Frustrated with the auto industry!

I am so disgusted with the auto industry I don't know what to do! I don't understand why they're making hybrids that get a "whopping" 50 MPG when they were making non-hybrids that got that mileage 20 years ago! Hybrids are more environmentally-friendly in the long run, but those expensive batteries used in cars like the Honda Insight only last a couple of years from what I've read. And by the time you have to buy new batteries, it completely defeats the purpose of saving all of that money in gas in the first place.

I don't understand why they're not making Geo Metros anymore, or at least cars like it. I think it's pretty sad that the 1992 Geo Metro XFI's got upwards of 58 MPG and now the re-badged Metro (Chevrolet Aveo of today) can only get like 32 MPG at best.

We're in 2008. We're in the future! We should be getting way better gas mileage with our vehicles these days and yet if you look back 15 years ago, they were getting twice the gas mileage as we are today. Not only has technology skyrocketed since then, but so have the fuel prices.

I really don't get it. In 1992 we could get twice the fuel economy with a small hatchback than we can today...

As more and more of the great-MPG Geo Metros, Ford Escorts, and Honda Civics are starting to rust out now and fall apart, are auto makers forgetting that there are financially-struggling college students all over America that want a vehicle for basic transportation? It's not like everybody needs a Hatchback that is 300HP with a 3.0L engine and hybrid crap, a regular fuel (or diesel) engine 1/4 that size would be terrific for BASIC transportation (which is all I need and ask for!)

Am I missing something here or is everything the auto industry is doing (besides the Smart Car (http://www.smart.com/)) going in an opposite direction of what it should be?

We're getting what we ask for. We bitch and whine about gas mileage but what are the majority of us are doing? We are buying the biggest pickup that can haul 10k more than we need to. We're buying the SUVs still to haul 1 kid around in. We're buying the car with the turbo and the most HP we can. Whos to blame? The auto industry is just making what will sell.

So very true, but there is more to it than that. My ex wife had an 89 tercel, got great mileage (55 mpg) but if I ran it over with my xterra it would feel like I hit a speed bump. Due to the amount of larger cars on the road, auto manufacturers were pressured to improve safety ratings, meaning larger and heavier vehicles to offset the impact by a 10 passenger suv(suburban, excursion) driven by a soccer mom.

Open your eyes sunshine, in Europe they get cars that are far more fuel efficient than the states, it's not the auto industry you can blame, blame the consumers!!

In Europe they want cars that give better mileage, and that's what they get. In America they want gas sucking V8's and that's what is provided.

We're getting what we ask for. We bitch and whine about gas mileage but what are the majority of us are doing? We are buying the biggest pickup that can haul 10k more than we need to. We're buying the SUVs still to haul 1 kid around in. We're buying the car with the turbo and the most HP we can. Whos to blame? The auto industry is just making what will sell.
Actually turbos may become more popular because you can get more power out of an engine without using as much fuel, unlike NA engines. The new 335(in my sig) are getting 28+mpg on the highway and some people are getting around 22-24 in the city.. That's extremely impressive for a 300hp/300lbft engine.

I think theres too much pressure to get people to drive these batterys on wheels. Let me drive what I want, it's my money.

yea it is pretty bad how milage has decreased over the years. i'm not sure how acurate the fuel milage rating are though. they could be underrating the milage so there are less people getting less milage and less complaints.

Government conspiracy.

And we're actually in 2007.

Those who insist that the 'auto industry' is holding back developments that could make better cheaper safer cars for all of us usually don't have the first idea how to invent or build one themselves.

Actually turbos may become more popular because you can get more power out of an engine without using as much fuel, unlike NA engines. The new 335(in my sig) are getting 28+mpg on the highway and some people are getting around 22-24 in the city.. That's extremely impressive for a 300hp/300lbft engine.

True but "spirited" driving of that car will greatly reduce the mpg rating in my experience. :2cents:

Dont forget:

Great gas mileage or Great emissions. Those are mutually exclusive in todays GASOLINE egnines.
Europe gets such good mileage because half of them drive diesels, freak :)

If they only brought over the diesels that run rampant across Europe. Excellent fuel efficiency, insane torque, and with newer technology and turbos, the same speed, gearing and power as gasoline motors. I love diesels.

True but "spirited" driving of that car will greatly reduce the mpg rating in my experience. :2cents:
:lol:

Well duh!

When a consumer today wants a small car they still want it to be as refined and have as many features as a bigger nicer car. That means sound deadening and tons of electronics. Now, compare the Aveo or the new Nissian Versa/Honda Fit, to the old 89 to 91 CRX HF. That car is spartan, almost harsch in comparison to the newer offerings. But it gets almost 60mpg because the engine is a pea shooter (1.3 liters?) and theres almost no luxuries other then a heater and a radio. Now, the consumers today have been spoiled so much by the newer cars out today, that if you tried to make something along the lines of the CRX HF only a hand full of hippies would buy it.

Actually, the 89 CRX HF had a mpfi (smaller plenum than si) 1.5L engine but only had 12 valves as oppose to 16 valves of the 1.6L Si engine. The cam was less aggressive as well. Granted, the HF model was the baseline but most Honda enthusiasts that want to swap in a B16 or a monster LS/Vtec engine prefer the HF because it weighed less than the DX or Si models. Personally, I prefer the extra creature comforts that's why I bought an Si.

You may note that the Aveo has a dohc 1.6L engine and only makes what the 1990 CRX Si sohc engine made back then in hp... 108hp. That is pretty sad. The Aveo does come with staineless steel exhaust but so do most other brand new cars. The new Honda Fit has a 1.5L sohc engine like the old CRX HF but utilizes the better 16 valve technology with i-vtec and produces the same amount of power as the dohc 1.6l Aveo engine. Also, the Fit has already seen K20 swaps which produces a lot more power and torque just like the swaps do in the old CRXs.

Here is a little something you may find interesting. Most cars I see on the highway pulled over are small cars like the Aveo. I wondered why and my wife suggested that they are more dangerous to be traveling at a higher velocity of speed amongst gumongous SUVs.

Hah, i'm not talking down on the Hondas at all. I'd get an HF if I could find one...its the next best thing to my Shadow, except I could drive it on rainy days. But where the CRX was supposed to be a very cheap stripped down, almost a sports car kind of thing, the Fit is supposed to appeal to people who want something near luxury but don't want to have to pay the prices. The features in the car are nice, and its put together nice too, it'll just never match an 89 for gas mileage, and thats what has the thread starter pissed off.

I agree. I think a lot has to do with the added weight and all the safety equipment that go into these brand new "economy cars". The economy cars of yester year were go-karts compared to these newer cars. My wife has been tossing the idea of a new VW Rabbit but I just don't think it is the same at all. There is more to the name than just a the little bunny emblem and the 2 door hatch design. I mean the engine is twice the size and it only makes 150hp probably because the car weighs twice as much as the original Rabbit... well maybe not.... haha... Still, it's not going to happen...

Think of how much weight would be saved if we didn't have all these emission bull crap systems on our cars. That's one problem for gas mileage.

New cars are much, much, much heavier. Also, people that can afford a brand new car rarely have to worry about gas prices. I seriously have no idea why anyone would buy a brand new Aveo/Fit/Yaris unless they just admittedly suck at driving and prefer a really small car.

I bought a Toyota Yaris, brand new, fresh off the production line back when it was first released in the UK in 1999.
Why I bought one.
I was 18 and still a relatively young driver and insurance on my car before that was crippling.
The Yaris offered me luggage carrying ability for me to get to+from university with architecture models (put it this way, I can fit an A1 drawing/drafting table with slide rule in the back) as well as people carrying when not doing my school run (me+4 others)
Cheap insurance+high mpg.
Cheap day to day running and with it being new, no need to worry about MOT for 3 years and a very comprehensive servicing+roadside assistance package that I got buying new.

for the price I paid for it, yes I could've bought a top condition RX-7/Supra/GTO (but not a Skyline unsurprisingly) but they're not exactly the most useful/sensible cars for an architecture student.

What I don't understand is that the EPA bans just about every SUPER-fuel-efficient vehicle from entering the United States because of *emissions*. That's what the EPA has been telling Smart since they came out with the 50-60 MPG (unleaded) Smart Fortwo a few years ago. They told it to Volkswagen recently also, and now 2007 and onward VW TDI's (which get anywhere from 40-52+ MPG) won't be allowed in the United States because of *emissions*. The EPA said VW could re-design the engines to fix the emissions, but that of course would mean less fuel mileage. I am a fifth-generation American, and I love this country but at the same time I think the US is the stupidest country on earth when it comes to fuel economy.

The EPA absolutely FORBIDS this diesel Smart Fortwo (86 MPG) EVER enter America because of *emissions*:
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/smartev.jpg

But yet the EPA is perfectly happy with International CXT's that get 8 MPG:
http://www.joeyholiday.com/International%27s%20new%20CXT2.jpg


Ugh, when the hell will fuel economy just be friggen allowed here? It's like it's a damn crime to get 40+ MPG for cripes sakes. But if you get 2 MPG, it's alright with them! What a joke.

It has a great deal to do with Corporate America. If everybody was getting 40-50mpg gas prices would go up substantially. Aren't gas prices ridiculously high in Europe? The reason is because people would be going to the gas station less and less. Corporate America can market that there is an oil shortage. But honestly, think about the big picture. How many vehicles are there being driven in the US? Yeah, it's inconceivable that there is enough oil in the world to run them all. But yet there are gas stations everywhere in this country and they get refilled all the time. I believe America's philosophy is to have "clean emissions" and not sacrifice production. IMO, there are way too many vehicles on the road. There is so much more to it but I'll leave that to somebody else if they care to elaborate.

price for petrol is the UK is high because of the tax on it.

I was just reading article somewhere that says hybrids being built is more destructive to the earth then any fuel guzzling truck. I'll try to find it and post it.

Ugh, when the hell will fuel economy just be friggen allowed here? It's like it's a damn crime to get 40+ MPG for cripes sakes. But if you get 2 MPG, it's alright with them! What a joke.

Its casue the EPA is convinced that diesels are dirtier than gasline engines. Which is quite opposite of the truth, in fact. Then you have to go convince most of the sheeple in the U.S. that modern diesels are not, in fact, dirty, smelly, loud, slow, obnoxious motors. Most of the people who rail against the importation of european (and japanese) small diesels have passed DOZENS of TDI's on the highway and not even realized it.

Sheeple.

I agree part of the problem is small car vs big car = death. My parents wont let me buy a smaller car than what I already have because of that.

here is the article I read http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188 .

Its casue the EPA is convinced that diesels are dirtier than gasline engines. Which is quite opposite of the truth, in fact. Then you have to go convince most of the sheeple in the U.S. that modern diesels are not, in fact, dirty, smelly, loud, slow, obnoxious motors. Most of the people who rail against the importation of european (and japanese) small diesels have passed DOZENS of TDI's on the highway and not even realized it.

Sheeple.
That's definitely the truth. Look at the trailers being pulled by late model tractors they arent black by the exhaust for a reason.

I drove an 06 VW TDI yesterday....very nice car, plenty of pickup (a LOT more than I expected from 100HP and 177LB-FT).....and no smoke. Might make it the next sedan I buy, in the fall.

here is the article I read http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188 .
wow. glad my dad decided not to buy one. I will show him this.

I drove an 06 VW TDI yesterday....very nice car, plenty of pickup (a LOT more than I expected from 100HP and 177LB-FT).....and no smoke. Might make it the next sedan I buy, in the fall.

i hear very good thing about the diesel accord; might want to give that a try to.

diesel accord? i'm guessing it won't be available in canada or the US, will it?

nope.

the VW Passat diesel (1.9-litre) is really good. quick, responsive, smooth, quiet etc..

it has everything and can get something like 40mpg.

nope.

the VW Passat diesel (1.9-litre) is really good. quick, responsive, smooth, quiet etc..

it has everything and can get something like 40mpg.

but not good enough. the X-prize is for 100mpg http://www.xprize.org/xprizes/automotive_x_prize.html

i'll try find the thing. Shell made a car that does something like 3,000mpg. it's in an ad in one of my magazines somewhere.

i'll try find the thing. Shell made a car that does something like 3,000mpg. it's in an ad in one of my magazines somewhere.

I wouldnt believe that claim for a second if the car is all gasoline powered. Maybe if they use antimatter reactors or something...

we have the means of having high mileage cars, but it's not whether or not they exist...it's whether enough people would buy them to make them affordable.

Even in Europe they have their efficient cars don't make it, such as the lupo because the demand for them aren't high enough compared to other more popular cars.

I'm thinking that it might be possible if it used a tiny diesel motor to power a hydraulic pump that moves a large solar panel around and positions it to get the best angle of the sunlight possible.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e276/stieh2000/solarcar.jpg

I wouldnt believe that claim for a second if the car is all gasoline powered. Maybe if they use antimatter reactors or something...

one gallon of gas has the equivalent power of five sticks of dynamite. I read somewhere that one gallon of gas properly dispersed in air/fuel ratio will lift the Empire State Building one foot in the air.

not to be a smartass but a gallon of gasoline couldn't lift the empire state building. the empire state building weighs 365,000 tons (331 122 430.1 kg), and to lift it up 1ft (0.304 8 meters) it would take 989,075,943.6 J. Gasoline has 131,732,330 J/gal so you'd need just under 9 gallons to lift the empire state building if you could use 100% of the chemical energy in gasoline to lift the building.

i can go over the physics work if you'd like but it's simple grade 11 physics, E = m*g*h (energy = mass * gravity * change in height)

not to be a smartass but a gallon of gasoline couldn't lift the empire state building. the empire state building weighs 365,000 tons (331 122 430.1 kg), and to lift it up 1ft (0.304 8 meters) it would take 989,075,943.6 J. Gasoline has 131,732,330 J/gal so you'd need just under 9 gallons to lift the empire state building if you could use 100% of the chemical energy in gasoline to lift the building.

i can go over the physics work if you'd like but it's simple grade 11 physics, E = m*g*h (energy = mass * gravity * change in height)


^ what he said. Same goes for pushing a car for 3000 miles. One gallon of gas ain't gonna do it.

well it's theoretically possible, you'd just have to have very little friction between parts and would have to be very aerodynamic. it would just be very very difficult and probably nearly impossible with our current technology.

Well theory and reality are two totally different things, beefy. Of course if you had no friction and no air resistance, my fart could propel a car 3000 miles. But we're talking subcompact car, able to carry 4 people at 65 miles and hour at least, using your run of the mill wheel bearings and materials and such.

that's true but these tests might not be using cars that carry 4 people at 65 mph. we don't know how the cars are tested, we don't know if they're accelerated at 5mph/s or 2mph/s, or the cruise speed, wether or not they use a dyno, etc. the problem with rated gas mileage is that the testing methods aren't always the same.

also, given an extremely light and aerodynamic car, i don't think it's that hard to believe that an internal combustion engine could get 3000mpg.

not to be a smartass but a gallon of gasoline couldn't lift the empire state building. the empire state building weighs 365,000 tons (331 122 430.1 kg), and to lift it up 1ft (0.304 8 meters) it would take 989,075,943.6 J. Gasoline has 131,732,330 J/gal so you'd need just under 9 gallons to lift the empire state building if you could use 100% of the chemical energy in gasoline to lift the building.

i can go over the physics work if you'd like but it's simple grade 11 physics, E = m*g*h (energy = mass * gravity * change in height)
Never took physics or chemestry. By the old NYS requirements for science went Earth Science, Bio, Chem, Physics. I did an equine program that took 1/2 my day so they cut out chem and physics.

that's true but these tests might not be using cars that carry 4 people at 65 mph. we don't know how the cars are tested, we don't know if they're accelerated at 5mph/s or 2mph/s, or the cruise speed, wether or not they use a dyno, etc. the problem with rated gas mileage is that the testing methods aren't always the same.

also, given an extremely light and aerodynamic car, i don't think it's that hard to believe that an internal combustion engine could get 3000mpg.

No way. W= F*d (we'll keep it simple because i dont feel like doing integrals).

We're going to neglect the parasitic drag from the wheels tires and wheel bearings, we're going to assume a 100% efficient engine, were going to give the car an absurdly low coefficient of drag of say, 0.15, and we're going to assume this car is on a planet with no wind. I used the frontal area of an F355.

So, air resistance F= 1/2 *p*v^2*A*Cd, p is the density of the air, v is velocity, a is the frontal area and Cd is the coefficient of drag.

So, the force of air resistance at 65mph is 1/2*(1.293 kg/m^3)*((29m/s)^2)*(1.9m^2)*(0.15) = 155N

The work required to do this for 3000 miles is (155N)*(4,828,032m)= 748 MJ

Gasoline only contains 132 MJ per gallon. So this magic car could go 529 mpg. Factor in extra friction, engine inefficiency, other factors, that would bring it WAY down.