VW Passat's in U.K get 78 mpg. U.S. Gov Won't Let Them Be Sold Over Here.

reply to post by zonetripper2065


size isn't necessarily everything,



and for example isn't the Ford F150 a death trap?

reply to post by Urantia1111


Your paranoia regarding the big oil companies has nothing to do with how various jurisdictions test cars in order to establish a fuel economy rating for each vehicle. How the EPA performs its tests has no bearing on how the tests are set up and performed in UK/Europe or Canada. To conclude that you are somehow being shafted when an identically equipped car gets a lower rating from the EPA than it gets from European or Canadian testing is moronic.

The Chevrolet Cruze LT can be bought in the US and Canada with identical power trains. The EPA rates the 1.4 L turbo model at 26 mpg city/38 mpg highway. Transport Canada rates the same car at 30 mpg city/45 mpg highway (adj. for US gal). The difference isn't down to GM liking Canadians better than it likes Americans and giving us a better car. It is down to testing methodology.

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?

reply to post by Tuttle


BIG fan of TopGear UK.
Saw that one and they tried to destroy that truck and it was still running after all that.
Gas mileage stats are misleading at best. I have a 2007 Chevy Equinox and it's only supposed to get 24 mpg highway, with a 20 gal tank. But, I drive to Fort Worth, Texas from Central Illinois on 1 1/4 tank fulls. [834 miles] Fill up before I leave, get gas again right before I get in Dallas. It's mostly open highway at 65 to 85 mph. That's about 33 mpg. I'm only hoping our next vehicle will do as good.
They do not want us having high mileage cars. Less gas, less taxes.

reply to post by biggilo


The f-150 is a piece of garbage and your right not all big cars are safe. I drive a Dodge Durango, they are very solid. for example

S&F for you, good sir.

Pisses me off. If I use half the gas, they get half the gasoline tax. It's that simple.

Bull#.

Of course! this is an outrage. Every hardworking American should know this and be able to choose these kinds of vehicles. But we all know what happened to the man that invented a water powered car. He died the very next day he presented it to Washington.

reply to post by winterkill


Very good question. I have worked in the car industry since 1976. EPA standards started getting tough in the early 80's. First we had "wave caylitic converters", and "egr valves" then we added air pumps to pump fresh air into those converters to get them hotter for cleaner burning. Add an oxygen sensor to try to keep the air/fuel ratio to 14 parts air and 1 part fuel. 14:1. This is a bit lean as the perfect air/fuel ratio is closer to 13:1. Nevertheless the EPA demands 14:1. The wave converter was not very restrictive and not as efficient as todays converters. Some cars now have a total of 5 caylitic converters on them. All pretty restrictive. Restricting exhaust flow reduces power and efficiency but pollutes less, or so their theory goes. Since these restrictions of the exhaust cause the car to get worse gas mileage i would say that their theory is wrong in the big picture. There are thousands of pieces to that puzzle you brought up. Variable cam timing,learning computers,temperature ranges at every rpm range,restricted cooling ports in cylinder heads to lower warmup times. It gets very complicated. In the end. I agree with you. We made cars in the past that got 20mpg better gas mileage than todays cars. Their theories are flawed. Better gas mileage does equate to less polution no matter what the tailpipe test says. They are just attempting to have zero pollution out of the tailpipe as soon as you turn the key and at every temperature and rpm range. That is where they are going wrong.

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 2145 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.

Another thing to add... if the government is so worried about emissions, why is it not doing something about lawnmowers. A single use of a lawn mower produces more admissions in a use than a car in a week.

Why do they let people with products in containers ship half full items, requiring double the shipping. Demand bottles be made to fit the product. Less shipping, less admissions.

Not enough gas on a lawn mower to tax I guess.

Originally posted by winterkill
Another thing to add... if the government is so worried about emissions, why is it not doing something about lawnmowers. A single use of a lawn mower produces more admissions in a use than a car in a week.

I guess you are unaware that EPA emission regulations for new lawn mowers first came into effect in 1995 and more stringent regulations came into effect in the last two years. New lawn mowers produce less than 30% of the emissions produced by those manufactured prior to 1995.

Did you happen to notice that you haven't been able to buy a two-stroke lawn mower in years?

My new Hyundai sonata gets 50 mpg on cruise with eco on going 72 mph. Which to me is fine. A lovely car with great horsepower . They've gotten very nice since 2011. will be good for my cross country move from Vegas to ft Lauderdale on Monday. 2,547 miles.

now that's the mpg I'm talking about

Originally posted by winterkill
now that's the mpg I'm talking about

The US government actually allows this? How amazing.

Are you ever going to let us know what wonderful '70s Chrysler was able to get 48 mpg?

It was a k-car that my dad brought home LOL

Originally posted by winterkill
It was a k-car that my dad brought home LOL

Seriously?

The K-car debuted in 1981 and the 2.2 L 4-cyl 4-door sedan was rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city/40 mpg highway for the manual and 25 mpg city/36 mpg highway for the automatic transmission.

It has been stated that the EPA ratings overestimated gas engine fuel economy by as much as 20% until 2008, when the EPA revised their testing to better reflect real-world fuel economy.

Here is a link to a site I found, Automobile-Catalog.com, that is really quite neat. It has info on just about every car ever made since 1945, including performance figures.

what about the water powered car inventor? , killed off by those who wish to keep oil at the top of the food chain.

the whole world is run by money, if something doesn't make money it wont get out even if its life changing

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
what about the water powered car inventor? , killed off by those who wish to keep oil at the top of the food chain.

the whole world is run by money, if something doesn't make money it wont get out even if its life changing

Presumably you are talking about Stan Meyer, who claimed to have invented a process that converted water into its component parts more efficiently than normal electrolysis and could power a car with it.

Of course he wouldn't allow others to actually test the performance of his process, falsely claiming that it would somehow invalidate his patent rights if he did. So there is no proof that his device actually worked as he claimed it did.

Some claim he was murdered by poisoning as he died shortly after dining at a restaurant. The official cause of death was a cerebral aneurysm.

Any links on that, sounds like a cool story to read about.

reply to post by winterkill


Just do a search for "stan meyer water fueled car"