Charlie, that is what bugs me is up until the last three or four years we were not seeing the fuel mileage gains I would expect. You look at almost every car line and not until 2013-2014 did we see major improvements of 5% to 10% increases in fuel mileage, excluding hybrids. My 87 Volvo was rated pretty close to my 97. Even by 2014 there was an increase according to the EPA rating system of only one to three mpg highway for a similar model S80 Volvo. It wasn't until 2015 that Volvo finally got on board with the fuel mileage bug where the numbers jumped up seven mpg, and for the 2016 eight mpg over the 2014 S80. Look at GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, VW, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, even Honda and fuel mileage increases in their automobile lines, excluding Hybrids, you see almost minimal fuel mileage increases, until the last three or four years.
But oddly , enough , we saw a lot of performance gains in that time. I'm thinking your average American driver is carrying a lot of those 200 lbs in his right foot.
And massive weight gain (by occupants as well as cars!), which ate up most of the improved efficiency of engines. Typical top-gear ratios of the most efficient conventional cars swung from very low earlier, to economy-oriented in the 80s and early 90s, then back to "pep"-oriented circa 2005, and now finally are returning to more efficient.
Back in 1993 I purchased a brand new, on the showroom floor, a 1994 Honda Civic VX in teal blue, a base model with no AC, or even power steering. The engine was 1.5 liter with an output of 92 HP. It had the VTEC-E system for increased fuel efficiency at the time. It did deliver great mpg's. I had many trips well above 50 mpg. In the summer of 1994 my girlfriend, her daughter and my son, took a trip from Portland Oregon to Disneyland. We averaged 58 mpg, of course the speed limit then was federally regulated a lot lower than it is now. Few people have any knowledge of the Civic VX, at the time It was at the top of the list for mpg's. An amazing car, I gave it to my dad when I purchased a 2003 VW Sportwagen TDI, the VX then went from my dad to my brother in law, my niece, brother, and then nephew. It was closing in on 400,000 miles when it finally gave up the ghost, and stayed in the family its entire life. Quite a story for a car. If I recall the VX weighed in at less than 2,000 lbs, the 5 speed manual at 60 mph would be at about 1900 RPM or so which kept it at optimum fuel efficiency. You would think after 24 years all cars would be getting over 50 mpg when Honda came out with the VX all those years ago....
There was something special about the 90's Hondas for mileage, that's missing today. And the VX was the special one out of that already special batch. On paper my Fit is almost identical to my old 96 Civic, but its maximum MPG capability is a good 20% lower (suburban driving, so highway gear ratios don't really matter).
Right, but for the crumple zones and getting those pesky high-strength steel hard points for safety. (and the heavy tech gear that everyone (almost everyone ) wants. 2500+ lbs becomes the norm, and usually closer to 2800 lbs for the little cars and 3000 lbs for the bigger ones, and 4000 lbs for the FSPs.
Good luck buying the kind of car that you want. I walked into a Chevrolet dealer in 2002 seriously looking for a Camaro. Walked out ticked off I couldn't get the car I wanted with out buying a Z/28 with with every stinking option.
While I do not know how much your VX weighed , I can say that my 89 Civic Si was 2200 lbs ( 2190?). It did not have OR need power steering. I judge the steering on every car I've driven since then by comparing to the accuracy and feedback of that car's steering.
Found this website which seems like a pretty good resource. Here are the specs. for the 1994 Honda Civic VX. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1994/1502255/honda_civic_vx_hatchback.html
Al et all- right -actual car mpg didn't make impressive gains until somewhat recently We had a 1985 5MT corolla-60 hp-maybe 2200 las-that got an honest 42 mpg at 65 mph with 4 full sized adults Waaaay back in 1968 we had a 1969 corolla SW 5 speed mt(or maybe 4 speed) that weighed just 1700 LBS- a station wagon just 1700 lbs(tiny of course) - it would show 82 mph at WOT(with 4 5 gallon jerry cans of gasoline in the back) while crossing TX panhandle on the way to denver. Gas stations in 1970 or so weren't open in the TX panhandle-and other places on saturday nights and many were closed all day Sunday Genius that i was I carried 20 gallons of gas IN the car-with those pitiful brakes and pitiful tires doing an indicated 82 mph(probably actually 75 mph or so) Yeah cars are much much heavier. My current FSP 1998 Suburban is 5300 lbs-my 1980 Long bed D-100 was about 3700-the Chevy gets 20-21 mpg at 60 mph-the D-100 maybe got 13 mpg at 60 mph -despite having about 100 hp less- 318 vs 350 Cars trucks are finally delivering stunning mpg- But gas is TOO CHEAP-we really need $3.25-$3.50 gas-not enough to cause pain-but enough to encourage efficiency conservation and to SAVE our stocks of petrol-why pump and sell our oil for $50/barrel-dumb
Hi All: This week's ride is courtesy of Nissan in the form of the 15/20 mpg city/highway rated 2017 Nissan Titan PRO-4X 4WD Crew equipped with a 390 hp and 394 lb-ft of torque, 5.6L V8 Endurance engine mated to a 7-speed AT. The 7-speed AT is running through the standard and only ratio 2.937 rear end allowing a max tow cap of 9,330 lbs. The base price is $45,020 + $1,195 D&H. For that you receive the aforementioned 4WD drivetrain, 2-speed transfer case, LED headlamps, 18" alloys, all-terrain tires, class IV hitch and both a 4 and 7-pin harness, spray-in bedliner, multiple underbody skid plates, and rain sensing wipers. Inside buyers also receive a very comfortable 10-way power driver seat, flip up rear bench, (2) 12V, USB, and a 120V outlet, 7" center display with NAVI, a proximity key, and dual zone auto climate. It also included the PRO-4X tow pkg. ($1,820) w/ front and rear sonar, 4 tie down cleats on the bed rails, bed illumination, power sliding rear window, tailgate lock, trailer brake, extendable foldable trailer mirrors w/ puddle lamps, Rockford Fosgate audio, and a very useable bed step beneath the driver’s side rear bumper. And it arrived with the Pro-4X Convenience pkg. ($3,520) incl. Leather seats, 4-way power pass. seat, power heated, tilt and telescopic wheel, remote start, auto dimming outside mirrors. In addition, it came with the PRO-4X Luxury pkg. ($750) which added power vented front seats, the excellent around view monitor, and reverse auto tilt side mirrors. The Titan PRO-4X as driven is $52,305. Highlights include a great looking truck, comfortable interior ergonomics, strong motor, great rear seat utility, std. spray in bedliner, hitch and harness, bed step, and Around View Monitor. Lowlights include stiff ride, generation behind NAVI, so so high end audio, and just ok efficiency. 2017 Nissan Titan with the 5.6L V8 Advance Engine First Measured Drive LAX Shell with the displays reset. Carlsbad Shell well after midnight... And the results. From full, she took another 6.1 gallons over an hour and 10 minutes. The 26 gal. spec is short by at least 4.5 gallons if not more. After 90.2 miles, she consumed another 3.314 gal. - another 50-minutes for the second too off - for an actual 27.2 mpgUS result compared to the 26.3 mpg indicated. Not to shabby for a heavy weight shod with on/off-road 18s. The first measured calibration provided a positive offset (27.2 mpg/26.3 mpg) of 1.034. The steady state(s) were undertaken just after midnight early on Monday morning with temperatures ranging from 59 to 60 degrees F and winds calm while completing the northbound and southbound drives. The indicated speeds of 50 through 70 mph matched the actual speeds per the Garmin and CC held to within .5 mph either way while ascending or descending. A few glitches is that the 50 mph steady state held 6th at 1,325 RPM instead of 7th gear for the entire NB and SB runs. It will transition into 7th at about 52 mph. 55 mph held 7th for all but four downshifts and ran at ~ 1,325 RPM in 7th at that speed. All the runs including 70 mph saw the Titan’s powerful V8 downshift to 6th on the slight inclines on both the NB and SB test segments? Why with this powerful of an engine and unloaded has me wondering? The RPM@60 mph indicated about 1,475 RPM vs. the 1,325 RPM calculated with the P275/70R18s, 0.74 7th gear ratio, and 2.937 final. That too was way off. I did not connect an SG-II to look at the actual RTPM but may do that for the drive back to LA tomorrow to answer that question. 2017 Nissan Titan Speed vs Fuel Economy Steady States Just moments before data collection. A very powerful 5.6L V8 from a standstill with an almost too aggressive throttle tip-in. The EPA highway (20 mpgUS) crossover came in at just 63.3.8 mph which is on the low side. The Pro-4X should in fact be rated at 19 mpg imho. Given all 4X Titan's are rated at 20, the Pro-4Xs On/Off-Road tires and heavier build makes sense of the low EPA highway crossover result. I will post the Titan XD 4WD with the 5.0L Cummins Steady States on top of the Titan 4WD Pro-4X in just a few minutes. The two drivetrains are almost mimics of one another on the graphs!!! Wayne
Hi All: And the half-ton 2017 Nissan Titan with the 5.6L V8 Endurance engine vs. the slightly more capable and heavier 2017 Nissan Titan XD with the 5.0L V8 Cummins Turbo Diesel. The Titan XD w/ the Cummins steady state conditions were slightly worse with temps ranging from 46 to 48 degrees F and winds from the E at 5 to 10 mph on the NB/SB test segments vs the Titan with the 5.6L V8s 59 to 60 degrees and calm winds. The Titan XDs HD Aisin supplied 6-speed AT did not downshift at any point during the steady states whereas the 7-Speed in the non-XD downshifted for a short period on every run up to and including the 70 mph segment as described in the previous post. All I have to say is if you are hell bent on getting a Titan, forgo the 5.0L Cummins upcharge. It is hard for me to say this given our exemplary experience in the RAM Pickup offerings with the dominating the 6.7L I6 Cummins inside over everything in the 1/2-Ton and 3/4-Ton segment on an efficiency, raw power, and towing cap basis. Wayne
Hmm not great 60 mph mpg My 2004 Nissan Titan got 19 mpg during our Evacuation to Flagstaff AZ-well during the return trip-1500 miles probably 65-70 mph hy speeds Granted it was rated at just 305 hp I think-but it was plenty FAST QUICK 7 seconds and change to 60 mph according to some Moto mag 20 mpg at 60 mph- nothing to write home about- roughly what my 1998 Suburban gets at 60 mph-pitiful really
Any chance you will be testing the Tacoma. Lot's of complaints at Tacomaworld.com about poor mpg even though now the 3.5L is rated 24 highway and the 2.7L is rated 23. Like the Titan I bet at 55 you can far exceed 24 but at 75-80 where everyone wants to drive it tanks below 17 mpg. Toyota added an air dam up front and everyone is removing it because they don't like the looks and swear there isn't a difference in mpg which seems unlikely.
I never thought I'd recommend a C&D article on fuel economy, but in this case, it may apply. Their highway high-speed cruise-control loop test achieved EPA ratings on the 3.5L Tacoma, both 2wd and 4wd. So... someone over at tacomaworld must be overly lead footed or maybe they're doing a lot of city driving? http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...oma-fuel-economy-review-car-and-driver-page-3
Hi Worthywads: I made a request for both a Tacoma and a Tundra when I am in Chicago next month. They put me into a Prius Prime and I am not sure what for the next two weeks after that. Wayne
Hi All: The steady state(s) were undertaken just after midnight this morning with temperatures ranging from 56 to 59 degrees F. Winds were calm while completing the northbound and southbound drives. The indicated speeds of 50 through 70 mph matched the actual speeds per the Garmin and CC held to within .5 mph either way while ascending or descending. +/- 1 mph at 70 mph. There were more MDS mode distance at 50 and 55 than the rest as expected. By 65 mph, only the slight descent would allow 4-cylinder operation. The RPM@60 mph indicated about 1,580 RPM vs. the 1,574 RPM calculated with the LT275/70R18s, 0.63 6th, and 4.10 final. If the truck had the stock 3.73, it would surely help the efficiency. We will be heading out today for a 1,300 mile drive out to Denver and over that distance I will come up with a solid aFCD offset. The graph below is preliminary without the offset incorporated. I will correct that in a few days. 2017 RAM 2500 HD – 6.4L V8 mated to the 6-speed AT and 4.10 rear end Speed vs Fuel Economy Steady States. Just moments before the numerous NB/SB drive segments. A very powerful 6.4L V8. With no EPA highway since this is a > 8,500 GVWR truck, from the graph it appears the RAM 2500 HD with the 6.4L V8 would be rated at approximately 17 mpg highway. Maybe 16 mpg depending on what the offset comes too. Wayne
Hi All: Another winner. The 30/36 mpgUS city/highway rated 2017 Honda Civic Sport Touring Hatchback just like the entire 10th gen Civic lineup with that excellent direct injected and turbo charged 1.5L I4 mated to the CVT buried its EPA highway ratings. Like a broken record, few OEMs offer more than the ratings indicate and everything we have driven with Honda's 1.5L Turbo shows it provides far above EPA results to a vehicle. That being the 16 Civic Touring, 16 Civic EX with the MT, 16 Coupe Touring, 17 AWD CR-V Touring, and now the 17 Civic Sport Touring Hatch. If there was one drivetrain that deserves to be recognized for the best spread of performance and efficiency, I know of no other that would come close to the Honda 1.5T. It really is that good. The steady state(s) were undertaken just after midnight this morning with temperatures ranging from 59 to 60 degrees F. Winds were calm during the northbound and southbound measured segments. The 36 mpg EPA highway crossover occurred at a calculated 73.55 mph. Considering the graph, the least efficient Civic, the 30/36 mpg rated Sport Touring Hatch, should be rated at 41 mpg highway in no uncertain terms. Truly an excellent display of efficiency with 180 hp on tap when desired. The indicated speeds of 50 through 70 mph matched the actual speeds per the Garmin and CC showed the cars display was about .5 mph short of actual from 50 to 70 mph. Given the CVT configuration, every ascent saw the tach climb between 150 and 300 RPM. RPMs at 60 mph indicated 1,625 RPM although it is a CVT so the bottom will be seen only on the flattest grades. Wayne
Sometimes in the Prius , the revs will rise SO MUCH going up a hill , that I can actually HEAR THE ENGINE. But man , I love those Civics. When I was in Colorado last year , I drove my old 08 Civic ( now owned by daughter #2 ) and it was very difficult to drive smoothly. But I guess folks like that hair-trigger non-linear throttle tip-in. Wayne , do the new Civics have something like an Eco Mode that softens up the throttle response ?
