100 years and MPG

[SKIQUATTRO]

was just at the Essex Steam Train (Essex CT) for the Polar Expres (excellent!)

they had a Model T on display as its the 100 year anniv. The display read: top speed 45mph and average mpg 13-21.....

A 100 years ago a car was getting 13-21MPG...talk about a lack of progress....think of all thats happened over the past 100 year in technology and we're pretty much at a stand still on MPG.

 

[Marc]

MPG is a lousy way to measure efficiency and/or progress.

 

[ctenidae]

Henry Ford created he first industrial production method for charcoal briquets, using scrap wood from the production of Model T's.

 

[Beetlenut]

....think of all thats happened over the past 100 year in technology and we're pretty much at a stand still on MPG.

The oil companies wouldn't have it any other way!

 

[Marc]

the market wouldn't have it any other way!

ftfy

 

[ctenidae]

ftfy

Too true, too true.

 

[mondeo]

was just at the Essex Steam Train (Essex CT) for the Polar Expres (excellent!)

they had a Model T on display as its the 100 year anniv. The display read: top speed 45mph and average mpg 13-21.....

A 100 years ago a car was getting 13-21MPG...talk about a lack of progress....think of all thats happened over the past 100 year in technology and we're pretty much at a stand still on MPG.

I get 18 city, 24 highway in my STI. Better gas mileage in a car that can get to 60 mph in under 5 seconds, get over .9 lateral gs on the skidpad, has crumple zones, side impact reinforcement, front and side airbags, AWD, etc. Go to a car that's analagous to the Model T, and you get around a 2.5-3x improvement in fuel economy along with all the safety improvements and a decent amount of the performance in my car. If you kept all other metrics the same as the Model T (performance, safety regs, cost, etc.,) a car built today would crush it in fuel economy, decent chance of being over 100 mpg.

We've progressed, there just has been no reason to move on fuel mileage.

 

[koreshot]

I agree... I think the number one reason why the MPG hasn't grown is because we choose to make cars with much better performance, safety and creature comforts. MPG just hasn't been much of a priority...

Even the hybrids that are coming out are a copout. They are overly complicated and some would argue they have a worse carbon footprint due to batteris, hybrid drive and complicated electronics/mechanics - but people buy them cause it allows them to hang on to creature comforts and reasonable performance while getting good mileage. An early 90s Civix HX got 45mpg and cost half as much as a Prius. At highway speeds, the Prius hybrid drive is nothing more than dead weight, robbing mileage. The reason it gets solid highway mileage is a small efficient engine, sound aerodynamics, reasonable weight and low resistance tires.

Not very scientific but still a fun data point...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXPCckjTMVg

 

[freezorburn]

The following Pic explains it all!

 

[Glenn]

As mentioned, a lot of it is weight. AutoWeek had a great article a few months ago on this very topic. Some of the newer "compacts" weigh hundreds of pounds more than they did. Power windows, power locks, A/C, sound deadening, power seats...all that stuff ads up in a hurry. Like stated above, many econo cars with a 5 speed from the late 80's early 90's will do just as well, if not better in real world MPG than these hybrids. But hey, it's hard to save the world when you're driving a car with no A/C, no cupholders for your Starbucks Soy Tall ChaCha Whatever and you can't pair your bluetooth with the radio....... ;-)

 

[ski_resort_observer]

was just at the Essex Steam Train (Essex CT) for the Polar Expres (excellent!)

they had a Model T on display as its the 100 year anniv. The display read: top speed 45mph and average mpg 13-21.....

A 100 years ago a car was getting 13-21MPG...talk about a lack of progress....think of all thats happened over the past 100 year in technology and we're pretty much at a stand still on MPG.

Everything was better 100 years ago!

 

[hardline]

i was talking with an engineer for gm or ford one day and he was telling me about how in the late 40's early 50's the redesigned the oil and cooling chanels in the enigines. the reason was so the would run at higher temps and not last as long. i dont know if there is any truth to it but i could see it being the case.

 

[Glenn]

Sounds kinda like a line. A company is going to make more money selling a quality product. There's no guarantee that Joe Car owner is going to take is his car to the dealer to get it fixed when something breaks. IMHO of course.

 

[hardline]

Sounds kinda like a line. A company is going to make more money selling a quality product. There's no guarantee that Joe Car owner is going to take is his car to the dealer to get it fixed when something breaks. IMHO of course.

actually if you talk to 50's hotroders they will tell you the same thing. its also one of the big differences with crate and regular production engines. i am not talking about a motor last a year longer try like 10. at that point it becomes a loss for a company because cars as much as we like them are disposable product. if eveybody had a car that lasted 25 to 30 years most of the auto companies wouldn't be around.

 

[Glenn]

A car that lasts that long would cost more than the Apollo space program. :wink:

Cars are fascinating pieces of machinery. Throw in that whole "businesses have to make money to survive" and things get really interesting. I do a decent amount of wrenching. At times, I ofter think about the meetings they must have: "You know, we can save 2cents per vehicle if we make that faster plastic....and another .5 cents if we use one less ounce of grease in that fitting...." Engineer:"It's going to break sooner" Accountant:"We'll save a few mil..." And at that point, I need to step out of the garage for some air...and figure out how I'm going to re engineer my afternoon.

 

[ctenidae]

if eveybody had a car that lasted 25 to 30 years most of the auto companies wouldn't be around.

Apparently, cars that only last a year or two aren't much good for the car companies, either. I'm looking at you, GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

 

[Hawkshot99]

Go look at Europe. Their cars get way better mileage. I forget were I saw it, but there was a article that listed the MPG's for about 10 cars that are available both here in the US and in Europe. Every one of the European cars was diesel powered. In the US they don't have diesel cars because of crazy emissions laws. Also American's look at diesel as dirty, both in smell and the big truck image. The European cars averaged about 15-20 MPG better than the American versions of the cars.

I would love to get a Toyota Tacoma from overseas with a diesel engine.

 

[Geoff]

Apparently, cars that only last a year or two aren't much good for the car companies, either. I'm looking at you, GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

The Big 3 make fairly uninspired cars but you really can't complain about reliability these days. They don't rust. The drivetrain and suspension lasts 150,000 miles. SUVs still have reliability problems but passenger cars from the Big 3 are fine. This ain't the 1970's when the things simply disintigrated by 100K miles.

 

[davidhowland14]

But hey, it's hard to save the world when you're driving a car with no A/C, no cupholders for your Starbucks Soy Tall ChaCha Whatever and you can't pair your bluetooth with the radio....... ;-)

Yeah, airbags, anti-lock brakes, 4WD, and an automatic transmission just suck, too...seriously though, I drive a standard civic and get almost 40mpg. that's about 3-4x the model T. Im not sure I see where you're going with this. we have progressed, we just do more with our cars. Try doing some things in a model T that you can do in a tundra.

 

[koreshot]

we have progressed, we just do more with our cars.

Who says doing more with our cars is "progress"? Some might argue that being a car culture has made us less social and less efficient with our resources.