• On TechRepublic: 10 cool USB flash drive tricks
June 12, 2009 1:45 PM PDT

Looking beyond miles per gallon (rant)

by Antuan Goodwin

1992 vs. 2009 Civic

If you're only looking at the mpg, you're not seeing the whole picture.

(Credit: Wikipedia/CNET)

Not a week goes by where someone doesn't approach me with the same smug, "Oh, my '92 Civic hatch gets better fuel economy than the current Civic," or "LOLZ! My Geo Metro XFi getz teh 50mpg!!! PWND!!" This is usually followed by some ill-researched rant about how the gasoline engine hasn't advanced in 40 years or how automakers and oil barons are conspiring to keep gasoline expensive. In reality, compared with their modern analogs, your late-'80s vintage econobox is crap. I'm sorry to say it, because I love older compact cars, but you're just not comparing apples with apples.

Firstly, mpg isn't a true measure of a vehicle's efficiency; it's a relative measure of economy. Miles per gallon doesn't take into account the vehicle's weight, speed, or the actual work the engine is doing. For example, 30 mpg in a compact car is pretty average these days, but that would be abysmal fuel economy for a scooter or unbelievable fuel economy for a train. The number means nothing taken outside of its context. The fact is: most people can't see past the mpg to the big picture.

1995 Geo Metro

This is NOT the Holy Grail of automobile efficiency.

(Credit: Flickr/mikeg626)

Most people just look at the mpg on the sticker and think, "Poo poo, cars have gotten so inefficient," before getting all nostalgic about their crappy old Metro. It's just not that simple. We have to look at the whole vehicle to see the truth. We ask our cars to do so much more these days than just deliver us from point A to B. Now, they have to get us there more quickly than ever, entertain us along the way, keep us comfortable, keep the air and the environment clean, and protect us from danger.

So, in go pounds of sound-deadening material, power seats, power windows, thicker glass, higher-quality plastics, more powerful and reliable climate control components, heftier suspension components, bigger gas tanks, sunroofs, amplifiers, 9-speaker stereo systems with subwoofers, 17-inch wheels with bigger tires, a half dozen government-mandated airbags, crumple zones, minimum hood heights, seat belt pretensioners, antilock brake systems, etc. Vehicles grow larger with more leg, shoulder, and foot room, usable back seats, and much larger trunks. Why? Because you want these things, that's why!

All of this comfort and convenience adds up to a bigger, heavier vehicle. I'll use the Honda Civic as an example. The current-gen Civic is much larger than my '90s-era Toyota Camry was and is about 700 pounds heavier than the 1992 Civic! Even the tiny Honda Fit is heavier and better equipped than your average '92 Civic. That's also before you consider that the average American driver and passenger weighs more than they did a decade ago. Hey, weight is weight and every pound counts.

So, the 2,900-pound tech-laden 2009 Honda Civic EX is about 32-percent heavier than the scrappy and eager 2,200-pound 1992 Civic EX. But at 34 highway mpg and 41 highway mpg, respectively, there's only a 17-percent deficit in fuel economy. Pound for pound, I'd say the 2009 engine is more efficient.

Also consider that while the current Civic gets fewer mpg, its ULEV-2 rating means that it's actually much cleaner than the 1992 model, emitting fewer smog producing particulates into the atmosphere thanks to its more-complex emissions equipment and more-precise combustion.

Sure, the early-'90s era Civic got better fuel economy than the current-gen counterpart, but it was also louder, lighter, dirtier, and probably much less safe. There's more to the picture than what the simple mpg estimates present. I'd say that for the most part, the gasoline engine has done a pretty good job of scaling to meet the needs of today's bigger, more complex vehicles.

Internal combustion engine technology has advanced significantly in just the past few years. We've seen widespread use of turbocharging, direct injection, alternative combustion cycles (such as the Atkinson), continuously variable transmission and double clutch transmission technology, variable valve trains, start-stop technology, etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the bog standard suck, squish, bang, blow gasoline-burning engine. This doesn't even include the advancement made with diesel engines, alternative fuels, and hybrids power trains.

Recent posts from The Car Tech blog
Award-winning tech at the 2009 SEMA Show
Peugeot's funny, little, electric concept
Dartz Kombat T-98 vs. Hummer H-1
Denso eyes standard hybrid parts
Rolls Royce Drophead, Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano spotted in Paris
Tuners embrace Hyundai Genesis at SEMA
Matte black Lexus LF-A is stealthy super car
2010 BMW X5 earns its M badge
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (46 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by ofmyony June 12, 2009 2:42 PM PDT
Good point now lets add more carbon fiber for more durable lightweight designs.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis3 June 15, 2009 6:35 PM PDT
Got to agree on that point. Really, they could make 90% or more of the car out of carbon fiber at this point, and get a LOT of weight savings. They could even make the gas tank out of that, if they really wish to.
by domino335 June 15, 2009 8:19 PM PDT
Until the price of carbon fibre comes down though, the advantages you would get in fuel economy would not save you more than the initial price of buying a car laden with it. Sure, you would notice better economy, better performance too. But unless these features were critical, such as racing advantage, then in may be far off until cars are produced like this.

Also, i can't remember where i read this, but carbon fibre, especially on front and rear bumper areas isn't quite as safe as fibreglass. Something to do with impact and rigidity i think?
by dodgeman007 June 16, 2009 6:38 AM PDT
you couldn't pay me to ride in a car made out of pure carbon fiber. sure its a great weight saver however without many many advances in safty inside the car it will become a tomb for anyone in a wreck. I am an avid F1 watcher and anytime a car gets in a wreck the carbon fiber body is destroyed on impact. not to mention the cost of an entire car body made of carbon fiber would be crazy expensive.
by rufina12190 June 12, 2009 3:25 PM PDT
Some people simply care about the fuel cost per mile. Period.
Reply to this comment
by owlafaye June 16, 2009 9:35 PM PDT
My emissions are acceptably low, gee-whiz accessories absent, comfortable seating, GVW 1545 lbs., easy to work on which is seldom needed, cheap parts, 53.4 mpg Freeway, average 48 mpg town/highway...yep, '89 Geo Metro (cost $300) laughing all the way to the bank. In 10 years, SOMEONE may meet these specs, and maybe not.
by mmcinnc June 15, 2009 7:24 AM PDT
Using your figures:

'92 Civic: 41 mpg / 2200 lbs = 0.019 mpg per lb
'09 Civic: 34 mpg / 2900 lbs = 0.012 mpg per lb

"Pound for pound, I'd say the 2009 engine is more efficient."

doesn't look that way.
Reply to this comment
by marcusbennett June 15, 2009 1:09 PM PDT
I think your units are not quite descriptive of what you are saying. You have (miles)/(gallon*pound) I think (miles*pound)/gallon would be more accurate then you get:

'92 Civic: 41 mpg * 2200 lbs = 90,200 (miles*pound)/gallon
'09 Civic: 34 mpg * 2900 lbs = 98,600 (miles*pound)/gallon

So by this calculation it shows you get more pounds per gallon for the newer civic.
by kuisan808 June 16, 2009 12:24 AM PDT
if you took the engine from the 2009 Honda Civic and placed it into the 1992 Civic, I'm sure the mileage would be either on par or better than the 1992 engine, at the least cleaner.
by sssprinkle June 15, 2009 11:59 AM PDT
Then there's this dichotomy - A gallon of ethanol (80,000 BTUs) has less available energy than a gallon of gasoline (119,000 BTUs) - in other words you get more MPGs with gas than ethanol. So, at the same time that the government is raising the CAFE standards for gas mileage, they're also demanding that we mix more ethanol with gasoline. So the fuel we're using may be cleaner, but it's less efficient than plain gas...so we're hammering the auto industry from both ends with bad logic...We probably will end up with carbon fiber cars because the auto industry has to make more efficient cars using less efficient fuel...
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes...
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis3 June 15, 2009 6:37 PM PDT
So what? So they are mixing more ethanol with gasoline... fact is that if ethanol engines are built RIGHT, they can get just as good gas mileage as regular gasoline/ethanol engines.
The problem is that the auto companies HAVE NOT BEEN INNOVATING, and they keep on giving us SUV's that no one wants to drive anymore!
by homercles82 June 15, 2009 8:04 PM PDT
They can't spend the money to innovate when they have to constantly spend money to meet CAFE standards.
by Renegade Knight June 16, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
Something interesting to think about. The feds also demand that states who take federal funds use FFV vehciles. These can run on 85% ethanol. They get worse MPG than a standard rig. Every one of these FFV vehicles that doesn't have access to E85 fuel is wasting 1 or more mpg for no reason.
by CCCCnetttt June 15, 2009 12:32 PM PDT
I would be curious as to why you think highway mileage should be proportional to weight? Isn't that the benchmark you are using when you say a 32% heavier with 17 percent less highway milage is good? Once a car is up to speed, most of the power goes to overcoming drag and providing accessories such as A/C. An object in motion tends to stay in motion ... That still applies, right? And mmcinnc shows you the other flaw in your logic, the MPG per weight is lower in modern cars.

It is an outright disgrace that in the 17 years since that '92 civic was built we aren't having cars with at least the same mileage even given they peform better? Or shouldn't they have much better mileage and at the same performace? Haven't we had advances in materials to make cars lighter or safer for the same weight? Aren't transmissions, fuels, and other systems montiored by computers far more sophisticated than were available almost a generation ago? Don't we have fancy software to design cars and engines to make everything more efficient?

Shame on you for making excuses based on some psuedo-physics. If there were indeed great efficiencies achieved then cars could easily satisfy all the safety requirements and get the same or better gas mileage as before. We don't see much sign of that.

I don't think anyone is saying engines aren't more efficient, just that the consumer and the auto companies created a dynamic where bigger and faster sells. This worked for a while but ultimately failled us all as reality caught up with us at the pump. Good ridence to the biggest offending auto companies and I won't shed any tears for those whose cars cost a lot to fill at the pump. It is theirlack of forsight that caused the auto makers to focus on product lines that emphasised size and performance.
Reply to this comment
by Suspect987 June 15, 2009 2:39 PM PDT
An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outise force. That outside force is called friction, in the engine, overcoming the drag you mentioned, between the tires on the rode, and numerous other places. Antuan isn't making excuses, he is making a very valid argument. You made a gerat point with your statement about auto companies and consumers creating a dynamic where bigger and faster sell. The concumer wanted biggerand faster and the auto companites made it for them. Now that fuel prices are up the consumer wants bigger and faster but with the fuel economy of the '92 civic dx. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
by make_or_break June 15, 2009 2:48 PM PDT
Disgrace? Not when you consider the added size and weight...and horsepower that CONSUMERS were clamoring for.

All this tech crap and mongo a/v gear adds serious poundage, and performance was suddenly a NEED. People wanted luxury in ALL of their rides, whether in reality it's a baseline econobox or not. A/C is manditory; power windows and door locks and alarm systems almost so. Manufacturers were responding to market demands...and to an environment that was chock plentiful of relatively CHEAP gasoline. Super-efficient, high MPG cars weren't the demand items throughout the late 80s, 90s and into this century. Just about everyone wanted their big rigs or high HP engines. Even traditional small car makers were building larger and larger cars, particularly for the NA market. Geo Metros weren't on many people's radar on this continent, so how can any PUBLICLY-held company answerable to their shareholders be expected to show market guidance when the market wasn't there? Look at the initial iteration of Saturn...and how it ultimately fell off of consumers' collective radar. GM realized that the division wasn't selling the types of cars that people really wanted. So here came the SUVs and the mid-sized sedans and funky sports cars, and out went the slow-selling compacts. GM planned wrong on that one and that put the entire division into a tailspin that they couldn't get it out of...and that's why Penske is negotiating to be its new owner.

The spikes in fuel prices these past few years were as much due to speculative greed as increased demand from emerging markets; if any manufacturer could've seen that coming, why didn't ANYONE make the appropriate corrections?
by antuan.goodwin June 15, 2009 3:02 PM PDT
There's no pseudo-physics involved here. Weight is proportional to highway mileage because of friction. Let's not forget that the vehicle's weight acts on the suspension and drivetrain components, the tire surface, the roads. Weight matters when ascending hills, making turns, and flowing with traffic. Unless, of course, you drive in a perfectly straight line everywhere you go on glass smooth, frictionless highways with no positive elevation changes.

Additionally, we've established that the 2009 Civic is a much larger vehicle than it's 1992 counterpart and thus must punch a much bigger hole in the air at 55mph. Drag coefficients and engine efficiencies have improved but conservation of mass/energy hasn't. Engineers may be good, but they're not that good.
by AaronCT123 June 15, 2009 3:09 PM PDT
Lack of foresight? This is the auto companies fault? Are you kidding? If the auto companies made huge vehicles and no one had bought them, they'd have stopped. :P
by Renegade Knight June 16, 2009 11:47 AM PDT
1) More weight = larger car. Larger care = more air displacment. This means more fuel used.
2) Roads are not flat. Pushing weight up a hill takes fuel. More weight = more fuel. Going down hill doesn't save you anything since you don't get fuel back going down the hill you just went up.
3) Friction & Rolling Resistance increase for a larger vehicle. (Trains use steel wheels to overcome rolling resistance) Partly from weight, partly from larger tires.
4) Larger motors in the larger vehicles burn fuel at an exact air fuel mixture. They burn more fuel just by virtue of being larger. Direct injection can solve this but only diesels use that tech at this point. Chryslers Pentastar Motor is supposed to be able to do direct injection in a prodcution gas burner, starting roughly 2011. I could have the name wrong on the motor
by rickhigginshtbr June 19, 2009 6:35 AM PDT
Suspect, you can have your cake and eat it too ;) I took my 85 Vette from Philly to Albany last summer, at 65-ish MPH I averaged 34MPG. But, on Monday I took my 03 Grand Am (2.2 ecotec) from Philly to Cleveland and averaged JUST over 30MPG (30.2 IIRC). My Vette is a whole lot faster than the GA, and even has a V8 vs an I4. But, like said in the article, my GA is a whole lot safer, a lot more comfortable, definitely roomier, about a foot longer, and a few inches taller. The GA definitely weighs more than the vette, bringing the MPG down. But the fact that it is an overall larger item to throw through the air also adds into the MPG.

The only way this debate can be solved is by putting a newer motor into an older car. Someone give me a turbo ecotec and a C4 Vette to play with ;)
by bigmc6000 June 15, 2009 12:59 PM PDT
So you're suggesting that a marginal increase in efficiency is "good" for over 15 years of research and advancements?!?!?! What planet are you on?? Oh, and FYI, we don't ask our cars to go any faster than we did 15 years ago, the speed limit for most all places has stayed the same so you have no traction on that front. The real problem is car makers won't put an engine with less hp in a tiny vehicle anymore. I had a 90 civic DX and it was spec'd at 98hp. 98HP! And guess what, I scooted along just fine and got over 40mpg and still managed to beat most people off the light seeing as how it was a manual transmission. Anyway, my point is you're arguing $s vs environmental theory and at the end of the day the $ is ALWAYS going to win unless the feds make us care about the latter (which they have, time and again).

If I'm a cash strapped consumer I take the '92 over the '09 any day as not only is the car cheaper but spare parts are as well (junk yard it!). Honestly, this was a really, really poor entry and shouldn't ahve appeared on the main page, ever...
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight June 16, 2009 11:24 AM PDT
He's suggesting that bigger safer cars get in the way of showing the true fuel efficiency gains that have been made.

Put a modern motor in your old rig and you would do noticably better than your 40mpg.
by zo6freak June 15, 2009 1:51 PM PDT
This wohle thing boils down to whats important to the consumer. If you want to own the cheapest car to maintain, dont care about looks and could care less about safety, then the 93' civic is your best option.

However if your like me, you think to yourself... whats more important? Surviving a car accident? or knowing that up until i died in this supposed car accident that i was getting 3 mpg better than i otherwise could have. Its a no brainer imo.

Now dont get me wrong, i know that not everyone is in the position to own the "latest and greatest" vehicles and they are confined to purchasing cars for 500 bucks. But if you have the means to protect yourself with added safety features, want to have a nice stereo system or just simply be trendy. then the new options far out weigh their older counterparts.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis3 June 15, 2009 6:40 PM PDT
The problem is that you are automatically assuming that more fuel efficient equals less able to survive in an accident. The real thing that you have to realize is that a person who died in a car accident 20 years ago would STILL die in that same damned accident today, based on computer modeling!
They know that is a fact at the TSA, yet they don't put out that fact because it would make automobile companies 'look bad'.
by Renegade Knight June 16, 2009 11:36 AM PDT
@Lerianis3

Sure if htey had the same accident in the same car they would still die. Put them in a newer car though and they get better odds of surviving. Safety has improved from the tin can's of the 80's and early 90's.
by antuan.goodwin June 15, 2009 3:03 PM PDT
Many of you raise perfectly valid points. I welcome your opinions. But again, we're not comparing apples to apples.

Pop over to http://www/fueleconomy.gov and do a side-by-side comparison of the 1992 Civic (1.6-liter, automatic) and the 2009 Civic (1.8-liter, automatic) and you'll see that if I made one mistake, it's that I gave the '92 Civic too much credit.
Reply to this comment
by pjcamp June 15, 2009 3:37 PM PDT
The way the EPA calculates mileage values has radically changed. Under the new method, hybrids take the biggest hit, but the average mileage of all cars has decreased. Your friends are comparing mileage calculated under 1970's methodology with those computed under and entirely different 2008 methodology. Can't do that. Apples to oranges and that sort of thing. For instance, the older method still assumes a 55 mph upper speed limit and that is long gone. Accelerations are positively funereal simply because that is all that the dynamometers of the mid-70's could produce. Edmund's has a pretty good explanation:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/119812/article.html
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis3 June 15, 2009 6:42 PM PDT
Actually, 55 is the upper speed limit on everything but major interstates, so your argument is kinda flawed. In the cities, the maximum speed limit is 40-45 MPH and hasn't changed since the 1960's.
And, we would be better off lowering the speed limit on the major highways back to 50-55mph..... personally, that is the fastest that I personally feel that I am in total control of a vehicle at even on the interstates.
by only_truth June 15, 2009 8:23 PM PDT
@Lerianis3

You shouldn't be allowed to drive if you can't control your vehicle at 60 mph. Unless you drive a car that doesn't pass inspection, that's really borderline pathetic driving.
by rickhigginshtbr June 19, 2009 6:48 AM PDT
ok... well, test the old like you would the new, simple solution.
by EALChilazr June 15, 2009 6:07 PM PDT
I don't know what you're talking about, my '98 V8 Explorer runs on hopes and dreams.
Reply to this comment
by craig.knapp1 June 15, 2009 8:26 PM PDT
Electric cars? Bet you think you are helping the environment. I checked the Department of Energy website, as of 2007, only 27 percent of U.S. electricity comes from renewable sources (when was the last time we built a nuclear power plant). You only have a 73 percent chance of plugging in somewhere and using renewable energy to charge your electric car, and you have done nothing to make us less reliant on foreigners for petroleum (only because we lack the intestinal fortitude, not technology, to drill off shore, near national parts, near wild moose and polar bears, et. al, but that is another subject). Wake Up America!

We should be skipping the electric car (skipping a generation technology) and going straight for the big payoff...plasma drive or something. Why? because now you will have 2 legacy systems to provide for fuel distribution, petroleum and electric, thus adding to the cost of infrastructure.

I routinely get rid of 2 or 3 year old $2,000 computers as being "too outdated", yet I am relegated to use the Infernal (I meant Internal) Combustion engine from 120 years ago? If automobile manufacturers innovated at the rate of the PC industry I could fly my car to the moon on a thimble full of salt by now.

Craig Knapp
Reply to this comment
by jpsalerno June 15, 2009 8:56 PM PDT
Rather silly comparison if you ask me. The modern PC is, compared to a car, relatively new. Like virtually any product ever made, the growth/improvement curve starts up pretty steep early on and eventually begins to plateau out some. We're actually beginning to see this already with PCs and the needs for faster processors (with more 'cloud computing') is no longer as important as it once was. Because of this, people will likely hold onto their computers longer than they once did.

As far as car engines are concerned... while the base technology (internal combustion) hasn't changed... virtually everything surrounding it has. Sure, engines of today may not be 100x more powerful than their counterparts just a decade ago... but the improvements and capabilities they provide can't simply be dismissed. The fact that my 4-cylinder EVO will blow away virtually any 60s-70's era big-block V8 musclecar is proof we've come a long way in engine tech.
by jpsalerno June 15, 2009 8:29 PM PDT
Antuan: Your premise is flawed. You start the article by referencing someone with a '92 Civic saying their car has better 'fuel economy' than your current Civic. Then you proceed to 'rant' about how your Civic is, because of its significant added weight, more efficient. Even though you're wrong about that as well (as one of the previous posters clearly pointed out) the fact remains that fuel economy and efficiency are 2 different things. According to your logic, a 5900lb Tahoe Hybrid with its 21mpg hwy rating is a better choice than most simply because it's more 'efficient'. All things being relative, that's a pretty decent mpg rating for such a huge vehicle. But, if you're serious about protecting the environment, you'll look past that flawed logic and look at the big picture. In the end, a car's MPG is far more important than simply how 'efficient' it is relative to its weight. The Ozone doesn't give a rat's ass about relative efficiency. The less CO2 we put into the atmosphere the better. This begins and ends with mpg ratings. There are no moral victories for 'efficiency' when it comes to the environment.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight June 16, 2009 11:31 AM PDT
His premis is correct. Your understanding of it is flawed. Your assertion about fuel use is correct, but different than his premis.

To meld both your arguments if you took the 09 Civil Motor and put it in the 92 Civil both of you would walk away feeling like you had made your point. You would see the better mpg, and he would see the better efficicny in a place where it can shine.
by stock92 June 15, 2009 9:28 PM PDT
Although a lot of these facts and arguments are true. I find it very amusing that you have large contingents who leave out the most important part of this equation. Engine size and cruising rpm at highway speeds. Yes a small engined car like a civic is great around town on gas but the engine has to work very hard to maintain highway speeds. For instance my 2000 civic sat at around 4-4.5k rpms at highway speeds and got me about 28-30mpgs. I commute 110 miles per day so I logged all my usage for 4 mths to rule out overly good and bad mpg. Now I also own a 92 mustang gt and at highway speed it sits anywhere from 1.8-2k rpm highway speed. I have driven it on my commute for 2 months now and even with the big evil gas guzzling v8 my average mpg per tank is 27-29mpg. Now for fun the mustang is about 3200lb to the civic 2800. Now around town the civic wins handily but highway its close because as the mustang basically idles down the highway the civic's little 1.6lt has to work hard to maintain. My point is there is a lot more to mpgs then just weight if more people would take the time to understand how a car operates a lot of these misconceptions would be history.
Reply to this comment
by stock92 June 15, 2009 9:39 PM PDT
Also to all you morality mpg police drive a stick instead of an auto. It is far more efficient and gets better mpg compared to autos. Just another thought that is overlooked often. You care about the environment but are to lazy to drive stick.
by joevai52 June 15, 2009 10:26 PM PDT
stock92, you are generally correct. However, there are a number of new cars which are less fuel efficient when equipped with a manual transmission because of advancements in transmission technology and because of differences in gear ratios between the automatic and manual transmissions offered in certain vehicles.
by joevai52 June 15, 2009 10:23 PM PDT
The author is not wrong about relative efficiency, so please stop quoting the commenter above who "figured" it out and pointed out the author's mistake. The newer Civic is actually more efficient relative to weight.

The 1992 Civic on one gallon of gasoline goes 41 miles and weighs 2200 pounds. That means that its engine uses 0.00001108647450 (repeating) gallons of gas per mile per pound.

The 2009 Civic on one gallon of gasoline goes 34 miles and weighs 2900 pounds. That means that its engine uses 0.0000101419878296 (rounded) gallons of gas per mile per pound.

The 1992 Civic uses 9.31263858 (repeating) percent more fuel to move one pound one mile, so it is less efficient on a per pound basis, and significantly so.

Go ahead and argue whether or not cars should be traveling farther on a gallon of gas today than they did in past years even if they are bigger, heavier, more complex, etc. However, please stop arguing that the older car was more efficient on a pound for pound basis because it's simply inaccurate.

My opinion is that if car companies had focused more on fuel economy over the last 15+ years and less on engine power, comfort, cabin tech, and other amenities, cars today would be simpler, lighter, less powerful, and significantly more economical with fuel than they are. However, I am one of the many people who want a fuel efficient vehicle but also want all the cabin luxuries (I could care less about having more than merely adequate power). Until people in general rank fuel economy as a higher priority than all the other things they are looking for in a car, cars will continue to advance in all areas by small increments at the cost of a singularly great advancement in fuel economy.
Reply to this comment
by Nuggits63 June 16, 2009 1:56 AM PDT
Thanks, but, I think I'm just gonna stick with my '09 VW Passat.
Reply to this comment
by thinkerer June 16, 2009 5:03 AM PDT
The homework has been done years ago and is best exemplified by this chart

http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/images/87743217.gif

(contained in http://www.rff.org/Publications/Resources/Pages/Economics-of-Fuel-Economy.aspx )

We've got much more efficient engines, and have used them to increase horsepower (while keeping vehicle MPG constant or falling off slightly), rather than to increase fuel economy per vehicle. We get what we are willing to spend money on.
Reply to this comment
by clynx June 16, 2009 5:18 AM PDT
Henry Ford built a composite car body from hemp fiber. Light weight and stronger than anything out there today. Watch here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI

Oh and recyclable, plus hemp cleans C02 from the environment while growing. Canada is moving towards Hemp fiber in cars now!
Reply to this comment
by Fernyyy June 16, 2009 7:59 AM PDT
Talk is cheap. Almost as cheap as gasoline. If hybrid car producers had to rely on people who bought their vehicles for better mileage and for the environment, they'd go down in flames faster than Chrysler and GM.

The Prius is a status symbol. That's why people buy it.

All car manufacturers build the cars we want. Nothing more. They can't afford to build cars we won't buy (Chrysler and GM proved that). The production cycle on a new vehicle was too long for the Big Three to adjust in this last cycle because NOBODY thought we'd see $4.00/gallon so fast and have an economy go into frreefall at the same time. All the established manufacturer's worldwide took a hit.

As for the point of this article, we do add a lot more crap in cars now than we did 5-10-20+ years ago. All that stuff is pretty nice in one way or another and all of it is powered by gasoline directly or indirectly in one way or another. Weight is ALWAYS a factor as well.

People payed lip service to fuel economy and the environment; the PC police in our society made sure of that (good little drone, you get a cookie). But everyone wanted that Hummer that went 0-60 in 3 seconds and was outfitted like your living room. The auto companies built what you were buying, not what you said you wanted.
Reply to this comment
by EMTCharlie June 16, 2009 10:08 AM PDT
Your point is valid but in the end how much will it cost me to get from point A to point B? I ride a motorcycle for the 50mpg it gets with out all the extra stuff on a car. If the argument is strictly fuel efficiency then the 92 Civic still wins in my opinion. However, if the argument was for *mechanical efficiency* then modern cars of course have the advantage. If mpg is the only concern then the other factors are irrelevant.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight June 16, 2009 11:32 AM PDT
If they would get off their duff's and fuel inject motorcyles you would see a nice leap in your mpg as well. When a car can get the same MPG as a bike. Something's wrong and it's not the car that has a problem.
by tafkamhokie June 16, 2009 10:09 AM PDT
I think comparing the modern Honda Fit to the old Civic makes more sense. The Civic has gotten much larger.

2009 Honda Fit: 2489 lbs, 30 mpg (combined), 1.5L engine, 117 hp
1988 Honda Civic CRX-HF: 1819 lbs, 44 mpg (combined, revised to use 2008 mpg standards), 1.5L engine, 62 hp

Honda Fit takes .000013392259 gallons to move one pound one mile. The 1988 Civic takes .000012494377 gallons to move one pound one mile. The 1988 Civic is about 7% more efficient after normalizing for the added weight.

Granted, you are getting nearly twice the horsepower for only a 7% drop in fuel efficiency by weight.
Reply to this comment
(46 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next

Search Car Tech

advertisement

About The Car Tech blog

CNET's Car Tech blog covers the latest developments in the automotive industry, with commentary on car stereos, hybrid and concept cars, GPS, and much more. The Car Tech blog offers the latest news and reviews from CNET's Car Tech reviews channel.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Car Tech blog topics