new cars

[AndrewL]

Does anyone know how the new cars today are so efficient? It's hard to believe that a Camry with 178hp weighing 3200 lbs gets 25/35 mpg, it's incredible. I'm not even talking about the hybrid. My car weighs 2425 lbs with 140hp and I get at most of 28 mpg on a good day with mostly 65 mph highway driving slowly. I know car engines are inefficient machine. According to this http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml , we only use 14-26% of the energy in our gas. I also know that you can only squeeze so much energy out of the engine. just something I find really hard to understand wrap my mind around in with just 10 years of advancement.

 

[dave1251]

Just imagine the MPG's if the engine's horsepower remained around the 150 horsepower mark.

 

[IndyIan]

What's the EPA ratings for your car? If its similar to the new Camry, probably you would get very similar mileage in either car on your drive. Weight isn't a big factor for hwy mileage either, but it is for city mileage. The Cruze Eco at 42 EPA hwy impresses me as well, its closer to the Camry than you would think in interior size and overall weight.

 

[Artem]

Today's engines are lighter and with the friction reducing technology and oils, on top of lower and lower engine RPM while cruising in the lowest gear, plus cars that are aerodynamically better then 10 years ago, all results in pretty good MPGs. If only the cars of today were lighter. Then any 4 banger Camry with 170hp would be a rocket yet still produce 40mpg+ on the highway with ease.

 

[NateDN10]

I've been amazed, too. For example, a 2005 Mazda Tribute 4 cyl FWD 5-speed manual is rated 27 mpg highway, while the new CX-5 is rated 36 mpg highway for the manual FWD model! I think gearing and new DSG & CVT transmissions have a lot to do with it. Direct injection and engine friction reduction, too. Then probably aerodynamics and weight.

 

[dparm]

Better aerodynamics, displacement-on-demand, direct injection, more gears/CVTs, more precise tuning, lighter oils, etc. Lots of little things are adding up. If each of those things I just listed results in only 1 mpg, you'd get 6 right there. It still ticks me off that my S4 gets 14mpg around town (at best) when the Corvette with a LARGER motor of the same year did even better...

 

[rjundi]

Slow down a bit to 55MPH and you'll raise your MPG a few notches. A good read to understand MPG testing: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

[grampi]

Just think how efficient cars today COULD be if they'd quit upsizing and adding every gizmo man can possibly invent....50-60 MPG would be the norm....

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Artem

Today's engines are lighter and with the friction reducing technology and oils, on top of lower and lower engine RPM while cruising in the lowest gear, plus cars that are aerodynamically better then 10 years ago, all results in pretty good MPGs. If only the cars of today were lighter. Then any 4 banger Camry with 170hp would be a rocket yet still produce 40mpg+ on the highway with ease.

I think you mean HIGHEST gear...

 

[mechtech2]

Gearing [more gears and overdrives - lock up converters], variable cam timing [huge], better oils, and direct injection help for fuel economy nowadays. Cars are sleeker aerodynamically, too. Tires type plays a substantial part.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan

What's the EPA ratings for your car? If its similar to the new Camry, probably you would get very similar mileage in either car on your drive. Weight isn't a big factor for hwy mileage either, but it is for city mileage. The Cruze Eco at 42 EPA hwy impresses me as well, its closer to the Camry than you would think in interior size and overall weight.

I can beat EPA highway easily in my Eco MT on most tanks. 41-44 mpg tanks this winter involving a lot of rural highway driving are pretty good IMO. That's using a traditional port-injected turbocharged engine with a manual transmission in a fairly porky 3000 lb car. Better aerodynamics, better engines, super-tall OD gears, use of turbocharging, variable valve timing, and aggressive fuel-saving PCM strategies all make better MPG's in newer cars than many older cars.

 

[MCompact]

My 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 averages 27-28 mpg if I keep it under 80 and don't use the turbo to excess. It's not a truly fast car so I wouldn't want to sacrifice any hp in exchange for lower fuel consumption. My 1995 3er gets 32 mpg at 80 mph, but it is slow(0-60 in the high sevens/130 mph top speed). At least the fuel consumption never drops below 25 mpg no matter how hard I thrash it- unless I take it to the track(where it returns 16.5 mpg). And it IS more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow- on the street, at any rate.

 

[Spector]

Hmm, my 75 pontiac bonneville with a 250 hp v8 got 25 mpg. that was 35 years ago!!!!!!!!!Sorry, we have gone nowhere in MPG (except hybrids) sure cars are heavier, more electronics but in mpg, gone nowhere!

 

[grampi]

That's because as the technology has improved to make engines more eifficient, that efficiency is negated by constant upsizing, and adding gizmos we don't need that make these cars heavier. For example, compare the size of today's Corolla with that of the Corolla 4 generations ago. You'll notice the car has grown considerably in size and weight. Just think of how good the fuel economy of today's Corolla would be if it were still the same size and weight it was 4 generations ago. The automakers COULD be making huge strides in fuel economy, but they choose to keep nullifying their gains in efficiency by continuously making the vehicles larger and heavier....

 

[KrisZ]

You don't have to imagine anything, just look at the next model down, the Yaris, and while it gets very good mileage, it's nowhere near 50-60mpg range, as some people claim would be the norm if vehicles stayed lighter. Also take a look at European cars. They have extremely small cars with little 3 cylinder diesel engines and these cannot push more than 70mpg highway with very light foot. Engine efficiency can only go so far. Americans want their comfort and that comes at the price of fuel economy. Car manufacturers are not to be blamed here, they make what market demands, and they know that those little econoboxes from Europe simply will not sell. How do they know it? Look at sales of Yaris, Fit, Versa, Accent, Mazda 2 and Fiesta. They pale in comparison to pickups, CUVs and mid size sedan sales. So why would they bring even smaller cars?

 

[MuzzleFlash40]

There is so much that goes into MPG. Engine and transmission play alot into it though. Look at the impala in 2011 the best MPG rating was 29 highway with the smaller 3500 engine and 4 speed trans. It made 211 horsepower. The larger 3900 engine w/ DOD was rated 27 mpg and 230 horsepower. The 2012 is the same car with the 3.6L and 6 speed auto that makes 300 horsepower. It's rated at 30 MPG. It's a big car by todays standards.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

You don't have to imagine anything, just look at the next model down, the Yaris, and while it gets very good mileage, it's nowhere near 50-60mpg range, as some people claim would be the norm if vehicles stayed lighter. Also take a look at European cars. They have extremely small cars with little 3 cylinder diesel engines and these cannot push more than 70mpg highway with very light foot. Engine efficiency can only go so far. Americans want their comfort and that comes at the price of fuel economy. Car manufacturers are not to be blamed here, they make what market demands, and they know that those little econoboxes from Europe simply will not sell. How do they know it? Look at sales of Yaris, Fit, Versa, Accent, Mazda 2 and Fiesta. They pale in comparison to pickups, CUVs and mid size sedan sales. So why would they bring even smaller cars?

We'll see if that trend continues when gas hits $5 a gallon here....which may happen as early as this summer...

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: Spector

Hmm, my 75 pontiac bonneville with a 250 hp v8 got 25 mpg. that was 35 years ago!!!!!!!!!Sorry, we have gone nowhere in MPG (except hybrids) sure cars are heavier, more electronics but in mpg, gone nowhere!

Exactly! I mentioned this on another post as well.

 

[SteveSRT8]

MPG is generally up, especially as an average across all cars driving. But it certainly isn't light weight that's doing it. Cars are so much heavier than before. And it's not options, it's SAFETY equipment. Much of it mandated by the feds. Overall, it's worthwhile. Cars could be much lighter but that would drive the cost up prohibitively.

 

[bruno]

Really just a commentary on how inefficient cars were . It wasn't that far back that 100,000 miles was considered a reasonable lifespan for an engine .