For Real????
- Thread starter Warstud
- Start date
- Status
One really can't compare the MPG ratings from older cars to late-model ones.
EPA changed the way it calculates fuel economy in 2006 to reflect more "real world" driving conditions. The MPG figures dropped anywhere from 10-30% depending on the vehicle.
///
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06069.htm
"Under EPA’s new methods, the new fuel economy estimates for most vehicles will be lower. This is not because auto makers have designed the same vehicles to be less fuel efficient – it is because our new test methods take into account factors that have been missing or not fully accounted for in the current tests. Because some vehicles are more sensitive to these factors than others, the impact of the changes will vary from vehicle to vehicle.
Compared to today’s estimates, the city mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average, and by as much as 30 percent for some vehicles. The highway mpg estimates will drop on average by about 8 percent, and by as much as 25 percent for some vehicles.
In vehicles that achieve generally better fuel economy, such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new city estimates will be about 20 to 30 percent lower than today’s labels, and new highway estimates will be 10 to 20 percent lower. The nature of current hybrid technology -- the addition of a battery as a second source of on-board power, sophisticated control systems, and sometimes a smaller engine – makes a hybrid’s fuel economy more sensitive to certain factors, such as colder weather and air conditioning use. However, many hybrid models will remain among the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the market."
EPA changed the way it calculates fuel economy in 2006 to reflect more "real world" driving conditions. The MPG figures dropped anywhere from 10-30% depending on the vehicle.
///
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06069.htm
"Under EPA’s new methods, the new fuel economy estimates for most vehicles will be lower. This is not because auto makers have designed the same vehicles to be less fuel efficient – it is because our new test methods take into account factors that have been missing or not fully accounted for in the current tests. Because some vehicles are more sensitive to these factors than others, the impact of the changes will vary from vehicle to vehicle.
Compared to today’s estimates, the city mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average, and by as much as 30 percent for some vehicles. The highway mpg estimates will drop on average by about 8 percent, and by as much as 25 percent for some vehicles.
In vehicles that achieve generally better fuel economy, such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new city estimates will be about 20 to 30 percent lower than today’s labels, and new highway estimates will be 10 to 20 percent lower. The nature of current hybrid technology -- the addition of a battery as a second source of on-board power, sophisticated control systems, and sometimes a smaller engine – makes a hybrid’s fuel economy more sensitive to certain factors, such as colder weather and air conditioning use. However, many hybrid models will remain among the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the market."
We have really gone nowhere in mpg over the last 20 years. Yea, emissions and all the rest but in mpg, my 1965 Pontiac Catalina, 389 V8 my Buick regal 3.8L V6 SC gets over 30 on highway and new regal gets the same with a 4 cyl.
I need a car that gets over 40 and now only two options, Prius or Fusion and that is it.
I need a car that gets over 40 and now only two options, Prius or Fusion and that is it.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy has gone up because auto makers are building (and yes, selling) more efficient vehicles than they used to. Now you're clarifying that economy of the "small car" has gone down. Okay, sure: you can cherry-pick a few uber-efficient cars from the 1980s that aren't sold anymore to make an argument. But if Chevy only sold 1,000 3-cylinder Sprints a year before the model fizzled out, it didn't have a real effect on the industry (in other words, it's not fair to consider it).
Let's look at mainstream cars that are still sold today:
1988 Toyota Camry 2.0/4A: 22/27
2011 Toyota Camry 2.5/6A: 22/32
1988 Ford Taurus 3.0/4A: 18/27
2011 Ford Fusion 3.5/6A: 18/27
1988 Chevrolet Celebrity 2.8/4A: 18/26
2011 Chevrolet Malibu 3.6/6A: 17/26
I'm not seeing the drop in FE here.
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy has gone up because auto makers are building (and yes, selling) more efficient vehicles than they used to. Now you're clarifying that economy of the "small car" has gone down. Okay, sure: you can cherry-pick a few uber-efficient cars from the 1980s that aren't sold anymore to make an argument. But if Chevy only sold 1,000 3-cylinder Sprints a year before the model fizzled out, it didn't have a real effect on the industry (in other words, it's not fair to consider it).
Let's look at mainstream cars that are still sold today:
1988 Toyota Camry 2.0/4A: 22/27
2011 Toyota Camry 2.5/6A: 22/32
1988 Ford Taurus 3.0/4A: 18/27
2011 Ford Fusion 3.5/6A: 18/27
1988 Chevrolet Celebrity 2.8/4A: 18/26
2011 Chevrolet Malibu 3.6/6A: 17/26
I'm not seeing the drop in FE here.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The newer cars are bigger.
so are the waistlines of those who drive them.
The newer cars are bigger.
so are the waistlines of those who drive them.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
My Suzuki Swift had an extra cylinder on the same G-series engine and never got less than 45mpg.
That was my college days car that got me to and back to school on a student loan budget. 0-60mph took forever and on hiway overtaking (passing 18wheeler) took a few minutes while accelerating (gas pedal floored on a carb'ed 3-cyl that with only less than 48bhp) while waiting for the needle to climb.
filmsy, barebone cars w/o emissions control in our region and no safety features to begin with. Would I consider driving one of these nowadays, nope, execpt in short city commute. Would I like to own one of these again? certainly so but under very specific conditions.
How would they compare with my new Honda fit? let's see: my fit has EBD, ABS, 6 air bags, much better handling and safety ratings, etc. My fit still gets up to 46mpg on the highway regularly, with A/C on 1/2 of the time. Oh and BTW: fit is much more heavier than that of my suzuki.
Q.
p.s. comparing modern emissions-controlled cars to that built some 30+ yrs ago is, IMHO simply dumb for the fact that nowadays all NA sold vechicles efficiency is being bogged down by emissions control, comfort and safety related weights. If anyone has the ability to move any of the emissions-controlled related components onto pre-emissions automobiles built 30+ yrs ago (esp. those who tried to compare cars of yore to those built recently) and yet still meets today's emissions and safety standards will be genuinely amazed by how a 40mpg+ engine suddenly becomes a 16mpg miler...
My Suzuki Swift had an extra cylinder on the same G-series engine and never got less than 45mpg.
That was my college days car that got me to and back to school on a student loan budget. 0-60mph took forever and on hiway overtaking (passing 18wheeler) took a few minutes while accelerating (gas pedal floored on a carb'ed 3-cyl that with only less than 48bhp) while waiting for the needle to climb.
filmsy, barebone cars w/o emissions control in our region and no safety features to begin with. Would I consider driving one of these nowadays, nope, execpt in short city commute. Would I like to own one of these again? certainly so but under very specific conditions.
How would they compare with my new Honda fit? let's see: my fit has EBD, ABS, 6 air bags, much better handling and safety ratings, etc. My fit still gets up to 46mpg on the highway regularly, with A/C on 1/2 of the time. Oh and BTW: fit is much more heavier than that of my suzuki.
Q.
p.s. comparing modern emissions-controlled cars to that built some 30+ yrs ago is, IMHO simply dumb for the fact that nowadays all NA sold vechicles efficiency is being bogged down by emissions control, comfort and safety related weights. If anyone has the ability to move any of the emissions-controlled related components onto pre-emissions automobiles built 30+ yrs ago (esp. those who tried to compare cars of yore to those built recently) and yet still meets today's emissions and safety standards will be genuinely amazed by how a 40mpg+ engine suddenly becomes a 16mpg miler...
The motors have certainly become more efficient. The old carbed 1.8 in my subaru had 85hp and got in the upper 20's for gas mileage. The 2.2 in there now came out of a '96 imprezza and has 135hp and gets in the low 30's for mileage.
Same car with a ten year newer motor.
Same car with a ten year newer motor.
The website is you linked has faulty data.
Use fueleconomy.gov to see tested figures for the vehicles. Also remember the EPA numbers were reduced so modern vehicles appear worse in the linked website. Fueleconomy.gov applied a reduction across all older vehicles so you compare apples to apples.
Use fueleconomy.gov to see tested figures for the vehicles. Also remember the EPA numbers were reduced so modern vehicles appear worse in the linked website. Fueleconomy.gov applied a reduction across all older vehicles so you compare apples to apples.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy has gone up because auto makers are building (and yes, selling) more efficient vehicles than they used to. Now you're clarifying that economy of the "small car" has gone down. Okay, sure: you can cherry-pick a few uber-efficient cars from the 1980s that aren't sold anymore to make an argument. But if Chevy only sold 1,000 3-cylinder Sprints a year before the model fizzled out, it didn't have a real effect on the industry (in other words, it's not fair to consider it).
Let's look at mainstream cars that are still sold today:
1988 Toyota Camry 2.0/4A: 22/27
2011 Toyota Camry 2.5/6A: 22/32
1988 Ford Taurus 3.0/4A: 18/27
2011 Ford Fusion 3.5/6A: 18/27
1988 Chevrolet Celebrity 2.8/4A: 18/26
2011 Chevrolet Malibu 3.6/6A: 17/26
I'm not seeing the drop in FE here.
None of those are small cars.
Smart ForTwo 33/41
Geo Metro XFi 43/51
They sold plenty of the Geo Metros
1994 Honda Civic VX 37/45
2010 Honda Fit 27/33
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Corporate Average Fuel economy has gone up. Individual economy of the small car has gone down.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy has gone up because auto makers are building (and yes, selling) more efficient vehicles than they used to. Now you're clarifying that economy of the "small car" has gone down. Okay, sure: you can cherry-pick a few uber-efficient cars from the 1980s that aren't sold anymore to make an argument. But if Chevy only sold 1,000 3-cylinder Sprints a year before the model fizzled out, it didn't have a real effect on the industry (in other words, it's not fair to consider it).
Let's look at mainstream cars that are still sold today:
1988 Toyota Camry 2.0/4A: 22/27
2011 Toyota Camry 2.5/6A: 22/32
1988 Ford Taurus 3.0/4A: 18/27
2011 Ford Fusion 3.5/6A: 18/27
1988 Chevrolet Celebrity 2.8/4A: 18/26
2011 Chevrolet Malibu 3.6/6A: 17/26
I'm not seeing the drop in FE here.
None of those are small cars.
Smart ForTwo 33/41
Geo Metro XFi 43/51
They sold plenty of the Geo Metros
1994 Honda Civic VX 37/45
2010 Honda Fit 27/33
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
None of those are small cars.
Smart ForTwo 33/41
Geo Metro XFi 43/51
They sold plenty of the Geo Metros
1994 Honda Civic VX 37/45
2010 Honda Fit 27/33
So how is comparing a Civic to a Fit fair? If you want to be serious this is how it goes.
2011 Honda Civic 5M 26/34
1994 Honda Civic 5M 35/41
1984 Honda Civic 5M 32/39
Personally on comfort and safety I'd take the 2011 everytime. If all out fuel economy was your goal than whatever it is will sacrifice in other areas to return that number. I am not willing to do that.
1989 Chevy Sprint 5M 38/45
1989 Geo Metro 5M 43/52
1984 VW Rabbit D 4M 35/43(more cargo)
1989 Subaru Justy 5M 25/30(just for fun, 4WD)
2011 Smart fortwo A5 33/41
2011 Suzuki Swift M5 27/35
It is very difficult to do a fair comparison to those 2 because even though a Civic is classified as a Subcompact I don't think that's right. So I tried in essence to compare it to like wise cars of this time. Granted the Smart has 0 cargo capacity but if all you wanted was fuel efficient transportation it is hard to beat. Pricier vehicles include VW TDI's and the like but they come with their own requirements.
None of those are small cars.
Smart ForTwo 33/41
Geo Metro XFi 43/51
They sold plenty of the Geo Metros
1994 Honda Civic VX 37/45
2010 Honda Fit 27/33
So how is comparing a Civic to a Fit fair? If you want to be serious this is how it goes.
2011 Honda Civic 5M 26/34
1994 Honda Civic 5M 35/41
1984 Honda Civic 5M 32/39
Personally on comfort and safety I'd take the 2011 everytime. If all out fuel economy was your goal than whatever it is will sacrifice in other areas to return that number. I am not willing to do that.
1989 Chevy Sprint 5M 38/45
1989 Geo Metro 5M 43/52
1984 VW Rabbit D 4M 35/43(more cargo)
1989 Subaru Justy 5M 25/30(just for fun, 4WD)
2011 Smart fortwo A5 33/41
2011 Suzuki Swift M5 27/35
It is very difficult to do a fair comparison to those 2 because even though a Civic is classified as a Subcompact I don't think that's right. So I tried in essence to compare it to like wise cars of this time. Granted the Smart has 0 cargo capacity but if all you wanted was fuel efficient transportation it is hard to beat. Pricier vehicles include VW TDI's and the like but they come with their own requirements.
The sad thing is considering how much better technology is today than 20, or even just 10 years ago, the auto industry COULD be making vehicles that get MUCH better mileage, but instead of using that technology to make vehicles more fuel efficient, they use it to make them bigger, more powerful, and with more elctronic gizmos. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I'd much rather have somewhat of a compromise vehicle that gets 60 or 70 MPG than something with 400 HP that'll tow a house....
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
None of those are small cars.
That was kind of the point. They're the ones that sell in the greatest volume. Sure, Geo sold "plenty" of Metros. But sales weren't significant compared with the more mainstream midsize sedans. That's why I think the CAFE numbers are relevant: they neutralize the extremes and outliers.
But we can do small cars nonetheless.
1994 Honda Civic 1.6/5M: 25/32
2011 Honda Civic 1.8/5M: 26/34
1994 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 23/31
2010 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 26/35
1994 Ford Escort 1.9/5M: 26/34
2010 Ford Focus 2.0/5M: 24/35
1994 Chevy Cavalier 2.2/5M: 22/33
2010 Chevy Cobalt 2.2/5M: 25/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.8/6A: 22/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.4T/6A: 24/36
Again, I don't see a significant difference in these "small cars", going back 15 years. In fact, the new Civic is higher, the new Corolla is higher, the new Focus is probably a wash, and the new Chevys are higher, regardless of which particular model you look at.
Based on your example of the small Metro and ForTwo, you seem to be looking only at MICRO cars. I would agree that if you want look only at MICRO cars, the ones of today don't seem to get the mileage that they did 15 years ago.
None of those are small cars.
That was kind of the point. They're the ones that sell in the greatest volume. Sure, Geo sold "plenty" of Metros. But sales weren't significant compared with the more mainstream midsize sedans. That's why I think the CAFE numbers are relevant: they neutralize the extremes and outliers.
But we can do small cars nonetheless.
1994 Honda Civic 1.6/5M: 25/32
2011 Honda Civic 1.8/5M: 26/34
1994 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 23/31
2010 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 26/35
1994 Ford Escort 1.9/5M: 26/34
2010 Ford Focus 2.0/5M: 24/35
1994 Chevy Cavalier 2.2/5M: 22/33
2010 Chevy Cobalt 2.2/5M: 25/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.8/6A: 22/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.4T/6A: 24/36
Again, I don't see a significant difference in these "small cars", going back 15 years. In fact, the new Civic is higher, the new Corolla is higher, the new Focus is probably a wash, and the new Chevys are higher, regardless of which particular model you look at.
Based on your example of the small Metro and ForTwo, you seem to be looking only at MICRO cars. I would agree that if you want look only at MICRO cars, the ones of today don't seem to get the mileage that they did 15 years ago.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
None of those are small cars.
That was kind of the point. They're the ones that sell in the greatest volume. Sure, Geo sold "plenty" of Metros. But sales weren't significant compared with the more mainstream midsize sedans. That's why I think the CAFE numbers are relevant: they neutralize the extremes and outliers.
But we can do small cars nonetheless.
1994 Honda Civic 1.6/5M: 25/32
2011 Honda Civic 1.8/5M: 26/34
1994 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 23/31
2010 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 26/35
1994 Ford Escort 1.9/5M: 26/34
2010 Ford Focus 2.0/5M: 24/35
1994 Chevy Cavalier 2.2/5M: 22/33
2010 Chevy Cobalt 2.2/5M: 25/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.8/6A: 22/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.4T/6A: 24/36
Again, I don't see a significant difference in these "small cars", going back 15 years. In fact, the new Civic is higher, the new Corolla is higher, the new Focus is probably a wash, and the new Chevys are higher, regardless of which particular model you look at.
Based on your example of the small Metro and ForTwo, you seem to be looking only at MICRO cars. I would agree that if you want look only at MICRO cars, the ones of today don't seem to get the mileage that they did 15 years ago.
The point is, even the ones that are higher are only marginally so. With today's technological advancements, today's vehicles SHOULD be getting SUBSTANTIALLY higher MPGs than cars of yesteryear....
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
None of those are small cars.
That was kind of the point. They're the ones that sell in the greatest volume. Sure, Geo sold "plenty" of Metros. But sales weren't significant compared with the more mainstream midsize sedans. That's why I think the CAFE numbers are relevant: they neutralize the extremes and outliers.
But we can do small cars nonetheless.
1994 Honda Civic 1.6/5M: 25/32
2011 Honda Civic 1.8/5M: 26/34
1994 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 23/31
2010 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 26/35
1994 Ford Escort 1.9/5M: 26/34
2010 Ford Focus 2.0/5M: 24/35
1994 Chevy Cavalier 2.2/5M: 22/33
2010 Chevy Cobalt 2.2/5M: 25/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.8/6A: 22/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.4T/6A: 24/36
Again, I don't see a significant difference in these "small cars", going back 15 years. In fact, the new Civic is higher, the new Corolla is higher, the new Focus is probably a wash, and the new Chevys are higher, regardless of which particular model you look at.
Based on your example of the small Metro and ForTwo, you seem to be looking only at MICRO cars. I would agree that if you want look only at MICRO cars, the ones of today don't seem to get the mileage that they did 15 years ago.
The point is, even the ones that are higher are only marginally so. With today's technological advancements, today's vehicles SHOULD be getting SUBSTANTIALLY higher MPGs than cars of yesteryear....
Originally Posted By: grampi
The point is, even the ones that are higher are only marginally so. With today's technological advancements, today's vehicles SHOULD be getting SUBSTANTIALLY higher MPGs than cars of yesteryear....
And the discussion throughout the tread has been, if the new cars were the same size and same weight and allowed the same pollutants out the tailpipe as the old ones, they WOULD be getting substantially higher fuel economy.
The point is, even the ones that are higher are only marginally so. With today's technological advancements, today's vehicles SHOULD be getting SUBSTANTIALLY higher MPGs than cars of yesteryear....
And the discussion throughout the tread has been, if the new cars were the same size and same weight and allowed the same pollutants out the tailpipe as the old ones, they WOULD be getting substantially higher fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
None of those are small cars.
That was kind of the point. They're the ones that sell in the greatest volume. Sure, Geo sold "plenty" of Metros. But sales weren't significant compared with the more mainstream midsize sedans. That's why I think the CAFE numbers are relevant: they neutralize the extremes and outliers.
But we can do small cars nonetheless.
1994 Honda Civic 1.6/5M: 25/32
2011 Honda Civic 1.8/5M: 26/34
1994 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 23/31
2010 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 26/35
1994 Ford Escort 1.9/5M: 26/34
2010 Ford Focus 2.0/5M: 24/35
1994 Chevy Cavalier 2.2/5M: 22/33
2010 Chevy Cobalt 2.2/5M: 25/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.8/6A: 22/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.4T/6A: 24/36
Again, I don't see a significant difference in these "small cars", going back 15 years. In fact, the new Civic is higher, the new Corolla is higher, the new Focus is probably a wash, and the new Chevys are higher, regardless of which particular model you look at.
Based on your example of the small Metro and ForTwo, you seem to be looking only at MICRO cars. I would agree that if you want look only at MICRO cars, the ones of today don't seem to get the mileage that they did 15 years ago.
I'd like to see a weight comparison included with those figures.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
None of those are small cars.
That was kind of the point. They're the ones that sell in the greatest volume. Sure, Geo sold "plenty" of Metros. But sales weren't significant compared with the more mainstream midsize sedans. That's why I think the CAFE numbers are relevant: they neutralize the extremes and outliers.
But we can do small cars nonetheless.
1994 Honda Civic 1.6/5M: 25/32
2011 Honda Civic 1.8/5M: 26/34
1994 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 23/31
2010 Toyota Corolla 1.8/5M: 26/35
1994 Ford Escort 1.9/5M: 26/34
2010 Ford Focus 2.0/5M: 24/35
1994 Chevy Cavalier 2.2/5M: 22/33
2010 Chevy Cobalt 2.2/5M: 25/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.8/6A: 22/35
2011 Chevy Cruze 1.4T/6A: 24/36
Again, I don't see a significant difference in these "small cars", going back 15 years. In fact, the new Civic is higher, the new Corolla is higher, the new Focus is probably a wash, and the new Chevys are higher, regardless of which particular model you look at.
Based on your example of the small Metro and ForTwo, you seem to be looking only at MICRO cars. I would agree that if you want look only at MICRO cars, the ones of today don't seem to get the mileage that they did 15 years ago.
I'd like to see a weight comparison included with those figures.
Kestas
Staff member
I guess the true metric people are looking for to determine advances in fuel economy over the years would be to measure the mpg per horsepower per vehicle weight, or something to that effect.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Yeah, it's sad when a new car only gets a few MPG better than old cars. And are much more expensive.
It feels like you're being ripped off, which you are. Most folks didn't ask for the extra [censored] that adds weight and the like...the insurance companies did that.
Todays cars are fat, bloated, expensive, and complicated pigs.
The more I look at them the less I'm interested in most anything new at all.
Yeah, it's sad when a new car only gets a few MPG better than old cars. And are much more expensive.
It feels like you're being ripped off, which you are. Most folks didn't ask for the extra [censored] that adds weight and the like...the insurance companies did that.
Todays cars are fat, bloated, expensive, and complicated pigs.
The more I look at them the less I'm interested in most anything new at all.
I get an average of 12 observed mpg in my Mustang. Beat that!
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
So how is comparing a Civic to a Fit fair? If you want to be serious this is how it goes.
2011 Honda Civic 5M 26/34
1994 Honda Civic 5M 35/41
1984 Honda Civic 5M 32/39
The 2011 Civic is not a subcompact. It's bigger than a '76 Accord. To be fair the Fit is bigger than a Civic from '84 was. But it is a closer comparison.
My point was that at one time you could get a small car that would get better mpg than most of today's hybrids.
So how is comparing a Civic to a Fit fair? If you want to be serious this is how it goes.
2011 Honda Civic 5M 26/34
1994 Honda Civic 5M 35/41
1984 Honda Civic 5M 32/39
The 2011 Civic is not a subcompact. It's bigger than a '76 Accord. To be fair the Fit is bigger than a Civic from '84 was. But it is a closer comparison.
My point was that at one time you could get a small car that would get better mpg than most of today's hybrids.
- Status
Similar threads
