Printable View
I was referred to an article which says that BIG O's fuel standards of 35.5 MPG is going to kill the industry.
this is LAUGHABLE!
Why? Because I am currently driving an 87 chevette which gets 31-42 MPG depending on my driving habits. We are talking about a BONE STOCK 22 year-old car which gets 31 MPG, and the industry can't better that by 4.5MPG?
How sad is it, that in 22 years, the 'industry' hasn't improved efficiency by a mere 13%?
crazy stupid.
C.A.F.E. stands for corporate AVERAGE fuel economy. that means a car like yours will have to get about 60 mpg if you want to sell p/u trucks vans and oh ya high performance vehicles......ted
my 89 mercury topaz gets 39 mpg .. my 09 toyota gets 30 .. go figure ..
Wowzer Zowzer Hoss!
I'd say you really know how to drive that Topaz!
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...lumn=1&id=5562
[QUOTE=glennsexton;356366]Wowzer Zowzer Hoss!
I'd say you really know how to drive that Topaz!
[QUOTE] i stand corrected .. so many cars i dont know what i have any more .. 89 tracer :rolleyes:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...g?t=1246631016
Yep---but that chevvette fits that group of cars that detroit built that no one wanted to buy---the nerve of engineering to make a car that cut out the air conditioning when it needed the power to turn the steering wheels---they had a valve in the power steering line that cut off the ac compressor
And of course all those pick ups and vans---look around , they all have ladder racks or tool boxes, do you know how much extra room a BMW driver texting on his blackberry needs to give them in traffic???
My best mph car was 92 zo7 corvette--28mpg at 100mph but my diesel ford truck at 19mph pulls that down to 23 .5
my 1960 ford falcon got 29-30mpg all day long with that nice little 144ci straight six. you werent getting there fast, but you were getting there cheap.
Oh and if you go to www.fueleconomy.gov it has a list of almost all cars back to the 80`s and gives the rated and tested mpg. pretty weird that some of the 80`s boats got better mileage than todays cars.
Sorry glenn did not notice you posted it already.
The Honda Insight, a Hybrid, is suppose to get about 43 mpg on the hiway.:D
But my 1986 Honda CRX HF, a non Hybrid 4 banger, got 54 hiway, 43 city. :eek:
Seems that we have been going backwards these past 23 years.:LOL::whacked:
The new Insight, weighs in @ 2700 lbs, my CRX weighed only 1700 lbs. The new one costs over $20k, mine was only $6k.
Ain't progress sweet?:LOL::LOL:
the problem is that pesky little word AVERAGE try and average those little s#&&boxes in with a bunch of f150 f250 f350 f450's and and see what cafe avg. you come up with. this is just a way to dictate the cars you can drive the market place should do that you should have the freedom (YA DID YOU FORGET THAT WORD) to buy what you want and can afford to drive.....ted
Look at the horsepower numbers then vs. now.Quote:
Originally Posted by hotroddaddy
When gas was cheap, people wanted power more than fuel efficiency. Power is more fun.
Engine management is a lot better today. If they built 60 horsepower motors like they build 200 horsepower motors, the cars would get great gas mileage. ....but people don't want 60 horsepower cars.
I see people getting in the mid 20's with their Chevy II's and even a wagon like my 63 Chevy II wagon. Of course they have a straight six and overdrive tranny. Mine has a 327 but will soon have overdrive and I am hoping to get low 20's. But yes a lot of the new cars built are for tree huggers and for the governement, fuel companies, car manufacturers and other countries to make money off of. I think it's funny that they blame old cars for the ozone layer and global warming. I still remember someone on here put up the facts and numbers (the math) about how little (% wise) vehicles are the problem for pollution, ozone layer, etc.
People get so brainwashed with that junk it's ridiculous.
Add to that the European Ford gets 60+ mpg on diesel but won't be available in the US! The reason hybrids are supported by environmentalists is because getting higher mpg from burning fuel generates CO2 which is a "poison gas" (plants love it!). Scientifically I think there IS slight global warming going on but this suppression of fossil fuels will harm the US economy greatly while large populations in China and India continue to generate a LOT of CO2. I am for solar panels when the day is bright but in winter in most of the northern parts of the US it is folly to suppress coal as a fuel and natural gas which can be used for trucks at least, but of course burning anything generates CO2. We bought a load of rocks on a pallet for my wife's garden today and they loaded the pallet onto our little Ranger pickup with a pallet truck fueled by natural gas! The Ranger burns gasoline, of course!
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
The co2 produced does not come from the fuel you burn it comes fron burning o2 oxygen we convert it to co2 plants and trees convert to o2 so the question nobody wants to anser is why aren't we running out of o2
My '90 S-15 gets 30 mpg with it loaded with stuff. It's a V6, My '87 Mustang gets 25 mpg it's a V8. Our '65 Chevelle use to get 25 with a V8 in the '70's.
Global warming is a bunch of CRAP, it started in 1850 the last time and has been warming since, Not because of the 70's to date. Check your history and you'll see that the earth has one every so many years, after it has a mini ice age to cool it's self down. People need to check history, Not listen to the politics! They don't know which hand to wipe with!
Pat