lots of 80's early 90's compacts got 35+ and weighed half what they do now
even the lowly metro LSi got 50+ and was fun to drive for the little 3cyl , but 400hp and 100mph i really doubt unless you use alot of electricity
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yep that's what you get when the engine is on idle & going down hill; because 17cty & 26hwy (EPA rated) on a 4cyl is not something to brag about.
Real world and EPA numbers are not the same. Its easy to beat the EPA numbers without having to idle and go down hill. You can list EPA numbers all you want but we all know that those numbers are a joke. How else do you explain going 430 miles in my 98 and only having to put 11 gallons in it? After all thats only 100 miles farther than I should have gone on that amount of fuel bassed on the EPA (revised I might add) rating. My average speed was higher than the EPA test as well. Unless GM has programed the average economy info to read high, my moms SS/SC and my dads Silverado both beat the EPA number for average. My dads truck has an average that is higher than the rated highway figure.
Goodwrench, You make the point of not having to depend so much on foreign oil and saving costs because of less fuel consumption... Those costs will be compounded eight fold if we keep heading in the direction we are... trust me, I know because we've already seen it with diesels.
Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
The weight of new cars is clearly heavier due to safety,and my civic is designed to be safe/effiecient.The old cav heavy metal car,but no bags,or abs but,I do not drive it often anyhow.Idk I have wheels that serve me fine now.As for ethanol no thanks,it reduces mpgs cost more to produce and no real benefit it has been proven.Cool info on the subject regardless.
Stephen (manta z) wrote:Has anyone watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
I own it, Cool video.
2004 Cavalier. Razzi. (Sold)
1998 Corvette. Some mods.
1992 Typhoon. Lots of mods.
1994 Civic VX 44MPG
Quote:
Also the cars of yesterday were more fuel efficient on the sticker, but the way they tested them in the past were different than today, which is why saw high MPG #s back then and lower MPG"s today.
I was using my 97 Cutlass Supreme to go to work every week. We bought our brand new Nissan Versa in 2008 and my girlfriend was complaining about how much of a gas guzzler it was. So I took the Versa for a few weeks,always doing the same route and basically same speed too. The gas prices were the same 1.33$ per liter. The little Versa disappointed me so bad. On the paper when we bought it it said 36 mpg after two years the best we got was 26.4 mpg on highway.
To go to work my 97 Cutlass Supreme with 3.4 and 284 000 km saved me approx. 3.40$ per week on a 710 km commute compared to the little econmy car. lol
No matter how you test an old or new car, just look how much cash your throwing out to fill it up. This test never lies.
MyKoup_owns_theZ wrote:Quote:
Also the cars of yesterday were more fuel efficient on the sticker, but the way they tested them in the past were different than today, which is why saw high MPG #s back then and lower MPG"s today.
I was using my 97 Cutlass Supreme to go to work every week. We bought our brand new Nissan Versa in 2008 and my girlfriend was complaining about how much of a gas guzzler it was. So I took the Versa for a few weeks,always doing the same route and basically same speed too. The gas prices were the same 1.33$ per liter. The little Versa disappointed me so bad. On the paper when we bought it it said 36 mpg after two years the best we got was 26.4 mpg on highway.
To go to work my 97 Cutlass Supreme with 3.4 and 284 000 km saved me approx. 3.40$ per week on a 710 km commute compared to the little econmy car. lol
No matter how you test an old or new car, just look how much cash your throwing out to fill it up. This test never lies.
Even looking only a few years back, you can see a difference. I used to average 38 MPG city and highway in my Corolla. The Fit barely gets 30. And I used to beat that Corolla like a rented redheaded mule.
2010 Honda Fit LX
Tony T Crams wrote: a rented redheaded mule.
3 totally different quotes combined into one..... beautifully. A+ bub.
(tabs) wrote:z yaaaa wrote:its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know
mitdr774 wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yep that's what you get when the engine is on idle & going down hill; because 17cty & 26hwy (EPA rated) on a 4cyl is not something to brag about.
Real world and EPA numbers are not the same. Its easy to beat the EPA numbers without having to idle and go down hill. You can list EPA numbers all you want but we all know that those numbers are a joke. How else do you explain going 430 miles in my 98 and only having to put 11 gallons in it? After all thats only 100 miles farther than I should have gone on that amount of fuel bassed on the EPA (revised I might add) rating. My average speed was higher than the EPA test as well. Unless GM has programed the average economy info to read high, my moms SS/SC and my dads Silverado both beat the EPA number for average. My dads truck has an average that is higher than the rated highway figure.
Of course it is not "the same." One is an "average" (EPA's), the other is a bloated, rounded to nearest ten figure that was conducted one time (your story). Of course one can surpass, or end up lower than the EPA's figure. But when one comes out saying a 20 year old car is pulling roughly almost 20MPGs more than an average, either the car was fueled on blended unicorn urine with Chuck Norris' sweat as an additive or likes to blow smoke up people's poopers just for the sake of standing on your stance, no matter how ridiculous the story was.
Now your new story of 430miles with "just" 11 gallon puts you about just 40 MPGs for that trip. Why not mention 700miles with only 8 gallons while you're at it?
It's hilarious when it comes to owners, you will always read/hear that their product will do X better, but when it come to an even playing field or an independent tests (media), they will never meet the figures of those achieved by lucky owners and their miracle vehicles.
Alex Richards wrote:Goodwrench, You make the point of not having to depend so much on foreign oil and saving costs because of less fuel consumption... Those costs will be compounded eight fold if we keep heading in the direction we are... trust me, I know because we've already seen it with diesels.
I believe I never mention saving money on fuel. Being that the oil industry serves up a product that is equivalent to a monopoly. The oil industry will inevitably hike up the price because they know they could, as we have no other viable option. It is called "having us by the balls." Bottom line, my argument is we will consume less doing a job.
MyKoup_owns_theZ wrote:Quote:
Also the cars of yesterday were more fuel efficient on the sticker, but the way they tested them in the past were different than today, which is why saw high MPG #s back then and lower MPG"s today.
I was using my 97 Cutlass Supreme to go to work every week. We bought our brand new Nissan Versa in 2008 and my girlfriend was complaining about how much of a gas guzzler it was. So I took the Versa for a few weeks,always doing the same route and basically same speed too. The gas prices were the same 1.33$ per liter. The little Versa disappointed me so bad. On the paper when we bought it it said 36 mpg after two years the best we got was 26.4 mpg on highway.
To go to work my 97 Cutlass Supreme with 3.4 and 284 000 km saved me approx. 3.40$ per week on a 710 km commute compared to the little econmy car. lol
No matter how you test an old or new car, just look how much cash your throwing out to fill it up. This test never lies.
And here's the other end of the spectrum to mitdr774's story. lol
Well, if you drive it like lead footed oaf, surely you will get that figure- lol. The Versa 5-door I rented to go on a 600 mile round trip got me 31-34mpgs with a mixture of 70% hwy and 30% cty. Seems your Versa needs help.
The highlighted part... I could not agree more. IMO the only way to combat that is by a alternate fuel.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Like always, you are never wrong...
I know what my car does when driven in a manner to get good economy. Even cruising at closer to normal people speeds I still beat the highway rating every time. 700 miles on 8 gallons would be a lie, 430 on 11 is what happened. I guess having an average to and from work of 29-31 (depending on how long the traffic slow downs are) would a be a lie too???
20mpg more than average?? That would be a lie (unless the average is only 20MPG) since I dont pull over 40 MPG with the car. Nice way to inflate things.
No miracle vehicle here, just have to drive it right. It will piss off a lot of people on the road, but save a bunch at the pump. Its amazing how big of a difference it is between going 60 and going 70 when it comes to fuel consumption.
OK to answer a previous poster. The victory doesn't need to mandate crap. We have independant companies whose test cars for safety ect... And fuel mileage requirements are ridiculous. Let the free market decide what is the best vehicle to buy. If the common interest of the people is fuel mileage. Fuel efficient cars will sell. If a Hummer is what they want that is there right. Making regulations like this makes the product cost more generally be more maintenance and less reliable. Doesn't sound smart to me. We the people should be deciding not the fed.
OK to answer a previous poster. The government doesn't need to mandate crap. We have independant companies whose test cars for safety ect... And fuel mileage requirements are ridiculous. Let the free market decide what is the best vehicle to buy. If the common interest of the people is fuel mileage. Fuel efficient cars will sell. If a Hummer is what they want that is there right. Making regulations like this makes the product cost more generally be more maintenance and less reliable. Doesn't sound smart to me. We the people should be deciding not the fed.
dakota sutherland wrote:The government doesn't need to mandate crap.
You've never lived or been where business has complete freedom to do as they please. You obviously take for granted the safer cars, clean water, safe foods, etc.
Quote:
And fuel mileage requirements are ridiculous.
Really? Tell me how good... as in powerful and efficient the cars were from 1900-to1975 vs.1976-2012? Which of those two made more progress and also which had regulations implemented?
Quote:
Making regulations like this makes the product cost more generally be more maintenance and less reliable. Doesn't sound smart to me.
So you're saying a Corvette capable of near 30MPGs with 430+HP, or a 500HP H6 that makes 23MPGs found in a 911, or 36MPG-274HP-I4 Hyundai is unreliable? What doesn't sound smart to me was a 350 w/ 200HP and spits enough carbon to make a cigarette jealous.
Quote:
We the people should be deciding not the fed.
Yep you're right, we should decide...it is just the feds makes for a better product as a whole.
Take note how things have changed since some one cared and a standard was placed.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
dakota sutherland wrote:OK to answer a previous poster. The government doesn't need to mandate crap. We have independant companies whose test cars for safety ect... And fuel mileage requirements are ridiculous. Let the free market decide what is the best vehicle to buy. If the common interest of the people is fuel mileage. Fuel efficient cars will sell. If a Hummer is what they want that is there right. Making regulations like this makes the product cost more generally be more maintenance and less reliable. Doesn't sound smart to me. We the people should be deciding not the fed.
This post is wrong in so many different angles that I'm not going to rebut.
Are you suggesting that the without the government "keeping things safe" like water the water would be dangerous. Let me explain this in simple terms. Look back in history and see what's happens every time the govt gets involved with things. And yes cars see more efficient some because of mandates and some because the people have demands more efficiency ect. Look at big trucks that are now less reliable and get less fuel mileage because the govt mandated that they be more emissions friendly. Now another thing the govt doesn't have the right to tell a company what to sell within reason. Obviously they can't sell people or drugs but you get the point. Also the govt doesn't have a right to inforce what people buy. It's called the FREE market for a reason. Not the some rules apply market or the Obama market. The FREE MARKET you want this country to prosper bring back the gold standard cut the budget and let the free market end of story. Anyone can argue their opinion but what I just said is all factual info. And you can't argue with the truth.....well the liberals can but we all know how dense they are
And my grandpa had an old Dodge truck 4sp 2wd and it had a 318 would pull anything he needed to roast the tires and it got 20mpg so don't give me that crap it was a carburetor and did just as good as anything today another thing a guy in the 70s I think created a Carb that would make the cars get 50mpg + and you know what happened it was bought and crushed and never heard of again and the govt didn't have a damn thing to do with great things can be accomplished without the fed plain and simple
dakota sutherland wrote:Are you suggesting that the without the government "keeping things safe" like water the water would be dangerous.
Take a trip to your back yard, down to Mexico. A country where business is first, society is second because the level of corruption is so high in order to keep regulations minimal or useless... think of the oil spill we recently had as something similar. And while you're there, drink their water. Tell me later how well you feel after that delicious thirst quenching glass of Mexico's finest H2O.
If you will not take the trip, look up the CDC's report on not to drink their water. The level of corruption there is so high there to basically not keep a safe standard, is equivalent to not having a standard at all.
Quote:
Let me explain this in simple terms. Look back in history and see what's happens every time the govt gets involved with things.Look at big trucks that are now less reliable and get less fuel mileage because the govt mandated that they be more emissions friendly.
Like what?
Also i would like to see more on this "the big rigs are less reliable because they are cleaner" argument. Remove my ignorance on this, because it is all new to me.
Quote:
Now another thing the govt doesn't have the right to tell a company what to sell within reason. Obviously they can't sell people or drugs but you get the point.
Contrary to dumb belief, they don't actually, unless it proves a danger. Like lead in paint for instance.
Quote:
Also the govt doesn't have a right to inforce what people buy. It's called the FREE market for a reason. Not the some rules apply market or the Obama market. The FREE MARKET you want this country to prosper bring back the gold standard cut the budget and let the free market end of story.
You have way to much trust in the money making people. Which is why we had the Pinto, Cigarettes with no health label, or asbestos loaded drywall from China in your homes. True Free Market does not exist in any part of the world, there is always some sort of government involvement, whether it be a tax, or a regulation. It's just some nations are more strict; like it is Germany, or Sweeden and some are more relaxed; like in China, or India.
Quote:
Anyone can argue their opinion but what I just said is all factual info.
Not really.
dakota sutherland wrote:And my grandpa had an old Dodge truck 4sp 2wd and it had a 318 would pull anything he needed to roast the tires and it got 20mpg so don't give me that crap it was a carburetor and did just as good as anything today another thing a guy in the 70s I think created a Carb that would make the cars get 50mpg + and you know what happened it was bought and crushed and never heard of again and the govt didn't have a damn thing to do with great things can be accomplished without the fed plain and simple
Let me introduce you to this guy.
And this guy, two guys who has some entertaining conspiracy stories.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Your right. Some govt is good but example state and local govt can handle their water. And free market doesn't mean products it means the bad products won't succeed. Example gm was bailed out we all know gm shouldn't gave been bailed out. Let the good prosper and the made fail. Not many people bought Ford's for a long time because of the pinto. And a few other bad cars. All I'm saying is people in America like trucks that's the majority market. So trying to make the American people buy fuel efficient cars isn't right. Example of this gmail built the volt and last month they sold 120 of them but they sold tons of trucks. But now they are making a Cadillac electric car. Now me personally wouldn't buy one but I do like good mileage just not a hybrid not yet anyway. But it doesn't make sense to build what the people aren't buying. But the govt is so far down the backs of gm that that's what they are going to do. Doesn't make alot of sense. And despite all of this we have much bigger things to worry about like the 14.5trillion dollar debt. The wars the immigration problems ect ect but instead cafe standards is on our president's mind.
Now you're contradicting yourself. If you want make a thread with your argument and I will be more then happy to tear you up with your own arguments and give you a smack in the face with reality. I see your point of view but by no means would we be better off. This thread will be off topic in no time with this being discussed.
All I can say is its proven that govt intervention doesn't work . You can go through history and see that. If we follow the constitution and promote limited govt we would be much better off. And anyone who doesn't agree with that is pretty damn stupid. Cafe standards is just another way for the govt to tell us and the corporations what to do. I would even go as far to say that making fuel economy standards is OK but not in the context they are doing it. If the people in this country want fuel mileage that's what will come out of the production lines. Companies will build what the consumer wants. No body wants cassettes and VCR anymore so companies don't produce them. It's just common sense. The problem is the majority of Americans don't really care about fuel mileage. Example hybrids don't sell real well. You see a lot more silverados than you do a Prius a leaf and a volt combined. There is a reason for that. Making companies build what the people do not want doesn't make sense. Making the businesses in America produce crap that the people aren't buying isn't the govt place and they should be worrying about other things. Besides that the man that a few months ago said gas prices weren't coming down and people should buy new fuel effiecient American cars was riding around the country in a big black bus built in Canada. I get sick of someone saying this is what we should do and then does the opposite he could have just as easily rode in a volt but no no gotta be in style. Sorry that's wrong. And sorry if you really think you can tear me up you have another thing coming. The left wing which your obviously a part of when can't prove their point they name call attack the persons personality or they lie and twist the facts so the uneducated people reading think they're right. So good luck that's all I gotta say
