Fuel economy, why has it not improved more?
- Thread starter Rat407
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ediamiam
NOBODY drives 55 mph anymore!
I do....
And back when I was driving my Geo Metro around with some minor mods for fuel efficiency I would travel all around the west coast at 55 mph getting 52 mpg. I also camped in it with who is now my wife. Those were the good old days (like 5 years ago!
)
NOBODY drives 55 mph anymore!
I do....
And back when I was driving my Geo Metro around with some minor mods for fuel efficiency I would travel all around the west coast at 55 mph getting 52 mpg. I also camped in it with who is now my wife. Those were the good old days (like 5 years ago!
Average fuel economy is still up. Perhaps it doesn't seem that way with so many moderate-economy sedans and minivans, but a lot of it is that bigger vehicles are now more fuel efficient. Ford does it with aluminum to some extent.
In the early 90s I was driving an Integrated that weighted around 2300 lbs with an auto. I moved up to a GS-R that weighed about 2700 lbs. About 10 years later it's a WRX weighing about 3100 lbs. They've certainly gotten heavier, but with mileage that's not that bad considering I've been moving up in power and amenities.
In the early 90s I was driving an Integrated that weighted around 2300 lbs with an auto. I moved up to a GS-R that weighed about 2700 lbs. About 10 years later it's a WRX weighing about 3100 lbs. They've certainly gotten heavier, but with mileage that's not that bad considering I've been moving up in power and amenities.
I'm actually very impressed by the improvement in fuel economy of modern petrol engines.
I can make a specific comparison:
I owned a 1989 Mercedes 2L 190e for 21 years. Over that period it averaged 32.73 MPG (27.25 MPG US)
I skipped two generations of C class cars and replaced it with a 2009 C180K blue efficiency which after 2 years has averaged 45.2 MPG (37.64 MPG US)
That's a 38% improvement which is better than I expected given the newer car is a fair bit heavier and a lot faster.
I can make a specific comparison:
I owned a 1989 Mercedes 2L 190e for 21 years. Over that period it averaged 32.73 MPG (27.25 MPG US)
I skipped two generations of C class cars and replaced it with a 2009 C180K blue efficiency which after 2 years has averaged 45.2 MPG (37.64 MPG US)
That's a 38% improvement which is better than I expected given the newer car is a fair bit heavier and a lot faster.
A few reasons:
1) Vehicles got heavier and bigger, cars are safer because of this.
2) Emission of Nox are tighter than before, so you cannot lean burn as much as before
3) People starts complaining about power so your typical vehicle has gotten another 50% boost in HP, that's bad for fuel economy.
4) People buys SUV instead of cars, so market adapt and build bigger cars with worse aerodynamics.
1) Vehicles got heavier and bigger, cars are safer because of this.
2) Emission of Nox are tighter than before, so you cannot lean burn as much as before
3) People starts complaining about power so your typical vehicle has gotten another 50% boost in HP, that's bad for fuel economy.
4) People buys SUV instead of cars, so market adapt and build bigger cars with worse aerodynamics.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I would think with all the cheap plastic everywhere and lack of metal,cars would be lighter.
But they're heavier: more structure to meet front and side impact standards, more standard features like power windows and power seats that have heavy electric motors, and all the other features that are now standard, like ABS, airbags, everything adds weight and the same model cars (e.g. Civic or Corolla) have far more interior room than they did before. So, they're bigger, which makes them heavier...
Yep, I had a 1979 Commodore SL...it had a cassette player, manual steering and no air con...tipped the scales at just over a tonne, and got 30MPG (Oz) when I stripped the rudimentary emissions controls off it, added a decent carb and exhaust...just like a 1956 FJ Holden got 30MPG Oz)...now they are nearly 2 tonnes, climate control, GPS, surround sound, the lot.
And you can survive a crash that would have been fatal in any one of the older cars.
Captiva is 1.8T, Colorado with me in it goes over the scales at 2.2, and both are getting me 30MPG (Oz), nearly 25MPG US...I'm happy with progress.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I would think with all the cheap plastic everywhere and lack of metal,cars would be lighter.
But they're heavier: more structure to meet front and side impact standards, more standard features like power windows and power seats that have heavy electric motors, and all the other features that are now standard, like ABS, airbags, everything adds weight and the same model cars (e.g. Civic or Corolla) have far more interior room than they did before. So, they're bigger, which makes them heavier...
Yep, I had a 1979 Commodore SL...it had a cassette player, manual steering and no air con...tipped the scales at just over a tonne, and got 30MPG (Oz) when I stripped the rudimentary emissions controls off it, added a decent carb and exhaust...just like a 1956 FJ Holden got 30MPG Oz)...now they are nearly 2 tonnes, climate control, GPS, surround sound, the lot.
And you can survive a crash that would have been fatal in any one of the older cars.
Captiva is 1.8T, Colorado with me in it goes over the scales at 2.2, and both are getting me 30MPG (Oz), nearly 25MPG US...I'm happy with progress.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Americans want power and speed. The old cars you mentioned take roughly 20 seconds to get to 60 mph, and 65-70 mph is about their top speed. The modern vehicles you mentioned can accelerate at least twice as fast and have about 3 times the power while STILL getting better mileage. AND they weigh significantly more due to all the safety features. If people were willing to live with underpowered, slow vehicles, then sure, maybe they'd get significantly better mileage. But the automakers will only build what people will buy, and nobody would buy a car like that.
The VW diesel weren't that slow and had considerably better top end than that.
The slowest cars I've ever owned were an air-cooled Vanagon and a couple of 240Ds.
They would take a good twenty seconds to hit sixty but the VW could achieve 75 mph while the W123s could exceed 80 mph.
No car of the past thirty plus years is as slow as the figures you've provided.
Why isn't fuel economy better?
You and others have provided the answer.
Vehicles are larger, heavier and better equipped than was the case back in the day and they also have a lot more power.
We had a pair of '86 Civic Wagons. I could average 40 mpg on my commute with these things. While they made all of 76 bhp, they weren't slow because they weighed all of 2200 pounds and had five speed manual transaxles. They also had no AC, PS, PL or PW. Nobody would buy such a car today and such a car couldn't come close to meeting current impact standards.
Finally, fuel economy should be better?
Consider that our '17 Forester beats or '09 by about 20% in similar use with a little more weight due to a lot more toys and the same displacement and power.
When comparing like to like, fuel economy has improved considerably in the past decade alone.
Americans want power and speed. The old cars you mentioned take roughly 20 seconds to get to 60 mph, and 65-70 mph is about their top speed. The modern vehicles you mentioned can accelerate at least twice as fast and have about 3 times the power while STILL getting better mileage. AND they weigh significantly more due to all the safety features. If people were willing to live with underpowered, slow vehicles, then sure, maybe they'd get significantly better mileage. But the automakers will only build what people will buy, and nobody would buy a car like that.
The VW diesel weren't that slow and had considerably better top end than that.
The slowest cars I've ever owned were an air-cooled Vanagon and a couple of 240Ds.
They would take a good twenty seconds to hit sixty but the VW could achieve 75 mph while the W123s could exceed 80 mph.
No car of the past thirty plus years is as slow as the figures you've provided.
Why isn't fuel economy better?
You and others have provided the answer.
Vehicles are larger, heavier and better equipped than was the case back in the day and they also have a lot more power.
We had a pair of '86 Civic Wagons. I could average 40 mpg on my commute with these things. While they made all of 76 bhp, they weren't slow because they weighed all of 2200 pounds and had five speed manual transaxles. They also had no AC, PS, PL or PW. Nobody would buy such a car today and such a car couldn't come close to meeting current impact standards.
Finally, fuel economy should be better?
Consider that our '17 Forester beats or '09 by about 20% in similar use with a little more weight due to a lot more toys and the same displacement and power.
When comparing like to like, fuel economy has improved considerably in the past decade alone.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Had a 79 Dodge 4WD truck - V8 that only made 160 HP - and still only got 16 mpg. I spent lots of time/money to probably add 30 hp and the mpg stayed about the same. My hybrid atkinson gas mill has more power than that.
14 inch tires used to be standard on most American cars (caddies and the like had 15 inch tires). The imported econo boxes had 13 inch tires.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ediamiam
NOBODY drives 55 mph anymore!
It's fun to set the cruise control to 55 on the freeway. The looks I get from people is hilarious.
NOBODY drives 55 mph anymore!
It's fun to set the cruise control to 55 on the freeway. The looks I get from people is hilarious.
Cars are much heavier, much bigger and many have way overpowered engines IMHO. I have a friend with a 2000lbs CRX, which gets an easy 40mpg or more, it looks comically small next to my 3400lbs XB, which cant even get 30mpg on a tank, which looks comically small next to these ridiculous things they call pickup trucks these days, you know the kind in which the bedside is almost 5 ft high off the ground....
Trying to load something in one of these massive pickups is a pain, which is why many people just tow small trailers when they have to haul something which you can do with a car or minivan...
Have we really gotten that insecure?
Anyway, I would much rather be in My XB than the CRX in a crash, but im not sure the XB really needs a 170hp engine... Maybe Toyota should have focused on making an engine that didn't burn oil first.
Kind of like FCA 9 speed transmissions, last I knew chrysler was having trouble making 4 speed automatics that didn't self destruct. Maybe they thought they would have better luck with a 9 speed.....
Trying to load something in one of these massive pickups is a pain, which is why many people just tow small trailers when they have to haul something which you can do with a car or minivan...
Have we really gotten that insecure?
Anyway, I would much rather be in My XB than the CRX in a crash, but im not sure the XB really needs a 170hp engine... Maybe Toyota should have focused on making an engine that didn't burn oil first.
Kind of like FCA 9 speed transmissions, last I knew chrysler was having trouble making 4 speed automatics that didn't self destruct. Maybe they thought they would have better luck with a 9 speed.....
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Dropping a newer drive-train into an older vehicle would be an interesting experiment. Although with the styling of the 80s you will lose aerodynamics.
They used to advertise drag coefficients in the 80s! It was an enormously big deal and when they started tilting windscreens 60 degrees instead of the then-standard 45.
But there's a lot to be said for frontal area, no matter how well you shape it. The prius/insight blob-tail does about the best job of putting the air back where it came from to minimize disruptions, but we as Americans like having space between the driver and shotgun passenger. There's also about 9-12 inches between inside armrest and outside door skin for crash protection, too. Go sit next to someone in an old aircooled Beetle and note how elbow-to-elbow it was, and we forgot about.
The next time you see a 1st generation Taurus in a parking lot, compare it to a new Honda Civic or Fit. Taurus used to be a mid-sized car for the middle-upper-middle class!
Dropping a newer drive-train into an older vehicle would be an interesting experiment. Although with the styling of the 80s you will lose aerodynamics.
They used to advertise drag coefficients in the 80s! It was an enormously big deal and when they started tilting windscreens 60 degrees instead of the then-standard 45.
But there's a lot to be said for frontal area, no matter how well you shape it. The prius/insight blob-tail does about the best job of putting the air back where it came from to minimize disruptions, but we as Americans like having space between the driver and shotgun passenger. There's also about 9-12 inches between inside armrest and outside door skin for crash protection, too. Go sit next to someone in an old aircooled Beetle and note how elbow-to-elbow it was, and we forgot about.
The next time you see a 1st generation Taurus in a parking lot, compare it to a new Honda Civic or Fit. Taurus used to be a mid-sized car for the middle-upper-middle class!
Are you old enough to remember that el?
I am. The original jelly bean model Audi 5000 was lauded for its low Cd, for example and the buff books all wrote about the virtues of lower drag.
Today, we have generally smooth shapes and they all look pretty similar, whether BMW or Mercedes or Ford or Kia.
We have some Benz owners here who are loath to concede this, but the classic, classy and unique look of the Mercedes cars of the eighties is gone for good.
Gone are the lovely tall greenhouses of old, replaced with massive doors the sills of which come up to your shoulders. In some cars, outward vision is seriously compromised by the demands of style, not safety.
The current Camaro comes to mind.
OTOH, we have trucks today that are more square shouldered and massive in appearance than anything that anyone in the eighties would have imagined.
That they're also less useful is a problem only for the working classes who don't buy and use the high profit models anyway.
Joe Suburban wants a tall, tough looking truck and if that results in high bed sides and a high rear loading height, then so be it.
I am. The original jelly bean model Audi 5000 was lauded for its low Cd, for example and the buff books all wrote about the virtues of lower drag.
Today, we have generally smooth shapes and they all look pretty similar, whether BMW or Mercedes or Ford or Kia.
We have some Benz owners here who are loath to concede this, but the classic, classy and unique look of the Mercedes cars of the eighties is gone for good.
Gone are the lovely tall greenhouses of old, replaced with massive doors the sills of which come up to your shoulders. In some cars, outward vision is seriously compromised by the demands of style, not safety.
The current Camaro comes to mind.
OTOH, we have trucks today that are more square shouldered and massive in appearance than anything that anyone in the eighties would have imagined.
That they're also less useful is a problem only for the working classes who don't buy and use the high profit models anyway.
Joe Suburban wants a tall, tough looking truck and if that results in high bed sides and a high rear loading height, then so be it.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
...
OTOH, we have trucks today that are more square shouldered and massive in appearance than anything that anyone in the eighties would have imagined.
That they're also less useful is a problem only for the working classes who don't buy and use the high profit models anyway.
Joe Suburban wants a tall, tough looking truck and if that results in high bed sides and a high rear loading height, then so be it.
Regarding the trucks: The so-called 3/4 and 1-ton trucks aren't rated for fuel economy, but they are far more capable than the older versions. I had a '95 1-ton Dually which with the max towing package was rated to tow a then class-leading 12,800 lbs.
I have a '17 1-ton Dually that is rated to tow over 30,000 lbs. They get pretty close to the same fuel economy, despite the newer truck being heavier, far more capable, having a lot more power, quieter, safer for occupants, and is a much nicer place to spend time. I bought mine solely for it's towing capability.
So for me, they are far more useful.
...
OTOH, we have trucks today that are more square shouldered and massive in appearance than anything that anyone in the eighties would have imagined.
That they're also less useful is a problem only for the working classes who don't buy and use the high profit models anyway.
Joe Suburban wants a tall, tough looking truck and if that results in high bed sides and a high rear loading height, then so be it.
Regarding the trucks: The so-called 3/4 and 1-ton trucks aren't rated for fuel economy, but they are far more capable than the older versions. I had a '95 1-ton Dually which with the max towing package was rated to tow a then class-leading 12,800 lbs.
I have a '17 1-ton Dually that is rated to tow over 30,000 lbs. They get pretty close to the same fuel economy, despite the newer truck being heavier, far more capable, having a lot more power, quieter, safer for occupants, and is a much nicer place to spend time. I bought mine solely for it's towing capability.
So for me, they are far more useful.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Are you old enough to remember that el?
When I was a kid, the family cars included beetle, Datsun 1000 station wagon...we moved 600 miles interstate in that one), Datsun 120Y, Austin A40s, Morris Nomad, and when we got a Renault 16 (luxury), we'd travel 7 up in that for 800 miles.
Had friend with the original minis.
My car of choice (I had lots of them) was the Australian Torana, a lengthened, 6 cyclinder version of the then Vauxhaul Viva...
The current round of Vehicles had crash safety as a primary consideration (maybe it's parental instinct kicking in), and the cars I drove through the '90s leave me feeling vulnerable.
As to Cd, I remember that the Renault Fuego came in at 0.32, which was extraordinary back then, and had accusations of cheating.
Now the Prius is 0.24...but Yes, CdxAreaxV^2xdensity means that focus on one number only doesn't tell the story.
Are you old enough to remember that el?
When I was a kid, the family cars included beetle, Datsun 1000 station wagon...we moved 600 miles interstate in that one), Datsun 120Y, Austin A40s, Morris Nomad, and when we got a Renault 16 (luxury), we'd travel 7 up in that for 800 miles.
Had friend with the original minis.
My car of choice (I had lots of them) was the Australian Torana, a lengthened, 6 cyclinder version of the then Vauxhaul Viva...
The current round of Vehicles had crash safety as a primary consideration (maybe it's parental instinct kicking in), and the cars I drove through the '90s leave me feeling vulnerable.
As to Cd, I remember that the Renault Fuego came in at 0.32, which was extraordinary back then, and had accusations of cheating.
Now the Prius is 0.24...but Yes, CdxAreaxV^2xdensity means that focus on one number only doesn't tell the story.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The VW diesel weren't that slow and had considerably better top end than that.
The slowest cars I've ever owned were an air-cooled Vanagon and a couple of 240Ds.
They would take a good twenty seconds to hit sixty but the VW could achieve 75 mph while the W123s could exceed 80 mph.
I had an '81 Rabbit diesel and it was slow. Measured 0-60 with a calendar. (OK, really about 19-20 seconds, when new.)
I'm sure it was faster than many air cooled VWs and certainly faster than a Vanagon, but that's like saying you are the fastest turtle or the tallest pygmy.
The VW diesel weren't that slow and had considerably better top end than that.
The slowest cars I've ever owned were an air-cooled Vanagon and a couple of 240Ds.
They would take a good twenty seconds to hit sixty but the VW could achieve 75 mph while the W123s could exceed 80 mph.
I had an '81 Rabbit diesel and it was slow. Measured 0-60 with a calendar. (OK, really about 19-20 seconds, when new.)
I'm sure it was faster than many air cooled VWs and certainly faster than a Vanagon, but that's like saying you are the fastest turtle or the tallest pygmy.
Originally Posted By: Rat407
Food for thought but with today's technology one would thing we would be a lot farther along with fuel economy than we are.....Just seems odd that we are no farther along than we are when it comes to economy.
Surprising that only one guy mentioned the key ingredient: GAS.
Not only are gas formulations different (lead vs. no-lead), but today most burn gasohol! For every 10ga you buy, a gallon of it is ethanol.
If you want to see your fuel economy improve, along with performance, fill up with 100% gas.
Food for thought but with today's technology one would thing we would be a lot farther along with fuel economy than we are.....Just seems odd that we are no farther along than we are when it comes to economy.
Surprising that only one guy mentioned the key ingredient: GAS.
Not only are gas formulations different (lead vs. no-lead), but today most burn gasohol! For every 10ga you buy, a gallon of it is ethanol.
If you want to see your fuel economy improve, along with performance, fill up with 100% gas.
- Status
Similar threads
