MPG's from years ago, why not today?
- Thread starter GreeCguy
- Start date
- Status
My parents had a brand-new 1983 Civic 1300FE, where the "FE" stood for Fuel Efficient (the small engine with a 5-speed, in an era when 4-speeds were more common).
Best they ever got was 63 MPG on an all-day highway trip. It was my mom's car, and with the speed limit being 55, she drove, well, 55. On the dot. It probably didn't top about 1200 RPMs at that kind of speed.
It was little more than a tin box. No options, no console or armrest, not even a radio if I remember right. Took forever to get to 60 MPH. Oooops, I mean 55. Crosswinds or a passing semi would buffet it like a sailboat. Illinois salt turned it into swiss cheese.
If I recall, they eventually traded it for a 1990 Accord. Both Hondas eventually turned into serioius oil burners after about 70-80K miles (the Accord, especially - it was like smoking the area for mosquitoes). This was about the time they retired and started using the car for long trips. Both felt the Accord was much too uncomfortable and eventually traded it for a 2002 Impala. They love the Impala. No, it doesn't get the mileage of the Civic but its not a crude tin box either.
Best they ever got was 63 MPG on an all-day highway trip. It was my mom's car, and with the speed limit being 55, she drove, well, 55. On the dot. It probably didn't top about 1200 RPMs at that kind of speed.
It was little more than a tin box. No options, no console or armrest, not even a radio if I remember right. Took forever to get to 60 MPH. Oooops, I mean 55. Crosswinds or a passing semi would buffet it like a sailboat. Illinois salt turned it into swiss cheese.
If I recall, they eventually traded it for a 1990 Accord. Both Hondas eventually turned into serioius oil burners after about 70-80K miles (the Accord, especially - it was like smoking the area for mosquitoes). This was about the time they retired and started using the car for long trips. Both felt the Accord was much too uncomfortable and eventually traded it for a 2002 Impala. They love the Impala. No, it doesn't get the mileage of the Civic but its not a crude tin box either.
I picked up my Civic last year with 142k miles for $2700. Avg 41mpg and I try to keep it at ~75mph on the hwy. Has A/C, pwr locks, windows, mirrors, tall gearing, slow acceleration and two airbags.
I think it weighs around 2400lbs.
Modern cars kept growing and growing. Honda had to introduce a car below the Civic b/c the Civic grew too large. People want all those options along with the new safety requirements and more legroom. So the manu's build it. Don't blame the gov't or manu - its the American consumer. Look at the [censored] SUV craze and gas guzzlers that were 'needed'. Finally with CAFE requirements we're getting new cars with all of the new tech that still can achieve good mpg. I don't need all the new tech and am happy driving something 'old' that gets decent mpg and a much lower cost of ownership.
Oh, and nothing new in this thread. The subject comes around quite often.
I think it weighs around 2400lbs.
Modern cars kept growing and growing. Honda had to introduce a car below the Civic b/c the Civic grew too large. People want all those options along with the new safety requirements and more legroom. So the manu's build it. Don't blame the gov't or manu - its the American consumer. Look at the [censored] SUV craze and gas guzzlers that were 'needed'. Finally with CAFE requirements we're getting new cars with all of the new tech that still can achieve good mpg. I don't need all the new tech and am happy driving something 'old' that gets decent mpg and a much lower cost of ownership.
Oh, and nothing new in this thread. The subject comes around quite often.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Suzuki quietly left the American market!
We've had a couple of Suzukis. They were tough cars but not really suited for the US market. Probably better suited for developing 3rd world countries.
I bought my Swift for next to nothing wrecked. Couldn't find a Swift front clip so mine got a Geo Metro front with H4666 sealed beam headlights. It had been in a front end collision but never required an alignment. Drove it off-road chasing a Dakota 4X4 and it came through covered in mud and dust but otherwise unscathed. Terrible seats. No lumbar support. Long trips are possible but not in comfort.
We also had a Samurai. It would go anywhere a Wrangler would go....just at 1/2 the speed. Body was made of the thinnest gauge steel possible but chassis was tough. Just don't try to drive it on the interstate. It will be screaming. If you keep your foot buried in it you might hit 75mph on level pavement.
Then GM forced Suzuki to be a Daewoo dealer. They seem like fairly hardy cars but really unpleasant to drive.
By the time Suzuki gave us the Kizashi, it was too late. I knew that the manufacturer of the world's quickest mass produced vehicle (from time to time) could build a good car. They just should have done so about 20 years earlier.
Suzuki quietly left the American market!
We've had a couple of Suzukis. They were tough cars but not really suited for the US market. Probably better suited for developing 3rd world countries.
I bought my Swift for next to nothing wrecked. Couldn't find a Swift front clip so mine got a Geo Metro front with H4666 sealed beam headlights. It had been in a front end collision but never required an alignment. Drove it off-road chasing a Dakota 4X4 and it came through covered in mud and dust but otherwise unscathed. Terrible seats. No lumbar support. Long trips are possible but not in comfort.
We also had a Samurai. It would go anywhere a Wrangler would go....just at 1/2 the speed. Body was made of the thinnest gauge steel possible but chassis was tough. Just don't try to drive it on the interstate. It will be screaming. If you keep your foot buried in it you might hit 75mph on level pavement.
Then GM forced Suzuki to be a Daewoo dealer. They seem like fairly hardy cars but really unpleasant to drive.
By the time Suzuki gave us the Kizashi, it was too late. I knew that the manufacturer of the world's quickest mass produced vehicle (from time to time) could build a good car. They just should have done so about 20 years earlier.
Originally Posted By: 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.
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?
Back then, the national speed limit was 55, cars had small, underpowered engines, and really tall transmission gearing. If you bought an automatic, it was a horrible driving experience, and got considerably less mpg than the same car with a manual.
Consumers today in the US market pretty much refuse to buy manual transmission cars, and even single teenage kids out on their own think they need to own a large car, or SUV, because their parents have brainwashed them into thinking this is a good idea.
Cars today drive way better than cars back in the early 80's, not only in engine power, but in transmission shifting, and vehicle handling. Vehicles are safer to drive in snow and rain, on mountain roads, and are considerably safer if you get into an accident.
But, if you built a small car, with overly tall transmission gearing, and a small engine with low power, you can still get good fuel economy.
Fiat 500 is the perfect example.
It has a slightly larger engine (1.4 I-4 vs 1.3 I-4), but makes 30 more hp, and 24 more ft-lbs of torque. Length wise it's smaller than the Metro (140" long, vs 164" long), and its 600 lbs heavier.
I bet if you were to compare the specs of the European Fiat 500 with the Twin Air 2 cylinder engine, you would probably find out it gets the same hp and gas mileage as the Metro, but still drives better than the Metro ever did, and is considerably safer in a crash than the Metro ever was.
BC.
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.
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?
Back then, the national speed limit was 55, cars had small, underpowered engines, and really tall transmission gearing. If you bought an automatic, it was a horrible driving experience, and got considerably less mpg than the same car with a manual.
Consumers today in the US market pretty much refuse to buy manual transmission cars, and even single teenage kids out on their own think they need to own a large car, or SUV, because their parents have brainwashed them into thinking this is a good idea.
Cars today drive way better than cars back in the early 80's, not only in engine power, but in transmission shifting, and vehicle handling. Vehicles are safer to drive in snow and rain, on mountain roads, and are considerably safer if you get into an accident.
But, if you built a small car, with overly tall transmission gearing, and a small engine with low power, you can still get good fuel economy.
Fiat 500 is the perfect example.
It has a slightly larger engine (1.4 I-4 vs 1.3 I-4), but makes 30 more hp, and 24 more ft-lbs of torque. Length wise it's smaller than the Metro (140" long, vs 164" long), and its 600 lbs heavier.
I bet if you were to compare the specs of the European Fiat 500 with the Twin Air 2 cylinder engine, you would probably find out it gets the same hp and gas mileage as the Metro, but still drives better than the Metro ever did, and is considerably safer in a crash than the Metro ever was.
BC.
I think what keeps me from getting 50 MPG tanks on the Focus without really trying is the super short gearing.
I need a taller final drive or a taller 5th gear. Or, better yet, a 6 speed manual with a granny gear (so I can take off with no gas) and a super tall eco-gear.
I'd like to get a Spark and build an aero-kammback that attaches to the trailer hitch. Those are even more poorly geared than my Focus, but I think with the right aerodynamic modifications, they could get EXCELLENT mileage!
I need a taller final drive or a taller 5th gear. Or, better yet, a 6 speed manual with a granny gear (so I can take off with no gas) and a super tall eco-gear.
I'd like to get a Spark and build an aero-kammback that attaches to the trailer hitch. Those are even more poorly geared than my Focus, but I think with the right aerodynamic modifications, they could get EXCELLENT mileage!
Excepting my Ford F-250, all my cars since 1969 (all 4-bangers) got 20-25 in town, 30-35 on the highway...current Camry is at the high end of that range...and it's the largest/heaviest of the bunch...
Last edited:
1983-87 Renault Alliance/Encore - gutless in the extreme, but at times could exceed 50mpg highway with a 1.4L throttle body injected engine. My dad had an '84 Encore (2 door, 4-speed). I used to use it for my road trips to Austin. The thing never got less than 40mpg.
Originally Posted By: 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.
The new OBD2 controller wasn't as good for MPG. Something similar happened to the Metro and (I have heard) to base-model Civics.
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.
The new OBD2 controller wasn't as good for MPG. Something similar happened to the Metro and (I have heard) to base-model Civics.
Originally Posted By: 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.
It HAS to be better than a Metro! Liz had a Metro, and any Civic would HAVE to be better than that thing! That car was awful...aside from mileage, it did NOTHING well. Her Ford Festiva (10 years older, 270,000+ miles, a carb and no OD) was a better car in every way!
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.
It HAS to be better than a Metro! Liz had a Metro, and any Civic would HAVE to be better than that thing! That car was awful...aside from mileage, it did NOTHING well. Her Ford Festiva (10 years older, 270,000+ miles, a carb and no OD) was a better car in every way!
Best Air/Fuel ratio for fuel economy (under light load cruise) is generally in the area of 16.2:1 - 17.6:1. Quite far away from today's EPA mandated 14.5 to 1.
There is no question that significant fuel economy improvements are possible on conventional engines by operation in this area.
But, that also requires an engine large enough to propel the vehicle while operating at reduce power output. Meaning, installing a 1.4L 4cyl engine in your Ford Taurus, and operating it at 17/1 air/fuel won't likely be satisfactory under any conditions.
There is no question that significant fuel economy improvements are possible on conventional engines by operation in this area.
But, that also requires an engine large enough to propel the vehicle while operating at reduce power output. Meaning, installing a 1.4L 4cyl engine in your Ford Taurus, and operating it at 17/1 air/fuel won't likely be satisfactory under any conditions.
JHZR2
Staff member
Let's see...
-people who believe they cant merge safely with less than a V6, 200hp, etc.
-prevalence of ATs on part of weight and efficiency penalties
-substantially higher mass
-10% ethanol gasoline
-different profiles for EPA economy determination
-far lower pollution, at the expense of tonnage of CO2
-EPA percentage chop from the established profile MPG number
-Air conditioning
-LOTS of electrical gadgets
-Far safer vehicles due to mass and other systems installed
-wider tires and more unsprung mass in the name of looks and handling
Im sure Ive missed a lot.
-people who believe they cant merge safely with less than a V6, 200hp, etc.
-prevalence of ATs on part of weight and efficiency penalties
-substantially higher mass
-10% ethanol gasoline
-different profiles for EPA economy determination
-far lower pollution, at the expense of tonnage of CO2
-EPA percentage chop from the established profile MPG number
-Air conditioning
-LOTS of electrical gadgets
-Far safer vehicles due to mass and other systems installed
-wider tires and more unsprung mass in the name of looks and handling
Im sure Ive missed a lot.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Best Air/Fuel ratio for fuel economy (under light load cruise) is generally in the area of 16.2:1 - 17.6:1. Quite far away from today's EPA mandated 14.5 to 1.
There is no question that significant fuel economy improvements are possible on conventional engines by operation in this area.
But, that also requires an engine large enough to propel the vehicle while operating at reduce power output. Meaning, installing a 1.4L 4cyl engine in your Ford Taurus, and operating it at 17/1 air/fuel won't likely be satisfactory under any conditions.
My Civic HX does just this, but with a 1.6L engine. As long as the hills aren't too bad, I can hold lean burn mode from 60-80mph on the freeway. I'm not sure how lean my engine goes, but I know the first gen Insight was observed down to a 25:1 ! I think the HX is possibly 20:1 or so in lean burn.
But, it won't meet NOX standards for new engines these days, so Honda had to drop lean burn.
Best Air/Fuel ratio for fuel economy (under light load cruise) is generally in the area of 16.2:1 - 17.6:1. Quite far away from today's EPA mandated 14.5 to 1.
There is no question that significant fuel economy improvements are possible on conventional engines by operation in this area.
But, that also requires an engine large enough to propel the vehicle while operating at reduce power output. Meaning, installing a 1.4L 4cyl engine in your Ford Taurus, and operating it at 17/1 air/fuel won't likely be satisfactory under any conditions.
My Civic HX does just this, but with a 1.6L engine. As long as the hills aren't too bad, I can hold lean burn mode from 60-80mph on the freeway. I'm not sure how lean my engine goes, but I know the first gen Insight was observed down to a 25:1 ! I think the HX is possibly 20:1 or so in lean burn.
But, it won't meet NOX standards for new engines these days, so Honda had to drop lean burn.
- Status
Similar threads
