Ford Model T: 25mpg? - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    1,225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Post

    JimK
    Weight of cars is a much debated issue, but less weight should improve gas milage. I certainly believe that tires are better now, with less rolling resistance. What I don't understand is how an 18 year old 1988 Olds gets about the same gas milage as a 2005 Toyota. Only thing I can think of is engine development has been directed more toward lower pollution than fuel economy.

    US restricions on oxides of nitrogen are probably the most stringent in the world. I have seen a number of newspaper articles in the past 6 months about European Diesel cars, and how they do not meet US pollution regs, and cannot be sold here. For example, the Freightliner Sprinter van, with a Mercedes Diesel cannot be sold in some states, including California and Massachusetts. I see a lot of them on the road here in Virginia.

    Thermo1

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Post

    A 1949 Studebaker Champion would get OVER 30mpg.
    A 1955 Mercedes 300SL Gullwing could get close to 30mpg with the right rear-end gears, and that was a 240hp 3-litre 3000lb car.
    A 1962 Ford Falcon, with that 200ci 6 and 3-on-the-tree would get over 30mpg.
    A 2005 base model Chevy Monte Carlo will get 32mpg at 70mph. (that's measured over 465miles from Reno to LA)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Missoula, Montana
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    34
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Post

    Shucks, my 2001 Saturn LS2 will go 40 mph at 67 average mph. That matches to Nissan Sentra before it, but boy the Saturn is a bit bigger car (but the trunk space isn't).
    Oddly, the car does miserable (25 mpg)in town, which makes me think that you can build an efficient car for city/urban driving, or for rural.highway driving--but not both.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Missoula, Montana
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    34
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Post

    Shucks, my 2001 Saturn LS2 will go 40 mph at 67 average mph. That matches to Nissan Sentra before it, but boy the Saturn is a bit bigger car (but the trunk space isn't).
    Oddly, the car does miserable (25 mpg)in town, which makes me think that you can build an efficient car for city/urban driving, or for rural.highway driving--but not both.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Berkeley Springs, WV, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    116

    Post

    Most car engines are designed to get the lowest observed specific fuel consumption at 2,500 RPM.

    That. not incidentally is the speed at which the enine breathes the best and will develop it's maxomum torque.

    Transmission and final drive (rear end) gearing is always a compromise. that is why the number of transmission speeds has gone from three to five and sometimes six.

    Todays cars are geared for 2,500 RPM at 65 MPH. You usually have to go to 5th speed (overdrive) to do that. My Ford Ranger does that, the BMW's do that (I looked at their tach), so do most of the other cars.

    No engine gets good O.S.F.C. at part load. City driving is the worst. Starting and stopping (idling) and engine puts the machine at a triffic disadvantage.

    The controls that reduce the oxides of nitrogen in a Diesel engine do not necessairily make the engine less thermally efficient. They do effect the 'drivability' of the vehicle.

    Freightshaker sells vehicles where they can. they don't want the hassles from certain states nor do they want the hassles from drivers. They would rather not sell in some states that risk the wrath of drivers.

    Fizzicist, it's all weight again. Do the physics. The gasoline engine is never going to get better than .5 lbs. per brake HP hour. The engine's compression ratio is the limiter.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    27,053
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6260

    Post

    Yep, that's both right. Reverse on those
    things had a lower gear than first (low, there
    really only were two gears).

    And the fuel tank was under the rear seat. For
    climbing a long hill, it was possible to get
    the fuel tank lower than the carb, and with a
    gravity feed system, that's not good. The
    solution was to put the fuel tank higher than
    the carb by driving backwards.

    Jim

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Mascoutah, IL
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Post

    Thermo, the engine in your '88 Olds gets pretty good gas mileage relative to more modern designs because it happens to benefit from what are supposedly primitive traits. It's a pushrod engine, and thus has less internal friction than the Camry motor with it's 4 cams. Also it only has 2 valves per cylinder so the combustion chambers probably have a lot of quench area vs. a more modern 24v V6. Furthermore I bet the '88 Olds weighs a lot less than a new Camry.

    -James

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    32,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post

    [img]smile.gif[/img]
    under the rear seat
    Actually was under front seat

    John

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,976
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    285
    Likes (Received)
    503

    Post

    My 1991 Buick Park Ave gets 26mpg Hwy, 3.8 engine. 1996 Dodge V-10 Ram 13, 2000 Dodge minivan 17 at best, 14 around town. My 1966 corvette could get 18 hwy, as long as I kept my foot out of it. The SS 396 impala around 20 hwy, and 10 with smoking tires.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    312
    Likes (Received)
    472

    Post

    My twin cam Saturn SL2 that I used to own got 30ish highway and high 20s city.

    My camry now gets about 26ish mpg last time I checked with empty tank.

    My Land Rover gets a measely 10mpg :mad: .If only I could lay my hands on a 300tdi LR diesel or a International 2.8L powerstroke. Both are drop ins.

    What I can't figure out is why the hell don't we have the small diesels that Europe has. VW being the exception and recently Jeep.
    If MB could sell diesels all these years then why not others

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    N Idaho
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    12

    Post

    Quite a few years ago, there was an article in one of the "rod" magazines about some guy who raced model A Ford engines. he put one in a Ford Pinto (!) and said that it had about the same or more power than a Pinto engine, and got at least as good for mileage.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Suffolk, England
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    115
    Likes (Received)
    285

    Post

    My Land Rover gets a measely 10mpg
    My Land Rover, Discovery II TD5, returns a pretty consistent 31 mpg (UK gallons) despite having a kerb weight of nearly 5000lbs and all the aerodynamics of a wet brick.

    The 5 cylinder diesel is nice to drive too with very comfortable motorway/autobahn crusing at 90mph. The fuel consumption goes up a bit at that speed mind you, but not an awful lot. And thats with the A/C and active suspension control etc. all running.
    And it never, ever, smokes. Not even a tiny puff of black soot.

    Peter

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    TYNE AND WEAR, ENGLAND
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Post

    Spud,
    You are quite correct about small Diesels in Europe. You have been there, seen the scene and so on.

    In France, the commercial travellers and van boys wake the French speaking world with the clatter of firms' vans. " White Van Man" is all over the UK and they are getting damned good economy. They have to, Diesel fuel is dearer than petrol and I have seen the stuff at about £1 a liter or more.

    However,more and more private cars are going diesel and some are way more economical than MB.
    Progress is such that noise of diesels is being minimised and the ethos of owning a Diesel car is such that MB and other big manufacturers are offering diesel alternatives for their Flagship models.

    Fancy a MB flagship Diesel- an S Class? Well, I do but can't afford one.

    There was a posting sometime back about not being able to get LHD diesels but France, Germany, Spain and many more are using them - and on cheaper fuel than in the UK.

    Whether the US likes it or not, prices of fuel will rise and you will all have to agree with me.
    Life will lose that bit of edge and bite!


    Norm

    Peter has just posted as I write. He is breaking the law at 90mph- but well, he is absolutely correct in his figures!

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Halifax Nova Scotia
    Posts
    1,832
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    275

    Post

    What I don't understand is how an 18 year old 1988 Olds gets about the same gas milage as a 2005 Toyota.
    The answer is very simple. The Corporate average fuel effincy (CAFE) rules were removed in between when the two cars wer made. With the rules gone the manufactures had no incentive to make fuel efficient cars in a market that wanted more power.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    TYNE AND WEAR, ENGLAND
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Post

    I am glad that Frederick reminded me of the change too. I really have said enough about my views on American cars.

    The figures quoted are not what the car will do at a steady whatever, in town(on a simulated road) 0n an open road ie a test track and at fixed or wavy throttles or some other artificial test.

    My figures were the Boss lady stomping down an English motorway or dual carriageway at 70mph
    ( she says this but her licence is endorsed) or 60 mph on an ordinary road or grinding through outer London traffic through the Highways and Byways.Her whatsit- ship learnt on a Roller and has had more sports cars than enough. Her figure of 52mpg based on English thingies is realistic.

    Thanks Frederick and I am glad to tell you that 'her' daughter and son in law have now left Halifax NS and that you are now safe to have a Heart Attack or dental decay in peace- The Atkinson tribe have gawn!

    Cheers

    Norm

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Post

    Gee, ain't physics great? You have to accelerate mass using energy.

    I agree with Thermo about NOx emissions. I also know that the requirements for retarding ignition to keep those figures in attainment sure do rob the engine of a lot of power. So you waste energy.


    I was giving Diesel figures! You obviously haven't driven a modern, modern car.

    Charlie got "stuck" with a 2002 Ford Explorer for an entire month after one of his reprobate neighbors hopped his pickup onto the hood of Charlie's car.

    I wasn't impressed at all with its pickup, style or ease of use. The seats were as cramped as those of my Honda. I think the span of the front passenger compartment was a foot more than my CRX. The thing couldn't get out of its own way. It was like riding in a Cadillac, but it seemed to handle like a go-kart.

    I guess if Ford had a Better Idea the design team for that thing must have used 'em in other vehicles. Maybe on the F-150, which seems to sell pretty well.

    Gene

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Post

    What I don't understand is how an 18 year old 1988 Olds gets about the same gas milage as a 2005 Toyota. Only thing I can think of is engine development has been directed more toward lower pollution than fuel economy.

    Which Toyota? The Tundra or the Prius?

    Seriously, I think you're right about the pollution. I think in those days a US car had maybe a narrow band O2, EGR, heat riser, carbon canister, TPI, det sensor (which stunk back then) and a catalytic perverter. I think all GM were throttle body injected in that era. The ECM wasn't wunnerful, equivalent to a powerful scientific calculator today (I think they used a low end Motorola/Freescale eight bit thing).

    I have no idea what that Toyota has, maybe a broad band oxygen sensor, dynamic det sensor, OBDII super tight spec controls, etc. The OBD is where the damage is done - even get a little bit out of line and Big Brother squacks. Especially when the catalytic perverter gets into bad territory - hence the second O2 sensor.

    There could also be a horsepower/band/weight thing going on here. Perhaps the Olds is working in its "efficient" band because it's not taxed hard but the Toyota has to shift up/down and in doing so get a poorer average?

    Gene

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6368
    Likes (Received)
    3740

    Post

    I have a 2006 Jetta with 2.5 litter engine. It does what they say it will, which is about 9 to 10 litter per hundred Km. Which translates to roughly 25MPG. I've heard many people claim that their mini van will do 40MPG, but its BS. The smallest of todays cars barely make that on the highway with wind coming from behind.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Detroit suburbs aka Dee-twat burbs.
    Posts
    174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Post

    SND, many mid-size and full size American cars will get close to if not over 30 mpg on the highway. Your VW is probably an automatic. VW is infamous for their inefficient auto trans in NA, they outsource them from someone.

    Heck, I had a carbed V8 in the mid-80's that got 27 to 31 on the highway.

    Right now I've got a diesel VW, it averages 50 mpg - that's average city and highway. Fairly straight forward diesel, overhead cam, aluminum head, belt driven computer controlled injector, turbocharged, intercooled, mechanically sound, electronically nighmarishish, very difficult to work on, designed by stubborn snottish Jerrys, twiky car.

    The EPA/Congress/Senate emission regulations make no sense for the vast majority of Americans. Maybe in smoggy LA, but then that's LA-LA land and who in the real America really cares about them anyway. The NOX is hard to pass with diesels, and the new particulate law is going to give folks heartburn when they realize there's another bottle to fill with urea or the engine goes into exhaust system purge cycle and it melts the guys bumper behind you. There's more air pollution that drifts over from China than the whole fleet of US cars generates now anyhow. Taking a SWAG at the loss in mpg, maybe a gas car loses about 0.5 to 2 mpg to pass smog.

    Then there's those aftermarket chips that restore the power.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Central Arizona
    Posts
    209
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Post

    Even at $3+/gal, gas is cheap. People choose to drive the loaded down SUV cause they can. What is $50 every couple of weeks when your making $100K? It is still cheaper than any alternative. Inflation of the money supply is driving all prices up (except maybe our wages). Only those things of real value like oil, commodities, real estate and non-make-work jobs are able to keep up with it. When you see people start buying stripped down light cars, electric bicycles, using public transportation, and staying home - then you'll know that gas is expensive.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •