I totally agree about pickups. They keep getting larger, but carmakers find ways to keep mileage stuck at 14-16 city and 17-20 hwy.

Why couldn't GM resurrect the GMT 700 Sierra 1500 of the 1990's and put their 5.3 liter Displacement on Demand engines in it? I had one, and it was plenty big enough for everything I do. This combo would get 20 city 30 highway and would SMOKE the bloated competition off the line.

Carmakers suck.

Sorry this brought out a rant in me:( .
My friend has a full size dodge pickup and has to drive up to 100 miles one way to some job sites. That thing gets him around 13-14 mpg and he was complaining to me about not being able to afford going to work anymore. I mentioned that he should try to find a metro. He said "I couldn't be seen driving one of those". It's too bad people buy vehicles more for image than efficiency :mad: . Another thing that bothered me was my own mom. She drives a 17 mpg explorer everywhere. Of course she drives 5 mph over the speed limit all the time. I told her to try an experiment on the next tank of gas, try going 5 mph under and see how much difference it makes (a small easy experiment). She said something about having to go with the flow or get run over by everyone. I said, until they pay for your gas you can drive any legal speed you want, besides, that's why there are two lanes on the highway. Another social acceptance type thing:mad: .
Then I think, fine keep wasting YOUR money on gas, but too many people are doing that in america and it has raised the price per gallon of gas for everyone at the pump.

Doesn't socialism feel good? ;) You are helping pay the cost of those people driving their inefficient cars inefficiently! Everytime you see some jacka$$ passing you at a stupid speed...they help keep your price per gallon higher.:mad:

Until everyone pulls their "collective" (hahaha) heads outta their butts...we all pay more.

I don't remember which thread I saw it, but I think a mandatory FE display with real-time and average figures should be mandatory on ALL new cars and trucks. Make it something that is prominent on the fuel gauge/dashboard and something that cannot be turned off.

Another idea to piggyback the last one is giving a large tax CREDIT for people that exceed the EPA HIGHWAY ratings by at least 20%. Don't fine the ones that get lower, but reward the ones that get higher. You could even make it a progressive credit...each 10% moves you into a larger credit. Motivated self-interest. :D Then you get the idea that higher FE is a GOOD thing...not just higher HP and lower 0 to 60 times.

You folks are speaking the same way that the folks on the high performance truck board I hang out at speak. Why don't the manufacturers do this, why don't they do that. Only on the performance side, it's why don't they offer the biggest engine in the smallest truck? Why will they only go to a certain weight/HP ratio? Why won't they let us buy stripped down trucks with that big engine? Why can't I get a turbodiesel in a reg cab halfton?

Fact is, the manufacturers are in the game to make money. They sell a lot of trucks and SUVs with fat profit margins. 30 grand for a pickup truck, when half of the vehicle is a 200 dollar box? You bet they are pushing the crap out of them. On the other hand, they have to spend a lot of money on an econobox to maximise the mileage, and they can't sell them for a lot because people see them for what they are; cheap, basic transport. Since they can make more money selling an SUV than a Chevette, they will push SUVs hard and park the Chevettes in the back lot.

I'd also be willing to bet that the auto manufacturers are pushing low efficiency models because they are heavy investors in the oil and gas industry, and probably vice versa. So if the automaker sells a car that uses a lot of oil, the automaker's stock in the oil company is worth more, so the automaker makes money coming and going. Sell more efficient cars, they lose money both ways.

To change this, we would need to first end any relationship between the automakers and the oil companies, by not allowing them to cross-invest, either as a company or the boards of directors personally. Then, we would need to change the perception that you need an SUV or pickup truck as a family hauler. Make the truck and SUV what they were 20 years ago, a work horse designed to haul loads or people where the roads don't go, with no luxuries from the dealer. Sell them stripped down, if the purchaser wants a luxury truck/SUV let them order it for a premium price.

And here's the big thing that would need to be done: bring back the rear wheel drive car, in force. I myself made the switch from car based to truck based when the cars went from primarily rear wheel drive to front wheel drive. I can't stand driving front wheel drive vehicles. If you check on the rise of the SUV and match it with the fall of rear wheel drive, I think you'll find that there is a real correlation there. Front wheel drives have torque steer, are unsafe in bad weather as the fix for going too fast through a corner is to GO FASTER, and they make it easier for people who shouldn't be driving to begin with to get their cars moving in the snow. If you can get a RWD going in the snow, it's because you have the driving skills to do so, and can handle what happens. Plus the fix for going into a corner too fast in bad weather is to downshift and let the rear wheels slow you down. And no torque steer. Bring back RWD cars, and don't make them look and run like crap, and people will abandon their SUVs just like they abandoned FWD cars.

Full size RWD cars are getting mid 20s to low 30s now, with some close attention to how things are done they could be pushed higher. If turbodiesels were made available here, these cars could easily see into the 50s. Smaller diesels in smaller trucks would see the same, and I'd have something to cross over into my 87 S15.

Nice little vicious circle, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuou...vicious_circle

Car makers are selling what they say people want to buy, and people are buying what the car makers want to sell. The problem is simple...many people have forgotten what the primary purpose of an automobile is/was: move your butt from point A to point B without having to walk. Everything else is an embellishment on that simple purpose. Somehow, my grandfather found that his used 1925 Model T was more than enough when he was first married in 1929 as a graduate student. ;) He upgraded to a Model A in a few years, but they did live in Michigan at the time.

Anyone want to take a guess what the MPG was for a 1908 Model T?

...25mpg... https://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg

Granted, it didn't have air conditioning, airbags, crumple zones, or even a 0 to 60 time. :p But, have we really made a LOT of progress in 100 years?? Ok, we have disc brakes, macpherson struts, butt warmers and cd/mp3 players...but we are really still just driving nice examples of late 19th and early 20th century technology.

Heck...electric cars aren't even new...

https://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/ele...-timeline.html

"1891 - William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa builds the first successful electric automobile in the United States."

116 years...and we still cannot buy a good electric car...:(

anyway...ending rant... :)

Hey that was me. Always good to find a sympathetic ear (eye?).

I like it but I don't think I could tolerate the burocracy needed to administer it. Real quick, you'd find people selling hacks too make their mpg trackers into liars so they could get the credits.

We go around and around about what people want what their willing to drive. Even in China which has just started to really pull ahead in purchasing veh. they don't want econoboxes. Sales for large cars are on the rise there too. Maybe we as humans just like the best?
Still love my Geo, my preferece has always been small cars. Weird.

I can't disagree with the charachteristics you dislike about FWDs, but there are two very good reasons manufacturers keep them, number one of which is packaging. They are able to put the entire drivetrain in one small area that can be installed and removed as an entire unit. The other reason is reduced weight and materials cost - which incidentally leads to improved fuel economy.

Sorry Telco, but they won't be going away anytime soon so long as most manufacturers insist on putting the motors in front. If safety and driveability were the deciding factor on everything, we'd all be driving AWDs.

boo! lol i love rwd sure they loose traction on the rear end in snow but its easily regained if you know how to drive. but most jackasses dont so thats why u see alot of people in ditches...

but yes fwd is alot more economical. thay can make lighter "frames" nowadays and roomier interior cuz you dont have the driveshaft tube going down the middle of the car. but personally, rwd cars and trucks are so much more easier to work on....

recently ive kind of got a likeing to hatchbacks.(liek accual sloped hatch backs liek a chevette) the car that i love the shape of is a early 2000's hyundai elantra. looks exactly liek a rounder updated chevette to me...if i need a acr and i can accualy find one of thsoe id think about getting it.(as long as it was manual screw automatics...)

but yes as a owner of a 29 model AA truck (yes model AA) they could get over 20 at least. now mine is well gonna need about 4-5 years of resor to get it looking nice maybe 2-3 to get it ruinning/driving but ive done research and it amazes me that even way back when they had mildly effecent cars. i dunno how many people knew this but henry ford was tryign to design a engine that ran on pure ethonal. he belived the way of the future would be a renewable recoruce like ethonal, just took 100 years or so to even begin using it but...i thikn if he were alive today (impossible but fun to think about) he would design some radical new way of building an insanely effecent engine.

I never did expect FWD to go away, it's been around as long as the RWD has. What I was saying is that the SUV came into popularity with the decline of the RWD car. I made the switch from car to SUV for this very reason, and so did many other people I know that are now SUV drivers. If you want to get heavy SUVs and their truck CAFE standards off the road, then the automakers need to start building large, powerful, luxurious RWD cars with their higher CAFE standards. There are people for whom the price of a gallon of gas does not mentally connect with the size of their car, instead the connection is that another dime per gallon just means another 2 bucks per refill. These same people will plop down 4-6 bucks for a cup of coffee every single day, what is another 2 bucks in the fuel tank each week?

Vetteowner, I live in the Midwest, and what I see in the ditches in heavy snow is front wheel drive cars and 4x4s. FWDs because the cars by design let people with no business driving in heavy snow get started, and 4x4s because they are out playing around and driving with the idea that 4x4 means all-weather imperviousness. They forget that with 4WD, when they hit the ice all 4 wheels will stop moving, and into the ditch they go. I see very few RWD cars in the snow, because only people (such as myself) who know how to handle their cars can get a RWD moving in the snow to begin with. Well that, and there aren't many RWD cars left.