I think it has a lot to do with ethanol being added plus more and more emissions controls.

Buddy had a 1989 Honda CRX with a 1.5L (I think) and that thing would get 50 mpg all day long if you really tried you could get 60+ on the highway.

Another buddy had a 1997 Civic with a 1.6L (I think) and that thing would get 40mpg all day long.

I had a 1992 Mustang 2.3L that weighed 3069 lbs and got 30 mpg if granny was driving on the highway 35 was obtainable.

Buddy had a 2020 Ford EcoSport as a loaner with the 1.0L Ecoboost motor. That thing weighs 3125 and the window sticker claims 28 mpg combined.
And if it was anything like the Escape we had with the 2.3L Ecoboost in the 2 years we had it we never saw what the window sticker said.
As a side note my buddy who had the EcoSport loaner said he had read an article about the debut of the 1.0L Ecoboost motor that they actually flew with it from Detroit to the LA Auto show in the carry on luggage.

Here we are near 30 years later and our smallest econoboxes are barely doing what my Mustang did some Hybrids are close to the 97 Civic and nothing is even close to the CRX.

30 years and we have essentially gone backward in mpg capabilities.

The smaller cars today (like Civics, etc) are heavier and larger and have more HP than the same make and models from 20 or 30 years ago. Safety standards have gotten more stringent, thus requiring the size/weight increase. Not to mention the added weight of all of the electronic gadgets, safety systems and other amenities that people want on their cars today. Couple that with customer demands for more and more horsepower and youre just not going to see mileage increases.

My mechanical engineer family member who works for one of the automakers in powertrain systems recently told me the internal combustion engine barring some unforseen technological discovery is pretty much tapped out for now when it comes to large gains in fuel mileage for the reasons above.

https://www.autotrader.com/car...-1980s-models-241487

My daughter has a long school commute in her 2017 Civic Lx.
She averages 38-39ish.
It has plenty of power, and amenities

My CRX SI got 45mph non-SI low 50's. Traded SI in for a '12 Fusion with 2.5NA engine. 135hp (very minor mods) on 1000 cc less vs 175hp and 21mpg. The CRX would dog the Fusion all day long and twice on Sundays with double the efficiency. Caveat 1/2 the weight of of Fusion.

New '19 Fusion Sport with 2.7TT EcoBoost, I'm almost embarrassed to say...



All city miles. Grocery stores are 1mi away, Home Depot 5mi, etc. Everything is less than 10mi for anything I could ever need.

Skins, I get that in my 4.0L 4Runner with AT tires and a roof rack, and I'm not easy on the pedal.

literally everything the government is telling the automakers they MUST add to the car to be able to sell it adds weight...think crash resistant bumpers, surviving those numerous crash tests everybody likes to evaluate (more steel and structure), airbags, etc. etc. etc. And everything the EPA tells automakers they must do detracts from efficiency ultimately (even if today's technologies manage to harness that positively as well). Ethanol itself is a net negative of 3% per the EPA (who has a vested interest) but most people put it at 5% or sometimes more. And what about all those creature comforts people demand. AC used to be rare...nope on everything, crank windows gone. etc. etc.
Today's cars are pretty darn good but the rules make them what they are.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
Skins, I get that in my 4.0L 4Runner with AT tires and a roof rack, and I'm not easy on the pedal.

I get better than that in my 2014 Jeep Rubi' with Mud Terrain tires.

The Buick 3800 was one of those. Not unusual for one of those to get between 27-30 miles per gallon on the highway. I had a 92 Regal that would get very close to 30, I could go from just outside of Detroit to St. Ignace on ten gallons of gasoline. 70-80 usual highway speed.

Not bad for an engine that according to a GM engineer who declared the pushrod engines were outmoded and how much better potential there was in the new modern OHC designs like the 3.6L V6.

One of the articles "celebrating" it's demise:https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1016184_slow-goodbye-to-gms-38-liter-v-6 I kind of snickered at the negativity in this and other articles about the demise of the 3800.

The 3.6L OHC V6, let's not discuss timing chain failures shall we? I had three cars, one Regal, two Bonnevilles, all with 3800's and in excess of 150k on each of them when the Michigan curse aka rust got to them. Yes, they rusted out before any mechanical failures. Only one ever gave me any problems, the failure of the crankshaft position sensor caused intermittent engine shutdowns, a external electronic sensor, nothing internal. Not a bad track record in my mind.

There is a book in print, General Motors 3800 V6 Engine:The Untold Story that recounts the history and how this engine came to be and was nicknamed bullet proof due to it's quality.

I've ordered a copy from Amazon. And as a shameless plug, I am acquainted with one of the authors.

Maybe this is a slight thread drift, if so pardon me.

100% Pure Gas vs 10% ethanol crap gasoline aka E10 fuel.

I'm lucky to live where we have tons of stations selling 100% Pure Gas, no ethanol.

It usually costs about 10% more per gallon, but it gives 10% more MPG than the ethanol crap.

My vehicles run smoother and better and are more responsive with Pure Gas than when ethanol gas is in the tank, not to mention the havoc ethanol crap gas causes.

I got 100% Pure Gas, no ethanol, last week for $2.19 per gallon, and that's Conoco/Phillips Top Tier fuel. For $2.19 per gallon I just won't buy the $2.08 gallon E10 ethanol crap fuel.

That 10% more MPG efficiency gives me roughly 45-50 miles-ish more tank range.

Had a CRX HF, 50mph+ And it was fun to drive.

Sky-blue 1988 CRX HF; would get 65 mpg (with effort) driving highway. Trips from Reynoldsburg, OH to Duh-luth were done on a little over one tank of gas. I miss that car.

quote:

What other technologies have been stifled.....

Supersonic commercial air transportation.

Here's a 50-year test between 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aDs1sHJLFE

which one do you choose to drive home?;

there's other YooToob videos of similar demonstrations.

I'll go the other way on this.
My '93 Nissan Sentra SE-R had a 2.0l four cylinder naturally-aspirated engine, 140hp stock, and weighed 2,500lbs-ish. It usually got 30-ish MPG if I didn't drive it too hard.
Cut to today: My '16 Ford Fiesta ST comes with a turbocharged 1.6l four cylinder engine that makes 210hp and 250+ ft/lbs torque, with slight modifications, and weighs 2,700lbs-ish.
It gets 34-36MPG all day long on the interstate, mid-20s MPG in town mixed driving.
So, a 12-13% increase in MPG for two similar-sized cars. But the newer one makes much more HP/torque (from an engine that is 20% smaller)and has more safety stuff on it (ABS, airbags, stability control, etc.)
I can see the improvements made over time.

Wow


That was pretty telling

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
Here's a 50-year test between 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aDs1sHJLFE

which one do you choose to drive home?;

there's other YooToob videos of similar demonstrations.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
30 years and we have essentially gone backward in mpg capabilities.

I drove a 1988 Mercedes 560SEL for a while in the early 2000s.

In town I averaged 8-9 mpg.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
30 years and we have essentially gone backward in mpg capabilities.

I drove a 1988 Mercedes 560SEL for a while in the early 2000s.

In town I averaged 8-9 mpg.

When I was a kid, my grandfather had a late 1970's 2 door Lincoln Mark V with a 460. It got 7 mpg on the highway and we'd have to stop for gas every 2 hours...….it made for a very interesting drive from Florida to NC.

I mean if you just don't care about surviving a car crash and just want maximum mpg, get a scooter or motorcycle.

My 1974 F250 with a 460 and Holly 4 barrel gets 6-7mpg, 8 if I drive real easy.

Two things it's never done; driven past a gas station, slow down on a hill (unless said hill had a gas station) .

I had a 1991 CRX Si that would get 45 mpg, however now with all the increasing size and weight of cars because of safety and emissions equipment and increase of horsepower. You need more gas to make more HP. I believe that is what is holding back our MPG. Look at the weight of the 1990 Honda Civic at around 2300 pounds. Now they weigh 3200+ pounds. 1990 BMW 325 is weighed about 3000 pounds, current one is over 500+ pounds more with all the safety and luxury equipment. Just my observations. God Bless !!!