57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
12-20-2007, 01:08 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Car makers are confident they can meet new government rules calling for a national fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. But it will take a big technological push, they say.
You might wonder why, since twenty years ago the car that got the best mileage in the nation was a real techno-wimp compared to what's on the road today. It wasn't even a hybrid. But it got better fuel economy than any car sold now - even the Toyota Prius.
Looking back at the 1987 Honda Civic CRX shows us why cars use so much more gas today and about the trade-offs we've had to make.
The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway.
Why then, not now?
One answer for the mileage drop is that the rating system has changed. Beginning with the 2008 model year, the EPA began using a more rigorous fuel economy test that means lower numbers for most cars. But that's only a small part of the answer.
If the old CRX HF were tested using today's rules, its highway fuel economy would drop to 51 mpg, according to the EPA's calculations. That's still much better than any mass-market car sold today, including hybrid cars.
The bigger answer is that the Honda Civic has changed a lot in twenty years. Honda no longer sells a tiny two-seat version like the CRX. Even Civics with back seats are much bigger and heavier today than similar versions were in 1987.
It's in the nature of the car business that companies want to offer more - more legroom, more trunk space - with each redesign. As a result, cars get bigger and bigger.
Besides size, American consumers expect a lot more convenience out of a car than they did in 1985. Today, we expect power steering, power brakes, power windows and more.
The base CRX HF did not have power steering or power brakes. (As light as it was, it really didn't need them.) Air conditioning was optional, as it was on most cars in those days, so it didn't figure into the EPA's fuel economy ratings.
Today's consumers also expect safety. In the 1980s, car companies would sell cars that got one-star or two-star crash test ratings. Numbers like that would now cause car companies fits. Four out of five stars is considered the minimum acceptable rating.
The modern Civic has airbags front and side, electronic stability control and built-in crash protecting structures in the body. (See correction.)
Even the CRX's biggest fans wouldn't relish the thought of getting into a wreck in one of those cars. While actual crash test results are not available, even a Honda (HMC) spokesman admitted the car probably wouldn't have fared well by modern standards.
"Without the benefit of modern crash structure and extensive use of high strength steel, cars from two decades ago couldn't match the crash test performance of today's Hondas," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.
Increased safety, meaning more weight from airbags and crash structure, has meant lower fuel economy.
"It's kind of a classic engineering fight where safe cars compete with more fuel-efficient cars," said Todd Lassa, a writer for Motor Trend magazine and a CRX aficionado.
Lassa once owned a CRX DX, one step up in price and performance - and down in fuel economy - from the HF. (A 1987 sales brochure he still has provided some of the numbers for this story.)
A fun car to drive
Not that the CRX was a bad car. Far from it. Even before Honda introduced a performance version called the CRX Si, the lightweight, fun to drive Civic CRX was Motor Trend's "Import Car of the Year" when it first hit the market in 1985.
Even in its base HF trim, the CRX was considered a fun car to drive because it was small and responsive. Its zero-to-sixty time, though - about 12 seconds by some estimates - would put it well behind even a large, sedate family sedan like the Ford Taurus today.
Weighing less than 1,800 pounds, the CRX HF was powered by a 58-horsepower engine. Today's base Honda Civic weighs almost 2,600 pounds and is powered by a 140 horsepower engine. That's about 12.5 pounds less weight per pony today, despite greatly increased size.
"The lightest cars you can buy today are about 40 percent heavier than that car," Lassa said of his old CRX.
Comparing essentially similar Honda Civic sedans from the 1980s and today reveals that today's car gets considerably better fuel economy (40 highway mg vs. 32) despite having a larger engine with much more power (140 horsepower vs. 76).
Daimler is about to find out how much appetite American's now have for inexpensive little two-seat cars that emphasize fuel economy over performance. It's just begun selling the tiny Smart ForTwo here. But even the ForTwo, which is smaller than the CRX, will get about 41 mpg on the highway, according to Daimler. (Official EPA estimates aren't out yet.).
Rumors swirl today, as they have for years, that Honda is planning to bring out a modern version of the CRX. Lassa says he pushes the idea whenever he speaks with Honda executives.
This time, though, the CRX HF would have to be a hybrid, he said. (Perhaps the one the company just announced it will make for 2009.) There just isn't any other way to pull that off today.
You might wonder why, since twenty years ago the car that got the best mileage in the nation was a real techno-wimp compared to what's on the road today. It wasn't even a hybrid. But it got better fuel economy than any car sold now - even the Toyota Prius.
Looking back at the 1987 Honda Civic CRX shows us why cars use so much more gas today and about the trade-offs we've had to make.
The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway.
Why then, not now?
One answer for the mileage drop is that the rating system has changed. Beginning with the 2008 model year, the EPA began using a more rigorous fuel economy test that means lower numbers for most cars. But that's only a small part of the answer.
If the old CRX HF were tested using today's rules, its highway fuel economy would drop to 51 mpg, according to the EPA's calculations. That's still much better than any mass-market car sold today, including hybrid cars.
The bigger answer is that the Honda Civic has changed a lot in twenty years. Honda no longer sells a tiny two-seat version like the CRX. Even Civics with back seats are much bigger and heavier today than similar versions were in 1987.
It's in the nature of the car business that companies want to offer more - more legroom, more trunk space - with each redesign. As a result, cars get bigger and bigger.
Besides size, American consumers expect a lot more convenience out of a car than they did in 1985. Today, we expect power steering, power brakes, power windows and more.
The base CRX HF did not have power steering or power brakes. (As light as it was, it really didn't need them.) Air conditioning was optional, as it was on most cars in those days, so it didn't figure into the EPA's fuel economy ratings.
Today's consumers also expect safety. In the 1980s, car companies would sell cars that got one-star or two-star crash test ratings. Numbers like that would now cause car companies fits. Four out of five stars is considered the minimum acceptable rating.
The modern Civic has airbags front and side, electronic stability control and built-in crash protecting structures in the body. (See correction.)
Even the CRX's biggest fans wouldn't relish the thought of getting into a wreck in one of those cars. While actual crash test results are not available, even a Honda (HMC) spokesman admitted the car probably wouldn't have fared well by modern standards.
"Without the benefit of modern crash structure and extensive use of high strength steel, cars from two decades ago couldn't match the crash test performance of today's Hondas," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.
Increased safety, meaning more weight from airbags and crash structure, has meant lower fuel economy.
"It's kind of a classic engineering fight where safe cars compete with more fuel-efficient cars," said Todd Lassa, a writer for Motor Trend magazine and a CRX aficionado.
Lassa once owned a CRX DX, one step up in price and performance - and down in fuel economy - from the HF. (A 1987 sales brochure he still has provided some of the numbers for this story.)
A fun car to drive
Not that the CRX was a bad car. Far from it. Even before Honda introduced a performance version called the CRX Si, the lightweight, fun to drive Civic CRX was Motor Trend's "Import Car of the Year" when it first hit the market in 1985.
Even in its base HF trim, the CRX was considered a fun car to drive because it was small and responsive. Its zero-to-sixty time, though - about 12 seconds by some estimates - would put it well behind even a large, sedate family sedan like the Ford Taurus today.
Weighing less than 1,800 pounds, the CRX HF was powered by a 58-horsepower engine. Today's base Honda Civic weighs almost 2,600 pounds and is powered by a 140 horsepower engine. That's about 12.5 pounds less weight per pony today, despite greatly increased size.
"The lightest cars you can buy today are about 40 percent heavier than that car," Lassa said of his old CRX.
Comparing essentially similar Honda Civic sedans from the 1980s and today reveals that today's car gets considerably better fuel economy (40 highway mg vs. 32) despite having a larger engine with much more power (140 horsepower vs. 76).
Daimler is about to find out how much appetite American's now have for inexpensive little two-seat cars that emphasize fuel economy over performance. It's just begun selling the tiny Smart ForTwo here. But even the ForTwo, which is smaller than the CRX, will get about 41 mpg on the highway, according to Daimler. (Official EPA estimates aren't out yet.).
Rumors swirl today, as they have for years, that Honda is planning to bring out a modern version of the CRX. Lassa says he pushes the idea whenever he speaks with Honda executives.
This time, though, the CRX HF would have to be a hybrid, he said. (Perhaps the one the company just announced it will make for 2009.) There just isn't any other way to pull that off today.
12-20-2007, 01:12 PM
#2
Registered User
Thread Starter
The new CAFE standards are going to be brutal (unless there is some kind of loophole), also wonder what the penalty costs. They say you can buy credits if your fleet does not meet the standards.
I think it's BS about flex-fuel loophole also do we know what plug-in hybrids would cost as far as pollution by powerplants as well as electricity costs (?). I mean if it costs $10 to charge-up with electricity and would cost $9 for gas to get similar number of miles then the electricity would cost more.
I think it's BS about flex-fuel loophole also do we know what plug-in hybrids would cost as far as pollution by powerplants as well as electricity costs (?). I mean if it costs $10 to charge-up with electricity and would cost $9 for gas to get similar number of miles then the electricity would cost more.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An energy bill that requires the average fuel economy of all the nation's cars and trucks to be 35 miles per gallon by 2020 sounds sweeping, but don't look for any immediate big changes in the kinds of vehicles sold in this country.
On the face of it, 35 mpg may sound like a huge leap. It would be the first major increase in fuel-economy standards in more than 30 years, and there are only a couple of mass-market cars - the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid - that actually get Environmental Protection Agency-estimated fuel economy better than 35 mpg in combined city and highway driving.
Current rules require cars to get an overall average of at least 27.5 mpg and trucks to average at least 22.5 mpg. In both cases, the actual average of all such vehicles exceeds those numbers, said Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry trade group.
But there are several important points to remember about these new rules. They're very complicated. Manufacturers say they provide needed flexibility, though.
Here's a simplified run-down of the main points:
Higher numbers
When talking about fuel economy rules, we aren't talking about EPA estimated fuel economy. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules are administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) not the EPA and the CAFE program works with a different set of fuel economy figures. The fuel economy figures used for judging CAFE compliance are at least 25 percent higher than the EPA figures the public sees, according to EPA documents.
Different companies, different numbers
Under these new rules we're talking about, 35 mpg would be the average for all vehicles produced by all manufacturers. Individual fuel economy goals for each car company would by set by NHTSA in such a way that the all the the vehicles sold by all manufacturers will average out to 35 mpg.
A simplified example: One car maker could have a NHTSA-required target of 31 mpg. Another car maker might have 36 mpg, and another would have 38. Average the three together, and you get 35 mpg.
The first goals will be set in 2011 and goals will gradually become more stringent, as needed, until the 2020 goal is met. By 2020 some manufacturers will have goals that exceed 35 mpg, others will have lower goals.
Different vehicles, different numbers
As the proposed rules are currently written, manufacturers' fleets are still divided into cars and light trucks. Each company will be assigned a separate goal for its cars and for its trucks.
Credit spending
Under the new rules, Territo explained, a manufacturer that exceeds its assigned mpg goal for either cars or trucks gets credits that can be applied to the other goal, if needed.
Or the company can save those credits in case it falls short of a goal any time in the following five years. Credits can also be used to wipe out a missed target in any of the three prior years.
And, for the time being at least, car companies will still get fuel economy credits for making vehicles that can burn ethanol or biodiesel blends instead of just gasoline.
Under the proposed rules, those credits will be phased out before 2020 but in the meantime, you could expect to see many more "Flex Fuel" vehicles produced.
No cakewalk
Even though these rules might not be quite as stringent as you would have thought, meeting these requirements won't be easy. General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) executives have said they will have to completely rethink their future product plans if these rules are enacted.
But there are several steps car companies can take in the short term to meet new fuel economy rules as they become gradually more strict. (And they will come stricter for all car companies. Nobody gets to stand still.) The challenge will be meeting consumer and government demands at the same time.
"It's not actually a problem of available technology, but technology that the customer will be willing to pay for," said Sandy Stojkovski of Ricardo, Inc., an auto-parts supplier specializing in fuel-economy technology.
In the near term, diesel engines, which get much better fuel economy than gasoline engines, will probably play a large part. The challenge is getting consumers to accept that the modern diesel really is much better than the clanky, coughing, belching beast of the 1980s, the last time they were widely sold here in passenger vehicles.
Other solutions will be mild hybrids that do less to save fuel than full hybrids, but that also cost much less to produce and have smaller battery packs.
Another technology that many car companies are working on, but that still needs more research, is homogenous charge compression ignition, or HCCI. HCCI burns gasoline using compression rather than a spark. It's almost the way diesel engines burn diesel fuel.
HCCI promises diesel-like fuel economy but, since gasoline burns more cleanly than diesel, it doesn't require diesel's expensive exhaust treatment.
Plugging in
Consumer-ready plug-in hybrids are probably 10 years away, said Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) spokeswoman Kristen Kinley. But that would make them available in time for the 2020 deadline.
Considering that plug-in hybrids can run on pure electricity for up to 40 miles, their calculated fuel economy depends very much on how far you drive them.
If you measure fuel economy after 30 miles of driving, it would literally infinite. No fuel at all would have been used by that point. If you measure it at 60 miles it could still be hundreds of miles per gallon.
A few vehicles that get hundreds of miles per gallon could go a long way to improving a company's fuel economy average.
In the end, fuel economy really will increase dramatically but don't expect that we'll all be driving Priuses. Car buyers will still demand a variety of vehicles of all sizes and car companies will have to work within these rules to provide them.
On the face of it, 35 mpg may sound like a huge leap. It would be the first major increase in fuel-economy standards in more than 30 years, and there are only a couple of mass-market cars - the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid - that actually get Environmental Protection Agency-estimated fuel economy better than 35 mpg in combined city and highway driving.
Current rules require cars to get an overall average of at least 27.5 mpg and trucks to average at least 22.5 mpg. In both cases, the actual average of all such vehicles exceeds those numbers, said Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry trade group.
But there are several important points to remember about these new rules. They're very complicated. Manufacturers say they provide needed flexibility, though.
Here's a simplified run-down of the main points:
Higher numbers
When talking about fuel economy rules, we aren't talking about EPA estimated fuel economy. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules are administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) not the EPA and the CAFE program works with a different set of fuel economy figures. The fuel economy figures used for judging CAFE compliance are at least 25 percent higher than the EPA figures the public sees, according to EPA documents.
Different companies, different numbers
Under these new rules we're talking about, 35 mpg would be the average for all vehicles produced by all manufacturers. Individual fuel economy goals for each car company would by set by NHTSA in such a way that the all the the vehicles sold by all manufacturers will average out to 35 mpg.
A simplified example: One car maker could have a NHTSA-required target of 31 mpg. Another car maker might have 36 mpg, and another would have 38. Average the three together, and you get 35 mpg.
The first goals will be set in 2011 and goals will gradually become more stringent, as needed, until the 2020 goal is met. By 2020 some manufacturers will have goals that exceed 35 mpg, others will have lower goals.
Different vehicles, different numbers
As the proposed rules are currently written, manufacturers' fleets are still divided into cars and light trucks. Each company will be assigned a separate goal for its cars and for its trucks.
Credit spending
Under the new rules, Territo explained, a manufacturer that exceeds its assigned mpg goal for either cars or trucks gets credits that can be applied to the other goal, if needed.
Or the company can save those credits in case it falls short of a goal any time in the following five years. Credits can also be used to wipe out a missed target in any of the three prior years.
And, for the time being at least, car companies will still get fuel economy credits for making vehicles that can burn ethanol or biodiesel blends instead of just gasoline.
Under the proposed rules, those credits will be phased out before 2020 but in the meantime, you could expect to see many more "Flex Fuel" vehicles produced.
No cakewalk
Even though these rules might not be quite as stringent as you would have thought, meeting these requirements won't be easy. General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) executives have said they will have to completely rethink their future product plans if these rules are enacted.
But there are several steps car companies can take in the short term to meet new fuel economy rules as they become gradually more strict. (And they will come stricter for all car companies. Nobody gets to stand still.) The challenge will be meeting consumer and government demands at the same time.
"It's not actually a problem of available technology, but technology that the customer will be willing to pay for," said Sandy Stojkovski of Ricardo, Inc., an auto-parts supplier specializing in fuel-economy technology.
In the near term, diesel engines, which get much better fuel economy than gasoline engines, will probably play a large part. The challenge is getting consumers to accept that the modern diesel really is much better than the clanky, coughing, belching beast of the 1980s, the last time they were widely sold here in passenger vehicles.
Other solutions will be mild hybrids that do less to save fuel than full hybrids, but that also cost much less to produce and have smaller battery packs.
Another technology that many car companies are working on, but that still needs more research, is homogenous charge compression ignition, or HCCI. HCCI burns gasoline using compression rather than a spark. It's almost the way diesel engines burn diesel fuel.
HCCI promises diesel-like fuel economy but, since gasoline burns more cleanly than diesel, it doesn't require diesel's expensive exhaust treatment.
Plugging in
Consumer-ready plug-in hybrids are probably 10 years away, said Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) spokeswoman Kristen Kinley. But that would make them available in time for the 2020 deadline.
Considering that plug-in hybrids can run on pure electricity for up to 40 miles, their calculated fuel economy depends very much on how far you drive them.
If you measure fuel economy after 30 miles of driving, it would literally infinite. No fuel at all would have been used by that point. If you measure it at 60 miles it could still be hundreds of miles per gallon.
A few vehicles that get hundreds of miles per gallon could go a long way to improving a company's fuel economy average.
In the end, fuel economy really will increase dramatically but don't expect that we'll all be driving Priuses. Car buyers will still demand a variety of vehicles of all sizes and car companies will have to work within these rules to provide them.
12-20-2007, 01:25 PM
#3
Registered User
The flex-fuel loophole is glaring to me. That just means car makers will start forcing us to pay extra for a flex-fuel version of what we'd normally buy, simply so they can meet CAFE. I predict they won't even offer non-flex fuel versions after a while. Meanwhile, our cars cost more, but the promise of ethanol being cheaper seems quite a long way off.
If you want people to use less fossil fuels, tax the fossil fuels. The free market will respond in the best way possible. People will be able to chose their preferred way of saving on fuel cost, be that by driving less, or buying more efficient/economic items.
But writing a law that dictates what companies can build, based on flawed gov't testing standards and an economically unproven future fuel source is just asinine.
If you want people to use less fossil fuels, tax the fossil fuels. The free market will respond in the best way possible. People will be able to chose their preferred way of saving on fuel cost, be that by driving less, or buying more efficient/economic items.
But writing a law that dictates what companies can build, based on flawed gov't testing standards and an economically unproven future fuel source is just asinine.
12-20-2007, 04:25 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CTMechE,Dec 20 2007, 10:25 PM
If you want people to use less fossil fuels, tax the fossil fuels. The free market will respond in the best way possible. People will be able to chose their preferred way of saving on fuel cost, be that by driving less, or buying more efficient/economic items.
And also why the hell are we working on new cars? There should be a federal credit available (either to the poor or to the car company, which would then pass this credit on to car buyers) based on taking old cars off the road (most combine poor fuel efficiency poor emissions and unsafe design). Taking several million pre-1995 clunkers off the road would do far more than the rules currently in place.
12-20-2007, 05:04 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by alexh,Dec 20 2007, 05:25 PM
There should be a federal credit available (to the poor..
Poor people (sigh) why don't we give them free gas? (sounds good doesn't it?) Lets just give them an energy credit.
(tax credit or tax cut on gas = cheaper gas = more driving = more oil/gas useage)
MORE tax on gas = higher gas price = costs more to drive = less driving and/or people make smarter decisions on what car to buy
Also people don't need to buy expensive hybrids to get good gas mileage, a used Escort costs less than $2K and will get 33 MPG all day long.
Why don't we make the rich people pay for poor people's gas? After all the rich people can afford it.
tax credit = give my tax money to somebody else.
Gas tax money pays for roads. Cut gas tax = no money for roads = more income tax for the rich to pay for the roads (or whatever the tax money is spent on) the money has to come from somewhere. Gas tax (useage tax) makes the people that use more gas responsible for more money. You want to drive a 3-ton SUV be my guest don't cry to me about gas tax. You want to drive 40K miles a year (pay more gas tax) you don't like it live closer to work or car-pool or ride a bike or walk (etc..).
12-20-2007, 05:53 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rai,Dec 20 2007, 06:04 PM
OMG
Poor people (sigh) why don't we give them free gas? (sounds good doesn't it?) Lets just give them an energy credit.
(tax credit or tax cut on gas = cheaper gas = more driving = more oil/gas useage)
MORE tax on gas = higher gas price = costs more to drive = less driving and/or people make smarter decisions on what car to buy
Also people don't need to buy expensive hybrids to get good gas mileage, a used Escort costs less than $2K and will get 33 MPG all day long.
Why don't we make the rich people pay for poor people's gas? After all the rich people can afford it.
tax credit = give my tax money to somebody else.
Gas tax money pays for roads. Cut gas tax = no money for roads = more income tax for the rich to pay for the roads (or whatever the tax money is spent on) the money has to come from somewhere. Gas tax (useage tax) makes the people that use more gas responsible for more money. You want to drive a 3-ton SUV be my guest don't cry to me about gas tax. You want to drive 40K miles a year (pay more gas tax) you don't like it live closer to work or car-pool or ride a bike or walk (etc..).
Poor people (sigh) why don't we give them free gas? (sounds good doesn't it?) Lets just give them an energy credit.
(tax credit or tax cut on gas = cheaper gas = more driving = more oil/gas useage)
MORE tax on gas = higher gas price = costs more to drive = less driving and/or people make smarter decisions on what car to buy
Also people don't need to buy expensive hybrids to get good gas mileage, a used Escort costs less than $2K and will get 33 MPG all day long.
Why don't we make the rich people pay for poor people's gas? After all the rich people can afford it.
tax credit = give my tax money to somebody else.
Gas tax money pays for roads. Cut gas tax = no money for roads = more income tax for the rich to pay for the roads (or whatever the tax money is spent on) the money has to come from somewhere. Gas tax (useage tax) makes the people that use more gas responsible for more money. You want to drive a 3-ton SUV be my guest don't cry to me about gas tax. You want to drive 40K miles a year (pay more gas tax) you don't like it live closer to work or car-pool or ride a bike or walk (etc..).
12-20-2007, 06:53 PM
#7
Can anyone clarify?
The 35mpg "average" is that averaged across all vehicles that the manufacturer sells?
So Ford and Chevy could make disposable $8000 cars with 1-star crash ratings that people would just junk after 3 years? They could be 1500 lbs with an 80hp motor and get 60mpg.
I think aging companies will find ways to cheat the system rather than come up with greener cars.
The 35mpg "average" is that averaged across all vehicles that the manufacturer sells?
So Ford and Chevy could make disposable $8000 cars with 1-star crash ratings that people would just junk after 3 years? They could be 1500 lbs with an 80hp motor and get 60mpg.
I think aging companies will find ways to cheat the system rather than come up with greener cars.
Trending Topics
12-20-2007, 07:05 PM
#8
If everybody drove cars which weighed 2000 lbs, the CRX wouldn't be so dangerous.
As for teh 35 mpg average? I don't know what they mean by average but I know it hits SUVs extremely hard. No car company right now has a car that averages 35 mpg without a hybrid drivetrain.
As for teh 35 mpg average? I don't know what they mean by average but I know it hits SUVs extremely hard. No car company right now has a car that averages 35 mpg without a hybrid drivetrain.
12-21-2007, 04:15 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by CKit,Dec 20 2007, 10:53 PM
Can anyone clarify?
The 35mpg "average" is that averaged across all vehicles that the manufacturer sells?
The 35mpg "average" is that averaged across all vehicles that the manufacturer sells?
How will this impact pickup trucks? Will pickups and SUV's be worked into this averaged number? If so it would seem cars are going to have to skyrocket in their economy in order to cover the low economy numbers generated by the trucks and SUV's.
12-21-2007, 06:05 AM
#10
My brother had a 91 HF. He got 61 on one tank from Fargo to Minneapolis going 75 drafting behind a semi for most of it. Ran like a top until he sold it with 100,000 miles and he changed the oil about every 8,000 miles. (it looked like sludge the couple times I checked) His average tanks were between 45 and 51.
The downside was it was slow as molasses between 40 and 70 mph had lots of road noise and was a crunch bucket.
Still a great car for a college kid and I think would be a decent seller today.
The downside was it was slow as molasses between 40 and 70 mph had lots of road noise and was a crunch bucket.
Still a great car for a college kid and I think would be a decent seller today.