posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:57 PM
Originally posted by winterkill
All jiggering aside, why were we getting cars that could give 48 mpg back in the 70s from Chrysler and now they are touting how advanced they are
because they are now getting 40 mpg.
Do they think our memories are that short?
Just what model of Chrysler was able to 48 mpg back in the '70s? I sure don't remember any.
The '78 Doge Omni was rated at 25 mpg city/38 mpg highway using the older and more optimistic testing regimen. It had a 75 hp engine, weighed
lbs and only managed 0-60 in 12.5 sec.
The 2013 Dodge Dart Aero 1.4 L Turbo is rated at 28 mpg city/41 mpg highway using the tests instituted in 2008 that result in ratings closer to what
the consumer will actually get in real world driving. It has a 160 hp engine, weighs 3190
lbs, and does 0-60 in 7.9 sec.
Did you notice the difference in curb weight? The 2013 car weighs over 1000 lbs more. That is as a result of a stiffer and safer body structure,
safety equipment such as air bags, and all the additional equipment that consumers are demanding that wasn't available in the '78 car.
The significant increase in vehicle weight is why cars aren't getting better fuel economy than they are. That '13 Dodge weighs more than the '80
Volvo wagon I owned.
A '76 BMW 530i (3 litre 6 cyl) was rated at 13 mpg city/23 mpg highway. A '13 BMW 535i (3 litre 6 cyl) is rated at 19 mpg city/28 mpg highway. Yet
the newer car is almost 600 lbs heavier and 3.3 sec. faster in 0-60 mph.
edit on 2/2/13 by erwalker because: double "the"