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.
OK, so it seems newer cars are finally catching up to the cars of 10-20 years ago in terms of fuel efficiency. But why does it take expensive hybrid technology to do it?
Take for example a 1993 Dodge Caravan. You could get one with a 4 cylinder engine and a 5 speed standard transmission, and get 30 mpg on the highway. A 2010 only comes in a 6 Cylinder and automatic transmission. The EPA says 25 mpg highway. Where did that 5 mpg go? The newer ones are certainly more ærodynamic than the 93, which was little more than a box on wheels.
Why would a 2010 Honda Accord achieve the same highway numbers as a 95? Doesn't it seem like 15 years later, they could have made an improvement?
I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I think he was absolutely right in raising the CAFE standards for fuel efficiency.
I can't speak for the 93 Caravan, but I had a late '80s Caravan with the 4-bopper & 5-speed transmission. Not only was it horribly under powered, it got nowhere near 30 mpg. I never got more than low 20s.
Back in high school I had a 1991 Dodge Colt, a little two door hatch back that got close to 40 MPG. It was peppy enough, though didn't have tons of power. It amazes me, too, that this day in age with greater technology that MPG on these types of cars has gone DOWN instead of UP. My only guess is that the greater technology has been used to squeeze more power out of little cars instead of more efficiency. I would gladly take the lesser power for the better fuel economy- even back then when gas was 99 cents a gallon I was glad to be driving what I had, I didn't want anything with more power that might cost more gas-wise!
I've been told that there are two factors. Safety requirements and crash test minimums require that cars be several hundred pounds heavier than they were before. Tires might also be a factor. Safer running treads might be less fuel efficient. Tires can make a huge difference. And all the added doo-dads require power that must be supplied by the engine.
My wife just bought a '01 Sentra 5-speed, no frills. She got 37 mpg on a 1600-mile drive, and she's not even a good driver. I bet I could have squeezed 40 out of it. We had an '88 Camry automatic that we got 39 mpg from, after it already had 200K on the Odo.
When I had an '85 Corolla, I considered 500 miles to be my range with a 13-gallon tank, which is over 38 mpg even if I ran it to empty, which I didn't, so that was probably a consistent 40. I got around 32 with a '84 Ford LTD wagon that I bought for 500 bucks.
I think most people can learn to drive their own car in a way that will increase their gas mileage by easily 10%. First thing is stop stepping on the brake all the time. Every time you touch the brake pedal, you are negating the fuel you used to get up to speed, and converting that kinetic energy to heat. Anticipate stops and coast down to them. Second, make sure your tires are properly inflated, and exactly the same pressure on opposite sides. Third, accelerate moderately. Get up to speed fairly briskly, but not jackrabbit style. Fourth, don't try to go up hills at full running speed. Never use cruise control, and learn to use a steady foot. Listen to your engine. The sound it makes will tell you what it's doing. Moderate your speed, make sure you can see somebody else going faster than you are, and you'll save gas and never get a ticket.
Didn't they just change how fuel efficiency standards are calculated, within the past 2-3(?) years? I know that, when it did change, my personal vehicle lost 4-5mpg from its previously calculated rating.
I'm not saying that explains everything you're talking about, though. It's just a thought.
I can't speak for the 93 Caravan, but I had a late '80s Caravan with the 4-bopper & 5-speed transmission. Not only was it horribly under powered, it got nowhere near 30 mpg. I never got more than low 20s.
I have three trucks, a Tundra w/385 hp, a Titan with 307hp and a Tacoma with 190 hp. Frankly, I don't pay much attention to mileage. When they get low on gas, I fill them up. They make more gasoline every day, so I worry about things that matter.
However, if you compare vehicles with equal hp, the newer ones are more efficient. Better mixture control with computer-regulated fuel injection. Also, modern cars emit far less harmful emissions - mostly plant food and water.
Also, modern lubricants help. Synthetic oil is much much better than non-synthetic oil. For example, film strength is a measure of the ability of a thin film of oil to keep two pieces of metal from contacting each other. For "regular" oil, it is about 500 psi. For synthetic oil, about 3000 psi.
You get the same level of protection with "lighter" oils, Lighter oils take less hp to circulate and cause less drag on moving components. Also, since the hydrocarbon strings are more-uniform, they last longer.
Another comparison. This one on the list of ugly, egg shaped cars. The Smart fortwo is estimated at 33 mpg city, and 41 mpg highway.
It is a two-seater coupe, as far as I know. Very small. When I look back 19 years at a 1991 Geo Metro, I see something about the same size, that had an estimate of 45 city and 50 highway.
Surely they could have done better on the egg-mobile?
I have three trucks, a Tundra w/385 hp, a Titan with 307hp and a Tacoma with 190 hp. Frankly, I don't pay much attention to mileage. When they get low on gas, I fill them up. They make more gasoline every day, so I worry about things that matter.
However, if you compare vehicles with equal hp, the newer ones are more efficient. Better mixture control with computer-regulated fuel injection. Also, modern cars emit far less harmful emissions - mostly plant food and water.
Also, modern lubricants help. Synthetic oil is much much better than non-synthetic oil. For example, film strength is a measure of the ability of a thin film of oil to keep two pieces of metal from contacting each other. For "regular" oil, it is about 500 psi. For synthetic oil, about 3000 psi.
You get the same level of protection with "lighter" oils, Lighter oils take less hp to circulate and cause less drag on moving components. Also, since the hydrocarbon strings are more-uniform, they last longer.
Must be nice to make so much money that fuel efficiency isn't a concern. Personally, I like spending as little on gas as possible, as that leaves me more of my paycheck to save and do with what I want, rather than having it tied up in my gas tank. I'm not starving by any means, but gas is one of my larger expenses. I try to keep it as low as possible.
Personally, even if I made a lot more money, I'd still check my fuel mileage regularly. A sudden dip in fuel economy can be signs of problems that need attention. Maybe a station with bad gas, maybe a clogged air or fuel filter, maybe an emission problem, vacuum leak, or some other problem that needs to be corrected.
I would think that 93 Caravan would be a very stripped-down model. I know my Sister's first Caravan she had (a '90 I think) had automatic and a V6 as the only options. Hand crank windows, no A/C, base radio, etc.
I have a hard time believing that today's Caravan buyer would not want a "base model" like my Sister'sanymore. IMO even base models are pretty well-equipped and have a lot more safety features than the '90 - so that adds a lot of weight. Plus, I don't think today's minivan buyer would go for a 4-cyl right now, even if it is more than adequate. Perception just sees that one just HAS to have a minimum 200+hp-six, and even that is considered "anemic"
Of course, these are just my observations. I drive a Sebring Convertible witha 4-cyl and I've never felt unsafe. True, it won't fly off the line, but in my everyday driving, it is more than adequate, plus averaging 30+ mpg helps too!
I would think that 93 Caravan would be a very stripped-down model. I know my Sister's first Caravan she had (a '90 I think) had automatic and a V6 as the only options. Hand crank windows, no A/C, base radio, etc.
I have a hard time believing that today's Caravan buyer would not want a "base model" like my Sister'sanymore. IMO even base models are pretty well-equipped and have a lot more safety features than the '90 - so that adds a lot of weight. Plus, I don't think today's minivan buyer would go for a 4-cyl right now, even if it is more than adequate. Perception just sees that one just HAS to have a minimum 200+hp-six, and even that is considered "anemic"
Of course, these are just my observations. I drive a Sebring Convertible witha 4-cyl and I've never felt unsafe. True, it won't fly off the line, but in my everyday driving, it is more than adequate, plus averaging 30+ mpg helps too!
It often takes that larger engine to make a car with an automatic transmission to feel as powerful as the same car with the smaller engine and standard transmission. Of course, good luck finding a van anywhere on this continent with a standard transmission these days.
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.
