Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The SMART only gets 40-45 mpg, which is insanely bad for a car that size. My mom had a Rabbit thirty years ago that got 38 mpg. You'd think we would have been able to coax some more MPG out of a novelty-sized car like the SMART.
Gas is cheap. You can buy a gallon of gas for the same price as 20 ounces of milk, syrup and espresso at Starbucks.
they are getting --much-- better mileage today than years back.
I have bought 7 new cars in my lifetime starting in 1964. Not only am I getting much better fuel meleage, I get 250,000 miles + out of the newer ones with very little expense.
Years back, 125,000 miles was considered great.
I think many people who claim gas mileage hasn't improved are either quite young or have a short memory.
1984 Nissan Pulsar NX 45 mpg highway
1986 Honda civic 48 mpg highway
2008 honda civic 35 mpg highway....
Whats the progress that we have made? Oh the old land boats that got 18mpg now get 24...
1987 ford F150 4x4 inline six ( The old 300) got 20 highway 17 in city. Todays F-150 on a good day will get 18 highway..
1994 toyota reg cab 4x4 26 highway 22 in city. Today 24 highway 20 city.
Once again what progress? Seems to be going backwards.
eric1025-------comparing gas cars to diesel cars is comparing apples to oranges.
Why? We are talking performance and fuel economy. If gas cars can't compare to the diesel then maybe its time we stopped building gas engine cars.
Diesel is cheaper to refine. The bottle neck is not enough refinery capacity.
Nobody in America wants to be tooling around in a tiny piece of crap like this anyway. That could be why the American Bantam had a run of only 6 model years and a total production of around 8,000.
Today's equivalent is the Smart Fortwo. Who is really going to buy that rolling death trap?
A lot of people, apparently. The waiting list is now over a year long.
The modern equivalent is the 2008 Cadillac DTS. Information gleaned from the Cadillac website shows that the more powerful engine available with this car puts out a maximum of 295 foot-pounds of torque, and the powertrain provides 22-23 mpg on the highway. (That's the EPA estimate, which is usually too high. Drivers of these cars will probably be lucky to get 20 mpg on the highway, driving their cars the way I used to drive my Caddy to get 13.5 highway mpg.) Bear in mind that the transmissions in these cars are 4-speed automatics with lockup torque converters. Had my Caddy had one of those, surely it would've gotten better gas mileage.
The EPA adjusted its testing methodology in 2008. That 23mpg rating is probably quite accurate, if not a bit low.
I have no idea where you're getting these mileage ratings. the EPA's website puts the 1985 Pulsar (as far back as their database goes) at 35mpg highway with a manual and 27 with an automatic. The 1986 Civic with the base 1.3L engine is rated at 39mpg highway with a manual, 35mpg with a 1.5L with manual, 29mpg with a a 1.5L and an automatic. Today's Civic automatic is rated 36mpg highway, and is a much heavier car in large part because it's also a much safer car. The old early 80s cars may be more fuel-efficient, but that's in large measure because they are flimsy DEATH TRAPS. There is only so much mileage gains I'm willing to trade off against a loss in acceleration, braking, handling, and crash protection.
My first car was a 1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. Empty, it weighed almost 4,800 pounds. It would average 13-14 mpg on the highway, and I once squeezed it up to 15 by keeping it at a more fuel-efficient speed of 55 mph.
That engine was so powerful that pushing the gas pedal down much beyond the halfway point risked a tire burnout from a standing start. It produced 385 foot-pounds of torque (220 horsepower). Note that the horsepower number is low compared to the torque number because it was engineered to be a low-revving engine (4500 rpm redline, would spin 2200 rpm @ 65 mph). It also had a slushbox"" 3-speed automatic transmission.
The modern equivalent is the 2008 Cadillac DTS. Information gleaned from the Cadillac website shows that the more powerful engine available with this car puts out a maximum of 295 foot-pounds of torque, and the powertrain provides 22-23 mpg on the highway. (That's the EPA estimate, which is usually too high. Drivers of these cars will probably be lucky to get 20 mpg on the highway, driving their cars the way I used to drive my Caddy to get 13.5 highway mpg.) Bear in mind that the transmissions in these cars are 4-speed automatics with lockup torque converters. Had my Caddy had one of those, surely it would've gotten better gas mileage.
The new Caddy is also about 750 pounds lighter than mine ever was, at a curb weight of 4,009 pounds.
Anyway, I'm oversimplifying the mathematics here... but the newer Cadillac's engine only puts out 76.6% of the power that my Cadillac's engine put out. Although there are some other factors which would go into this equation, let's keep things simple. I'm a physics major, so I know certain things about the physics of car engines. In an ideal environment, halving a car's engine would halve its power output but also double its fuel efficiency.
So, an engine putting out .766 of the power of my Cadillac's engine should produce (1/.766)*13.5 = 17.62 highway mpg.
The newer Cadillac weighs 84% of what my Cadillac weighed. Again, in an ideal environment, halving the weight of a car should double its fuel efficiency because the engine only has half of the weight to pull. Taking the 17.62 highway mpg that I got in the last calculation, and dividing it by .84, yields 20.98 mpg.
If you weren't following the math, I just determined that, in ideal circumstances, my old 1972 Cadillac, had its engine been shrunk so that it produced only the power of the 2008 Cadillac's engine (but otherwise had the same properties), and had it weighed the same amount as the 2008 Cadillac, would've gotten approximately 21 highway mpg even with its slushbox 3-speed non-overdrive automatic transmission.
Even if my assumptions are off, they can't be that far off.
I am now going to run the calculations again, using more real-world numbers I gleaned from the Dodge website. The Charger, with 2.7L V6 engine that puts out 191 ft-lb of torque, gets 21 average mpg and weighs 3727 pounds. The SRT8 version, with 6.1L V8 that puts out 420 ft-lb of torque and weighs 4160 pounds, gets 15 average mpg.
The lighter car weighs .896 of the weight of the heavier car. The lighter car has .455 of the power of the heavier car. Combining those factors yields .407, meaning, in the theory of my calculations, the lighter car should have an average fuel economy reading of 36.86. Obviously, that didn't happen. A power & weight reduction factor of .407 yielded a fuel economy increase factor of 1.4. I will redo the calculations now, assuming linear extrapolation.
The power and weight reduction factor of the 2008 Cadillac is .643. Extrapolating a fuel economy increase factor from the Dodge figures yields a theoretical fuel economy increase of 1.24. That'd mean that my 1972 Cadillac, had it had a 4-speed overdrive transmission with lockup torque converter, a less powerful engine with all other properties the same as the original, and 768 pounds less weight, should've returned highway fuel economy of 16.74.
The new Cadillac would probably get about 20 mpg in highway driving, based upon my knowledge of how real-world figures differ from EPA estimates. Theoretically, my car (which was 36 years older) would've gotten 16.74 - 21 highway mpg with two simple alterations. Who knows what its original highway fuel economy would've been if they had made 4-speed lockup automatic transmissions in 1972?
I had a 1987 Dodge Ram B250 conversion van with 5.2L carbureted V8 engine and 3-speed slushbox automatic transmission.
I had a 1981 Cadillac Coupe DeVille. It's about the same weight as the current 2008 Cadillac DTS. With its 6.0L V8 engine with the first-ever "Active Fuel Management" system, I squeezed it up to 17 mpg average, and it'd get about 21 on the highway. The 2008 DTS probably doesn't do better than that if its EPA estimate is 22-23 mpg highway. Again I ask... in 27 years, is this really progress?
I had a 1985 Chrysler New Yorker with the turbocharged 2.2L four-cylinder engine and three-speed slushbox automatic.
I agree with some of what you posted except:
- Owners of the Cadillac DTS have reported 25+ highway mpg when driven at the speed limit. My '95 Lincoln Town car (4.6 L/281-cu-in V-8, 4-speed auto trans, 4,200 lbs) has given me up to 23.4 mpg with about 60% highway driving. Other Town Car owners have reported up to 28 mpg under ideal conditions. The Lincoln from the '70s would have a hard time topping 13 mpg!
- I don't understand the claim that the new Cadillac's engine makes only 76.6% of the power that the old engine makes.
- What is with the "slushbox" term? That may have been true in the '50s (although the Mopar torqueflite, introduced in late '56 was no slushbox), but not today. The 1963 Winternationals (N.H.R.A. drag racing) was won by a Mopar Max Wedge with an automatic transmission. So much for "slushboxes!" In several 1960s and early 1970s magazine road tests, an automatic-equipped car was just as fast and in some instances, faster than a manual-equipped car.
I added a shift kit in my '69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (9-13 mpg, btw). It was shifting okay, not slipping or anything, but I like firm shifts. With the shift kit, it now shifts very quick and firm. About as far from a "slushbox" as you can get.
Quote:
I'd prefer to buy a car from 30 years ago for a tiny fraction of what a new car would cost.
I agree here. There are some advantages of modern cars, but a modern "Cadillac" can't come near the feel of the classic ones (ride, roominess, "big-car" feel) or in styling. My '69 Cadillac gets a look of looks from people every time I take it out; so does my '76 Cadillac limo.
I have no idea where you're getting these mileage ratings. the EPA's website puts the 1985 Pulsar (as far back as their database goes) at 35mpg highway with a manual and 27 with an automatic. The 1986 Civic with the base 1.3L engine is rated at 39mpg highway with a manual, 35mpg with a 1.5L with manual, 29mpg with a a 1.5L and an automatic. Today's Civic automatic is rated 36mpg highway, and is a much heavier car in large part because it's also a much safer car. The old early 80s cars may be more fuel-efficient, but that's in large measure because they are flimsy DEATH TRAPS. There is only so much mileage gains I'm willing to trade off against a loss in acceleration, braking, handling, and crash protection.
These are cars I owned. Pretty sure I know how to do basic math. I keep a log on every car I own. Drop in gas mileage is a clue you have a problem.
The civic was a CRX Hf cp.
Why? We are talking performance and fuel economy. If gas cars can't compare to the diesel then maybe its time we stopped building gas engine cars.
Diesel is cheaper to refine. The bottle neck is not enough refinery capacity.
I have always read that most diesels are not allowed in the USA because of their emissions not passing. People... look at the number of 18 wheelers and dumptrucks on the road that spew out black smoke.
Why is the diesel market so slow in USA and so much better in Europe?
Don't you think Europe's air is going to flow to the USA one day? We are all sharing the same earth here, and it's air.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
