What makes cars fuel efficient? - Fuelly Forums

Click here to see important news regarding the aCar App

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Today's Posts Search Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-08-2008, 07:58 AM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 44
What makes cars fuel efficient?

Cars back in the day were much more fuel efficient than todays cars.

For example.

The 1992 - 1995 Civic VX gets from 42 - 60 MPG
The Geo Metro Xfi gets from 40 - 65 MPG

From my observations what makes these vehicles so fuel efficient?
1) Lower HP
2) Light Weight

Now comparing to Compact cars today why can't we have gas efficient cars like these without the battery pack?

I think safety regulations play a big deal in part of this because there are certain guidelines to how much a vehicle has to weigh and there is a min. HP it has to have.

Even the new Chevy Aveo gets 24-34 MPG which I think its not that great when you factor it's 1.6liter engine and it's weight of 2300lbs. It should be getting at least 30 city and 40 HWY

Is there anyway to modify the Aveo's transmission so that it gets this kind of MPG?
__________________
My Gas Saver:
1994 Honda Civic DX Automatic
2003 Toyota Camry SE

Non Gas Saver:
1994 Toyota Supra Twin Turbo
suprapsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 08:06 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
I also blame whiny barsteward auto hacks and reviewers who complain about 0-60 times being "poor" at 9 seconds.... back in the day anything doing better than 15 was a sports model. Least powerful motor you can buy in a compact these days? 105 HP I think... which was the most powerful motor you could get in a Chrysler minivan back in 1985...
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 11:56 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior View Post
I also blame whiny barsteward auto hacks and reviewers who complain about 0-60 times being "poor" at 9 seconds.... back in the day anything doing better than 15 was a sports model. 1985...
I agree. My dad's 83 vw westy weighs a lot and has something like 84 horsepower. The only time this is a slow vehicle is when you start out on a steep hill. It's adequately powered and maintains 70mph easily.

People think they want power but they don't realize you don't need much. In Europe small cars can come with 1.2 liter engines. In the US, if you want a vw rabbit, you get a 2.5l 5 cylinder. Isn't this overkill?
jbmorse02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 12:32 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Ryland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,325
Send a message via AIM to GasSavers_Ryland
horse power is always peek horse power and that peek is around 5,500 - 6,000 rpm on most civic engines, the peek torque on the other hand ranges between 3,000-4,500rpm, the cars that get better mileage tend to have better torque and at lower engine speeds like the crx hf had peek torque at around 2,500rpm and because of that feels like a very powerful car even tho the peek horse power was around 60hp.
GasSavers_Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 08:12 AM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 44
i own a civic VX and I have to say its not that bad. I get good FE and not have to sacrifice performance. I also had the geo metro and I have to say that its handling was pretty bad but its performance was okay to get by with.
__________________
My Gas Saver:
1994 Honda Civic DX Automatic
2003 Toyota Camry SE

Non Gas Saver:
1994 Toyota Supra Twin Turbo
suprapsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 08:52 AM   #6
Registered Member
 
kamesama980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 742
Send a message via AIM to kamesama980 Send a message via Yahoo to kamesama980
less efficient: more cams and valves. more moving parts, more friction parts (more valves=more pressure against cam, more resistance as they have to climb the lobes, more pressure on bearings). Emissions equipment and tuning, both noise and gaseous.

that's why the dinosaur of an engine in my truck gets 25 mpg mixed. 4 speed manual (no OD), 2.5l (big engine for this forum), and a computer that makes a pocket calculator feel good but OHV and a gear-driven cam. that and the springs are so light the valves float over 5k or so I've heard. hell it got 24 mpg going 65mph carrying 1000lbs
__________________
-Russell
1991 Toyota Pickup 22R-E 2.4 I4/5 speed
1990 Toyota Cressida 7M-GE 3.0 I6/5-speed manual
mechanic, carpenter, stagehand, rigger, and know-it-all smartass
"You don't get to judge me for how I fix what you break"
kamesama980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 08:55 AM   #7
Registered Member
 
1993CivicVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,069
Send a message via AIM to 1993CivicVX
It's a conspiracy I tell you.
__________________
three stripes the charm!

Car mods are overrated. Just gotta adjust that nut behind the wheel for best mpg.



Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.
1993CivicVX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 09:28 AM   #8
Registered Member
 
Hateful's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 321
Send a message via AIM to Hateful
Was just looking up my drag coefficient (.36) and saw lots of bad reviews saying my Cavalier didn't have enough cam and valve stuff and only 115HP.I didn't see any complaint about the high drag or low EPA estimated MPG's.
Hateful is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 10:02 AM   #9
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hateful View Post
Was just looking up my drag coefficient (.36) and saw lots of bad reviews saying my Cavalier didn't have enough cam and valve stuff and only 115HP.I didn't see any complaint about the high drag or low EPA estimated MPG's.
OHV 2.2? Wonderful engine, doesn't rev well but down low it pulls great. Gotta say it's by far one of the best 4 bangers I've ever driven too. With the 36MPG freeway, a/c full blast and 80mph cruise speed I can't say I was unhappy with the mileage either. 219k miles and lost MAYBE 1/4th quart of oil between 5,000 mile changes. The only reason my 2.0 now even slightly holds its own against it is it's cammed to make peak torque at 3,000rpm and nothing past 4500 lol

As far as inefficiency, I'd say size is one factor but the engine is your biggest culprit. That 1.6 in the Aveo we actually ran some testing on yesterday, that poor little engine is so gutless down low I'm suprised it gets 24MPG driving around town as it is, probably the low displacement. It's the first car I've seen we had to redline to make it up a couple of the acceleration ramps on our fuel economy test. Engine inefficiencies is one of the things I hope to address when I start working R&D with an automaker (crossing fingers).
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2008, 04:14 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
OHV 2.2? Wonderful engine, doesn't rev well but down low it pulls great. Gotta say it's by far one of the best 4 bangers I've ever driven too. With the 36MPG freeway, a/c full blast and 80mph cruise speed I can't say I was unhappy with the mileage either. 219k miles and lost MAYBE 1/4th quart of oil between 5,000 mile changes. The only reason my 2.0 now even slightly holds its own against it is it's cammed to make peak torque at 3,000rpm and nothing past 4500 lol

As far as inefficiency, I'd say size is one factor but the engine is your biggest culprit. That 1.6 in the Aveo we actually ran some testing on yesterday, that poor little engine is so gutless down low I'm suprised it gets 24MPG driving around town as it is, probably the low displacement. It's the first car I've seen we had to redline to make it up a couple of the acceleration ramps on our fuel economy test. Engine inefficiencies is one of the things I hope to address when I start working R&D with an automaker (crossing fingers).
lol exactly, i was hauling around about 400 lbs of dirt + me and another adult around in my 2.2L s-10 and acceleration was no different. sure its only got like 96 HP at the wheels but it has a buttload of torque

chevette engine specs1.6L all iron everything)

bore and stroke: 3.228 x 2.980
82.0 x 75.7 mm

compression ratio: 8.5:1

net HP/@rpm: 70 @ 5200

max torque@rpm: 82 @ 2400

i belive 0-60 was in the 17 second range
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuelly & Twitter i64w2gohome Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 09-23-2012 10:03 AM
MPG not avaliable Fobulous Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 09-06-2011 02:01 AM
total fuel cost for fill-up instead of price per gallon EmptyH Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 08-26-2008 11:14 AM
Amazed by the SGII GeekGuyAndy General Discussion (Off-Topic) 7 08-18-2007 11:25 PM
Congratulations Jared!!! SVOboy General Discussion (Off-Topic) 7 08-13-2006 08:55 PM

» Fuelly iOS Apps
No Threads to Display.
» Fuelly Android Apps
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.