Topic: What the heck happened to cars getting good fuel mileage?

[putnaja1]

OK, so I see one of these "smart cars" on the road today, and get a laugh.  I go home and google it, and find out that the reason it is so "smart" is that it gets 45mpg or so..  I'm thinking, that's it?  45mpg in a little teeny tiny car (about the size of a motorcycle), on the highway with all the soccer moms on their cell phones driving suburbans, and this is a "Smart" car?

Alright, so it looks cool and different, and it's inexpensive, I'll give them that.  But, why is it that the best the auto manufacturers can do is build this little tiny car to provide a mere 45mpg, when back in the 1980's they made a Honda Civic HF that got 50mpg?  Sure, that was a small car too, but it was at least a normal sized small car!  You could carry some luggage, or people, and it got better mileage to boot!

So, what if I want a fuel efficient car, but don't want to get the smart car- what are my alternatives?  An expensive hybrid?  Oh wait, they don't get that much better mileage either, and they have a lot more parts then a conventional car, so I'm willing to bet they will be more expensive to maintain and own in the long run.  Also, I know from playing around with rechargeable battery powered gizmos that the batteries are made outta poisonous stuff, and the batteries also don't usually last long before they aren't holding a charge like they used to.

Sure, cars today are much safer, and that is a good good thing!  Airbags, side-airbags, traction control, ABS, back-up sonar, its all wonderful!!  But, what happened to a normal gasoline car getting great fuel mileage?  Why haven't we seen the same level of improvement on the fuel economy side? 

Jason

[hoodellyhoo]

Kinda on the same topic, I've been keeping tabs on the new ninja 250 cause I think it's a neat looking bike. A few years ago, Cycle world did a test of small motorcycles to see which got the best fuel milage. The previous generation ninja 250 got something like 72mpg in normal riding. Now  I read their test of the new ninja and see that the best milage they got was 53??? I sincerely hope that this was only due to riding the nuts off it because that almost a 20mpg difference between old and new!

[detdrbuzzard]

with most cars its just that they have gotten bigger. look at say a honda accord or civic 2008 now look at a1980, not to mention most have a larger engine and while it may be more effencint you are still dragging around more pounds. 20mpg difference on the ninja you would need to compare the specs of each one and if that is the same maybe it was just the test mule that they had and the state of tune it was in. i hear 250 ninjas spin alot of rpms anyway

[mattcb350f]

I think the testing standards have become more stringint which I've heard as an excuse for this. But it can't account for all of it.

My 1987 VW GTI gets a solid 30 mpg and 35 - 37 mpg if I baby it. IT'S 20 YEARS OLD!!!

It is however much smaller than a new GTI... like buzzard said, they seem to be getting biger?

Even my truck, a 94' F-150 4x4 can get 18 mpg if I drive sensably. GM's new hybrid is said to get something like 22 mpg?

I'd like to see them do better too.  

 Matt.

[Gordon]

A brand new car of the same size as a car from 1985 will also weigh more because of all the mandatory safety features that cars now have, like multiple air bags, ABS, door beams, etc.  Not to mention all the amenities that people take for granted now but were either extras on older cars, or not even available at that time.  Air conditioning, power windows/ door locks/ mirrors/ antenna, sun roof, power steering...

[dustyc]

Hwy speeds are up from 55 to 70, so that may be the what's causing the discrepancy. 

[UnCrash]

My 2001 Honda Civic gets 39 mpg highway.

My Father-In-Law's 87 Honda CRX gets 45 mpg highway.

[HondaMan]

Hwy speeds are up from 55 to 70, so that may be the what's causing the discrepancy. 

You've hit on part of it, Dusty. 
My Fairmont Station wagon (circa 1979, daily driver, hopped-up some, about 100,000 miles on it since then) gets 22-24 MPG at 55 MPH, 19 MPG at 75 MPH. In city driving, it gets 20-21 MPG. Notice what speed does to it?

My 750, with saddlebags, tourpack, full Vetter fairing and lowers, gets 40-42 at 70-75 MPH. At 60 MPH, it pushes 47. These figures are with 18/48 gearing, which is too tall for 55 MPH riding, because the MPG drops off then. I switched to 17/48 gearing last year because of increased city driving, and the 55 MPH mileage finally went up to 45 MPG.

I have a 1967 Ford LTD 2-door fastback (3800 lbs. empty weight) with the 390 cu. in. 2-bbl "H" engine. In town, if not too much idling, 14-15 MPG. On the hiway at 65-75, it gets 18-19 MPG. But, because of tall gearing and a special 1966-67 MX tranny torque convertor, at 55 MPH it gets 14 MPG! So, a lot of it is in the powertrain engineering.

Many of you probably don't remember the "MPG" series of Fords; the Pinto MPG, Mustang MPG and some others they made in the last "gas crisis" of the mid-1970s. Those cars normally got around 17-18 MPG, but the special MPG package boosted it to 24-25 MPG, easily. It lost about 4-5 HP in the process, but most of us never missed it, because we're so city-bound anyway. At least the A/C still worked!  I wish I had one of those today.

There are 3 things you can do to boost your mileage when driving:
1. Accelerate gently.
2. Look 'way down the road, driving "ahead" of where you are, even ahea of the guy in front of you, and anticipate what's coming up, back off early. The intent: coast as much as possible and don't wiggle that right foot.
3. Stop using drive-thrus: 20 minutes of idling will drop an entire gas tank's mileage by 1-2 MPG, more if your engine is >200 CID.

Check those tire ratings: most tires can take 35-40 (or more) PSI. Every 2 PSI you add above 30 reduces rolling friction by 5%, so the MPG (and performance) increases quick. Most cars from 1985 to present have tires that are too wide: when you buy your next set, step narrower, and if you have a stick, go the next step taller. If you have an auto trans, stay with the same OD. Either one will net you up to 10% better MPG, with a corresponding performance increase from the lesser unspring weight. Every 10 lbs of tire weight you lose adds 1 more HP to the ground: some of those nice mag/aluminum wheels are worth the $$ !

[333]

Regarding the Smart, I've done considerable research on them as I think it would be a great car for my wife.  The car, as delivered, gets that 45 Hwy.  In time, the cars computer adapts to your driving style, in addition to the same things that have always been true(fings seating,engine getting broken in...), with the end result possibly even better milage.  Some reports from Europe state as high as 60.  And a company in England, Brabus is making performance parts, with reports of taking a 71hp engine to over 100hp.  And the safety stats are out, and it got the highest ratings.

And no, I don't sell them.

[kirkn]

Hondaman, you've really hit the nail on the head with all your points.

Those driving habits and such are all what I do every day while driving.  I get 4 mpg more on average when I drive my wife's minivan than when she does.  Leadfoot Louise, I call her.  (just not when she's listening...  )

And all those extras - power windows, door locks, all that crap.  Can you remember an early 80s Toyota Corolla?  My girlfriend at the time had one, and I can distinctly remember the cheap plastic window cranks!   

But, I'll tell you what, WEIGHT has just as much to do with it, especially city driving.

I used to own a 1966 Chevy Impala with a 283 V8, and according to the registration, it weighed 3600 lbs.!!  I owned a '78 Chevy Monza with a 305 V8 and it, according to the registration, weighed in at 3200 lbs.  And both of those were pure iron V8s.

I owned a '73 Datsun 1200, and it had a 1.16 litre CARBURETED motor, 68 hp, weighed 1800 lbs! and easily drove 65mph on the interstate, mile after mile after mile.  It got 35 mpg city, under the not-gentle hand of my high-school self!  I had added a tach (woo hoo) and a chrome-plated exhaust header (both from JC Whitney) and I didn't go anywhere without revving it right up to 6000 rpm and banging the next shift.  Still got 35 mpg.

Seems like the OEM's could easily do it again...

[333]

Milage is a funny thing.  I think it may be linked closer to gearing than we think.  I had a 72 El Camino, w/350 2 barrel carb and headers w/glass packs.  I used to go to Charlottesville VA from Washington D.C. in the late 70s.  If I could go 70, it would take a little more than 1/3 of a tank, if I had to go 55(cops) it would take just over 1/2 a tank.  Where the gearing theory comes in is that it was geared so it was real quick off the line, but topped out at 98 MPH.

[BobbyR]

Hwy speeds are up from 55 to 70, so that may be the what's causing the discrepancy. 

My 750, with saddlebags, tourpack, full Vetter fairing and lowers, gets 40-42 at 70-75 MPH. At 60 MPH, it pushes 47. These figures are with 18/48 gearing, which is too tall for 55 MPH riding, because the MPG drops off then. I switched to 17/48 gearing last year because of increased city driving, and the 55 MPH mileage finally went up to 45 MPG.

When you figure out how much weight you are moving the 750 is not very fuel effeiecnt. Per ton mile it is actually fairly low.

[HondaMan]

Hwy speeds are up from 55 to 70, so that may be the what's causing the discrepancy. 

My 750, with saddlebags, tourpack, full Vetter fairing and lowers, gets 40-42 at 70-75 MPH. At 60 MPH, it pushes 47. These figures are with 18/48 gearing, which is too tall for 55 MPH riding, because the MPG drops off then. I switched to 17/48 gearing last year because of increased city driving, and the 55 MPH mileage finally went up to 45 MPG.

When you figure out how much weight you are moving the 750 is not very fuel effeiecnt. Per ton mile it is actually fairly low.

That's 'cuz it's a hotrod! 

[mj_honda]

Smart car?

I had a 97 Civic HX coup (first new car:) that was rated at 44 MPG hwy and believe it or not that is what I got. That thing had plenty of zip with it's little vtech engine. My how times have changed in such a short amount of time. I paid about $15,000 for it and it was fairly loaded up with features. These little smart cars don't even hold a light to the Civic and cost almost as much. Granted that was 10 years ago and the dollars sure isn't worth as much today.

[76 cb550]

I think it's intentional.  I've read about cars gettin 180-300 MPG!  It can be done.  They just don't want to do it ...for various reasons $$$

[putnaja1]

All good points everyone.  And, I didn't mean to come off so negative on the smart car- obviously I must have been pretty impressed with it if I immediately went home and googled it.

Now I am wondering, what if we take all of our 2008 computer and engineering skills, and computer control the living daylights out of a gas engine, and the whole car in general? 
Here are some ideas:
1) Kinda like the smart car adapting to the way you drive.  But, also the car's computer should be smart enough to know when you are idling for a period of time, and cut the motor off (you could press a button to lock this feature out if you wanted AC all the time, etc) only to immediately restart the car when you need to start driving again.
2) Take a lot of the centrifugal loading off the engine.  For example, instead of putting the alternator drive off the motor, why not put it off the wheel axles, so that the rolling inertia of the car (especially down hills, when breaking).  Perhaps the alternator could be geared so that it would take a lot more force to turn, but would generate more power per rotation as a trade off.  Then the car's computer could only put the alternator load in line when the car was coasting or breaking, etc.
3) Solar panels on the roof to supplement the accessory load, supplement battery charge.
4) Implement Hondaman's ideas- narrower tires, taller tires, higher air pressure in the tires.
5) MORE gears!!  Give the tranny a wide ratio gearbox (or more gears) so the car can efficiently accelerate, but have a decent top end speed.

I know a lot of hybrids have this already, but I am proposing all the computer control, and efficiency design, just without the hybrid cars' batteries and electric motors.  Essentially, a smarter, non-hybrid, gasoline car.

Finally- how about this:  the computer that is monitoring how fast you are going, vehicle load, outside temp and atmospheric pressure, throttle position, vehicle's current MPG per all these settings.  Then it puts all these pieces of info together, and determines how well you're currently driving for maximum fuel efficiency.  It feeds this info back to you through three lights on the dash- green, yellow, and red.  If you are stomping the throttle and over-accelerating, only to stomp on the brakes for every traffic light, the dash light is red.  If you gradually accelerate, and are very fluid & easy on the gas pedal, the dash light is green.  The computer updates the dash light output fast enough that you can respond to this output and improve your efficiency.  Over time, you can start to make it a habit to always stay in the green- I think this would help!

Those are my idears anyways..
Jason

[putnaja1]

I think it's intentional.  I've read about cars gettin 180-300 MPG!  It can be done.  They just don't want to do it ...for various reasons $$$

Yeah, I thought about that too- only these days with the global economy, who are the "They" who are making only cars that burn more fuel?  It's not like the 70's gas crisis days where it was cut and dry- either you had a huge American dinosaur car that got like 11 miles per gallon, or a Datsun B210 that got 35.

[tramp]

some years ago i listened to a engineer talk about 100 mpg cars and what he said rand true
it takes so much energy from gasoline to make enough power to move a car
you will never see a 100mpg car because the laws of phisics won't allow it
he also said that getting 60mpg was possible but no one would buy it because it would be so slow
it might be dangerous

[troppo]

You wont get great milage cars because the big fuel companies will buy the technology and bury it, think about the wankel rotary engine

[mystic_1]

Rotary engines aren't so buried, Mazda still produces them.

mystic_1

[troppo]

completely different animal, do a site search, terry in aus put it so much better than i ever could in another post about this one

[mystic_1]

Wikipedia states that Mazda's engines are based on the original Wankel Rotary design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine

I know that "rotary engine" often refers to the fixed-crankshaft-rotating-engine design, but Mazda's engines are based on Felix Wankel's original design.

mystic_1

[troppo]

Wikipedia states that Mazda's engines are based on the original Wankel Rotary design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine

I know that "rotary engine" often refers to the fixed-crankshaft-rotating-engine design, but Mazda's engines are based on Felix Wankel's original design.

mystic_1

OK maybe i got the name wrong, but there was a west australian guy that developed a rotary engine that would have given incredible mileage but the whole design dissapeared when he suddenly became very very rich, he never spoke of it again

[Muk]

 as a honda master (automotive) tech.... I have to tell you the hybrids are definately not worth it yet... most civic owners with non hybrids state thay are getting  higher than the cars were rated.. we have a lot of complaints about mpg on the hybrids not even being close not too mention all the battery packs i have been replacing seems about 80-100k the ima (hybrid) battery takes a dump and if you dont have a extened warranty to cover them them then shell out $2500 to $4000. now some of our have have a factory extended warranty but very few. and speaking to the toyota guys next door , they seem to be getting the same kind of complaints and problems. the more you moving parts you add the more that can go wrong. imiss carburated cars  my 87 accord lx would get 35-40 mpg and had 289,000 miles on it!

[333]

It was only a matter of time before this thread went this way, but what about 100% electric?  So many people have proved that we can do it, with range distance growing larger all the time.  And the American public is slowly coming around to the thought that even the shorter range cars will certainly get them to and from work every day.  As Muk pointed out, the cost of replacement batteries is high, but if production gets ramped up, that too will get cheaper.

I've seen the videos of how in 3 types of vehicles, people have proven that electric can compete.   I forget the names, but the sports car is in production.  I think the 1/4 mile is like 7 seconds(maybe thats 0-60?).  It uses litium-ion batteries and has over 200 mile range.  I've seen an electric dirt bike that can compete with 125s(for about 20-25 minutes).  And I'm sure many of us have seen the drag racing bike.  While the guy certainly knows how to build it, he certainly can't ride it(crash video!!!)