that the Fed and State inspectors go after. They ignore the small ones until there is a problem as they cannot check everything. (* Data from an insider of CARB *)
Also data from an insider from CARB, GM gets 100% inspection because it has the largest national numbers, not California numbers. Because They wanted to go after GM. With Toyota getting up to number two their number of recalls has exceeded the number of vehicles they build in 2006 and 2007. They started getting better inspection. Not that they were better in quality they were just not caught.
Flex Fuel - all 2004 trucks/suv's support this fuel. It Took GM to go out and PAY and Lobby local stations to start to carry it. They did it to chains as well.
Shesulsa posted a thread about a Dirty little Secret that Flex Fuel vehicles get Emission credits, which is true for all manufacturers. But where is the fuel. The Fuel industry say no one buys it as no one has a vehicle so we will not make it. The car companies say there is no fuel and no demand so why build it. In enters the government to offer incentive to get cars out there. This allows for a larger volume of vehicles in the future to run on this fuel (* read unleaded gas as an example *) that allows them to possible switch over in the future.
Alcohol is 30% less efficent per volume than Gas. So for an optimized system the same volume would get less fuel economy. For a system that is not optimized then it will be less efficient.
If you back off on high Emission requirements then one can take the existing technology to and get better performance, or better fuel economy.
Yes, it is possible for GM and others to make a car with better fuel economy. Change the shift patterns and pedal progressions, combines with axle ratios and gear ratios and you get a very slow moving vehicle by design, but more fuel efficent. (* Read more similar to that vehicles of Henry Ford *) But no one wants them. Yes I can say, for it is as true as when you say no one wants to buy a truck even though it is the number one selling vehicle in the country.
We offered version of this in Oldsmobile in the 80's and 90's. Heck they even had a commercial about it going slow and getting there while the fast car got pulled over by the police or had an accident. But no one bought the car. No wanted fuel efficeincy. They wanted to get mroe power or bigger vehicles or bigger engine.
Look at the Honda Accord of the early 90's versus today and compare the size and weight. You will see a nice creep in size to Bigger, because this is what the market wanted.
As to experimental products in the hands of the general market. That is a legal issue. I went through a course at GM about legal issues. One of teh cases discussed was the following:
A drunk driver crashed his car into a legally parked car, and then bounced off the car and into a bus load of kids. The Drunk Driver was on a suspended license and had no insurance. He had no money. The parents of the kids sued him and found nothing. So they argued that it was not that he was drunk that caused the problem, but the parked car. So they went after the owner of that car and his insurance. Well the car was totaled, and so they bought it from the insurance company. They found an experimental part. They won their case, for without this special experimental part the vehicle would not have been able to be driven to that spot. So, they sued GM and won.
An experimental part is not a production released part by definition. It has not gone through all the rigorous testing and validation. Buying back the part was cheaper than a law suit.
Could you explain the experimental part and was it a CARB? Did it effect the fuel economy? I think it has nothing to do with any at all.
