Malcolm McCallum wrote: > I don't know where we are in this conversation now, but > MY 1983 escort station wagon got 30-40 mi/gal on average > with up to 50 mi/gal on the highway. that wasn't a rating, > that was what it actually got. So, why is it that all the new > cars (including the hybrids) do so puke poor on mileage????
In 1983 many members of the general public, including the ecologists and eco-activists, were willing a drive a vehicle like your 2,500 pound 1983 Ford Escort wagon that had a 68 horsepower 1.6 liter engine, took 14 seconds to accelerate to 0 - 60 MPH, had a manual transmission, two wheel drive, small 13 inch wheels on narrow tread tires for minimal rolling resistance, and no weighty structural reinfocements to meet tough front, rear, side and rollover crash safety standards. By the 2000's car makers had learned how to make a 1.6 liter engine put out 110 horsepower. So that means to make a 68 horsepower engine like your 1983 Escort had, car makers had the option of decreasing the engine displacement down to 1.0 liters to gain a sizable 25% improvment in fuel economy. But the car makers didn't do that because the general public, including the ecologists and eco-activists, desired increasingly more powerful engines more than they desired improved fuel economy. So the car makers did not decrease engine displacement. Thus we have a situation today where the economy cars are about 60% more powerful than they were in the 1980's, but fuel economy is no better mostly because engine displacement is the same (or larger). Likewise the American public today, including the ecologists and eco-activists, prefer: a) an automatic transmission over a manual even though the latter optimizes fuel economy and low carbon emissions. b) four wheel drive or all wheel drive over two wheel drive even though the atter optimizes fuel economy and low carbon emissions. c) big wheels and wide tread tires over small wheels and narrow tread tires even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions and conserves steel and rubber. d) weighty structural reinfocements to meet tough front, rear, side and rollover crash safety standards instead of no reinforcments even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions. e) 65-75 MPH speed limits instead of 55 MPH speed limits even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
