new epa rules

[elwood127]

The epa 35 mpg rule has no teeth. My 25 mpg astro gets about 19 mpg. Ridiculous that 40 years ago my bug got 35 mpg. What do you guys get?

[Sandy G]

The Mighty Valdez gets 8-10 in town, a rousing 15 (maybe) on the hiway....Downhill....In neutral....W/th' V-10 turned off...an' a BIG tailwind...But for a 7500lb 4WD truck, w/a 412 cu. inch motor, maybe that ain't THAT bad...

[merrylander]

On the highway the Impalas give us a good 29MPG, around town I really don't know but for a 3.8l V6 they are quite frugal.

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by elwood127

The epa 35 mpg rule has no teeth. My 25 mpg astro gets about 19 mpg. Ridiculous that 40 years ago my bug got 35 mpg. What do you guys get?

I've not actually driven my 2009 Impala on a long enough trip to hand calculate an accurate highway mileage, but the computer display typically shows 32-35 mpg with cruise on @ ~60 mph.

I did hand calculate a tank of mixed driving and came up with 24.2 average. The computer showed 24.4.

About the Bug, yeah, I see that alot. The thing people seem to forget is that all these older cars with great mileage were low horsepower. The Bug was around 50 horsepower, my Impala is rated at 211 hp. I'd reckon if we still made some 50 hp cars today the mileage would be higher.

[d-ray657]

I remember when the first Hondas were sold here. They basically had a motorcycle engine in a small car, IIRC. I don't remember the numbers on mileage, but I recall it being better than anything else around. Now my partner drives a Honda Accord, and it gets worse mileage than the '10 Malibu I drove for a couple of weeks. I didn't reset the computer for the entire time I had the car, and it was just short of 29mpg when I turned it in. When my wife returns from a trip in the Saturn Astra, it will show 32-33 mpg, but when I take it on a trip it is more like 30 for the highway driving. I set the cruise for about 4mph over the speed limit, and she drives about 5mph under. I guess that 55 mph speed limit they set years back did make a difference.

The best mileage I ever got out of a car was the 78 Rabbit I had in the early '80s. I got 42mpg out of it on the turnpike, but averaged around 35 most of the time. It was built like a POS, though.

I wonder what would happen if we were ASKED to make sacrifices for the sake of gaining energy independence. I know that there would be a revolution if a new 55mph speed limit were imposed. The statistics show a significant improvement with slower driving. I notice that I get 2-3 worse mpg when I use the air conditioner. My body could sure use more walking that driving for short trips. That sort of exercise would probably result in a general improvement for the health of the country as well. With all of the flag waving going on, if it were presented to people as a patriotic thing to do for the security of the country, do you think we would see an uptick in personal conservation measures?

Regards,

D-Ray

[rickr15]

A lot of 80's Chevy Sprints (3 cyl Suzukis) with stick shifts got 50 mpg. Couldn't do it now as the mandated weight of all the crash safety stuff.

We have quite simply made the cars heavier than we can overcome with mileage improvements. Take 1500 Lbs of window motors,6 speaker stereos, Cruise,Airbags ,leather the wire to run it all etc and the mileage will follow.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by rickr15

A lot of 80's Chevy Sprints (3 cyl Suzukis) with stick shifts got 50 mpg. Couldn't do it now as the mandated weight of all the crash safety stuff.

We have quite simply made the cars heavier than we can overcome with mileage improvements. Take 1500 Lbs of window motors,6 speaker stereos, Cruise,Airbags ,leather the wire to run it all etc and the mileage will follow.

That sounds too practical. As I mentioned, are Americans willing to make that kind of sacrifice? In speaking of sacrifice, I mean the personal convenience items like power windows and big stereos, not the safety items. I drive a stick shift out of preference, however, rather than sacrifice.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

I doubt that stereos, leather, and power window motors add that much to the weight of a vehicle. And probably not even that much to the price.

Air bags certainly do, at least to the price, and they're mandated by the government.

Chas

[hillbilly]

Speakin' of the Sprint that got about 50 mpg, my friend had one. It also had more room inside than the piece of crap Smart they are allowing to be driven on our roads today. So, if a 1200 pound Smart can be bought and driven on our roads today, .. then why didn't the government just keep their noses out of GM's beezwax to begin with? I seen a Smart the other day at a redlight and told my wife how silly it was for the government to tell the makers they had to meet certain weight standards ... then years down the road decide to allow something even smaller & lighter than what they had put a stop to years ago. I think if they allow Smarts to be sold in the states .. then they shoulda kept their noses out of the big three's beezwax when they had cars that were cheap to operate. At least the big three offered seating for four .. unlike the new crackerbox Smart that weights even less.

[Zeke]

Daily?

1995 Chrysler Cirrus beater with a Mitsubishi sourced V6.

In general, it reminds me of a slant-six powered 1975 Plymouth Valiant.

How? The body will fall apart LONG before the powertrain.

30+ mpg, dependent upon how I drive.