PDA

View Full Version : MKZ Most Fuel-effficient Luxo sedan in US ...EPA cert at 41 mpg ...



68fastback
06-16-2010, 05:28 PM
2011 LINCOLN MKZ HYBRID IS THE MOST FUEL-EFFICIENT LUXURY SEDAN IN AMERICA


http://media.ford.com/images/10031/11_mkzhyb.jpg
New 2011 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

2011 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid receives EPA certification, making it the most fuel-efficient luxury sedan in America with a certified 41 mpg in city driving and 36 mpg on the highway
2011 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid tops its nearest competitor – the 2010 Lexus HS 250h – in fuel economy (by 6 mpg), engine power, passenger room, standard luxury (leather upholstery and genuine wood) and segment-exclusive safety features
MKZ Hybrid’s SmartGauge™ with EcoGuide cluster coaches drivers to optimum fuel economy and lower emissions with growing leaves and apple blossoms as rewards for efficient driving – within one year, efficient drivers are expected to save nearly 200 gallons of gas and reduce their carbon footprint by almost two tons of CO2
More... (http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32803)

Gr8snkbite
06-16-2010, 11:53 PM
cool

Alloy Dave
06-17-2010, 12:18 AM
41 isn't bad for a big car. I've said it before though....before we can materially affect our dependence on foreign oil, we either need to 1) Get these kinds of cars up over 100 MPG or 2) Have a very high percentage of our cars sold be of this variety.

Let's assume today's "average" car gets 25 mpg. To cut our oil consumption in half, we'd need EVERY car to get 50 mpg. If these hybrids make up only 10-20% of car sales, we'll never get there.

I think we will get there...but we're not making big enough steps yet IMO. Come on hydrogen. :boxing:

68fastback
06-17-2010, 02:14 AM
It will be hard or impossible, imo, to have even modestly decent (average car) performance and safety and get 100 mpg. This would imply a 150% increase in overall efficiency to the wheels. Even if there was zero heat loss and 100% of all energy in gasoline was put to the rear wheels it would still be shy of doable, I think, unless: the weight of cars is dramatically reduced, like by 50-70%, energy recovery is nearly perfect, and people no longer own control the accelerator (managed-destination transportaion) which isn't much like a 'car.' I don't think any of those are going to realistically happen in the next 15-20 years in something folks will 'drive.'

However, the US has considerably more energy in natural gas reserves that all of the OPEC countries have in oil reserves. CNG/LPG IC engines for cars and trucks with nuclear for electric generation (which would also carry all plug-electrics by definition) could easily make the trasition to zero non-domestic energy in 6-10 years, imo, if genuinely made a national priority. Running cars/trucks on CNG/LPG is realtively clean too and well understood (Ford has done it since the 70s) and it's compatible with existing engines and management systems ...and the new nukes are safe.

Even the environmetalists are warming to nukes since it's the only truly large-scale zero-emissions tech. The problem isn't the technology, it's the financial damage that results from existing plant having to change it's write-off assumptions on repalced existing technology. A plant or indistrial process with a 50-year write-down now forced to retire after 10 or 12 or 20 years produces a cost spike that -- whether directly or via government 'incentives' ...or via accelerated write-off tax benefits -- that everyone would have to somehow financially bear. This is the 800# gorilla in the room, imo, that no one wants to talk about. Fast change of large systems is incredibly expensive by it's very business nature and is therefore avoided except to the extent that new technologies are superior (cost/performance/profitability) to existing ...and that's unlikely without clear intent and moon-landing-like priority focus.

Unfortunately, the only sensible change is, by the very definition of modern economic structure, a slow and methodical conversion with plan goals that are understandable upfront and stable over time. Such technologically-valid and logically-planned approaches are the domain of business and are anathema to the entrenched and whorey horse-trading mentality of politicians, not to mention the political lobying by entrenched technologies that feed resistance to change on the short-end of the 'straw' of transition (there's always some 'breakage' when the scale is huge and timeframes are relatively short ...evenif 'short' is 20 years+). If government could engage science on the goals (fraught with political opportunism, etc) and then let the free market economy compete to win on performing the transition (admittedly tis necesarily involves incentives or other 'focus' monies), it might be done relatively affordably, imo, but not on any schedule artificially set by politicians in 'green' conferences who make commitments largely for good photo-ops while being thoroughly oblivious to the core business implications of their fickle never-stable follies.

Changing a technology is like planting the tree you wanted today: tho you didn't do it 20 years ago and therefore don't have it, it's still far better doing it now than not doing it at all ...especially in retrospect 20 years from now. ;-)

The irony, imo, is not to do with the merits of any one technology ...it's to do with the Charlie Tuna political syndrome: a broken legislative process that focusses on tuna with good taste (political opportunism) rather than tuna that tastes good (strategically optimized for the benefit of the country).

Joe G
06-17-2010, 02:49 AM
I still think Dan's "Mr Fusion" power adder will be my first mod.




:shades:

Alloy Dave
06-17-2010, 02:56 AM
It will be hard or impossible, imo, to have even modestly decent (average car) performance and safety and get 100 mpg. This would imply a 150% increase in overall efficiency to the wheels. Even if there was zero heat loss and 100% of all energy in gasoline was put to the rear wheels it would still be shy of doable, I think, unless: the weight of cars is dramatically reduced, like by 50-70%, energy recovery is nearly perfect, and people no longer own control the accelerator (managed-destination transportaion) which isn't much like a 'car.' I don't think any of those are going to realistically happen in the next 15-20 years in something folks will 'drive.'

Unfortunately, the only sensible change is, by the very definition of modern economic structure, a slow and methodical conversion with plan goals that are understandable upfront and stable over time. Such technologically-valid and logically-planned approaches are the domain of business and are anathema to the entrenched and whorey horse-trading mentality of politicians, not to mention the political lobying by entrenched technologies that feed resistance to change on the short-end of the 'straw' of transition (there's always some 'breakage' when the scale is huge and timeframes are relatively short ...evenif 'short' is 20 years+). If government could engage science on the goals (fraught with political opportunism, etc) and then let the free market economy compete to win on performing the transition (admittedly tis necesarily involves incentives or other 'focus' monies), it might be done relatively affordably, imo, but not on any schedule artificially set by politicians in 'green' conferences who make commitments largely for good photo-ops while being thoroughly oblivious to the core business implications of their fickle never-stable follies.

I agree wholly with the bolded quotes Dan, well said. On the first one, I think you're assuming $2.60/gallon gas. If gas goes to $8/gallon, I think SOME people would be willing to drive almost anything. I hope it never comes to that, but fear that it may. All you need is one major war that turns the big oil countries against the rest of the world. It's a sick game now...they need our money, we need their oil. strange bedfellows indeed. The oil in the middle east will not last forever....thus the Dubai Palms and such projects. We may not live to see it, but 60 years from now this will be a different planet.

Very interesting to talk about. Thanks for participating.

I think we can get to 100mpg with battery assist and efficiency. As I've said before, my 1992 Honda Civic HF (High Fuel mileage) got 42 mpg. That was nearly 20 years ago! It had air conditioning (ok, maybe you didn't get 42 while using the A/C :rofl: ), but it was not a spartanic car.

Alloy Dave
06-17-2010, 03:02 AM
By the way Dan, what would you think of, philosophically, having two types of cars. One for "inside the belt" and one for outside? A comfy highway car that could go 75 mph just like todays for long cruises, but inside a city limits you'd operate in a different kind of vehicle that was small, without air bags and all the safety gear, with speeds regulated to no more than say 30 mph. Less need for safety equipment (I know, a 30mph head-on is still like a 60 mph crash), which means less weight, less braking power needed, again less weight, smaller fuel tanks, maybe 2 passenger rather than 4/5, etc. When you arrive at a city on the highway, pull into the parking lot at locations on the belt, trade vehicles, and cruise around in a fleet car.

I know, it's futuristic, but conceptually believable. Kinda Jetson-like.


Another alternative is nuclear powered backpacks with thrusters, single person transport, "as the crow flies" reduced mileage traveled. Fly at heights of maybe 100 feet, watch out for tall buildings. Ok, so maybe this one is 100 years away.

68fastback
06-17-2010, 03:45 AM
I agree wholly with the bolded quotes Dan, well said. On the first one, I think you're assuming $2.60/gallon gas. If gas goes to $8/gallon, I think SOME people would be willing to drive almost anything. I hope it never comes to that, but fear that it may. All you need is one major war that turns the big oil countries against the rest of the world. It's a sick game now...they need our money, we need their oil. strange bedfellows indeed. The oil in the middle east will not last forever....thus the Dubai Palms and such projects. We may not live to see it, but 60 years from now this will be a different planet.

Very interesting to talk about. Thanks for participating.

I think we can get to 100mpg with battery assist and efficiency. As I've said before, my 1992 Honda Civic HF (High Fuel mileage) got 42 mpg. That was nearly 20 years ago! It had air conditioning (ok, maybe you didn't get 42 while using the A/C :rofl: ), but it was not a spartanic car.

The far left's plan is to intentionally drive gas to between $6 and $10/gallon -- really! They see it as the only way to create a [falsely-]competitive space for the technologies they want to see replace existing energy infrastructure. This is just another form of an excessive and cruel tax that will literally cripple those who can least afford it -- rural America. The radical left's opinion is: screw them; let them move to the city or take the bus walk -- really! They're clueless except to their own big-city life-experience. These are not the sensible greens that want to see fuel conservation and new technologies staged in with minimum disruption. The radicals are the Pelosi camp. The ones who want to (literally) restrict toilet paper to three squares/person-day ...really! The ones who drive spikes in trees to injure loggers. The ones who burned down the homes of those in the timber industry they politically disagree with. This is the old Greenpeace who used to ram and sink whaling ships (I don't like whaling either but killing people over it is never justifiable). They are genuine terrorists the liberal media somehow chooses to ignore. Thankfully they are reltively small in number. But there is blend in mentality from those to the $10/gallon-screw-rural-America folks. It's a mob mentality who beleives it's ok to force their opinions on others because they are smart and others are dumb, etc. It's a real sickness to force change this way, imho.


By the way Dan, what would you think of, philosophically, having two types of cars. One for "inside the belt" and one for outside? A comfy highway car that could go 75 mph just like todays for long cruises, but inside a city limits you'd operate in a different kind of vehicle that was small, without air bags and all the safety gear, with speeds regulated to no more than say 30 mph. Less need for safety equipment (I know, a 30mph head-on is still like a 60 mph crash), which means less weight, less braking power needed, again less weight, smaller fuel tanks, maybe 2 passenger rather than 4/5, etc. When you arrive at a city on the highway, pull into the parking lot at locations on the belt, trade vehicles, and cruise around in a fleet car.

I know, it's futuristic, but conceptually believable. Kinda Jetson-like.


Another alternative is nuclear powered backpacks with thrusters, single person transport, "as the crow flies" reduced mileage traveled. Fly at heights of maybe 100 feet, watch out for tall buildings. Ok, so maybe this one is 100 years away.

I think we should let the buyer choose what they want to drive. Yes, make cars more efficient, etc. Possibly some large cities might restrict where you can drive a 'conventional' car making rental electrocs availabe at the inner-city limits, etc. But I'm against forcing anyone to buy anythng they don't want to (or can't afford to, and then having others pay for it) buy.

Expanded ZPV Mass transit in big cities might be the answer with light rail to act as feeders ...much as commuter lines do today but more tightly coupled to the inner city which could be, essentially, a zero-tailpipe emissions zone ...even if just for air-quality considerations. Something like that. There's not simple solution, and even this approach would then make car ownership difficult for city dwellers who also need a car for travel unless there were huge garage areas at the perimeter of the city, etc.

You know, they used to design college campusses right down to the paths. But some 25 yers ago a more enlightened appraoch whereby the building layout was planned but the pedestrian 'network' permitted to evolve defacto in first couple of years, and then paved/fixed based on actual use patterns. Unfortunately, our big cities already exist and any major change impact many people. No easy answers, I'm afraid.