gas mileage ?

[kingd33]

Is me or do all these new cars that the motor companies push as great on gas cars seem to get the same or worse mileage that cars out of the 70's and 80's?
Just seems like it's a good thing if you can get 20mpg nowadays and that was bad back in the dark ages with the Pintos,Chevettes,etc.
Hell,My 68 Pontiac Catalina super tanker got 15 to 18 mpg( of course my Roadrunner averaged 9mpg) and my 2000 Blazer is equal to that now.
Just wondered if I'm missing something

[Blaubus]

[notchback]

My '86 Ford Taurus MT-5 station wagon got an average of 30mpg on my trip to the classic last year. That was a 2200 mile trip. You can't find a car that size to give that kind of mileage today because of all the crap they've added onto it. Think about what is mandated by law now that wasn't then. All those airbags and other safety features add up the weight. As Dan said, engines are bigger now too. Americans want power. You can't get a Taurus with a 90hp 4 cyl engine like mine has. The smallest engine is a 235hp 3.6 liter job. Back in 1992 I bought a new Geo Metro that gave me a real world average mpg of 46, with an occasional high of about 52, depending on how I drove. The only things out there that really approach that now are the hybrids. The manufacturers need to go back to basic simplicity.
_________________

[johnshenry]

Actually, there are several V6 engined cars out there now that can hit 30mpg. My brother has a Ford 500. As much as I hate fords, and as much as I swore he was lying, he has proven to me that if you drive it on the highway no faster than about 62mph, it will get 30-31 mpg. And it is a fairly large and heavy car.

What I was really surprised at was the mpg claim in the fine print on the new Honda Civic commercial, 26mpg Hiway!!! If Ford can get 30 out of a full sized V6 sedan (although I don't know what the official Ford claimed mpg is, I know recent changes in test rules have made it pretty conservative), shouldn't Honda???

And then there is Subaru, who can't get a real 30mpg out of a 2.5l 4 cylinder. I know lots of people who have them and they get 22-26, that's it. But I know it is because they are very heavy. Really nice cars, but I'd never buy one for the mpg.

I have an '04 Jetta with a 2.0l and I get 32 in the summer if I drive it sensibly. In the winter, driving 75-80 most of the time in the highway, and a fairly heavy foot around town, I get about 29.
_________________
John Henry

'57 Deluxe
'56 Single Cab

[DMNCLNR]

My 02 SS camaro averaged 30+ on the highway on the way to and from oregon. I would average about 65 MPH, and keep the RPM's at about 1500 in 6th gear.
_________________
To his their own PBJ
Pl@y@ #1

[BrianHulud]

when they advertise 30mpg as good gas mileage I laugh. My 67 bug gets 30mpg and its 40 years old.
_________________
'67 Beetle w/ 1600
'65 beetle w/ 1914

[superdrag]

My 72 super gets slightly above 30. That seems to be about average nowadays.

[johnshenry]

Well my '50 Beetle gets about 25, (25hp) and my '57 gets 28-ish (36hp) and they have the same displacement (1192cc).

My 2.0l Jetta out weighs them each by almost 1000 lbs, is faster, bugger engine, and gets better mileage...
_________________
John Henry

'57 Deluxe
'56 Single Cab

[chickengeorge]

[ValleyHappy]

IMO the less than appealing mpg of the newest cars, when compared to similar cars in its class from 20 years ago or more....is due to weight from additions to safety and sound insulation and other 'refinements'. You would think that in this day and age cars would weigh less...but they don't. Especially when the feds allow for a tax break to people who buy vehicles over 5K or 6K lbs.....what's the incentive to build lighter cars when your going to get drilled by a huge SUV. As an example of old an new.....a 1980ish RX7 weighed ~2000lbs, while the new RX8 weghs ~3000 lbs. I'm all for safety, but we need to reduce weight to gain mpg and stop giving tax breaks to trucks and SUVs.
_________________
09 Suzuki SX-4 Crossover

[Vanhag]

I'm all for reducing weight in a vehicle to gain MPG but NOT at the sacrifice of Safety. As a first responder and rescuer we've seen a 200 percent increase in vehicle safety and survivability. Crashes that just 10 years ago would have killed the occupants are now only causing minor injuries. Accidents that would have seriously harmed people are now those that people walk away from unscathed. And that takes into account that highway speeds have greatly increased. There is no doubt that vehicles nowadays are greatly safer than their 70s counterparts.

Emissions also play a huge role in weight and mpg. Although I'm sure someone is going to argue that by burning more fuel with lesser per gallon emissions equals buring less fuel at higher per gallon emissions.
_________________
CU05 w/HBB
HOODRIDANCE

[Gary]

[marklaken]

[gt1953]

I agree with the SUV's and $X$'s with no scratches.
Dumb if you ask me.
My 01 Firebird gets 28mpg here in the mnts 6500' plus not enuf air molecules. In the desert 30~32.
_________________
Volkswagen: We tune what we drive.
Numbers Matching VW's are getting harder to find. Source out the most Stock vehicle and keep that way. You will be glad you did.

72 type 1
72 Squareback
({59 Euro bug, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 73 type ones 68 & 69 type two, 68 Ghia all sold})

[Towel Rail]

[daniel5560]

My 00 Explorer with the V6 gets about 18mpg. But that is going over a mountain almost every day.

My 72 bus used to get 13mpg when the jet in the carb decided to dump gas down the throat. Now that it runs FI I see 21-23mpg depending on how I drive.

[Stevie Fierce]

the goal is to make enuff money in this life to not give a shit about how much gas costs....


those that accomplish this can email me or pm or just plain let me know how here in this thread.

my truck takes about 120 bucks to fill it with 93 octane. the other truck takes the same. they are both empty weekly.

im switching to 5.13's (gearing) in my lifted chevy to get back close to the 10 mpg i used to get. my f-350 work truck..... i gave up hope long ago.

for some reason my bug just sits there......

[1mechanic]

[dms]

Got a 85 Chevy sprint 993 CC 3 cylinder, I've had it for 4 years now , great car , 60 MPG average , my highest is 68 MPG , this is combined , city & highway .
I can't imagine a newer car , with lower fuel milage especially . and then they look weird , and are full of plastic , and there is too much computer crap to screw up in years to come . Today's auto manufacturers would go broke waiting for me to buy a new vehical .
_________________
If you don't like the way I drive , stay off the sidewalk .

[Zundfolge1432]

Americans need to look at the rest of the world and see how they confront this issue, are we so arrogant as to think we have all the answers????...More mass transit, smaller vehicles, technology and more awareness coupled with a large dose of personal responsibility instead of an attitude of I'll waste gas because I can..... What are you leaving for children and grandchildren???

Manufacturers need to be forced to make fuel efficient vehicles because its a fact consumers will buy what ever is produced out of necessity.... No forward movement or advancement comes unless they are pushed to modernize, look at consumer product safety nothing much happened until groups banded together hired lawyers and forced the industry to make safer products... Cigarrettes are a prime example of making a defective product that if used as directed will almost certainly lead to death and disease..... I'll leave you with this one question..


Why are all the manufacturers offering cars that get between 50-60 MPG in Europe but are unable to offer the cars here???? Hint don't say emissions, thats not it... I know this will be greeted with skepticism and hatred by a few but perhaps it might spark thought with a few others...
All the best to you and yours....
Jim-