Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are gas prices fueling your pain? 
10042 messages, Last post on Jul 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 27, 2008 1:05 pm) I probably got really good fuel economy in the Park Ave on way back to Philly from Harrisburg because of the rain. I ran the car last night to my second job, filled up on my way home and it only took $11 worth, (barely more than 3 gallons). I noticed everybody was driving at a reasonable speed even when the weather was clear. Who needs speed limits? The gasoline market determines the speed limit. Other observations: Carlisle itself was as packed with people or cars and a diner that we go to after the show had a pretty empty parking lot - weird for a car show weekend.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 27, 2008 3:34 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Apr 27, 2008 5:29 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Apr 27, 2008 6:25 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Apr 28, 2008 4:26 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: coontie66 (Apr 28, 2008 4:37 am) I think one of the problems is weight. My 2007 Cadillac DTS feels like a Panzer tank compared to earlier Cadillacs I've owned. I swear it weighs as much or not much less than my 1989 Cadillac Brougham which is a much larger car. One of my most fuel-efficient cars was my red 1994 DeVille. Even with a V-8, the car delivered a decent 25 MPG highway mileage.
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Apr 27, 2008 6:25 pm) While it may be true that other countries/regions may have less strict environmental conditions the parts and subassemblies manufacturerd there are miniscule in relation to the amount of pollution at an assembly plant or even more so by the fuel used by drivers and even more so by the entire petroleum industry from exploration to retailing. |
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Apr 28, 2008 4:47 am) 1991 Brougham: 4282 pounds 2007 DTS: 4009 pounds Interestingly, they're both practically the same size inside and get the same fuel economy numbers. Despite its extra bulk, the old bomber has a tighter turning circle and a bigger gas tank to its credit.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Apr 28, 2008 4:47 am) Or even in 1992? Autoweek just did a comparo in its green issue between the 2008 Honda Fit and the 1992 Civic VX. The two are very similar in size, the only difference being that the Fit is ten inches taller. They have almost identical 0-60 times, and the Fit weighs only 400 pounds more than the '92 Civic. Despite that, the best they could do with the Fit was 32/37 mpg (under the old rating system), compared to 43/51 for the Civic 15 years ago (also under the old system). It's pathetic, and it's because they are not even trying any more. Or more accurately, they don't want their less complex small cars out-gas-saving their precious hybrid models costing $10K more. When those late 80s/early 90s cars were being designed and built, everyone still remembered the oil shocks of the mid-70s and early 80s. There was still a focus on the consumer's part on fuel economy. The buyers forget quickly, and as soon as they do the automakers start to push other priorities on which they can better profit. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200804210430/FREE/160806841 PS it is not lost on me that the only difference in size between the VX and the Fit, besides the 400 pounds, is the ten inches of extra height. I can only guess at how much extra air the Fit has to push out of the way just to do the same job as the VX. This height increase in all cars brought on by the SUV boom is a problem for trying to rapidly increase fuel economy now. And before everyone jumps in with how the VX had manual this and that, the Fit has power everything, people want creature comforts now, blah blah blah, I am focusing on the weight gain specifically. Despite the addition of all those things mentioned, the weight increase is actually less than 400 pounds, and at 2400 or so the Fit is still almost the lightest production vehicle on the road today. More to the point, that's less than a 20% increase in weight vs the VX 15 years ago. I am of the firm conviction that Honda just wasn't trying very hard to deliver good gas mileage in the Fit. All the automakers are equally guilty - they are not trying very hard. Look at all these TV ads now trumpeting their models that "make 30 mpg". 30 mpg highway???? How enormously pathetic. |
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Apr 28, 2008 7:18 am) I imagine the transverse FWD setup and wide rims and tires on the DTS are the culprit of that wide turning circle. One thing I find interesting is that, according to www.fueleconomy.gov, the 2008 DTS has 113 cubic feet of interior volume and 19 cubic feet of trunk space, whereas the '89 era Brougham has "only" 110 cubic feet of interior room and 20 cubic feet of trunk space. I think the Brougham would have more generous shoulder room and rear seat legroom, but the DTS would have greater headroom, which helps inflate the overall figure. I've been in both types of car, and the old-school Brougham definitely feels a lot bigger inside to me, despite the fact that it's smaller according to the EPA. If the ceiling is already 2-3 inches away from my head, adding another inch to that dimension isn't going to do anything for me. But adding another inch or two to shoulder room is going to make the car feel bigger to me. The Brougham also has a lower beltline, bigger windows, and smaller pillars, so that probably helps it feel roomier, as well. And other aspects, such as how much the sides curve in, how badly the wheel wells intrude, or how much the dashboard juts in don't affect the actual published volume. However, they have a definite effect on useable interior room. I dug up some old EPA stats that list my '79 5th Ave at 108 cubic feet of interior room and 21 cubic feet of trunk space. The old mastodon '74-78 style was only 107/22. Yet, my '79 feels pretty big inside, while those pre-downsized ones felt downright cavernous inside. Again, I guess it could just be that with my '79 the window area is large, the pillars are small, and the beltline is low. Plus, the dash slopes away pretty radically, there's no front wheel well intrusion, and the driveshaft and tranny hump are relatively small. The '78 style was a hardtop, so that might have helped it to feel even roomier. Plus, those pre-downsized styles had even less dashboard/wheelwell/transmission hump intrusion than the downsized models that followed them. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are gas prices fueling your pain?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
