I've been looking over fuel economy figures these last few weeks, and have noticed a weird trend.

A 1985 Cavalier with a carburated engine and 4 speed manual gets identical fuel economy than a 2005 Cavalier with a DOHC, computer controlled, fuel injected engine and a five speed manual. (23 city/32 or 33 hwy and 26 avg for those interested, the 2005 gets 33 hwy btw)

Then you get a 1985 Chevrolet Caprice with a V6 and 3 speed auto VS a 2009 Pontiac G8 with a V6 and 5 speed auto. Guess what? 16 city for the Caprice with the carbed engine and 17 city for the G8. Highway figures are similar, 22 for the Chevrolet and 25 for the Pontiac. I realize that the new car is much more powerful and luxurious, but JESUS... Only 3 freakin' mpg more in almost 25 years??? The Caprice has a huge heavy frame, it's got the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, it's got an engine that dates back from 1954 and a transmission that's older than the moon landings.

And I'm not saying this out of some jackass treehugger desire to thrash GM or cars in general. I understand the physics behind MPG and know that we can't do 90% improvements every year like those green idiots think cars should be able to do. It's not that. It's just that it got me to wondering why exactly we're loading cars with all this technology if it doesn't improve mileage in the least bit. I always thought that fuel injection, multiple valves, double cams quintuple gears and the death of the frame was a byproduct of efficiency.

I hate to say it, but we're getting slightly screwed here. Yeah, we make more power, but what's the cost? The average driver, and that includes everyone here doesn't need power up the wazoo all the time. They need a car that doesn't use half the North Atlantic fuel reserves just to go get milk for the kids at the damn grocery store.

It reminds me of what journalists were saying about the new Camaro in 1993 when GM was flaunting that their LT1 350 V8 could do 20mpg and still make 275hp. A few of the journalists mused that they'd be more impressed if GM made an engine that did 40mpg and 140hp instead.

I dunno, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if cars aren't gonna get better fuel economy, let's go back to what the old ones looked like. I'd much rather drive a 1984 Monte-Carlo SS than a Pontiac G8 or Cadillac CTS. I'm old fashioned that way.

U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency has increased only 3 mpg in 80 years
http://www.gizmag.com/us-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-improves-3mpg-80-years/12410/

Gizmag is always on the lookout for alternative means of powering vehicles and saving precious fossil fuels. But, in truth, the vast majority of us still drive exclusively petrol-powered cars. And the even sadder truth, outlined in a new research from the University of Michigan, is that the average fuel efficiency of a US vehicle has improved only three miles per gallon since the days of the Ford Model T.

Michael Sivak and Omer Tsimhonia, of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, calculated the distance driven and fuel consumed for the entire US fleet of vehicles – incorporating cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses – between 1923 and 2006. Using those numbers, they were then able to analyze fuel efficiency on US roads at any time, and make telling comparisons between eras.

According to Ford, the Model T – which began mass-production in 1913 – averaged a fairly healthy 25 miles to the gallon. Nonetheless, by 1923, the year the study begins, the average fuel efficiency of the entire US fleet was 14 mpg. That figure remained about the same for more than a decade.

From 1935, however, fuel efficiency fell into steady decline, dropping to an alarming 11.9 mpg in 1973. When you think about the kind of vehicles released through that time – and the number of extras that steadily became standard – it’s almost not surprising. All those fins and chrome and power-assisted systems came with heavy penalties in efficiency. The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, estimates that air-conditioning alone decreases the fuel efficiency of a car by as much as 12%.

But, with the fuel crisis of the 70’s, fleet efficiency was compelled to improve, and in a hurry. From 1974 the economy of the US fleet improved five miles a gallon to 16.9 mpg in 1991. Curiously, since then – despite growing environmental awareness and publicly-voiced concern – improvement has been painfully slow, reaching just 17.2 mpg in 2006.

The underlying problem in recent years, of course, isn’t with new cars, some of which can achieve close to 40 mpg. It’s all those old vehicles out there, chewing up gas like there’s no tomorrow. As far as Sivak and Tsimhoni are concerned, it’s much more important to improve fuel efficiency at this end – from 15 to 16 mpg, say – than trying to get a Prius from 40 to 41 mpg.

By their estimates, for the US to reduce its total annual fuel consumption by 10%, fuel efficiency across the entire fleet of cars, motorbikes, truck and buses would have to rise nearly two percent. That may not sound like much, but it took 15 years for a 0.3% change. And when you’re talking about 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the average medium-sized sedan, making a change has never seemed more critical.




"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein