Looking beyond miles per gallon (rant)
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.
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.

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?
'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.
'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.
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes...
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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 ;)
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...
Put a modern motor in your old rig and you would do noticably better than your 40mpg.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/119812/article.html
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh and recyclable, plus hemp cleans C02 from the environment while growing. Canada is moving towards Hemp fiber in cars now!
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.
-
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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(46 Comments)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.