My wife drives a 1998 Lumina, 3.1 with about 150,000 miles on it. We took a 1100 mile round trip last weekend, getting 31-32 MPGs easy driving 75 MPH on the interstate. I got thinking, why are car companies so proud when their cars get the same mileage they did a decade ago? I saw a commercial for Dodge touting the 'good' gas mileage the V-6 Charger gets. I think it was 28 MPG. Shouldn't the average car be getting much better mileage that this today, or have we effectively tapped out the mileage potential of the gasoline engine? I would be more than happy to drive a 150 Horsepower daily driver that gets 40-45 highway MPGs and doesn't have every possible technical gadget than a 'mandatory loaded' new car that puts out 275 horsepower but gets 25 MPGs. Even the econoboxes like a Corrola 'only' gets 40 MPGs. I thought by now we would be doing better, but I guess in 1985 people thought that we would be driving flying cars in 2010 too.

Why? Because in the mid to late '90's, gas prices had stabilized at a fiar price, and the public got complacent and started buying and demanding bigger cars again. Thus the trend remains today. Look at the size of the new body style Impala versus the 2000-05 style. Plus you can get a V-8 in it as well.

Because the automakers and oil companies need each other ? I figure if my Chevelle with 30 year old technology can get 14 mpg on the highway and some of these new cars still only get 22 or at best 26 mpg somethings wrong.

Back in the late 80's, many cars did get better mileage. But since then, models have grown in size and engine size and output have increased. Today a Honda Civic is just about the same size and weight as an Accord in '89. Since gas was relatively cheap in the 90's, people didn't care if mileage was sacrificed for power and interior room. Now things have changed, but it takes a few years to change course. Car companies are reluctant to make major changes if a market demand appears short term. Unfortunately, higher prices seem here to stay and the market will demand higher mileage cars.

because America is a big place, and we drive a lot. since we spend a large amount of time in our cars, we want comfort and power.
well, at least i do. i could get a car that gets 40 mpg- but my 6 foot tall, 235 pound frame doesn't fit comfortably in them, and i just flat out don't like them. i like to actually be comfortable when i'm on the road.
i look at it this way- my best mpg car (94 Chrysler LHS) averages 25mpg- but i got it for free and have had to stick a total of about $800 in it to get it on the road and keep it there. plus, since i don't have a loan against it, i can just have basic liability insurance. the money saved there more than makes up the extra money i spend on gas compared to a newer $20k car that gets 35 mpg that i need to make a $400 car payment on and put full insurance coverage on.

Buy a VW Golf or Jetta with the 1.9 TDI. Golf gets near or above 50 MPG on highway. Jetta gets 40+ mpg

I'd say cars get worse mileage.

My 85 Cavalier got 36, my 94 Escort got 42, and my newer Saturn gets 34. Heck, even the so called "high-mileage" cars they sell now don't hold a candle to my old Ford. What surprises me most is the Mini Cooper that only gets what, 33? And they are PROUD of that? Cmon, that thing's no bigger than a shoe box. Even my V6 Sunturd managed 34 mpg.

Yeah but the Mini will spank all of them on the drag strip AND the road coarse, will be way more fun to drive all the time, etc. Plus it likely stops better among other safety features. Then of course european cars are known for lasting a very long time with very little upkeep. I don't know if BMW's service department covers the Mini too, but if it does, you get a whole lot of scheduled tune-ups, brake jobs and just about anything else that is needed on any car already included in the sale price.

You have to keep the purpose/market for the car in mind. If Mini/BMW wanted to make a true commuter/econobox car I bet they would get way more than 33MPG out of it if they kept it utilitarian. And they do, in europe, but the demand in America isn't high enough for them to mass produce a left-hander that'll meet all the safety/emissions standards.

Safety standards have also driven the weight of cars made for the American market up. All those electronics add up. That weight drags the MPG down. My driver is a 2001 Malibu with 105,000 miles it'll pull 33mpg on long trips if I keep my foot out of it. I bet if I gutted out a lot of the safety/emissions stuff that isn't "necessary" for the car to run, it would get more than that. The recent generation of Malibus (I'm comparing Malibus because the Malibu replaced the Lumina in American markets) is a bit bigger than my 2001, has more safety features, more interior room with what feels like more padding in the seats, so it is heavier. Because the car is heavier, the engine's power output must be increased to keep the same acceleration characteristics that are expected within a certain car class. Last I checked the Malibu's engine is up to 3.5L compared to the old 3.1L

For me if the only thing a car can pass is a gas station forget it. Luckily I have a short comute to work. I hate getting behind people trying to save gas :boring:. It makes me use more.

Some people have touched on it and I will just add to the idea. Nowadays people want more creature comforts and gadgets(more weight) and more sound deadening(once again more weight) and in a car with more power and for as cheap as possible. All those things add up to a car that doesn't get the greatest mileage in the world. I don't doubt for a second that engines are much more efficient than they used to be but that doesn't mean they don't have a bunch of weight to pull around. You can say its because of the oil companies and this and that but I think thats a bunch of bunk. If that were true one of the smaller car companies with nothing to lose would have made a car that undermined that whole thing by now and would be making billions. The real issue imo is the labor unions having a chokehold on american automakers. You can say they are right or wrong I will leave that up to you but there is no denying the millions upon millions of dollars they cost the automakers.

I have an 03 Impala LS with a 3.8 and according to the little milage computer in the car I have hit a high of 33 mpg on long trips driving about 70 mph. It will get about 20-24 in the city driving. I think that the little milage computer is a little optimistic because it is always off about 1.5 gallons on gas being used.

My other car an 83 Trans Am with a LG-4 305 CC Q-Jet 4 barrel 5-SPEED with 3.73's gets about 26 mpg on the highway and about 20 in town. That is a twenty year difference. The Trans Am only weighs about 3400 lbs though.

You would think cars should be getting about 40 mpg standard by now anyways. I remember Doug Marion @ Super Chevy pulling good MPG out of the 70 Monte Carlo and a Vega that was getting close to 30 mpg with a V-8 in the early 80's.

My other car an 83 Trans Am with a LG-4 305 CC Q-Jet 4 barrel 5-SPEED with 3.73's gets about 26 mpg on the highway and about 20 in town. That is a twenty year difference.Put a manual transmission in that Impala, and it would probably get 4+ mpg more than it does now. :yes:

It seems nobody wants a manual transmission anymore, but me. :confused: You have to buy a truck, econobox, or sportscar to get one, and none of which fit my needs for a commuter car I can haul the family in, and make it through Minnesota winters. (if it wasn't for the snow, I'd have a new GTO :yes: )

I live in a rural area, drive interstates with no traffic, and only have 2 stoplights in my drive to work, so the efficiency of a manual trans would save me a LOT of money on gas.

Q. Why doesn't the average car get 40 MPGs today?

A. So the oil companies stay in business. :p

Derek has a good point. We have a 2005 Jimmy with the 5 speed. We have gotten as high as 26.4 mpg (Imperial) on a trip. With an automatic they are generally 4-5 mpg less than that. Back in 1990 we had a Turbo Sprint (Suzuki), with a 5 speed, that consistently got 55mpg (Imperial) in the summer and 52 mpg in the winter. It only weighed about 1700 pounds. Automatics really hurt the gas mileage on low horsepower or under powered heavy cars. With the way engines are set up today, there is an ideal air-fuel ratio for the engine to run the best. Computers and fuel injection are far more accurate than the old carburetors at keeping the fuel curve accurate. You are never pumping on the gas pedal with injected cars to keep them running when cold like the old carbed ones. They always start clean and don't stumble while warming up. Until they get into ceramics and high running temperatures, gas mileage isn't going to improve too much. With electric cars, the power isn't free either. Plug it in at home and the hydro bill will take a hit. Let us run short of fuel though and watch the new ideas come out of the woodwork. If you want gas mileage and performance, check out the new Vettes. That's what light weight, computers, fuel injection, and aerodynamics can do. The last time I checked, even the Z06 Vette at 500 hp was rated at something over 26 mpg on the highway. The 400 hp version was something like 37 highway.

People still have too much lead in their feet. There's a practical limit to how many mpg you can get out of a production car that is designed to meet the needs of thousands of people. If you were to offer a 'mpg special' car with controls designed to accentuate the mileage, people wouldn't drive it. They wouldn't like being the slowest car on the freeway, being the last to leave the stoplight, etc.

Anyone remember the Mobil Economy Run?

I and my Valiant ended up taking third place in Class B. Our competition included a Rambler American 440 6-cylinder driven by Les Viland, an American Motors engineer with several economy run victories under his belt; a Chevy II 100 6-cylinder; a Dodge Dart 170 V-8; a Chevy II Nova V-8; and a Ford Falcon V-8. Class results were tight except for the Rambler, which averaged 27.8336 m.p.g. and ended up with the best mileage in the entire 1964 economy run. The Chevy II 6 was second, at 23.2182, and my Valiant V-8 finished third, at 23.0851.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/automobiles/24MOBIL.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&n=Top/Classifieds/Autos/Topics/Green%20Tech&oref=slogin

The 1960 Mobil Mileage Rally (the one for imports) had plenty of cars in the 40-50-mpg range. An NSU Sport Prinz won that year with 62.29 mpg. The event average was 40.23 mpg.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=18&article_id=745

The last time I checked, even the Z06 Vette at 500 hp was rated at something over 26 mpg on the highway. The 400 hp version was something like 37 highway.

Again, much of that due to a manual trans, a high final-gear ratio, and enough low-end torque to move the car 70mph at ~1800rpm. You just can't do that with an Auto. :noway:

Now if I could get that drivetrain in a station wagon for the family, with enough ground clearance to go through some snow, and without all the dead-weight power options I'd be happy. :yes:

I'd just be happy to get a minivan with enough power to get out of its own way :sad:I REFUSE to own or drive a minivan! Never EVER :noway:

you'll be singing a different tune when that kid comes along :D

Think of it as being way ahead of the coolness curve :)I'm going to train my kid to hate minivans also. :yes: It's all part of my station-wagon revolution against mini-vans and conformity. ;)

you'll be singing a different tune when that kid comes along :D

Think of it as being way ahead of the coolness curve :)


My wife refuses to drive a mini van so we never had one. She likes SUV's, which really are big station wagons with 4WD Derek. Her 2005 Ford Explorer gets worse mileage than my 2000 Caddy Deville. The Caddy gets around 16 mixed, 26 highway. The Explorer gets approx. 14 mixed driving, 24 highway. The good news for me is I average about 7K miles/ year and have for the last 15 years.

Even if cars got 80MPG there would still be a HUGE amount of profits for the oil companies. Automakers would sell a bunch of cars like that, too. The volume (millions and millions)of cars on the road will still support the profits. Don't get me wrong, I am a BIG supporter of our capitolist system. Oil company profits are a good thing. They help drive our economy. Without them we are back to pulling carts with horses. BTW, the biggest profiteer of gas sales is our government. Oil companies make a small percentage of profit and govt. makes a much higher percentage through taxes.
Mike
www.myspace.com/merlin0007

She likes SUV's, which really are big station wagons with 4WD Derek.Which ride like a truck, handle like a truck, and get bad gas mileage like a truck. No Thank You. :noway: (not for my 60-mile per day commute anyway)

4X4 is just more moving parts to wear out, add weight, add resistance, and reduce efficiency... nice to have about 5-10 days a year in this climate, but an unnecessary parasite to efficiency the other 355-360 days.

I wouldn't mind having one in the driveway to use on the 5-10 times a year I need 4x4, and another 2-3 times a year I need to pull a trailer, but I'll survive just fine without, and spend that money on my Chevelle. :) ...and use up a few sick days I can't carry over anyway when the weather makes it difficult to get to work.

Even if cars got 80MPG there would still be a HUGE amount of profits for the oil companies.

True - people would just drive a lot more.

Which ride like a truck, handle like a truck, and get bad gas mileage like a truck. No Thank You. :noway: (not for my 60-mile per day commute anyway)

4X4 is just more moving parts to wear out, add weight, add resistance, and reduce efficiency... nice to have about 5-10 days a year in this climate, but an unnecessary parasite to efficiency the other 355-360 days.

I wouldn't mind having one in the driveway to use on the 5-10 times a year I need 4x4, and another 2-3 times a year I need to pull a trailer, but I'll survive just fine without, and spend that money on my Chevelle. :) ...and use up a few sick days I can't carry over anyway when the weather makes it difficult to get to work.

I would differ on the ride. Even pick up truck ride almost as smooth as a car these days. Agree on the moving parts and being more costly. 4WD is used quite a bit here in the winter, and if me or my wife are toting our kids around damn the cost over safety. When driven properly 4WD is safer. And obviously could be more dangerous depending on the driving style, whiich neither my wife or I engage in.

When driven properly 4WD is safer.I have to disagree, because they are so tall and have a high CG, they are more prone to rollover, and less agile for evasive maneuvers. Also, more weight = longer stopping distances, etc. Sure, they may be safer in certain types of a crash, but I like my odds even better if I'm more capable of avoiding the crash completely. ;)

I have to disagree, because they are so tall and have a high CG, they are more prone to rollover, and less agile for evasive maneuvers. Also, more weight = longer stopping distances, etc. Sure, they may be safer in certain types of a crash, but I like my odds even better if I'm more capable of avoiding the crash completely. ;)

Derek you misunderstood - safer driving on slippery surfaces, and in deep snow, and less apt to get stuck. And I stated if driven properly. Driving properly in bad weather means slower for sure. The high CG and agility only comes into play as you increase speed. As far a safety in a crash I agree with you - in certain circumstances they are safer and in others inherently more dangerous.

you'll be singing a different tune when that kid comes along :D

Think of it as being way ahead of the coolness curve :)

thats where the suburban comes along, so what if i get sucky gas milage.

but on the same tune, manufaturers realized that some if not most, refuse to drive minivan. this is why they made those soo called suv that are built on a minivan chassis. (ie acura mdx, lexus rs330, honda pilot...) looks like a truck, they call it a truck, but look underneath, its on a minivan chasis not a truck. which i give them credit for. you get the practicality of a minivan, with the coolness factor of a truck or suv.

as far as the milage, funny i asked the same question when i was on a honda convention.
i asked them why the civic gets 40mpg, while the fit a smaller car with a smaller engine only gets 30mpg..... no one answered my question. :(

safer driving on slippery surfaces, and in deep snow, and less apt to get stuck.Again, it all depends on the situation... when you do get stuck with a 4x4, no shovel can get you out, as you're usually pretty far into the deep stuff, instead of stuck right at the beginning of it. You may also be somewhere where tow-trucks and emergency crews cannot easily get to... if your 4x4 can't get through, how is the dually tow-truck going to get to you?

As for slippery surface maneuvers, I'd prefer RWD with open rear, and a manual trans. Step on the clutch, and the engine RPM (too much or too little) doesn't matter anymore, and you can still steer with your foot if you need to. Unfortunatley, most RWD vehicles are too light in the rear to go anywhere. RWD Station wagons like my Caprice will go through as much as a FWD car, but with the automatic you can't use the clutch to bring you back in line. Sometimes letting off the gas makes it worse, and getting it into neutral isn't as easy, quick, or natural as pushing a clutch pedal. Also, there are times when the front wheels try stopping and the rear wheels are still trying to go forward. This is where 4x4 will stop better than RWD, as the front brakes stop all 4 wheels, as they're locked together when 4x4 is engaged.

From a safety standpoint, if a 2wd can't get through the road, the only reason to be on it is in the case of a medical emergency... however, from a convenience standpoint, 4x4 is pretty nice to have in these situations. I just don't need it enough to justify the cost of both maintenance, and fuel usage to have 4x4 the rest of the year... if the city actually plowed my street on the days that it snows, I wouldn't have any use at all for it.

WaaaH!.... I am just happy that they get better mileage than my Chevelle. I just need to buy one of those vehicles. Everything I have has a V8, is Heavy, and gets close to zero gas mileage.

97 Burb, 350 Vortec
90 Bronco 351
69 Chevelle, 396, 496 comming soon.

Not to deter from this thread, but what vehicle is two door, or four door(if the front door is large), gets good gas mileage, and a 6'5",300Lb individual can fit comfortably. This seems to be my issue. I even hit my head in the burb, the Chevelle my head skims the top. In four door cars, when I turn my head to the left I see the body post not a window opening. Seems, I am destined for Vehicles, such as larger trucks, excursions, hummers, or big arse cadillacs. I deal with the gas price just as long as i can drive down the highway for hours comfortably.

Big D

Lots of big fellas drive full-size cars comfortably. GM killed theirs, but Ford still makes them. Have you tried sitting in one of them? I don't know what the Fords get for mileage, but some of the GM B-bodies of the 90s get 25+mpg depending on what drivetrain they have.

From a safety standpoint, if a 2wd can't get through the road, the only reason to be on it is in the case of a medical emergency... however, from a convenience standpoint, 4x4 is pretty nice to have in these situations. I just don't need it enough to justify the cost of both maintenance, and fuel usage to have 4x4 the rest of the year... if the city actually plowed my street on the days that it snows, I wouldn't have any use at all for it.

Again you go well past my meaning. We aren't out driving in 4 feet of snow. But when it's snowing and there are more than 4-6 inches and it's slippery on the road 2WD is pretty worthless, FWD or RWD. I never said we are out driving when cars shouldn't be on the road. I guess this is a confirmed thread hijack as of now so I'll refrain from responding again. Apologies to the original poster.

I tried to get a Cobalt SS to tow my 31 ft cardinal camper (gross weight 9580 lbs ), But the dealer siad no way it could do it.! lol just kidding. I have a gas hog 2003 3/4 ton 4x4 suburban with 6.0 V8 gas engine and 4.10 gears. It tows the camper and sucks the gas. Its a chosen life style. We still camp often, We just dont travel as far. Cost is still about the same. We enjoy it all the same. By the way the wife has a 2001 Saturn L200 with a 4 popper that gets 25 mpg running around town with the A/C on. 30-32 mpg on the highway with A/C on. Boy I miss 2.00 dollar a gallon gas. Thought I would never say that!

Again you go well past my meaning. We aren't out driving in 4 feet of snow. But when it's snowing and there are more than 4-6 inches and it's slippery on the road 2WD is pretty worthless, FWD or RWD. I never said we are out driving when cars shouldn't be on the road. I guess this is a confirmed thread hijack as of now so I'll refrain from responding again. Apologies to the original poster.

i'll haveto differ with you on that one. if you have good tires and good brakes, along with a smooth running, well tuned engine, an rwd vehicle is just as good as (or even sometimes better than) a fwd vehicle in deep snow or icy conditions.
all 3 of my Caprice cop cars were awesome in the snow. my 87 went thru some pretty serious storms, and i drove my '92 down a road that had 3 foot drifts for 5 miles straight and never had a problem. i even passed a few 4X4 trucks that were stuck and the drivers were trying to dig out. one of them had a snow plow on the front. the 94 cop car was also a snow going machine- i don't think i could get it stuck. the ONLY car that i ever got stuck in snow was my 93 Lumina 2 door- which, as you may know, is fwd- and that was only in 8" of snow. i will say, tho, that my current daily beater- 94 Chrysler LHS- is pretty damn good in the snow. might have something to do with almost the whole engine being in front of the front axle centerline, so all that weight is pushing down on the drive wheels. most fwd cars have the engine back behind the axle, so some of that weight is supported by the rear (non driving) wheels. '78 fwd Caddies with the big bad 425 hangiing over the front wheels are absolutely unstoppable in the snow. comfortable, too.
but 79 Mustangs with 4 cylinders and a 4 speeds do not make very good winter beaters- they handle ice ok, but more than about 6 inches of snow and they are worthless unless you put about 200 pound of sand in the trunk. and even then, they suck. they are just too light.

all 3 of my Caprice cop cars were awesome in the snow. my 87 went thru some pretty serious storms, and i drove my '92 down a road that had 3 foot drifts for 5 miles straight and never had a problem. i even passed a few 4X4 trucks that were stuck and the drivers were trying to dig out. one of them had a snow plow on the front. the 94 cop car was also a snow going machine- i don't think i could get it stuck. The reason the big RWD cop cars are better than FWD cars is ground clearance mainly... newer FWD cars all sit too low to go through anything effectively in my experience.

Good tires and ground clearance will get you through a LOT of snow, regardless of what end is doing the driving. :yes:

I guess this is a confirmed thread hijack as of now so I'll refrain from responding again. Apologies to the original poster.
Actually, I think it proves exactly what the original topic is about... if half the public commutes in an 18mpg 4x4, the other half will feel pretty good about getting 30mpg, so what incentive does the manufacturer have to produce a 40mpg car, when so few will buy it?

It's not just cars. My old carbed 80" Evolution in my '99 Night Train once knocked down 60mpg on a long light throttle steady ride. It would average 48-50. The best I can do with my 88" EFI'd Springer is 39mpg these days, with the average more like 30-32mpg. Heck, even my carbed '02 E-glide used to deliver 44mpg. I know some of it has to do with E10 gas, but a lot of it is the engines themselves.

I would differ on the ride. Even pick up truck ride almost as smooth as a car these days. Agree on the moving parts and being more costly. 4WD is used quite a bit here in the winter, and if me or my wife are toting our kids around damn the cost over safety. When driven properly 4WD is safer. And obviously could be more dangerous depending on the driving style, whiich neither my wife or I engage in.

Cars these days don't ride for squat!:noway:
My 79 C-10 rides better than the current Lincolns. or Caddys.
Personally a nice ride is one where you are isolated from the road and should not feel any thumps or bumps.
My 97 T-Bird rides better than my 94. V-8 vs V-6. The 97 feels heavier, has the 4.6, and is loaded with options and toys. The 94 (6-cyl), being lighter, is much peppier, and handles a LOT better.

BUT NEITHER OF THESE CARS RIDE NICE. (but they have both been very good cars--the last afforadable full size rear drive 2-dr available)

So many buyers today are more interested in handleing than ride.
I still prefer the ride of an old (pre 79) full size car over anything that has been offered since.

I used to have an 85 Caprice with a 4 barrel 305 V8. It got 29mpg at 75mph, weighed over 4500lb, and carried 6 large passengers in full comfort. Today's sardine cans can barely beat that mileage, and sure don't have the comfort and interior room.
If driving smaller cars is progress, then we have made progress, but the total efficiency sure hasn't improved in the last 25 years.

I drove my '57 Chevy in 4" to 6" of snow on the hwy at midnight running 120+ so don't tell me about crap like this!!

If you have the balls to run her, she will do it for you AND I darn well know!!

100 mph+ in the rain w/ bald D-70/14's on my front going around a curve w/ my headlights pointed at my RR Buddy's Uncle's Duece and a Quarter's driver's side DOOR!!

I drove my car like I stole it in ALL sort's a weather so don't try to feed me this crap!!

Try 75 mph and hitting black ice in the afternoon south of Kirksville, MO back in the winter of '66/'67!! I said SH-T and woke Gary and Dave up and then said hold-on as I went on through the patch, never dropping a mph!!!

pdq67

We have a '97 Olds LSS (wife's summer car with no winters). The supercharged 3.8 gives 34-35 mpg Imperial on a highway run and always 30+. It has enough performance to put a smile on your face and has the potential for a lot more with more boost. Not bad for a full sized car. Actually it's about the same size as the Chevelle if you measure it. The same car cover fits both. I don't see much of the new stuff that is anywhere near that size doing any better. As for ride, it is firmed up quite a bit from the comfy old chesterfields on wheels, but still quite comfortable. GM has conceded to the BMW types with the smaller cars with the firmer suspensions that handle better. Look at the downsized, firmed up Cadillacs. They are what saved the mark from distinction.

I drove my '57 Chevy in 4" to 6" of snow on the hwy at midnight running 120+ so don't tell me about crap like this!!

If you have the balls to run her, she will do it for you AND I darn well know!!

100 mph+ in the rain w/ bald D-70/14's on my front going around a curve w/ my headlights pointed at my RR Buddy's Uncle's Duece and a Quarter's driver's side DOOR!!

I drove my car like I stole it in ALL sort's a weather so don't try to feed me this crap!!

Try 75 mph and hitting black ice in the afternoon south of Kirksville, MO back in the winter of '66/'67!! I said SH-T and woke Gary and Dave up and then said hold-on as I went on through the patch, never dropping a mph!!!

pdq67
Sounds like you got some crap of your own. Or some serious issues. Putting your own life in danger is one thing, but if you did half of what you said you're a fool who's lucky you haven't killed someone, and still might.

Safe to say that anyone who says you don't need 4wd in the snow is a flatlander!!

I live up at the top of a 6-7% grade, no way am I getting up that in anything other than 4wd!

Tony,

You have to remember that back in the early to mid '60's here in the midwest, there flat wasn't anybody on the roads past 10:30 to 11:00 PM!!

My Buddies and I drove this way on whatever road we were on at the time AND I know that it can't be done now!!

I'm talking dirt, gravel, blacktop and finally the main concrete hwy's when we got to them from coming through the country between towns!!

It wasn't anything to run wide the open back then at say 1:00 AM to get home for miles!!

We were young and WE were going to live forever so we NEVER batted an eye at running like this!!

Jerry's '51 Stude 232"er would do 115 and his '58 trip Bisq. would scare you and my new Camaro faster still and we ran like that!!

I came into Macon, MO one night coming from IA from my RR job friday evening and had to brake for an unmarked Tropper!! I slowed to 60 and passed him AND he "bird-dogged" me into town!!

I darn near ran over him!! Dropping down from 90+!!

pdq67

Tony,

We were young and WE were going to live forever so we NEVER batted an eye at running like this!!

pdq67

Well you made it through the 60's and you made it through fast. Can't say I never sped around so I guess my glass house is breaking right about now.

its the size of these cars today. to many SUV's and ppl are paranoid with get into an accident they need somehting "big" to save them, meanwhile it works the opposite. we have cars that get 40 mpg but the car companies love there v8s and 7.4L Vortec engines. i drive a cavalier 97, and works perfect for my use. i dont see way ppl need such big, heavy, gas drinking cars anymore for daily use.

I have a rusty worn out '89 Chevy 1/2 ton 6.2 diesel with a five speed that always got about 28 MPG(imperial) on the highway. My best was 30 on a 300 mile trip. I have a '90 Jetta winter beater that gets the same mileage as my truck. It's a gas engine but I was surprised by the poor mileage for a smaller type of car.

I went into a convenience store and saw a guy sitting in his assault vehicle talking to a passenger, while the engine was running. I came out five minutes later and they're still there with the engine running. It's not even cold out. Money must grow on trees.

Here's a nice little gas saver. Good luck when that Escalade T-bones you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo

There are several vehicles out there today that get good mileage. VW TDI's, Civics, Corollas, Yaris, etc, are all in the very high 30's and up into the high 40's / low 50's if you drive them for mileage.

And there is the problem. As has been said, most americans don't like little econoboxes and most people don't drive for best mileage either. I don't even bother counting how many Escalades, Expeditions, Tahoes, etc, I see everyday with "da flows" accelerating hard everywhere and last minute braking with no coasting.

What it boils down to is mileage isn't everything to the consumer, at least 95% of them, although fuel prices are starting to change that mindset. As more people buy smaller / more fuel efficient cars it will become a larger percentage of the manufacturer's profits and in turn they will spend more R&D money on that product line. Right now there just isn't much interest there... but it is rising.

Case in point of the "mileage isn't everything" argument, which I'm guilty of:

I drive around 15K miles a year. My current daily driver (2005 Subaru STI, modded, 360hp) averages about 22 mpg over the year with how I drive it (fast.) Going to and from work I get about 20mpg on the backroads, on freeway trips I get 26-28 mpg. At the 22mpg average for the year I'm using 681 gallons.

Say I bought a VW TDI and started averaging 48 mpg. That's 313 gallons. And believe me, I've given a change like this serious thought lately.

At 3.70/gallon, the Subaru costs $2500 a year for fuel while the TDI at the same fuel price would be $1160. Saving works out to be $1340 a year or $112 a month. I have thought about making this change but the Subaru is worth an extra $112 a month just for the fun factor-- a 12 second daily driver with stupid-high level of cornering grip and awesome brakes trumps the boring 110hp VW.

The fuel price differential between my STI and a "mileage-mobile" will have to go well over $112 a month until I consider a change. If I wasn't a car enthusiast who *enjoys* driving I'd have no problem with a gas-sipper boring mileage-mobile because it would just be transportion. But since I love cars and enjoy driving it's more than just transportation for me-- it has to be FUN. And therefore I'm not happy driving something boring.

Although, that $112 extra a month would let me put an extra 450 miles on the Chevelle every month and still have the same yearly fuel bill...

Ever heard of OBD2? Damn Democrats.. Here's the deal: OBD2 is required to "verify" presence & operation of the catcon at all times. You noticed there are now TWO O2 sensors, one in front, one behind the catcon. The computer overfuels the engine about 15%, so that the catcon has some WORK to do. Otherwise, a catcon is just along for the ride until the car hits high mileage. The wasted fuel is equivalent to 20% of our daily oil imports... Nice going, EPA

So this is what I would do to a civic I have a 2 door though.. These have a slightly bigger boxed frame then most american SUVs. These were sold in the US as the Montero. They did not get very good fuel milage either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA&feature=related

Ever heard of OBD2? Damn Democrats.. Here's the deal: OBD2 is required to "verify" presence & operation of the catcon at all times. You noticed there are now TWO O2 sensors, one in front, one behind the catcon. The computer overfuels the engine about 15%, so that the catcon has some WORK to do. Otherwise, a catcon is just along for the ride until the car hits high mileage. The wasted fuel is equivalent to 20% of our daily oil imports... Nice going, EPA
mind if i ask where you got this info?
if everything is always running pig rich, then why is it that all the flash tuners need to richen things up to make them faster? also, i would think that if everything was running so rich, then the primary O2 sensors (the one before the cat) would be coated in a thick layer of carbon and rendered useless within a few thousand miles.

I REFUSE to own or drive a minivan! Never EVER :noway:

I feel you on this one.. never going to happen...... only had to ride in one twice.. and one was a taxi.

you'll be singing a different tune when that kid comes along :D

Think of it as being way ahead of the coolness curve :)

I have three kids... still no mini-van. Chose a Suburban, and before that a full size bronco.

Safe to say that anyone who says you don't need 4wd in the snow is a flatlander!!

I live up at the top of a 6-7% grade, no way am I getting up that in anything other than 4wd!

Exactly what I was thinking. I can't count the number of people that I passed or pulled free that were stuck in the snow. Many were FWD and RWD, not 1 4x4. I can't stand the winter's cold or snow, but when I do go out in the 4X4 I know that its going to take a lot to get me stuck or have me going sideways like everyone else. I did get stuck once last year trying to get to a friend who was stuck on the back roads in a little cavalier(real smart of him.) The snow cover was bad enough that the road was lost. Was stuck for about 30 minutes, then eventually rocked myself free and drove up into the corn field. Here in Central Illinois they don't allow you to use chains, and many of the roads are just oiled and rocked prior to winter. The roads they do plow are never clear when you want, so I definately say that I am safer in my 4X4 at those times.

Big D

The reason you don't see 4 x 4s in the ditch is because many of the people who drive them, go so slow in the snow. Every winter I have to pass these things driving a good twenty miles per hour slower than they could. If you've got an advantage, I'd say use it.

Ever heard of OBD2? Damn Democrats.. Here's the deal: OBD2 is required to "verify" presence & operation of the catcon at all times. You noticed there are now TWO O2 sensors, one in front, one behind the catcon. The computer overfuels the engine about 15%, so that the catcon has some WORK to do. Otherwise, a catcon is just along for the ride until the car hits high mileage. The wasted fuel is equivalent to 20% of our daily oil imports... Nice going, EPA

Could be I guess, but doesn't sound very believable, where did you get this info?

A huge amount of energy is lost in heat in an engine. I think until we figure out a way to tap into that lost thermal energy, I think from here we are basically trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip with the internal combustion engine. I've heard numbers like only 30-40% of the energy created by the burning gas is used to move the vehicle. The rest is lost to heat and the force of the air through the intake and exhaust.

Here's the deal: OBD2 is required to "verify" presence & operation of the catcon at all times. You noticed there are now TWO O2 sensors, one in front, one behind the catcon. The computer overfuels the engine about 15%, so that the catcon has some WORK to do. Otherwise, a catcon is just along for the ride until the car hits high mileage. The wasted fuel is equivalent to 20% of our daily oil imports... Nice going, EPA

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused:
To enable diagnosis of the catalytic converter, there is an oxygen sensor fitted after it in the exhaust system. If the catalytic converter is damaged, it's ability to absorb oxygen will decrease. The normal closed loop fluctutations (.1v~.9v) will be noted on the voltage from oxygen sensor 2 instead of its usual .4v~.6v and a diagnostic trouble code will be generated.
Besides being used for converter diagnostics, the value from oxygen sensor 2 is also used to correct the closed loop system for minor faults in oxygen sensor 1.
Both of these oxygen sensors have built-in heaters so that they will begin producing voltage before the catalytic converter has reached operating temperature.
OBD 1 and older systems used unheated sensors that allowed the motor to run richer for a longer period to heat the sensors and converter, so you see, your info is totally off base as far as OBD 2 overfuelling the motor.:noway:

BillL

... my 94 Escort got 42 ... Even my V6 Sunturd managed 34 mpg.
HAHA. Thanks for the great memories. My Dad used to drive a Sunbird back when I was in Elementary/Middle school, then "upgraded" to a '93 Escort.

I learned to drive on that beater Escort. :o

Ah the good 'ole days.. :yes: :thumbsup:

When I was looking for a car, I was split between my current car, and a W8, AWD, 6spd car. Leaving names/brands out on purpose.

I definetly would've gotten the W8/AWD/6spd, but it was $5k more. :eek:

Eitherway, I got a car made by an American company, in American (Lansing, Mi), so I'm happy.

But coincidentally enough, they were both rated @ 27mpg.

The reason you don't see 4 x 4s in the ditch is because many of the people who drive them, go so slow in the snow. Every winter I have to pass these things driving a good twenty miles per hour slower than they could. If you've got an advantage, I'd say use it.In my experience (mostly freeway driving) it's teh 4x4s you see in the ditch more often than anything else... many of the drivers of these vehicles have a false sense of security with their 4x4, and go the same speed on ice as they would on dry pavement. :clonk:

A huge amount of energy is lost in heat in an engine. I think until we figure out a way to tap into that lost thermal energy, I think from here we are basically trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip with the internal combustion engine. I've heard numbers like only 30-40% of the energy created by the burning gas is used to move the vehicle. The rest is lost to heat and the force of the air through the intake and exhaust.
they do have a device that taps into some of the "wasted" heat energy that gets thrown out of an internal combustion engine- it's called a turbocharger, and it works quite effectively. and, if you were to use some more of the exhaust heat to pre-heat the incoming air/fuel charge before it gets pressurized by that turbo, then you get a really efficient engine. do a search here for the engine that Smoky Yunick designed and patented back in the 60's. there was a great discussion about it this summer.