My inlaws purchased a Smart Car this week. They are so pumped about it and the new "great" mileage they will be attaining out of this new product. According to the smart car website:

City/highway (mpg) 40/45 (EPA 2007); 33/41 (EPA 2008)

40 to 45 mpg? WTF. This thing is tiny and that's all the better the mileage is? I would think this tiny death-trap-looking dude would be in the 90's or 100's kind of like a scooter.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall in the 1980's, friends were bragging that their Honda CRX, Civic and other makes/models of vehicles like Toyota, Yugo, etc. (granted, not muscle cars by any means) were getting in the 40's if not 50's mpg stats. Do you recall better mileage "then" as opposed to "now" in some makes/models?

Why do the Honda's of today (and certainly other makes too)....or rather of the last 10 years or so seem to be so shoddy on mileage? Has there been some kind of emmisions requirements that are the limiter?

Mike

Funny I was thinking about the same thing last night about modern cars.

PS Oil refineries and their shareholders are the limiters.

Just check the weight of the cars in the 80'ies and compare that to the weight of their current equivalents.
btw a real life overall MPG of 42 is realistic for a Smart (anyway the 2000 version of the ForTwo Passion model) in the netherlands

Just check the weight of the cars in the 80'ies and compare that to the weight of their current equivalents.
btw a real life overall MPG of 42 is realistic for a Smart (anyway the 2000 version of the ForTwo Passion model) in the netherlands

Are you saying that the cars in the 80's were lighter and thus got better mileage? Why would today's cars weigh more?....everything in them is PLASTIC.

They weigh more because of safety standards and power everything. Lots of extra bracing.

Also standards for mpg ratings were toughened a few years ago. The mpg estimates on older vehicles a little overoptimistic.

I still want a 50 mpg Toyota Starlet though.

Also standards for mpg ratings were toughened a few years ago. The mpg estimates on older vehicles a little overoptimistic.

I still want a 50 mpg Toyota Starlet though.

I have not seen the original starlet for a long time. After a quick search, there is a new one? How original.
Double checked, and as usual they only sold it overseas after 84'.

They weigh more because of safety standards and power everything. Lots of extra bracing.

Horse Hockey - they weigh more because people think a heavier car is safer. That is all. That is why people bought SUV's - they are bigger, heavier and safer - WRONG!!!!

Hi,

Also, the increased emissions equipment sapped MPG. 10 percent Ethanol sapped another 3-5 MPG to boot.

...Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall in the 1980's, friends were bragging that their Honda CRX, Civic and other makes/models of vehicles ... were getting in the 40's if not 50's mpg stats...

41 mpg ave. in the 1984 (or was it 1986?) CRX I drove.

My 96 SC2 gets 30 mpg in the city with the AC on with 242000 MI,s on it about 35 or 36 on high way.

just remember 80's cars still get better gas milage

just remember 80's cars still get better gas milage


1980'slover you might be interested to know, that my first brand-new car was a 1981 Buick Regal. First time in my life that someone just MIGHT be impressed with that fact!:D

Wire hub-caps with white wall tires:yes:

Russ

Hi, Also, the increased emissions equipment sapped MPG. 10 percent Ethanol sapped another 3-5 MPG to boot.If we're burning more..is it really better for mother nature?

Horse Hockey - they weigh more because people think a heavier car is safer. That is all. That is why people bought SUV's - they are bigger, heavier and safer - WRONG!!!!

Your comparing Apples to Oranges....... New cars (not SUV's, Not trucks...but cars) are heavier than previous cars in the same size/class. They have all sorts of electronics and "safety" features that previous cars didn't, besides everything is power now...... power windows, locks, seats, everything.

The statement 'a heavier car is safer, all other things being equal' appears
to be quite reasonable to me. Can anyone (botrytis in particular) explain
to me why this should be denied?

If we're burning more..is it really better for mother nature?

You'd have to run the numbers....... it's just like shopping. Which is cheaper 32oz for $1.50, or 48oz for $2.15?

The statement 'a heavier car is safer, all other things being equal' appears
to be quite reasonable to me. Can anyone (botrytis in particular) explain
to me why this should be denied?

Heavy need not be safer. If the weight is in structure, then there might be benefits. But if it is just in luxuries, there is no benefit at all.
Also, a heavier vehicle is inherently less safe, as it is more likely to blunder into an accident. Weight negatively effects EVERY area of performance, thus making it less likely to avoid an accident.

As Colin Chapman put it so perfectly:

"Simplicate, then add lightness."

I'll take my chances in my full size ext cab pickup vs an econobox any day.

41 mpg ave. in the 1984 (or was it 1986?) CRX I drove.

Precisely. The model I was thinking of was the CRX-HF. It was possible to get into the 50's mpg in 1988.

I understand the addition of safety features (kind of) but not of "power everything" in later model cars. I for one would sacrifice a few luxury's like power windows, doors and seats if it meant I could get better mileage. Am I alone here?....likely not.

I still drive my 1991 VW Jetta up and down the valley I live in and get 34-35mpg consistently on the interstate.

Still, I'm appalled that the new fangled smart car only gets 42mpg.

My parents bought a new Honda Civic in 1983. It was rated at 55 mpg highway and actually got about 49. My sister bought a new CRX HF in 1984 that was rated at 68 mpg highway and actually got about 58. These cars were slow and light on luxuries, but quite reliable and quicker than the majority of 4-cylinders that I have experienced firsthand. They were also close to the least expensive cars available at the time. Now manufacturers don't even offer anything like those cars because they think we are too stupid to buy them. Everyone you see paying a large premium for a hybrid, or driving a four wheel drive that never sees a dirt road much less off road or riding alone in their daily driver that would seat seven, well they just prove the car companies right... we are stupid.

Heavy need not be safer. If the weight is in structure, then there might be benefits. But if it is just in luxuries, there is no benefit at all.


Agreed


Also, a heavier vehicle is inherently less safe, as it is more likely to blunder into an accident. Weight negatively effects EVERY area of performance, thus making it less likely to avoid an accident.


Not agreed! There is more at work here than weight (actually mass). A larger vehicle will have more rubber on the road and larger brakes. Furthermore it may not even be capable of the same speed as lighter (smaller) vehicle.

New cars are way bigger than cars from 20 years ago, compare a Honda Accord, Chevy S-10, or Ford Ranger of today to one of the 80's.

My parents bought a new Honda Civic in 1983. It was rated at 55 mpg highway and actually got about 49. My sister bought a new CRX HF in 1984 that was rated at 68 mpg highway and actually got about 58. These cars were slow and light on luxuries, but quite reliable and quicker than the majority of 4-cylinders that I have experienced firsthand. They were also close to the least expensive cars available at the time. Now manufacturers don't even offer anything like those cars because they think we are too stupid to buy them. Everyone you see paying a large premium for a hybrid, or driving a four wheel drive that never sees a dirt road much less off road or riding alone in their daily driver that would seat seven, well they just prove the car companies right... we are stupid.

:yes:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall in the 1980's, friends were bragging that their Honda CRX, Civic and other makes/models of vehicles like Toyota, Yugo, etc. (granted, not muscle cars by any means) were getting in the 40's if not 50's mpg stats. Do you recall better mileage "then" as opposed to "now" in some makes/models?

Why do the Honda's of today (and certainly other makes too)....or rather of the last 10 years or so seem to be so shoddy on mileage? Has there been some kind of emmisions requirements that are the limiter?

Mike

The CRX HF was indeed getting 50MPG in the late 80's. I worked with someone who owned one then and gas was ~$1.35 for premium. His weekly fuel bill was nothing. 1st generation VW diesels could get into the 50's as well and so did gas Geo Metros, Chevy Sprectrum, & Suzuki Sprints the were high 40's too.

So why not now? Easy, curb weight & ethanol! Cars have devolved into the mid 20MPG mark because buyers have wanted every conceivable comfort option without sacrificing performance. A MK3 VW Golf for example comes in under 2500 lbs. whereas the MKIV is nearing 2800. The latest version, the MKV Rabbit, buries the scales at over 3000! Horsepower has to go up to keep performance reasonable so you get whacked twice. Add the ridiculous ethanol fuel blends that you cannot escape and you get less BTU per gallon than a decade ago.

It is the perfect storm of horrible MPG.

Now manufacturers don't even offer anything like those cars because they think we are too stupid to buy them. Everyone you see paying a large premium for a hybrid, or driving a four wheel drive that never sees a dirt road much less off road or riding alone in their daily driver that would seat seven, well they just prove the car companies right... we are stupid.


Car companies cater/build to the market.

Now that more people are asking for something different they will build it. It will just take some time to react.

Add the ridiculous ethanol fuel blends that you cannot escape and you get less BTU per gallon than a decade ago.




How dare you!

We were all told it's more environment friendly and keeps our money at home.

So what if you have to burn more and pay even more subsidies? Aren't those small prices to pay for the benefits? :scratch2: ;)

Some cars like the Honda Civic and the Geo Metro did get some amazing MPG back in the day but they were not very safe cars. When a CRX would take a hard hit in the front you had to check the rear decklid/unibody for misalignment because the impact forces traveled everywhere in those things.

I am not sure I would get out on the highway in one of those Smart Cars because speed combined with vehicles with the greater curb weights of anything larger than a gopher do not bode well for people in small cars. From an around town stand point though they look tempting. IIHS has given them their highest safety rating and they come in at less than 20k which is well below the Prius, the new eco flavor of the day.

$4 a gallon gas might finally be the turning point in getting people to start buying small cars. Once that happens horsepower/torque/cargo room might no longer be the marketing tools used to sell cars.

Americans forget that cars like the Smart Car have been selling over seas for years. If we have to start competing for oil with India, China etc I think our cars and the MPG's they get will have to mirror the types of cars being used/sold over seas. Detroit has once again been caught behind the curve spending most of their $ churning out Trucks/SUV's because of the higher profit margins rather than employing the long term strategic thinking that will allow them to compete on a global scale.

Of course OPEC and the gas companies may bail Detroit out again and keep people hooked on oil for a few more years by increasing production. We have such short term memories that we will all go out and buy Hummer's with in-dash microwave ovens and 40-inch Flat Screen TV's while smiling at how cheap gas is now at only $3.25 a gallon.......... :)

while smiling at how cheap gas is now at only $3.25 a gallon.......... :)

Maybe for you, but I've been paying over $4.00/gallon for the past few months and haven't seen less than $3.79 for well over a year.

Safety smafety, maybe we need to bring back the notion of natural selection. As a kid, I didn't wear a helmet when riding my bicycle to a buddies house, didn't know what a baby-seat was my whole time as a youth, found out that brakes were needed on a go cart by buring it in bushes to stop, a sign for "slow children" meant there was a kid next door with a mental issue of some sort, etc. etc.

We are a society hell bent on protecting all. Maybe instead, we should be celebrating "smarts" and the process of learning what NOT to do, rather than simply celebrating mediocrity and trying to protect the dumbest of the dumb from themselves.

Stepping off soap box now.....

i would agree that it is the weight of modern cars and the increased horsepower required to move all that weight at acceptable speeds that keeps them from getting great mileage,it's a pretty simple equation.

todays engines are more efficient and cleaner than ever,but where a small car 20 years ago would have come with maybe 100hp..and often less!todays equivalent models come with larger displacement engines of around 140-150hp or more...todays cars also have to comply with modern safety standards[either real or imposed by the buying public]so need to have stronger structures,airbags,ABS brakes etc.power steering,as well as A/C and power accessories are also almost defacto standard equipment in many cases...a small car today likely has an extra 20lbs just in wiring compared to one of years past!so...while a 80-100hp engine today is likely capable of fantastic mileage and good power for it's size as well,it's pretty hard to build and sell a 2000lb car to put it in,you still have to meet safety standards and the public still has to want the result[and remember the public will not buy a sloooow car either!]..both of these are huge hurdles to overcome,something has to give...and fuel economy has been it

My 2005 Honda Civic LX is bigger than my first Honda....a 1983 Accord LX.

IMO, all this "safety" BS is just an excuse to sell Americans larger vehicle.
The rest of the world "got smart" decades ago.

Steve

Ethanol is approx. 62% thermally as effective as Gasoline.

My wife drives a 97 Saturn SC2 Sport coupe (PIA to get in and out of) But the dang thing with it's HUGE 1.9 Liter Hemi 4 banger and 5spd OD maunal gets 31-32 mpg average she drives an 84 mile rd trip to work every day that includes country roads a tiny bit of 4 lane and some city driving. When I drive on a long trip the car clicks off around 34-36 mpg. It turned 174,000 last night.

Before that I had built her a 67 Ford Mustang weighed about 3100lbs I think I used the stock 200 cu in inline 6 (140 hp stock about 160 after I finished my work) and with only external modifications all tech available in the late 70's or before including a 4spd OD manual electric fan & fuel pump free flow exhaust it would get 24-25mpg and went like a rapped ape. The new mustang base model with the V6 only gets about the same mileage and it is approx. 35 year newer tech.

My 97 Dodge Dakota Pickup 4000 lbs (extra cab style) w/ canopy has a 3.9 liter V6 (cut down dodge 318) and with it's 5spd OD manual it gets 18.5-19mpg average and on a couple of long high spd (averaging 70mph) trips it has gotten 21mpg.

it is the weight and the external parasitic drag put on new car engines that robs the mileage Auto trannies are terrible fuel wasters a huge amount of energy is consumed in them in the form of heat.

Our 1988 model year (1987) Chevy Corsica 4-dr, 5-speed, 4-cyl routinely got 40 mpg in highway driving with two big adults and two little kids (plus luggage) aboard. Even better,it did this for 13 years and 188,000 miles. I know it was no Toyota, but it didn't cost like a Toyota either.

My little 2000 Ford Focus 3-door with 5-speed and 4-cyl can manage 35 mpg lugging just me on the highway; that's about it. The little Focus also has about 20 more hp than the larger Corsica (not that the Corsica was slow; with a manual transmission it was quite peppy by my estimation). When gas was cheap, horsepower soared (unnecessarily, IMO).

The statement 'a heavier car is safer, all other things being equal' appears
to be quite reasonable to me. Can anyone (botrytis in particular) explain
to me why this should be denied?

Well, unfortunately, kinetic energy is proportional to mass, and it is also proportional to the square of velocity. If you hit something (or something hits you), all that kinetic energy has to go somewhere. Unfortunately a fair percentage usually goes into dislocating your viscera from its internal moorings :-(

If your choice is heavier or faster, than heavier is the better choice by far. Of course, lighter and slower is always better still.

small car 20 years ago would have come with maybe 100hp..and often less!todays equivalent models come with larger displacement engines of around 140-150hp or more...

Small car with 100hp 20 yrs ago? Like you said, maybe, but those probably are not the mileage kings being discussed.

The CRX often mentioned had 58hp in the (presumably) most fuel-sipping 1.3L engine configuration. I think some versions of the VW Rabbit diesel were less than 50hp.

I've been railing about this for a while now. There are a ton of posts on here about it. Couple things to know.

The EPA site adjusts back, so you can compare old to new on a level playing field. The old CRX does get 50 mpg. Toyota should be embarased that a Prius can't blow it away.

Safety is not as simple as "heavy is good". Just one of the myrid things to keep in mind- mass is mass and takes more time to stop. Period. The safest accident is the one you're never in. I'm 40 years old and haven't been involved in any accident since I was 16. (not my fault). And for the record, the huge Buick was totaled. My 2400 lb. Capri wasn't even scratched. The Smart, for example, just breazed through the tough US crash tests.

Most heavy safety changes came in the 70s. Side impact beams in doors and better bumpers. The bumper standards were actually rolled back from the 5mph with no damage days. So I have no idea why cars weigh more. It's kind of insane. But unless someone can produce the legislation and show me what safety feature they added that adds SO MUCH weight, I'm going to say it's not that simple. Something else going on here. An air bag just ain't that heavy. And don't get me started on legislating that I have to have one of those things in my car in the first place.

Some cars like the Honda Civic and the Geo Metro did get some amazing MPG back in the day but they were not very safe cars. When a CRX would take a hard hit in the front you had to check the rear decklid/unibody for misalignment because the impact forces traveled everywhere in those things.

Actually, that's what made them safe. The force was distributed. We're talking safety, not ease of repair.

Maybe for you, but I've been paying over $4.00/gallon for the past few months and haven't seen less than $3.79 for well over a year.

Safety smafety, maybe we need to bring back the notion of natural selection. As a kid, I didn't wear a helmet when riding my bicycle to a buddies house, didn't know what a baby-seat was my whole time as a youth, found out that brakes were needed on a go cart by buring it in bushes to stop, a sign for "slow children" meant there was a kid next door with a mental issue of some sort, etc. etc.

We are a society hell bent on protecting all. Maybe instead, we should be celebrating "smarts" and the process of learning what NOT to do, rather than simply celebrating mediocrity and trying to protect the dumbest of the dumb from themselves.

Stepping off soap box now.....

Tongue was firmly in cheek when I made the $3.25 comment. What I was making fun of was the fact that now that we are paying $4 a gallon people are waiting in long lines when some station "lowers" their price to $3.65 for some Grand opening event and are pretty damn happy about it.

Well I'll step back on your soap box for minute......

Two years ago when gas first tipped $3 there was going to be Congressional hearings etc. to find out about market manipulation, price gouging ....

Now we have accepted $3+ as the norm and in another year or two we will all be accepting $5 a gallon gas. Instead of getting mad at the Exxon's of the world we should be asking why CAFE standards that were designed 30 years ago to protect the public from situations like we find ourselves in today were allowed to be watered down to being basically useless. Of course the public did not pay attention to CAFE standards as long as there was cheap gas for their 10 mpg Mega-Hauler (Satelite Dish not included standard....prices subject to change..... blah blah blah)

As for your take on safety I"ll only say that when it comes to public roadways/areas I want safety.

If you want to thin the herd by engaging in reckless behavior please do so in the confines of your home by playing Lawn Darts at night with all those willing to participate..... :D

I just read that Ford is dumping billions into their Mexico plants purposed to build the new Fiesta for the world including here. About damn time they brought it back to the USA too. The current non-diesel version is in the low 40MPG range.

Ford Fiesta (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121216956670533193.html)

http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2007/06/18/18FordFiesta_m_m.jpg

Always a fan of the MK1 version -

http://www.pmcuk.co.uk/meets/1352007/26.jpg

Actually, that's what made them safe. The force was distributed. We're talking safety, not ease of repair.

.....and the opposite of distributed force was this mess from awhile back.

:no:

Chinese Crash Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A)

Crumple zones make a car safe - not mass. That is why the Smart does so well - engineering. Currently they add all this weight into cars and I dont know where it is coming from.

Realize what has happened to our gasoline in the last 10+ years. In an effort to curb "ground level ozone", we now have all these "blends" all across the country that do little but reduce our MPG. Benzine is/was used as an oxygenate (which promotes combustion) has been replaced by these ethanal/etc. "blends". Anybody recall about MTBE? This was used in some parts of the country to replace the "deadly benzine" but caused all sorts of problems getting into water supplies which doesn't break down over time and has since been outlawed (around last year?, I believe). This stuff was known to be fatal to begin with, but those concerns were ignored, and an industry was built up producing that stuff. Wonderful politics at play....

Also, Refineries that support the midwest area have to make different "mandated blends" only to add more costs to our fuels, especially you folks in the Chicagoland and surrounding areas. Plus, you can't pipline these blend mixtures, they have to be added at the point of refining.

The times that I've made long distance trips, I always try to fill up in rural areas to avoid running this junk. Ever notice the smell of gas? (sure you have). Not that I make a point of wiffing gas, but the good stuff will smell better, like real gasoline should! And restore some mileage too!!

As much as I'd like something more fuel effecient, until there is some sort of stability in our energy markets, I'd hate to be making payments on a vehicle that's sitting in my driveway with no fuel to power it! Right now as it is...car payments + fuel = what I'd pay now just for fuel. Without making another topic/thread, lets' hope the situation improves for all of us soon...

There are a lot of $$ to be made selling more expensive cars and more gas. Special Intrest groups were allowed to do whatever they wanted and we were too stupid to do anything about it. You think gas is expensive? Figure gas and account for the cost of inflation. Now do the same for the average price of a new car. That's an even bigger crime. When I was a kid, people paid money and bought cars. Now, everyone believes it's just normal to always have a car payment. Call me crazy, I don't borrow money for something that depreciates. And cars are the worst investment in the world.

And no, I've never had a car loan and never will.

Crumple zones make a car safe - not mass. That is why the Smart does so well - engineering. Currently they add all this weight into cars and I dont know where it is coming from.


All true but a Ford Excursion would still punt it like a Soccer ball!

Not sure I want that ride LOL

All true but a Ford Excursion would still punt it like a Soccer ball!

You're right. If we were smart we wouldn't allow them on the road. The Excursion, I mean.

Our 1988 model year (1987) Chevy Corsica 4-dr, 5-speed, 4-cyl routinely got 40 mpg in highway driving with two big adults and two little kids (plus luggage) aboard. Even better,it did this for 13 years and 188,000 miles. I know it was no Toyota, but it didn't cost like a Toyota either.

My little 2000 Ford Focus 3-door with 5-speed and 4-cyl can manage 35 mpg lugging just me on the highway; that's about it. The little Focus also has about 20 more hp than the larger Corsica (not that the Corsica was slow; with a manual transmission it was quite peppy by my estimation). When gas was cheap, horsepower soared (unnecessarily, IMO).

:yes:

Less 300 HP cars, and more 50+ mile per gallon cars. If Federal Gas Taxes were higher there never would have been Mondo SUV Land. And the excess tax dollars could have been used for other sensible funding. Of course I use the term sensible loosely. Man, we are so far behind the rest of the developed world.

If you want to thin the herd by engaging in reckless behavior please do so in the confines of your home by playing Lawn Darts at night with all those willing to participate..... :D

Now that there is some funny shit! LOL :yes:

You're right. If we were smart we wouldn't allow them on the road. The Excursion, I mean.

So we should all be reduced to the least common denominator, in effect?

Ehhh, drive what you want, I'll drive what I want (an no, I don't have an Excursion).

My 2005 Honda Civic LX is bigger than my first Honda....a 1983 Accord LX.

IMO, all this "safety" BS is just an excuse to sell Americans larger vehicle.
The rest of the world "got smart" decades ago.

Steve

Ehhh...

Actually, I think the rest of the world would drive bigger vehicles if they could afford it, and considering the constrains of generally smaller areas.

So we should all be reduced to the least common denominator, in effect?

Well, I was kidding. But think of it like this. Please try to follow me, I'm not suggesting we do this, it's just a mental exercise. We could all weld diamond plate over 2" steel bar all the way around our cars. It WOULD make them safer. So why don't we do that? Imagine the scenario however you like, we could make cars that were far, far safer than we do. Why don't we? You have to strike a ballance.

My only point is that the ballance is being artifically manipulated here in the US as it is everywhere else. The rest of the world tends to chose to manipulate it toward smaller, more fuel efficent cars. And I don't think England, for example, has drastically more auto fatalities than we do. But they do use much less gas. So should we outlaw the Excursion? Nah, not really. But do I get all broke up when I hear the owners complain about putting gas in it? Nah. Not at all.

If you want to thin the herd by engaging in reckless behavior please do so in the confines of your home by playing Lawn Darts at night with all those willing to participate..... :D

Except that you'll have to use some vintage lawn darts.

The safety police have gotten their hands on those too.

My only point is that the ballance is being artifically manipulated here in the US as it is everywhere else.

See, I disagree with this. I think the car companies provided just what the market asked for. With gas basically at $4 per gallon and climbing, the market demand will shift and automakers will respond accordingly.

See, I disagree with this. I think the car companies provided just what the market asked for.

Ford quite actively persued a direction whereby they could sell more "trucks" to avoid, at the time, the knock against their corporate average MPG and many (expensive) safety regulations. The result was the Explorer. Oil company lobbiests have worked dilligently to kill any legislation that would mandate higher fuel standards. Those are just a couple of examples, but show how this is much more than the market providing what people want. Not to mention the absurd policies that have kept gas so cheap for so long.

That is why people bought SUV's - they are bigger, heavier and safer - WRONG!!!!

Tell that to the lady that ran a stop sign and into my Tahoe.

Totalled her Cavalier but I drove my Tahoe home!

Crumple zones make a car safe - not mass. That is why the Smart does so well - engineering. Currently they add all this weight into cars and I dont know where it is coming from.

Crumple Zones are engineered to make a car safe but mass/speed are factors. If the object hitting you is a of substantially greater mass and at a high enough speed the crumple zones can only do so much to deflect the forces around the driver. I have had the pleasure of visiting the IIHS facility in Va. on a couple of occasions and trust me small cars do not do well when hitting or being hit by a larger object

whoaru99

Except that you'll have to use some vintage lawn darts.

Agreed but you can always grind down the tips to give them that nice vintage edge/look....:banana:

I certainly understand why oil companies would try to kill fuel economy mandates. They're in the business of selling oil.

Not sure I really can see why an auto maker wants to build stuff that people don't want.

I work for an OEM of vehicles, not cars, but vehicles none the less. I work very closely with new product development.

There is never any talk or plan about building something to try to force down our customers throats. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Many focus groups, customer sessions, and market research to find out what people want. It's our hope and belief that if we provide what our customers want they'll buy more stuff from us, and less from the other guys.

You're right. If we were smart we wouldn't allow them on the road. The Excursion, I mean.

Send me a PM when we also get the UPS, FedEx, Furniture Delivery and other large box-trucks as well as Tractor-Trailer and Dumptrucks off the roadl!

There is never any talk or plan about building something to try to force down our customers throats. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Many focus groups, customer sessions, and market research to find out what people want. It's our hope and belief that if we provide what our customers want they'll buy more stuff from us, and less from the other guys.


Then, hopefully the tide is changing.

Oddly the very largest vehicle I own gets the best mileage. Its a 2002 ram 3500 with a 5.9 Cummins and a 6 speed. Averages 16+ in city driving and 25+ on the highway while running on waste french fry oil.
My 06 Ram 2500 auto gets about 2 MPG less running on the same fuel. Both vehicles average about 2 MPG more on "real" out of the pump diesel but its not worth the $5.00 a gallon to me.

Of course OPEC and the gas companies may bail Detroit out again and keep people hooked on oil for a few more years by increasing production.


Can you expound on this? The Fed's bailed Chrysler out, back in the 80's. I've never heard of OPEC or any gas company bailing anybody out.

We are a society hell bent on protecting all. Maybe instead, we should be celebrating "smarts" and the process of learning what NOT to do, rather than simply celebrating mediocrity and trying to protect the dumbest of the dumb from themselves.

AMEN!!

This has gotten quite circular.

Has anyone mentioned safety yet?

.... If we have to start competing for oil with India, China etc


We are, that's one of the reasons gas is so high.


Detroit has once again been caught behind the curve spending most of their $ churning out Trucks/SUV's because of the higher profit margins rather than employing the long term strategic thinking that will allow them to compete on a global scale.


Detroit has been building trucks and SUV's because the demand is there...... if the demand was present, neither would the profit margin.

If Federal Gas Taxes were higher there never would have been Mondo SUV Land. And the excess tax dollars could have been used for other sensible funding. Of course I use the term sensible loosely.


Your complaining that the gas tax isn't higher?


..... Man, we are so far behind the rest of the developed world.


Oh yeah, then we could be like the UK and instead of paying $1 to $2 for the last 20 years we could have been paying $4 and $5 all that time.

We are, that's one of the reasons gas is so high.



Detroit has been building trucks and SUV's because the demand is there...... if the demand was present, neither would the profit margin.

If you look back a bit, you'll see a post where I explained how Ford created the SUV market and why it was more profitible to them to have people in trucks than station wagons. Oh, nevermind.

I'm going to get a Kenworth. I hear there safer. To hell with economy. If I can afford it, I should get anything I want.

Then, hopefully the tide is changing.

Probably not in the vehicle segment I'm in.

Our largest rigs are 365hp and we hear a meaningful number of customers asking for more. We're working on that; maybe as much as 500hp for the top offering in the next model. But, with the emissions rules getting tougher and tougher, it makes it harder and harder to cram more power into a reasonable size, weight, and cost package.

If you look back a bit, you'll see a post where I explained how Ford created the SUV market and why it was more profitible to them to have people in trucks than station wagons. Oh, nevermind.


Ford may have pushed SUV's and trucks with marketing, but that's hardly creating the market. The Explorer, to which you claim was the result of Ford's creating the market, didn't appear till 91 as a Bronco II replacement. SUV's were already out there being sold, and for quite some time...... Bronco II, Chevy S-10 Blazer, fullsize Blazer, fullsize Bronco. If people buy trucks and SUV's the manufactures will of course capitalize on that, like any other business would do in a similar situation. In Europe people want (and buy) smaller vehicles because gas has been high for years, and roads are narrow, so smaller has been the norm for years.

My first Ford "SUV" predates all of the above by a bit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/mhardy6647/bronchusspiffed.jpg

Just got this roll of film developed, fully 32 years (probably almost to the day) after this photo was taken.

Now, if you want to talk about bad gas mileage... you're lookin' at it. But what a fun and wonderful vehicle otherwise it was.

Chevrolet started building Suburbans back in 1936! :yes:

We are, that's one of the reasons gas is so high.



Detroit has been building trucks and SUV's because the demand is there...... if the demand was present, neither would the profit margin.

I was not really arguing that the demand was not there. More to my point was that Detroit gave up trying to compete with the imports by building a good small/mid-size car. They stayed safe and kept building trucks/SUV's that are cheaper to produce and have the larger engines that was their strong suit.

I would not exactly say that Detroit created the SUV market but people/kid haulers were always needed. The station wagon all but disappeared in the 80's and 90's and people were funneled to Vans/SUV's as the only alternative.

Cheap gas masked bad decisions by Detroit. Demand was there for trucks/SUV's but not enough of it to save the Big 3 from losing their overall lead in total market share.

Chevrolet started building Suburbans back in 1936! :yes:

I knew they've been around forever, but I didn't want to go that far back since it's my impression that they were mainly purchased by business's, way back when.

Cheap gas masked bad decisions by Detroit. Demand was there for trucks/SUV's but not enough of it to save the Big 3 from losing their overall lead in total market share.

I don't quite agree on the bad decisions part...... Detroit, like any other business will build to what the mass's demand, which in this case was trucks and SUV's. ANY business will do that, since that's where the money is. It only makes sense for them to spend the most money on the vehicles that sell and bring in the most profit.

While, I would assume that they must have given some thought to the strong SUV and truck sales coming to an end, they can't see the future. While they can plan ahead, they can only use today's information.

My first Ford "SUV" ......


Do you still have it?


Just got this roll of film developed, fully 32 years (probably almost to the day) after this photo was taken.


Wow! What took so long :scratch2:


Now, if you want to talk about bad gas mileage... you're lookin' at it.


How low are you talking?

I'm out after this as many of us are getting sucked in deeper than we mean to go.

The fact that SUVs did indeed exist before, yet represented a small share of the market, illustrates my point. Every family in America didn't drive a Bronco. They drove a station wagon or sedan. Or more to the point, they were driving mini-vans at the time of the Explorer explosion. But even more to the point, it wasn't a product that was so clever, it was the marketing. I mean, who wants to drive a mini-van when you can be an adventurer in a "Sport" Utility Vehicle? And trust me, the motivation was exactly as I stated before. It was much more profitible to sell a truck as it was much cheaper to make (at the time) without the safety requirements and as I said, it didn't count against corporate fuel mileage figures.

But it's a moot point. It doesn't matter if we got sucked in by slick marketers or if we just don't tend to think too straight sometimes. The fact is, our average fuel economy went down from the 80s to the 2000s while the rest of the world went the other way. Looking at it now, I'm not sure it was such a good move.

Lemme work backwards here, through my Toyota's over the years:

2003 MR2 Spyder - 2200lbs, 145HP, 1.8L - about 32mpg hwy.
1991 MR2 Turbo - 2800 lbs, 200hp, 2.0L - about 32mpg hwy.
1986 Corolla FX Hatchback - ???? lbs. - 115HP, 1.6L (carbed), about 30mpg.
1985 MR2 - ~2200lbs, 115hp, 1.6L (EFI) - about 30mpg.

Umm....see a common factor? I might be a bit off on the weights (+/- 100lbs). Now with all of those MR2's, my in town MPG kinda sucks - but that's cuz I like to rev it up and waste gas. :) Highway cruising has been pretty consistent in fuel milage for nearly 25 years.

Ironically, one of my coworkers has newish (2000+) Jeep Liberty that gets a whopping 14mpg Highway. WTF is with that?

I drive a '91 MR2 (NA). I rarely see the highway. Usually do 30 or close to it around town. On the rare tank with some highway driving, I can get up in to the mid 30s.

Ironically, one of my coworkers has newish (2000+) Jeep Liberty that gets a whopping 14mpg Highway. WTF is with that?


There's something wrong with that Jeep. In addition to our 1991 VW Jetta, we also own a 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a ...(shudder)... V8, that see's most of it's miles during winter. Our Jeep gets 18.5-19.8mpg consistently depending on how much it's driven at highway speed.

The Jeep Liberty weighs more than your Cherokee and has a smaller engine.

I'm out after this as many of us are getting sucked in deeper than we mean to go.

The fact that SUVs did indeed exist before, yet represented a small share of the market, illustrates my point. Every family in America didn't drive a Bronco. They drove a station wagon or sedan. Or more to the point, they were driving mini-vans at the time of the Explorer explosion. But even more to the point, it wasn't a product that was so clever, it was the marketing. I mean, who wants to drive a mini-van when you can be an adventurer in a "Sport" Utility Vehicle? And trust me, the motivation was exactly as I stated before. It was much more profitible to sell a truck as it was much cheaper to make (at the time) without the safety requirements and as I said, it didn't count against corporate fuel mileage figures.

But it's a moot point. It doesn't matter if we got sucked in by slick marketers or if we just don't tend to think too straight sometimes. The fact is, our average fuel economy went down from the 80s to the 2000s while the rest of the world went the other way. Looking at it now, I'm not sure it was such a good move.

Agreed!! :yes:

I think both Detroit and the public (the demand side) are equally to blame. The CAFE standards had they been properly utilized,increased and implemented as intended would have IMO helped either stop or at least slowed down the declining mileage trend. The standards were allowed to be bastardized because of Detroit lobbying and people's short sightedness about the future of gas/oil prices.

I now step off my soap box.......

Do you still have it?



Wow! What took so long :scratch2:



How low are you talking?

1) No, but it still exists and is in running condition. I bought it from and sold it back to my parents; my father later gave it to a friend (who has since passed on) and his son is restoring it. It is a '74 and had considerable rust by the late 1980s. The drivetrain, though, I suspect, is immortal.

2) Dunno how it got separated from my film and mixed in with the debris at my father's house.

3) 10 mpg was the best I ever got out of it.

Just got this roll of film developed, fully 32 years (probably almost to the day) after this photo was taken.

Wow! I thought the service was slow at my local drug store's photo counter! :D

I drive a '91 MR2 (NA). I rarely see the highway. Usually do 30 or close to it around town. On the rare tank with some highway driving, I can get up in to the mid 30s.

I do miss the old '91T dearly, but the cost of premium gas makes the loss a little more bearable.

For my next car, I may have to go back to the '80s again.

I drove a 96 Metro 5 speed with the 'big engine' (1.3l I4) for a few years. Never broke out city/hwy but overall my driving 39.8 mpg.

Pete

Small,handles well,quick,sporty looking,a hatchback that can hold your weekly groceries,and great gas mileage.
The Honda CRX is the greatest car ever built.

Jimmy

Im not a greenie or a safety nazi,but Im glad that higher fuel costs will get more of those damn SUVs and huge monster trucks off the roads.You cant see around them,they often take up two parking spaces,and the drivers often use them to intimidate smaller cars into moving out of their way.The problem is that I see a lot of women who grew up driving little cars that you could weave in and out of traffic do the same damn thing with 5000 lb behemoths.Im not talking about people who need trucks for their work,or as a utility vehicle.Im talking about those shiny Urban Assault Vehicles that have never seen a tow hitch or a dirt road.
End of rant.
Jimmy

The Jeep Liberty weighs more than your Cherokee and has a smaller engine.

The Liberty weighs more than 3975lbs? :scratch2:

The fact that SUVs did indeed exist before, yet represented a small share of the market, illustrates my point.


Your correct SUV's have existed for a long time as a small segment. However, they started becoming a much larger segment (along with trucks) in the 80's! .....before the Explorer (1991).


The fact is, our average fuel economy went down from the 80s to the 2000s while the rest of the world went the other way. Looking at it now, I'm not sure it was such a good move.


Yes, our fuel economy did go down in the 80's, because that's when trucks and SUV's started to become more popular. The rest of the world, as you call it, had a different set of circumstance so trucks and SUV's never became popular with the average consumer.

Minivans were developed in the 80's. They couldn't have been too good on fuel either...... 4cyl's powering a van! Some of the recent ones don't even do that well on fuel.

The Liberty weighs more than 3975lbs? :scratch2:

According to Jeeps website the 2008 Jeep Liberty Sport 4 x 2 weighs 3985 with an auto and 3980 lbs with the manual trans.

The Limited 4 x 4 model weighs in at 4278 lbs.

Go to the website and look at features and specs/technical data.

http://www.jeep.com/en/2008/liberty/

I don't know about the Cherokee, but the Grand Cherokee weighs between 4316 and 4730 depending on how it is equipped.

Just my observation. People that are driving the extended cab pickups would buy a station wagon if they could. Do we make a full size wagon anymore?

Just my observation. People that are driving the extended cab pickups would buy a station wagon if they could. Do we make a full size wagon anymore?

That's not an observation, that's a guess.......as you can't observe something that's not happening.

Minivans pretty much replaced station wagons.

But "station wagons" seem to be making a comeback!

Quite a few of the "cute utes" small SUVs seem to be nothing more than tall station wagons.

Look at the Chrysler Pacifica, just a fancy SW. Same with the Ford Freestyle.

Everything old is new again.

Interesting article.....

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm

40-45 mpg? My 17 year old VW Polo with a rough engine averages about 47...and it can fit a lot more stereo equipment in the back than a Smart!

It has an injection engine, cat, and lambda sensor - but emissions have tightened up since then.