Yep, if you want something cool with power and mpg you have to builds it your dam self! There used to be a company in Australia that sold bolt on engine systems that increased low end torque/HP/fuel economy with heated air intake, a weird exhaust system and a special cam, not sure if they're still around though?
We just got back from a weekend trip to Skyline drive in my '11 Shelby GT500. It has a pulley and tune, makes about 600hp at the crank, and with 4 of us in the car and the trunk nearly full I averaged 21.4 mpg for the whole trip and I did not take it easy on that car, cruising 80 on the highway and having fun on some of the back roads. I don't think that is too bad. I think my Skylark gets about 6 if I'm real easy on it and don't go over 50! But then again it wasn't built for gas mileage.
I do not represent this as typical, but on two separate occasions I have achieved 28.5 mpg with my 5.7 Hemi Dodge Magnum on cruise control set at 79 mph over a 175 mile stretch of Virginia highway. If you are wondering why 79, 80 and over can get you a reckless driving citation in VA. My bride, our 105 lb Shepherd, and baggage for a round trip to Florida from MA were with me.
Those of us in the industry know that there is a tremendous amount of investment going towards fuel economy and there has been for some time. As many have mentioned here, there are a number of factors in play; Fuel Economy is measured differently now compared to before (30 MPG on todays sticker is much different than before) - results may vary Vehicle weights have been rising with the additional content of modern vehicles (every vehicle is LOADED compared to the old days) Customers have demanded more power (power density is double or more of what it used to be) Emission standards have become more difficult and plenty of fuel is wasted keeping catalysts cool Crash and safety standards have become tougher (how many air bags did your 1990 vehicle have) Customers have demanded better NVH (increased weight and cost) Vehicles with Turbocharging have a wide range of real results depending on how they are driven Look at trucks if you want to see where the biggest improvements have shown up.
I am running a 2015 Skoda Octavia STW, with Volkswagen group 1.6L diesel engine (not the one with cheating software). I have driven app. 50k miles during past 3,5 years, with average fuel consumption of 50 MPG. For a shorter stretch, I've managed to do a 70 mile stretch at app. 65 MPG. Though it is pushing out mere 110hp and under 200 ft-lb of torque, it has performed pretty well. And after all, the main reason for me getting this car was to cut down my fuel expenses, as my previous car was an Audi A6 with 2.8 V6. Doing the math, my fuel costs were cut down by 50% Just last month I placed an order for a new Octavia, this time I wanted to try the new 1.5L engine, running on CNG. What I've learned from my colleagues at work, I should still be able to cut some 10-15% from my fuel costs. Why trying to save some money? To buy gas for my '70 GS, since premium (98/99 RON) in Finland costs around $7 / gallon. -JJ-
That's excellent mpg! But... I still don't get the math of spending money to save money. I see people spending tens of thousands of dollars to get a car that gets better mpg but it takes a long time to make back the money shelled out rather than putting a few bucks into keeping an older car going. Example....paid $3500 for a 98 Regal and put over 200k more miles on it.....vs buying a cheap Hyundai for $18K that gets 5 mpg better. $15k difference buys a lot of gas and that 5mpg will never pay you back.
There’s scant reason this shouldn’t be doable with ANY modern 4-cyl Car, with the advances in aerodynamics, transmissions, and engine management...
Yeah folks love to talk mpg but ignore the total cost of ownership. a guy i work with signed up for the new 1/2 ton ram with the small diesel. He was laughing about my duramax getting 17 in the square body swap vs his getting close to 30. I asked him what his payment was.... it was more than what i put through my tank in a month. He's ahead though. But some math for your example Both cars driven 15k a year with a flat rate of fuel at 3 bucks a gallon. 3500 for the car and say 600 for the ins. 15000 miles at 25 mpg is 600 gallons of fuel, $1800. $5900 total The hyundai 300/month payment is 3600 a year,say 900 a year for insurance since its newer and 30 mpg. Thats $1500 a year in fuel. $6000 total for the year. You're not even until the second year. You had to keep that regal a while to realize the savings assuming you weren't throwing a lot of money at it to keep it on the road. I operate on the same principle. There is no way I'm spending 30k on anything and have it be worth nothing in 10 years. I like to buy them just after they bottom out in value.
there are other factors that go into decision making when buying a new or newer car. gas mileage is only a part of it. creature comforts, safety, performance etc etc. I've bought 10 different new cars since 2008 and not once was gas mileage a deciding factor in what car I bought yet they all got better than 25 hwy mpg.
While I am all for improvement, some of the tree huggers think everyone should be forced out of the older 5+ years cars and forced to buy new efficient ones. What is the carbon footprint to manufacture ship and asssemble everyone of those new cars? Most of the classics have outlasted 5-6 lifespans of the average car. Isn't this what the cash for clunkers was about ?
luckily our beloved classic cars were over engineered and used quality materials, but manufacturers realized they were losing out on new car sales and money. note how in the mid to late 70's build and material quality went down the crapper. new cars are built much better but still suffer from planned obsolescence. cash for clunkers was a disaster
I replied in another thread about clue less drivers, my old GF was one. She had a brand new B-210 Honey Bee with a 4 spd. It was the most gutless thing I ever drove. She asked me one day why the car rumbled when she went around a corner. I told her to put some air in her tires, they were near flat. She retorted "Tires are made of rubber, you do not put air in them!" I just kind of gave up at that point. So the '95 Firebird had a 3.8 V-6, would seat four and had enough low end torque to spin the wheels. It was capable of 30+ mpg highway. Today I am driving a 2003 Focus Wagon (ZTW). It has a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine. It needs to be abused to get it to move quickly, is rated at about 110 hp and it also gets about 30 mpg but it has NO POWER. Honestly? I think the 3.8 should have stayed around longer. With todays power adders like turbo's and such, as well a multi speed transmissions, the 3.8's potential would seem to be capable of another 10 mpg if not more. Something just does not add up. Over 20 years of improvements and the mpg's should be way better. Even with all of the modern gadgets and luggage racks, it should be better.
Back in the 60's and 70's if you had an older car with about 100,000 miles on it, it was considered worn out and ready for the junk yard. Most cars cost under $10K at the time. Fast forward a few decades and car prices went way up over the $30K mark. Now it takes many more years to pay off that car loan. If your car wears out before it is paid off it becomes an issue with the bank because you are an unhappy customer. The manufacturers had to improve engine and other technologies to extend engine life to where we see it today, around 200K to 300K miles so the cars would last longer than the bank loans.
I don't know....my 67 Riv GS runs better than when I got it in 1976 due to electronic ignition and curved distributor. Still all original drivetrain at 160K. Did do timing chain at 103K..... I'd take it to the track tomorrow....if the brakes worked.
Mmm, I probably should've mentioned that when talking about switching over from Diesel-Skoda to a new CNG-Skoda to get some savings in fuel costs, that in my case the mpg figure is the only variable, since both cars are company cars and my monthly fee towards my company stays pretty much the same anyway. If these were my own cars...nah, no way I would be getting a new one. -JJ-
I drive my car abroad a lot, and you can cover some nice mileage whilst in Germany to get consistent and constant speed high mile tests. I get 50 (UK) MPG, sometimes I touch 60 UK MPG at a speed of 80/85MPH in my 1991 1.1l carburrated Peugeot 205. It's around 50hp. Has 150k miles on it.
Another thing to consider is taxes. Massachusetts has an excise tax that they charge annually. The tax basis on a new car is 90% of cost. The second year the basis is 75%, The third is 50%, the fourth 25%, and the fifth and after is 10%. If you have a 1929 SJ Duesenberg in concourse condition, Massachusetts would value the car at about $1,200. My model T was $50 - the minimum. Here in Sunny Florida (amid the dead fish) they get you for a one-time charge based on weight. If you buy a new car you will get hit with that tax. The tax is already paid on the old car, so you will have a one-time extra expense on the new one. I would agree that replacing a car here in the USA just to get better fuel mileage is probably either only minimally cost-effective, or likely just a bad idea.
Yeah, I had to get outta Virginia. Property tax on cars...even old ones. And...at that time inspections twice a year! Enough test driving by inspectors of my 71 GSX 4 speed!!! Merryland has none of that BS......
Florida doesn't do inspections - except in the Miami area I think. Massachusetts was a real PIA about that - $35 annually including an emissions test on all OBD2 cars. You didn't get a discount for pre-emissions cars either. They didn't road test the vehicles, but the inspector was required to drive the car into the inspection bay. I didn't bother to have the model T inspected because none of the inspectors anywhere near where I lived knew how to drive it. Fortunately the police don't bother pre-WW2 cars. My T proudly displays it's October 1993 MA inspection sticker. It's staying.
