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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57792
Interesting, but I remember when I had a 300+ HP car, my first, a 1958 Chrysler that was lucky to get 10/12 mpg, now my 2013 Challenger with 305 HP gets 19/28. The 1923 cars averaging 14 mpg were typically a 4 cylinder, such as the 2.9L Model T, getting maybe 20 horsepower. The modern car, such as my wife's 2014 Escape that gets 22/30 has a smaller 1.6L with turbo and puts out 178 HP. I really doubt that anyone could keep up with freeway traffic today driving a vehicle with only 20 HP. Add to that all of the modern safety features, from electronics to crumple zones and airbags, large disc brake rotors, plus conveniences like power windows, doors and seats, AC and the rest and that 4 mpg increase seems a lot better than it looks at first glance.
Quite frankly, this doesn't mean much. Back then the overwhelming majority of vehicles on the road were passenger cars. Today pickup trucks, many capable of towing 10,000+ pounds, take up a large segment of the passenger market. Plus we have performance cars and SUVs which didn't even exist back then.
If an apples-to-apples comparison were performed I think we'd see a dramatic increase in the efficiency of passenger cars, with the trucks holding steady or maybe even dropping but while providing considerably more power.
Correct, the comparison may not be entirely fair but mileage is mileage. Even if you fast forward to the 1970s which was the low of the low at 12 mpg, we are talking about a mere 6 gallons per mile. Part of the surprise is that people look at the window sticker numbers and see 40mpg. You put that car into daily drive and you're lucky to break 20.
Correct, the comparison may not be entirely fair but mileage is mileage. Even if you fast forward to the 1970s which was the low of the low at 12 mpg, we are talking about a mere 6 gallons per mile. Part of the surprise is that people look at the window sticker numbers and see 40mpg. You put that car into daily drive and you're lucky to break 20.
You are wrong about the window sticker mileage ratings, for the most part they are accurate now
Sort of makes you wonder why the EPA mandates over 70 different mixes of fuel, doesn't it?
Live in St Louis?.... One blend for down town; another for across the river; another for St Louis suburbs...
I usually do better than the window sticker numbers myself. Something that seems more common with manual transmissions.
Also consider that electric vehicles were all the rage from the late 1800s to 1920s. All electric ranges up to 80miles, which is comparable to today. The first hybrid came out in 1911. For all electric vehicles they were even toying with a battery exchange program for long distance drives just like Tesla was considering. So how far have we come really?
Really? I thought they weren't testing fuel economy until the mid to late 1970s so how do they know the fuel economy numbers all the way back to the 1920s? Before electronic fuel injection, how a carburetor was tuned varied the fuel economy greatly. The 1980s had some high fuel economy cars but they were tin cans that were deadly in wrecks. Today's cars weigh more due to crash safety requirements. It's amazing that today's cars get such good fuel economy, high horsepower, and good acceleration despite the heavy weight. My car averages slightly over 30 in town and little more than 40 on the highway. If you drive with a lead foot then you'll never see posted EPA MPG ratings. My 1.8L engine gets 145 hp. My first car had a 4.1L 6 cylinder with maybe 120 HP engine. I couldn't get 30 MPG on the highway at 55 MPH.
Ethanol in gas reduces mileage by up to 25%. I get far less mileage now (with newer vehicles) than I did 15 years ago when I could still buy regular gas with no ethanol in it (when vehicles were not so supposedly 'efficient' or 'streamlined' in design).
You can't fix stupid. Ethanol is the problem .. and removing it from gas is the solution - unless you want to make miles shorter than they are today?
No, not surprising. 1923 was basically the Model T era. 1,200 pounds, to speed of 40ish mph. Physics is physics. That you have cars that weigh three times as much and go three times as fast that get a "measly" 4mpg more than the Model T is pretty amazing.
It's also just reflection of the vehicles people choose to buy, which are more like four times as heavy and massive bricks that have to cut through air at much, much higher rates of speed than a Model T does. And they still get better MPG. More pedestrian cars, not even hybrids, do much better but people like the big 2 1/2 ton SUVs. Much bigger difference between your typical 7-passenger SUV and a Model T than just 4 mpg.
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.
