Why dont today's economy cars get MUCH better fuel mileage than cars from 22-33 years ago?

[HighlanderNorth]

**Rant alert:

In 2000, I bought a spare car for road trips etc, because I also owned a truck for my business. I found a garage kept 1988 Ford Festiva with 46,000 original miles with perfect interior, perfect paint, etc. for $2,000. It had a little 4cyl engine, manual trans and got about 50mpg highway. My Mom in 1989 bought a new Subaru Justy with a 3cyl engine and it got 55mpg highway. In 1980, my Mom bought a floor model demo Datsun(Nissan now) econo car new, and it got 50mpg. I knew others who owned other econo cars from those days from like '79-'90 that got around 47-55mpg highway. NONE of those cars had fancy, complex computers running/monitoring everything from spark timing, cam timing to fuel intake and air intake. In fact, they ALL had carburetors!

Fast forward to today's cars, which ALL have modern electronic ignition, electronic computer controlled fuel injection, which was billed when it came out as "going to make fuel delivery much more efficient, and cars get much better fuel mileage"! Today's cars have small 4cyl's like before, they have better suspension, better tires, much more wind resistant designs, and some even are now "hybrids", which have an even smaller engine than before, that only runs part-time, and then shuts off so that batteries can take over the other half of the time.

So with all that^^ new 'technology' making everything soooo much more efficient and not having an engine running all the time, you'd think that if cars without all that stuff could get 47-55 miles per gallon, then certainly these hybrids will double that and get 90-100mpg at least. Well, maybe they should at least get 70mpg? Well....maybe at least 60mpg? For Gods sake, the engine in it only runs half the time, so why not at least 60mpg?

Nope!!! They only get 45mpg highway! How the heck can that be? How can they get worse gas mileage than a much less complex car without all the computer controlled efficiency devices? What ever happened to fuel injection will make cars more efficient? All that new stuff combined, and they STILL dont get as good fuel mileage as a carbureted car does..... Its not like they are sooo much better built and safer. I've seen accidents when people in these little cars get hit by a bigger car, and their little car is smashed and they are whisked off to the hospital, just like with little cars in 1985.


When I am finally done with the 4x4 truck I bought new in 2005, which gets horrendous gas mileage, I am going back to my old automotive philosophy, and ONLY buying cars/trucks made between 1962ish - 1973. I wasnt born til the late 60's, and that was a great era for cars. I'm done with all the computer controlled nonsense, all the unnecessary bells and whistles, etc. I will gladly spend $15,000-$25,000 for a nicely restored/well maintained 1960's American auto. I have a desire for a 1968 Firebird now. It will get better gas mileage than my truck does now!

 

[whanso1]

Because americans are over weight and have lawyers.

Air bags, door pillars, crush zones, pretty much anything having to do with safety adds a significant amount of weight.
Plus being that 60%+ of the customers are over weight they need more room, so the cars get bigger and heavier, and.....

The internal combustion engine can only ever be made but so efficient, since the late 80's we have been teetering on max efficiency of gasoline to turn something. We're also teetering on maximum aero-efficiency.

That subaru justy probably weighed 80% of what a similar car today weighs (probably less than that).

 

[FantWriter]

The real difference is temperature.

The hotter the fuel burns, the more power you can extract. Keep the temperature down, power drops off sharply.

As you increase compression, you get a hotter burn, and horsepower goes up much faster than fuel consumption.

The fly in the ointment is that high combustion temperatures produce more NOx. Car makers had to drop temperatures in order to meet pollution standards.

My 1966 Olds Toronado weighed 4500 lbs, got decent gas mileage when driven sensibly (I know, I tried it once), and produced about twice the legal limit of some pollutants.

 

[Off Topic]

I have a 2012 Nissan Versa, 1.6L manual 5 speed transmission. I get about 40mpg out of it. 20 years ago a car with this much interior room, with the safety features this car has got 30mpg and cost twice as much.

My car is bigger than the subcompacts of 40 years ago, and it's safer, faster, cleaner and gets better gas mileage. And with a 200K powertrain warranty it cost about $13K new. So in real dollars, it's probably cheaper than a similarly equipped car from 40 years ago.

There are a few things I don't like about this car. I'm not getting paid to advertize it. If you are looking into getting one PM me and I'll give you the downside of it.

 

[morepyro]

There were several reasons mentioned above (weight, size of car, emissions limits) that are pertinent, plus one more- power. The American market generally favors power and acceleration over fuel mileage. So the automakers decided to trade power for fuel economy in their engine designs.

Look at the "retro" style cars being produced today, like the new Mustang, Camaro, and Charger. They have the same (or more) power than they did in the 60's and 70's, but they do it with a smaller engine that burns cleaner and still gets better mileage than they did back then. Most of them have mileage in the mid 20's. Back then, even a relatively small 289, 307, or 318 engine would only get you to the mid or upper teens.

Up until a few years ago the price of gas was still low enough that fuel economy didn't make the top of the list for many people when buying a new car. It is unlikely that we will ever see gas below $3 a gallon again, and $4 is probably the new norm. My buddy had a Geo Metro that got 55 on the highway, but the engine sounded like a leaf blower, it didn't have much room inside, and you felt like you were going to get blown off the road any time a truck went by. Not enough people wanted to buy them, so they stopped making them. The high mileage cars today are much more comfortable and safer to drive than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

I still don't understand why the Saturn line didn't sell better than it did. They were really good cars for the money- good mileage, solid construction, reliable, easy to work on, and would last over 200K miles if you took care of them.

 

[Iffy]

Why dont today's economy cars get MUCH better fuel mileage than cars from 22-33 years ago?

Two words... pollution controls!

 

[James Hart]

I am going back to my old automotive philosophy, and ONLY buying cars/trucks made between 1962ish - 1973.

I'm currently driving a 1988 Toyota Corolla and looking at late 60s to mid 80s 2x4 Chevy/GMC trucks to fix up as a daily driver. Doesn't need to be a V8, not looking for either a street rod or a jacked up Tonka truck... just a Grandpa farm truck type, but vinyl bench seat and an automatic trans. I'd love a 68-73 C10 or C20, but there seems to be some cheaply priced & mostly rust free early 80s models locally right now.

 

[AttyPops]

Also a very tired design that hasn't changed much in basic philosophy in 100 years. Safer and better emissions to be sure. And that's good. But it takes a complete re-think of what a car is to go past a certain point. See the Volt for an example.

Also see diesel trains (diesel engine turns generator... drive train is electric. Not exactly apples to apples, but interesting.) Your car wastes the majority of what it produces just in heat. Car is about 8% efficient in use of energy. Diesel train...about 30%.

It will turn parts suppliers and auto industry on it's ear though. And they must be given incentive to change, and also some time. That said, they should get the lead out...so to speak.

Safety features and emission controls are OK by me. But there's still a lot of conservation of energy to be employed.

 

[FantWriter]

The problem with making autos efficient is they're not used in an efficient manner. From sitting unused a day or two, they then have to quickly get up to speed, merge with traffic, go up and down hills, 55mph and 15mph, stop, inch, stop, inch, etc. etc. etc. That type of behavior taxes the power supply beyond belief.

Electricity is the best overall option, but we're far from having batteries capable of handling it. We need a breakthrough which increases capacity per pound dollar by at least two orders of magnitude before an electric car is actually viable.

 

[AttyPops]

Yeah. But we do that with e-cigs too. Vaping is a lot of stop-go-stop-go. They still work. Traditional NiMH would lose stored power. Li-Ion...not so much. I can leave an e-cig on the table for a couple days and not lose much charge. I agree that a major improvement in battery tech will help a lot of things....e-cigs, cell phones, laptops, cars.....

They've been promising a 10x improvement for years. Supposedly in the labs now. Still haven't seen it hit production. Can you imagine a 510 e-cig that is 2800 mAh? Or a volt with 2000 mile range?

 

[bassnut]

I still don't understand why the Saturn line didn't sell better than it did. They were really good cars for the money- good mileage, solid construction, reliable, easy to work on, and would last over 200K miles if you took care of them.

Because a Toyota will last well over 300K if you just change the oil once in awhile and suffer a couple of new timing belts.
My experience is that the usual things that go wrong after a 100k miles on US cars like starter motors, alternators, oil and water pumps...not to mention transmissions etc. don't occur on Toyota models made after 1995.
I bought a '96 Toyota Rav 4 and ran it almost into the ground to about 320K...and I really didn't take that good care of it. The front and rear engine seals leaked like a sieve but it still had all of the original gadgets I mentioned plus a trouble free cold-air-on-demand air conditioner. That's value. That's green! I retired it about 10 months ago and bought a '97 Rav-4 with 128K miles on it for $7.5K. That's even greener. No need to build another new car from scratch for me. Whom ever I bought it from can take blame for increasing their carbon footprint if they bought a new car.

 

[FantWriter]

Yeah. But we do that with e-cigs too. Vaping is a lot of stop-go-stop-go. They still work.

If you scale it up to automobile needs, you'd have to leave it on the table a couple of years, be able to use anything from 1/10 to 5 ohm cartos, have it work perfectly right out of a freezer, and be able to use it 24/7 for a month with only a few minutes downtime each day.

Look at something that meets criteria like those -- a Zippo. Mechanical and chemical components needing an external power source (your thumb). Works perfectly, but is as inefficient as hell.

Mechanical is best for durability and reliability. The problem is, power can't be stored efficiently.

Chemical is best for storing power, it's problem is it has to be converted to be useful.

Electricity is obviously the answer. It's problem is that it's a very low density power source. It needs high capacity storage to balance it. 10x what we have is good, but it's not going to replace IC engines. 100x at moderate cost is the bottom of the requirements.

 

[AttyPops]

OK. No argument. However, I don't propose replacing the IC engine. I propose conservation of energy and better utilization. Train example again. They are motivated to be efficient...they charge per load/distance/whatever, not by the gallon. They pay for the fuel. So they make em efficient. I know a train moving at a steady speed isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. However, the fact that they stored as much energy as they could, with as little waste as possible, then utilized it, speaks volumes.

Your car at idle is not even doing anything useful unless you store the energy the alternator is outputting. Why have excess energy production at all? Just in case they use a USB powered device and run the stereo at the same time? Why not store that energy? That's what the Prius, volt, whatever are doing. Regardless of capacity. Store it if you can, use it when you can. Conserve.

I'm not a car designer. I can't argue 10x or 100x or whatever. But I can set a goal. Conserve energy...use it...but don't waste it. Takes a redesign though.

Just thoughts.

 

[Off Topic]

Bass, Toyota dropped the timing belts for chains a few years ago. Smart move on their part. My 1.6L nissan versa has a timing chain.

 

[DaveP]

We could save at least 25% of the gas we burn if EVERYONE would just plan their driving. We get home, remember that we are out of bread and milk, and then run to the store. Some people will drive across town to save 40 cents on bread and milk. We drive 20 miles across town to go to a certain store and buy items that we could have gotten from one 5 miles away, but it wasn't next to the Sports Authority store that sells those good cushioned socks ....

My MIL used to put a styrofoam cooler in the back of her car and drive all over town to cash in on 25 cents off coupons on certain items. She'd buy meat from one store for 20 cents a pound off, then drive to another store because they had milk on sale, then drive to another store to get canned goods 10 cents off. By the time she got home after visiting 4 or 5 stores for listed items, she had saved $5 and burned $10 worth of gas.

 

[Jfresh859]

Fuel efficiency simply isn't profitable.

We are currently a class 1 planet, in that we consume mostly fossil fuels as our main energy source.
In order to progress to a class 2 (using mostly solar power) we will have to deplete nearly all fossil fuels. It simply isn't business smart to do otherwise, and as humans, we strive to better ourselves personally before we strive to better the world (for the most part)

What's exciting is when we become a class 3 (harnessing geothermal energy) and class 4 (extra planetary mining of both fossil and geothermal energy) and we basically break the bond if conventional energy.
There are engines that can easily triple fuel economy. The problem is that car companies and oil companies buy these programs up, and the starve them so that the technology never hits mainstream.
I answer your question more simply, we can't, because we are, by nature, greedy jerks.

 

[DaveP]

I predict that we won't stop using fossil fuels until all the available dinosaur and ancient plant material is all used up. When the bottle is empty, we will look toward other sources for satisfying our addiction.

 

[Jfresh859]

The biggest hurdle is getting over the fact of trying to regulate and "sell" energy. Nicola tesla had some interesting ideas for sending wireless energy everywhere. No need to charge an electric car ever. They have mini models similar to his specs. To charge
iPhone's and electronics. It turns fm waves into usable electric energy.
But you can't charge for usage as
It would be everywhere.
We will most likely run out of oil sooner than we think at the rate we are burning it away.
What are the reproductions of taking all the oil out of earth. Think of earth as
A huge geothermal engine, and you drain all it's oil.. Who knows, sorry for ranting lol

 

[FantWriter]

I predict that we won't stop using fossil fuels until all the available dinosaur and ancient plant material is all used up. When the bottle is empty, we will look toward other sources for satisfying our addiction.

There will be a natural transition. What we're using now is cheap and easy to extract. As these fields dry up, we'll turn to other, more difficult fields. That will force prices up. The higher prices will make other sources of energy competitive and stimulate research into new sources of energy. They'll be online long before the oil is actually gone.

It's good to remember this isn't our first energy crisis. When wood began to be too costly for the masses to use to heat their homes, we turned to coal. When the easy seams of coal played out, we changed to oil. The costs of hauling fuel oil to homes was so expensive that it became viable to lay pipelines to carry natural gas.

There's also Gold's theory that oil and natural gas are virtually everywhere, you just have to go deeper for it in some places. We still don't know the details of what's underground, so it may be true.

 

[bassnut]

I predict that we won't stop using fossil fuels until all the available dinosaur and ancient plant material is all used up. When the bottle is empty, we will look toward other sources for satisfying our addiction.

Dave, you and Jfresh are saying almost the same thing and you're both right, sorta.

We almost have the technology, at least on the right track, but not the will...or better said, the necessity, which is what you're saying.
Believe you me, when the well runs dry, we'll come up with a much better model and be wondering to ourselves "Why didn't we do that sooner?"
The answer lies in the saying "Necessity is the mother of invention".