Cars Were More Fuel Efficient 15 Years Ago
Were the "good old days" really that good?
You would think that with all our advances in engine technology and lightweight materials, the cars of today should be getting the best mpg ever. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
According to a recent Los Angeles Times article,
"For the 1992 model year, car buyers had the choice of 33 cars that had a combined city and highway EPA rating of at least 30 miles per gallon. For the current model year, there are 12."
What happened? Cars have been gaining weight with each new generation. It seems like most consumers want their cars to be bigger and have more power. Can you think of a new model that had less power or weighed less than its previous model? As size and horsepower was increased, in many cases, so did the car's weight.
An extreme example of this can be found in the 2008 BMW M3
, which has 222 more horsepower than the 1991 model, but weighs 837 pounds more. This car has grown 10.7 inches longer, and went from having a four cylinder engine in '91, to an eight cylinder in '08. Fuel economy has dropped, from a combined 19 mpg, to 16 mpg. (Note: EPA numbers have been adjusted to reflect current standards.)
Sometimes this added weight is necessary. More safety equipment, like airbags, reinforced frame and roll-stability control have become standard, but at the cost of making the car heavier and therefore less fuel efficient. SUVs in particular have grown wider to make them more stable in rollover situations. This requires more metal, which in turn leads to more weight. The SUVs of 15 years ago were lighter, but more susceptible to rollover than the current models.
Even small economy cars have suffered. The 1992 Geo Metro had a combined EPA rating of 41 mpg, while its equivalent, the 2009 Chevrolet Aveo, gets only 30 mpg combined.
Honda -- which often boasts about its fuel economy made a 1992 Civic VX hatchback model that had a combined EPA fuel rating of 43 mpg! To put that in perspective, a Civic Hybrid's combined fuel economy is 42 mpg. Honda no longer makes a hatchback model in the Civic line, so the coupe is the closest comparison. When compared to the VX, the 2009 Civic coupe only gets a combined 29 mpg.
Are car manufacturers sluggish about designing fuel efficient cars like the ones they had before? Or are consumers' desires for features, size and power at odds with what can be delivered?
The article goes on to say that rising gas prices have caused a resurgence in the popularity of these old cars. People are actively looking for used Geo Metros and Honda Civic hatchbacks, not only for their gas mileage, but also because they are less expensive to buy and maintain.
Are these people in the minority? How dedicated are you to saving money on gas? Are you willing to sacrifice power, some safety features, and modern amenities to get better mileage? How many of you out there don't mind being seen in a Geo? There's no denying the allure of a new car, but what if someone said to you: "I know of a car that gets 45 mpg on the highway and costs about $2,000"?
- Posted by
- Ron Montoya September 22, 2008, 3:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Car Buying, Fuel Economy, Used Cars
- Technorati Tags:
- fuel economy, New cars, Used Cars
There's no denying the allure of a new car, but what if someone said to you: "I know of a car that gets 45 mpg on the highway and costs about $2,000, and it can get pushed around by a CR-V, outrun by a CR-V, when the wind picks up I get tossed around more than the smart, and I almost got killed in it when I ran into that brick wall at burger world @ 13mph, but HEY! It gets 45mpg!
Exactly, most of us would not sacrifice modern safety standards for the fuel economy of those old tin cans. I would love a small car for the economy and fun it offers, but I would probably upsize a bit when I finally purchase, to ensure a safer car. For instance, I might choose a GTI over a Mini. The GTI is porky, but does a little better in IIHS crash tests.
While safety requirements have definitely been a factor in decreasing fuel economy of cars, I think the increases in power and size with each generation due to "customer demand" and, really, the search for a competitive edge by manufacturers are to blame.
I put "customer demand" in quotes because marketing by manufacturers have led them to believe that more power is overblown size are necessary......why should a family sedan do 0 to 60 mph in fewer than 7.5 s?
A classic example is the new Mazda 6 V6. While there was little debate that the old Mazda 6 needed to be bigger and more powerful, Mazda chose to blow its size out of proportion and fit it with a ridiculous 3.7 L 272 hp V6, when maybe a 3.5 L 255 hp V6 would have been more than adequate and saved about 4 mpg in fuel economy! There is no way that unnessarily large engine and car body are due to safety regulations!
when maybe a 3.5 L 255 hp V6 would have been more than adequate and saved about 4 mpg in fuel economy!
omfg.
What Ford with the 3.5L matched to an AISIN sport transmission gets 4mpg more? NOT the 6F, slow to respond, clunker matched to all other Ford's. ANYWAY, they build the 3.7L in japan, and that's probably why they didn't waste money tooling their plant for the the 3.5L, which by the way was in the CX-9 and showed no economy decrease when it switched over to the bigger better 3.7L.
CX7, I wasn't refering specifically to the previous Duratec 3.5 L. I don't care what engine they use.......the point is that I'd rather have them use a slightly smaller engine that whose fuel economy and performance would match or better the competition. Whether that engine is the previous Duratec or not is another story, although I'd like to say I'm awed by Toyota's V6 and I wish Mazda would have an engine like that for the Mazda 6.
Also, remember that the CX9 is a big vehicle, so the Duratec 3.5 L was probably straining a bit with it, thus returning less-than-optimal fuel economy. I'm sure the 3.5 L would be would not strain with the Mazda 6 and would return at least 2 to 3 mpg better than the Duratec 3.7 L does.
You're talking to someone who would happily sacrifice all that nanny-state airbags, crash compartments, etc., etc., etc. for a modern re-pop of the 96 Geo Metro with the 41-50mph highway. I had one, it was a fine car, and obviously I didn't die while driving it.
Then again, you're talking to someone who's used a motorcycle as their main transportation for the last 32 years.
Sorry, I'm not the kind of guy who gets scared walking out of the house. And I don't buy my cars for how well they crash, either.
And I definitely don't like being saved from myself.