It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
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.

Why is it getting more expensive? BECAUSE WE KEEP PAYING THE HIGHER PRICE. As long as we keep buying it, the price is going to stay high. Why sell something for $1 when someone will pay $2 for it?

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by riiver

Fuel is a necessity in todays world, we can't not buy it- we don't have a choice. When all the different retailers pump their prices up, knowing full well we have nowhere else to go, this is collusion- hence my last statement. There are laws against this kind of thing, but obviously, seeing as the system is so corrupt, the whole practice is often over-looked.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by Tifozi

I don't think you are familiar with that car. It had a small 4 cylinder over head cam engine, very comfortable seats.
Here is what they are

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:08 PM
The problem is the smog laws.

New cars don't get better gas mileage because government regulations traded cleaner air for less mileage.

Then you have alcohol, The fuel mileage years ago was based on pure gasoline fuel with maybe MTBE in it.

Now the fuel has alcohol in it in growing amounts.sometimes up to 25%.
Cars get less MPG on this fuel and the government has mandated that cars now have the fuel mileage numbers bases on the worst fuel not like 10 years ago when the mileage numbers where based on the best fuel.

Now hybrids were never about higher gas mileage.
They were only about cleaner running.(less pollution) due to a smaller RPM range.
If hybrids were about fuel mileage we would have a lot of diesel hybrids as they would get about 25% better mileage.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Advantage
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.

this is a good question. the answer lies in the "ethanol" scam.

they have put up to 10% "corn liquor" in our gasoline. it does not provide the energy when combusted that pure fossil fuels do.

they will soon start putting up to 15% ethanol in gasoline. it will make mileage go down even more.

ethanol is a way for powerful farming states to get billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies from the federal government. there is an embargo against ethanol created from sugar cane in south american countries, because it would undercut the massive profits raked in by american agribusiness firms - archer/daniels/midland; monsanto, etc.

ethanol will kill engines. most inboard and outboard engines can't use it, nor can engines used in aviation. they need a special fuel because the ethanol erodes fittings in these rather delicate engines. if you want to mess up a lawnmower or chainsaw motor, put some ethanol gas in it and use it a lot.

these "green biofuels" are just another lie from the environmentalist liars used to leach money from the middle class and stuff it into the pockets of the "elite" that surround obama, soros and algore.

im expecting mileage and engine life to decrease substantially when the ethanol content in gasoline goes up in 2011.

read more here:
If there really is a government conspiracy, it is this.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by network dude

A guy I know had an early Rabbit, early 80s. It was a 40 mpg car but probably got 33 or so if you got on it. Before these I do recall cars getting 50 mpg. I think that when they conned us in to using catalytics, milages necessarily plummeted. These devices simply cause you to chase your own tail, proven fact that they cause more pollution than they cure. Seek out the catalytic thread at ats; it is brief and intelligent.

Another factor is they are making small displacement engines more powerful. Multi valve timing, besides yielding efficiency, they also yield greater power, access to gasoline. If you will, the makers make cars to reflect sentiments toward gasoline prices.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by network dude

It's called 'greed'
I have a 1961 met and it gets 45 mpg highway 39 city. They have know for decades & decades but the oil companies push the tanks.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by network dude
Why did we stop making efficient cars?

Our military needs vast amounts of crude oil to function.

If America cut it's oil needs 1/4th how would the Federal Government obtain enough crude oil to keep the Air Force flying?

There is a reason that 4cylinder turbo diesel pickups are forbidden from being sold in America....even though every other country on Earth has them for their people.

There is also a reason the "Electric Only Operation" button on the Toyota Prius was forced to be removed before being imported into the United States.

The Federal Government NEEDS a populace using vast amounts of crude oil to keep itself going.

Now with China using more of Saudi Arabia's crude oil than us, posts a National Security dilemna. We're losing military capability and our economy is shrinking because of it.

There is technology suppressed which can free mankind from crude oil. It's suppressed because of our military needing vast amounts of crude oil.
edit on 10-12-2010 by Pervius because: fixed quote

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by MMPI2

I had not even thought of this. Watch the ones offering 10 year warrantys. When they start shrinking, I think that will be a first sign. Thanks for the heads up.

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:08 PM
I failed to see anyone else mention the fact that horsepower and performance numbers for most cars has gone up about 75% on average in the last 20 years , the sizes of cars has increased as well. In order to make more horsepower you normally need more fuel burned. Also It's best to compare apples to apples to avoid vague generalizations.

1990 Nissan Maxima................. 2010 Nissan Maxima
6cyl 160 Horses..................... 6 cyl 290 Horses
3129 lbs ...................... 3540 lbs
19/26 MPG ................. 19/26 MPG
0-60 8.7 Seconds ................. 0-60 5.8 Seconds

In many cases cars not only out perform their predecessors , but they also return better fuel mileage.

1990 Toyota Camry ............... 2010 Toyota Camry
4 cyl 115 Horses ............... 4 cyl 169 Horses
2690 lbs ................. 3307 lbs
23/31 MPG .................. 22/32 MPG

6 cyl 156 Horses ................ 6 cyl 268 Horses

If you do your own due dilligence , you'll see that most of the claims in this thread have been grossly overstated due to either ignorance, or people pushing their agendas.

Most of my friends (like myself) are car guys and actually enjoy DRIVING a car and not just operating it in the most efficient manner from point a to b while counting pennies , for the drivers on this forum REJOICE!!! , even the Porsche 911 Has grown in leaps and bounds in performance , while sipping fuel and returning great MPG.

1990 Porsche 911 C2 ................... 2010 Porsche 911 C2
6 cyl 247 Horses ...................... 6 cyl 345 Horses
3031 lbs ......................... 3164 lbs
16/24 MPG ....................... 19/27 MPG
0-60 5.4 seconds .................. 0-60 4.5 seconds

So in closing before wondering "Why are we regressing on gas mileage?" do a little research and you'll see that cars are heavier , faster, safer , quieter and have A LOT more horsepower than they did 20 years ago , and like I explained in the opening , more power needs more fuel... Its pretty simple

edit on 10-12-2010 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2010 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by lynn112

in the uk we have quite stringent emissions tests, i know because i oversee each of my cars go through the process.
i have been restoring and rebuilding for over 20 years. one car is a 1994 toyota celica 2ltr injection and the other
is a 1978 range rover classic with a straight perkins block 4ltr, no electronics whatsoever and quite bomb proof.
my wife and family are witness to the devotion i put into keeping them in top condition. the range rover is cleaner
than most new four wheelers as quoted by the mot testers on many many occasions.
regarding the sensors, i am unsure as to the environmental impact as they are about the size of a spark plug
and cost on average about £175 to replace at a garage. the catalytic converters are another matter. they are a platinum
mesh inside the exhaust that activates at high temperature and convert the various gases into water vapour and acceptable
levels of co. these are quite expensive to replace in the order of a few hundred pounds. they are also recyclable.
if more people took time to check their cars without soley relying on the yearly test, i feel this would improve their
regarding the battery/hybrid cars, you have seen the elephant in the room so to speak. they are quite heavy, the embodied
energy is questionable and their disposal end of life chain of custody is unknown. most hybrid batteries are made with
lithium which is a commodity that is sure to increase in value as more hybrid electric cars come on the market. the process
of extraction of lithium i believe is a difficult one.

the prodution and replacement of car parts helps sustain the ailing industry imo. there are replacement parts that imo
are not fit for purpose as they have been manufactured to the lowest acceptable standards and these parts should be avoided
at all costs. i personally go for genuine or pattern parts that i feel fit the bill.
regarding your remote starters, what a good idea. unfortunately here in the uk it is an offence to leave a running car
unattended on a public highway for those without a drive but a great idea for those with.
regarding the green tech. at the moment i feel the industry is in it's infancy and mistakes will be made. the downside
to the battery type hybrid is lack of range coupled with the need to charge for several hours from the grid which will
already be at near capacity.
btw it is factory setting not facory as i stated my gaff!
regards f

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by fakedirt

I too have a love of older cars, my husband is restoring his 70 Pontiac LeMans & as I said, my 1997 Olds delta is in perfect condition & we will probably have it for a long time to come. I think part of the reason why I am so found of the older cars is the engine was a lot easier to understand. My father made me learn the basics of engine repair & car maintenance before I sat in the driver seat. On the older cars, I could change my own oil, change filters, spark plugs, check fluids, change the battery & keep my car running in perfectly for a long time. A mechanic was needed rarely. My point is, with all these new sensors, and additional parts, I can't even do a simple spark plug change any longer & that costs me a lot of extra money.

Every sensor, every extra gadget, every extra part on a car is another part that can fail & ultimately could need replacing even on cars that are well maintained. It also shortens the "road life" of a vehicle because people are more apt to get a new car the minute one starts to have sensor failures because some of them can cost hundreds of dollars. What kind of effect does a new car ever five years rather than every ten, fifteen, heck even twenty years have on our environment? That is two, maybe three more cars that need to be produced to replace the one. That is a lot of unnecessary waste in my opinion & with the average car price at $28,400 in the US, that is an awfully big price tag every 5-10 years.

And lets not forget the cash for clunkers program that destroyed over 690,000 vehicles supposedly to get people to stop driving their environment killing, gas guzzlers. The problem I have with that whole stinkfest was that they "disposed" of 690,000 cars. Yes, some parts were recycled, but some ended up in a landfill. Now throw in all the emissions of the machines used to crush these cars, scrap them, etc. & I bet it doesn't look so great anymore. All this program actually did IMO was increase sales for automakers who were struggling because people were starting to feel the pinch on their wallets.

Basically, I think the whole green car concepts that we see on the road today are little more than a way for some to feel all warm & fuzzy about how they're saving the environment. In reality, I see it as nothing more than a money-making scheme to try and get me to buy a shinny new car when I have no need for one. I'm not saying we shouldn't explore more environmentally friendly alternatives, I'm saying the research needs to have a goal of making a environmentally friendly vehicle, not a quick buck for the car manufacturers.

Back on topic, why do we seem to be regressing on mileage? Well, it could be that oil is such a big part of the worlds economy/wealth, and the United States is such a large consumer of that oil, that the fat cats making money off of the oil are using their power to ensure the U.S. continues to consume their product at an ever increasing rate.

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:58 AM
A couple people nailed it -- the emissions controls are MUCH more stringent nowadays. Reducing emissions by 90+% while maintaining a respectable fuel efficiency is not a simple task. Combine that with the fact that cars are getting more and more powerful and have to run tons of electronics/gadgets that did not exist decades ago and you have your answer.

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by lynn112

i hear what you are saying and yes it boils down to the greenback/gbp. if the tech improves or even the
availability of a bomb proof add on for increased mileage i would consider better than a potential
environmental tragedy in the waiting when these new hybrids have come to the end of the line.
i agree that the more gadgets on a vehicle the more prone they are to failure thus rendering more unto
the garage.
some time back in the eu they were attempting to force all nation states to put all cars ten years or so
in the graveyard. there was quite a backlash at this proposal especially with the classic crew.
i will keep my ear to the ground on further developments.
regards f

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by network dude

I used to race back and forth from San Diego to Winnipeg in a Honda Civic full of stuff (camping gear, 2 dogs, wardrobe) - and get 50+ miles to the gallon.

...The official story is that all the pollution controls affected gas mileage, but I don't think so. High gas mileage just ceased to be a "priority" - we were told we couldn't have both. Untrue - we could have both - high gas mileage AND pollution control.

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:10 PM
The lower gas mileage means you the consumer will spend more on gas. This puts more money into the chain that makes the gas from the refineries to the companies pumping the petroleum out of the ground. They are squeezing us penny by penny.

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:19 PM
Just an FYI:

Overnight here in Ilinois... gas went from 2.99 to 3.10. No real reason.. it hasnt really changed overnight in price by the barrel.

If anything happened with things in the way that we all see martial law on the horizon they really wouldnt even have to lift a ringer as far as troops... they could make gas unaffordable and block food supplies by gas being too prohibitive to transport.


posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:48 PM
Another problem is the car makers have had to meet newer crash safety standards.
this meant adding more structure to the car.

old VW bugs were real good for there weight in crashes but that was because the engine was in the back and the trunk was in the front.

then the first oil shortage hit and the other auto makers started cutting body weight to improve gas mileage. unibody cars.

That worked for years till Ralph Nader started pushing for higher safety standards and the auto makers had to start putting weight back on the cars to strengthen the cars.

Add the weight for safety to the higher alcohol fuel plus all the smog laws and the equipment and gas mileage has gone down.

I could build a car that would get 80+ mpg.
But it would not be allowed on the road in the US
It would be a two seater driver in front passenger in back cross between a motorcycle with 4 wheels and a large motorcycle type engine.
It would fail side crash test but have very low wind drag.
The safety laws today are such that if it has two or three wheels its a motor cycle and does not have to meet safety standards.
But everything with 4 wheels has to meet Car safety standards
Take a shape like this lakester with two seats one front one back put a two cyl high fuel efficiency engine in it. (likely turbo diesel) or even set it up as a diesel hybrid with the engine in back and the batteries under the seats and the engine.

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by network dude

I think we're looking at the wrong culprit.

Its not the cars. Its the fuel.

All of this ethanol crap is doing us in. It takes up food crop space, reduces mileage, emissions are horrible,and damages the cars.

E85 is just that much worse.

If any of yall get it, look for Ed Wallace on the AM band. He has a show called "wheels". Sometimes its just car stuff but about 40% is politics regarding said cars. Sometimes its 60% politics LOL.

He does a segment called "backside of history". Odd, obscure stories that are very germaine to current events.

The next car i want to get is a diesel. I can run old cooking oil that way. I'm not a "green" guy but if its there and free, ROCK AND ROLL!
edit on 11/12/10 by felonius because: add

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by ANNED

The brits had a 3 wheel car. Vile creature in looks and safety. Reliant Robin was it!

Top Gear did a segment on it. It flipped at every turn and a famous person who had once owned one was there to
help flip it LOL! Funny as heck. Jeremy was in a 4point restraint to be safe.

You cant swing a dead cat without something having the stench of politics having touched it.

Cars are no different. Many good cars were toasted for the "cash for clunkers" fiasco. Suprised they havent outlawed 72 chevy trucks

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in