MPG's from years ago, why not today?

[GreeCguy]

Last night I was paging through some old 1970's National Geographic mags over at my parents house. What puzzles me is that in the ad section, there were some ads for Honda Civics that listed MPG of 50 MPG.

It got me to thinking of the Geo Metro I owned back in the early 90's, (Geo Metro XFI - 3 cylinder 1 liter engine with a five speed transmission). That car would get between 50-60 mpg consistently. It had a little 10 gallon gas tank that I could fill up and drive 500 miles with no problem.

Question - why aren't they building cars like this today? Everything I see is way under these MPG's except for high priced over rated hybrids.

My little Metro was cheap to buy, cheap to own and easy to work on. Why don't they build these cars today?

 

[Kuato]

I feel the same way...and after some thought -- today's cars in the US have more than twice the horsepower, handle better and have more amenities and are supposedly safer than cars 20 years ago. All these things cost weight and therefore mpg. There is also the reduction in tailpipe emissions. I'm sure if there weren't any emissions standards in the US we'd still see the high mpg numbers.

In Europe I believe they've got smaller engines, often turbocharged, that get very good mileage compared to US versions with larger engines.

I'm surprised that full sized trucks haven't increased their mpg more than they have. In the 80s with a non overdrive transmission, you could get 15mpg in a carbureted V8. With today's 6 speed (or more) transmissions the same truck gets only 19 or 20. I suppose the same holds true...a bit more weight and emissions have offset fuel injection and overdrive transmissions; plus there's only so much energy in a gallon of fuel.

 

[exranger06]

Because a car like that wouldn't sell today. That's not what most people want. Those cars may have gotten 50 mpg, but they also had 60 hp and took about 15 seconds to go from 0-60 mph. Americans have gotten spoiled. Everybody "needs" 300 hp and has to get to 60 in 7 seconds or less.

Those cars were also much lighter and didn't have nearly as many safety features. Now cars have mutiple airbags and stuff that makes the car heavier, which further reduces mpg.

 

[milehigh]

Good point. Safety and much more power are big reasons as cars are quite a bit heavier today.

Also, people like "luxury" in even the most basic car (A/C, great audio system, power everything) and interior space. My old '87 Accord is much smaller than my Cruze today- although with my two the new Cruze gets better mileage and has substantially more power than the older Accord.

My former '76 Civic averaged 50+ with the 1200cc engine and 4 spd MT. I'd be afraid to drive it today in the world of giant cars and SUV's.

 

[stranger706]

Added weight from:

Safety related items
Noise reduction
Performance enhancing equipment (large, heavy wheels/tires, heavy duty suspension for "performance")
Increasing size for passengers (compare today's Civic to earlier generations)

Also don't forget the EPA mandated equipment. I know cars these days are running cleaner than ever. However they are not operating at maximum efficiency. This would produce more emissions which goes against what the EPA wants.

 

[Falken]

It is because of all the airbags and high tensile steel used to pass crash tests that add to the weight.

Not to mention AC, more sound deadening, larger wheels adding to unsprung weight etc.

I bet if I stripped all the carpet, airbags, seats except drivers, tossed the spare, and got the weight of the car down it would blow past 60+MPG.

I get over 45 MPG on the highway now when up to cruising speed.

Cars have more horsepower now, over twice as much as a general rule. So we get a far safer, more powerful car with all the luxuries of a modern car, and still get decent fuel economy.

Also, a small thing worth mentioning is in the past they had no ethanol in fuel, increasing fuel economy by a notable % over today's corn gas.

 

[fdcg27]

First off, the EPA highway mileage figures from then and now are not comparable.
EPA has reduced reported highway fuel economy to bring it more in line with what you can really expect to see.
Second, while our old '86 Civic Wagon really would deliver 40 mpg consistently on my commute, it did not meet the impact standards cars of today are required to meet, it had not a single airbag, it lacked PDL, PW, PAS and AC and as a consequence, it weighed around 2100 lbs ready for the road.
If you could build a strippo car to the same standards as applied in the mid 'eighties, you could easily get really good mileage in a simple machine that could be offered pretty cheaply.
Of course, there'd be few takers.
Incidentally, we had a first gen Civic CVCC 1500, and it never came close to 50 mpg in actual use.
Just for the sake of comparison, I can easily avearge 32 mpg on my commute with my old BMW, either active Accord or our semi retired '97 Accord.
These cars have airbags, AC, PW, PDL and PAS as well as fuel injection.
The BMW even has automatically deployed roll bars, so that you don't have to support the weight of the car with your neck should you happen to roll it onto its canvas top.
They all weigh at least half a ton more than did our old Civic, so I'd say that fuel economy hasn't suffered all that much, all things considered.

 

[dishdude]

And don't forget - today's Civic is the size of an 80's Accord.

 

[oilstudent24]

Everything they said and speed limits were slower in many states

 

[NHGUY]

Check the specs on a 1980 Accord,Civic,Corolla,GLC....you would be shocked at the short wheelbases,narrow bodies and sawed off lengths.This is why the K car in 1981 appeared to be such a "large" option to the imports....the 100" wheelbase made an Accord or 626 look positively "foreign".The Japanese caught on eventually and every successive Civic,Accord,Corolla,Corona/Camry,GLC/323,626 got larger and larger.This is why Minis had to come along (Justy,Metro,Festiva) to plug the hole on the bottom end.

 

[Spazdog]

I had the 4 cylinder version of the Metro, the Suzuki Swift GA.

EPA rating was 39 city/43 hwy. It never returned less than 45mpg and I beat on that poor little car pretty hard. The upshift light was virtually always ignored.

I don't think the throttle body injected SOHC 8-valve G13 was that "dirty" of an engine. We had to tailpipe test for inspection. Ihe HC was negligible. Like 2ppm out of an acceptable 220ppm at idle. I don't know if it would pass NOx or CO2 today but it was a pretty clean engine.

Safety is big factor. You are probably actually safer in a smaller Smart Dumb-For-All than a Swift/Metro. The Dumb-For-All has a very strong occupant safety cage that will not easily deform crushing the occupants. It has virtually zero crumple zone but the Swift/Metro is virtually all crumple zone.

So new cars have to be structurally heavier for safety. Throw in all the TPMS, airbags, side intrusion beams, stability control/ABS...etc...on a Swift/Metro and it'll be considerably heavier.

Plus, I don't think anyone makes a car with 13" tires anymore (Swift) I'm fairly certain US cars do not have 12" anymore (Festiva/Metro) Seems like even the most basic cars now have 15"s
If you've ever driven a 2.5 Jeep with 33" Mudders, you know how much torque the extra tire height kills. It was gutless on the stock steelies. It was sub-Suzuki Samurai with the 33" tires on it. Feels like you need to drive in 4LO just to get around in town.

 

[Kuato]

All the above is true...but I still scratch my head over the Dodge Neon in the 90s.

From one year to the next, with Fed MPG standards the same, same engine with no redesign, same equipment, it went from 36mpg to 32mpg estimated.

 

[sciphi]

$20k got me a non-hybrid Chevrolet that gets me about 44 mpg year-round. The last tank was 48 mpg. I got 60 mpg today over 30 miles of flat 55 mph freeway cruising. It's not a rolling tin can, either.

Those high-MPG non-hybrid cars are out there, if you know where to look.

 

[ethangsmith]

The guys at work laugh at me for driving my 99 Ford Escort everywhere, but with 28 city and 36 highway average, it's hard to beat. The worst tank I ever got was 26mpg and the best was 42mpg. Add that to having no payments on the car and an unending source of junkyard parts, why drive something else?

 

[Mr Nice]

I had a dream I found a red 1995 Civic VX with 60K miles and I bought it.

50 MPG with such old school technology.

 

[antiqueshell]

There actually IS a significant market for very basic durable cars even in the USA. The problem is that nobody is making them because the profit margin is small and the companies are greedy.

I'd love to see a mass market kit car company come along and give us something comparable to the old VW Rabbit, or Suzuki Swift. That way you can bypass the huge amount of federal and state regs that would hinder those simple light weight inexpensive products today.

If someone came out with a kit car Rabbit from the 80's I would definitely interested if the price was reasonable. Perhaps around 4000 $ with a 2 year warranty on parts.

 

[salesrep]

..........The Government is why not, that simple.

 

[abycat]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I had the 4 cylinder version of the Metro, the Suzuki Swift GA.

EPA rating was 39 city/43 hwy. It never returned less than 45mpg and I beat on that poor little car pretty hard. The upshift light was virtually always ignored.

I don't think the throttle body injected SOHC 8-valve G13 was that "dirty" of an engine. We had to tailpipe test for inspection. Ihe HC was negligible. Like 2ppm out of an acceptable 220ppm at idle. I don't know if it would pass NOx or CO2 today but it was a pretty clean engine.

Safety is big factor. You are probably actually safer in a smaller Smart Dumb-For-All than a Swift/Metro. The Dumb-For-All has a very strong occupant safety cage that will not easily deform crushing the occupants. It has virtually zero crumple zone but the Swift/Metro is virtually all crumple zone.

So new cars have to be structurally heavier for safety. Throw in all the TPMS, airbags, side intrusion beams, stability control/ABS...etc...on a Swift/Metro and it'll be considerably heavier.

Plus, I don't think anyone makes a car with 13" tires anymore (Swift) I'm fairly certain US cars do not have 12" anymore (Festiva/Metro) Seems like even the most basic cars now have 15"s
If you've ever driven a 2.5 Jeep with 33" Mudders, you know how much torque the extra tire height kills. It was gutless on the stock steelies. It was sub-Suzuki Samurai with the 33" tires on it. Feels like you need to drive in 4LO just to get around in town.

I agree. Those little swifts engine makes close to the same emmissions from the exhaust port but totally different from the tailpipe. As for weight i really agree too. The emissions systems for new cars must weigh 10 times as much as the old stuff. Not too mention all the safety and structural weight added from safety advancements.

 

[Spazdog]

When I look at the specs of cars like the 1976 Rabbit, it seems like it was better then than it is now:

O-50 in 8.2 seconds. A Versa S can do that. Maybe match it in actual gas mileage too. But I still think the old Rabbit would be more fun to drive than a Versa. Running about hiking up the rear wheel in corners...etc...

I remember a commercial that pitted the Rabbit against various V8 powered domestic mid-size cars. The Rabbit ran away from them from a standing start. Probably a 260 in the Olds and a 301 in the Pontiac. No surprise there that the Rabbit squashed 'em.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I had a dream I found a red 1995 Civic VX with 60K miles and I bought it.

50 MPG with such old school technology.




This sounds more like a nightmare than a dream.
Have you ever actually driven a VX?
A VX never lets you forget that you're driving an overgeared fuel economy special, unlike a similar vintage Metro.
The Civic VX is one Honda I'd never consider and would not recommend to anyone.