What are the car manufacturers doing??

[Compaq888]

The cars are getting heavier, and bigger. I know they make it bigger so they can introduce more smaller cars but they still suck on gas. Cars from 10 years ago are actually getting better fuel economy than the cars of today(ignoring hybrids).

I just see a trend, the more gas prices go up the worser the fuel economy of cars. It's like the oil companies and the car manufacturers are bending us over at the same time.

the new civic is rated for 25/36
the new corolla is rated for 26/35

you've got to be kidding me!!!

The fit sucks on the gas and so does the yaris. And what the hell happened with the Xb???? the last generation xb was so economical...did you see the new Xb???? 22/27 I laughed in the salesman face when he said it's economical, are you ****ing kidding me?

[SVOboy]

Emissions controls do not make for good fuel economy, and emissions standards have gotten (rightfully I think) strict.

Furthermore, gas hasn't been expensive for very long, markets are not infinitely, instantly adaptable to such price swings.

And, let's not forget, the EPA used different testing methods, the VX only got 45 by today's standards, and it was the MPG king of the time. You had to pay a premium for it just like you do for hybrids now.

*shrug*

Where have the consumers been demanding more fuel efficient cars?

[Compaq888]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Emissions controls do not make for good fuel economy, and emissions standards have gotten (rightfully I think) strict.

Furthermore, gas hasn't been expensive for very long, markets are not infinitely, instantly adaptable to such price swings.

And, let's not forget, the EPA used different testing methods, the VX only got 45 by today's standards, and it was the MPG king of the time. You had to pay a premium for it just like you do for hybrids now.

*shrug*

Where have the consumers been demanding more fuel efficient cars?

I think it's bull**** to say that the consumers are demanding more bigger engines(car manufacturers), even if they were it was like 10 years ago. What do car manufacturers do??? check their opinion box every 10 years???

[SVOboy]

Are you saying that people don't like driving fast or accelerating quickly? I certainly do.

[c0da]

The mpg ratings changed in 2008 for more "real world" driving so every single car got hit with lower ratings. All the new safety features added lots of weight and hurt the mpg as well.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Are you saying that people don't like driving fast or accelerating quickly? I certainly do.

I would tend to agree. Most people I talk to think 25 mpg is good. I think I remember that the National FE in the US is 17 MPG.

[Compaq888]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Are you saying that people don't like driving fast or accelerating quickly? I certainly do.

I do, but my civic accelarates pretty good and I can get 40mpg tank. But why not make lighter cars??? why do we have to use metal when the technology is there to build cars with carbon fiber for the same price.

The reason i traded my altima for the civic is because the altima was slow and a gas guzzler like most cars driven.

The civic accelarates pretty quick, i'm pretty sure I could do some high 15's/low 16's passes in the 1/4 mile. Why can't we have accelaration and fuel economy??

What's the point of sticking all this crap?? why not build some lightweight economical cars, people want them!

[SVOboy]

Carbon fiber for the same price? Just looking at bikes, which is one place where it's easy to see side by side comparisons of the same things in steel, aluminum, ti, and CF, you'll see they're not the same price by any means.

[reformed]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I place some of the blame on the safety nazis and all their requirements for safety crap on new vehicles.

Agreed! and with all these cars getting heavier by the year, the lighter ones will not survive a wreck with one of those lead sleds. I really think there needs to be a restriction on a vehicles weight implemented and they slowly need to bring the weight back down. Every time I read car and driver or road and track I'm constantly amazed by the cars now weighing 4000+lbs everywhere. My 69 Dodge didn't even weigh that with a big block and an auto in it!

[GenKreton]

Originally Posted by reformed

Agreed! and with all these cars getting heavier by the year, the lighter ones will not survive a wreck with one of those lead sleds. I really think there needs to be a restriction on a vehicles weight implemented and they slowly need to bring the weight back down. Every time I read car and driver or road and track I'm constantly amazed by the cars now weighing 4000+lbs everywhere. My 69 Dodge didn't even weigh that with a big block and an auto in it!

The weight and safety correlation has been a hot debate here before, and I definitely disagree with this. Modern vehicles can wreck many older ones and keep the passengers much safer regardless of the weight disparity. Now when you figure in crumple zones they may not look like they did better, but all that kinetic energy needs to be converted somehow.

[Compaq888]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Carbon fiber for the same price? Just looking at bikes, which is one place where it's easy to see side by side comparisons of the same things in steel, aluminum, ti, and CF, you'll see they're not the same price by any means.

bikes are not really MASS produced like cars. If you were to produce cars that were made out of carbon fiber the price would be the same. Everything is "expensive" at first, but we can make cf for cars and mass produce this stuff like crazy.

[reformed]

Originally Posted by GenKreton

The weight and safety correlation has been a hot debate here before, and I definitely disagree with this. Modern vehicles can wreck many older ones and keep the passengers much safer regardless of the weight disparity. Now when you figure in crumple zones they may not look like they did better, but all that kinetic energy needs to be converted somehow.

I agree that they are safer, no doubt. I meant more towards the fact that weight is the number one factor that these cars get awful mileage as compared to the older lighter vehicles. If you compare the weight and mileage of a civic today vs. the weight and mileage of a 5th gen civic they aren't even in the same league. Granted the new one is much safer but its also much heavier. There is a way to make a car safer and still weigh half of what they currently weigh, but it all comes down to it not being cost effective to make it happen. Now with the gas prices hitting record highs every time you go to the pump, the manufacturers may be forced into researching this.

To clarify my point (which I'm horrible at doing) I was thinking more along the lines of a civic like mine getting into an accident with, say, even a new accord, I won't stand a chance because the accord has me by at least 1200lbs or more. Back in 92 the accord was maybe only 400lbs heavier than my civic.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I place some of the blame on the safety nazis and all their requirements for safety crap on new vehicles.

I respectfully disagree.

Remember that Aero trumps weight. So, let's say that ABS, Full Airbags, Traction Control, seatbelt pre-tensioners, and door braces account for 100-150 pounds of extra weight.

If you reduce the Cd by 0.01, you've likely canceled-out that extra weight (the equation is around here somewhere).

I'd rather have these items in vehicles, first for the sake of accident prevention, and secondly to protect those we care about in case someone makes a big mistake and runs into them (or you, for that matter).

If some drunk T-boned you at an intersection and knocked you into a pole -- wouldn't you want side-airbags and frontal bags + belt tensioners and crumple zones to save your arse? If Ralph Nader didn't champion seatbelts in the 60's, would we have them today? I can say from my ER and Medic experience that the difference between a belt and no belt is dramatic. IMO, this trend must continue. Those who claim those <1% of people who become "trapped" by the belt is preventing serious injury of death is sitting on a steaming pile of crap for an excuse.

RH77

[igo]

I think $4 gas is starting to change the average American's mind when it comes to power/mpg.

If a low priced and safe car was released with ~50mpg I think it would sell well. It would also have to be more versatile (seat 4 or more) then the smart car.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by RH77

I respectfully disagree.

Remember that Aero trumps weight. So, let's say that ABS, Full Airbags, Traction Control, seatbelt pre-tensioners, and door braces account for 100-150 pounds of extra weight.

If you reduce the Cd by 0.01, you've likely canceled-out that extra weight (the equation is around here somewhere).

I'd rather have these items in vehicles, first for the sake of accident prevention, and secondly to protect those we care about in case someone makes a big mistake and runs into them (or you, for that matter).

If some drunk T-boned you at an intersection and knocked you into a pole -- wouldn't you want side-airbags and frontal bags + belt tensioners and crumple zones to save your arse? If Ralph Nader didn't champion seatbelts in the 60's, would we have them today? I can say from my ER and Medic experience that the difference between a belt and no belt is dramatic. IMO, this trend must continue. Those who claim those <1% of people who become "trapped" by the belt is preventing serious injury of death is sitting on a steaming pile of crap for an excuse.

RH77

Yes a little areo and gearing goes a long way. Lots have proved that here. I got to see a side impact for real on the new beetle yesterday. A old Lincoln ran a stale red light and t-boned the VW doing about 35. No side airbags on the VW, the Lincoln deployed both of his, but both came out of the mess just dazed and confused. I was really impressed with the results of the VW.

[c0da]

Originally Posted by Compaq888

bikes are not really MASS produced like cars. If you were to produce cars that were made out of carbon fiber the price would be the same. Everything is "expensive" at first, but we can make cf for cars and mass produce this stuff like crazy.

I don't know if there still is, but there was a shortage on carbon fiber and I doubt you could mass produce them anyway. Lots of the carbon fiber goes to airplanes for now, but I'm sure if more carbon fiber companies pop up it won't be as big a problem.

Carbon fiber is not really good in crash tests though. It tends to shatter rather than absorb the impact. Maybe polyurethane would be a better option? If it was made stiffer maybe.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by Compaq888

... the worser the fuel economy of cars.

Originally Posted by Compaq888

... demanding more bigger engines

Originally Posted by Compaq888

What's the point of sticking all this crap?? why not build some lightweight economical cars, people want them!

Keep up the great work

[dsq]

GM is still pushes the escalade /yukon insanity...Even their hybrid is a giant yukon abomination.GM has been a dinosaur since the 70s.They cannot think or create anything that is not a boat.Its their dna.Listening to bob lutz is scary.He s a luddite stuck in 1969.GM is doomed imo.

[Big Dave]

If you have to ask, you don’t know safety regs.

It’s not so much the air bags, belt tensioners, etc – it the side door beams and the body structure to support them. The door has to be of minimal thickness, so the beam has to be of shallow section. It is asked to do its job “the hard way” so the only response is to make them of thick metal and fairly large. Add to that heavy structure to support it in the “A” and “B” pillar areas, and you rapidly get 400 pounds a door of extra weight.

An old mid-60s Chevy II Nova weighs in at about 2300 pounds with a six, but is by today’s standards a 24-karat deathtrap. Volvos have a well deserved safety reputation, but are very heavy for their size and predictably suck gas.

The feds and the courts demand safe cars and that means heavy cars. Add in the deleterious effects of Tier II engine regs and there’s little wonder where the MPG went.

You wanna legislate technology to get better MPG? Outlaw the automatic transmission. Safety would be improved as well. You’d have to be an octopus to jabber on the cell phone and shift gears.

I'm glad I'm not conceited enough to think I know more about the car biz than Bob Lutz.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

...and you rapidly get 400 pounds a door of extra weight.

So I have 1600 pounds of "door" on my sedan. Where is that number from? On a truck, maybe.

The American public wanted bigger cars (or were made to think so). So that's where the extra weight comes in.

I think it's ludicrous that this discussion even takes place -- especially Tier II/Bin-5 requirements. There's a learning curve with new tech. Look at the days just after the catalytic converter was implemented. 130 hp from a V-8 was "High Performance". People *****ed and moaned, but eventually the power curve came back up -- as did FE simultaneously. It has to start somewhere, and I for one, am glad it has.

Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, so here's mine. If us, or the people we CARE ABOUT DEARLY don't have the Jedi-like accident avoidance of Frank, the price we pay for the smaller car is more rigidity, increased safety devices, and accident prevention systems to prevent the unthinkable. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but who am I...

RH77