Miles to Go

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: vter @ 04/04/2008 3:57:36 PM

    One is not comparing apples to apples with respect to gas mileage. The octane rating in Europe is 100. The octance rating in the United States is 88 for regular gas. If one would obtain 100 octane gas in the U.S. AND the engine was set up to use 100 octance gas, then the gas mileage of U.S. cars would be increased. Would we pay even more than what we pay now for gas-- you bet!

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:21:58 PM

      Octane does not necessarily give you better mileage.

  • Posted By: idntkno @ 04/05/2008 7:01:55 AM

    We are able to put a man and a car on the moon so he can drive around and we put a remote controlled car on mars. Now I hear that we don't have the technology to build a car that doesn' t burn anything. I find that extremely hard to believe.

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:19:01 PM

      No one is arguing with you on that point, the point is the cost for all the things people supposedly want in their cars and trucks

  • Posted By: DonThompson @ 04/05/2008 7:05:41 PM

    What amuses me about all this is my 1970 Fiat 850 Spyder. A two-seater convertible sports car that from the factory got 62 mpg (imperial gallons, but that's still 52 mpg on the US gallon) while meeting 1976 California emission standards. True its 0-60 wasn't in league with GTOs, but it could break 100 mph and was comfortable in all forms of driving. Not overly noisy, either since the engine was in back with the transmission and drive wheels. The funny part - I got it because it was the least expensive ($2,200 in Canada) respectable car available at the time.

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:17:07 PM

      Hmmm. I drove a 1973 Fiat 124 Spider with a 1.8 liter engine. It got 25mpg over many thousands of fun miles, just like my 1973 VW Beetle got 25mpg. Great for their era. Where are people getting these inflated claims of mpg?

  • Posted By: bhees @ 04/06/2008 3:15:23 AM

    Pop Quiz: Which helps more to decrease the nation's fuel consumption:
    A) Replacing a 15mpg SUV with a moderately efficient 30mpg mid-size sedan (a 15mpg improvement)?
    B) Replacing a 30mpg mid-size sedan with a 50mpg fuel-sipping hybrid (a 20mpg improvement)?
    C) Replacing a 50mpg hybrid with a whiz-bang experimental 100mpg car (a 50mpg improvement)?

    If you picked C you're wrong. The real savings are all at the low end of the gas mileage range. Look at it this way:

    The 15mpg SUV burns 1,000 gallons of gas in a typical year (15,000 miles).
    The 30mpg sedan burns 500 gallons, saving 500 gallons compared to the SUV.
    The 50mpg hybrid burns 300 gallons, saving only 200 compared to the sedan.
    The 100mpg car burns 150 gallons, saving only 150 compared to the hybrid.

    Each higher mpg step costs more and has less benefit than the previous step. So yeah, 50 mpg is nice, but a far more valuable thing would just be to replace the gas guzzlers with normal cars.

    Put another way:

    At 15mpg, a 1mpg improvement saves 62.5 gallons per year, and it's pretty easy to accomplish.
    At 30mpg, a 1mpg improvement saves 16 gallons per year.
    At 50mpg, a 1mpg improvement saves only 6 gallons per year.
    At 100mpg, a 1mpg improvement saves only 1.5 gallons per year, and it's extremely hard to accomplish.

    Which end of this range do you think we should be focusing on??


    • Posted By: misterharban @ 04/06/2008 11:02:21 AM

      Pop Quiz:

      Which choice accounted more for more than doubling our national fuel consumption since 1980?

      A. Increasing the proportion of SUV???s and trucks in our transportation fleet.
      B. Increasing the number of miles per person we drive annually.

      The answer is B. We have doubled the number of miles we drive annually per person in the United States. If all other things were held equal, the increase in consumption which resulted from our increased usage of all vehicles is four times greater than the increased usage which resulted from the increased proportion of SUV???s and trucks in the transportation fleet.

      Further facts:

      Most of the increased miles are not the result of increased commuting miles, but of increased recreational and leisure use.

      Besides increasing the proportion of SUV???s and trucks in the transportation fleet, we have also increased the weight and performance of automobiles in the transportation fleet. The effect of increasing the weight of the automobile fleet accounts for nearly the same amount of increased fuel consumption as the increase in the proportion of SUV???s and trucks. The same is also true of increased fuel consumption resulting from increasing the performance of the entire fleet from 0-60 times averaging 15 seconds in 1980 to 10 seconds now.

      I laugh out loud when I hear someone advocate getting rid of SUV???s and then telling me how they drive their V6 Honda Accord 40,000 miles per year, or that they are headed out to buy a $4 cup of coffee at a Starbucks which is 2 miles away. The truth is that if we want to identify the culprit in our insatiable appetite for fuel we each need only look in the mirror. We surely drive vehicles that are too big for the task at hand. But we also drive vehicles that are too heavy and too fast to places we really don???t need to go.

      But then, driving two or three miles to get a cup of coffee whenever we want is a God given right, I guess.

      • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:15:36 PM

        Hey! I drive a V6 Accord. It gets on average about 19mpg when I drive it and about 22 when my wife drives it (she drives a little more highway plus lighter foot). Although I put 10,000 miles a year on my car including a once a year 2000 mile road trip. Who drives 40K miles a year? And I'm guiltiy of going to starbucks about twice a week for usually a $1.50 cup of coffee, sometimes I splurge and spend $4 by getting a treat. But my 19 mpg is double the REAL WORLD mpg of an SUV. I know I should be driving a more economical car (it's been for sale for a year on cars.com!) and starbucks is a luxury I can afford. For the record, McDonalds is more expensive.

  • Posted By: werpknarly @ 04/21/2008 11:15:47 PM

    my 97 passat diesel gets 45mpg AT THE PUMP!!! my wife and i are 5-10 and 6-0, im 250lbs, room for us, our kids and a weeks worth of camping in the trunk! its a heavy safe car..most diesel jettas and bugs get 55+mpg. that's how we GOT 50mpg

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:08:19 PM

      Yeah, on the freeway. Almost no one does all their driving on the freeway. END REPORTING OF FREEWAY MPG! My mileage can be 50-60% better on the freeway but it's a meaningless number 99% of the time.

  • Posted By: Rob_in_MN @ 04/23/2008 4:53:34 PM

    "many older passats get 50+ most older jettas get 55+ thats how we GET 50MPG! - werp"

    Umm, no they don't, you're dreamin'.

    Look here for actual mpg's reported by actual drivers for any model and year:

    http://fueleconomy.org/

    For the Jetta:

    http://fueleconomy.org/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Volkswagen&model=Jetta



    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:06:38 PM

      Seriously people, stick with reality. I drive a 2006 honda Accord V6. it gets around 19mpg in mixed driving. That's reality. Just like the prius gets low 40s mpg not 50-60. You'll hear people say "My new honda (v6) gets 30mpg" because they remember the old sticker that claimed that. My car does get 29mpg on the freeway but only if that's all i'm driving, no stops.

  • Posted By: If-I-were-King @ 04/27/2008 5:02:15 AM

    What you said in the above article is crap. There was a guy on "60 minutes" a few years ago that took a
    Volkswagon Rabbit, one of the most inefficient cars for it's size, and with some machining on the engine and by adding water injection, ended up with a car that got 60 mpg. I think that was sometime during the late '90s.

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:04:23 PM

      Wait, you mean the rabbit that got 40-50 mpg using diesel? You mean one of the most effecient cars of any size.

  • Posted By: rutbuster1 @ 04/27/2008 9:26:58 AM

    I've got to agree with you. Back in the 80's I had a Datsun B210 that got 42 miles to a gallon. Though it was only a four cylinder, I didn't do anything to it and it got that mileage. Also, a friend of mine had a modified carburetor on a 72 Nova with a 350 in it and got 35 miles to a gallon. Car manufacturers can make more fuel effecient cars but the oil companies won't allow it. Money talks!

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 4:03:13 PM

      No one got 35 mpg in a chevy Nova with a 350. Everyone has such fanciful notions of gas mileage, worsened by the EPA fake numbers on the stickers. Maybe on one tank of gas the Nova got 30 mpg driving 45mph on the highway. The real number is mixed city driving. That's the low number on your sticker. I have tested the mileage on over a dozen cars - none beat the new LOW city mpg number posted by the EPA on newer cars and estimated for older cars. One car was a Two door chevy impala with a 350 and high fuel economy carb retrofitted. Engine ran beautifully. Car got 19 mpg on the freeway over 2000 miles going about 65 mpg. At 55 mpg it got maybe 22. Way better than stock but not 35.

    • Posted By: Rio4 @ 04/28/2008 12:34:34 AM

      Sorry but you are wrong. The problem is manufacturing cost. The bean counters are to blame . Recall the Pinto's fuel tank puncture problem? That was for want of an $11.00 part. But to a bean counter it was a 30 million dollar expense. Look at Nascar they are still using carburetors while Audi's before mentioned Diesel engines use individual fuel injection (each cylinder has it's own injector) The public here is not exposed to the leading edge of technology because of cost and old men who have done the same with Formula one in Europe. These people would have use flying biplanes to carry-on the Romance rather than be managers of advanced technology

  • Posted By: JA Ingram @ 04/04/2008 5:21:16 PM

    Why don't you check into the Mercedes Benz full size diesel cars? They were advertised just a few years ago as getting 45-50 mpg by a dealership close to us in Jackson, MS. It was an E-Class. Toyota has a 4 cyl diesel that gets the same milage with the same power. You can still buy the trucks on E-Bay and have them shipped from Canada.

    • Posted By: pinkpanther87413 @ 04/04/2008 5:26:10 PM

      problem, today diesel is 4.00 per and reg unled is 3.30 if you go diesel you better get 50-70mpg at the price its at now, to equate to 35-50mpg gas car. why is the stanly steamer not good enough with the tech we have today they could really turn out kool cars and sm trucks!!!!

      • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 3:56:36 PM

        What's wrong with $4 per gallon. The price of diesel is still a better deal when you factor in the mileage and lifetime of the engine. Gas should be $10 a gallon in the US with a break for commerical diesel trucks.

  • Posted By: epegoblue @ 04/27/2008 9:23:10 PM

    Am I the only one that thinks someone or some group is holding technology back? I don't believe that the best technology available is for only 48mpg (Toyota Prius). Shouldn't most cars get 100mpg or more by now? Computers have advanced exponentially more than cars and look what computers can do now!

    • Posted By: Rio4 @ 04/28/2008 12:07:02 AM

      Well. it is much more than technology. Think of the total picture. Gas miliage really is only part of a much bigger economic=political problem, If we built efficient new refineries, and a new system of economics,and satisfied all the competing political groups ; all with out a dictatorship , channel Gene Rodenberry who did have it right. There is no easy solution The economic system and tax system needs change to allow new forms of energy which in time will be developed

      • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 3:53:02 PM

        Computers are probably the only area that technology has grown so fast - it's an illusion - nothing else is doubling every 18months. Fuel economy is just math, not magic. Light weight, low power, sensible driving style = good fuel economy. The prius is in my opinion way too big and heavy - get rid of some of that fat and put bigger and lithium battery packs and make it plug in. Ooooo fancy technology.

  • Posted By: colvinatch @ 04/28/2008 4:48:37 PM

    I have a 1988 Honda CRX HF (the HF stands for High Fuel) it gets 50 to 55 miles per gallon regularly and has over 300,000 mile on the odometer. Why can't Chevy or Ford build that car today, theyve had 20 years to study it?

    • Posted By: jawshoeaw @ 04/30/2008 3:48:28 PM

      Because no one was buying that car. Duh. Chevy and Ford probably are building that car now, but as the article says, if you take a civic HF and add all the safety equipment, you get 35mg. Still good of course - there are a couple of american cars getting that number now.

  • Posted By: johnshanton @ 04/30/2008 2:22:02 PM

    When it comes to automotive technology Detroit does not rank up there. All the talk about high tech-cars are just mostly that, talk. Take the hydrogen fuel cell car, and the fancy hybrids that our car makers are going to put out. When all is said and done, it will be either Toyota or Honda that will be the stepping up to the plate. Our Big Three are just too muscle-bound to move quickly into the field. Or too top heavy to be coming out with something we all can afford to buy. Their bean-counters will never okay anything that will not give them the maximun mark-up. They will continue to push through the easy-to-make and pad gas hogs until we run out of gas.

  • Posted By: johnshanton @ 04/30/2008 2:21:52 PM

    When it comes to automotive technology Detroit does not rank up there. All the talk about high tech-cars are just mostly that, talk. Take the hydrogen fuel cell car, and the fancy hybrids that our car makers are going to put out. When all is said and done, it will be either Toyota or Honda that will be the stepping up to the plate. Our Big Three are just too muscle-bound to move quickly into the field. Or too top heavy to be coming out with something we all can afford to buy. Their bean-counters will never okay anything that will not give them the maximun mark-up. They will continue to push through the easy-to-make and pad gas hogs until we run out of gas.

  • Posted By: riles @ 04/30/2008 2:21:34 PM

    I drive a car because I wanted better fuel economy when it came time to purchase. The past two weeks my car was in a body shop and I borrowed vehicles from a few friends. Each of them had SUV's, I drove a Jeep, GM Diesel 2500, and Chevy Tahoe. I admit, I loved being in a larger car but hated the price I had to pay at the pump. It is going to take a great amount effort on all of our parts to change the product offering in this country. It helps to have government regulators telling car companies to build more fuel efficient cars, but it is ridiculous for the American people to complain about high fuel prices when it costs them over $100 to fill their large oversized SUV's. We as a people cannot expect everything to be handed to us. We are responsible for the changes made and need to make a concious effort to promote those changes. Just because I desire to have a large SUV does not mean I should own one. Sometimes it takes a little self control. We operate in a consumer driven economy, the only reason large cars have been so readily available in the past 20 years is because we have demanded them. It is time to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself what you have done to promote our present situation. Stop complaining about car companies not using new technologies to make more fuel efficient cars, they are slowly working on them. Start voting with your dollars by purchasing more efficient and smaller scale cars and the car companies will be forced to follow suit.

  • Posted By: tkosha @ 04/30/2008 2:21:31 PM

    I currently own a vehicle which gets 60 mpg on long distance cruises (50mpg otherwise). It is readily available. Only cost me $8000 brand new in 2005. It is my Yamaha 1100 V-Star. A motorcycle for those of you committed to 4 wheels.

  • Posted By: johnshanton @ 04/30/2008 2:12:20 PM

    When it comes to automotive technology Detroit does not rank up there. All the talk about high tech-cars are just mostly that, talk. Take the hydrogen fuel cell car, and the fancy hybrids that our car makers are going to put out. When all is said and done, it will be either Toyota or Honda that will be the stepping up to the plate. Our Big Three are just too muscle-bound to move quickly into the field. Or too top heavy to be coming out with something we all can afford to buy. Their bean-counters will never okay anything that will not give them the maximun mark-up. They will continue to push through the easy-to-make and pad gas hogs until we run out of gas.

  • Posted By: johnshanton @ 04/30/2008 1:56:17 PM

    Not all Americans have a need for speed. And not all Americans drive the highways may I add. Let us not forget that the greater part of our country is largely rural. Millions live in little towns and they will happily give up the gas-guzzlers foisted upon them by our carmakers and go with the little European and Japanese microcars that can get over 80 MPG. I daresay the many millions who live in the cities too would be happy to be rid of Detroit's idea of how to get from A to B and buy something small, like the Smart car that Mercedes is bringing to our shores.
    The reason that we are no going to see 50 MPG cars here is just that our leaders and oilmen are drunk on the profits that our gas-guzzlers are making them. They will continue to dictate to us what to drive.

  • Posted By: ronpaulforprez @ 04/29/2008 3:16:08 PM

    This could have been a really short article...the quick and dirty answer is this: because America is controlled by the oil and gas industry. End of story.

  • Posted By: mhull1 @ 04/29/2008 9:02:42 AM

    Did you people with 1980's high mpg cars actually READ the article? Try again.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse