Do new cars really get better mileage?
 

Ok there are some real standouts.

And in general in town fe has gone up some.

But a lot of car really old cars got some pretty good fe.

I used to drive a 1979 Ford F150 with a 351 Automatic.

It had good power and towing ability and got 12.5 mpg with mosly intown driving.

My wife drives a 2000 Expedition and on the weeks that it never sees the freeway it averages 13.5 mpg. It has a lot fewer miles on it than my old truck had. So fuel injection, overdrive and 8 coil ignition and all it gets is 1 mpg better.

I thought it was interesting.


I had a Pont T1000 (chevette) back in 81. It you drove it real easy it would get 38 in town. It got a little less on the highway, I guess because of 3.73 gear and no overdrive.

a Chevy Vega would get 30+ on the highway if it was running good.

My 66 oldsmobile would get 21 on the highway running 65 to 70.

Which is about the same as my 2004 crown vic.

I guess I am a little amazed at the lack of progress in FE.

Cars are a lot faster!!!

Just a little venting. What older cars do you guys remember that got good mileage?

I had a Fiat 131 and it ran good but it did not get very good FE.

see the links below

https://www.adclassix.com/ads2/76datsunb210.htm


https://datsun1200.com/modules/myalbu...o.php?lid=1661

There were a lot of really FE cars up to about 10 years ago.

Remember when the CRX cam out.

The new CRX was basically the Civic chassis under a sporty body. Two models were offered: the base CRX and the CRX 1.5. The chief difference between the two was that the base CRX had a 1.3-liter engine (which allowed the car to score amazing fuel economy ratings of 51 in the city and on the 67 highway) and the CRX 1.5 had the 1.5-liter engine. All CRXs had a two-tone paint scheme, comprised of White, Blue or Red with a Silver lower bodyside and bumper treatment.

Now I really fear Manufacturers do not want to give you a super high mileage choice that is cheap they would rather move you to an expensive hybrid.

It seams you will have to spend money to save it.

What do you guys think?

A Datsun B210 would get better mileage than a new Kia or Hyndai or Fit or Aveo?

or what the OEM's want to believe the customers are demanding because it's more cost effective for them to rehash the old "What wins on Sunday , sells on Monday" adage . We *need* more FE competitions on Sundays ....

as an owner of a 1980 chevette i get about 32 mpg but i drive mostly highway and use E10 fuel. whats interesting is that the chevette was designed for 55mph. meaning it would handle be quiet and get excelent gas milleage at 55mph. which i must say it does.

i have also wondered well econo cars have been around since the first cars were made. (some cars of the 20's could get 25mpg or sometimes better) but yea i still wonder why and how chevy screwed up the aveo so bad. its smaller than a chevette, smaller engine, way lighter (plastic galore and fwd) so how the hell does it get less than a chevette?!?!? i agree that thier trying to market small cars with alot of oompf unlike the chevette which only has 70 hp @5200 rpm, and only 82 ft lbs of torque @ 2400...but hey it gets me from point A to point B on once piece, comforitable ride and 4 6'0 adults can ride comforitably in it:D :thumbup: which is somehting i cant say for some of todays econo cars:mad:

Your 80 Chevette would have no hope of meeting any of todays standards. I agree with theclencher we have gone towards performance.

If you want to have some fun compare the weights of todays cars to yersteryear. You'll be shocked. Geo 2dr weighed 1650, Aveo which is a 5dr. weighs in at 2343! You can't add that kind of weight with out it adversaly affectiing MPG. It claims it has the best frontal impact rating in it's class. I've always thought you should avoid those!!! lOl

Lets compare the chevette to my 2000 merc sable
My car weighs 3600 pounds has 200 hp has way more interior space, and is capable of over 30 mpg hwy. even in the hands of a non GS type driver.

so in that comparison you can see some improvement in the newer cars I think.

For older cars that got great mpg its hard to beat the old VW rabbit diesel.

My 1969 SAAB got 30 mpg ,in town, on regular leaded . It had a Ford V4 and 3 on the tree! It also had a wierd switched clutch that would allow shifting without depressing the pedal . It could hold many 16's in the trunk too LOL

Many efficiency gains will give you either power + acceleration OR fuel economy, depending on how the car is set up and how you drive it. Improved ignition + fuel injection and aerodynamics are examples.

However we want to drive 70-75 mph instead of 50-60, and we want rapid acceleration too. My '89 Volvo has a 2.3 l engine, 115 hp, weighs 3000 lb. You can't sell a car like that today; it would have a 175-200 hp engine. And many smaller cars now weigh 2600-3000 lb whereas old gas sippers often were closer to 2000 lb. And the big vehicles? Probably 4000-5000 lb.

So that's where we're using efficiency gains: heavier cars that accelerate faster with more powerful engines. And gearing to support that. They're not geared for FE because people expect a kick in the butt when they step on the gas.

Not to mention four wheel drive which so many people think they need + want. All that extra rotating mass and gearing has a FE hit.

One area that stands out with the newer cars is the amounts of pollutants coming from the tailpipes.

There are BIG differences between 1980 and 2008 for HC, CO and NoX.

Heck...there have been people that have tried to kill themselves by shutting the garage door and running the engine recently and just gotten a headache. ;)

The fact of the matter is that better fuel efficiency costs money to those producing the car. Until there is a public outcry demanding such vehicles, business will continue as usual. Yeah, there are more choices now if you're willing to compromise and drive a micro/mini car, but for those who prefer a larger vehicle, you're going to get roughly the same mileage you did 30 years ago. Demand has been maintained for cars getting 25 MPG, and as the old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Spence

Actually, I would say better FE at the current and future EPA emissions regs is what really costs quite a bit. If you didn't care as much about pollution, it is a lot easier to get more mpg from a given car...not to mention you would have less weight and complexity.

There is much more technology required to get X size car to improve its efficiency by Y amount. The reason the Hybrid didn't catch on as quickly with the domestic auto makers is because its very difficult to get a whole lot more sales dollars for a car that gets 50 MPG over a car that gets 30 MPG even though there needs to be many more controls, lighter weight, and more advanced materials to accomplish such a task. As was mentioned, you can get high efficiency out of a car that usually gets lower efficiency, but you'll have to drive like a grandma and will be potentially polluting more in the process. The average American isn't willing to compromise their comfort or the way they travel in trade for better gas mileage...therefore the car companies need to make the vehicle "fit"...this is what costs money. Even if it's only an extra $1000 they have to spend on the vehicle, its going to cut directly into the bottom line. I'm not defending any car company here...I think they're scum (and I work for them). I just want to suggest that it is possibly as much a problem with the "consumer" as it is with the "supplier".

Spence

Why are emissions lower? It has nothing to do with actually improving combustion, but rather the addition of 'patches' or external add-ons. I find that sad. It's also the same reason that I'm against hybrids. Why add something when you can put the R&D into fixing the problem at its source.

More power is cheaper on their end. We just foot the bill for the increase in fuel consumption.

Why is there a Dodge truck with a Viper engine in it? A diesel would be what you'd want to get sh*t done on the job site. Oh wait, the owner will never use it as anything more than a means transportation.

duh the dodge with viper engine cant tow or haul worth a crap. (my s-10 could out tow and haul it prolly)

but yea emissions improvements have been HUGE over the last 30 years. when my chevette is running and the wind is just right it will blow the exhaust into the window and ill get lightheaded in a matter of minutes. now one time in my auto mech class we started a newer car and wafted the exhaust and it didnt smell at all! smelled like steam...

but the reason why cars are heavier nowadays is all this safety BS. they have to stand up to front side rear cornner impacts otherwise thier conisdered not up to USA's standards. instead of spending a tiny bit of money to require a more rigerous driving test and higher fees to get your license (in germany its near $200usd just to get a license, here its $20) thats why alot of small cars arent imported from europe cuz they dont match up to our standards, but europe has alot stricter/tougher/costlier tests and requirements to drive.

yea front impacts your supposed to try to avoid but being in dee dee dee america with all these retarded drivers they would swerve at you instead of away...

if any of you do find yourself in a situation where a head on crash looks imminant swerve off the damn road if it looks somewhat safe, a cracked headlight/bumper/fender is alot easier to fix than a cracked skull. ive had to go off a ditch into someones front yard to avoid hitting a drunk driver head on. no damage to either party and obviously im here today, wish i woulda got the license plate of the guy...

Emissions are not just lower due to patches. Fuel injection with O2 sensors and feedback loops does a lot to reduce emissions. The cat just gets the last little bit.

A car with a carb sitting in the driveway emits more HC than my car does driving to work and back...

What does being a hybrid have to do with patching a problem? I'm not following, sorry!

All good points above.

I see it as a matter of what are you / we willing to give up?
I'm not willing to give up near-zero emissions.
I'm not willing to give up safety -
However I don't think safety requires a 4000+ lb. 4wd vehicle.
(3X I've been rear-ended in a rwd Volvo and NOT needed any body work!)

Personally I'm willing to give up some acceleration and power.
Personally I'm willing to give up some road speed (50-60 average is OK for me).

Some people in the US are already learning to conserve gas.
But we need a lot of education to get the changes we need. People have the most amazing concepts on why they can or should keep their driving habits as they are.

Example: I'm always talking FE with my family but my son (22) idles his car a lot. Complains of FE around 27-28 mpg but still idles the car. Huhh???

Example: MY wife still thinks its unsafe to coast in neutral with auto-trans. I have no idea why. Something about needing to apply speed immediately to get away from something.

Hmm. Are there flying monkeys in your neighborhood? That would explain it. :-)

It is difficult (if not impossible) to get a mechanical carburetor to adjust to driving and environmental conditions the way that either an electronically controlled carburetor or fuel injection system can. Case in point are the various sensors on a modern car (ie. air temp, coolant temp, O2, etc).

Certainly add-ons such as an air-injection pump and catalytic converters produce their own inefficiencies in FE, but improved air quality is sometimes difficult to argue. Case in point, my wife is from Ukraine, and when visiting there or in Russia, it is a HUGE difference in air quality on the roads when compared to the US--almost entirely due to pollution controls.


What problem source are you speaking of?

I was wondering that too...perhaps pterodactyls?? :D ;)

I can't remember the name of the comedian...but he had a worthy suggestion to make the roads a bit safer:

1) Remove all driver airbags,
2) Install a spear that shoots from the center of the steering wheel in the event of a frontal impact.

This would tend to make people a BIT more concerned about what is going on in front of them, and perhaps even make the slow down. :rolleyes:

No, knowing "people" it would make people hurl themselves to the side any time they got close to a wreck, causing far MORE wrecks. :-)

OK, you guys have a point, carbs aren't nearly as dynamic as EFI.

IMO, hybrids are a patch. You've got the same inefficient engine, yet you've added a bunch of weight and more parts that will fail. SVOboy, you're always bringing up the environment aspect. Hybrids burn gasoline the same way other otto cycles do, they just do it slightly less often.

I'd be just fine with it if they improved the ICE first.

On a note related to the 'airbag' thing, I've been looking at insurance quotes and it ticks me off that I'd get a discount if my truck had ABS. Whatever happened to knowing how to drive? How come bad drivers get discounts for owning a vehicle that has to help them not suck?

Hybrids do burn gasoline, but they're a step away from gas and toward electric, which is why I like them. So I'd call them a partial replacement or something, but I don't think the term really matters. What improvements would you like done to the ICE? I'm not much into engineering, so I don't know that side of things.

Does your insurance company not have good driving discounts? I was told that if I ever got a speeding ticket it would add about 200 bucks a year to my premium, :), but I'm on state farm...Iono how others do it.

(begin of rant)

Oh...I just *love* the new stupid a$$ Volvo commercials...showing three idiots in various situations that the car *saves* them from their incompetence.

1st one I saw...a couple are going out on a nighttime speed across town...for ice cream...and the guy is too busy chatting with the woman to notice a large truck in his path...almost the only vehicle in the road...so the car beeps at him and he immediately swerves to the LEFT to avoid the truck. Gee thanks! Glad nobody was coming!!!

2nd one: a guy is absently mindely driving on the interstate, instead of paying attention to all the vehicles around him, and is saved at the last moment by the mirror beeping/blinking to indicate a vehicle/motorcycle to his right rear.

3rd one: a woman is driving to work, and notices that her papers are sliding off the passenger seat...so (of course) she bends over and below the dashboard to retrieve the precious papers (that could have easily stayed there until she got to work) and is saved at the last moment by the car (I guess not wanting to die for her lack of a brain) beeps and blinks at her and she just applies the brakes for a safe and relieved stop.

ARRRRRRGGGGHHHH! (end of rant)

sigh i know! cars shouldnt be smarter than the people who drive them!

and the guy with the volvo whos been rear ended, thats because back then we had steel bumpers to cause no damage at 5-10 mph impacts!(anyone remmber the dodge omni or plymoth horizon that had the spring loaded bumpers? BRING THOSE BACK) nowadays a HUGE plastic bumper that paint chips off, gets cracked and the cheap flimsey metal part behind it gets mangled to hell, and is all held together by cheapo plastic clips that break the clips or mounitng holes every little nudge. not to mention all the foam support!

id rather have my steel bumpered steel body pannel car and truck anyday of the week than a plastic bubble mobile that if a guy nudges me in a parking lot causes $1000 in damage!

and insurance if your under 25 and male your essentially paying for somehting that you MIGHT do. yet if your a woman its instantly cheaper cuz women are such great drivers and never get into accdents....

and yea its a pita to get a carb tuned for optimum emmisions/mpg... i have to change mine 4 times a year...

I can't remember the comedian either, I want to say it was George Carlin but I'm not sure.
A less evil solution would be to fill the airbag with feces. A warning on the steering wheel could read: Warning: This vehicle is equipped with a DSCB (Driver's Side Crap Bag). So, pay attention a$$hole.

I like that! :-)

VetteOwner -

The one thing I remember is that in the 1970's, when we had smog alerts in LA, your lungs would burn (this was near the beach). Today, I never have that experience, even though I live inland and there are way more cars today. You can't know how much emissions standards have helped unless you lived in LA in the old days.

And remove the requirement for US cars to be crash safe at 35 MPH WITHOUT a seat belt. No seat belt, no safety!

That makes sense. Don't copy the idiots in the movies who run away from a train by running ON THE TRAIN TRACKS.

CarloSW2

I'd like to see ICE's produce more work per given amount of fuel. So much fuel goes to cooling the cylinder rather than power. Also, the exhaust valves open before much of the mixture has had time to burn. That's where a good portion of your pollution comes from. That's assuming we continue with the Otto cycle. Why not implement the Bourke engine and have tons of torque at low rpm while sipping fuel. Plus, a good Bourke engine will run on just about any fuel you put in it.

I've never had a speeding ticket, and up until February of this year I hadn't ever received a ticket. That changed when I was turning around on a residential road and got hit by a woman who wasn't paying attention. The woman officer didn't really ask many questions when she showed up 45min later, but was kind enough to give me a ticket. Within the next couple days, I was on my way back from picking up parts to fix the front of my truck when I got pulled over. The accident had broken the header panel that all of the lights bolt to on the front end. Since it was 3pm, skies were clear, and I had the replacement parts sitting next to me, I figured he'd understand why I didn't have headlights. Nope, he didn't care. 2 tickets in less than a week.

Matt

Dang...and I thought I lived in a backwards state (NC)...but here headlights are not even required unless it is 1 hour before sunrise, 1 hour after sunset, or you have your wipers running (rain). I know I would fight that one tooth and nail!

yup
in IL your lights must be on in adverse weather(anyhtign but sunny and cloudy) so if its foggy and someone pulls out in front of you and your lights were not on you would get the ticket if you hit them. thats what the IL laws are about, usually only in effect when your in an acident. they most likely will not pull you over for it tho.