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.
In another thread we were discussing American made vehicles compared to Non-American vehicles, and I posted how old Detroit iron were sturdy, quality built vehicles with undeniably great styling.
This brought me to thinking about style, and those pesky cafe government standards in play today.
The reason they came into being is the government demanded (rightly so) that vehicles get better mileage.
The point I always wondered about is why all cars took on the same ugly styling in order to meet the government mandates.
If I had a vehicle, and wanted to get better mileage out of it, the very first thing I would be re-designing would be the engine and drivetrain.
It would appear the car makers opted for design change instead, at least up until the birth of the hybrid.
I am not a engineer by any means, but I believe one could take one of those big boats of the mid to late seventies, and with new engine, and drivetrain design, get the kind of mileage today's vehicles are getting.
For so many years the object was to cut down on "wind draft", by making vehicles more rounded, and sloping in design in order to gain a few more mpg.
In this effort, both style, and comfort were severely compromised.
If you doubt this fact, consider the new Lincoln MKZ.
Go to your Lincoln dealership, and sit your butt down in the rear cabin.
Even a short person would find it somewhat cramped, even with the front seats moved far forward.
I think the auto makers got it all wrong.
They should have been designing engines, not bodies to comply with the government standards.
In the engines, the one and only thing they did was to make them run cleaner, and perhaps a bit more fuel conscious, but I feel that engine and drivetrain design should have been the main focus.
An example of what I am posting here was done a year or so ago by entertainer (I think it was Billy Joel, not sure).
He took a 1959 Lincoln Continental convertible which weighs in at 5280 Lbs, and re-designed the mechanics of that vehicle where by it was getting something like 30 mpg.
I am not exact on the figures, but I will google it, and come up with the exact figures.
The point is, if he could do it, and still keep the same style, why couldn't the automakers?
It would appear the ONE exception to all these cafe standards would be the Corvette.
That vehicle has had few, if any, real engine/drivetrain modifications over the years, and is still going strong.
How did that happen?"
Some vehicle now being produced are opting for aluminium bodies as well as engines and other components, in order to boost mpg.
Perhaps this is a good thing, but why do they still insist on keeping the style of vehicles so unappealing?
The statement of they all look alike showed again this afternoon for me.
I had to take my Shepherd to the vet (nothing serious), and when I pulled into the parking lot, I parked next to a new BMW.
I don't know particular models of the BMW, but this one I would guess was the top of the line model.
When I came out, after the dog had his rabies shot, there was a Ford Fusion (same color as the BMW) parked next to the BMW on the other side.
At first glance, it was difficult to tell them apart.
They shared practically the same shape, and design.
I scratched my head, said "whatever", put me and the Shepherd in my pickup, and headed home.
Bob.
In another thread we were discussing American made vehicles compared to Non-American vehicles, and I posted how old Detroit iron were sturdy, quality built vehicles with undeniably great styling.
This brought me to thinking about style, and those pesky cafe government standards in play today.
The reason they came into being is the government demanded (rightly so) that vehicles get better mileage.
The point I always wondered about is why all cars took on the same ugly styling in order to meet the government mandates.
If I had a vehicle, and wanted to get better mileage out of it, the very first thing I would be re-designing would be the engine and drivetrain.
It would appear the car makers opted for design change instead, at least up until the birth of the hybrid.
I am not a engineer by any means, but I believe one could take one of those big boats of the mid to late seventies, and with new engine, and drivetrain design, get the kind of mileage today's vehicles are getting.
For so many years the object was to cut down on "wind draft", by making vehicles more rounded, and sloping in design in order to gain a few more mpg.
In this effort, both style, and comfort were severely compromised.
If you doubt this fact, consider the new Lincoln MKZ.
Go to your Lincoln dealership, and sit your butt down in the rear cabin.
Even a short person would find it somewhat cramped, even with the front seats moved far forward.
I think the auto makers got it all wrong.
They should have been designing engines, not bodies to comply with the government standards.
In the engines, the one and only thing they did was to make them run cleaner, and perhaps a bit more fuel conscious, but I feel that engine and drivetrain design should have been the main focus.
An example of what I am posting here was done a year or so ago by entertainer (I think it was Billy Joel, not sure).
He took a 1959 Lincoln Continental convertible which weighs in at 5280 Lbs, and re-designed the mechanics of that vehicle where by it was getting something like 30 mpg.
I am not exact on the figures, but I will google it, and come up with the exact figures.
The point is, if he could do it, and still keep the same style, why couldn't the automakers?
It would appear the ONE exception to all these cafe standards would be the Corvette.
That vehicle has had few, if any, real engine/drivetrain modifications over the years, and is still going strong.
How did that happen?"
Some vehicle now being produced are opting for aluminium bodies as well as engines and other components, in order to boost mpg.
Perhaps this is a good thing, but why do they still insist on keeping the style of vehicles so unappealing?
The statement of they all look alike showed again this afternoon for me.
I had to take my Shepherd to the vet (nothing serious), and when I pulled into the parking lot, I parked next to a new BMW.
I don't know particular models of the BMW, but this one I would guess was the top of the line model.
When I came out, after the dog had his rabies shot, there was a Ford Fusion (same color as the BMW) parked next to the BMW on the other side.
At first glance, it was difficult to tell them apart.
They shared practically the same shape, and design.
I scratched my head, said "whatever", put me and the Shepherd in my pickup, and headed home.
Bob.
Base 1968 Vette: 300HP, 6.5 sec 0-60, 13 MPG. Base 2014 Vette: 460HP, 3.8 sec 0-60, 29 MPG. The newer Vette is actually heavier.
What was that you said about drivetrains not being improved?
12 cyl twin turbo Jaguar got 62 mpg on sealed tank straight run from Paris to Blackpool, England. And Jeremy, until he made it across the channel, had a/c and all appliances possible running, driving it with lad foot.
That's for the engines, I believe.
OP, do yourself a favor. Google European vs American cars average mpg. Surprise, aye? Minivans doing 67mpg?
You know why such a difference? Government that you mentioned, owned by Fed, chocked engines with emmissions controls and permits The Big Oil crappy petrol, cut with engine ruining booze. Add to it American special. No, not Big Mac. Winter formulation.
Be well. Buy a Prius and forget about your worries.
12 cyl twin turbo Jaguar got 62 mpg on sealed tank straight run from Paris to Blackpool, England. And Jeremy, until he made it across the channel, had a/c and all appliances possible running, driving it with lad foot.
That's for the engines, I believe.
OP, do yourself a favor. Google European vs American cars average mpg. Surprise, aye? Minivans doing 67mpg?
You know why such a difference? Government that you mentioned, owned by Fed, chocked engines with emmissions controls and permits The Big Oil crappy petrol, cut with engine ruining booze. Add to it American special. No, not Big Mac. Winter formulation.
Be well. Buy a Prius and forget about your worries.
You have managed again to take a post completely out of context to twist it into your love of foreign products. Our fuel mileage in the US is lower because we drive bigger vehicles than the tiny econoboxes they use in Europe. There's no fawking secret technology other than driving little tiny car. If we all drove Smart cars we could do the same, but we're American, and we drive big cars. A guy here thinks 20 mpg in an F350 is doing great. His point was to bring back the big American luxury using technology instead of lowering our stands to what other countries do. Kind of like Neil Young's Lincvolt you hijacked.
As for your look at Jaguar claim running diesel as a comparison against gasoline is some great thing when it has almost double the btu output that you failed to document? Smokey Yunick was getting over 50 mpg in the early 80's from gasoline with 1.8 hp per cubic inch.
Personally, I'll never drive tiny junk. My daily driver is an F150 long bed extended cab, and everything has a V8 with rear wheel drive. This is my choice, and my cars don't look the same like Toyota Camry, Accord, Fusion, BMW 3 and 5 series, and so on. OP thinks we should have more choice than little boxes that all look the same. I think we will, and soon we'll have Suburban's getting 40 mpg. Your nanny state references get really old when compared to socialist state governments of Europe. Are you saying we'd be better if we were socialist? Only a fool would think there's less regulation in Western Europe.
Just how much farther can we go with the combustion engine in order to obtain the greatest MPG ratings? Automakers today keep reducing the engine sizes to pretty much 0. Now we have 1.5 liter engines in mid size cars but can achieve over 250 HP by turboing them at the very same time they are hitting barely over 35 MPG Highway.
I mean come on! Cars today should be getting way more than 50 mpg with engines that tiny, it' really not worth upgrading to a new car besides for all the new tech and newish styling. Gas prices continue to rise and remain high, but it's hard to justify truly buying a brand new car when the average Highway rating is still stuck the mid 30's MPG. my friends 91 Honda Civic with a 1.5 liter engine easily gets over 42 MPG freeway! And no it isn't strip down either for racing.
I understand new cars are heavier because of all the new additional safety and tech features, but that's still no excuse for the lack in truly advanced fuel economy.
Eventually full on electric vehicles will be the future choice for consumers that really want to eliminate themselves from being slaves for the oil companies, because I don't really see how the combustion engine can can ever be improved beyond it's current form even with so much advanced computer technology and mechanical improvements.
So this leaves the doors wide open in terms of styling for automotive designers for electric cars. Just look at a Tesla, they are very sexy and sleek looking cars. Sure it's Aero shaped, but if you have ever seen one in person or on the road, they are pretty amazing to view.
No more constraint on making sure the car is aerodynamic, automakers could actually and possibly have even more freedom with an all electric vehicle compared to a gas powered one were MPG's matter above all to the automaker.
I think this is the only hope for car enthusiast that love the old American iron that was so beautifully sculpted and designed so long ago. I am afraid though that every automaker today also don't really want to build a car that looks too good. Cars today are more disposable than ever before, engines and transmissions change almost year or 2, when back in the days, they might of changed once every 7-10 years because they were proven to last.
Today GM,Ford, Chrysler, and the rest of them, are constantly trying so hard to build engines that are cleaner, and get better fuel economy than the one it's replacing. It's a never ending fight with the government mandates and regulations which is a good thing , yet also a bad thing because sacrifices have to be made in weight saving, materials and even cost, to get even closer to the government requirements for the future.
12 cyl twin turbo Jaguar got 62 mpg on sealed tank straight run from Paris to Blackpool, England. And Jeremy, until he made it across the channel, had a/c and all appliances possible running, driving it with lad foot.
That's for the engines, I believe.
OP, do yourself a favor. Google European vs American cars average mpg. Surprise, aye? Minivans doing 67mpg?
You know why such a difference? Government that you mentioned, owned by Fed, chocked engines with emmissions controls and permits The Big Oil crappy petrol, cut with engine ruining booze. Add to it American special. No, not Big Mac. Winter formulation.
Be well. Buy a Prius and forget about your worries.
right car, wrong engine. the jag xj that clarkson used was powered by a twin turbo 3.0L dieselV6 engine
to the OP, the engines were improved over the years. but understand that the automakers had to do a lot of things to improve fuel economy, and at the same time reduce emissions and increase safety. and on top of all that they needed to improve performance as well. top that off with the need to improve quality and durability, and still sell cars within a reasonable price range, and you can see why it took a while to get from cars of the 60s, to cars of today.
Giving a car less wind resistance and lowering it's drag are vital factors in fuel economy. Automakers scrutinize and redesign even small exterior parts to improve these factors.
However, don't think that means they are ignoring drivetrains either. The latest generation of transmissions, whether they are CVT's (such as Subaru is moving to) or 8 and 9 speeds trannies that other companies are using also add multiple MPG's to a car.
Then in the engine, there is VVT technology, direct injection technology, and a host of other small but important improvements that help fuel economy.
Automakers have been, and are working all angles to improve MPG while trying to retain some styling, comfort, power, and luxury which buyers expect.
They are doing a good job too. There are 4500 lb, 300 HP RWD sedans these days which get mileage as good as 2700 lb, 110 HP front wheel drive 4 bangers of just a couple vehicle generations ago.
Oh, and that brings me to one other point, HP continues to go up along with fuel economy, another great achievement.
Just how much farther can we go with the combustion engine in order to obtain the greatest MPG ratings? Automakers today keep reducing the engine sizes to pretty much 0. Now we have 1.5 liter engines in mid size cars but can achieve over 250 HP by turboing them at the very same time they are hitting barely over 35 MPG Highway.
I mean come on! Cars today should be getting way more than 50 mpg with engines that tiny, it' really not worth upgrading to a new car besides for all the new tech and newish styling. Gas prices continue to rise and remain high, but it's hard to justify truly buying a brand new car when the average Highway rating is still stuck the mid 30's MPG. my friends 91 Honda Civic with a 1.5 liter engine easily gets over 42 MPG freeway! And no it isn't strip down either for racing.
I understand new cars are heavier because of all the new additional safety and tech features, but that's still no excuse for the lack in truly advanced fuel economy.
Eventually full on electric vehicles will be the future choice for consumers that really want to eliminate themselves from being slaves for the oil companies, because I don't really see how the combustion engine can can ever be improved beyond it's current form even with so much advanced computer technology and mechanical improvements.
So this leaves the doors wide open in terms of styling for automotive designers for electric cars. Just look at a Tesla, they are very sexy and sleek looking cars. Sure it's Aero shaped, but if you have ever seen one in person or on the road, they are pretty amazing to view.
No more constraint on making sure the car is aerodynamic, automakers could actually and possibly have even more freedom with an all electric vehicle compared to a gas powered one were MPG's matter above all to the automaker.
I think this is the only hope for car enthusiast that love the old American iron that was so beautifully sculpted and designed so long ago. I am afraid though that every automaker today also don't really want to build a car that looks too good. Cars today are more disposable than ever before, engines and transmissions change almost year or 2, when back in the days, they might of changed once every 7-10 years because they were proven to last.
Today GM,Ford, Chrysler, and the rest of them, are constantly trying so hard to build engines that are cleaner, and get better fuel economy than the one it's replacing. It's a never ending fight with the government mandates and regulations which is a good thing , yet also a bad thing because sacrifices have to be made in weight saving, materials and even cost, to get even closer to the government requirements for the future.
Compared to modern vehicles it was stripped down from the factory, and it wouldn't get out of it's own way. Not a fair comparison.
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.
