1984 MPG's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: urchin
@Overkill:

I'm not being sarcastic here but seriously, you sound like you have studied every talking point the current auto industry has for marketing today and are parroting them back here.

I have to wonder how many "members" here and on other car sites are not general car enthusiasts but are actually "stealth marketers" with an specific agenda, that wouldn't be you would it?


Overk1ll posts facts and your response is they are talking points and he is a shill...lol

Thats rich coming from you, your posts are long on hyperbole and misinformation and very short on supporting facts.

Frankly, your sky is falling, blame the "elite" class, conspiracy tin foil hat posts are getting old already.



I agree, overk1ll is definitely no "marketing shill", and the fact that you say that just shows how much you really pay attention to what is posted.



Another vote for Overkill. And Bill in Utah - great response! Good job.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: urchin
@Overkill:

I'm not being sarcastic here but seriously, you sound like you have studied every talking point the current auto industry has for marketing today and are parroting them back here.

I have to wonder how many "members" here and on other car sites are not general car enthusiasts but are actually "stealth marketers" with an specific agenda, that wouldn't be you would it?


Overk1ll posts facts and your response is they are talking points and he is a shill...lol

Thats rich coming from you, your posts are long on hyperbole and misinformation and very short on supporting facts.

Frankly, your sky is falling, blame the "elite" class, conspiracy tin foil hat posts are getting old already.



I agree, overk1ll is definitely no "marketing shill", and the fact that you say that just shows how much you really pay attention to what is posted.



Another vote for Overkill. And Bill in Utah - great response! Good job.


Thanks!

Okay guys we all know that Overk1ll is not a shill and the poster who posted that was WAY out of line.

Lets get back on subject and see if someone whats to play correctly. If not we will take care of the situation.

Thanks, Bill
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Nothing like a soccer mom rolling in an 8,000+lb SUV to put the fear of God in the heart of a commuter driving a CRX.



I put over 130K miles on a CRX, and I've been really close to buying another one as a beater/commuter car. I was never scared while driving it! I figure with a car that small, I'll be more apt to be able to get out of the way...

While I get the safety argument, it's just not a big determining factor for me. Yeah, I know things may be out of my control, but I'm just not gonna live my life around it. I'd trade safety for lighter weight in a car if it were an option, and I miss the lighter, 'underpowered' cars of the late '80's, to be honest.



Yeah, okay. R U Serious?
 
I don't remember any true 40 mpg gasoline cars from back then (not saying they didn't exist, just I never had any experience with them). Dad had a '78 Horizon that would get 35-36 though, and friends had Chevettes that would do the same. Some small diesels (VW Rabbit) would get well over 40.

I think modern cars are really weighed down (literally) by sound-deadening and safety equipment. That 78 Horizon had virtually nothing between the headliner and the roof- you could hear a light mist on the roof. Same inside the doors and under the carpet, and the seat cushions were only a couple inches thick. 1-speaker AM/FM radio, no power windows or door locks, very lightweight interior plastics... (And yes, all of the above contributed to the fact that I absolutely hated that car...) Plus it didn't have 15 airbags and their computer controllers, either.

What does kinda amaze me is that while yes, it was lighter and had fewer power-consuming gizmos than modern economy cars, it also got that kind of mileage being shaped like a brick, with a carburetor, distributor and plug wires, 2 valves/cylinder and with a 3-speed automatic transmission.
 
My 1986 Mercury Lynx got 38-41mpg`s on the interstate going from Louisiana to Pennsylvania. And back again. I used to be very Impressed. It had the 1.9 L ohc motor matted to a five speed gearbox.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak


Some simply don't get it, but you make a valid point. For one, in the 1970s, a lot of farmers ran their farms on two wheel drive half tons (and the odd 3/4 ton) with one row bench seating and no A/C. Keep in mind that these were people who actually drove more off pavement than on it.

Now, we have people "needing" 4x4 F-250 four doors with diesels, and the closest they go off road is the Walmart parking lot.


I think there are a number of reasons, some valid and some ridiculous, for the fact that trucks have gained so much market share among people who don't use trucks in the traditional way. Bill has already made the point that quad-cab trucks and truck-based SUV's fill a role that was once filled by car-based wagons.

Another point that is often overlooked is that modern trucks actually get pretty decent mileage, all things considered. There's a threshold fuel cost that most people are willing to pay. Just because a small car CAN get 35 mpg doesn't mean everyone will be motivated by that. Back when your farmers drove 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks in the 70s (I was there among them, by the way) you could expect such a truck to get 10-12 mpg at best. Even if it was a straight-6, it wouldn't EVER get much above 14-15 downhill and with a tailwind. A big-block might spend most of its time in single-digit fuel economy. Today, my Ram 1500 Quad Cab gets 18-22 on the highway and 16 in commuting. Today's trucks get "good enough" economy for most people. When gas crosses $3.50 US per gallon, it matters more than before, but still- trucks have come a long way and no longer get such incredibly rotten economy that it drives people away from them like it used to.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Garak


Some simply don't get it, but you make a valid point. For one, in the 1970s, a lot of farmers ran their farms on two wheel drive half tons (and the odd 3/4 ton) with one row bench seating and no A/C. Keep in mind that these were people who actually drove more off pavement than on it.

Now, we have people "needing" 4x4 F-250 four doors with diesels, and the closest they go off road is the Walmart parking lot.


I think there are a number of reasons, some valid and some ridiculous, for the fact that trucks have gained so much market share among people who don't use trucks in the traditional way. Bill has already made the point that quad-cab trucks and truck-based SUV's fill a role that was once filled by car-based wagons.

Another point that is often overlooked is that modern trucks actually get pretty decent mileage, all things considered. There's a threshold fuel cost that most people are willing to pay. Just because a small car CAN get 35 mpg doesn't mean everyone will be motivated by that. Back when your farmers drove 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks in the 70s (I was there among them, by the way) you could expect such a truck to get 10-12 mpg at best. Even if it was a straight-6, it wouldn't EVER get much above 14-15 downhill and with a tailwind. A big-block might spend most of its time in single-digit fuel economy. Today, my Ram 1500 Quad Cab gets 18-22 on the highway and 16 in commuting. Today's trucks get "good enough" economy for most people. When gas crosses $3.50 US per gallon, it matters more than before, but still- trucks have come a long way and no longer get such incredibly rotten economy that it drives people away from them like it used to.



Excellent points and well written. I will add that I am one of those that balances out the overall vehicle. Meaning, fuel economy is NOT my top concern. I want safety, power and amenities and I will gladly accept 25mpg versus something that gets 35+mpg but is smaller and not as comfortable.
 
Originally Posted By: urchin
One of the most annoying things is the insistence of car makers pushing a darn sunroof constantly. My dad recently was looking to buy a 2011 Subaru Outback this year. He has never been interested in this option and has always avoided them because of the problems many people seem to have with failures and leaks. Well the sales people tried mightily to get him to budge but no doing No, sunroof ever for him, I say bravo!

Sure enough just recently Subaru of America has recalled almost every 2011 Outback with a sunroof because the glass panel can literally fall off into the passenger compartment.

Thats funny you mention sunroofs. When I was shopping for my Outback a couple weeks back,every salesman was quick to point out that if I stepped up just one trim level from the base 2.5i,I could get a sunroof.

They just couldn't get it into their thick skull that I didn't want a sunroof.
 
I have a hard time convincing my younger friends that while their new Camry gets great mileage it costs them more to drive than my car.

So count me as one of those who looks at the total package more than just the mpg alone. For that big payment many have I can buy a lot of fuel.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
[Now, we have people "needing" 4x4 F-250 four doors with diesels, and the closest they go off road is the Walmart parking lot. In fact, my brother just joined that league, getting a 4x4 F-250 with a diesel. I ask him why. He says that it's a work truck. I tell him I know what it is, and I didn't ask what it was, I asked why. He doesn't go off road, he doesn't hunt, he doesn't farm, he doesn't camp, doesn't go boating, doesn't pull a car, does no landscaping, and owns zero tools.


I have tons of clients that have 1-ton dually diesel 4X4s (6X6es?). What do they do for a living? Oil field roughnecks. So you think to yourself, "they might actually use that truck as it's intended."
Nope.
Not a scratch on the bed. Never seen a 5th wheel or tow hitch.
They work offshore.
I don't care how good Howie says the Silverado HD3500 4X4 diesel is. It's useless in 6000 ft of water.
 
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
And one of the reasons for SUV sales and their being very successful is because of the CAFE rules that killed wagons and consumers need the space. The SUV allowed the manufactures to build what SELLS (which is what they are in business for) The SUV was not affected that much by CAFE numbers so they were built. Your reason for the ONLY is not even close.

Bill


Bill,
I'd have to disagree there.

Oz has no CAFE, and the big Ford and Holden station wagons are still abailable...you can buy a 6 Litre 6 speed they are so unCAFEd,

And consumers are overwhelmingly buying SUVs.

So I don't think it's CAFE that killed the wagon...might make a good excuse from the manufacturers as to why they don't make them, but I doubt they would be selling if they were.
 
"People need more room"

"The rear seats don't have enough leg room"

"Nobody buys smaller base model economical cars that is why the car companies don't make them".

"If you're still in that 80's economy car as a daily driver your gunna get flatted by that semi, I don't want that to be me!"


I find these or very similar "talking points" posted on MANY so called independent car enthusiast sites, and can't help but think these are POSSIBLY the posts of marketing shills, that are posing as "ordinary joe enthusiasts" with an agenda to advance. I also find that if you challenge these folks, usually they are supposedly long time members with many posts (too many almost) and seem immune to the forum rules, they have a gaggle of "supporters" that will "join in" and tag team anyone so bold as to question their veracity on any issue.

They also love to point out stats, that of course can be made to say anything at all for the most part.

The ONLY reason why the SUV became successful is because the car companies created a segment (with super high profit margins) and went whole hog with the marketing drills to push US consumers into them. Mr. Smith is not too bright. LOL
 
Originally Posted By: urchin
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Ahem...

Both of our cars are averaging at least 30 mpg year-round, are decently well-appointed inside, and were both under $20k out the door. They meet the high MPG/reasonable price/reasonable utility benchmark.

If that is the future, well, call me Jones!

Haha

$20,000 is affordable and 30 MPG economical ? Bahaha!

Considering how incomes today are FALLING seriously fast in the US....back to 1978 levels and they are NOT stopping that price better be closer to about $6,000 really soon.

At 20k you would NOT be Mr. Jones, you would be Mr. Smith!

For reiteration I figured this needed to posted once again.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
And one of the reasons for SUV sales and their being very successful is because of the CAFE rules that killed wagons and consumers need the space. The SUV allowed the manufactures to build what SELLS (which is what they are in business for) The SUV was not affected that much by CAFE numbers so they were built. Your reason for the ONLY is not even close.

Bill


Bill,
I'd have to disagree there.

Oz has no CAFE, and the big Ford and Holden station wagons are still abailable...you can buy a 6 Litre 6 speed they are so unCAFEd,

And consumers are overwhelmingly buying SUVs.

So I don't think it's CAFE that killed the wagon...might make a good excuse from the manufacturers as to why they don't make them, but I doubt they would be selling if they were.


Whether CAFE killed the station wagon is really irrelevant to the main point that Bill was making...and that is that the CAFE standards and the loopholes that the feds built into the system for large trucks/suvs fueled the growth of the exempt large SUV. There were other factors as well, but the CAFE loopholes are a large contributing factor...no denying it.
 
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
And one of the reasons for SUV sales and their being very successful is because of the CAFE rules that killed wagons and consumers need the space. The SUV allowed the manufactures to build what SELLS (which is what they are in business for) The SUV was not affected that much by CAFE numbers so they were built. Your reason for the ONLY is not even close.

Bill


Bill,
I'd have to disagree there.

Oz has no CAFE, and the big Ford and Holden station wagons are still abailable...you can buy a 6 Litre 6 speed they are so unCAFEd,

And consumers are overwhelmingly buying SUVs.

So I don't think it's CAFE that killed the wagon...might make a good excuse from the manufacturers as to why they don't make them, but I doubt they would be selling if they were.


Whether CAFE killed the station wagon is really irrelevant to the main point that Bill was making...and that is that the CAFE standards and the loopholes that the feds built into the system for large trucks/suvs fueled the growth of the exempt large SUV. There were other factors as well, but the CAFE loopholes are a large contributing factor...no denying it.


I say do away with cafe altogether and then you don't have to worry about the loopholes, let people buy what they want and can afford. Unless of course you constantly worry about what your neighbor has and that it might be bigger or more expensive than yours.
 
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I say do away with cafe altogether and then you don't have to worry about the loopholes, let people buy what they want and can afford. Unless of course you constantly worry about what your neighbor has and that it might be bigger or more expensive than yours.

This is where urchin comes in and says that people won't buy what they want, they will only buy what they're told to buy by the marketers. Of course, he is unaffected by such marketing shills and is here to bring the word to the sheep
35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: urchin
"People need more room"

"The rear seats don't have enough leg room"

"Nobody buys smaller base model economical cars that is why the car companies don't make them".

"If you're still in that 80's economy car as a daily driver your gunna get flatted by that semi, I don't want that to be me!"


I find these or very similar "talking points" posted on MANY so called independent car enthusiast sites, and can't help but think these are POSSIBLY the posts of marketing shills, that are posing as "ordinary joe enthusiasts" with an agenda to advance. I also find that if you challenge these folks, usually they are supposedly long time members with many posts (too many almost) and seem immune to the forum rules, they have a gaggle of "supporters" that will "join in" and tag team anyone so bold as to question their veracity on any issue.

They also love to point out stats, that of course can be made to say anything at all for the most part.

The ONLY reason why the SUV became successful is because the car companies created a segment (with super high profit margins) and went whole hog with the marketing drills to push US consumers into them. Mr. Smith is not too bright. LOL


I don't know that I'd agree that marketers and especially stealth marketers are the reason for the SUV craze and CAFE wasn't a factor. But I think it is marketers and stealth marketers in the media that were responsible for the sell of so many Hondas and Toyotas and other imports. They were on the payroll, owned stock or were on an anti-UAW agenda or a combination of all three.
 
Originally Posted By: urchin
I generally despise marketing especially car marketing but this is an exception a Volkswagen ad from the 60s.

Keeping up with the Kremplers

Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCwz8q2NUis


Lol, great commercial! Shows the age old point that a little frugality does a lot.

Of course we were marketed to believe that we "deserve" everything, and that cheap third world junk is the only way to get by... And sold ourselves as masses, to the route to becoming a third world place ourselves. Very sad.
 
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Whether CAFE killed the station wagon is really irrelevant to the main point that Bill was making...and that is that the CAFE standards and the loopholes that the feds built into the system for large trucks/suvs fueled the growth of the exempt large SUV. There were other factors as well, but the CAFE loopholes are a large contributing factor...no denying it.


Pray tell how the US CAFE lead to the same thing happening in CAFE free Australia ?

...in the same time frame ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

brages
Previous owner poor MPG
Replies
15
Views
886
brages
pezzy84
Rental car review - 2025 Toyota Camry SE Hybrid - middling fuel economy
Replies
19
Views
16K
RhondaHonda
A
200k report 2018 Tiguan
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Zee09
C
Do hybrids last as long as naturally aspirated engine and do they make sense?
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
11K
MCompact
I
2024 Chevy Equinox 1.5T AWD Rental Car Review
Replies
6
Views
3K
Brons2
Back
Top Bottom