"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
10/27/2016 at 21:45 • Filed to: Questions
1
10|
"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
10/27/2016 at 21:45 • Filed to: Questions | 1
| 10 |
If your car’s dynamic performance became progressively worse as your fuel capacity dropped would you still find that acceptible? What if automakers actually had the vehicle become more efficient as it approached empty? Like your CTS-V is consuming all the fuel it needs for full power then it becomes a 530 hp engine getting 21 mpg average for the next 1/4 tank, drops to 400 hp getting 24 mpg average the next 1/4 of the tank, and finally going to empty as a 290 hp engine returning 28 mpg combined.
Personally, I would actually be ok with that for larger engines. Maybe the drive mode selections could control that aspect of the performance as well so that you end up with something like this for that CTS-V:
Eco-Pro Mode
290 hp (28+ mpg average) for entire tank.
Eco Mode
3/3 tank = 400 hp (24 mpg), 2/3 tank = 290 hp (28 mpg average).
Comfort Mode
3/3 = 530 hp (21 mpg), 2/3 = 400 hp (24 mpg), 1/3 = 290 hp (28 mpg).
Sport Mode
3/3 = 640 hp (18 mpg), 2/3 = 530 hp (21 mpg), 1/3 = 400 hp (24 mpg).
Sport Plus Mode
3/3 = 640 hp (18 mpg), 1/3 = 530 hp (21 mpg).
Track Mode
4/4 = 640 hp (? mpg), 1/4 = 530 hp (21 mpg).
Race Mode
640 hp (? mpg) for entire tank.
And you switch mappings according to the drive mode and where the fuel gauge is. Also the car starts in the last mode you had it in. I’d be down for this since it would be like the larger the engine you buy then you get to drive every lower engine version of the car.
Urambo Tauro
> Wobbles the Mind
10/27/2016 at 21:54 |
|
Hm. While some of us would certainly keep our tanks topped off (despite the slight weight penalty), this would also inspire a lot of drivers to run their tanks as low as possible in the interest of hypermiling.
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> Wobbles the Mind
10/27/2016 at 22:23 |
|
Keep it less drastic, and I’d be OK with it. Basically, if you cut output to account for the weight of the fuel you’d burned off. Be a cool idea. Better average empeegees (slightly, but that’s normal now... eveyone’s grasping at straws), same performance throughout.
bob and john
> Wobbles the Mind
10/27/2016 at 22:26 |
|
that already happens.
when you get to 0, all of your performance is gone :)
Opposite Locksmith
> Wobbles the Mind
10/27/2016 at 22:41 |
|
No I pay a lot for hp
BigBlock440
> Wobbles the Mind
10/27/2016 at 22:44 |
|
My car already has that option, my right foot controls it. Doing it automatically though? No, I’d hate it. Cars these days have all kinds of modes already, just select the one you want as your tank drops.
As to your CTS-V example, to get 21 mpg, you’re already running at reduced hp, probably closer to 150. If you were driving around on 530, you’d be in the single digits.
Noodles
> Wobbles the Mind
10/28/2016 at 00:57 |
|
I like it. There’s a driving mode for everyone. Even the jerk that tells everyone at the gas station that he just got 28 mpg’s in a CTS-V. He’ll tell EVERYONE
NoahthePorscheGuy
> Wobbles the Mind
10/28/2016 at 02:54 |
|
So you’re saying as cell voltage drops...
Probenja
> Wobbles the Mind
10/28/2016 at 07:35 |
|
No, my computer already slows down when it’s below 20%, I don’t want my car to do that if I need to get somewhere fast in an emergency. Though in your example the power in the lowest setting is more than enough so you can live with it, it’s not a terrible idea.
CaptDale - is secretly British
> Wobbles the Mind
10/28/2016 at 16:44 |
|
NO!
SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
> Wobbles the Mind
12/13/2016 at 09:16 |
|
You mean like the one on the right?