It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are we regressing on gas mileage?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I can remember back when I was 16 and had my first car. It wasn't much to impress, but it was alright. I was in LOVE with the Honda CRX though. I would go up to the dealership and look at them, test drive them, talk about buying one. Sadly, my grocery store job didn't pay enough to support a new car payment, so I never got the chance to buy one. So here I am, in my 40's and looking for a car for one of my kids. I see a reconditioned Honda CRX. Then I start to read about it. I had forgotten what kind of gas mileage it got. It was a sporty little car, two seater, but had enough room to get around. it got over 50MPG! We have these ugly ass hybrids that only get 40MPG and will have a huge problem when it comes time to deal with the spent batteries. Why did we stop making efficient cars? Why has the public not asked this question? What can we do to bring back common sense?




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I can remember back when I was 16 and had my first car. It wasn't much to impress, but it was alright. I was in LOVE with the Honda CRX though. I would go up to the dealership and look at them, test drive them, talk about buying one. Sadly, my grocery store job didn't pay enough to support a new car payment, so I never got the chance to buy one. So here I am, in my 40's and looking for a car for one of my kids. I see a reconditioned Honda CRX. Then I start to read about it. I had forgotten what kind of gas mileage it got. It was a sporty little car, two seater, but had enough room to get around. it got over 50MPG! We have these ugly ass hybrids that only get 40MPG and will have a huge problem when it comes time to deal with the spent batteries. Why did we stop making efficient cars? Why has the public not asked this question? What can we do to bring back common sense?


You gave a terrible example. You can't compare the two.

One is a sporty, very small car, with a rotative engine that has some kicks to it. That power is used to move that little car around, which is very light.

A Prius, for that matter, has a lot of stuff that is heavy. You don't want a car like CRX that is noisy. You want a car that runs silently, confortable, with stereo and AC...

All those things, that now we take from granted, aren't light. They are heavy systems, and weights adds to the fuel consumption.

The problem is continuing to make confortable cars, with more safety and confort, and keep the MPG high.

As an example, now I own a BMW 5 series, the new one with Efficient Dynamics. My fuel consumption is reduced by half, from my previous car.
edit on 10/12/10 by Tifozi because: added a paragraph



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
In 1936, Hitler challenged Porsche to design a car...it had to be cheap, carry 4 adults, go 60 mph, and get about30-40 miles per gallon...the Volkswagon.

75 years later, most cars can't excede these standards... where would be be if air travel or space travel had progressed at the same dismall rate. Pretty pitiful effort.

I remember back in 1980 the Volkswagon Rabbit Diesel was getting about 50+ miles per gallon...30 years ago. We should at least be getting on average 50+miles per gallon today.

Such lack of advancement only adds credence to the gas/oil/ auto maker conspiracies.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
You are absolutely right. I've noticed the same thing. Over the year, cars have gotten "thirstier" being less fuel efficient as generations before. We had an 89 Civic Dx, we could get 500 miles on 25 bucks worth of gaz, then we got a 91 Civic CX and got 400 miles on 25 bucks.....In 1998 we got a Honda Civic Lx sedan and we could hardly get 250 miles per tank on it. We now own a Honda Odyssey 2009 and we manage 355 miles on 21 gallons of gas !!! It's getting bad !!!



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi

Originally posted by network dude
I can remember back when I was 16 and had my first car. It wasn't much to impress, but it was alright. I was in LOVE with the Honda CRX though. I would go up to the dealership and look at them, test drive them, talk about buying one. Sadly, my grocery store job didn't pay enough to support a new car payment, so I never got the chance to buy one. So here I am, in my 40's and looking for a car for one of my kids. I see a reconditioned Honda CRX. Then I start to read about it. I had forgotten what kind of gas mileage it got. It was a sporty little car, two seater, but had enough room to get around. it got over 50MPG! We have these ugly ass hybrids that only get 40MPG and will have a huge problem when it comes time to deal with the spent batteries. Why did we stop making efficient cars? Why has the public not asked this question? What can we do to bring back common sense?


You gave a terrible example. You can't compare the two.

One is a sporty, very small car, with a rotative engine that has some kicks to it. That power is used to move that little car around, which is very light.

A Prius, for that matter, has a lot of stuff that is heavy. You don't want a car like CRX that is noisy. You want a car that runs silently, confortable, with stereo and AC...

All those things, that now we take from granted, aren't light. They are heavy systems, and weights adds to the fuel consumption.

The problem is continuing to make confortable cars, with more safety and confort, and keep the MPG high.

As an example, now I own a BMW 5 series, the new one with Efficient Dynamics. My fuel consumption is reduced by half, from my previous car.
edit on 10/12/10 by Tifozi because: added a paragraph


The CRX never had a rotative( Rotax) engine, you are thinking of the Mazda RX7. The CRX had a 1.5 or a 1.6 HOVC



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Ive got one for ya


We own a new Chrysler town and country minivan.. gets around 18 MPG. We have a 7 seater Saturn outlook SUV.. about 20 MPG. Bought a 4 seater dodge NEON tiny car for the daughter new.. it gets right around 18 mpg!

OKay.. WTF..



There is absolutely NO reason that the Neon gets that bad of MPG unless it was engineered to be that way.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I agree, network dude.

Way back in the mid 1970's I drove a gasoline powered Honda Cvcc that got much better mileage than any new hybrid. Not that it was a tire burner though, lol

What's more ridiculous is how aero styling has regressed. An '86 Ford Taurus was more aero efficient than almost any current design.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Additionally, why is gas/petrol getting more and more expensive? Oil is only around $90 a barrel at the moment, compared to the highest ever point of $150 in 2008- yet petrol, here in the UK at least, is currently the most expensive it has ever been. Yes, some of this can be put down to tax increase and other costs increasing, but that doesn't even come close to balancing out the 40% decrease in the price of oil, that they are gaining from. Just one big case of collusion.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
When I was in high school I had a 85 Toyota Tercel, FrntWD that was as light as a feather but gave me about 35 mpg.
My dad bought an 88 brand new 88 tercel, a lot nicer of a vehicle than mine and he would regularly get about 42 mpg.
These cars were a result of the 70s oil embargo, when we actually had to wait in line for hours to get a few dollars worth of fuel, this is the era that you saw the (temporary) end of the muscle car.
The weight argument doesnt hold up, it has been over 20 years and the OP is correct, we have regressed.
So a prius has more weight added because of the electric engine, batteries or whatever, then whats the point?

Theres something to this and I can guaranty that it comes down to $$$, it always does.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
By the barrel we shouldnt have th price we have here rigvht now.. we're hovering at 2.99 a gallon. Sure the brits scoff at us.. but I have to drive 30 min for a real grocery store.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The oil industry is clearly repressing advanced technologies in the name of profit and control.
Obviously.

Oh but no one wants to hear that right?

Well give me a better reason why, and maybe I'll change my tune.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The oil industry is clearly repressing advanced technologies in the name of profit and control.
Obviously.

Oh but no one wants to hear that right?

Well give me a better reason why, and maybe I'll change my tune.



Hey muzzle, it seems that every topic that we find each other posting in, we always seem to be in agreement with each other.
This one is no exception, as I think youre absolutely right, its always about money and the petro industry is HUGE, i think Texaco made what, about 20-30 BILLION (with a B) profit last year?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


man you'd be lucky just to get 40mpg these day, seems like the average mpg has decreased for sure and is staying around the 25 to 30 mpg range, i'd go for the motorcycle 70-120mpg depending on engine size



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

It's a record breaker! Back in May, this second generation of the SEAT Ibiza Ecomotive covered 970 miles on a single 45-litre tank of fuel, smashing the best-ever economy mark for a car in its class with an average of 97.4mpg.

Read more

Dunno why this kind of cars (there are legions of similar cars hitting the market right now.) aren't imported into the US. Own one myself and though I don't care enough to travel max mileage on the gallon (meaning to steer clear from the turbo kicking in.) It still manages to give me 45 miles on a us-gallon. (54 m/uk-gallon.)

Would I to drive more fuel economic, I figure I'll manage the mileage mentioned in the article.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I have thought recently about the same thing.

My first car was a 1983 Chevette hatchback. It was tiny, had no AC, none of the gadgets, but I loved that little car. The listed MPG was something like 28 city, 40 highway & I loved how I only had to fill it twice a month. I drove that car for several years before it was passed on to my sister & she drove it to well over 200k. (She also made it to 240k with her Honda Civic, body fell apart, motor was still going when it went to be scrapped)

If I could buy one of these little buggers, I would in a heartbeat. Now we have a 1997 olds delta. It's listed as 19 city, 29 highway, but my math loving husband tracked it for a year and found ours gets 31 mpg average & it's a six cylinder. We have about 140k on the engine & it pures like the day we got it 8 years ago.
(and the body is in perfect shape, despite the many NY winters it has seen)

Now I look at the MPG listed on the newer cars & I can't figure out how they get such crappy MPG when my six cylinder, older car, can do so much better.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
My 1980 4 door Subaru with every gadget and option available at the time did better than 40 mpg, this was a very comfortable, quiet and super reliable car.

Even in the mid-nineties I had an extended cab S-10 pickup with the big 4.3 liter V6 that got 28 mpg with the A/C running full blast - now even pickups with V6 engines a lot smaller are hard pressed to break 20 mpg with accessories running.

I have often wondered WTH......................

This issue is not one of technology as I remember bragging about high mileage cars to my dad during the 70's crunch and him saying "son we had cars in the 40's and 50's that had much better fuel mileage"

The CRX and Civic of the late 80's are a perfect example of what should be available, they were dead-stone reliable, great mileage and comfortable with a fun to drive aspect about them.

The car companies say they only make what sells - hard for me to believe, I call BS on this.

What of the VW diesels - priced in stratospere and also regressing in performance?




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
i think the facory standards compared to real life are questionable from the start. most cars these days are quite inefficient with regards to the catalytic converters needing time to heat up to operating temperature as well as the sensors for oxygen flow etc. most people i see simply start their cars and they're off! not good for the engine or mileage imo. coupled with all the gadgets and heating/ac offered, fuel is also required for these things albeit a fraction of the issue.
f



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I had a 1987 Plymouth Colt Vista.

It was identical to the one on this blog site.

In July 1988 I drove this car from the west coast to the Midwest and back with my wife,3 small kids and a car topper luggage storage unit on top.

Did I mention it had NO air conditioner.

Think Chevy Chase in the movie "Vacation".

I had put some oil additive in the car before I left.

It was supposed to increase your gas mileage.

On the trip there I was averaging 33 miles a gallon.

I changed the oil once I got where I was going as per the instructions on the additive.

I was getting 39 miles a gallon on the trip back!

Thought the dang gas gauge was broken.

Did I mention there was a drought in the Midwest and it was over a 100 degrees every frigging day we were there?

I had to borrow my parents air conditioned car to drive around while we were visiting them

I miss that little car.
edit on 10-12-2010 by Oneolddude because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by fakedirt
i think the facory standards compared to real life are questionable from the start. most cars these days are quite inefficient with regards to the catalytic converters needing time to heat up to operating temperature as well as the sensors for oxygen flow etc. most people i see simply start their cars and they're off! not good for the engine or mileage imo. coupled with all the gadgets and heating/ac offered, fuel is also required for these things albeit a fraction of the issue.
f


You brought up a good point about letting about warming a car before you go. We have remote starters for both of our cars for just this reason. (That and it sucks to get into a freezing car) Another thing you mentioned were the sensors & I have always wondered one thing about them. If all these sensors are to insure that your car is running in perfect condition & not wasting fuel or polluting the air with excessive emissions, then why has no one said a word about the affect on the enviroment that production & replacement of these sensors/extra parts are to pass the inspection process? How about those batteries in the electric or hybrid cars? How much damage do their production/replacement cause our enviroment? Just ask people who live in Sudsbury, Ontario where the nickel is smelted. ..... I bet they would have some things to say about these green cars.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I have noticed several things about the cars on the road.

There are a lot of unnecessary cosmetic and convenience options on most of them.

When cars had skinny 14 inch tires and wheels,and crank windows,they were more efficient.

I had a 1986 subaru 4WD station wagon,a GL10.

I drove it from wisconsin to florida,with 3 adults,3 dogs,and pulled a small trailer.

It averaged 29 miles to the gallon on the trip.

What ever happened to good little cars like that?.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join