 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / October 2006click and clack, the tappet bros. on the issue of fuel economy
I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray said that it was because automakers have focused more on horsepower/performance than MPG's. I forget exactly how they put it. An example they used was the Honda Accord. A mid 80's Accord made about 80- 90 HP and got about 30MPG. Today's Accord gets about 35MPG but puts out 160HP, double what it put our 20 years before. And Tom and Ray pointed out that most people don't need 160HP in their car, and that most people only use about half that power. They also said that most people would probably prefer a 2006 Accord that puts out 100HP and gets 50-60mpg rather than a 160HP car getting 35 mpg. I know I would. So in effect, instead of engineering/tuning cars for MPG's, they've instead been tuned for maximum HP/performance. Why can't automakers develop 2 lines of engines? Super efficient 80- 100hp units to go into the Taurus, Accord, Camry, Malibu, etc. and cause the cars to be able to get 50-60mpg. And then a line of perforamce engines for these cars that put out 160hp and get 30mpg. Now, if you look at cars, there isn't much difference in the performance between the base 4 bangers and the optional V6 engines. The V6 will put out maybe 20-30HP more in power, and MPG's are usually about the same in the inline 4 and the V6. I, for one, would rather cut my gas bill in half and have a 90hp engine than have a 160hp engine. "Grappletech" <noone@yodoor.biz> wrote in message > They also said that most people would > probably prefer a 2006 Accord that puts out 100HP and gets 50-60mpg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the cars to be able to get 50-60mpg. And then a line of perforamce > engines for these cars that put out 160hp and get 30mpg. Interesting concept, but I don't think it will sell until gas hits $5 a gallon. Sure, the latest round of prices put a small dent into Hummer and Navigator sales, but the mid range cars are still selling and we still like to stomp on the gas to get on the expressway. I just bought a new car. Did I downsize to get better mileage? No. Within a few miles per gallon, it was not even a consideration as to what I should buy. I'd like to see what percentages of 4 and 6 cylinder engines sell in the cars that offer both. Altima seems to be moving a fair amount of the 2.5 liter but my guess is that initial price of the vehicle is more of a consideration than horsepower. The difference is about $3000. Same with the Lucerne when I was considering them. The added $3k was more of a deterrent than the 2 mpg difference. Having driven the V8, I'd have gone that way if the initial price difference was much less. I do know of one person that now drive 5 mph slower to get better mileage from his F150 pickup though. He is the only one that does from what I can see. > Did I downsize to get better mileage? No. Within a few > miles per gallon, it was not even a consideration as to what I should > buy. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The difference in mpg is so negligable that it makes sense to buy the bigger car. Most every car is putting out like about 180HP and getting 25-35 mpg. If they were engineered/tuned differently, I bet a 80hp 60mpg car is very possible. > Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The difference in mpg is so negligable that > it makes sense to buy the bigger car. Most every car is putting out like > about 180HP and getting 25-35 mpg. If they were engineered/tuned > differently, I bet a 80hp 60mpg car is very possible. You have to remember that engineers and marketers have thought of all of these things long before this discussion. If it were that easy to get 60 to 80 mpg out of cars and still maintain any degree of usefulness, those cars would be in production. There are enough people like you who would trade every other aspect of a car in favor of mileage, to make it worth the product line. Do you think there's a reason that those cars don't exist? Think about the trade-off's in such things as minimum horsepower requirements to be usefull as more than just a vehicle to run city blocks. Think about the need for vehicles to actually be able to maintain legal and safe speeds over hills - long hills like we find commonly in the US and which are not so uncommon in other parts of the world. Think about durability. Think about comfort. Not luxury - simple comfort. Think about safety. Crush zones and integral roll cage type construction is not the complete answer. Nor are offset front end crash tests. They only reveal part of the story. I'm not even sure that 60-80 mph is really obtainable in practical terms, and I really don't think it is in consideration of all other facets of an automobile.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Just like 100 mpg carbs, there are still people out there that believe in fairies... >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The difference in mpg is so negligable >> that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and I really don't think it is in consideration of all other facets of an > automobile. > Just like 100 mpg carbs, there are still people out there that believe > in fairies... No fairies involved. I think mpg's haven't really gone too much up because automakers have instead focused on wringing out extra horsepower. They've improved gas mileage on huge vehicles. Modern Chevy Suburbans/Tahoes get around 25mpg highway as opposed to like 10mpg 20 years ago. I can see continually improving the performance of performance cars like Mustangs, Vettes, 350zx, etc., but it'd be cool to offer a 60-70mpg regular car. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The difference in mpg is so negligable >> that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and I really don't think it is in consideration of all other facets of an > automobile. Totally illogical. Can get double the HP from same or equivalent engine over two decades, remain within increased EPA pollutant standards. Yet, cannot increase mpg without increasing HP dramatically. In fact, don't increase mpg over two decades. Nope. Total crap. A token 30+ mpg as fantastic in new vehicles, not. Consider selling used cars to little old ladies. Consider mass/weight vs. hp vs. mpg formula. The only thing that has really increased is hp and vehicle weight. Hp in an given engine size is directly proportional to higher mpg in a smaller engine moving the same mass/weight. Vehicles getting 30+ mpg two decades ago could go 90-100 mph on the highway. Don't remember any of them being GM though. These vehicles approximated 2000 pounds in weight. The current makers of these vehicles are dragging their feet as well for better mpg. Their vehicle weight more/more mass. Most vehicles today exceed well over 2000 pounds. Whose fault is that Mr. SUV, or "safe" vehicle? You got what the market determined you wanted. And they were probably right. So, look in the mirror for fault Mr. SUV safe vehicle. SignatureJonny Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, can not attain much more than 50 MPG mike hunt "Jonny" <spamyourself@blackworm.net> wrote in message news:eEJTg.1299. > Vehicles getting 30+ mpg two decades ago could go 90-100 mph on the > highway. Don't remember any of them being GM though. These vehicles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > determined you wanted. And they were probably right. So, look in the > mirror for fault Mr. SUV safe vehicle. > Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, > can not attain much more than 50 MPG Bullshit . My wife's Kaw EX250 , when driven sanely , usually exceeds 50 mpg . And that's around town , it gets better mileage on the highway , again , if driven sanely . BTW , this bike , in stock form , is capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph ... SignatureSnag aka OSG #1 '76 FLH "Bag Lady" BS132 SENS NEWT "A hand shift is a manly shift ." <shamelessly stolen > none to one to reply > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> determined you wanted. And they were probably right. So, look in the >> mirror for fault Mr. SUV safe vehicle. >> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 >> MPH, can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > again , if driven sanely . BTW , this bike , in stock form , is > capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph ... Also, don't forget the moped craze of the late '70's/early '80's that arised after the gas shortages/scares of the 1970's. These things got 120mpg and could do 35mph and this was using 1970's technology. They only cost $250-$300 brand new down at the Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki dealership. I lived in a semi-small city in a decent climate area back in the late '70's. Tons of people drove mopeds around town back then. And before I get flamed, yes, obviously, I realize they're not practical for highway travel. But for short trips around town to work or school, etc., they're great. Outside the local diners/cafes, there'd be 2 or 3 mopeds out front belonging to the old men who were inside drinking coffee and perhaps one owned by the waitress. Ir ecently bought a Suzuki FA50 Shuttle for $80 from a barn that looks this this one: http://www.mopedarmy.com/photos/brand/44/2893/ After a carb rebuild and some fuel line cleaning, it runs great. I scoot around town on it. As I was loading it into the back of the minivan, my wife was pissed, of course. "Why are you spending money on junk!" Then I explained the mpg advantage and plus it's just fun to ride! At least I didn't drop $13000 on a Harley! > Also, don't forget the moped craze of the late '70's/early '80's that > arised after the gas shortages/scares of the 1970's. These things got [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > explained the mpg advantage and plus it's just fun to ride! At least I > didn't drop $13000 on a Harley! Yeah, wives are like that. Several men at work ride motor bikes to work. A co-worker buys a new BMW every time they come out with a new one. Another friend got a ticket a few weeks ago for doing 140 in West Texas... cost him $300+. I rode a newer BMW. Gets 40 mpg and 0-90 mph in less than 5 seconds. Talk about exhilarating! Yes, a decent bike may be the way to go! Except in the summer... Burning hot sun and pavement is a real problem. And many bikes overheat if not moving. Sure one can get higher mileage on a bike than a car and yes one can get a bike to go very fast, but you will not get that higher mileage going fast. One can not change the laws of physics. mike hunt "« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?="@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:45203E9E.17219445@houston.rr.com... > Yeah, wives are like that. Several men at work ride motor bikes to work. > A [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if not > moving. >>> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 >>> MPH, can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > explained the mpg advantage and plus it's just fun to ride! At least I > didn't drop $13000 on a Harley! Neither did I . I'm into my '76 FLH about 7500 now , but it's drop dead reliable . And my daily transportation . But I only get between 35 and 42 mpg ... And new Big Twin Harleys are a bit more than 13k , unless you get the bottom of the line Dyna . SignatureSnag aka OSG #1 '76 FLH "Bag Lady" BS132 SENS NEWT "A hand shift is a manly shift ." <shamelessly stolen > none to one to reply >Neither did I . I'm into my '76 FLH about 7500 now , but it's drop >dead reliable . And my daily transportation . But I only get between 35 >and 42 mpg ...And new Big Twin Harleys are a bit more than 13k , unless >you get the bottom of the line Dyna. My brother-in-law bought a Dyna about 5 years ago. A purple one! ick.......then his wife, my sister, wanted one, so they got her a Sportster 1200 Custom 2 years ago. A friend of mine bought a mid 90's Sporster 883 for $3800. It had only 2000 miles on it. The original owner bought it brand new and basically hardly ever drove it but did keep fresh gas in it and changed the oil regulary and rode it occasioanlly. I'd like to pick up a Sportster 883. I like them. My wife refuses to ride on a motorcycle, so I don't have to worry about hauling around a passenger. Plus, I'm kinda short -- 5'8". I've owned several bikes over the years. My first 2 bikes were hand me downs from my uncle -- a Honda 70, then a Suzuki 125 dual purpose, then I bought a mid 70's Honda CB500, then I had a Honda Trail 90. Then I bought this Suzuki FA50 Shuttle, cool, cool moped. Now, time for a Sportster! >> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, >> can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > , if driven sanely . BTW , this bike , in stock form , is capable of speeds > in excess of 100 mph ... Get a REAL bike.... ;-) My 1200 Venture will turn in 45-50 mpg. That is a full dress touring bike with the ability to turn well over 100mph VERY WELL OVER.... Now if you want to look at a mileage car it's real simple. Buy some little tiny car like a Geo or something. Just don't EVER get into an accident with it.... SignatureSteve W. >>> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, >>> can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tiny car like a Geo or something. Just don't EVER get into an accident > with it.... It's obvious you didn't read my sig , I DO have a real bike . It's called a Harley , 1976 FLH to be precise . Full dress bagger (all original !) that gets around 35-42 mpg , depending on how hard I ride it . And MUCH more comfy on the long rides than momma's Red Rocket . It will do over 100 , but I won't ... unless I'm on the CB750 or the Kaw . SignatureSnag aka OSG #1 '76 FLH "Bag Lady" BS132 SENS NEWT "A hand shift is a manly shift ." <shamelessly stolen > none to one to reply Everybody points to what they get in ideal conditions on the highway, like what my one grandson says about his Civic. If he drives on the interstates at 55 MPH he gets close to the EPA highway mileage figure. However the EPA mileage is around 10 MPG higher than what he actually gets with his normal driving... I own a 1972 Honda CL70, purchased new. Top speed around 65 MPH, best mileage per tank full is around 45, if not driven above 45 MPH. My Fat Boy will get close to that with two up, on a flat road, if I'm lucky ;) mike hunt >>>> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 >>>> MPH, can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more comfy on the long rides than momma's Red Rocket . It will do over 100 > , but I won't ... unless I'm on the CB750 or the Kaw . >>>> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, >>>> can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > comfy on the long rides than momma's Red Rocket . It will do over 100 , but > I won't ... unless I'm on the CB750 or the Kaw . Missed it Snag, But it is a Hardly after all.... ;-) I had a chance to buy a Harley a couple weeks ago, Just couldn't get comfortable in the saddle. Plus I LOVE the way my Venture handles. Since mine now has a full out VMax engine now it is even more fun. SignatureSteve W. >>>>> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 >>>>> MPH, can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > comfortable in the saddle. Plus I LOVE the way my Venture handles. Since > mine now has a full out VMax engine now it is even more fun. To each his or her own , Steve . I rides what I likes , you rides what you likes , we both be happy ! Really , it's a matter of personal preference . I fell in love with this bike the first time I saw it . Almost passed it up cuz of the hand shift , but ... at heart , I'm a bit of a poser , couldn't pass it up . And I "work very hard" <snerk> at keeping the old girl in top form . Most people do a doubletake when I say the bike is 30 years old ... And the motah ain't stock ... KB pistons , S&S heads , Andrews cam , SE carb w/K&N , etc . Won't hang with your VMax , but has enough hp to get out of it's own way (heh,heh) . SignatureSnag aka OSG #1 '76 FLH "Bag Lady" BS132 SENS NEWT "A hand shift is a manly shift ." <shamelessly stolen > none to one to reply >>>>>> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 >>>>>> MPH, can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > carb w/K&N , etc . Won't hang with your VMax , but has enough hp to get out > of it's own way (heh,heh) . Not a problem. Ever read any of Daniel Meyers books. He REALLY rides... http://lifeisaroad.com/ I'm a novice compared to him. But have done a few Iron Butt rides, Did an Alaska run and a loop through the states. The poor Venture is currently torn down for a bit of preventative work, and maybe some new paint... SignatureSteve W. > Not a problem. Ever read any of Daniel Meyers books. He REALLY > rides... http://lifeisaroad.com/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > currently torn down for a bit of preventative work, and maybe some new > paint... Neal Peart (drummer from the rock band 'Rush') went on a 2 year 25,000 mile motorcycle trip. He drove across Canada up to Alaska, down to the USA, crisscrossed the USA a couple of times, then drove through Mexico, Middle America, South America, then back up through S. American, M.America, Mexico then again across the USA then back up to Canada. He did it on a BMW 1100(?) dual-purpose bike. He wrote a book about the trip -- "Ghost Rider". Excellent and interesting book. Sometimes, some of his friends would hook up with him to ride a stretch of the trip with him, but mostly he was by himself. The morning that he left to start the trip, he drove down to the local gas station and the kid who works there filled his tank up with diesel! So he thought that might be a bad omen but it wasn't. Another guy, back in the late 70's, took his moped on a 15,000 mile trip through Canada, Yukon, Alaska. interesting stuff: http://wmuma.com/moped78/index.html > >> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, > >> can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > little tiny car like a Geo or something. Just don't EVER get into an > accident with it.... And just don't EVER get into an accident while on a motorcycle... >> >> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 >> >> MPH, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And just don't EVER get into an accident while on a motorcycle... Helmets and leathers . Been down twice recently , couple of years ago a Toyota tried to make me into a hood ornament. Scratch one cherry '88 Sportster . Got a bigger bike (the FLH) , slid out in a parking lot last December, too cold for the touring tires I run ... SignatureSnag aka OSG #1 '76 FLH "Bag Lady" BS132 SENS NEWT "A hand shift is a manly shift ." <shamelessly stolen > none to one to reply Add an enclosed body, three more seats and two more wheels, heating system and windows and what will it get???? ;) mike hunt >> Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, >> can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> market determined you wanted. And they were probably right. So, look >>> in the mirror for fault Mr. SUV safe vehicle. > Bullshit . My wife's Kaw EX250 , when driven sanely , usually exceeds 50 > mpg . And that's around town , it gets better mileage on the highway , > again , if driven sanely . BTW , this bike , in stock form , is capable of > speeds in excess of 100 mph ... Wifey's Rebel 250 will only get to 80 with me on board, but I weigh more the engine's displacement. It is a 50 mpg plus bike, so good on gas it ain't worth checking the MPG Had a '82 Civic w/auto trans. 1.5 65 HP tin can, on the highway it was a rolling Jap coffin. Top speed on the flat, 85 after a 5 mile run. But for $400 on a low budget it beat walking at the time. SignatureJohn "anything you say can & will be misquoted & used against you" '01 FLHR ''Red" '04 MXZ 600 '06 GSX SDI Inlet Barnstormers - BRC mem. Sounds like you think there's a brickwall preventing good mpg in excess of 50, nope. And I won't go down a road about motorcycles that everyone knows can easily exceed 50 mpg, especially the toy ones you're speaking of. "Toy" cars in western Europe regularly get much better gas mileage. There's no equivalents here to speak of. Two differences. One is EPA standards, the other is smaller size and less weight along with smaller CC engines. Even the terms for midsize on one side of the lake is different than ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-size_car Contrary to some opinions expressed in the past in this newsgroup, Western Europe does have an EPA equivalent bureacracy. SignatureJonny > Even a small one passenger motorcycle, that is barely capable of 65 MPH, > can not attain much more than 50 MPG [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> determined you wanted. And they were probably right. So, look in the >> mirror for fault Mr. SUV safe vehicle. Buyers in Europe buy small cars because they can not afford to pay all of the taxes levied on larger vehicles and on the fuel they use. In the US buyers are not restricted by higher taxes as to what they buy, so they buy the vehicle they want and can afford. Those buyers that can not afford the large safer vehicles, they may prefer, have to buy the smaller cars they can afford or buy used vehicles. Look at the sales figures of any vehicle line sold in the US and you will discover it is not the cheapest stripped down model of that brand that is the best seller. In the US it is mostly market forces that determine which one people will buy, not those forced upon by the government as is the case in Europe. Census figures show the average household in the US owns more than two vehicles, on average. mike hunt > Sounds like you think there's a brickwall preventing good mpg in excess of > 50, nope. And I won't go down a road about motorcycles that everyone [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> market determined you wanted. And they were probably right. So, look >>> in the mirror for fault Mr. SUV safe vehicle. > I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why > fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray > said that it was because automakers have focused more on > horsepower/performance than MPG's. We have had similar discussions before. I am wondering, out of curiosity, do you live in city, suburbia, or country and how much do you drive per day and what do you drive now? I live in Katy, Texas (west Houston suburb) and drive 25 miles one way towards downtown to work every day (and 25 miles back) on the Katy Freeway (west I-10). On a good day it takes me 45 minutes at 05:40 and 55 minutes at 18:00. I hate to give up my 92 Grand Am - it gets 24 mpg city and 27 freeway and can still burn the tires through an intersection but it has 196k on it now. Still does not use oil between 5k changes. The Grand Marquis is still the best buy on the market today. Nothing else in the 18K to 22K range brand new even comes close. ;) mike hunt "« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?="@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:451DE686.B7D3D476@houston.rr.com... >> I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why >> fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > use oil > between 5k changes. > The Grand Marquis is still the best buy on the market today. Nothing else > in the 18K to 22K range brand new even comes close. ;) > > mike hunt I've seen several on the freeway. Decent looking car. I'll have to check them out along with Ford Fusion. > The Grand Marquis is still the best buy on the market today. Nothing else > in the 18K to 22K range brand new even comes close. ;) It brings elegance to the driving experience much the way a chandelier does to a bathroom, and it truly reflects the finest in Southern and Midwestern tastes. >> The Grand Marquis is still the best buy on the market today. Nothing >> else in the 18K to 22K range brand new even comes close. ;) Cops seem to dig them, and their Ford clone: the Crown Victoria. Cops love those V8 RWD cars like Crown Vic/Marquis, Dodge Diplomat/Plymouth Gran Fury, Chevy Caprice/Impala. Our small town police dept. uses the newer FWD V6 (3800) Chevy Impalas. What do you all's police dept's use? A friend of mine had a really cool '88 Dodge Diplomat with the Interceptor package -- 360ci, HD everything. He paid like $400 for it at an auction. Fast car. The Ford CV is favored by police departments by around eight to one nationwide. mike hunt >>> The Grand Marquis is still the best buy on the market today. Nothing >>> else in the 18K to 22K range brand new even comes close. ;) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- > We have had similar discussions before. I am wondering, out of > curiosity, do you live in city, suburbia, or country and how much do > you drive per day and what do you drive now? I live in a small town about an hour away from a large city. I work nearby so only drive about 10 miles per day on average. We do go on road trips a lot. I drive a 2004 Kia Sedona minivan, and the wife drives a '99 Olds 88 3800. Up until a year ago, I did have a long commute. > > We have had similar discussions before. I am wondering, out of > > curiosity, do you live in city, suburbia, or country and how much do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lot. I drive a 2004 Kia Sedona minivan, and the wife drives a '99 Olds 88 > 3800. Up until a year ago, I did have a long commute. Thanks. I have a better understanding of your view point now. I don't disagree with it. I had pictured you as living in NYC and not owning a vehicle. Someday I would like to work less than 25 miles away - and still make decent money. Paul. I also follow VW newsgroups. Same history there of their line of vehicles. Bigger engines, more horses, mpg hasn't really changed over two decades. Dependability and VW factory maintenance contracts have though for the worse. Also another hurdle along the way in the last 2 decades is the EPA requirements for exhaust gases. SignatureJonny >I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why > fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- Todays Accord is a much larger car, because that is what the American buyer prefers to buy. Honda still makes a car, the size of the eighties Accord that get 35 MPG. It is called the Civic. ;) mike hunt >I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why > fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- Yep, and the first Civics were getting 50+ mpg hwy. SignatureJonny > Todays Accord is a much larger car, because that is what the American > buyer prefers to buy. Honda still makes a car, the size of the eighties [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption >> =---- That is not true as best the first Civics could get was 45 MPG, I owned one. However the first Civics were midget cars, with much smaller engines as well. They were dangerous little cars that could barely get out of their own way. To get any vehicle that will attain more than 50 MPG one needs to buy a motorcycle ;) mike hunt > Yep, and the first Civics were getting 50+ mpg hwy. >> Todays Accord is a much larger car, because that is what the American [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption >>> =---- It's possible to have high mpg with low horsepower, but would you drive one of them? Consider merging onto freeways where power is needed, plus us in the south (especially Texas) will not give up our a/c in a car. I once owned a 1979 Eldorado diesel with 115 horsepower. It was nice for cruising, but never broke 24 mpg at best. Plus, whenever you pulled on the freeway you floored it and prayed you made it. Personally I'd rather have the power of my 3.8 Impala that can get 33 on the highway in great comfort. Roy > Todays Accord is a much larger car, because that is what the American > buyer prefers to buy. Honda still makes a car, the size of the eighties [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption >> =---- The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that gets good mileage for a car that size, but it too can not get our of its own way. I see fully loaded tractor trailers pass them on long grades on the interstates ;) mike hunt > It's possible to have high mpg with low horsepower, but would you drive > one of them? Consider merging onto freeways where power is needed, plus [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption >>> =---- > The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that gets > good mileage for a car that size, but it too can not get our of its own way. > I see fully loaded tractor trailers pass them on long grades on the > interstates ;) It's rated to do 0-60 MPH in under 10 secs. Is that considered barely adequate nowadays? > > The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that gets > > good mileage for a car that size, but it too can not get our of its own way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's rated to do 0-60 MPH in under 10 secs. Is that considered barely > adequate nowadays? That depends on how much under 10 seconds. 10 seconds is certainly a long time to get up to 60. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Perhaps if one lives in flat country. Drive one up a long grade and try to maintain the posted speed limit, or try accelerating from 60 MPH and you will see why it is a slug. On needs to drive with the throttle to the floor most of the time on anything but a flat road.and if you do that your mileage will drop way off ;) mike hunt >> > The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that > gets [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That depends on how much under 10 seconds. 10 seconds is certainly a long > time to get up to 60. Odd, I have a friend with a base model Camry 5-speed and it is definitely not underpowered. In fact, it is quite respectable for a four-popper. nate > The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that gets > good mileage for a car that size, but it too can not get our of its own way. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > >>> =---- I supose, as long as you do not need to climb a grade and want to maintain the speed limit, or need to get out of the way of a big rig in a hurry. ;) mike hunt > Odd, I have a friend with a base model Camry 5-speed and it is > definitely not underpowered. In fact, it is quite respectable for a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> mike hunt some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2005-08-14-hybrid-tinkering_x.htm One would expect any vehicle that could actually achieve 225 MPG or even 125 MPG would be quickly brought to market by the inventor. If he did not have the capital, or the investors, to do so one would think he would at least license the patent to a manufacture who would gladly bring it to market and put all of its competitors out of business. LOL mike hunt > some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2005-08-14-hybrid-tinkering_x.htm That is what Toyota is gradually doing GM will soon be out of business You are wrong about the quickly bit Quality takes a long time > One would expect any vehicle that could actually achieve 225 MPG or even > 125 MPG would be quickly brought to market by the inventor. If he did not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2005-08-14-hybrid-tinkering_x.htm > > some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. Obviously I missed something in engineering school. I didn't hear the lecture on how to get greater than 100% efficiency. >>> some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. >>> > Obviously I missed something in engineering school. > I didn't hear the lecture on how to get greater than 100% efficiency. Downgrade? Tailwind? or better yet, downgrade with a tailwind. -- PJ >The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that gets >good mileage for a car that size, but it too can not get our of its own way. >I see fully loaded tractor trailers pass them on long grades on the >interstates ;) > >mike hunt BUICK Century with a 3.1L engine. That's about 185 cu inches... Considerably smaller then the 6's of the 60's and 70's At first, I thought it underpowered, but since then, I've learned to drive with my head, not the gas pedal. It's no speed demon, 30 > 35 mpg on the interstate more than makes up for it ! <rj> > At first, I thought it underpowered, > but since then, I've learned to drive with my head, > not the gas pedal. good point.......many, many times while I'm trying to merge onto the highway, there's some dipshit moron in front of me who's doing like 35mph at the point the entrance ramp meets the highway and they're in a 220hp modern car. So it's driver error. I've owned econobox hatchback type cars with 65hp that you could easily get up to 55-65mph before merging. Who is taking about speed? Even a 4cy car can do 100 MPH. For a car to be safe it should have the torque, at the proper RPM, to be quick enough to get out of its own way when needed, a 4cy Camry can not. A 4cy Camry can not even maintain the speed limit on a long grades on the interstates around here. Eight out of ten Camrys sold in the US only have the four, our local dealer stocks mostly V6s for that reason. The Camry V6, like the Century 3.1L engine, has the proper torque for a car that size. mike hunt >>The current Camry with a 4 cy engine, is a good example of a car that gets >>good mileage for a car that size, but it too can not get our of its own [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > <rj> > I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why > fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I, for one, would rather cut my gas bill in half and have a 90hp engine > than have a 160hp engine. A lot of it is WEIGHT. cars aren't getting any lighter; despite improvements in technology and engineering (one can save weight by using compter modeling to make parts only as heavy as they absolutely need to be to perform reliably) possible weight savings are negated by upsizing and upcontenting just about every model line. Compare a current VW Golf to the original Rabbit and you'll see what I mean, but this is by no means the only example. Personally I'd be ecstatic if I could buy a simple, basic 2-seater that weighed maybe 2000-2500 lbs. and I bet it could perform well and get good fuel economy too. But the insurance industry (2-seaters are bad, m'kay) federal safety regulations (airbags add weight, as do door beams, rollover protection, etc. not to mention the possibly soon-to-be-mandatory ABS and DSC) and simple market pressures (people still tend to buy the biggest car they can afford, as they assume that "bigger and more expensive must equal better") pretty much ensure that that won't happen, unless I go with an expensive, high-performance model. nate There are plenty of small high mileage vehicles available on the market today for those that choose to buy them. The reality is few buyers choose to do so, prefer to buy the better equipped, safer, larger, more powerful vehicle that are available at around the same price. How many in the US do you believe will buy a two seater 'Smart' for 14K, that will so go on sale here, when they can buy any of a half dozen others that are better equipped, safer, larger, more powerful for the same price? Especially when GM dealers are advertising the base Aveo for $9,990 and DerMopar the base Caliber for $11,995 mike hunt >> I read their column about a month ago, and in it, someone had asked why >> fuel economy hasn't gone up too much over the past 20 years. Tom and Ray [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > nate I wouldn't buy any of them, when one can probably buy a used Miata or 944 for the same price. I'm a cheap SOB. However, if someone came up with a "poor man's sports car" concept, I'd be all over it like flies on you know what. I really don't care about better equipped or larger; safer (in terms of better performance capabilities) and more powerful are really the only deciding factors. What would be awesome would be, say, something like a 914 or X1/9 with a modern, powerful yet efficient engine like the VW TDI. It would have to be drastically decontented to meet my price criteria, but I'm OK with that. I guess I must not be your average car buyer... nate > There are plenty of small high mileage vehicles available on the market > today for those that choose to buy them. The reality is few buyers choose [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > > nate >> > Personally I'd be ecstatic if I could buy a simple, basic 2-seater >> > that weighed maybe 2000-2500 lbs. and I bet it could perform well >> > and get good fuel economy too. My dad once raced a friend through a twisty/windy mountain road back in the 70's. My dad was driving an Austin Bugeye Sprite and his friend was in a Charger with a 440ci. My dad's time was better than the other guy's elapsed time, so my dad won because of the superior handling of the Austin Sprite. It would be cool to get one of these tiny little British roadster (Sprite, MG Midget, etc..) and install, let's say, a Toyota 4AGE (1600cc DOHC 16V) in it. There is a racing circuit in Europe that people drive old Lotuses, Trimuph and MG's in, and most of the cars have more modern Japanese engines. >>>>Personally I'd be ecstatic if I could buy a simple, basic 2-seater >>>>that weighed maybe 2000-2500 lbs. and I bet it could perform well [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Lotuses, Trimuph and MG's in, and most of the cars have more modern > Japanese engines. Didn't Top Gear do a hillclimb challenge between an old guy in a Sprite and some modern "tuner" car recently? IIRC the Sprite spanked the tuner car, as you'd expect. It was a little hokey (the "tuner car" had Lambo doors, playstation, etc. but the owner seemed to think it was fast) but proved a point. At least a Charger is a real car. I'm not really into old British stuff, but a Beck spyder might make a good base for an "econo-sportster" if you could get past the price tag. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.