They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
That is no Aston-Martin DB9, not even close.
Mike
Member
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
That is no Aston-Martin DB9, not even close.
Mike
From the workshop under the staircase, Clinton Township, MI
Semper Audere!
Contributor
The cars that people constantly bring up as getting 40 to 55 MPG in the old days would be a diesel Rabbit, Geo Metro, or Honda Civic. There are probably others I don't recall right now.
Contributor
Further political comments could result in this thread being locked and removed from public view.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Moderator
It’s doubtful any of those would pass today’s stringent safety requirements. Safer vehicles have saved countless lives but the price we pay for that safety is increased weight. There was a video making the email rounds a few months ago that showed a test of a 70’s vintage (I think) big car hitting the proverbial immovable wall at speed and a modern car hitting the same wall at the same speed. Any occupants in the vintage car would have been killed or at least very seriously hurt while the occupants of the new car would have walked away.Originally Posted by Brian Elfert
Last edited by Bruce Page; 08-22-2011 at 5:53 PM. Reason: spellin'
Please help support the Creek.
"It's paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn't appeal to anyone."
Andy Rooney
Contributor
I'm with Mike. As for as beauty's go I more like the new Challangers and Cameros.
PHM
Member
Where did i mention anything about the 70's? I said late 80's- early 90's. Suzuki made cars that got up to 52mpg, and yes they were rebadged as Metro's also. Volkswagen rabbit diesels were another. Yes, we have a difference in auto safety standards, and yes these can add weight to a vehicle, HOWEVER, we also have 20+ years of new engine technologies that SHOULD be able to compensate for the required weight differences.@ Kevin W Johnson, I agree with your basic thought, but I am struggling to think of cars (plural) that got 52 MPG in the 70's or 80's. I had a Mini 1000 that got good mileage, and it was very cool indeed, but I'm not sure it really got 50 MPG in normal driving. Please give some examples of the high mileage vehicles you remember. (Oh no, not the Chevette! arrrgg!)
Would these vehicles pass todays safety tests? I know my Mini wouldn't - the brakes were antilock though - you couldn't lock a wheel unless a wheel cylinder was leaking brake fluid into one of the 4 wheel drums! (frequent occurance) LOL
Also on a side topic, I don't believe for a second that there is any "oil company" conspiracy, the laws of physics dictate that extremely high fuel mileage in a real world, driveable car is not that easy. I'm sure that if any car company had a 100 MPG car, not an oil company in the world could buy them off.
Heres a funny comparison for ya. The 1992 Geo Metro 4dr, 1.0L 4cyl. had a curb weight of 1692lbs with a top MPG of 52. A 2008 Smart Car, 1.0L 4cyl, has a curb weight of 1650lbs with a top MPG of 41.
Contributor
Two important things you're missing, Kevin.
For the 2008 MY, the EPA revised their test procedure to more accurately represent actual driver habits. The net result was a significant drop in EPA fuel economy. You can check it out on www.fueleconomy.gov. They didn't run the comparison for a '92 Metro but for a '98 Metro the drop was 4 mpg for an automatic and 6 mpg for a manual. A couple of other vehicles I checked had similar droppage (e.g., Honda Civic)
The second item......just as important as weight.....was the effect of increased emissions standards. I don't currently have access to specific numbers but I would bet that if you ran that same Metro vehicle with a 2008 emissions package on the 2008 EPA cycle you'd be hard pressed to get 40 mpg.
"Don't worry. They couldn't possibly hit us from that dist...."
Member
i may just be dreaming but it sure seems like the more a gallon of gas costs the worse my MPG is on the same exact vehicle (i check the MPG with every fillup and i average it over time because i am aware that i can't fill it exactly the same every time) could it be the quality of the gas we are paying through the nose for is getting worse? sure seems like it
[OP]
Member
if anyone watched Ellen this past week, it was Justin Biebers birthday and his manager and Usher gave him one of these.
what a lucky kid!
Last edited by Bruce Page; 03-03-2012 at 2:06 PM.
Contributor
Ground temperature.
The colder the gas in the tank, the more there is. Warmer=less.
Expansion and contraction.
Never, under any circumstances, consume a laxative and sleeping pill, on the same night
Member
At least in the U.S., gasoline is almost universally distributed from in-ground tanks that are deep enough their temperature isn't going to change much. Even if the tanker truck has a several-day trip from the refinery, the mass of their 5000-gallon tanker of gasoline is high enough that it won't change but a couple degrees. You're not going to notice a mileage change from the change in volume of a gallon of gas warming or cooling a couple degrees. Not to mention, today's EFI cars adapt the fuel/air mixture hundreds of times per second.
Cold, heavy winter air and warm, light summer air will have a much greater effect on mileage than the old "pump gas when it's cool" myth.
Member
Common sense says this vehicle will consume less fossil fuels and emit less pollution during its service life than a vehicle of similar purpose.
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.
Member
Maybe, maybe not.
Example: Data has been requested from Toyota on numerous occasions on the energy usage to produce the Prius, in order to validate their claims of less pollutants over its service life to that of a standard gas counterpart. To date, they have refused all requests. There's certainly no trade secrets to hide in that information, and Toyota's refusal certainly suggests it has something to hide.
Member
Ferrari GTO 250... trumps them all...in mine eyes
There are issues that make green cars less than green BUT the key is they are needed for the transition. They will spark innovation which can be channeled to be more and more green. One has to consider the big/long term picture. I am a born and bred petrol-head and there is no sound on earth like a gasoline I/C engine but electric will probably be the future of cars and that is just fine by me.
Of all the laws Brandolini's may be the most universally true.
Deep thought for the day:
Your bandsaw weighs more when you leave the spring compressed instead of relieving the tension.
Member
My wife's 1999 VW Cabrio normally aspirated automatic gets near 34 mpg on the highway.
It's worth $1500. This thing is a monumentally cool step in the wrong direction.
I would be much more interested in hearing about innovations in freight transport, where most of our fuel is consumed.
It does make a cool sound though...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote