Ever really wondered what cars out there now are actually the best when it comes to fuel economy? No fancy modified engines, just cars straight from the dealer? Well wonder no more, here's a list (it's not pretending to be all inclusive) in case you're wondering. They are all 2010 models, and their combined mileage ratings are in parenthesis.
1. Toyota Prius (50)
2. Honda Civic Hybrid (42)
3. Honda Insight (41)
4. Ford Fusion Hybrid (39)
5. Mercury Milan Hybrid (39)
6. Smart ForTwo (36)
7. Lexus HS 250h (35)
8. Nissan Altima Hybrid (34)
9. Toyota Camry Hybrid (34)
10. Volkswagen Jetta TDI (runs on Diesel) (34)
11. Volkwagen Golf TDI (runs on Diesel) (34)
12. Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI (runs on Diesel) (34)
13. Toyota Yaris (32)
14. Mini Cooper (32)
15. Ford Escape Hybrid (32)
16. Mercury Mariner Hybrid (32)
17. Mini Clubman (31)
18. Honda Fit (31)
19. Kia Rio (31)
20. Hyundai Accent Blue (31)
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/fuel-efficient-cars-47102201
About half of that list are hybrids, with several of those being rebadged versions of each other. So in reality, the list is actually shorter. Nonetheless, it still presents a good amount of choices for a car buyer looking to buy a car that gets over 30 mpg combined.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Another Alternative - Propane
I wrote a blog not too long ago about Biodiesel, now it's propane's turn.
Normally when you think of propane, you think of gas grills and stoves, correct? Well, apparantly it can, and has been used as an alternative fuel source for cars. Of course, like any other alternative fuel source, it requires some serious, and sometimes pricey modifications to an engine.
When compared to normal gasoline, propane burns cleaner, as it gives off 18 percent less CO2, 20 percent less NOx, and up to 60 percent less CO.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6435023/green/propane-pro-gain-roush-performance-pushes-propane-the-other-alternative-fuel/index.html#ixzz0Zi3vwqWX
However what is somewhat interesting is that you can expect about a 13 percent decrease in fuel economy. Meaning you have to use more propane (by volume) to get you the same distance that gasoline does. Despite that, it still expels less hydrocarbons by volume than your typical gasoline car.
A Few Thoughts
In case you can't already tell, I'm the kind of person who will randomly start thinking about something and have it hit me while I'm driving. Driving back from school this morning, I began thinking about well, cars (how appropriate right?).
I was thinking about why people are buying hybrid cars - or in fact not buying hybrid cars. Instead of looking at it in the way of "Hybrid = green", I'm looking at it as in "Hybrid = less gas = less money at the pump." The conventional way of thinking is that people, as a whole, are trying to save the environment and stop using combustible fossil fuels.
Is that true?
I'm not so sure, honestly. Sure the government is thinking that way, trying desperately to cut dependencies on foreign countries for fuel sources and even giving massive funding (and subsequent policies that force automakers to comply with newer regulations) to car companies, but does that translate to the thinking of the average American?
If we were truly environmentally aware, our world would come to a halt. Even relatively innocent looking products such as the keyboard I'm typing on right now came from crude oil. Yes, plastics are a crude oil product - and you very well know how much plastic there is in the world. We are all so caught up in convenience and (some) ignorance regarding how "green" our lifestyles are.
For the average person (even me), deciding to buy a hybrid car doesn't always mean they are trying to be green. It can, and often only means that they want to spend less money at the pump. Sure that's a pessimistic way of looking at things, but we are all guilty in some way or another in perpetuating this ongoing cycle.
It's unfortunate there's not really a solution to all of this.
I was thinking about why people are buying hybrid cars - or in fact not buying hybrid cars. Instead of looking at it in the way of "Hybrid = green", I'm looking at it as in "Hybrid = less gas = less money at the pump." The conventional way of thinking is that people, as a whole, are trying to save the environment and stop using combustible fossil fuels.
Is that true?
I'm not so sure, honestly. Sure the government is thinking that way, trying desperately to cut dependencies on foreign countries for fuel sources and even giving massive funding (and subsequent policies that force automakers to comply with newer regulations) to car companies, but does that translate to the thinking of the average American?
If we were truly environmentally aware, our world would come to a halt. Even relatively innocent looking products such as the keyboard I'm typing on right now came from crude oil. Yes, plastics are a crude oil product - and you very well know how much plastic there is in the world. We are all so caught up in convenience and (some) ignorance regarding how "green" our lifestyles are.
For the average person (even me), deciding to buy a hybrid car doesn't always mean they are trying to be green. It can, and often only means that they want to spend less money at the pump. Sure that's a pessimistic way of looking at things, but we are all guilty in some way or another in perpetuating this ongoing cycle.
It's unfortunate there's not really a solution to all of this.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
High Speed Trains
So I was browsing around and I found something really interesting.
http://io9.com/5413145/super-high-speed-trains-might-be-a-part-of-your-future-holiday-travel-plans
It's a mostly foreign thing right now, with high speed trains overseas that can go much, much faster than any passenger train in the US as of right now. Specifically, Japan is experimenting with the Maglev, a magnetically powered super high speed train that has been clocked at 500 km/h. It's pretty spectacular, as it uses the same kind of technology (albeit on a larger, faster scale) as certain newer roller coasters.
The Japanese Maglev operates on the same principle that you can use magnets to propel something on a track at ridiculous speeds, except that instead of propelling a roller coaster train up an incline, it can power a passenger train for hundreds of miles.
It's a really interesting prospect, something that honestly would be pretty cool. However, for it to become a mainstream reality it once again has to jump over some steep hurdles. First of all, the US rail system would obviously not work for this, and you would need a ton of money (and obvious approval by Congress etc... which is another story altogether) and it would ALSO have to find a way to supply the power.
Magnets by themselves can't produce the type of force required to do this, there has to be a current induced on the magnets to produce the force that will pull on the train. This current must be supplied by electrical power - which varies in "greenness".
http://io9.com/5413145/super-high-speed-trains-might-be-a-part-of-your-future-holiday-travel-plans
It's a mostly foreign thing right now, with high speed trains overseas that can go much, much faster than any passenger train in the US as of right now. Specifically, Japan is experimenting with the Maglev, a magnetically powered super high speed train that has been clocked at 500 km/h. It's pretty spectacular, as it uses the same kind of technology (albeit on a larger, faster scale) as certain newer roller coasters.
The Japanese Maglev operates on the same principle that you can use magnets to propel something on a track at ridiculous speeds, except that instead of propelling a roller coaster train up an incline, it can power a passenger train for hundreds of miles.
It's a really interesting prospect, something that honestly would be pretty cool. However, for it to become a mainstream reality it once again has to jump over some steep hurdles. First of all, the US rail system would obviously not work for this, and you would need a ton of money (and obvious approval by Congress etc... which is another story altogether) and it would ALSO have to find a way to supply the power.
Magnets by themselves can't produce the type of force required to do this, there has to be a current induced on the magnets to produce the force that will pull on the train. This current must be supplied by electrical power - which varies in "greenness".
An Experiment in Hypermiling
So I decided to observe my own driving habits today. Like I mentioned a while back, hypermiling is the technique anyone can use to improve your fuel economy above the normal values, by changing how you drive.
It turns out it's quite difficult, actually. Perhaps the worst part is braking and acceleration as slow as possible. Sometimes, traffic is just too darn unpredictable to really have it be practical. It requires a level of concentration that I personally, have trouble keeping. I drove today from Fort Worth to College Station, enduring one interstate freeway and a state highway.
On the highway, it takes some effort on my part because my car does not have cruise control, for good or bad. So it means it is all up to my foot to decide how consistent my speed is. That is the toughest thing because you tend to gauge your speed on how fast the surrounding cars are going on long trips. It's interesting to see what happens when you ignore your speedometer for a bit and take traffic's speed.
The hardest thing however, is getting off and on the highway. When you get off, you have to find a way to lower your speed, and quickly. It requires discipline and careful timing to get away with minimal braking, especially if there are other drivers around you. And then, all your efforts could just be wasted by some jerk of a driver that decides to cut you off when you have the right of way.
Hard braking is bad, as you can imagine. So I personally think that hypermiling is more practical to some people than others - people who have cruise control, live in a stable traffic areas, and have a mild mannered driving style will get the best results. Otherwise, your efforts to save some gas may come up short.
It turns out it's quite difficult, actually. Perhaps the worst part is braking and acceleration as slow as possible. Sometimes, traffic is just too darn unpredictable to really have it be practical. It requires a level of concentration that I personally, have trouble keeping. I drove today from Fort Worth to College Station, enduring one interstate freeway and a state highway.
On the highway, it takes some effort on my part because my car does not have cruise control, for good or bad. So it means it is all up to my foot to decide how consistent my speed is. That is the toughest thing because you tend to gauge your speed on how fast the surrounding cars are going on long trips. It's interesting to see what happens when you ignore your speedometer for a bit and take traffic's speed.
The hardest thing however, is getting off and on the highway. When you get off, you have to find a way to lower your speed, and quickly. It requires discipline and careful timing to get away with minimal braking, especially if there are other drivers around you. And then, all your efforts could just be wasted by some jerk of a driver that decides to cut you off when you have the right of way.
Hard braking is bad, as you can imagine. So I personally think that hypermiling is more practical to some people than others - people who have cruise control, live in a stable traffic areas, and have a mild mannered driving style will get the best results. Otherwise, your efforts to save some gas may come up short.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Biodiesel - Ups and Downs
Biodiesel.
It sounds particularly nice and amazing and green. Sometimes that's all that's necessary to make a product actually succeed, but in reality biodiesel is definitely not a permanent, end-all solution to environmental safety.
Biodiesel itself is just vegetable oil or animal based fat diesel fuel - making the process of acquiring, at least using conventional wisdom, fairly light on the environment. The comparison is made to fossil fuels - and the truth is that in creating biodiesel, it is must more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.
What people sometimes forget is that creating gasoline from crude oil requires quite a deal of energy - and these processes expel Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. Biodiesel can be better, but only if there is enough effort placed at the production level to reduce these emissions. Those factors include the source of the fuel, as certain sources will produce less environmentally friendly results. If unregulated, it could also lead to deforestation by planting the feedstocks that will become the fuel.
Overall, biodiesel is an acceptable alternative, if, and only if, it is produced properly.
It sounds particularly nice and amazing and green. Sometimes that's all that's necessary to make a product actually succeed, but in reality biodiesel is definitely not a permanent, end-all solution to environmental safety.
Biodiesel itself is just vegetable oil or animal based fat diesel fuel - making the process of acquiring, at least using conventional wisdom, fairly light on the environment. The comparison is made to fossil fuels - and the truth is that in creating biodiesel, it is must more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.
What people sometimes forget is that creating gasoline from crude oil requires quite a deal of energy - and these processes expel Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. Biodiesel can be better, but only if there is enough effort placed at the production level to reduce these emissions. Those factors include the source of the fuel, as certain sources will produce less environmentally friendly results. If unregulated, it could also lead to deforestation by planting the feedstocks that will become the fuel.
Overall, biodiesel is an acceptable alternative, if, and only if, it is produced properly.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Texas and Fuel Economy
"Everything is bigger in Texas."
Perhaps it's because I've lived in Texas for the majority of my life that I can't really speak as to whether or not it's actually true. Anyways, in the respect of fuel economy, bigger usually is worse. So what is this phenomenom that we see then?
"Last year, about 55 percent of the 1 million vehicles sold in Texas were light trucks, an industry term that includes including pickups and many SUVs, according to R.L. Polk & Co. in Southfield, Mich., which tracks new vehicle registrations. Nationwide, light truck sales represented about 48 percent of the 10.5 million vehicles sold, the firm said."
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3260550
According to this article, Texans simply like trucks. Well it makes sense since the entire state has evolved this sub-culture that has arguably kept the truck industry going. While I can't necessarily speak for the entire state, but I'm pretty sure that it's a sign that trucks and SUVs, while looked down upon, are here to stay in some form or another.
The article claims they may go, but that they'll go "kicking and screaming." However it's going to be virtually impossible to be completely rid of large vehicles. There will always be a market for large vehicles for transit purposes, and in order to keep our entire current economic system (which is a mixed economy, which includes capitalism) those same vehicles will be available for purchase in a non-commercial form. That would allow regular people to handle what companies do, allowing for someone with a pickup truck to make some money or start a business.
Aside from that, the commercial market will probably never see the outlawing of large cars, unless they are offered a decent alternative. In fact, that's the case everywhere. No one wants to see anything be completely gone, and the only way they're going to stand for it is if there's a legitimate alternative.
Perhaps it's because I've lived in Texas for the majority of my life that I can't really speak as to whether or not it's actually true. Anyways, in the respect of fuel economy, bigger usually is worse. So what is this phenomenom that we see then?
"Last year, about 55 percent of the 1 million vehicles sold in Texas were light trucks, an industry term that includes including pickups and many SUVs, according to R.L. Polk & Co. in Southfield, Mich., which tracks new vehicle registrations. Nationwide, light truck sales represented about 48 percent of the 10.5 million vehicles sold, the firm said."
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3260550
According to this article, Texans simply like trucks. Well it makes sense since the entire state has evolved this sub-culture that has arguably kept the truck industry going. While I can't necessarily speak for the entire state, but I'm pretty sure that it's a sign that trucks and SUVs, while looked down upon, are here to stay in some form or another.
The article claims they may go, but that they'll go "kicking and screaming." However it's going to be virtually impossible to be completely rid of large vehicles. There will always be a market for large vehicles for transit purposes, and in order to keep our entire current economic system (which is a mixed economy, which includes capitalism) those same vehicles will be available for purchase in a non-commercial form. That would allow regular people to handle what companies do, allowing for someone with a pickup truck to make some money or start a business.
Aside from that, the commercial market will probably never see the outlawing of large cars, unless they are offered a decent alternative. In fact, that's the case everywhere. No one wants to see anything be completely gone, and the only way they're going to stand for it is if there's a legitimate alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
