Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday April 20 2014, @08:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-exactly-rollin'-coal dept.

Gizmag has an article on a new engine from Toyota:

Toyota has announced the development of two hyper-fuel-efficient small-displacement petrol Atkinson cycle engines: a three-cylinder 1.0-liter and four-cylinder 1.3-liter which will be introduced across the range from next year in 14 different variations. The smaller engine will deliver 78 mpg (US) (33.16 kilometers per liter) in the Toyota Aygo, an improvement of 30 percent. The fuel-efficiency of the one-liter engine in particular is remarkable. The engine it will replace won the One liter category of the International Engine of the Year awards four years in a row from 2007-2010.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Sunday April 20 2014, @08:50PM

    by mhajicek (51) on Sunday April 20 2014, @08:50PM (#33714)

    It doesn't eat carbs?

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 1) by Ken_g6 on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:33PM

      by Ken_g6 (3706) on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:33PM (#33725)

      Nope. Just trans fats.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03 2014, @07:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03 2014, @07:14PM (#39302)

      Our highest priority is to regulate heart rhythms, and we know that your face for many of the German people they were hoping to bring the nuclear facility, japan as we know from a mostly U., casino online [onlinecasi...action.com], [url="http://onlinecasinoaustraliaaction.com/"]cas ino online[/url], :PPP, rival online casinos [bestcasinoclubcom.com], [url="http://bestcasinoclubcom.com/"]rival online casinos[/url], mizrrr,

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:09PM (#33720)

    There's a dozen different cycle engines that are an improvement over the normal 4 cycle engine used everywhere.

    Some of them are nearly a century old. And yet. Nope. You don't see them in production anywhere but prototypes and oneoffs.

    This new engine will end up the same damm way. The status quo is happy the way things are until we make something better their only choice.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:34PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:34PM (#33779) Journal

      You don't see them in production anywhere but prototypes and oneoffs.

      Say what??? [wikipedia.org]
      (linked says currently 22 car makes from Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and Mercedes use Atkinson cycle)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Monday April 21 2014, @03:15AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Monday April 21 2014, @03:15AM (#33825)

        And Mazda did use the Wankle for a while.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 1) by dpp on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:31PM

          by dpp (3579) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:31PM (#35125)

          I've been driving Mazda rotary powered cars for 25yrs, on my 4th one now.

          I'm still driving my 2004 RX8 which is also rotary engine.

          However, 2yrs ago (2012) Mazda discontinued the RX8 and hasn't brought out a new one (yet?!).

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday April 21 2014, @01:57PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 21 2014, @01:57PM (#33954)

        Its all in the addition of one word, "cycle".

        There are Atkinson engines that use an Atkinson cycle resulting in somewhat better fuel economy and much worse figures for power/mass and power/volume. This fits the "prototypes and oneoffs"

        http://gingerybooks.com/atkinson-cycle-engine-vide o.html [gingerybooks.com]

        This classic over one century old engine design was something of a fad in the 90s and 00s in the model engine maker hobby. The original claim is true, for around a century its all been prototypes and one offs. This is hardly the only book or set of plans available.

        A simple "cycle" merely means variable valve timing holds the intake valve open a bit longer during compression at low throttle levels and/or maybe low RPMs and somewhat more advanced engine computers. You could grind a really weird camshaft for a plain old otto cycle engine to make it "aktinson cycle-like" which is sorta kinda what they're doing here. I don't think James Atkinson in the 1880s ever really anticipated a competitor's engine operating in this way.

        Its like the difference between running a Z-80 based computer on a FPGA, vs native "classic" silicon. You'll end up with very similar results each way, especially at a very high level view, although how they operate internally and how they were developed is dramatically different.

        • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Monday April 21 2014, @04:23PM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Monday April 21 2014, @04:23PM (#34025)

          In what way does the Toyota Prius and every other Hybrid car fit under the category "prototypes and oneoffs"

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 21 2014, @05:37PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 21 2014, @05:37PM (#34065)

            Wow man, I don't think a Standard Soylent News automobile analogy is going to cut it this time for obvious reasons.

            How bout an electronics hardware analogy.

            So... a power switch. Controlled by a coil of wire. That's a relay. Uses a little bit of power, to switch a huge amount of power (relatively, anyway) on and off. Been around over a century. Fairly high tech, but stable and not too much has changed recently.

            That is the Atkinson Engine in this analogy. You could build a perfectly operational 1890s Atkinson Engine or a 1890s telegraph relay in a suitably well equipped metalworking hobby shop. I certainly could in my basement. I'd need to buy a car brake hone to use as a cylinder hone to make the engine, but whatever, basically I could do it. Anyone in the past 100+ years could build either. Where the analogy breaks down is no one builds Atkinson Engines other than prototypes and hobbyists, but they still make relays industrially. The engines are mechanically ingenious little things, the crazy little bar linkages and gearing and all that.

            Now a days you've got these solid state relays. A lump of silicon and plastic and an aluminum heatsink and all magical EE incantation like you can squirt a tiny little bit of electrical power in there, and it controls a whomping huge amount of electrical power over there. All silent and high tech and MOSFET transistor-y and optoisolators and stuff. But, fundamentally, its still used in the same "kind of circuit" a relay used to be used in. You put in in series with a power load and it turns it on and off.

            From a high enough perspective the SSR is analogous to taking a COTS otto cycle engine with fuel injection computers and variable valve timing and getting an "atkinson like effect" by programming the engine computer to delay closing the intake valve a bit while compensating with the fuel injection computer and the transmission computer and who knows what else is on the LAN. There's no way, in a production scale, anyone could have shipped something like this until a decade or two ago. Sure they ship millions of engines like this today, but making a portable automotive rated and reliable real time digital fuel injection computer would have been a bit of a trick in 1890, 1950, heck even 1970. From a very high perspective you can say its Atkinson-like because the compression ratio on the compression stroke is ruined but maintained on the expansion stroke (kinda sorta) which gives the same result of higher efficiency and dramatically reduced performance. But its all done with smoke and mirrors and computers and servos, not an Atkinson designed 1890 era multi-bar linkage with differential gearing.

            Maybe another bad analogy is conceptually there's plenty of Diesel engines on the road. None of them built by Rudolf or as per his plans or even vaguely similar in design or operation to his plans other than a vague, "compression ignition of oil" kind of way. You can build a Diesel in your shop as a prototype or experiment exactly, literally off Rudolf's blueprints, exactly as his worked. Nobody sells anything like that today of course. Its all computer controlled and electronic fuel injected and some pretty advanced hydrodynamic modeling of the intake and exhaust designs and COTS glow plugs and electrical systems etc. So its wrong to say you have a genuine 1890 Rudolf Diesel Engine in your new car or to claim anyone makes them today on a commercial scale.

            Maybe another way to describe it is you can own or purchase an 1890's Steinway Grand Piano. Given immense wood and metal working skills you could probably make one in your basement. However... let say you take audio samples on a sound synth of a 1890 Steinway, and stick it in some furniture with a MIDI keyboard. You'd be correct in describing that synth project as having the style, function, and sound of a 1890 Steinway. It is not, however, a 1890 Steinway, and no one in 2014 can manufacture a genuine 1890 Steinway. You could manufacture a 2014 Steinway in the theme of a 1890, but some aspects of the technology don't exist, enviro regulations, elephant ivory for keys, whatever, nobody today is shipping new 1890 Steinways.

            Maybe the root of the confusion is an Atkinson engine was designed by a dude of the same name and has what amounts to an analog computer in it that does some crazy stuff to the P-V indicator graphs compared to an Otto cycle engine. Its not just a marketing name that means approximately nothing like a "Hemi".

            • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:17PM

              by BasilBrush (3994) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:17PM (#34530)

              Well all the car manufacturers that are manufacturing Hybrids believe they are putting Atkinson Cycle engines in them. And you believe they are not. I believe them.

              --
              Hurrah! Quoting works now!
              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:46PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:46PM (#34557)

                No, you're just not reading what I write. I agree, they are putting Atkinson cycle-like or cycle-based engines in. They are just not putting Atkinson engines in. Atkinson engines are and were a commercial failure.

                You can generate the cycle using a pretty cool array of multi-bar linkages and interesting gearing arrangements and strange cams off the original blueprints and designs as provided by Atkinson over a hundred years ago. Its a mechanical nightmare for mass production and long term reliability so no one does that, other than prototypes, one offs, machinists showing off for each other, that type of thing.

                Now a days people generate a similar cycle using a boring old traditional engine with some unusual variable valve timing software loaded into the existing engine computer. Its just a boring VVT engine with unusual firmware load. Pretty boring, visually, compared to an Atkinson analog computer arrangement of mechanical parts. Its the difference between an analog computer made of levers and gears off a century old patent, vs just uploading some engine computer firmware to a more or less COTS engine.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:26PM (#33723)

    Fuel economy can be expressed in two ways: [wikipedia.org]

    1) Units of fuel per fixed distance, generally expressed as liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km), used in some European countries, China, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Canadian law allows for use of either liters per 100 kilometres or miles per imperial gallon.

    2) Units of distance per fixed fuel unit, Miles per gallon (mpg) is commonly used in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (alongside L/100 km). Kilometres per litre (km/L) is more commonly used elsewhere in the Americas, Northern Europe, Asia, parts of Africa and Oceania. When the mpg unit is used, it is necessary to identify the type of gallon used, as the imperial gallon is 4.5 liters and the US gallon is 3.785 liters.

    So the missing measure here is L/100 km, let me get my units...

    $ units '78 mpg' 'L/100km'
            reciprocal conversion
            * 3.0155716

    so 78 mpg equals 3,02 L/100 km. Pretty nice figure.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:21PM (#33749)

      So, is this news like the 4.4l / 100 km VW Polo that has been around for approx. 10 years? Sure seems to be a great improvement after all that time...

    • (Score: 1) by Nammi-namm on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:55PM

      by Nammi-namm (267) on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:55PM (#33761)

      So apparently Toyota's finally taken over the Citroen 2CV [lowtechmagazine.com] in terms of saving petrol. And people claim to be enviromentally friendly driving a Prius which depending on model scores 5.7 L/100km at its best.

      Frankly odd to me still why people would go buy a Prius because of "Save the enviroment!" when both its batteries and the petrol it consumes is more than that Citroën.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @10:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @10:56AM (#33899)

        So apparently Toyota's finally taken over the Citroen 2CV in terms of saving petrol. And people claim to be enviromentally friendly driving a Prius which depending on model scores 5.7 L/100km at its best.

        Frankly odd to me still why people would go buy a Prius because of "Save the enviroment!" when both its batteries and the petrol it consumes is more than that Citroën.

        The 2CV was colloquially known as "deux chevals" ... and performed about the same as them too.

      • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Monday April 21 2014, @04:33PM

        by BasilBrush (3994) on Monday April 21 2014, @04:33PM (#34032)

        The 2CV was like driving a tin can, that rolled in corners, and it couldn't keep up with modern traffic flow. The original that could do 78mpg would get you where you were going at 30mph.

        The Prius gives you a car with modern performance with modern handing and safety.

        More modern 2CVs might be a little more comfortable and performant, but couldn't come near to competing with a Prius for economy of fuel.

        --
        Hurrah! Quoting works now!
        • (Score: 1) by NickM on Monday April 21 2014, @07:28PM

          by NickM (2867) on Monday April 21 2014, @07:28PM (#34112) Journal
          But you could fill it with anything between prenium gasoline to palm oil, coconut oil and barely filtered deep fryer oil. Name me a modern car so versatile with regard to it's fuel...
          --
          I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:49PM

          by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:49PM (#34515)

          The Prius performs like a Hyundai but with a significantly higher cost of ownership.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:21PM

            by BasilBrush (3994) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:21PM (#34532)

            Hyundai what? The Hyundai Sonata is more expensive and has lower mpg.

            --
            Hurrah! Quoting works now!
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:24PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:24PM (#33775) Homepage
      > 3.02 L/100km

      A diesel Clio can get 2.7L/100km. What makes this inferior engine "hyper-fuel-efficient"? Have people who work in marketting been handing out names again, rather than killing themselves?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday April 21 2014, @01:59AM

        by evilviper (1760) on Monday April 21 2014, @01:59AM (#33810) Homepage Journal

        A diesel Clio can get 2.7L/100km.

        Diesel is an entirely different fuel, with higher fuel density. Comparing it to gasoline by volume alone, is almost as ridiculous as comparing it to water.

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 21 2014, @12:07PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 21 2014, @12:07PM (#33913) Homepage
          Now feel free to address the question. Why is this inferior inefficient fuel being called "hyper" efficient?
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday April 21 2014, @01:13PM

            by evilviper (1760) on Monday April 21 2014, @01:13PM (#33937) Homepage Journal

            I did. It is. You're utterly wrong.

            --
            Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 21 2014, @10:16PM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 21 2014, @10:16PM (#34173) Homepage
              So you're saying it's not called "hyper" efficient? The story contradicts you on that.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @02:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @02:05AM (#33815)

        > A diesel Clio can get 2.7L/100km. What makes this inferior engine "hyper-fuel-efficient"?

        (A) You did your math wrong, you used UK gallons, not US gallons. The Clio gets 3.2L/100km. [ultimatespecs.com]

        (B) When cars in the ~45mpg (5L/100km) range are regularly referred to as "fuel-efficient" both the toyota and the renault qualify as "hyper fuel-efficient."

    • (Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Monday April 21 2014, @01:19AM

      by starcraftsicko (2821) on Monday April 21 2014, @01:19AM (#33795) Journal

      xkcd link: [link] [xkcd.com]

      --
      This post was created with recycled electrons.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by citizenr on Monday April 21 2014, @01:32AM

      by citizenr (2737) on Monday April 21 2014, @01:32AM (#33798)

      3l/100km is coincidently same consumption as offered by VW for more than 5 years now

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_ 3L [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 1) by umafuckitt on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:31PM

    by umafuckitt (20) on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:31PM (#33724)

    Assuming you don't hammer the accelerator, you can get MPG figures like that in real-world conditions with a modern diesel [fuelly.com].

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by carguy on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:44PM

      by carguy (568) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:44PM (#33732)

      > ...you can get MPG figures like that in real-world conditions with a modern diesel.

      Which is not surprising, since the article ends with:
      "The larger 1.3-liter Atkinson cycle engine uses a high compression ratio (13.5) and all the same engine innovations to achieve thermal efficiency of 38 percent. ..."
      Getting close to Diesel range, because Atkinson cycle reduces throttling losses, same as Diesel.

      My question is, will Toyota bring this to the USA?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by umafuckitt on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:04PM

        by umafuckitt (20) on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:04PM (#33741)

        My question is, will Toyota bring this to the USA?

        Indeed that is the question. If they there's a market for it, then you'd hope they would. Looking around my area, though, it seems that most people prefer their cars to be physically large and with large engines to match. These little 50 bhp cars ain't cool around here, which is a pity.

        • (Score: 1) by black6host on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:19PM

          by black6host (3827) on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:19PM (#33747) Journal

          I expect this will change over time. When we *have* to due to rising fuel prices, government mandate or some other equally compelling reason, and not a day before.

          I'd also say that big oil has a vested interest in keeping these types of advancements off the road. They don't just lobby the government, they do all they can to sway public perceptions, and desires, as well.

          One day, though, none of that will be enough. The pain of not changing will have reached a point where it would be greater than changing.

          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:42PM

            by edIII (791) on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:42PM (#33755)

            Big Oil doesn't fucking get it though.

            I can't afford my big huge honking truck anymore with the 42/gallon. Not since the economy crashed and is on fire. Even with an 18 gallon tank now I can't afford $70-$90 per tank prices.

            The real number you have to work with is what the average American could afford ignoring the support of credit lines. That number is most certainly not above $500 per month realistically for most people. If you are near minimum wage that's insanity.

            The obvious answer is people drive less. My parents don't go anywhere anymore. They used to spend at least a few days a week going out, getting something to eat, seeing a movie, etc. I think that is pretty normal for a lot of people dealing with the after affects of America having nearly everything stolen by Wall Street that wasn't nailed down.

            I don't go anywhere anymore either. In the past I might take a weekend off and drive over to another state, or to a friend's house. Not anymore. It costs too much. My last trip I ended up flying instead of driving because sending my fat ass up in a metal tube with huge jet engines guzzling down fuel was somehow cheaper than me driving 8 hours round trip on the ground.

            It's killing the economy and holding back attempts at economic recovery.

            That's what Big Oil just doesn't understand. Their current revenue is entirely unsustainable and if it weren't for the credit lines we would have had our transportation infrastructure crash completely.

            So if it simply must remain at $5/gallon then either we drive less which hurts the economy, or we make a gallon of gas go 5 times as far.

            That's their only choices. This constant growth model derived from toxic corporate culture has this insane 5 year old child fantasy land mentality that consumers have wallets full of money that grow on trees. Asking them to match the price increases to inflation is offensive and they look at you funny still believing like ESPN that somehow an American can end up spending 117% of the monthly paycheck on a single entertainment expense.

            The market has a set limit you stupid fuckers, and you've been running Americans in the red now for far too long.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:05PM

              by tathra (3367) on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:05PM (#33765)

              That's what Big Oil just doesn't understand.

              no, i'm sure they understand, they just dont care. why should they? even if all the oil runs out tomorrow, the current oil executives no doubt have golden parachutes ready to go to save their own asses while everyone else suffers in the collapse. in today's "maximize short-term profits over everything" economy, nobody gives a fuck about whats going to happen tomorrow.

              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:13PM

                by edIII (791) on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:13PM (#33770)

                It's amazing how smart we are that we can calculate when our galaxy will start merging with another, but we are so fucking stupid that we allow ourselves to dig our own graves doing it.

                We are just getting to the really interesting questions right now.

                Those greedy bastards are holding us back from the stars. Literally.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 21 2014, @03:09PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 21 2014, @03:09PM (#34003)

                I describe this mentality as "MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MINE MINE MINE MINE NOW NOW NOW NOW!"

                The American Dream pretty much distills down to "give me all your money and go die in a fire" for sufficiently large business owners, it would seem.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by umafuckitt on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:46PM

              by umafuckitt (20) on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:46PM (#33780)

              The market has a set limit you stupid fuckers, and you've been running Americans in the red now for far too long.

              And the problem is that this isn't being dealt with by the government. Neither side is prepared to regulate Wall Street because that would hurt the "wealth creators"; i.e. the people who fund political parties. IMO, the only real way to start digging ourselves out of this mess is to ban all "donations" to political parties and all tit-for-tat lobbying activity. Of course that's not going to happen because doing it would violate "freedom of speech." It's very depressing that the constitution is being used to justify the ever-decreasing influence of most of the electorate.

              • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Monday April 21 2014, @04:40PM

                by BasilBrush (3994) on Monday April 21 2014, @04:40PM (#34035)

                Who accepts that money is a form of speech? It's wrong by definition. Though of course that won't stop big business and politicians claiming it's the case.

                --
                Hurrah! Quoting works now!
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @03:42AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @03:42AM (#33836)

              It ain't big oil's fault that cheap oil is becoming harder to get.

              What you are experiencing is similar to what a tropical rainforest would experience if sunlight gradually became less plentiful and available.

              Stuff dying off or becoming more efficient- fewer crazy birds with fancy feathers. Things switching from sunlight as being a source of energy. Compare a tropical rainforest, a temperate forest and a tundra.

              We've been burning off millions of years of stored sunlight for energy. Going from stored sunlight to "renewables" would hurt a fair bit.

              See this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg [youtube.com]
              It may be wrong about a few things but it does give a reasonable perspective about the problem.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @02:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @02:32PM (#33982)

              Asking them to match the price increases to inflation is offensive and they look at you funny still believing like ESPN that somehow an American can end up spending 117% of the monthly paycheck on a single entertainment expense.

              For the 90s fuel prices were actually quite well bellow inflation. I have been watching a lot of 60s/70s police procedural shows. They are always chasing someone thru downtown LA. I love watching this slice of history. Gas prices ~48 cents. Car prices ~2300. Coffee ~5-25 cents. Take all those numbers by 10. Notice they are almost exactly what they are now. Wages mostly kept up too.

              What we have now is the option though to buy a car that can get 35-60mpg. Back then I could buy a car that MAYBE got 10 if I was real careful with it.

              What happened though is a huge slice of our economy boxed it up and moved. They move to where you could pay a guy 10 bucks a week and bribe the local official to look the other way about that toxic spill. Ross Perot called it the large sucking sound. Our president and congress called it NAFTA. So now instead of the base of workers being able to keep up. You have a larger group who have nothing but assistance checks. Clinton and Gingrich sold our country out then made it look good on paper with 'cheap loans!' and a 'balanced budget' which was nothing more than using the SS 'lock box'. Then Bush started 2 unfunded wars, then Obama continued the Clinton doctrine with the same expected results.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:57PM (#33762)

      ...or even years ago.
      That number stuck in my head.
      Volkswagen Lupo [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]

      The 235MPG concept car would have been interesting (for Granny to go grocery shopping--but forget merging with freeway traffic).

      -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday April 21 2014, @02:01AM

      by evilviper (1760) on Monday April 21 2014, @02:01AM (#33812) Homepage Journal

      you can get MPG figures like that in real-world conditions with a modern diesel.

      Diesel is an entirely different fuel, with higher fuel density. Comparing it to gasoline by volume alone, is almost as ridiculous as comparing it to water.

      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Monday April 21 2014, @03:34AM

        by umafuckitt (20) on Monday April 21 2014, @03:34AM (#33834)

        It depends why the comparison is being drawn. If you're looking at it from a practical perspective as an end-user it's a totally reasonable comparison.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by evilviper on Monday April 21 2014, @03:42AM

          by evilviper (1760) on Monday April 21 2014, @03:42AM (#33837) Homepage Journal

          If you're looking at it from a practical perspective as an end-user it's a totally reasonable comparison.

          No, as an end-user I'd compare the PRICE of buying running each of the engines. NEVER the VOLUME of each different type of fuel. And diesel fuel is indeed considerably more expensive than gasoline around here.

          I've never heard of something like natural gas and propane burning appliances compared on terms of the volume of fuel each needs... People want to know the price difference.

          --
          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
          • (Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Monday April 21 2014, @01:28PM

            by umafuckitt (20) on Monday April 21 2014, @01:28PM (#33942)

            Yes, exactly, I'd compare price too. If I was after a large car, a wagon that does over 50 MPG would be high on my list. In a lot of places in Europe diesel is either cheaper than petrol or it's not much more expensive (http://www.drive-alive.co.uk/fuel_prices_europe.h tml).

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by juggs on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:17PM

    by juggs (63) on Sunday April 20 2014, @10:17PM (#33746) Journal

    I've not been able to find any definitive literature on Toyota's engine - anyone know if it genuinely is an Atkinson cycle engine with offset by levers conrod to crank connection etc. or whether it is an Otto cycle engine made to behave somewhat ~like~ an Atkinson cycle engine by holding the inlet valve open some way into what would otherwise be the compression stroke?

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Fnord666 on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:17PM

      by Fnord666 (652) on Sunday April 20 2014, @11:17PM (#33773) Homepage
      It is a true Atkinson cycle engine, but it uses variable valve timing rather than levers. Essentially they do not close the intake valve at bdc but leave it open s bit longer, allowing some of the intake gasses to be pushed back into the intake. This reduces the charge in the cylinder during compression. Toyota has used an Atkinson cycle engine in the Prius for s number of years. This is just an attempt to use it as a primary drive engine rather than as part of a hybrid system.
      • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday April 21 2014, @09:05AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Monday April 21 2014, @09:05AM (#33886)

        I'm somewhat surprised they are even bothering with non-hybrid versions. I can only assume it is for the western market, because in Japan last year 9 of the top 10 best selling vehicles were hybrids. Toyota has stated they wanted to have hybrid versions of every model by 2020, and the price gap between hybrid and non-hybrid is quite narrow now (especially when you consider long term costs).

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    • (Score: 1) by MostCynical on Monday April 21 2014, @10:28PM

      by MostCynical (2589) on Monday April 21 2014, @10:28PM (#34183) Journal

      The toyota engine is *not* an Atkinson cycle engine. It does not have two cranks.
      It is a modified Otto cycle engine.
      http://engineeringworkarounds.blogspot.com.au/2011 /09/atkinson-cycle-nice-marketing-strategy.html [blogspot.com.au]

      The valve timing is modified to delay the intake valve closing.Thus increases the apparent expansion capacity. The valve closes just before ignition. Effective compression ratio is increased, but power is reduced.
      In normal cars, this is called 'blowback', and is BAD.
      in supercharged engines, with precise valve timing and spcially built superchargers, it is a 'good thing' for efficiency - but the engines only run well betweem 2500 and 4000 RPM - so only good for running in hybrids.

      It is a shame they didn't call it the "Shojii Cycle" (or whatever the engineer's name is)

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
  • (Score: 1) by rickatech on Monday April 21 2014, @03:19AM

    by rickatech (4150) on Monday April 21 2014, @03:19AM (#33826)

    My 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid has this type of engine, still getting great mileage for such a utility oriented vehicle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle [wikipedia.org]