Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are features you can't use and images you can't see. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: Join our community! |
| I don't want to start a debate, BUT...; New car mileage rant | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 29 2011, 02:40 AM (2,359 Views) | |
| nerys | Dec 29 2011, 02:40 AM Post #1 |
|
Grr
![]()
|
I don't want to start a huge debate on this but I can not help but think the low mpg's of all these new cars is flat out intentionally. I think they actually have to work HARD now to "keep the mpg's DOWN" Its fact that mass does not overtly effect HIGHWAY mpg's (it greatly effects city mpg's) I mean I add over 50% of my car's mass in people and cargo and don't even lose 1mpg. so that aside. you have these new cars that are only 1000 pounds heavier than a metro. you have 20 year newer engines with mpfi and all these refinements and advancements and the best they can do is 40mpg? I don't buy it. I think they are INTENTIONALLY designing these cars to limit the mileage to keep it from going higher than 40mpg. I mean look at the new Hyundai Hybrid. SO let me get this straight. Hyundai Elantra. 42mpg highway.(yes I note they have downgraded the new one to 40mpg from the premier models 42mpg) New Hyundai (Senata?) Hybrid 40mpg. and its nearly $10,000 more than the Elantra !!! anyone not see something wrong with this picture here? its like the INTENTIONALLY designed it to "ONLY" improve city mpg's (29 to 35) but kept the highway the same at 40mpg. I mean how hard do they have to "TRY" to keep the mileage around 40mpg and no higher? that new Chevy. 6 speed tranny and the best they can do is 40mpg? its almost like they DESIGNED it to reduce fuel economy. I mean you have to rig a small car with 6 speed tranny pretty badly to max it at 40mpg highway like that. that car should be tickling 50mpg without even trying if you keep your foot out of the turbo. why do none of these cars even come with an "OPTION" of a smaller engine? how about a 1.2L NA engine with a high geared 6 speed option? I no longer thing its neglect I now think its flat out intentional. these cars scream "50mgp" but they max at 40 that HAS to be intentional. Edited by nerys, Dec 29 2011, 02:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 29 2011, 04:46 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
I agree with most of your post but I highly doubt this line. |
![]() |
|
| nerys | Dec 29 2011, 12:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Grr
![]()
|
"I agree with most of your post but I highly doubt this line" horn. my fat arse is 420 pounds. my Sister is 300. that is 780 pounds which is ALREADY darned near 50% the mass of the car. now add in all my tools and crap EASILY another 400 pounds and we are WELL OVER 50% the mass of the car. and this is how I "daily drive it" and hit 50-60mpg. attach the trailer? less than 1mpg difference as long as the load is aerodynamically invisible. I got over 50mpg with the trailer loaded down with 500 pounds plus the mass of the trailer and this included driving over multiple mountains going from east of philly PA to near cincinati ohio. on the way home (sans trailer it was destroyed) but with the car SO FULL I had to squish the hatch down to shut it and use a camera as a side view mirror because I filled the passenger seat to the roof too (all the stuff that was on the trailer that I could not get someone else to take for me had to now go in the car) I honestly have never had more mass in the car than that trip home. I scored 70mpg over 422 miles that day. I had to downshift to shirt to get over some of them mountains. on one climb 2nd gear !! :-) mass is no excuse for these car's highway numbers. they are intentionally putting over sized piggy engines with lack luster trannies to "prevent" these cars from getting better MPG. I have a hard time believing otherwise. when I see a 6 speed transmission and a 1.4l engine HOW DOES THAT NOT get 50mpg. ? now go driving stop sign/light to stop sign/light like that and kiss your mpg's goodbye. (so this explains their city numbers) but on the highway the difference is almost immeasurable from background noise. an object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by an external force. There are only 3 real forces acting on a car - Drag Aero - Drag Mechanical and Gravity and gravity is not relevant to cars for the most part and is the only force that acts on "mass" at cruise if you try to go "up". the only machines that care about mass at cruise are machines that have to defy gravity (planes and rockets) if I add mass to a car where is the "extra force" ? the only extra force (once your up to speed) is a slight increase in drag on the bearings which is all but irrelevant unless you overload parts. I am fortunate that my commute is largely non stop and relatively flat. so I don't have to fight gravity. so the extra mass is largely irrelevant to me. but we are now at the point where I think "I" could make one of these cars get 50mpg just by changing some parts. I mean put a 1.2l NA engine in one of them with a 6 speed and nice overdrive 5th and 6th gear. tell me that's not going to get 50mpg ? and still have tons of power if you want to put your foot into it. |
![]() |
|
| mjspiess | Dec 29 2011, 01:33 PM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Cruising MPG from a Chevy Sonic 1.4T 6 Speed Manual 80mph=36mpg ~2600rpm 65mph=45mpg ~2000rpm 55mph=52mpg ~1800rpm 35mph=70mpg ~1100rpm 70mph gets you the advertised 40mpg at 2100 rpm. ![]() These were all 5-10 mile averages with cruise on. |
![]() |
|
| Shinrin | Dec 29 2011, 01:34 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Don't forget, a big factor in mileage being crappy in newer vehicles, the engines are being optimized for ethanol, not gas. |
![]() |
|
| nerys | Dec 29 2011, 03:32 PM Post #6 |
|
Grr
![]()
|
I am sorry no way in heck should a 1.4 turning a measly 1800rpm at 55mph be getting only 52mpg is this summer or winter gas? if winter that is actually not "horrible" if summer blend that is CRAP. I wonder if it is detuned to improve Ethanol performance and that explains the lack luster mpg's ? |
![]() |
|
| mjspiess | Dec 29 2011, 03:52 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Winter gas using 87 octane. It's been proven that the 1.4T runs more efficiently on 91 or 93, so I think this is quite good for the circumstances. Then you have this couple with their Cruze Eco who averaged 64 mpg over 9,500 miles: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065481_aussie-hypermiling-couple-hit-64mpg-in-2011-chevy-cruze-eco The 1.4T 6 speed is nothing to complain about. It's got fantastic potential with the right mindset. Now what's up with this lady's Honda? Who knows? As we all know, there are many variables to consider. |
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 29 2011, 04:24 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
Nerys ive seen your posts where you have said 100lbs equals 1mpg. When I throw 150lbs of tools in my car there is a difference in mpgs. |
![]() |
|
| Woodie | Dec 30 2011, 06:41 AM Post #9 |
![]()
|
And that's exactly what they do in the rest of the world. It's only North America where they put these monster engines in and the gas mileage is lame. My Aerio was sold here in NA with either a J20 or J23 engine. Faster than hell but only 30 mpg. It was sold in Europe with the M13, M16, or M18 and get 35 to 40 mpg. In China they build it with a K12 or K14. It's all down to the wants of the US consumer, and they want tonnes of standard equipment and the biggest engine that will go in with a crowbar because gas is almost free here. Give us five years of $9 gas like it is in most of the world, and you'd see that change. Edited by bogs, Jan 7 2012, 12:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 92 geo limo | Dec 30 2011, 07:12 AM Post #10 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hmm!! I love my geo, but honda and i had an extremly great relationship having once owned an 87 crx and 89 civic hatch. with her having a new one and at least not getting twice the gas milage i got from my old work horses i say suing is good. |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 30 2011, 08:18 AM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Guys, manufacturers would love to sell some of the small, fuel-efficient cars they sell in Europe here in the US. The problem is Uncle Sam won't LET THEM. By the time the California Air Resources Board, the EPA, the NTSB, and a dozen other government agencies get done telling us what we are ALLOWED to drive, it's not what we WANT to drive anymore. Its not the light, nimble European Ford or GM model with crank windows and no AC that weighs 1950 pounds and gets 44 MPG, it's now a a fat, bloated turd with 12 airbags, 4-channel ABS, side impact beams, tire inflation sensors, 15 cupholders, and front/rear crumple zones that weighs 2600 pounds and gets 30 MPG. The smallest car sold here, the Smart Car, is the size of a phone booth. IT WEIGHS 1700 POUNDS! Not because the designers want it to, but because the government says it HAS to. Don't blame Ford, call your congressman! |
![]() |
|
| nerys | Jan 4 2012, 11:10 AM Post #12 |
|
Grr
![]()
|
I never said 100 lb = 1mpg I said people have CLAIMED that 100lb = 1mpg I do not claim this. newton's laws are pretty clear. if your doing mostly "steady state" cruising mass means almost nothing. As I have literally proven again and again tank after tank. Empty or with 3 people and loaded trailer (well over 50% of the cars mass in cargo sometimes 100% the cars mass) I see almost NO CHANGE in cruising fuel economy. 1-2mpg TOPS if there are some stops or hills involved. Now in the city its a whole nother story mass is everything so to speak. Edited by bogs, Jan 7 2012, 12:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spock | Jan 4 2012, 06:30 PM Post #13 |
|
Live Long and Prosper.
![]()
|
I disagree with you, Nerys, and agree with Woodie (respectively). The option of a simple, bare bones car that gets decent mileage WASavailable (Metro) and when it ceased to be profitable it was discontinued. Huyndai did offer the Accent hatchback in a stripped down version that was less than 10k a year or two ago. It didn't get 50 MPG but if I remember correctly it got high thirties which ain't bad. They don't sell either car anymore because it wasn't as profitable as the gas guzzling alternative with all the bells and whistles. The same is true with every manufacturer. They are going to build what sells and low 0-60 cars with navigation systems riding on 200 airbags are what sells. Woodie is right; given a few years of 9 dollar a gallon gas and things will change in a hurry. It's not some giant government conspiracy that you cant get a 3 cylinder diesel car capable of 50 MPG in the USA, it's just that they can't market and sell them effectively enough to make a profit high enough to be worth their effort. Or are you of the opinion that it is a government conspiracy behind the lack of availability of cars capable of high MPGs? Edited by bogs, Jan 7 2012, 12:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nerys | Jan 4 2012, 08:26 PM Post #14 |
|
Grr
![]()
|
SO where is the smaller bare bones "option" for a ford fiesta? how about a Chevy Sonic? how about a Hyundai Elantra? How about a Toyota Camry? show me one single low end car that gets 40mpg that is MORE than capable of getting more simply with a smaller engine and a much lower price simply by deleted options people might not want IF GIVEN THE CHOICE. The metro sold quite well. but it got slaughtered in reviews and gasoline was CHEAP so why would you buy a no frills car that was uncomfortable and percieved as unsafe.? thats like walking into a town where everyone has an apple tree in the backyard so no one buys your "apples" you cart in and then when all those apple tree's die you refuse to sell apples citing history where no one would buy your apples ?? really? Conspiracy? no Concentrated organized business decision to flat out refuse to offer a viable high mileage car? YES 30's is pitiful. its not even worth a second look. High mileage to me means 45mpg or higher IE an "improvement" over 20 and 30 years ago. you can't just rehash the same mileage from 30 year old tech and go hey see we are trying. we will never have $9 gas. its not viable and the oil companies KNOW IT. I am not saying we need 50mpg 3cyl engines. THAT IS TWENTY YEAR OLD TECH I want 4cyl 60mpg engines. more than within our viable affordable technological means. yet we refuse too. how about 4cyl 50mpg? any of those cars I listed would get 50mpg if they simply offered a 1.2liter engine optimized for fuel economy and a good tranny. Do I think the government conspires to prevent high mileage cars? NO Do I think the government encourages LACK of high mileages cars with its tax benefits and subsidies? YES without question. the reason is simple. High mileage means less tax revenue and less profit for those who run the country (via taxes and via corporate profits) conspiracy NO. business decisions NOT in the best interest of the general population. You betcha. when I see a Chevy Sonic. a 2800 pound car a sub compact and the cheapest you can get it is $14,000 and the SMALLEST ENGINE option available for it in fact the ONLY engine option available for it is a 1.4l Turbo Can you even get one without a turbo? and the best it can do is 35 to 40mpg THEORETICAL highway ?? how much more do you need to not see this as intentional? do you need a notarized affidavit from Big Auto that says we have no interest in making cars that can actually save people real money? you want more proof? how about this for proof 1987 Toyota Camry 2.0 Liter engine 5 speed tranny Oh but its lighter. ahh no 2690 its about 100 pound lighter and LARGER than the chevy sonic and it got 34mpg highway. so make the car 100 pounds heavier cut almost 1/3 of the engine away add 25 YEARS in tech advancement and a more aero car and the best you can do is 1 more MPG ?? really? (the 5speed sonic gets 35mpg) add a 6 speed and you still only manage to add 6mpg over a LARGER draggier just about as heavy 25 year old car? OH and that 34mpg is EPA adjusted to current methods "adjusted" methods the ORIGINAL spec for the car from the EPA was 43mpg (and as well all know driven normally without your foot in the pedal WILL allow you to exceed those values rather easily just by going the speed limit) so where is your "mass" excuse now? it has a 2 liter versus a 1.4 weighs almost as much mass and is 22 year old tech in a larger draggier body. and the best they can do is 1mpg? NEGATIVE 8 mpg if you use the original EPA values. (-3 with the 6 speed) and you think this is NOT intentional? Really? seriously? My curiosity is not if they did this intentionally. I know they did as far as I am concerned. My curiosity is HOW HARD did they have to work to CRIPPLE the car to such an extent? I am not trying to insult anyone. if I can't convince you guys ie people who DRIVE fuel efficient cars what chance do I have against joe dumb public? If you think that is a "conspiracy" well hey thats up to you. I call it pure unmitigated GREED. Now keep in mind MPG's mean nothing. if we doubled average fuel economy they would simple DOUBLE fuel prices. they would have no choice. the alternative is HALF current revenue. Our geo's do NOT SAVE us money by getting high MPG's we save money because NO ONE ELSE DRIVES THEM. so we are "outside the curve" but thats another discussion. Edited by bogs, Jan 7 2012, 12:19 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spock | Jan 4 2012, 09:38 PM Post #15 |
|
Live Long and Prosper.
![]()
|
WOW. You do love to type, don't you? Look bro, it's obvious that you are passionate about this subject. You're clearly an intelligent guy, but I think there are some real problems in some of your statements in that response. I'd love to continue to talk to you about this, because I'd like to hear your reasoning behind some of the things you said. BUT we are clearly hijacking this thread so if you want to open a new one on this subject, I'll throw in with you as long as you keep it friendly and within the boundaries of this Forum. If you don't wanna go any further, that's fine too. You said yours and I said mine.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic » |


Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.








![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
2:18 PM Jul 11