Miles/gallon: Newer vs Older Cars

-
g413

g413

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
563
Reaction score
156
Location
Fresno, CA
Probably most of us are on this site due to the 60s muscle cars. But some newer cars have high horsepower, pass smog, and have reasonable fuel economy. I know new technology helps, but were the older cars just a lot more inefficient? Where have the main improvements come from?
 
No. All you have to do is look at new truck EPA mileage estimates. They are the same now (15-19)as they were 40 plus years ago. It's all in the name of the almighty dollar through gubmint regulation.
 
There are a lot of modern features that impact this significantly. Increased burn efficiency is probably the biggest factor, but it is influenced by many innovations. Increased compression, direct injection allowing more precise fuel delivery, variable valve timing to improve burn efficiency across a wider rpm range, cylinder deactivation at cruising speeds.
 
The only comparison I have is with my old '77 W150 vs my 2009 RAM 1500. I keep track of all of the gallons of fuel and miles for my vehicles. The '77 had a 360 and a four speed with 3:55 gears and 31-10.50R15 tires The RAM has the 5.7 Hemi , an auto with 3:55 gears and 275-60R20 tires. The old W150 averaged 13.9 for 223,000 miles. The new RAM that came with a 15/19 mpg rating has managed to achieve 12.9 mpg for 51,000 miles. Good thing the new one has a computer metering the gas and deactivating cylinders! The RAM can pull a trailer equally well as the old W150 too. The RAM does ride a lot better and is a lot quieter with a lot of creature comforts though!
 
The amazing aspect is how clean all new cars are. Driving an old car about two hours is probably the same exhaust emissions as a new one for a year!
 
Here is my theory.

If the gubmint backed completely away from regulating the auto industry, I believe they would take full advantage of technology and make vehicles that could get 50......maybe even 100 MPG and therefore equal the so called "clean air" bullshit that the gubmint imposes now, by using much less petroleum product.
 
Better efficiency? You bet!
My '77 Ford F-250 SuperCab with a 460 got 8-10 mpg. It didn't matter if it was empty, carrying a 9.5-foot cabover camper, or pulling a 32' 5th-wheel. Uphill or downhill, city or freeway, it got 8-10 mpg.
The very best I ever got from the truck that followed the Ford, my '95 Dodge 2500 extended cab with a V-10 was 14 mpg on a drive from SoCal to Las Vegas where I did everything I could to maximize the mileage.
My current '09 Dodge 1500 Quad Cab with a 5.7 has given me a best of 25 mpg on the freeway at a steady 65mph. Driving around town it gives me a solid 14-16 mpg. And it will bust the rear tires loose any time I jump on it from a standing start and accelerate strong past 100mph.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Here is my theory.

If the gubmint backed completely away from regulating the auto industry, I believe they would take full advantage of technology and make vehicles that could get 50......maybe even 100 MPG and therefore equal the so called "clean air" bullshit that the gubmint imposes now, by using much less petroleum product.
Click to expand...

Well we wouldn't want to impose on them thar oil boys any by needing less gas now would we. LOL
 
g413 said:
Probably most of us are on this site due to the 60s muscle cars. But some newer cars have high horsepower, pass smog, and have reasonable fuel economy. I know new technology helps, but were the older cars just a lot more inefficient? Where have the main improvements come from?
Click to expand...

The only thing I can really say about this question specifically is that personally I think most of what's called improvements are not improvements at all.
Forces people that are competent to do minor mechanical repairs to take it in and pay some dip **** to do it, and what the hell are we going to do about any computer problems on our own. (that now controls damn near everything)
"Improvements" are one of the reasons I will only own pre mid 90's cars and/or trucks.
 
Let us not forget about weight. All of the newer cars have a lot more plastic in them compared to the vintage one's we all love. Along with other point mentioned really does help the fuel economy.
 
jimt1971rr said:
Let us not forget about weight. All of the newer cars have a lot more plastic in them compared to the vintage one's we all love. Along with other point mentioned really does help the fuel economy.
Click to expand...

Yea, but don't forget, all that plastic weight savings is offset by more insulation and electronics than back in the day.
 
g413 said:
Probably most of us are on this site due to the 60s muscle cars. But some newer cars have high horsepower, pass smog, and have reasonable fuel economy. I know new technology helps, but were the older cars just a lot more inefficient? Where have the main improvements come from?
Click to expand...
My 2014 V6 5spd auto Challenger gets right about that posted 30 mpg on the Hwy. considering it is in a near 4,000lbs. car, I'd say the computer is regulating the engine very well along with the overdrive trans, it is a pleasure to drive around. It is rated at 305 HP.

Did the /6 get this kind of mileage?
No, it actually did better when the factory entered the mileage contest between the manufacturers. Mopar did the best most always and by a good margin. But the cars were very light and super tuned for the mileage contest. And there hp ceiling was a bit lower.
 
I've never bought a new car/truck and got the published mpgs. By time you throw a couple people and some gear in it that number is gone and ethanol kills mileage. And old car or truck with the right cam, gearing, and cruise rpm near it's torque peak can make pretty good mileage, but not a rocket.
 
I built a really low buck,low compression 360 67 'Cuda,...Put in the basic 3:55 ,Road Runner converter set up...,set it up,mild RV cam,headers ,bla,bla, Sold it,some one took the time,to tune a late model smog Thermo Quad,and curve the distributor. It passed California smog specs,at 25 ppm,.02 C0,cleaned to 7 ppm h.c.,.01 CO ,@ 2500... It went 13.60's as a best,13:80's at California
,87 pee water fuel .727 trans,it got 20-22 mpg at freeway speeds. I LOVE od transmission's,s sometimes it's not in the budget. 83 Mustang GLX,5.0 ragtop: 3:73 rear end,stock 83 T.5 transmission,basic 5.0 carbed,with the good Edelbrock intake,the usual 204,214 @ 050 cam. It got 26 mpg,with a 4010 Holley double pumper..New cars,are nice.. not necessarily worth that monthly payment.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Here is my theory.

If the gubmint backed completely away from regulating the auto industry, I believe they would take full advantage of technology and make vehicles that could get 50......maybe even 100 MPG and therefore equal the so called "clean air" bullshit that the gubmint imposes now, by using much less petroleum product.
Click to expand...


i don't believe that for a minute..
 
The best my 64 Barracuda got was high 20's mpg, 273 HP with Thermo-Quad, 4 speed, 276 gears, cruising steady on the highway. I got into the low 30's with a 2 barrel HP 170 in the same car, same setup.
My 09 Challenger R/T 6 speed will get 28 mpg and the Wife's 12 Charger R/T Auto will get low 30's. Both have 5.7 Hemis. Overdrive is the key, along with the dropping of cylinders on the Charger.
 
It's all horse snot. New cars weigh more than old cars due to impact protection regulations. Fuel injection was developed initially for fuel economy.
And......a gallon of gasoline is only capable of delivering a certain amount of power, usually measured in BTU. This can be converted to horsepower. No matter what! A good running older car or a brand new car matters very little. The only way to get better mileage is to get a smaller less powerful car.
This also debunks the myth of the 100mpg carburetor that got so many people killed and/or paid off.
 
I never believed that 100mpg carb story. It's to good of an invention to pass up if it were true. I think we're really at the max
 
Old Dodge colt/plymouth champ. 50 mpg. Vw diesel rabbit (old one) 50 mpg. Colt did it on a carb! There is a BMW diesel in Europe that got 64 mpg when pitted against a prius. Beat it flat out. Vw got huge numbers with its "cheater" tdi fuel management at the cost of NOx emissions. Now they are ' fixed' they get about 34 mpg..about a 36% reduction over old published numbers. It's now evident that many manufacturers were cooking the books when it came to emissions reporting. Look at a slant, long stroke. Low compression. Poor flowing head..maybe 100 hp net out of 3.7l. Then look at a new 1.6 direct injection 11:1 pump gas modern marvel. Over 2x the horsepower, half the displacement, loads of torque and practically zero emissions. We're not running flat heads anymore. It's just evolution.
 
My cousin had a 71 Pinto, 1.6, 5 speed that ran bad. Maybe got 25 mpg. Bought a new carb from Ford, export only. The thing ran like a top and got 40 mpg. Get the Government out of the car business. Everything for that matter, Please don't help me, it's not working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top