1984 MPG's

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: musicmanbass
Originally Posted By: dishdude
All of those cars you listed also weighed half of what their modern day equivalents do, they had no creature comforts and minimal safety equipment. They were noisy, uncomfortable and would never sell today.


Bingo.

That is the equivalent argument of the "I remember when a gallon of gas was 25¢" crowd. Yea, and you only made 30¢ an hour back then, too!

Not the same thing at all. I don't buy it. A safe and comfortable vehicle that meets ALL required NTSB criteria AND the required EPA garbage can be built in my opinion. It's not rocket science in the slightest. I think the makers are actually fearful perhaps of producing a car that COULD potentially label them an 'economy car' maker or somehow inferior. I think that automobile media outlets such as Car and Driver, Motor Trend,etc. would slam them for not being 'advanced'. My mid-80's Civics weren't bad driving or uncomfortable at all anyway. And as for being noisy? Not what I drove. I think there is some truth (per the Echo) to the consumer not buying them in quantity may be another factor. Peer pressure and the 'cool' factor is still a big deal I suppose.



1. - I agree and the cars are being built today.

2. - Not rocket science? Maybe not, but let's see you design and build something better yourself in this day of unending government regulations, safety regulations and fickle consumer tastes. Oh and it must "sell" too.

Well, I'm not a designer or a builder (whatever they call them) of automobiles. I don't know why so many of you folks are saying that it 'can't' be done because of regulations and such. No way that I believe that. If small, ugly, silly looking cars like the Smart Car (not so 'smart' being that my four door Focus beats it in mpg's) can sell and be safe....then why not concentrate on producing something that get's 50mpg without costing over $20k and NOT being a hybrid? It can be done and I don't think you need to be a genius to do it. And about selling it? It's about marketing and changing the consumer culture just a bit. It's true that Americans always want more of everything. More power....better handling....complete collision protection....more speed....more interior gizmos....etc., etc., etc. I think that is what kills the idea of a safe, simple, economical, gas powered super-efficient car. Face it...even our most meager 4 cylinder cars today can do twice the legal speed limit and get there quickly. Do we really need that in a commuter car to go to work in? Maybe not.

 

[urchin]

My "dream" economy car would be about the size of the MKI Volkswagen Rabbit from the 70s and 80s. Have the absolute minimal safety equipment possible, and also a minimum of stuff or gadgets and comfort accessories. It should be at least decent to drive, and get around 45-50 MPG at least and weigh no more than 2100 lbs.


I'm thinking a 1.2L Turbo Diesel.

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: urchin
My "dream" economy car would be about the size of the MKI Volkswagen Rabbit from the 70s and 80s. Have the absolute minimal safety equipment possible, and also a minimum of stuff or gadgets and comfort accessories. It should be at least decent to drive, and get around 45-50 MPG at least and weigh no more than 2100 lbs.


I'm thinking a 1.2L Turbo Diesel.


Did VW offer a diesel in the 1970's? I know in some of the 80's Rabbits they did. I owned a 1976 MT Rabbit that got the same or less mpg than my much more comfortable 1996 MT Ford Contour gets. Yes the Contour is heavier but it has more safety equipment and luxury items such as PS, A/C, PL. etc and still gets better mpg, plus it has better acceleration and it's quieter overall.

And today's equivalent vehicles are even safer, more luxurious and at least just as efficient. Especially considering the cars from the 70's, 80's & early 90's used real gasoline, not the stuff tainted with mpg robbing oxygenators, ie now only ethanol.

Whimsey

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


A standard V6 can do 2.3 times the legal maximum, and even a hatch can double it...why ?


Ride a Honda CB125S on the freeway. (which coincidentally is what I was driving in the beginning of 1984) You'll know why real quickly.

The national speed limit was 55mph. The Honda 125 could do 55 mph and in a full tuck at WOT on level pavement would eventually hit 70. You do not want to be in a car that just does the speed limit.

Passing a truck travelling at 50mph in a 55mph zone requires a lot of planning ahead on a CB125

 

[mechtech2]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
All of those cars you listed also weighed half of what their modern day equivalents do, they had no creature comforts and minimal safety equipment. They were noisy, uncomfortable and would never sell today.


Right, esp about the weight!
I looked at the new Fiat 500 - kinda like the mini cooper, only smaller. I was shocked at it's 3,000 lb weight! [and it's high cost}

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Shannow


A standard V6 can do 2.3 times the legal maximum, and even a hatch can double it...why ?


Ride a Honda CB125S on the freeway. (which coincidentally is what I was driving in the beginning of 1984) You'll know why real quickly.

The national speed limit was 55mph. The Honda 125 could do 55 mph and in a full tuck at WOT on level pavement would eventually hit 70. You do not want to be in a car that just does the speed limit.

Passing a truck travelling at 50mph in a 55mph zone requires a lot of planning ahead on a CB125

That makes me think of a car my dad had... A 1987 Hyundai Excel. He also had to struggle to go above 55 MPH, and passing certain vehicles was extremely difficult.

Replacing it with a 1992 Nissan Sentra was a huge improvement in his whole life.

 

[hattaresguy]

I think its amazing that a modern car like a Cruze which weighs about 1k pounds more than an 80's Civic, is a lot larger, and more powerful, can return low to mid 40's and put out significantly fewer emissions.

Plus it has like a million airbags and its far safer in a wreck.

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
That makes me think of a car my dad had... A 1987 Hyundai Excel. He also had to struggle to go above 55 MPH, and passing certain vehicles was extremely difficult.


I bought that same car new in 1987 as well. And with it's very underpowered 1.5L engine, it was far from being a quick passer! But it consistently got in the high 30's for MPG, and in my case, never gave me a problem. It was sold with 98K on it and was running good at the time.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: urchin
My "dream" economy car would be about the size of the MKI Volkswagen Rabbit from the 70s and 80s. Have the absolute minimal safety equipment possible, and also a minimum of stuff or gadgets and comfort accessories. It should be at least decent to drive, and get around 45-50 MPG at least and weigh no more than 2100 lbs.


I'm thinking a 1.2L Turbo Diesel.



Volkswagen could do this easily.

The Gol is made in Brazil. You wouldn't have to pay a worker making European wage Euros to make it, and shipping it from Brazil should be less expensive than from VW's factory in South Africa.
The Gol sedan is a little longer than a MKI or MKII Golf/Rabbit and the hatchback is a little shorter.
unfortunately, being from Brazil the Gol has an E85 engine that is optimized for torque production on the alcohol fuel.
Solution? Bluemotion 1.6TDI

We've had the Gol before. It was called the Volkswagen Fox

They keep promising us that they will produce the Polo in Mexico (Chattanooga would be better).
Last time I checked, they had not begun production.

 

[sciphi]

More people also shifted their own transmissions back then. If more folks were content with not getting to the next stoplight at warp speed, they'd be getting better fuel economy. Shifting gears by hand makes one much more aware of lights. It also helps getting better fuel mileage around town.

Makers have made cars with better automatics. They still can't beat a manual transmission with a good driver.

 

[FXjohn]

the cheapskates who want cars like that won't buy them new. the car companies would build them if there was a demand.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
the cheapskates who want cars like that won't buy them new. the car companies would build them if there was a demand.


I just got a brand-new car with pretty basic features for new-car standards. And a manual transmission. It's gotten 40 mpg or more ever since the first fillup.

Sometimes to be a true cheapskate one needs to buy a new car to be cheap for years on end.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Originally Posted By: artificialist
That makes me think of a car my dad had... A 1987 Hyundai Excel. He also had to struggle to go above 55 MPH, and passing certain vehicles was extremely difficult.


I bought that same car new in 1987 as well. And with it's very underpowered 1.5L engine, it was far from being a quick passer! But it consistently got in the high 30's for MPG, and in my case, never gave me a problem. It was sold with 98K on it and was running good at the time.


I had a later model Scoupe with sequential fuel injection. Seemed to be a big improvement over that odd-duck Mikuni/Solex water choke carburetor. I could actually keep up with a 1.9 CVH Ford EXP. (feel bad for the people watching the race....that took a long time. Neither car was quick to 60) My mileage was down in the very low 30s though.

My wife got a base model 4 speed manual Excel 5-door for graduation in '86 (now she's going to kill me for revealing that...not only did she have an Excel but she graduated 25 years ago

)She doesn't track mpg but she said it accelerated as well as her automatic MKI Rabbit did. Her only "problems" with it were that people kept breaking in to steal the Panasonic factory stereo cassette player (2 speaker in the base model IIRC)and an elderly lady turned left in front of her causing the front end to be shortened by 10 inches. The Cadillac she hit was still basically driveable.

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog


Volkswagen could do this easily.

The Gol is made in Brazil. You wouldn't have to pay a worker making European wage Euros to make it, and shipping it from Brazil should be less expensive than from VW's factory in South Africa.
The Gol sedan is a little longer than a MKI or MKII Golf/Rabbit and the hatchback is a little shorter.
unfortunately, being from Brazil the Gol has an E85 engine that is optimized for torque production on the alcohol fuel.
Solution? Bluemotion 1.6TDI

We've had the Gol before. It was called the Volkswagen Fox

They keep promising us that they will produce the Polo in Mexico (Chattanooga would be better).
Last time I checked, they had not begun production.



I was banned over on the VWVortex forums for desiring the Polo Diesel and having the nerve to keep posting about it.



It must have cramped their stealth marketing plan for the USA..

The folks at VWoA are too busy drooling over fat profits by bring back the phaeton and new Touareg (two huge white elephants that the US market will not accept from VW.)

Not to mention that some VWoA genius was paid good money to have stupid chrome extenders on the exhaust pipes installed at the US port. Now people are being burned by them because they stick too far out.

That is why I call VWoA the "Herndon Halfwits".

 

[MrHorspwer]

Wow, I can see nobody works in retail sales or marketing.

People don't buy items they *need*, they buy items they *want*. This is true for nearly everything: electronics and gadgets, homes, clothing, and cars. If all you have to offer a customer is the car they really *need*, they will walk out of your showroom and drive right to a competitors store.

The people that *want* a stripped down car desire it for economic reasons. Cheap, reliable, efficient transportation. Thing is, most of these people also realize that buying a new car, *any* new car, isn't economical. Even if a new car made 60 MPG, if it cost two times as much as a used model that gets 30 MPG, it doesn't make economic sense.

Do you really think that the entire auto industry is a bunch of idiots who have no clue how to build and market automobiles? Even Lotus, who built their entire company on including only the *needs* of a sports car buyer, have warmed up to the idea that the buyer's pool for a small, stripped, raw sports car is extremely shallow. To survive, and hopefully thrive, they're going in search of a bigger pool. Raw sports car and the ultra-stripped econo car buyers have more in common than you think. Good idea or bad, only Lotus knows what their finanaces look like and whether than can continue as a company only offering minimalist sports cars. Their actions say it's a losing formula and they're looking to get away from it. As such, mainstream automakers have shown through their actions that ultra-stripped econo cars are a losing formula as well.

 

[sciphi]

High MPG cars with features comparable to lower-MPG cars are finally available in the US. The result is that they are being snapped up quickly. Look how Toyota has had waiting lists for their Prius, how Mini gained a following, Honda Fits selling themselves with no cash on the hoods for years, 20% of Cruze buyers opting for the high-MPG (and decently-appointed) Eco variants, Ford Fiestas/Foci selling like mad, and higher-MPG trucks (Ecoboost F-150's incredible take rate) selling well.

We've finally awakened to the new crop of high-MPG vehicles that are genuinely good vehicles in their own right, not solely because of their fuel-sipping ways.

 

[FXjohn]

Fits and Minis don't get great mileage. now something like the Ford Focus is getting 40mpg.

 

[urchin]

@Mr Horsepower:

We KNOW you must be a marketing guy because the new trend in marketing today is to "tell" the consumer what they want but still let them "think" they are making an independent intelligent decision. LOL

If you look at the shambles of our economy in the US..incomes falling and earning power equates to 1978 or so, not to mention that the middle class is going away rapidly. So sure the top 4% or so have cash to burn, the other 96% certainly NO NOT.

And buying used is NOT the answer for many folks because they CAN afford to buy a new car, but not the dripping with profit margin barges that the industry would like for all to buy.



Seriously nobody said that most people want stripped models just reasonably equipped. Yes, and that means less profit. Tough, get used to it.


The reason why folks are not buying more small cars is because the industry would rather upsell them to something well more profitable (larger) so they keep the MPGs down on the less profitable cars giving folks less of a reason to buy the smaller models.


Lets see what happens when yo uguys actually make really high mpg models available. I promise you that if you had subcompacts getting 60 mpg at reasonable prices and modestly equipped people would be buying them in droves.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: urchin


I was banned over on the VWVortex forums for desiring the Polo Diesel and having the nerve to keep posting about it.



It must have cramped their stealth marketing plan for the USA..

The folks at VWoA are too busy drooling over fat profits by bring back the phaeton and new Touareg (two huge white elephants that the US market will not accept from VW.)

Not to mention that some VWoA genius was paid good money to have stupid chrome extenders on the exhaust pipes installed at the US port. Now people are being burned by them because they stick too far out.

That is why I call VWoA the "Herndon Halfwits".

banned for that? Sheesh.

I checked the VW Mexico page. No Polo there either. They've been promising this since '08 or '09 and they can't or won't.

They have about twice as many models in Mexico that we get in the USA and Canada. Maybe the Germans just like Mexico better than the other two countries to the north

Given the amount of German tourists in Cancun there might be something to that.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Fits and Minis don't get great mileage. now something like the Ford Focus is getting 40mpg.


They consistently get high 30's to low 40's on the highway. EPA numbers are awful, but real MPG reports are much better. Ours has averaged right around 32 mpg being driven to work every day with wanton disrespect for fuel economy, and 40 mpg with the cruise set at 65 on road trips.

Focuses get decent mileage, and are fun to drive. They get close to their EPA numbers, from what I've heard.

I'll take either of our 2 cars over a 1984 econobox. 0-60 in about 8-9 seconds, braking in less than 160 feet from 60 mph, decent handling, lots of safety features, and comfy on a long trip will gladly be chosen over a noisy, crude car that gets equivalent fuel economy.