OK, I'll take your word for it but if going rich was based on throttle position alone, wouldn't the engine be too lean under low rpm situations? If you leave a car in fifth gear while climbing a hill, the low rpm can mean a high percentage of cylinder fill even though the throttle is not open very far.
I would think that the open loop switch over point would or should be engine rpm dependent.
Uh... you have it backwards. Under the scenario you're talking about here, the engine has a better chance of going rich instead of leaning out.
In any case, real time fuel trim is managed by the computer looking at the oxygen sensor(s) that's downstream of the engine. Base fuelling is handled by the pre-programmed fuel map; if anything, it's set to be on the lean side because of CAFE and enviro regs.
Switching to open loop based on engine RPM would be kind of dumb. "Oh, you're at 1800 RPM, let's go full rich!" Ooops, too bad you were just sitting in slightly moving traffic and you just fouled your plugs.
I'm not talking about new cars at all. That's part of the problem, people buying cars they can't afford so $4 a gallon gas hurts them. I bought a used Honda a few years ago. Paid 5k for it, ran like a top from the day I got it all the way to 250k miles when I hit Bambi and the insurance company totaled it. Got 38mpg on the hwy. What some need to say is "I can't continue living beyond my means with $4 gas"
Neither was I. Let's look at some math, shall we? Yes, math!
1995 Honda Civic CX (cheapest version):
Acquisition cost: $2,779 (per KBB) plus taxes, so $2953.
Insurance upcharge: $250 per year on average (Civics and other small cars cost MORE to insure as they are in a higher risk class.)
Fuel cost per year, per fueleconomy.gov: $1800
Cost, first year: $5003.
Compare to 2004 Suburban:
Acquisition cost: $0.
Insurance upcharge: $0
Fuel cost per year: $4,050
Cost, first year: $4050.
First year 'savings' by buying a Honda: -$953.
This doesn't even get into the price of renting a larger vehicle a number of times a year to move stuff they could in the Suburban that they can't in the Honda. And I've said nothing about how (un)safe some of those older fuel efficient cars were yet.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y4yIjT83kA"]Honda Civic old model crash test (DEATH TRAP) - YouTube[/ame]
Not to mention the repairs it will inevitably need in short order as it's a much older car. As it is, assuming the Honda needs nothing at all (ha!), they don't need to move anything and therefore don't have to rent something, it will still take two years to break even on the purchase. If it needs a transmission overhaul (not uncommon), that break-even point moves much further out; Honda transmission overhauls run $2-3000 these days.
Before you say that they should be looking at a newer car than that: A newer Civic would be even worse, as it would be quite a lot more expensive. This is the worst case scenario, too - it's even less favorable to the Civic if the SUV is something more efficient than a Suburban.
In what universe does this even remotely make financial sense to purchase a 'new' used vehicle when the old one is paid off, still working and well within its projected/average 10 year life expectancy? What you propose is
not a viable alternative for many.
I wonder if there are going to be more low cc bikes to combat high prices so I visited the local Suz-Kawa dealer yesterday. Nope. The only small street legal bike was a KLX250 (I want it) and a DR650 and KLR650 (want them too). The rest were monster bikes like the Vulcan 1700cc. Seems these guys would have a TU250 or two but they didn't. It tells me that America still does not want these little tools. The showroom was empty of customers but it was raining.
Honda is bringing the NC700 series over, and owners report getting 67+mpg out of those.
I have never understood SUVs for city folks. If you need to carry a lot of people or gear, mimvans get a ton better mpg. With the seats out they can ferry your cycle also. But it ain't cool and it is a free country.
The Dodge Caravan gets 23-24 highway with the 3.8 and it has plenty of go. The 4 probably does much better.
The four actually got about the same as the V6, which is why you haven't been able to get a four-banger Caravan in a long time.
Per Fueleconomy.gov, the current Caravan gets 17/25 on the EPA test. The Nissan Juke SUV gets 27/32 with a slushbox, the Jeep Patriot SUV gets 23/29, etc., etc.
Also, neither of the bikes I own will fit in a minivan. Not without removing major components like
wheels.