Nearly 50 years of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards have improved mileage how much?
Пікірлер: 253
@motioncompensation15442 ай бұрын
What comes out of the exhaust, even at the same mileage, is a lot less dirty now than it used to be.
@user-Dr.2 ай бұрын
True, the EV's being pushed on us now are 11 times dirtier than the cars we are driving right now.
@mothmagic12 ай бұрын
That's the only advantage or not because my old Morris Minor turned in 54 to the gallon while most cars of a comparable size now only return that sort of figure if it's a diesel. 38-40 is a typical figure these days.
@davidgold59612 ай бұрын
@@mothmagic1 keep in mind, due to safety regulations, crush zones, increased use of electronics and amenities, and the larger size of vehicles, the weight is approximately 60% more than it was in your Morris Minor, sometimes double the weight for about the same passenger capacity.
@bulbman2562 ай бұрын
@@mothmagic1 is that in imp gallons or American ones?
@ambivalentonion2620Ай бұрын
@@mothmagic1no way you got 54 out of a minor, I got 50 out of a mini i tuned for mileage before
@Couchflyer-NY2 ай бұрын
I remember seeing the smog that would sometimes hang over LA in the 1960s. Both controlled emissions and better fuel efficiency have improved the air quality.
@mrjuvy492 ай бұрын
Yes they threw $$ at it.
@P_RO_Ай бұрын
As a kid headed to Disneyland in the family car back in 68 I began crying when we neared LA and saw the smog cloud. I thought it was a storm and we wouldn't get to do Disneyland. Those who saw how bad it was will understand.
@mikefennema55612 ай бұрын
When fuel injection became popular in the late 1980's fuel economy increased significantly. Since then all the extra compexity has only improved fuel econmy marginally. The extra complexity only adds expense to maintenance and planed obsolescence.
@kurticusmaximusАй бұрын
Yeah. They should have stopped at port fuel injection. Direct injection fouling of the valves is a ridiculous expense to deal with.
@danielulz16402 ай бұрын
Americans like large, comfortable vehicles. Of course they buy four door pick up trucks and SUV s, large, comfortable sedans were taken away in the name of fuel economy. CAFE is a disaster and has actually had a reverse impact than was intended.
@user-surly2 ай бұрын
Yes... but think of how far we've advanced to benefit from experts who will endlessly tell us what we like instead of listening to us.
@kennethanway79792 ай бұрын
People flocked to trucks because they were the only way to get a V8 rear wheel drive at the time. American front wheel drive cars sucked at the time.
@katieandkevinsears77242 ай бұрын
I own a small farm and can actually justify the large truck I own. However, my daily work car is over 20 years old and gets 37mpg. It's the best of both worlds.
@infernoking75042 ай бұрын
Er yep and epa is chit too
@allangibson84942 ай бұрын
The exemption of trucks has been a consistent problem…
@Primus542 ай бұрын
Government regulations on the automotive industry have produced only one major benefit over the last half century… improved safety. There are hundreds of KZfaq videos depicting crashes that would most certainly have proved fatal for the occupants not that many years ago, and where only minor injuries are inflicted today. Great video as usual, HCG. 👍👍👍
@Gerhardium2 ай бұрын
So cleaner emissions haven't had an impact?
@Primus542 ай бұрын
@@Gerhardium Okay… two then.
@mannacler2 ай бұрын
I recently bought a 4-cylinder awd Camry. 37 mpg on the highway in what in a 5-passenger car!
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
Truth
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
@mannacler Small Chrysler products with thier slant 6 could flirt with 30mpg if driven conservatively.
@pokebass12 ай бұрын
I daily drive a 1973 Ford Pinto. Even with it being a station wagon with the larger 2.0L engine, along with a low gear that makes the car crank 3400 rpm going down the highway, that car never fails to get between 26-28 mpg. The manual transmission helps with in town mileage, and the light nature of the car makes the highway mileage nice and manageable. I didn't even see an increase in highway mileage when I swapped out the automatic for the manual.
@frequentlycynical642Ай бұрын
Gotta give you huge props for admitting what you drive!
@bluefish4999Ай бұрын
I have a 73 ford Econoline, straight 6, keeping the 3 on the tree even if it's a bit of a pain in traffic.
@user-pu6ty5kk8t2 ай бұрын
There used to be the Mobil Economy Run. Some entrants got over 50 mpg. Some tricks like running the engine at higher temperature, using thinner oils, fine adjustment of the carburetor, and keeping the engine at its most efficient rpm. But in the end, there is only so much energy on a volume of petroleum, and a mechanical limit to how much of it you can recover. And a limit to how conservative car owners are willing to be.
@rogerking72582 ай бұрын
Here in the UK, when I started driving in the mid 1970s my car was a five seat saloon and managed low to mid 20mpg. I now have a seven seat vehicle running on petrol (gas) with no hybrid system and I'm averaging 55mpg with a best ever of 68mpg. I was convinced that the fuel computer was lying until I measured the distance travelled and the amount of fuel used - nope, it was pretty much bang on. Not only that, but this seven seater is one of the cheapest new cars available in the UK and weighs just 1200kg, a lot less than the most "smaller" cars. It gets these consumption figures by being relatively light weight and having a 1 litre turbocharged three cylinder engine, but it still has air con, reversing camera, cruise control, heated seats, etc, although it leaves out power adjustable everything and a host of other stuff I frankly don't want. It still manages 110mph and has 110bhp which is more than adequate for what is most definitely not a sports car. It's a Dacia Jogger, which is not a sexy brand, but frankly, it's the best car I've ever had in terms of usefulness and its very long legged cruising ability. And so what if the build quality is merely good rather than outstanding - most cars get scrapped at around ten years old so it doesn't matter. I have another car, and that weighs just 650kg and manages just 45mpg, but that's an Austin Healey and it was built in 1958 so I think it does quite well.
@bparksiii61712 ай бұрын
You're not nuts, I have been thinking the same thing for the past 40 years starting with cars like American Bantam, Willy's Americar, Crosley,, and Nash Ramblers and foreign cars which were high mileage cars. I remember reading ads for cars as Corvairs, Falcons, Comets, Valiants and even some full sized sedans with 6 cylinders and overdrive getting at least 30 MPG back in the 60''s so I am amazed in this day and age some gas engine non hybrid economy cars still barely get 30 MPG and the very few in the 40's, and the diesel cars have been outlawed that got 50-60 MPG. I believe cars should be getting much more miles per gallon today.
@user-Dr.2 ай бұрын
Yeah, my brother has a Chevy Cruze diesel that will get over 60 mpg and I think they made that for only a few years, nobody cared, it's a really nice car too.
@bparksiii61712 ай бұрын
@@user-Dr. That is neat, glad your brother loves it and keeps cherishing it, that's where the real mileage savings is, if I had room for another car I'd go looking for an old Golf, Rabbit , Mercedes , or other similar car or a small diesel truck. Don't know why people don't like the smaller diesels besides what they hear in the media, but think they are great. I purchased a regular cab 1 ton diesel work truck 22 years ago to replace a similar gas truck, and was amazed at the mileage difference, 9-11 MPG gas VS 18-22 for the diesel , I can't see ever going back to a gas truck again.
@Sunset4Semaphores2 ай бұрын
Emissions control is a large driver of poor MPG these days.
@notenoughmemes18472 ай бұрын
If I recall, the Nash Metropolitan, beautiful little car for its time and still is, got around 43mpg on average back in its day
@tomtom15412 ай бұрын
@@user-Dr.Holden Cruze Diesel was a lot more popular, same car overseas. You'd also get even better mpg without the all the emissions stuff like the dpf.
@Apollyon672 ай бұрын
Ideas so great, they have to be mandatory.
@dr.elvis.h.christ2 ай бұрын
Mileage has improved when you consider the ratio of power to fuel economy.
@STho2052 ай бұрын
20mpg in midsize and 30mpg in Civic size is really all the mfgs want to do. Once they hit that they put the engine improvement back into HP and mass to move. A true economy car of the mid 20th Cen was 50hp. Similar for EVs. If you strip a Tesla 3 of 1/3rd the mass and restricted the motor to not do hotrod driving...but keep the same 300 range battery...it would be a 450++mi range battery.
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
Improved in many ways.
@apocolypse112 ай бұрын
Bingo
@luvr3812 ай бұрын
We're from the government, and we're here to help.
@keithwiebe1787Ай бұрын
Emission regulations have definitely helped us. I've been a mechanic for 40 plus years and lived through the painful years etc.
@tdvandy22 ай бұрын
Mileage is better when you consider that the Pinto shown was a rough riding penalty box in order to get the mileage. My 23 Tiguan fully loaded gets 30 plus at highway speeds and is quiet, comfortable, and quick. To get that in the seventies meant 10 to 13 mpg.
@timothykeith13672 ай бұрын
Pinto rides like a British sports car. Pinto's metal-on-metal unitized body is noisy but with mods it handles like a Miata
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
Economy cars int he 70s were not great (or even good really), but modern economy cars could get much better mileage if they were classically minimalist.
@johngettins7942 ай бұрын
For fun perhaps you could watch Thunderhead289's completion of hot Rod Power Tour a couple of years ago ,where he used a lawn mover carb on a 302cu powered Ford Maverick averaging over 50 miles to the gallon. Countries outside of the US ,like NZ ,Aus and Japan ,often have lower highway top speeds such as 60mph ,meaning less fuel burnt over a given distance. Robot Cantina's use of a Supercharged inter-cooled Diesel powered Honda Insight shows experimentation of science to get speed and fuel advantage over modern cars.
@pdennis932 ай бұрын
Early 80s cadillacs weren't start stop systems. They were early cylinder deactivation.
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
Right
@gabrielv.43582 ай бұрын
For one thing, In Brazil, when the fuel crisis hit, the population really wanted smaller vehicles (We never had the boats that USA Had, only the "midsized" Galaxie 500, Simca Chambord, GM Opala, GM Omega, and the Dodge Dart were the biggest cars we ever got If I'm not mistaking) So, with the crisis, came the Ethanol fuel, and cars became smaller. NOW With the pressure of SUV's we are finally (badly I'd say) moving to SUVs instead of sedans and hatches, which is a shame. But I agree, 40 years ago a car could make 8KM/L and nowdays cars barely make more than 11km/l in the city. At highway, its slightly better, the cars of the 80's made around 13kml, now cars can make 19kml, its better, but at city, where it matters most, nothing changed at all. And add that Flex Fuel consumes more than plain Gasoline or Alchohol engines, and add useless tech to todays cars (apart from the very good safety, A/C and Power Steering) the cars of today are really more of the same... Cheers!
@simca5980Ай бұрын
The thing is, in Brazil we almost only had old engines poorly fitted to cars. That was the main reason why we had such gas guzzlers that were, in comparison to american and european cars, underpowered and slow.
@bowez92 ай бұрын
My 1990 F150 is a perfect example L6 300 gets 22mpg city and Hwy. A new F150 gets 15-18mpg Hwy. Nevermind that in the 80s an average car was getting low 30s.
@anthonyrowland90722 ай бұрын
My dad has a '17 f150 4x4 with the 2.7. You can put in on cruise 60mph and it'll get 27mpg on 33 ATs stock. He bought a regular truck, it's a regular cab with the 17 inch wheels. New trucks get better mpg then they throw it away getting the biggest truck possible...
@bowez92 ай бұрын
@@anthonyrowland9072 what does it get city? And will it last to 600k miles?
@IMRROcom2 ай бұрын
Air Fuel ratios have not changed for gasoline. You need that perfect mix of fuel to create the energy needed for motion. It is basic math and we looked at it in Auto Shop back in the 70s each gallon of fuel can only make this amount of energy, if you need this much energy to move 4000lb car, but a 3000lb car will only need this much energy. People are looking at cars as if they are perpetual motion machines. Basic, are weight and resistance and how much energy is need to over come that.
@keithwiebe1787Ай бұрын
Yes. And only way to produce more efficient gas vehicles is to reduce aero drag and reduce thermo heat loss. EV is way more efficient in that department.
@IMRROcomАй бұрын
@@keithwiebe1787 But EVs are very power at energy storage. The power per weight curve still favors gas powered cars. Until that get the weight of the power pack down and increase the the charge time and range . The other issues is how the power is produced and gets to the car. Still a lot of coal and gas powered EVs driving around on the east coast. Soon the power infrastructure will not be able to keep up with people wanting to charge the EVs. Tesla installed a 16 car Supercharger at Dobson and Guadalupe in Mesa AZ. I come home at close to midnight, 1am time and I see 6 to 8 cars at the charger all the time, during the day time cars are waiting to get a spot. At Bassline and Country Club a 4 port charge was installed, it took them almost a year to do it. Less then 3 months in a EV burnt at it and now it has been blocked off for almost a year with no attempts to repair it.
@thewanderingpinto59792 ай бұрын
When discussing this issue I think of a quote from Scotty on the original Star Trek, "you can't change the laws of physics ". It takes a certain amount of energy to move a vehicle down the road, and gasoline has a certain amount of energy in it. While things have been tweaked around the edges, fuel injection , aerodynamics, gearing ,etc , the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline has not changed.
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
They should focus on somehow harnessing the energy that's lost out the tailpipe and radiator. We're only using about 20% (at best) of the energy in a unit of gasoline/diesel. Electric powerplants that burn fuels only use about 40% of that energy. The rest is all wasted. We've come up with home heating furnaces that are 95%+ efficient, with very little wasted energy. We gotta figure out how to do that with electricity production and automobiles. FYI, I'm not a Liberal or a tree hugger, I just hate wasting. 🇺🇲
@gabrielv.43582 ай бұрын
@@johneckert1365 I just came up with a idea. Steam and Ethanol engines. Half runs on steam half on gas. The half steam runs a closed cycle similar to how a refrigerator compressor works.
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
@@gabrielv.4358 The Titanic had a closed system as well. I think all the ocean liners did, to avoid using saltwater.
@grayrecluse74962 ай бұрын
I remember my dad rejeting a carburetor and retiming a 4 door,4 barrel 383 cornet and it getting 26 mpg with the air on in 1980. It would still do 115mph.
I came home from the hospital in 1962 in a 1960 Mini . 10 inch tires 10 feet long 850CC engine. A consistent 45 MPG. Part of the problem is the EPA itself. Their economy/wheelbase matrix computations encourages large vehicles. In essence as the footprint goes up the mileage requirements go down. A new mini pickup like the 70s-80s Ford Courier /Chevy LUV/Toyota HiLux-SR5/Mazda/Nissan Hardbody would have to get around 45 MPG in todays environment. That's why you cant buy a basic 70s style mini truck. Even the Ford Maverick does not really match straight up to a Courier/LUV of old days.
@manicmechanic4482 ай бұрын
I used to drive a 77 Malibu with a 305 4 barrel. I could get 23 miles highway in that thing.
@Hydrogenblonde2 ай бұрын
I totally agree with you. New cars do not get any better economy than the old ones. The laws of thermodynamics do not allow it. Law makers seem to think their laws override the laws of thermodynamics, but they are wrong.
@joecummings12602 ай бұрын
I had a CJ5 with the Hurricane 4 cylinder. Never really took it on the highway, but for general around town, it had to be the most economical thing I ever owned. And those engines really weren't the most efficient because they had the exhaust valve in the block.
@LuciFeric1372 ай бұрын
Anyone remember Smoky Yunicks hot vapor fueled Fiero? Close to 100 mpg
@haroldsprenkle41732 ай бұрын
Not sure it got 100mpg but close, rear wheel horsepower fantastic. Twin turbo, full atomization of fuel. Proper atomization of fuel is the key to efficiency. Hey, way back when my old service truck I called maybe, 3/4 ton chevy, 250 6cyl, 4 speed got 20mpg+. But it was running on propane which weighs 4 pounds per gallon vs 6 pounds per gallon for gas which is like 30 mpg. This was not a fresh well tuned machine we just ran the p out of it.
@keithwiebe1787Ай бұрын
@@haroldsprenkle4173 It's not the proper fuel atomization as much as controlling heat loss. And an engine can only take so much heat before the metal melts. Ask me how I know on the old 2 stroke Honda 3 wheelers.
@haroldsprenkle4173Ай бұрын
@@keithwiebe1787 Smokeys hot vapor cycle used twin turbos, turbos basically were check valves, kinda. It is all about thermodynamics. Proper vaporization allows thorough combustion of fuel. All that heat expanding fuel air charge has to be compressed with turbo to get enough into cylinder to get adequate power. The exhaust temperature was probably rather low. Would have been interesting to see this engine fully developed.
@haroldsprenkle4173Ай бұрын
@@keithwiebe1787 Never seen a Honda 2 stroke 3 wheeler, only 4 strokes. Seen 2 stroke dirt bikes seized if ran to lean, oil injectors gave problems also, lot of guys disabled the oil injector and just mixed their oil.
@keithwiebe1787Ай бұрын
@@haroldsprenkle4173 Look up the Honda 250R's. 2 stroke. Air cooled until 85 or so and went to water cooled. Dangerous trikes in the wrong hands. Lotsa fun though.
@hoost3056Ай бұрын
I drive a hybrid and really like it as a city car. I am a hard core enthusiast and like the challenge of going fast or getting better fuel economy. The big things about getting better mpg are better thermal efficiency, reducing friction and better aero. Just taking two out of the three will increase mileage. The current limitation is the available fuel. Unless you run diesel, you have to figure out how to keep your engine from detonating. As an aside, one of the best old school boats that got well into the 20 mpg range was the 60s era Oldsmobile Turnpike Cruiser. 400ci big block ( or was it a 425ci ), 2 barrel carb, special cam and 2.56 gears with a Turbo 400 transmission, it had a more than adequate 0-60 time and could cruise at high speeds with no problems at all
@ComeJesusChrist2 ай бұрын
I remember a fuel saving challenge in the early nineties that took place in Hungary, where Suzuki owners covered a long distance, partly on motorway, between Budapest and either the Lake of Balaton or somewhere near the Austrian border. As I remember, the winner averaged 3.3L per 100km. That’s 86 imperial and 72 US mpg. I’ve averaged incredible figures even in my supercharged Mercedes by simply driving in a frugal manner, accelerating gently and by avoiding to use the brake as little as possible. However, ‘modern’ emission control devices make driving frugally very difficult and they damage engines, require major repairs and serve nothing more than sodomising us into buying more and more expensive, more and more complex and less and less reliable vehicles.
@janderson84012 ай бұрын
I had an E250 Super duty for twenty years best milage was close to 18mpg on long trips. Typical day to day mileage, going to jobs, getting materials, etc was probably 13-15. New Transit T250 gets 20mpg on a trip and typical milage is 16-18.
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
Add a trailer to those vans, and the Econoline will get better mileage that that stupid Transit. Furthermore, wait until that Transit needs an engine or transmission, and compare that to the cost of what the 5.4 or 4R100 would've cost to replace in the Econoline. To be fair, there's scenarios where the Transit is better, but there's also scenarios where the Econoline is better. Sucks that Ford didn't allow us to make that choice, and took the Econoline away from us (except for motorhome chassis).
@DTW-bx2vyАй бұрын
When we get 20+ miles per gallon in the city with a full size truck, we have moved forward a century.
@RoaldvdMАй бұрын
I own a 2003 Mercedes CLK with 2.7 liter diesel engine - 42 MPG. It is a great trouble free car, automatic, airco, airbags and all. No start/stop, no hybrid - just proven simple technology.
@Walkercolt12 ай бұрын
The 1950-51 Henry J, with the little Four-banger and three-on-the-tree typically gave 25 MPG in town and 38 MPG Highway at 60 MPH-better than a three passenger Toyota Prius and for $451!!! The Shell Oil Mileage Special, a 1937 Plymouth without fenders and a highly modified engine (MUCH higher than stock compression ratio) delivered a World Record of 203 MPG at an average speed of 37 MPH from NYC to LA in 1939! Hurting Tesla??? At $4 a gallon, a Tesla roadster would have to travel 1900 miles on a $360 charge (normal for 220 miles!!!) to equal a 60 MPG internal combustion engine.
@kurticusmaximusАй бұрын
What they should do is make walking/cycling/public transit better so we don’t all have to drive everywhere within 2 miles. Reduce emissions/traffic/road wear and tear, because increasing MPGs is seriously diminishing returns road!
@kenyoung9762 ай бұрын
I would gladly go back to a carburetor, points/condenser ignition and zero computers. I like doing my own maintenance and when these simple cars were available, many times a roadside breakdown could be easily and quickly repaired with simple tools and a few parts. I have always carried tools with me. And often spare belts and I always kept a spare points/rotor kit in the glove box. My newest vehicle is a 2010 Chevy express van with the 4.3 V6. My next car won’t be newer than 1985.
@brooksschneider34412 ай бұрын
I would go back too, as long as decent parts were available. Points, rotor, condenser, and cap used to be a predictable, annual maintenance item. I was playing with 50s and 60s British cars until a couple of years ago. One of the biggest challenges was finding good sources for those parts. The quality of new parts was so bad that many failed at installation. Bad rotors and condensers were notorius among car club members.
@jeffking4176Ай бұрын
I still have my 2005 Chevy Colorado X-TREME. 5 speed manual, 3.5L dual overhead cam, inline 5 cylinder. Extended cab [ geared for “sport”. [ and no Overdrive ]. No power windows, no power locks, no power seats . Dual Airbags only. It does have A/C, and power steering. Fully loaded with all my equipment, I average 21.5 mpg in City [ Jacksonville Florida], and 24.7 Highway, at 65 mph. 🚗🙂
@MrYAMAHA32177Ай бұрын
You make a great point but I must add one thing. Hold onto "all that money" you saved on gasoline to pay for the never ending maintenance and repair costs for today's modern engines.
@clovishound57562 ай бұрын
Well, my 1965 Mustang with the small, 170 CID, 6 cylinder engine, and a 3 spd manual, got low to mid 20s on the highway. My 2020 Camry with the 2.5 l 4 cyl gets in the mid 40s on the highway. The Camry 4 cyl produces nearly twice the horsepower than the larger 6 cyl, without resorting to a turbo. The Camry also has more room, even if it isn't as cool looking, and weighs a little more than the Mustang did. I also had a 72 Pinto that would never break 30 mpg, despite having a 4 cyl 2.0 l engine.
@postmodernrecycler2 ай бұрын
I have observed that my EV charges for the equivalent price of electricity (either home or a station) as the gas for my '89 Lincoln. It's crazy.
@josephmclennan12292 ай бұрын
My 1961 2 door Mercury Comet with a 1968 200 six , 5 speed 1994 Tremec Manual , headers , dual exhaust , electronic ignition, one barrel carb . gets 26 highway at 64 mph . If I put a 90s 302 in it with a t5 i could get 30 mpg , with more power .
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
EFI can be like magic.
@issigonis9752 ай бұрын
Not from the US but you did feature an old car of mine, the Mini. At the time is was small but not dramatically in comparison. I saw one on a car park full of modern cars and it looked like a toy in comparison. The size and weight has gone up dramatically with some of the weight justified but much not. The weird one to save weight is you don't get a spare tyre which is crazy to me. I bought one and it has saved me a number of times. I have to say the mpg is better in my current car compared to a Mini has a engine capacity 250% bigger and nearly 600% more power of a Mini and gets 10-15 mpg more. That said if you drive with a heavy foot it will get less as the power is not free.
@tomrob3654Ай бұрын
The two highest milage cars I ever owned, a '76 VW Rabbit I bought brand new, and a '69 Austin Mini I bought as a grocery getter. Both would give better than 45 miles per gallon on the highway without a problem. The worst was a '72 Buick Electra 225 Limited. It had a 455 and gave 12 to 15 mpg.
@ambivalentonion2620Ай бұрын
Classic minis are great i know someone who built one for mileage still with original a series but injected and built gets 55-60mpg
@seed_drill71352 ай бұрын
Many of those early cars were incapable of reaching highway speeds, so it’s de facto around town. And UK mpg always needs to be adjusted down due to the larger Imperial gallon.
@haroldsprenkle41732 ай бұрын
More again. Looking at picture of video it is of a Crossley. I got a chassis running a long time ago, didnt see the finished product, simple period. Knew an old guy that drove one from Oregon to Missouri way back in the late 1940s said it was quite a trip. 40 mpg +. Drove it back to Oregon.
@kenyoung9762 ай бұрын
That is a good point. Sadly, parts for late model vehicles often leave much to be desired. When I was still in my teens I had a 1960 MGA roadster. It was interesting learning about positive ground electrics. But it was a fun car!
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
My dad still refers to his long gone Triumph Spitfire as a lawn ornament.
@haroldsprenkle41732 ай бұрын
Hey go to throw this out there. Have thought about it a lot. 1960s economy invovled head design with quech areas and swirl combustion chambers which were killed about 1971 by the epa when everything got open combustion chambers. What would hapoen if you could combine 1970 technology with modern fuel injection and electronic ignition? I can tell a little story about a buddy who put a supercharged v6 in a 1949 ford, no cats, original rearend. 35mpg. Not tuned for mpg, just put together by a quasy shadetree mechanic. Guys we can do better and it is not rocket science.
@ZoruaZorroarkАй бұрын
using quality lubricants that are changed at regular intervals for the vehicle can also help with fuel economy as well as the quality of the fuel. but what do i know
@elwoodbrown70052 ай бұрын
I had an "89 CRX that got mid 40's around town and almost 60 mpg on the highway. And this was the early model with a carb. We could easily have small cars that get that again but the car companies have us convinced that we all need an SUV becasue the margins on a small eco car are so low they don't want to make them. Your choices are a Mirage, a Versa or a Rio (do the even import the Rio anymore?) and all of those are only 35 / 40 mpg. I agree that weight and engine drag make a big difference. I had a "64 chevy truck with a 292ci inline 6, with a 3 speed on the column. It got 18 MPG around town. I now have a "90 F150 with the 300ci inline six and an AOD transmission. It is heavier, has AC and PS. It get 16 mpg. A 25 year difference and it only got worse.
@jiminycricket9877Ай бұрын
In the UK there were at least two cars in the eighties that were tested (can’t remember which magazine) at over 100mpg (admittedly imp rather than US gallon). Diahatsu charade diesel and Nova 1.5td. If there was a will, it would be very easy to do a lot better than that now.
@ambivalentonion2620Ай бұрын
Yes i drive a an old 80s metro and get 45mpg on petrol, and thats with a 4 speed on modern motorways. If you put a modern injected 3 cylinder with a 5 or 6 speed you could get 65 mpg easily
@Kysushanz2 ай бұрын
Well, I got a 1961 Ford Consul 315 with a 1340cc engine - no computer shit in it, got a carburettor and distributor and a full tank lasts for ages. Same with my 1968 Wolseley 18/85 and it has more "room" inside it than new Lexus 300 has, what's more, it has hydrolastic suspension which gives such a smooth ride. We need many more retro vehicles - cut out the crap in new cars, the sensors, computers and power everything - get back to driving when you needed to "listen" to the car, feel the road and know how to keep your car running.
@ivanrousseau50662 ай бұрын
Wedge cylinder designs had much higher thermal efficiency than pent roof designs. Combined with lower weight gave older cars higher millage especially when combined with more gears and direct injection.but they traded wedge designs for overhead cams with higher rpm tunes .to give them higher performance with higher weights.
@user-surly2 ай бұрын
You forgot to point out that the CAFE standards enabled the government to take credit for something that the industry itself had already accomplished as well as to reinforce in suggestible minds that th best avenue to improvement is through government edict..
@Gerhardium2 ай бұрын
If it were left up to industry there would still be leaded gas and few, if any, safety improvements. Somewhere between the extremes there is a reasonable ground where rational people grasp that one cannot trust either government or business to make the correct decision.
@timothykeith13672 ай бұрын
@Gerhardium Volvo had many safety features years before it was required.
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
@@timothykeith1367100%. And people bought Volvos for that very reason. That how the free market works 🇺🇲. The big 3 + AMC should've threatened to close up shop and put the Federal Government back in it's place back then.
@bensmith4563Ай бұрын
@@Gerhardiumpeople might drive better if cars were all death traps
@coldspring6242 ай бұрын
I just want cars like I had in the 50s, 60s and 70s
@Pro1er2 ай бұрын
Years ago I bought a 1984 AMC Encore as second beater car, it got 40 MPG on the highway...with the A/C on. I get almost half that now with my new car. I remember a story about a Canadian guy who in the 1930s designed a carburetor that would run a Ford V-8 at almost 200 MPG. It was said that Ford verified this as did two other reputable sources. They said the Toronto stock exchange just about had a stroke and was afraid that because we live in an oil economy they were afraid that the market would crash so they made the guy an offer he couldn't refuse. I don't know how true any of this is but there were news paper articles to that effect back then.
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
I have heard that many times, but it just sounds a bit jenky.
@12397192 ай бұрын
You mean a Renault 11
@Pro1er2 ай бұрын
@@1239719 No, that is not what I mean, I know what car I owned. "Manufactured by American Motors Corporation (AMC), as the Renault Alliance and Renault Encore for the North American market."
@frequentlycynical642Ай бұрын
Of course it has. My old 1800 cc Volvo got about 21 mpg. I recently rented a Camry. Got almost 40 mpg. With AC, which the Volvo didn't have.
@galerae9472 ай бұрын
A friend had a 1990s Ford Fiesta that got 40+ mpg. My 1976 Mustang II regularly was close to 30 mpg.
@MrSloika2 ай бұрын
I had a 1990 Ford Probe with a 2.2 liter 3-valve engine mated to a four speed automatic with locking torque converter. At a steady 65 MPH it would return 33-34 MPG.
@fliprim2 ай бұрын
A Model T (15kW/ 45mph tops) at its best achieved 11L/100km, with little traffic and an open road. My (mild hybrid, diesel) Kia Ceed (100kW/ 130mph tops) under both town and highway driving achieves 4L/100km.
@andrewwmacfadyen6958Ай бұрын
My car has a BMW 2litre turbo diesel 140hp din and in daily mixed urban use in summer returns a fraction overv5O mpg imperial which is 42 mpg US gallons ❤
@nofeerz2 ай бұрын
My 94 civic got way better than a recent one
@kennethanway79792 ай бұрын
My 2015 ford fusion 1.5 turbo got 41 mpg on a road trip....my 85 nova got over 48 on the highway... My kia rio could only hit 38.... Who knows?
@ambivalentonion2620Ай бұрын
It's the weight that's the killer, if you put a modern engine in a classic, say an uber efficient modern 3 cylinder in a classic mini you be getting 55-65mpg
@karstentopp2 ай бұрын
40 years ago, I have had a 1300 cc four pot giving me mighty 34 horses, cramped interior, small boot, manual transmission, no nothing, no AC, stay fit window winders, 0 to 60 in half an eternity and all that for about 23 mpg at best. Yes, it was a Beetle. Today, I drive a 1400 cc four pot giving me 100+ horses, roomy interior, big enough boot, continously variable transmission, AC, everything electric, 0 to 60 in half the time of the old Beetle and a top speed 50% higher. Yes, it's a Gen 2 Honda Insight. And the Insight does 47 mpg.
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
40+ years ago a VW Rabbit diesel got that same fuel mileage. Yes, with much less performance.
@karstentopp2 ай бұрын
@@johneckert1365 And without A/C and with less safety, comfort and with less space. A modern day Polo is bigger than the old Rabbit. And - yes - the 47 mpg is with everyday careless driving with A/C, radio and all mod cons... When I really, really go hypermiling, I get the Insight to 67 mpg
@anthonyrowland90722 ай бұрын
@@johneckert1365 and it was a death box... Anybody REALLY wanna ride in a old crx or metro?
@haroldsprenkle41732 ай бұрын
I drive a dinasaur, 2009 grandmarquis. 24mpg average, have gotten close to 30. I play a game going to work, better or worse. Cars I meet, so many people driving 4 door pickups as passenger cars. I can say my old car gets better mpg than most. I remember when a V8 high compression would get 20+ mpg. My dad drove 6 cylinders with 3 speeds, he got over 20. We need true economy cars. No Tesla's. 30+ years ago in the trucking industry our trucks got about 5mpg, not exceptional, but average 80000 pounds. Average passenger car 4000 pounds, one twentieth of that, how come that passenger car didn't get 100mpg? Ok answer that, I can, all about thermodynamics and efficiency. Why don't we do that today? It is all the epas fault kinda. Just like how our electrical costs have skyrocketed. Sensical regulation is something our government does not comprehend. Def. Who wants to pour piss in your fuel tank. A clean burning internal combustion motor doesn't produce anything nature can't clean. A pine tree produces more pollutants than a properly tuned internal combustion motor until you install the anti pollution garbage. Oh well, people in charge make more money than me, supposedly have more education. What do I know?
@gabrielv.43582 ай бұрын
And theres ethanol, that is from renewable sources, and makes no pollution at all
@haroldsprenkle41732 ай бұрын
@@gabrielv.4358 Problem with ethanol it is people food and animal food, drives the price of corn up which farmers use to feed livestock, thus higher grocery prices. Has advantages and disadvantages as a motor fuel, has a lower BTU per gallon, but higher octane, likes to absorb moisture. I like good gasoline better.
@tettazwo98652 ай бұрын
My 1988 Mercedes 230 E was at around 25mpg and so is my 2018 Subaru Legacy.
@Kermondale2 ай бұрын
Modern cars have tiny engines, No Torq.
@daviddavid5880Ай бұрын
If you made a modern Ram pickup the same weight and size of an 83 Ram, it would get AMAZING mileage. (And be shockingly fast)
@thehopelesscarguyАй бұрын
And maybe even a bed that was accessible from the side.
@user-fn3ur5xd6m2 ай бұрын
Between the CAFE standards, safety regulations and emission regulations, today’s cars are really rather remarkable. You can buy an economy car that gets 35-45mpg and is quicker, better handling and better braking than “sports” cars of the 1960s. While it is true that a manufacturer could produce a car that gets much higher mileage than that, how many would actually buy it. Given the state of driving in the USA, in particular, there are a lot of people who need the safety features currently available. And consumers have an expectation of a certain level of comfort and technology that only a few would be willing to sacrifice. That being said, it would be interesting to see what level of fuel consumption one could get if they built a bare bones car that met all current regulations. Then try to sell it.
@thehopelesscarguyАй бұрын
I would think it would be a flop, but history would suggest it could be successful.
@martinliehs25132 ай бұрын
I have thinking along those lines for a while. Imagine a late 60s full size Cadillac retrofitted with a modern, fuel injected V-8 and an 8 speed transmission! Easy 30 mpg on the highway.
@thehopelesscarguyАй бұрын
Wouldn't surprise me.
@MrDdaland2 ай бұрын
My father was a genius mechanic. Back in the 70's and 80's we had a 1967 El Camino w/283 and 2 bbl carb. After Dad did some mods to the carb, it would consistently get 25+ mpg, even when driven by a 16 yr old with a lead foot Still wish I knew what he did to that Carb
@keithwiebe1787Ай бұрын
He convinced you it was true. That's what he did.
@MrDdalandАй бұрын
@@keithwiebe1787 well, I drove it through High school, college and 2 years after graduation. Pretty sure I would have noticed any BS. Specifically recall making a trip from Lafayette La to Hannibal Mo (about 850 miles) in 12 hrs flat, and only made one stop for gas between Jackson Ms and Memphis
@presmasterflash75552 ай бұрын
My 89 GMC van with a TBI 350cid would get up to 19 mpg on the highway if I had a feather foot. I’ve never gotten that mileage out of another v8
@alexandermathar77802 ай бұрын
Milage has improved. The thing is that the average American boycots fuel efficient Diesel cars. And there is that prejudice that small means unsafe. So the bigger the better. Throw out all those bells and whistles. What's not there can't break.
@sergeanttibs63452 ай бұрын
The same people who own the car companies own the oil companies. Therefore improvements have been focused on performance. The average 0-60 time of all cars in 2020 was 7.8 seconds and they can handle better than the race cars of 50 years ago. Did the Model T even reach 60? I highly doubt it.
@nelsonbergman77062 ай бұрын
We can't make the drivers smarter so the cars have to be. The newer cars have mandated safety equipment which adds to their weight. You can't add weight and reasonably expect mpg to improve.
@bradyelich27452 ай бұрын
My 1997 Lincoln Continental averaged, according to the computer, 27-29mpg (US) 50% highway 50% city on commute to work. 33mpg at 70 mph on highway. Miss that car. My 1988 Baby Olds with 3.8 was the best. 40 mpg highway and 30 city. It would turn 1650 rpm at 65 mph. That one got stolen. 1999 Windstar liked long trips and fully loaded with family and gear on vacation would get 33-35 mpg highway. My current vehicle, 2003 Pathfinder. I get 23 mpg on highway and don't care anywhere else. Hunting burns lots of fuel. Used Mobil 1 or Castrol synthetic in all my vehicles, engine and transmission. On the Windstar, the transmission oil change lowered highway rpm by 200. My 1996 XL1200S would get 55 mpg on an easy ride or 38 mpg riding hard. My wife at the time was so easy on her throttle on her 1995 XLH1200, she would get 65 mpg on an easy ride, plus she is more aerodynamic.
@chrismusso16102 ай бұрын
I own a 2019 4Runner, a 1988 GMC 1500 4wd pickup, and a 1995 corvette. Best hwy gas mileage if I drive normal? The Corvette. Modern vehicles that the avg American likes has the same gas mileage as cars of the 70s/80s
@hotpuppy12 ай бұрын
If you want mileage, you need a small, light car with a small, light engine. A 6000 lb. barge with 600 hp is NOT the way to get it. US carmakers have quit making and selling small cars due to the desire for large profits they get on selling trucks and SUV's. It takes the same amount of labor to build a truck as it does a small car, but you can't charge $80,000 for a small car like they are asking for a truck. Short sighted as usual will bite them in the butt AGAIN.
@keithwiebe1787Ай бұрын
My Grand Marquis and Lincoln Mark VIII get's low to mid 20s and as high as 27 if slowing down in mountain settings. I've gotten as high as 23 mpg in my 83 Capri 5.0 h/o 5 speed but probably averaged 18 on trips. The best my 76 Cobra got was 18 mpg. The best my 73 Ranchero got was 18 mpg. My 65 Galaxie got 12 mpg. My 82 Escort got 30 for best but averaged mid to high 20s. My83 Diesel Ranger got 30mpg when new and 26 when it had over 200k miles. My 2022 Maverick Hybrid is averaging between 35 and 40 mpg and is as fast as my 83 Capri 5.0 h/0 5 speed and Lincoln Mark VIII. My 2020 Bolt cost a third to operate as my Maverick Hybrid. Free some months with my solar panels.
@jonathanryan29152 ай бұрын
There have been so many inventions patented for fuel mileage
@thehopelesscarguyАй бұрын
And some of them actually work.
@danr19202 ай бұрын
Milage has gotten better. The original EPA numbers have been reduces twice by a substantial amounts. A 45 highway MPG in 1983 would be the low 30's today. . My underpowered '75 Astre (Vega clone) got 24 actual on the highway going 55-60 mph. My modern Accord gets near 40. Much bigger and faster to.
@Patches-vq8cd2 ай бұрын
A clear example of this is my land rover defender, it gets on avrage 10lt to the 100km. Yet a modern hilux gets almost the same. But he has alot more safety featuresthan me
@Kermondale2 ай бұрын
I like BIG CARS AND TRUCKS
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
Me too.
@favorit6012 ай бұрын
What’s your point? My parents owned a simple 1,0 ton car with 60hp, no automatic features, no AC and an average fuel consumption of around 7,5 l/100km in the 80s. I own an 1,4 ton car with 136hp, a huge number of safety and comfort features, AC and with 4,6l/100km. I’m my calculation that‘s far less consumption.
@Kermondale2 ай бұрын
People Drive More and getting Fatter, in My opinion.
@johneckert13652 ай бұрын
100% agreed
@Kermondale2 ай бұрын
I like the cars from the early 70's
@snookysnax2 ай бұрын
you are so correct. the "improvements" brought by oem's has been at a snails pace, much too late, at the expense safety, longevity, styling and value. only available today is expensive to buy, operate and maintain total piles of old fashion, out of date junk.
@HR-wd6cw2 ай бұрын
I think it has improved but we are reaching a point that the average gas vehicle is reaching perhaps the limit (within reason) that we can get out of a gas engine. Of course if you did say a 1.0L 3 cylnder engine in a car that weighs 1000 lbs you probably could get 50-60 mpg regularly, but two factors that sort of limit our abilities to achieve higher fuel economy is speed and weight. While engines are becoming more efficient, cars are also becoming heavier (more safety features in some cases make the car heavier) and people like to drive faster and faster it seems (old highway speed used to be 45 and 55 mph in the US, now interstates are upwards of 60-80 mph, and so the faster you drive, the lower your fuel economy is going). So I'd say yes fuel economy has improved, but I'd say numbers for the last 10-15 years have sort of capped out and aren't getting significantly better. I mean they might be able to inch out an extra 1-2 mpg every few years from the same car with a new engine design, but at some point, that's going to flatline and not improve as we would have reached a point of what might be considered "peak" efficiency given the other factors (speed, vehicle weight, enigne size and emissions controls / goverment regulations ,etc).
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
I had a car with a 1.0L 3-cyl that weighed 2000lbs and could get better than 50mpg on the highway. Of course everything else about it sucked.
@alanm28422 ай бұрын
you described a 1993 geo metro i had, 50 mph at 65 mph. but if you get in a wreck you are in big trouble
@thehopelesscarguyАй бұрын
@@alanm2842 It was exactly a 93 Geo Metro. I thought the 5-speed was gutless until the dealer loaned me one with an automatic. Bought it new, didn't have a radio, but did have speakers. Hated that car but used to say it made it so you were $15 from anywhere. Put more than 90k miles on it in less than 3 years.
@robkunkel88332 ай бұрын
I attentively listened for a while than I realized that this is a mileage policy discussion about cars and what companies and people should do. There is nothing relating to the cool car in the tease. I wish it would just look at a few aspects of THAT CAR and the improvements over the carburetor, etc. I understand. It would be too short then. A good discussion, through.
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
Sorry for not providing more details about the Crosley CD.
@gabrielv.43582 ай бұрын
5:00 Is that a Chevette?
@roguedalek9002 ай бұрын
Kind of. Same chassis different sheet metal. All world wide GM divisions got the "T" car platform. The picture was an 82 Japanese Isuzu I mark. Pontiac was the T1000 .USA/UK was the Chevy or Vauxhall Chevette . I forget what the German Opel was. The Japanese I Mark was sold here in 1980 badged as an German Opel (USA export market only). BTW.(the Germany only T car version Opel had a different name and the German built version never sold here due to exchange rate). BY 82 GM had dropped the Opel (USA export) badge and sold them here what they really were as a Isuzu I Mark alongside the Chevette and Pontiac T1s
@leifvejby80232 ай бұрын
I still get the 50 - 60 mpg I got 50 years ago. BUT the car is way heavyer and safer, and the engine is way more powerful.
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
Yep
@user-kw5hx7ji8h2 ай бұрын
Mileage much improved on highway driving. Not so much in heavy traffic.
@JoeStanek-vu7rl2 ай бұрын
My 2001 GMC Sonoma with a 2.2 and a 5 speed manual consintaly gets 22-25 mph.
@P_RO_Ай бұрын
Best to remember the differences between then and now. They didn't drive as fast then; 50mph was considered to be moving quite fast on the usual 2-lane highways, and speed limits of 40- 45 were common on them. People also accelerated more slowly which is where a lot of fuel savings are. Being that wind resistance doubles at the square of speed, those non-aerodynamic cars had an easier go at it. And leaded fuel gave a bit more energy per gallon than today's unleaded blends. Most of those old cars didn't have A/C, power steering, or high-output alternators wasting engine power and fuel either. Today's testing standards include more rapid acceleration and higher highway speeds, involves stifling emission controls, and includes a few hundred pounds or mandatory safety equipment. "Hypermilers" have shown that with a minimal but aerodynamic specially tuned vehicle it's not that hard to hit 100MPG but you can't really benefit from that in real world driving, especially with the amenities and comforts today's drivers demand. I had a Honda Civic 1200 which if driven gently could do close to 50MPG highway and 35MPG city. As often as not I fueled it using pocket change being quite poor at the time. A hard crash in it would have been something like being inside a beer can somebody was stomping on, but otherwise it was a great subcompact car. Stretched out it would go 85MPH but it wasn't designed for that and the bottom end would go boom if you tried doing it much. The early Ford Festiva's also had great fuel economy and low crash safety. The VW Golf 1.7L diesel (Rabbit in the US) could do similar economy but were slow, and you really needed to re-ring the engine at 70K miles but that was a cheap and easy backyard job for a good DIY mechanic.
@ambivalentonion2620Ай бұрын
Not true about speed, here in the uk the motorways didn't have a limit in the 60s and yes people went 90+ regularly and then country roads have all gotten lower limits too
@muddywater68562 ай бұрын
My dad drove a Crosly wagon in 1952. .. in high school😂
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
And presumably lived to tell about it.
@muddywater68562 ай бұрын
@thehopelesscarguy I have pictures! He passed away February at 90. Always had orphan cars. We had a 62 VW bus as a kid. Subaru 360.....drove an 80s Toyota pickup for 35 years. Have his large collection of Cushman, Vespa scooters now.
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
@@muddywater6856 Sounds like a cool collection.
@geemee33642 ай бұрын
Wait, who are these regulators, and how do they get to decide what we can and cannot do?
@volvodude1012 ай бұрын
they get to decide because we lost the war
@anthonyrowland90722 ай бұрын
@@volvodude101 They just made your cars safer, more efficient, and faster, jesus calm down... What, they conspired to make you a 500hp truck that still gets over 20mpg?
@AJ-qn6gd2 ай бұрын
The laws of physics still apply, to move a given mass a given distance at a given speed still requires the same amount of energy as it always did. 🤔👍🏻🇬🇧
@bensmith4563Ай бұрын
you seem to be ignoring drag and how efficiently you can change chemical into kinetic energy
@andgate20002 ай бұрын
There's a difference between a cars economy and an engines thermal efficiency .
@timothykeith13672 ай бұрын
Air-cooled VWs can't get 50 mpg
@thehopelesscarguy2 ай бұрын
There are numerous "claims" that the early ones were.
@muddywater68562 ай бұрын
A 36 hp would break 40mpg with a little effort. Might hit 75mph downhill, but 50mph was comfortable unless you hit a hill. SLOW
@rainerleicht46042 ай бұрын
Talk about grey energy. The lifespan of an average europ. or japan. car in the last century was often less than 10 y due to rusting. Today you can hope for 20+ y. Oilchange every 5k km plus some liters here and there, today my BMW 330i goes 25+kkm until next service, plus 1 liter of oil in between. But agreed, cars have become really heavy, but once on the final speed, that doesn't count much on mpg.
@derjaeger33212 ай бұрын
This will all change after November.
@sasz2107Ай бұрын
The short answer is NO. Because so many people have switched over to trucks and SUVs, people are driving vehicles that get the same mileage as cars built in 1972. I forget where I read that, but I know I read it. All of the downsizing of the cars was pointless because the car makers found a loophole in the CAFE standards - that being that trucks didn't need to get as good fuel economy as cars. Therefore, if people want roomy interiors, get them to but trucks and SUVs by adding luxury options that used to be found only in cars! I have often thought, what is wrong with a 1992-1999 Buick LeSabre? It's a car that is roomy enough but was downsized enough to get 30 mpg on the highway. But is that what people are driving now? NO. They are driving Chevy Suburbans and Ford F150s! Even Toyota, which got into the market with small fuel efficient cars, has people driving Sequoias and Tundras. Those things get horrible mileage! Why did we even bother with the CAFE standards? All it did was make it nearly impossible for the Big 3 to continue producing cars for the American market.
@thehopelesscarguyАй бұрын
Agreed.
@mirrorblue1002 ай бұрын
Contemporary cars all look the same - most are over-styled and look ridiculous.
@joeyager84792 ай бұрын
Today's cars with EFI & EEC systems are just better emissions wise, cleaner, last longer, more powerful per displacement and are more fuel efficient than older cars. Also no lead gas requires far fewer tuneups and other maintenance. But the smaller cars are heavier than the older bigger cars because of all the extra stuff that most people want. Weight and stop-start driving kills fuel economy.