Ask the Car People.SM


Your Thoughts Regarding The New 54.5 MPG Mandate

158 messages,  Last post on Nov 05, 2012 at 2:02 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Legislation

Messages Page 16 of 16

#149 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx](andre) by hpmctorque

Oct 22, 2012 (5:36 pm)

Replying to: xwesx (Oct 22, 2012 4:07 pm)
A '85-size sedan with today's features would have to use a lot of pricey materials to match the weight of the '85 Camry. The upshot is that it would probably cost a lot more than, say, a '13 Corolla, which is roughly the size of the '85 Camry.
 
Andre, you have a lot of specs at quick disposal; is the '13 Corolla indeed similar to the '85 Camry? I just guessed that they're comparable, but I imagine the'new Corolla weighs more than the old Camry.

#150 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx](andre) [hpmctorque] by andre1969

Oct 22, 2012 (6:12 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 22, 2012 5:36 pm)
Andre, you have a lot of specs at quick disposal; is the '13 Corolla indeed similar to the '85 Camry? I just guessed that they're comparable, but I imagine the'new Corolla weighs more than the old Camry.
 
I'd say the 1985 Camry is closer in size to the current Corolla than it is to the Camry. According to the EPA, the 2013 Corolla has 92 cubic feet of passenger volume, while the 1985 Camry had 93. The 2013 Camry has 103 cubic feet. To put that in old-car perspective, that '78 LeMans you once owned had 102.
 
However, I think the 1985-era Camry was laid out better than a modern Corolla. I've been in a few of them, and foud them to have good legroom, both front and rear. In contrast, I think the Corolla is a bit tight with regards to legroom. But, I'm sure a modern Corolla would do much better in crash-testing than a 1985 Camry would.
 
Weight-wise, I think the 1985 Camry Consumer Guide tested was around 2500 lb. I think a Corolla is aound 2600 lb, while a 4-cyl Camry is probably around 3200l lb.
 
Oh, and a 2013 Corolla is EPA-rated at 26/24, even with its outdated 4-speed automatic (in 1985, the Camry's 4-speed automatic was probably considered cutting edge). And while not a musclecar, 0-60 probably comes up in around 9-10 seconds, compared to the 13.4 that Consumer Guide got out of their 1985 Camry. I think a 2013 Camry 4-cyl, which is rated around 25/35, will do 0-60 in around 8.5.

#151 of 158 Re: This mandate [andre1969] by xwesx

Oct 22, 2012 (6:53 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 22, 2012 5:08 pm)
I've often wondered that myself. To use a personal example, my recently-purchased 2012 Ram Hemi got about 19.1 mpg recently on a trip up to Carlisle PA and back, which also included some local driving. In old car terms, that's probably akin to taking a 1964 Lincoln Continental and giving it the performance of a '64 GTO, an the fuel economy of a '64 slant six Valiant.
 
That's no joke! What's the curb weight on your truck? I have essentially the same the same truck, only 43 years older, and it is (supposedly) 3,990 empty. Well, okay, mine's a 3/4 ton, which will add about 300# or so. Other than that, it is the same: Single cab, 8' bed, 2WD, V8.
 
My truck scoots with enthusiasm, yet its 307 cu in V8 is rated at 200HP. If it had that Hemi in it, I'd probably have trouble finding traction out of a light!

#152 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx](andre) [hpmctorque] [andre1969] by hpmctorque

Oct 22, 2012 (9:32 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 22, 2012 6:12 pm)
Good comparisons. Thanks. Unfortunately the average American is bigger than he/she was in '85, which may explain, in part, why the Camry has grown.
 
I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.

#153 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx] by andre1969

Oct 23, 2012 (10:32 am)

Replying to: xwesx (Oct 22, 2012 6:53 pm)
I think my Ram is around 4900 lb. At least, looking online, they have the 4.7 V-8 SLT model listed at 4828 lb, and the Tradesman 5.7 Hemi listed at 4894.
 
According to Edmund's, the GVWR on the Tradesman is 8610 lb, whereas it's 6600 lb on the ST and SLT models.
 
To make it more confusing, mine is an ST model with a "Tradesman" option package. Which is different from a "real" Tradesman. Mine has the Hemi, but only a 6600 lb GVWR. I wonder what they do to the "real" Tradesman to beef up the GVWR like that? I'm sure just the Hemi V-8 alone would add weight compared to the 4.7, so I'm surprised there's not much weight difference.
 
For comparison, a Ram ST 2500, with the 8' bed, regulat cab, and Hemi, has a curb weight of 5464 lb and a GVWR of 9000 lb. So, it looks like the 1/2-ton Tradesman actually has a slightly higher payload capacity than a 3/4-ton ST. That doesn't make sense.
 
Today I drove my '85 Silverado, just to get it back in circulation. Checking its fuel log, it was last filled up on 9/25, and had only gone 1.6 miles. So basically, I filled it up two days after I bought the Ram, drove it home, and it hasn't been touched since. I thought it would feel like a real dog after getting used to the Ram. It's lighter than the Ram, but still weighs about 4200 lb, according to the scale at the local dump at least. And it only has a 165 hp 305, 3-speed THM350C tranny, and a tall 2.56:1 axle. But, making the transition back to it wasn't that bad.

#154 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx](andre) [hpmctorque] [andre1969] [hpmctorque] by andre1969

Oct 23, 2012 (10:40 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 22, 2012 9:32 pm)
I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.
 
Oh, definitely! That $14,000 Camry that Consumer Guide tested in 1985 would come out to around $30,108 today, adjusted for inflation. But I just spec'ed a Corolla on Edmund's, and the most I could get it up to was $21,755 with freight.
 
Working backwards, that Corolla price would come out to around $10,116 in 1985 dollars.

#155 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx](andre) [hpmctorque] [andre1969] [hpmctorque] [andre1969] by hpmctorque

Oct 23, 2012 (2:50 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 23, 2012 10:40 am)
That's progress!

#157 of 158 speaking of progress by steve_ HOST

Nov 05, 2012 (12:48 pm)

"Fuel economy of new vehicles purchased in October hit its highest level since at least 2007, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute said Monday.
 
The average fuel economy based on window-sticker value of new vehicles sold in the U.S. in October was 24.1 mpg — the highest level yet, and up 4.0 mpg from October 2007, the first month of monitoring."
 
Survey: Fuel economy in new cars hits highest level since '07 (Detroit News)

#158 of 158 Re: speaking of progress [steve_] by ateixeira

Nov 05, 2012 (2:02 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Nov 05, 2012 12:48 pm)
I wonder if the gains will slow now that gas prices are falling? $3.33 average in VA the radio said this morning.

Messages Page 16 of 16

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement