whats with the grips about gas prices?

Uh... sorry... in the REAL world of daily driving, economy is Far better in the newer cars of same weight and HP. you point out a few examples but dont source them... and I VERY much doubt the "trounced" story.

IOW: Bullshit!

"walt peifer" wrote in news:y148f.169981$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

THE FACTS: ALL OF WHCIH ARE AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET TODAY!! year engine city hwy avg

1965 289 2v 15 22 18 1975 302 2-v 15 (combined figure only available) 1985 302 4-v 16 24 19 1995 4.6 ltr 17 24 19 2005 4.5 18 23 20

so my point is still valid, fuel economy has not noticable improved in over

40 years!! i'll concede the drivabilty issue's but if we compare bases v-8's not gt or others and modern tires on the early cars and automatic transmissions. The overall perfromance difference is not that impressive. The big improvement has been in reduced emmisions of photo-chemcials reducing air polution (not a bad thing)

AGAIN...

Since I was around when those mileage figures were first published, I have seen a sea-change. Even BEFORE then... when we were amazed that a

57 Chev SW made a trip from Ohio to Fla and got 19 freeway MPG.

The point being that I was NEVER able to approach published figures in my daily driving, esp on highway expectations.

NOW I have no trouble doing so...

I also look back to where I read that a standard beetle could get 28 mpg or even higher... but in my ownership of two of them, I NEVER got more than 21 mpg. No matter HOW well I tuned them.

So let's say I have a lead foot... fair enough. But NOW I dont have a single car that gets less than 20 city.. all v-6 true enough. but all with the same relative boot in the butt as my earlier cars.

Moreover.. the ratings for pre-FI cars of 70 and 80 period mean NOTHING as they were encumbered by same old fuel technology PLUS emissions.

And WHERE ARE YOUR INTERNET LINKS???!!!!!!

Let's see how much you really know, BTW... when driven for economy... same engine and car... which gets better mileage, on the whole, a 2v or a

4v?

"walt peifer" wrote

I have a subscription. The only article I recall was written by the boys from Mustangs Plus about a trip they made in two Mustangs to a car show... as I recall, one was a 65 and one was a 66. One with EFI and a T5, the other a 4V with (I think) a C4. As I recall, there was even mention that the 4V ran out of gas and the EFI had to go get some, so the drove the 4V car added miles to equal the EFI's round trip to get gas. The point of the article was conversion to EFI for classic Mustangs, and it just happens that Mustangs Plus carries the parts necessary for this conversion. The end result was that the EFI beat the 4V. IF this is the article you cite, you need to go back and read it again. If it is a different article, please provide the issue date, article title, and page number so I can read it for myself...

Manchester & Shortsville, NY (went through there this week on business) even in HIGHLY taxed NY state - $2.629 / $2.529 w/ car wash. Both are Mobil stations.

You are getting soaked. $1.99 all over upstate NY for a gallon of milk. Using that analogy, gas should be $1.599.

Source? Figures? Is 2% difference a "trouncing"?

You forgot about the exponential reduction in emissions since then. It costs!

Rob

Maybe they'll bring back steam..... Could go nuclear but every time there was an accident, they'd have to build a detour around the area for the next 1000 years... Of course, in time, there'd be nowhere left to go, and THAT would save gas...

$2.389/gal. in Midland, MI at 5 p.m. today

$2.42 for 87 octane in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Martin

2002 GT 5spd

My original point still stands. (see below for documentation )we should have had bigger increases in gas mileage over 40 plus years. I conceded the points about emmissions and drivablity in my other posts.

However lets look at emmissions briefly. If there is a substantal gain in MPG then emmission per mile driven would go down. (i.e. 100 mile trip at 10 miles per gallon is 10 gallons of fuel burned, 100 mile trip at 50 MPG is 2 gallons of fuel burned, as more americans are driving more mile per years an increase in fuel economy would reduce emmissions) oh by the way read the posting below or go direct to the web link

Every year since 1999, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ranked Ford cars, truck and SUVs as having the worst overall fuel economy of any American automaker. A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists ranks Ford as having "the absolute worst heat-trapping gas emissions performance of all the Big Six automakers." From subcompacts to SUVs, Ford's current line up gets fewer miles per gallon on average than the Model-T did over 80 years ago. According to the EPA's 2006 Fuel Economy Guide, three Ford models are among the eight listed as having the "lowest fuel economy among popular 2006 vehicles."

In the 2002 model year, the company's sport utility vehicles were 8.4 percent more efficient than the vehicles the company made in the 2000 model year. But the S.U.V.'s produced this year are only 5.2 percent more efficient than those made in the 2000 model year, according to the company's corporate citizenship report.

After a decline from 22.1 mpg in 1988 to 21.0 mpg in 1994, fuel economy has beenrelatively constant for a decade. The average fuel economy for all model year 2005 light-duty vehicles is estimated to be 21.0 mpg, the same value as achieved in 1994 and thehighest since 1996, but five percent lower than the peak value achieved in 1987-88.Average model year 2005 fuel economy is 24.7 mpg for cars and 18.2 mpg for light trucks.

Since 1975, the fuel economy of the combined car and light truck fleet has moved through several phases: (1) a rapid increase from 1975 to the mid-1980s, (2) a slow increase extending into the late 1980s, (3) a decline from the peak in the late 1980s until the mid-1990s, and (4) since then a period of relatively constant overall fleet fuel economy. Viewing new cars and trucks separately, since 1996, the three-year moving average fuel economy for cars has ranged from 24.2 to 24.7 mpg, while that for trucks has ranged from 17.6 to 18.0 mpg, and that for all light-duty vehicles from 20.7 to 21.1 mpg.

"walt peifer" wrote in news:OUp8f.171726$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

Änyone who thinks the above is germane loses all credibility.

And the same goes for most of your links

Read the original post....it is exactly germane to the conceptin the body of said post. (perhaps your gripe is with the title of the post?) Vehicle manufactures and the government need to do more to increase fuel economy.

Do current and projected safety and emmissions standards, prevent or slow the increase in fuel economy?Does the marketing concept of the major vehicle makers urge or influence the public to buy less fuel efficent vehicles? My original concept stated differently is that the fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon (not tons per mile, or comfort per mile) has been stagnant for 40 years. a mid sized sedan of the 60's has comparable MPG to a mid sized sedan of today. I've already conceded all other points about drivabilty, safety, emmissions and comfort.

"walt peifer" wrote in news:C8s8f.214901$p snipped-for-privacy@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

uh..NO... unless you advocate changing the speed limit to 35 mph or so... and then we can gear all cars the same as a model t Or maybe that T used the long-lost 85 mpg carburetor

plus it would be interesting to refine a few barrels to the same method used 80 years ago and compare the heat/energy output of a gallon then to a gallon of current pump gas.

I saw one of your type advocates on local news, demonstrate how just increasing speed 5 mph loses 10% mpg... problem was, he did it on a short closed course with lots of twisties, with a Taurus SW.

Dumbass news people didnt think to ask him about the effect of the tire squeal on mileage....

"Use new pellet technology and bring back the NUKE!!!"

Actually.. it just occurs to me that you dont really get my drift, at all....

It has always been possible to tune a car to get max efficiency... and you can do that with a carburetor, too. It's very difficult to keep a car that well tuned.

The difference between the OLD cars and the NEW cars is that the average driver almost NEVER saw the stickered mileage ratings in real life. I always thought it was a joke. But in the LAST ten years, with different "real criteria' changed, almost everyone gets that posted highway mileage under the tested criteria.

If you think there's some kind of 'cabal' at work... how about the Tire industry/auto mfr cabal?

check the costs of passenger car tires today per 100k miles against that of 40 years ago.

No...the car industry has no incentive to keep mileage low. And mandatory legislation past single digit improvements aint gonna help.

Isn't this all a bit like comparing apples and corn?

Model T's for their day were quite good, but no way could the tolerances of today be attained, nor could the performance of today be seen then... It was an era where there were essentially no roads for the few autos there were to use them.

All in all, a totally different world.

Leap ahead to the 40s when gas was rationed along with all other commodities for the war effort, when priority was in another world.

Then the late 40s and 50s. Very heavy machines but with big power and resistively cheap gas, in an era of celebration of the end of all the rationing, and other things that go with a post war period.

The late 60s and early 70s when thoughts were about Vietnam, not mpg.

The 70s when the great gas crunch hit home is when there was any real thought about mpg. But, as is human nature, as soon as it eased off, and people accepted the increased prices, the importance of fuel economy faded (not away but to a lessor priority).

The 80s and 90s carried the economic boom which normally follows a post war period; with all the money made in things like dot coms; when who cared what gas cost because everyone was rich (or so it was thought in some circles). The era of the Hummers and SUVs, bought by a younger generation which had never personally experienced hard times. A generation which seemed to view their world as a life of never ending lavish luxury, with money flowing like water to be squandered. Why should auto makers worry about mpg when they have an audience who will pay the price, no matter how high it goes.

Then the dot com bust and so many people suddenly unemployed, and life savings gone, and much reason to worry about the cost of gas. Now we're in another crunch, compounded by natural disasters. Thoughts again turn to fuel costs and economizing fuel use.

What will happen next? We will once again adapt to the increased cost, and our collective minds will focus elsewhere. Then when things get tight again, we'll think about why we have to pay so much for fuel, and why our vehicles get such poor mileage.

There are far too many differences in the technologies, the mind sets, and other factors, to make blanket assumptions about then and now.

Meanwhile, one oil company alone made more in profits than the 5 most popular product companies (including Microsoft software, the iPod, etc) put together according to a report I heard yesterday. Is that money going to build new refineries? Find new reserves? Develop new energy sources? Improve on old ones?

People are going to gripe about something. When they stop, that's the time to really worry about what is coming....

: >> From subcompacts to : >> SUVs, Ford's current line up gets fewer miles per gallon on average : >> than the Model-T did over 80 years ago. : >

: > Änyone who thinks the above is germane loses all credibility. : >

: > And the same goes for most of your links : : Read the original post....it is exactly germane to the conceptin the body of : said post. (perhaps your gripe is with the title of the post?) Vehicle : manufactures and the government need to do more to increase fuel economy. : : Do current and projected safety and emmissions standards, prevent or slow : the increase in fuel economy?Does the marketing concept of the major vehicle : makers urge or influence the public to buy less fuel efficent vehicles? My : original concept stated differently is that the fuel efficiency in terms of : miles per gallon (not tons per mile, or comfort per mile) has been stagnant : for 40 years. a mid sized sedan of the 60's has comparable MPG to a mid : sized sedan of today. I've already conceded all other points about : drivabilty, safety, emmissions and comfort. :

It's real easy to point fingers walt, but what have YOU done to make a difference?

KJK

2O|||||||O5 Liberty :

"KJ.Kate" wrote in news:BKK8f.22715$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews7.bellsouth.net:

stated differently is that the fuel

Why.. Kate! He's launched this crusade!

Never mind his talking points, like the above, are pure BS!

I dunno how freakin' old Walt is... but I had one of those mid-sized cars, new, in the sixties and the supposition that the mileage hasnt improved is pure horse hockey!

I got 12 mpg general and 16 on a trip... and it wasnt a muscle car either.

When I was a lot younger, for a short while I had an early 70's Chevy Caprice w/400 4-barrel. Around town, it would get 10-15mpg (fortunately, gas was pretty cheap). It had that classic "woof" when you punched the gas and opened the secondaries while the tires lit up.

8-) Occasionally, my buddies and I would take it on a long highway run and at a steady 75mph, it would actually get 20-25mpg. And that was with a couple passengers and a trunk full of luggage, skis, and a barrel of beer. 8-)

Cheers,

In '74 I bought a new Caprice Classic convertible. Loved that car, but mileage really sucked. Best I could get was 11mpg until put duals on it and then it got 13mpg, tops. It was also a 400 4bbl. It was white w/white top, white seats, black dash and red carpeting. Also had wire wheel covers. They still made interesting cars, back then :).

Dave