40 MPG Plateau?

EvanR wrote: We're also forgetting that manufacturers gear the crap out of cars today. Pretty much no one will buy a car that has a 10+ second 0-60 time. Again, I drag out my '05 Scion xB as an example. In order to do that under 10 sec time, Toyota put in a 4.30:1 final drive. Change that to something like a 3.93, and it would be slower off the line, but probably get 10% better highway mpg. When buyers would accept a 14+ second 0-60 time, cars could be (and were) more economical.

Interesting point.

Cars have gotten fatter. It's really more of a safety issue and the accessorizing or 'blinging' of cars. A car from the 80's may get 50mpg as a new car would get 40mpg but you're less likely to die in a new car and you can push a button to roll down your windows while holding 18 drinks.

Aerodynamics is also a key factor but I'm sure style, safety and marketing plays a huge roll in that realm.

Vigo wrote:

The 80s and early 90s seemed to be the heyday of fuel-efficient penalty boxes.

I think people dismiss the insight 50+mpg as having something to do with it being a hybrid, but cruising on the highway the electric does NOTHING. It would get 50mpg if i unplugged the main battery. You can talk about putting modern engines into old cars to get 50mpg, but the 1g insight is practically old already in and of itself! The future is 10 years ago! Now, if you put a new Prius drivetrain in my insight, then you'd be talking crazy-ass mpgs.

That's because it was designed with a low drag coefficient in mind. The rear wheel stance isn't shorter than the front on purpose. The back wheel covers isnt a styling feature. And the rear is kammbacked on purpose. Alot can be learned just observing hybrid cars or low drag vehicles.

killerkane wrote: In Europe the everyday car is much more efficient than it is here, the BMW 116d (diesel) gets a reported 62 miles to the gallon! No TDi does that! Toyota has two different diesel Tacoma's both returning 30-35 mpg, neither are available in the US! So frustrating!

The Imperial gallon is different than our gallon. Thus MPG figures from Europe have to be converted. 62 is really 51, but it is a diesel. Our environmental policy doesn't allow for much diesel power.

if you look at the fine print on the sticker or on fueleconomy.gov, those numbers are averages.

My 09 accent 5 speed is rated at 33mpg highway. I regularly average 37-38mpg per tank.

YMMV. lol

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Javelin wrote: Diminishing returns. the extra 10MPG from 40MPG to 50MPG only saves the same gas/money as going from 14MPG to 15MPG. Not really worth it after that.

I'm not good at the maths, but I can't see how that works. Damn. I'm going to have to do math now. Okay. If I have a 15 mile drive to work, at 14 MPG, I use 1.07 gallons of gas. If I go to 15 MPG I use 1 gallon of gas. In 214 days I'll save enough for one "free" trip to work. If I have a 15 mile drive to work, at 40 MPG, I use .37 gallons of gas. If I go to 50 MPG, I use .3 gallons of gas. In 214 days I'll save enough for one "free" trip to work. Well I'll be damned. That's like one of those "Start with your birth date. Now add 100" deals. Wait a minute, this is one of those percentage deals, isn't it? There's a reason I'm not in accounting.

This is pretty much the best argument for changing our fuel economy metric to a fuel consumption metric. It's easy to see at a glance that a car that uses 7 L/100km uses twice as much fuel as one that uses 3.5 L/100km. You have to go through the above contortions to see that a jump from 40-50mpg is only the same as from 14-15 mpg.

tuna55 wrote: Our environmental policy doesn't allow for much diesel power.

cause we don't like dying.

http://www.etrucker.com/2008/12/10/study-links-diesel-exhaust-cancer-risk/

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nas/rdrp/appendices/chapter5/a5-32.pdf

Basically the big risk is the particulate matter, which is why most modern vehicles have particulate filters on their exhaust systems.

I can expound if you want on why the systems now cost more etc..

aussiesmg wrote: No help getting to Obama's 50 mpg too early, the powers that be will just move the target

Ok serious response now.

Few points..

*We have to want to drive vehicles. Right now technology dosen't exist to not have really long 0-60 times and 50mpg. And keep vehicles safe.

*I'll bet the marketing studies show that people want 40mpg.. Not 50mpg. That gives the car companies the fall back position to release 50mpg cars in the future when gas gets even more expensive.

*As already shown the jump from 40mpg to 50mpg is not that large in fuel saved % wise. The next jump should be into the 60-75% range.

*Technology needs some time to catch up.. Think about it, we have a mustang with 300hp that gets 30mpg now... 20 years ago that was the stuff of magic.

I think, apples to apples, cars actually have gotten much better in the economy department. I know first hand what it's like to drive a modern "economy" car (08 Honda Fit) and also a couple vintage "economy" cars long-term:

1987 CRX Si: What an awesome car to drive. Quick, reflexive, and just a direct fun car. I regularly got 35-40 mpg in mixed driving. But it wasn't simple to live with - uncomfortable, loud as hell on the freeway, and of course room for two only. Good college kid or weekend car.

1992 Honda Civic VX: Got mega-mpgs - averaged about 45-50 in mixed over 8 years. Reliable as hell, and equally boring. Virtually no sound deadening and god-awful seats. Very small on the inside.

08 Honda Fit: My first economy car that's perfectly balanced as a daily driver. Fun, super roomy, agile, room for 5 easily, comfortable, and pretty quiet compared to the others as well. Best part? 35-40 mpg in mixed driving. Could be more efficient with taller gearing but then it would be slower and the press already complains about the power in this car like R-tards.

People complain about how things were so much better, but I'm telling you, we're living in the best days to drive a new car. They don't break down, they're comfortable, fun to drive, and still very efficient.

In reply to huge-O-chavez:

I didn't even hint that I might not agree with this policy, by the way, I just stated a reason why diesels are prevalent in Europe and not here.

I regularly get 30+mpg while delivering pizza in my 1991 Escort Pony. This is hard driving with 4 to 10 hours of 0-45 mph and back blasts. One of the other drivers has a 2007 Prius...challenge ON!

Highway has never got less than 50 mpg. Power nothing, no air conditioning, no airbags,not really a good highway cruiser.

Bruce

tuna55 wrote: In reply to huge-O-chavez: I didn't even hint that I might not agree with this policy, by the way, I just stated a reason why diesels are prevalent in Europe and not here.

Wasn't trying to argue with you... It's just something I know a bit about...

I love diesel power, but to make it clean is expensive in both terms of hardware and fuel costs.

bastomatic wrote: People complain about how things were so much better, but I'm telling you, we're living in the best days to drive a new car. They don't break down, they're comfortable, fun to drive, and still very efficient.

agree,

huge-O-chavez wrote:

bastomatic wrote: People complain about how things were so much better, but I'm telling you, we're living in the best days to drive a new car. They don't break down, they're comfortable, fun to drive, and still very efficient.

agree,

yeah, in the same mag (not the good ones) they'll wax poetic about some little 90hp 50 mpg car of yesteryear and then chastise some midsize sedan for only having 250 hp in a comparison test. Clearly, people shopping for midsize sedans for the family to get groceries in should be concerned with the 1/4 mile time of their cars.

failboat wrote: if you look at the fine print on the sticker or on fueleconomy.gov, those numbers are averages. My 09 accent 5 speed is rated at 33mpg highway. I regularly average 37-38mpg per tank. YMMV. lol

sAME HERE. The 2000 Accent we have was rated at 33mpg highway and I'm seeing 35mpg mixed flogging the thing like a teenage boy at a peep show. The wife see's 38-40 out of it. The Elantra was rated at 33 in 2002, I see 32 mixed, the wife's driving it now and seeing 36. The list goes on.

In our experience with just about every vehicle I've ever had, the mileage estinmates on the window sticker is low.

I usually get 21-22 mpg in my MSM Miata. It also requires premium. Don't quite understand it, but the gearing is ridiculous and the factory tunes is very rich. The only thing I can complain about with the car that I've had since 2005. My Mini on the other hand gets around 40 mpg.

In reply to Bobzilla:

And this is precisely why a V6 mustang is on my shortlist for a next car, among other options. Sure, its rated 30 or 31mpg. but I could probably get another 5+ mpg out of it easy with my commute.

Whats the incentive to keep driving econoboxes (aside from them all pretty much being rated at 40mpg) when I could step up to a sporty coupe in the next few years and get nearly the same mileage as I am now?

failboat wrote: Whats the incentive to keep driving econoboxes (aside from them all pretty much being rated at 40mpg) when I could step up to a sporty coupe in the next few years and get nearly the same mileage as I am now?

Because 30-35mpg could be not enough in the coming few years....

My last tank of gas in my civic just did 39-40mpg. I'm thinking of something that will do better.

Javelin wrote: Diminishing returns. the extra 10MPG from 40MPG to 50MPG only saves the same gas/money as going from 14MPG to 15MPG. Not really worth it after that.

EXACTLY, the point is to increase the overall efficiency of the fleet, of course you could do what my wife and I did and go from a 4cyl gas sipping Camry 23/27 to a more useful Jeep Wrangler 15/19 I love when the logic trains whiz by each other...

well. at this rate, in a few years there will be sporty coupe options that can pull 40 mpg.

I know a lean burn 1.9 cvh escort when converted to mpi and tuned properly would get around 42 to 45 in town and 55 to 60 on the highway. but thats more work than most people do. I avg 34 on the highway and 25 to 27 in town out of my mazda6 and note that car was rated for 17 24 but it you make an engine breath better and keep your foot out of it and make sure everything is tuned to work properly it is easily doable. mpg is prob killed on the highway by the fact that ya it turns over like 3700 rpms at 75.

One BIG reason that mileage has not progressed is that emissions have. That 50mpg CRX HF was a gross polluter compared to a modern 40mpg car. Clean is relatively easy. Good mileage is relatively easy. Clean, with good mileage is much harder.

I do wonder if it would be worthwhile to shift the octane standards up. For instance, we could be commuting in 14:1 cars if we had 100 Octane premium, and if so would the extra efficiency be worth the higher fuel cost?

My brother in law has a 06 4door 4wd diesel hilux (tacoma) that got equal milage as my stripper model 99 civic. This is when we both lived in bangkok, so apples to apples comparison. I don't remember the numbers specifically with the conversion rates and such. I understand all the 'customers don't want it, so they don't make it' talk, but I don't buy it. Priuses, smart cars, and 2wd v6 manual silverados suggest otherwise. They're not all image cars. I'm not saying that volkswagon would surpass toyota as the largest car maker in the world just by bringing us the tdi polo, but they'd sell them faster than they could make them. And if they brought us the diesel tacomas, they'd be the go to work truck overnight. The last time I was new car shopping there was an 8month waiting list on priuses (priui?), 17months on smart cars, and 6months on jetta tdi's. Coincidence?

failboat wrote: well. at this rate, in a few years there will be sporty coupe options that can pull 40 mpg.

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/spitrage/mustang

This guy has achieved 36+mpg once. Hell that's impressive. Too bad I need 4 doors.

dont mention prius as a high mpg car. pieces of junk. and if you try to drive them like a regular car youll surely do alot better mpg wise in a carolla