Alyn Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The EPA ratings assume that "normal" includes driving within the speed limit. Who does that(other than me )? Although few drive within the posted limits, I can't imagine that a government agency would design their documents on the assumption that drivers break the law. Mileage stckers than I've seen recently include a statement that cars with the posted MPG rating will typically get from X MPG to Z MPG, in other words, an expected range, not a guarantee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 The EPA ratings assume that "normal" includes driving within the speed limit. Who does that(other than me )? If you actually follow speed limits all the time, you must be the only person in the country to do so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Also... does the EPA test include sitting still and idling? In the "real world" you spend a lot of time burning gas but not moving... which obviously lowers your overall MPG. Sitting at a light or stuck in traffic, you're getting ZERO miles per gallon. That has to be factored into "real world" driving conditions. What percentage of time spent per typical trip is spent sitting still? That's where a hybrid is truely in it's element Harry. The engine can be shut off and the car can be run off the electric motor when in heavy, slow traffic, parking lots, fast food drive throughs, and such. What to me is the big issue with that Civic is the way it's hybrid system is designed in comparison to what GM and Toyota use. Their designs use electric motor(s) are built in as part of thd transmissions where Honda's is bolted directly to the crank shaft so the engine and motor have to spin each ogher when only one of the two is working instead of bring free of each other like the other two systems are. The GM and Toyotas don't have the rotational mass issues the Honda's do on top of the system's addition static weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Another fun little tidbit....The average American walks about 900 miles a year. The average Americans drink 22 gallons of alcohol a year. That means the average American gets about 41mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cranky Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I just heard on the news that a woman sued Honda, claiming her 2006 Civic got far less than the 50 mpg that Honda apparently claimed it would get. Now I know that EPA mileage estimates are just that: estimates, and "your actual mileage may vary"... etc. But the woman apparently sued Honda, not the EPA. And she WON the case, and was awarded nearly ten grand. I wonder what sort of legal precedent this could set. What's to stop anyone who gets lower mileage than the manufacturer advertises (which is basically everyone) from suing the manufacturer and winning their case? Read the story here: http://editorial.aut...48-a5440fce8ab9 Harry, that's why thousands of students go into Law School. It's a field day for attorneys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakmule87 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Another fun little tidbit....The average American walks about 900 miles a year. The average Americans drink 22 gallons of alcohol a year. That means the average American gets about 41mpg. That is definitely a great one to read. But to the main topic, normal is an average not practical, meaning that the EPA estimates are pretty much fine. You get people on both sides of the spectrum that either go too fast or too slow, accelerate aggressively (which is probably the biggest fuel burner/waster out there) and those that take a full minute to get up to 55, and even poor stop sign/red light etiquette. But not only on top of that you get into proper maintenance of the vehicle, tires and pressures, suspension, load, and even the gas of today. Essentially just getting you into 1000 different combination of variables that all end up being unable to account for leaving you with less than what your vehicle is rated for. But me personally, I drive a 92 Jeep Cherokee and its rated at 18 highway, and as long as I don't just do a bunch of short 5 mile or less trips (about 20 to nearest city with about 7-8 stops including turning off the vehicle each time I go), I have usually pulled off in the 20-22 mpg range between fill ups which usually are for about 3/4 of a tank. In closing though...Let's just agree, stupid people get what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darin Bastedo Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Nowhere does the EPA claim that their testing replicated the driving style of the typical driver in there testing. What they have done is set a standard of testing that is administered the same way every time. The results come with the disclaimer "for comparison only. your results may vary" There is no way they could create a test that would work for every driver in every region of the country. things like elevation, temperature, and road conditions can all affect MPG. But if the EPA sticker says you will get better mileage in a honda civic than a chevy cavalier, the most likely the same person in the same place driving the same way will get better MPG in the civic. That is all that those numbers mean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Van Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 "Peters, a former lawyer" That says enough right there....kinda funny how the new limit on small claims changed in 2012 too.... Former lawyer says it all. I have a 2009 Honda Fit which is very close to a Civic. EPA sticker is 34 hwy. But because I hyper-mile drive 90% of the time I get 39 mpg on a regular basis. BUT if I felt like sueing I could drive in manual Sport mode (vs auto the Fit has 2 modes) and I bet if I tried hard I could get 20-25 mpg easy. So did this judge take into consideration how this lawyer drives??? I ask because my son has 2 Civic's and both are in the 40 mpg range......without much trying. I think it's all a scam on her part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan White Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Former lawyer says it all. I have a 2009 Honda Fit which is very close to a Civic. EPA sticker is 34 hwy. But because I hyper-mile drive 90% of the time I get 39 mpg on a regular basis. BUT if I felt like sueing I could drive in manual Sport mode (vs auto the Fit has 2 modes) and I bet if I tried hard I could get 20-25 mpg easy. So did this judge take into consideration how this lawyer drives??? I ask because my son has 2 Civic's and both are in the 40 mpg range......without much trying. I think it's all a scam on her part. Like I said on the previous page: Okay guys, I've been following this and here's why she's suing Honda. Basically they found that under regular usage, the batteries in the hybrid Civics wouldn't last as long as they thought they would. Rather than deal with many early warranty claims, they decided to have the owners bring their cars in for a computer update that makes it so the system doesn't use the battery as much. Well this brings in the issue of the gas engine doing more of the work, and with a low powered engine hauling around a car that has the extra weight of the less-helpful batteries, well the fuel mileage decreases quite a bit. If she wanted a regular gas Civic, she would have bought it. However she decided to rather get the hybrid, where the batteries help the engine with power and reduce fuel usage. Since this is now not the case, she decided to sue (and was smart to do it in small claims). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Van Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I must have over looked the hybrid part of the article.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnwildpunk Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) I am a child of the 80's and remember my neighbors had a mercury ln7? Think that was the name. I liked the looks of it but after a couple years I remember when he drove by it ticked like a timebomb. I also remember him bragging to my dad that on a long trip out west he got like 40 something MPG and that was in the 80's I can't wait to see the contents of this kit hope you post pics when u get it Edited February 12, 2014 by mnwildpunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsDano85gt Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I surely will mn wild, the kit(s) are supposedly sealed i better inhale deepley when the box is first opened! its funny how the carmakers right now are bragging about 25-30 mpg acting like its the best thing ever...... back in the 80's and early 90's you could have a ford escort (or exp) 1.6 litre motors later 1.9 i think?? with a stick shift and easy on the gas you could easily get 40 mpg or surpass it, and this was the 80's/ 90's so how are the newer cars better?? again can anyone fill me in?? oh wait airbags and lots of doohickey ma bobs, and little auxillery jacks for those fancy devices (none of which i own) i'll take a imaculately maintained older car over newer cars anyday of the week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The cars don't turn into balls of mangled tin during a wreck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) its funny how the carmakers right now are bragging about 25-30 mpg acting like its the best thing ever [...] [with the older models from the 70's-90's] you could easily get 40 mpg or surpass it [...] so how are the newer cars better?? can anyone fill me in?? oh wait airbags and lots of doohickey ma bobs [...] Quite simply : 1.) More weight . I can gaurantee that my 2013 Civic weighs more than my 1972 Coronet (4 door , small V8 , 100% Detroit steel ) ! The ridiculous number of Air Bags (or "SRS" as they're called now) plus all of the computer and electronic garbage = 4,000 lb subcompact cars (!!). 2.) Ethanol-Infused gasolines . Less available BTU's = more wasted energy (think : mediocre MPG's from Natural Gas vehicles) . Not to mention the hygroscopic properties of Ethanol-Infused gasolines** ; the stuff's instable as heck ! So , a 1976 Feather Duster with an "archaic" single-barrel atomiser , 3-speed-with-overdrive manual trans , 2.76 gear , all-steel construction , etc. , etc. averaged 32-35 MPG !! When driven easy , 36-40 MPG was possible (!!). Best average MPG my brand new Civic has achieved : 30 MPG ! And I drive it with the "eco" doo-hickey activated , and like there's a rotten egg under the gas pedal (except on Acceleration Ramps to the expressways ; but even then , I don't mash the pedal ...) . So , yeah ... Navigation , 333 Disc C.D. Players , and not an ashtray to be found ... ** I envy those of you who reside in locales which are either exempt from witches' brew fuels , or have 93 octane gas sans Ethanol ... Edited February 13, 2014 by 1972coronet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Ramblers were getting close to 25 back in 1960. They were running a straight 6 with a two barrel . They were light as a feather also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maindrian Pace Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Quite simply : 1.) More weight . I can gaurantee that my 2013 Civic weighs more than my 1972 Coronet (4 door , small V8 , 100% Detroit steel ) ! The ridiculous number of Air Bags (or "SRS" as they're called now) plus all of the computer and electronic garbage = 4,000 lb subcompact cars (!!). 2013 Civic 4dr: 2,943 - 2,992 lbs. 1972 Coronet 4dr: 3,417 - 3,487 lbs. A Crown Vic interceptor is about 4,000 pounds, subcompact cars aren't as heavy. -MJS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Smith Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 My 2013 subcompact weighs 2750...AND it has all the airbags(6) and electronics AND design engineering to reduce cabin intrusion in an accident AND doesn't require a tune up for 100,000 miles AND...well, let's not digress too far from a model "review"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What's interesting is my wife's 98 s-10 blazer 4x4 weighs as much as my friends 56 cadillac convertible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Geiger Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Today's cars are safer than old cars because they are computer engineered to bend a certain way and protect the passenger cabin. We've all heard of 'crumple zones'. Look at any modern car that's been in a front end collision and you'll see how things have bent right. Even a Smart Car is safer than older cars... there are videos showing how it was designed with the same energy absorption as a modern football helmet. In a front end collision, a Smart car has a skeleton frame that wraps around the passenger compartment and one of the bend points in a front ender, is actually behind the passengers. The frame absorbs the energy instead of the sheet metal and passengers. Back in the old days, the manufacturers just put heavier and heavier metal in the cars (ever try to lift a 1960 Buick bumper? I have!) with the reasoning that it would protect in a collision. All you have to see is that insurance institute video of the '59 Chevy and '99 Impala crash test to see how that worked out! And for gas mileage, back then a slant six would only get 15-18 mpg, but I could get 30 out of it on a long highway trip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Here's the video that Tom mentioned------as you'll see it ain't pretty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pack rat Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 When the EXP/LN7 were introduced a buddy and I went to a local dealership and took one out for a test drive. Once we got out on the open road and put our foot in it, we both laughed out loud at how slow it was. Sure, it was an economy car, but today if you picked up the lowliest, cheapest econobox out there and got the kind of performance that car had, you'd want your money back. As for safety, a few years ago I had a "big one" in an '06 Civic (65-70MPH to zero in a split second). Even though everything ahead of the cowl was destroyed (had to be flat-bedded otherwise the engine/transaxle/front suspension would have been lying on the ground after picking it up) the only visible damage from the driver's seat was the deployed air bag and a cracked windsield. Luckily, I went home that night. I'd hate to try that in an EXP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Handley Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Quite simply : 1.) More weight . I can gaurantee that my 2013 Civic weighs more than my 1972 Coronet (4 door , small V8 , 100% Detroit steel ) ! The ridiculous number of Air Bags (or "SRS" as they're called now) plus all of the computer and electronic garbage = 4,000 lb subcompact cars (!!). 2.) Ethanol-Infused gasolines . Less available BTU's = more wasted energy (think : mediocre MPG's from Natural Gas vehicles) . Not to mention the hygroscopic properties of Ethanol-Infused gasolines** ; the stuff's instable as heck ! So , a 1976 Feather Duster with an "archaic" single-barrel atomiser , 3-speed-with-overdrive manual trans , 2.76 gear , all-steel construction , etc. , etc. averaged 32-35 MPG !! When driven easy , 36-40 MPG was possible (!!). Best average MPG my brand new Civic has achieved : 30 MPG ! And I drive it with the "eco" doo-hickey activated , and like there's a rotten egg under the gas pedal (except on Acceleration Ramps to the expressways ; but even then , I don't mash the pedal ...) . So , yeah ... Navigation , 333 Disc C.D. Players , and not an ashtray to be found ... ** I envy those of you who reside in locales which are either exempt from witches' brew fuels , or have 93 octane gas sans Ethanol ... 2013 Civic 4dr: 2,943 - 2,992 lbs. 1972 Coronet 4dr: 3,417 - 3,487 lbs. A Crown Vic interceptor is about 4,000 pounds, subcompact cars aren't as heavy. -MJS I was going to say that seemed kinda heavy for a Civic, my 2012 Chrysler 200 Touring weights just under 3600lbs (the Limited and S are over 3600lbs), has 6 airbags, the larger, heavier, and much more power 283hp flex fuel V-6 backed by a 6 speed auto transaxle that I think might be a distant relative of the 60's Torqueflite 3 speeds, yet has given me upwards of 25mpg on E85, nearly 30mpg on 91 octane premium on the interstates, is capable of 14's in the quarter mile on either fuel. In day to day use in Suburban Chicago can range from a low of 14mpg (on E85 while sitting in traffic and seeing lots of cold start drive-thru time mixed with some hard acceleration pulls ) to a max 21mpg on regular (lots of easy, hypermile type driving at night with low traffic) Even my 1998 Jeep Cherokee shouldn't even weigh as much as my 200, probably close in weight to the a fore mentioned Cornet, even though it is a 4wd vehicle with a 700lbs engine up front over it's live front axle and has 2 airbags up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsepower Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) One reason the old boxes like that EXP could get that mileage was they were light & had anemic motor's, unlike most of todays cars, my wife's new KIA optima is a much heavier four door with a 2.4 non- turbo motor that gets 37 mpg with four adults & a child on board at 70mph,& you don't time the zero to sixty time with a calendar. And we really enjoy the sirrius XM satellite radio, A/C,etc. I had what was a very strong for the day Pinto with a 2.0 motor, headers, & 2 1/2" exhaust system that was no faster, got nearly the same mileage, but no where near as good in handling even after springs,shocks, & widewheels & tires, true it was fun to drive, as long as you didn't mind your butt going numb if it was a trip that took over an hour. There are just to many advances in technology for those little pushrod"sewing machine" motors to keep up, let's compare, a 1.6 Ford in the EXP & 80 h.p. two seats & very limited creature comforts, against a fully loaded KIA Optima with a 2.0 motor that puts out 270+ h.p.,still think that the new cars aren't a little better? Edited February 16, 2014 by horsepower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) 1972 coronet. I find those fuel mileage numbers highly dubious but thats beside the point. Why do people still insist on clinging to the concept that older is better? I have a '73 plymouth and I love driving it but my 2000 corolla is ten times better , reliability wise. All those carbs and those linkeages and set screws belong in the scrapheap. Depending on the weather, it idles too rough or idles too high. Sometimes its too lean or too rich. My toyota on the other hand always starts, idles at the same speed in all weather, never overheats in stop and go and doesnt sound like a giant shopping cart on a bumpy road. My friends call me crazy but if I ever modify the drivetrain, it will be to install a v6, the kind in those new challengers. Edited February 16, 2014 by sak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnwildpunk Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) To each their own simple as that you like what you like and I like what I like no sense arguing over personal preference same goes with the Ford Chevy mopar debate nothing you say will change my mind and vise versa Edited February 16, 2014 by mnwildpunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.