My blown Mustang (500 dynoed at the wheels) gets 14-18 ctiy (depending on me) & 23-24 hwy with two people and loaded trunk. My stock 86 T-Regal with the basic low 13 - high 12 second mods got 17-19 city and 29-30 hwy. My 87 T in the avatar which went 11.18-11.21 et at 123-121 mph got 14-16 city and 24 hwy. I'm sorry but but something just doesn't add up. With the tech available we should easily be getting 35-45 mpg in vehicles that can pull their own weight if we can get decent fuel mileage in low 11 second shoe boxes. Mikey
The common denominator is forced induction. That's the way the industry is going. The technology is finally catching up to the power capability. Lets face the facts. GNs are mean but that are code throwing, perpetual CEL rigs. As the forced induction tech continues to improve engines will get smaller and smaller and mileage will go up.
I recently read an article that said the way manufacturers are looking to meet the gas mileage requirements is to raise compression ratios which improves efficiency. There is talk of higher octane gas just around the corner to help fuel these newer cars. My Mustang currently Sports 11.5 to 1 compression from the factory
The way of the future is to have little electric smart cars. A turbo charged 1 banger for the hybred smart car. Actually its already starting in the bay area. High rise housing built around transit stations. BART in the bay area. With shoping centers under or near. Driving is discouraged. You can hear it in the radio comericals. I dont watch tv but its probably there too.
Just thought I'd mention that the bride and I just (about 2 hours ago) returned from a 4-day trip from Sunny South Florida amid the dead fish to northwestern South Carolina and back. 1475 miles over a variety of interstates and secondary roads. The 2018 Chrysler Pacifica averaged 25.3 mpg for the trip. That's with baggage, the two of us, luggage, and our two big Shepherds and supplies for them, as well as a cooler. No complaints from me.
We typically get close to 39 with the Hyundai Elantra running back and forth to beach place. Power everything, sunroof, kick ass audio with Sirius, factory tint, blind spot, etc. It's quiet, inexpensive, and does MANY things well. (it won't do a burnout or pick up chicks) We paid 16,300 for a 2017 with 900 miles. It's a nice car. One of which is, is apparent at selling time.
Okay, we've all put in our $.02! It's time to fess-up..... Am I the only one that just can't, just won't drive boring? As much as I hate the ride of the 02 Mustang, the fact there are three at every redlight but I'm putting 500+hp to the ground in a 3300# car that hooks very well on the street, a 5 speed and rolls on the cams at idle sitting at a light and is just a blast to drive. It is too loud with the full length tube headers and 3" exhaust but oh well. Or cruising in a 50's-60's-70's land yacht is just so cool. I've said many times "drive what you want" but "I gotta wanna" drive the car, fuel mileage be damned. My next car will be a 60's full size, 12.0' Buick as my daily driver. My current DD is a showroom 91 Lincoln MarkVII LSC. Sold the T's, sold the Stage1 now I'm gonna look for my sled!!!!!!!!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT FUEL MILEAGE! Okay that's otta my system. Carry on. Love you guys. Mikey
What, are you going to chop off 6' to make it that short? The 60s full size weren't quite as long as the 70s full size land yachts but were probably the second longest of them. That being said I think those were still around at least 17 or 18' long for a 4 door and probably only about a foot and a half or so less for the 2 door version? The reason I know is when I had a 4 door '71 Olds 98 back in the day after my brother seen it he said "holly crap that car is long" and he got the tape measure out and measured it @ 19' long! I think a Skylark is around 16' or so long, yeah 12' is a bit short if you want a car that length, maybe a Corvette?
I agree 100% with both, most newer cars have loose torque convertors so the engine can rev to make torque to move the vehicle, deep gearing, then have more than 4 speed transmissions, even the V8's... LS, Hemi, Fords V8, have to build rpm to make torque, ohhhhh, they all love to rev tho
I think a Corvette is longer then 12 feet. A true 12 footer is a Model T Ford. I also agree with Mikey on a fun car, but for traveling, fuel economy does come into play. When I towed my trailer with the T and various other stuff including gas cans, booze, things that shoot, stuff to shoot with, and anything else that the movers wouldn't carry, the rented F-250 took 11 gas stops to get from MA to FL. going home it was three. Turnpike gas stops are a PIA.
I’m pretty happy with the fuel mileage of all my vehicles... personally I don’t really want a small car. Here is a list of the fuel mileage we get.. all US MPG. 2017 Kia Sedona mini van 23 mpg 2005 GMC crew cab 1500 with 7 inch lift 19 mpg 2003 Chevy Tahoe 23 mpg 2002 Yukon with 12 inch lift 9 mpg 1973 corvette 350 4 speed 13 mpg 1970 Skylark turbo 10 mpg 1975 Regal with 10:1 350 and 200R4 19 mpg I have test drove small cars but I just like sitting higher in a truck or a big old boat car Buick... I don’t worry much about fuel mileage, it is what it is.
I bought a new 81 Mazda GLC with air , 5 speed I think. I always got more mpg than advertised. 41 city combined and 45 hi way. I kept a log book and was impressed. Drove to Fluor E&C over an hour each way. When I bought my wife a 2008 Toyota 4wheel dr. V6, I found if you slowed way down and followed the Big rigs at 55 I could get 24 to 26 mpg hi way. Way more than advertised. If I kept up with traffic I only averaged 19+. It still gets 19+ with over 200K miles. My wife gets high 17 and low 18mpg. I drive with the cruise control she does not!
Fuel mileage and emissions are like comparing Octane and Cetane. They are different and everyone is an expert. Technology is used to help recuperate mileage as emissions requirements tighten. Imagine if the pendulum swung one way or another. For example, if fuel mileage requirements increased and emissions control requirements decreased. In short all items being the same in a test vehicle, each engine can become more mileage efficient at usually the expense of emission requirements being ignored.
Good point look at what VW was able to do for improved turbo diesel MPG when they falsified the emissions... more emissions and better fuel mileage. But does the better mileage mean less environmental footprint vs poor mileage?
You would think that the excess emissions are wasted energy, no? Instead of dumping fuel into the environment, use every atom of it...
Unfortunately, we have generalized emissions, what type is what causes the engine to be less mileage efficient but "cleaner". For example, engines must produce less carbon particulates specifically diesels, therefore more energy/fuel is wasted burning the exhaust hotter to burn off the carbon. If you run a gasoline engine lean you get more NOx but better economy. So, as the exhaust emission requirement drive engines to be "Cleaner" in chemical reaction to what is believed better for the environment and for you and I, the energy in the fuel is expended in different ways. In totality, engines may be a little more efficient for generation to generation of technology, but burning more fuel from point A to point B OR burning less fuel at the expense of "cleaner" emissions while going from point A to point B....I just wonder. I just wonder if economies of scale were ever considered. Additionally, if "dirtier emissions" could be more efficiently OR easier to clear up by external means. Lastly, I like to know really what is the best options for the future, chemicals in the ground and all the derivatives to include batteries from electric vehicles or very well known chemicals from combustion engines. There is already nano technology that can extract the carbon from the air. It is not my intent to get this thread off topic. So, I apologize.
My mom bought a 2011 Equinox new in '11, it had the standard Ecotec 4 banger, she was satisfied with the power, I thought it was lacking, very buzzy and loud when excelerating. Today, all the Ecotec engines are turbo charged. Did they do it because of complaints of not enough power? Was the Ecotec maxed out as far as technology for more NA power without having to buzz it to 9 grand, or more cubes? Power, economy, or lower emissions, it always going to be a trade off
