The Public Opinion Soapbox

mrh717 · Joined: 12 May 2008 Posts: 2 Location: 17202

Just to get someone's thoughts on this-
Is it me or are the "economy" cars of today not as fuel efficient as the cars 10+ years ago?
Case in point: In 1992 my father bought a Honda Civic VX and acheived an average of 60 mpg on the highway with variable valve timing.
In 1998, I bought a 1996 Saturn SL. It had 79,000 miles on it and today I have 174,000 miles on it and wouldn't trade it for any new car out now. I average about 42 mpg an the highway, and 36 mpg around town.
There is nothing special about my car. It is not a hybrid, it has no variable valve timing, only a 1.9 liter single OH cam engine that runs just as smooth today as the day I rolled it off the Saturn of Carlisle Pike lot 10 years ago.
Why is it today there is not a vehicle to be found that can match the kind of fuel economy I am getting, without it being a hybrid, or being the size of a roller skate or taking premium gas to operate (which completely negates the point of saving money on gas if you just have to pay more when you fill up).
Take for instance the recent SMART car. Tests show an average of 40-32 mpg for a car that only seats 2 and can hold a bag of groceries and gallon of milk at best?
And what of other compact models? Others I have seen average around 35 mpg highway and 28 around town. The best I have found is the Ford Focus averaging 35 mpg highway. The new line of Saturn cars do not even come close to what they used to get, which is too bad because they have come a long way in styling, but seem to have forgotten the reasonable pricing of yesteryears car (due to importing the new Opel based Astra and the weakness of the dollar in today's market).
Have we become so used to the poor economy of the SUV and sports cars that have been marketed to us over the past 12 years that we have forgotten that we used to have some cars that were real gas misers and were mechanically uncomplicated, were affordable to buy and own and held 5 passengers reasonably comfortable?
And now we are willing to accept less that what we had because 35 mpg looks great against 17 to 20 mpg?

Let me know your thoughts!

M of 17202

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2566 Location: Chambersburg

I never would have thought that an economy vehicle of 10 years ago was more fuel efficient than those today.... did your '92 Civic really average 60 MPG? That's crazy...

Honestly, I don't know much about variable valve timing or anything like that; it does seem like even sub-compact cars today are bigger than compact cars from 10 years ago.

My S-o has a Fit that averages between 35-40 highway and I thought that was about as good as it gets.

I'm with on your last statements though. Seeing people in Hummers literally makes me a nauseous now; not to mention ridiculously oversized SUV's and trucks like Suburbans, Excursions and F-350's. They ARE the reason gas is expensive, you can cite all the numbers you want about oil supply and refining capacity. It's our demand and refusal to participate in any sort of conservation that makes you gas $4/gallon.

Oh well, I suppose you have your boat, camper and snowmobiles to tow Confused

cookieclaygirl · Joined: 03 Dec 2007 Posts: 2131 Location: shippensburg

one comment on the 'that's why gas is so expensive'...

could it also be ppl are paying by their charge card and don't care what the price is? they'll grumble grumble, but they'll whip out their plastic to pay for it while their debts accumulate.

our government, while they are aware of our grumbles, are aware of it BUT since we keep dishing out the dough via plastic or what have you...why would the fix it? we just keep paying for it so they keep charging us.

we need it to get to work, we need the work to pay for our bills and gas so we keep paying the high fees and so the vicious cycle continues.

they're making money i'm sure. so why would they complain?

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2566 Location: Chambersburg

I don't think it has anything to do with charge cards. I never carry cash anymore and I can tell you that I am just as sensitive to price as I would be if I were handing over cash.

In fact, cash tends to burn a hole in my pocket and I end up spending more than I normally would if I happen to have a couple of 20's in my wallet.

ZiggyStardust · Joined: 07 Nov 2007 Posts: 59 Location: Chambersburg

I've been ranting about this topic in much the same way as you a lot very recently.

I had an '02 Ford Focus that I got rid of a few months back. It got OK gas mileage, but nowhere near as good as the newer ones.

For the past year I've been driving a '97 Nissan truck with a four-banger. While it gets good mpg for what it is, it's still not that great.

I recently acquired an '86 VW Golf from a friend for very, very cheap. I'm getting between 35-40 mpg.

I rest my case.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 548

its because even the fuel efficient cars have been made more and more powerful in the past 10 - 15 years at the sacrifice of fuel economy. everyone feels like they need to be able to accelerate from a stop light at 0 - 60 in 8 seconds.

Mister Me · Joined: 23 Mar 2008 Posts: 212

Buy a Moped while the price is still low.

koozie · Joined: 27 Oct 2007 Posts: 124

I think that we are gonna see more and more mopeds and scooters in the near future. I was actually thinking about purchasing one for myself to get back and forth to work, but that would be driving on 11 and I think I would fear for my own safety.

paul_milander · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 581 Location: Shippensburg, PA

My wife in her old job had a 2007 Ford Taurus and when her job was elimated it left us with our 2001 Honda Civic. When she came out to PA to find work she bough a old 96 4 door Honda Civic DX with 110K miles on it but is averaging almost 38mpg where the ford was getting about 22-24. Now the 2007 Ford had a lot more pickup and she now drives 98% of her miles are on 81.
_________________
Read My Blog

http://ggchamplin.blogspot.com/

mrh717 · Joined: 12 May 2008 Posts: 2 Location: 17202

Actually displacement of engines in compact cars have decreased. 1.5 liters seems to be the norm for the subcompact. You should not have to decrease engine size to increase fuel economy. This move is all about smaller capacities and making it a more enviro-freindly engine, while fuel consumption and size of the auto have decreased as well.
Advances in frame and material components can make it possible to develop a lighter, stronger automobile, all the while increasing it's efficiency.
If the India produced Tata Nano can be produced for the equivalent of $2,500 (USD) and be a safe alternative (compared to India's current offerings), other auto manufacturers could follow suit and find a design that does not compromise style and practicality for efficiency.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 548

vindicated by TMQ on ESPN.com page 2. to the above post, displacement has decreased while power increased due to higher compression ratios which lead to more power and more fuel burned. higher compression ratios by themselves are good, but you need more of a decrease in displacement to make up for it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080909

Hold Your Horsepower: Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, "Now that the gasoline price crunch is over …" Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America's petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.

For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs -- according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.

Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade -- as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones -- eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it's that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage -- rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac's new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford's new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn't a sports car, it's a family car! Toyota's new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti's 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac's 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the "combined" numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car's MPG and greenhouse numbers here.

[+] EnlargeAP Photo/Nick Ut

A 1968 Corvette -- which had less muscle than a typical 2008 family car.
Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don't buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds -- the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8. The new Camry and Honda's comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won't be pushed in the company's home market of Japan. There, the IS-F's road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.

In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak's numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don't reply, "No one can tell me what I can drive." Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property -- there, horsepower is nobody's business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody's business. You'd be laughed at if you asserted a "right" to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the "right" to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

[+] EnlargeAP Photo/Scott k. Brown

NASCAR cars need high horsepower, cars bound for suburban shopping malls do not.
Meanwhile, all the talk lately has been about getting drivers into hypothesized future vehicles that might get excellent mileage, such as plug-in hybrids. Even assuming such cars someday are in showrooms, the payoff is greater for getting people out of low-mileage vehicles right now, because low-mileage vehicles are disproportionate consumers of fuel. Assume an average year of 12,000 miles traveled. The driver who trades in a 15 MPG SUV or high-horsepower car for a 20 MPG standard-engine full-size car would reduce fuel use by 200 gallons. The driver who trades in a 20 MPG full-size car for a 25 MPG midsize would reduce fuel use by 120 gallons. The driver who trades in a 25 MPG midsize for a 30 MPG compact would cut fuel use by 80 gallons. The driver who trades in a 30 MPG compact for a 35 MPH current-technology hybrid would save 60 gallons. And the driver who trades in a 35 MPG current-technology hybrid for a 40 MPG advanced plug-in hybrid would save 40 gallons. By far the best oil-reduction bang for the buck lies in people giving up large SUVs, pickup trucks used for commuting, plus any type of overpowered vehicle, in favor of driving regular cars. The math is presented in detail in this paper by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University. This suggests that instead of tax policy being focused on credits for buyers of high-mileage hybrids, and federal subsidies being focused on the development of high-mileage hypothesized future designs, tax policy should reward those who junk SUVs in order to buy regular cars. Tax programs to encourage drivers to junk old high-polluting automobiles were successful, so a junk-your-SUV program might work, too.

Wrangler3 · Joined: 29 Jan 2008 Posts: 8 Location: umop apisdn w,I

I thought is was because of all the ethanol they put in gas now. Up to 10%. That kills gas mileage.

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml updated the fuel economy for vehicles making the current MPG less for every vehicle then it used to be.
_________________