|
|
10-20-2007, 02:01 PM
|
#131
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4
Country: United States
|
I personally believe there is some sort of "barrier" around the current 29'ish MPGs that most mid-size vehicles get today.
Heck my parents owned an older Ford Crown Victoria for several years and it always got 29MPG on the highway. They traded it in when it had 243K miles on it and got a small Subaru...but guess what...it is 10x smaller and still only gets 29MPG...hhhmmmm
Makes me wonder why Ford can build a full-size car 10 years ago that gets the same MPG as a compact car of today.
This is the reason why we (USA) don't drive compact cars.
Bring back the diesels and we would instantly have vehicles getting 40'ish+ MPGs at the mid/full-size size and we (USA) would buy them up! Oh too bad, CARB won't get us....come on people!
__________________
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 03:16 PM
|
#132
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Country: United States
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcouture
I personally believe there is some sort of "barrier" around the current 29'ish MPGs that most mid-size vehicles get today.
Heck my parents owned an older Ford Crown Victoria for several years and it always got 29MPG on the highway. They traded it in when it had 243K miles on it and got a small Subaru...but guess what...it is 10x smaller and still only gets 29MPG...hhhmmmm
Makes me wonder why Ford can build a full-size car 10 years ago that gets the same MPG as a compact car of today.
This is the reason why we (USA) don't drive compact cars.
Bring back the diesels and we would instantly have vehicles getting 40'ish+ MPGs at the mid/full-size size and we (USA) would buy them up! Oh too bad, CARB won't get us....come on people!
|
I think the barrier you are speaking about this the one between most people's ears. They want cars that are fast enough that they can drive without any planning or thought whatsoever. The V-8 in that CV barely puts out as much power as that little Subaru that replaced the CV. I had a 97 CV police car that I bought on ebay, and it was plenty fast but didn't rate as highly as most of the smaller cars now in the power department.
My wife's 2003 Taurus 3.0 V-6 puts out almost as power as my 1996 Bronco 5.8 V-8 did...although it gets just a *BIT* better MPG than the green monster did.
Now...if CARB doesn't like diesels...then let the rest of the country have 'em and the heck with CA! Too bad most of the new diesels are cleaner than the vast majority of the gassers running around in CA...too bad they use less fuel...require fewer parts to maintain...much better to pursue short-term gains.
__________________
__________________
-- Randall
McIntyre's First Law: " Under the right circumstances, anything I tell you may be wrong."
O'Brien's First Corollary to McIntyre's First Law: " I don't know what the right circumstances are, either."
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 05:34 PM
|
#133
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcouture
I personally believe there is some sort of "barrier" around the current 29'ish MPGs that most mid-size vehicles get today.
Heck my parents owned an older Ford Crown Victoria for several years and it always got 29MPG on the highway. They traded it in when it had 243K miles on it and got a small Subaru...but guess what...it is 10x smaller and still only gets 29MPG...hhhmmmm
Makes me wonder why Ford can build a full-size car 10 years ago that gets the same MPG as a compact car of today.
This is the reason why we (USA) don't drive compact cars.
Bring back the diesels and we would instantly have vehicles getting 40'ish+ MPGs at the mid/full-size size and we (USA) would buy them up! Oh too bad, CARB won't get us....come on people!
|
do not mean to jack this thread, but i'm getting close to 29mpg in my olds 88(full size).
i drive consistently 35%city/65%hwy(at 70mph with the a/c on). my guess is i'm WAY over 29mpg hwy@55mph and a/c off.
BTW, fill out a garage page. i'm interested in your olds' FE. do you like your intrigue? my 88 has an incredibly low $/mile ratio.
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 05:56 PM
|
#134
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
do not mean to jack this thread, but i'm getting close to 29mpg in my olds 88(full size).
i drive consistently 35%city/65%hwy(at 70mph with the a/c on). my guess is i'm WAY over 29mpg hwy@55mph and a/c off.
|
If by way over you mean getting an extra ~5mpg, then yes. Otherwise, no. Most cars these days are geared so they can go ~120-1xxmph in top gear, which is nice if we want to go 120+mph, but from the standpoint of efficiency at lower cruising speeds, sucks. A change of gearing, provided the cars stays in gear if it's an auto, should let most full sized sedans get ~50+mpg@55mph. But, since they're geared crappy, most only see ~35mpg@55mph. The increase in energy needed to go 70mph compared to 55mph is masked because at the same time the engine efficiency is increasing going from 55mph to 70mph. While it doesn't increase as fast as the power requirements increase, it still increases enough to mask the difference in power required between the two speeds.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
|
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 06:14 PM
|
#135
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq
If by way over you mean getting an extra ~5mpg, then yes. Otherwise, no. Most cars these days are geared so they can go ~120-1xxmph in top gear, which is nice if we want to go 120+mph, but from the standpoint of efficiency at lower cruising speeds, sucks. A change of gearing, provided the cars stays in gear if it's an auto, should let most full sized sedans get ~50+mpg@55mph. But, since they're geared crappy, most only see ~35mpg@55mph. The increase in energy needed to go 70mph compared to 55mph is masked because at the same time the engine efficiency is increasing going from 55mph to 70mph. While it doesn't increase as fast as the power requirements increase, it still increases enough to mask the difference in power required between the two speeds.
|
thanks.
29 to 34(5mpg increase)~17%. agreed, that IS way over.
makes sense. my olds FE peaks @ 50mph(TC lockup) @ 1500rpm. scan gauge on wife's car(same motor) confirms that.
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 06:34 PM
|
#136
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
|
Mine locks at the same engine speed at ~40mph, the difference being mine was a shorter 4th because it's a 3L. Like theclencher said, it's a pain to regear autos since they're finicky and will just unlock/kickdown too much. But... if ya don't mind a manual, 50mpg@50mph is no sweat, and at 70mph it should be in the high thirties.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
|
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 06:55 PM
|
#137
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
|
i would love to see a big 3.8 buick fitted with a nice tall 5 speed stick and see what she'd do!
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24
F150:
New EPA12/14/17
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 07:26 PM
|
#138
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
|
*cough*4300 w/ a T56*cough*
All bolt's up and will fit in anything a SBC fits in IIRC. Supercharger kit's available, etc...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
|
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 07:29 PM
|
#139
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
|
yes!
i wuz thinking of the fwd le sabres and such that get 30 already
is there a fwd stick tranny for that?
would also throw out about 20 of those belt driven thingys
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24
F150:
New EPA12/14/17
|
|
|
10-20-2007, 08:05 PM
|
#140
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
|
I think the trans out of a 3.4L fwd would bolt up, but don't take my word for it. I also think a 3L I4 diesel/manual trans will fit in the Camry w/ the right mounts, so I tend to be optimistic.
__________________
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Car Talk & Chit Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
» Fuelly iOS Apps |
|
» Fuelly Android Apps |
|
|
|