Wasn't there a piece of legislation that meant that cars had to improve the their efficiency on a yearly basis? I seem to think this was scrapped by one of the recent governments.
As for any car that does 25mpg even in the UK/Europe I think that's daft too. How many of the drivers of these guzzlers are prepared to go and fight for the oil they're wasting?
Steve.
---
Xantia HDi Exclusive.
|
'go and fight for the oil they're wasting'
Well I've had a few pub fights in Aberdeen. Do I qualify?
|
could do, I suppose it's not too far from a source of oil ;-)
Steve
---
Xantia HDi.
|
|
|
|
"that means mpg has in fact improved if cars do the same mpg with heavier and fatser [sic] cars"
No, the miles haven't increased or the gallons diminished. You can assume that the engines are getting more work out of the fuel, which major achievement is being squandered on propelling cars which are heavier (safety regs) and contain more power-draining gizmos (e.g.air-con).
Back in 1964 I drove a Morris 1100 round the Western USA, doing 3500 miles at 44 mpg (and IIRC the fuel bill was $57 = £19 at the time). Twentyfive years later when I had moved on to a 205, the MPG was about the same, and today Wife's Clio would probably get about 48 on a similar journey. So in forty years we are getting about 10% more miles for our gallons, albeit in safer, heavier cars with more clutter on board. We are certainly not economising on fuel anything like as much as we could.
Diesel cars of course *have* made a great step forward.
|
In another thread the other day, after DD said people were talking about the wrong stuff, I put in a post that said: All cars are too heavy. Discuss.
No one did.
Of course we all like the toys and gizmos that come in our cars, those of us who can afford new cars that is. But as has been pointed out, their increasing girth and weight are largely safety-related. Over-regulation to save us from ourselves has made life increasingly expensive and tiresome.
Andrew-T points out that we are not economising on fuel as much as we could. Lighter cars would handle better, and with a bit of adjustment to gearing and so forth and a small sacrifice of wheel-spinning ability they could be made to go just as fast as the ones we have now while being a lot more economical.
But we won't be allowed to have them unless we get rid of nanny first. Frankly I don't think it will happen. People expect to have their cake and eat it, and the kind of nanny running our country these days - nothing to do with what party's in power - encourages this attitude. Not like the nannies we used to have!
|
"But we won't be allowed to have them unless we get rid of nanny first"
Does nanny tell us to have
:
power steering, electric windows, satnav, CD player, aircon, cruise control, automatics, electric sunroof, rear wipers,..?
None are ESSENTIAL, All are desired. And they all add weight. Add wide tyres spoilers, seamsealant, metallic paint +lacquer coat.
To suggest the nanny state demands these is risible.
Try selling a car which does not have good primary safety today. (anyone want a metro?:-).
Perhaps the nanny state demands the use of SUVs and 4x4s to collect children?
Lol..
An awful lot of people are born again consumers.. and love things that are in themselves superfluous.
I blame the education system:-)
madf
|
The only thing in yr list I regard as remotely useful, madf, is power steering. Some of the others may be pleasant but one can live without them, and cruise control, satnav and auto transmission are actually undesirable, to me anyway. I suppose seamsealant may be all right too.
Fact is you can't really have your cake and eat it. Surely Metros handle and stop all right for that sort of car (primary safety) but perform badly in crash tests (secondary safety)?
It's not a question of 'trying to sell' this or that in the present market. I would like the market to change. But it won't, it will just continue to evolve - not a very good word in the context - in its own carp direction.
|
We're not all obsessed with fuel consumption. I look primarily at the car's specification, performance and price. If it's got a good fuel consumption then that's a bonus not a necessity.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
The changes in vehicles to improve secondary safety have surely occurred because of the implications for occupants and other road users without them. You personally may wish to do without crumple zones, disconnects for the electrical system to prevent the fuel tank from being ignited, seat belts to prevent ejection and decapitation, but many do not. However it is open to you to buy as many old vehicles as you wish. The market for throw-backs is there. Use it if you want, but that is surely an idiosyncrasy?
|
|
NO nortones. Not old ones, new ones. Lightweight, high-geared, with proper suspension and a bit of crumple stuff. But as I say, it won't happen. Because everyone thinks they're going to crash. Pathetic.
|
Its a case of no going back isn't it. If you built a mass-market car that was lightweight, did 120mpg, low emissions, competitively priced, but it only scraped 1 star in NCAP crash tests, the public at large would't buy it. It would be all over the tabloids "This car is a death trap".
I think back to the mid '80's - if you cared about safety, you bought a Volvo; if not, it was taken for granted that most other makes of car would be similarly adequate (or not) in a crash. When my Dad was picking his company cars, choosing between a Sierra, Cavalier, or Montego, he wasn't thinking "I wonder which is the safest", the thought didn't enter into it. Then Merc introduced airbags to Europe, Audi brought out Procon 10, and all of a sudden safety became the big marketing tool.
I'm not knocking people for whom safety is a major criteria for buying a car, each to their own; I just find it ridiculous that a modern Fiesta can weigh 170kg more than a mid-Eighties Sierra. All the extra chassis weight requiring heavier duty suspension, bigger brakes, fatter tyres to keep the handling respectable, more powerful engines to maintain performance. More kinetic energy flying down the road at 70mph.
|
I'm not knocking people for whom safety is a major criteria for buying a car, each to their own; I just find it ridiculous that a modern Fiesta can weigh 170kg more than a mid-Eighties Sierra. All the extra chassis weight requiring heavier duty suspension, bigger brakes, fatter tyres to keep the handling respectable, more powerful engines to maintain performance. More kinetic energy flying down the road at 70mph.
I could not agree more!!
DP
|
|
+ more wear and tear on roads and bridges of course, greater use of road space (my favourite comparison is when you see a mk1 and mk5 Golf alongside each other, but it applies to almost all models of car), and the proven psychological effect of "safer" cars on people's driving standards and habits.
|
Good on you Rich and DP. You have the correct vision.
Most people can't see the wood for the trees though. They'll have nightmarish thoughts of their wives and nippers mangled and play safe. Can't blame them really I suppose.
But 'what might have been' still might be one day, fingers crossed.
|
>... points out that we are not economising on fuel as much as we could. Lighter cars would handle better, and with a bit of adjustment to gearing and so forth and a small sacrifice of wheel-spinning ability they could be made to go just as fast as the ones we have now while being a lot more economical.
But we won't be allowed to have them unless we get rid of nanny first.<
As an old banger driver, I find the safety argument pretty irrelevant at the moment, but I do worry as all around me cars get bigger and faster with no noticeable improvement in driver skill or behaviour. If the nanny state were really interested I'm sure the lighter cars could be introduced, but perhaps we'd need to curtail speeds and Chelsea tractors a bit (I've no problem with working grubby tow-barred versions), as well as taxing fuel even more. The historical antipathy of motorcyclists to Volvo drivers illustrates the dynamic that is now operating on the safety front - drivers feeling safer hasn't done much for road safety.
I've always felt that removing Jeremy's gonads would also help tremendously, but that's only as a result of once trying to derive some imaginative pleasure whilst being forced to watch some Christmas special.
|
" I just find it ridiculous that a modern Fiesta can weigh 170kg more than a mid-Eighties Sierra"
Ford design is carp. IIRC the Fiesta unladen weight is around 1200kg.
The equivalent Yaris is under 1000kg.
Nuff said..
No wonder Toyota are wrorld leaders and rising and Ford are going backward. Instead of investing in car design and new models in the late 1990s, Ford spent their money buying Jaguar Volvo and Kwikfit.
NeitherJjaguar nor Volvo are profitable and Kwikfit was sold at a huge loss...
Says it all really. So to pay for it Ford delayed replacing the Fiesta until 2002 (it should have been 1998) and did not invest...
madf
|
|
Certainly there are lightweight cars, but they tend to be specialised. You could always downsize or get a JiangLing Landwind not likely to sell. Even though it weighs 2 tonnes, it scored zero stars in crash tests last week by the ADAC. Sounds just the job for Lud.
|
|
Thank you Nortones. Heavy, slow, dangerous and Chinese: how clever of you to notice that that was what I really meant!
|
My idea of dream personal commuting/weekend knockabout transport is something based on the old 205 GTI but with the 136 bhp 2.0 HDI engine and 6 speed 'box in it.
0-60 in about 7 seconds, 130+ top end, utterly brilliant handling and tipping the scales at under 900kg, I reckon you'd get 70 mpg out of it driven gently, with an easy 60 day to day.
Or a mk2 Golf GTI with the latest 2.0 TDi 140 lump in it. Ditto above.
Forgive me - I sometimes get quite excited at the prospect of a modern engine pulling 80's kerbweights with pre-nanny state handling characteristics. The performance and economy compromise would be astonishing, and I have almost forgotten what lift off oversteer feels like!! :-(
|
|
The thing would just understeer like nothing else and the weight of the engine would completely overcome the chassis.
|
I'm sure you're right. It's a nice idea though... :-)
I wonder how much heavier the HDi is than the old 1.8 XUD (which worked a treat in the 205)?
|
It's a nice idea though... :-)
Absolutely - especially with the gearing ratios adjusted to use the now huge quatntities of excess torque!
I wonder how much heavier the HDi is than the old 1.8 XUD (which worked a treat in the 205)?
Well it's 2 litre but probably (I don't know) uses more modern metals and production techniques...so that's a tricky one.
|
"I wonder how much heavier the HDi is than the old 1.8 XUD (which worked a treat in the 205)?"
About the same, I guess. My 306 handbook gives the same kerb weight for the car with the HDi 90 and with the XUD 1905cc. I doubt there is more than 20kg difference.
|
"something based on the old 205 GTI but with the 136 bhp 2.0 HDI engine"
Well, I've just bought the GTI bit (1989G, 46K) - now how do I get the HDI engine shoehorned in?
|
|
I thought you wanted to live dangerously. You can do that and be jeered by the antis. Isn't that what you really want?
|
This shows how oil consumption is rising
tinyurl.com/jbgvo {Link to a powerpoint file shortened as was screwing up the page width - DD}
It is a scandal that the Americans haven't changed the fuel economy regulations for 15 years - they could drive more economical cars without making any major personal sacrifice. Yet we are asked to pay huge taxes and use our rip off public transport. Bearing in mind that the average American drives everywhere and over long distances the environmental impact of their V8 monsters must be huge.
|
|
"I would like the market to change. But it won't, it will just continue to evolve in its own carp direction"
I'm afraid so, Lud. One point of debate is the chicken-and-egg - whether the makers give the buyers what they want, or simply provoke trends. I don't believe for a moment that buyers' pressure caused the makers to come up with the fat 4x4 (to pick a currently contentious example). One of them tried it on, and were presumably gratified with the response, which I attribute partly to a sheep-like British habit of copying things American, whether or not it makes any sense on this side of the water, where we have far less space to exercise those monsters. All the same, their affluent buyers happily snatch road and parking space from the rest of us ...
rant over ...
|
The US Gov't effectively encourage dthe move to larger cars by exempting (iirc) pickups and large 4x4s from fuel consumption regulations - which were supposed to encourage greater fuel efficiency.
All it did was encourage Detroit to continue to abandon the smaller/lighter car sector to imports (i.e Japanese) as Ford is finding out..
tinyurl.com/gjzyv
...
Ford's Way Forward restructuring programme already includes closing 14 plants and cutting up to 30,000 factory jobs in North America, as part of a plan to reduce capacity by 15pc, but Mr Ford said he had charged leaders of the US division to work on "plans to accelerate their efforts. Within the next 60 days, we'll be in a position to discuss the additional actions we will be taking".
Part of that will involve paring production in North America even further.
"It was a dismal quarter," said John Novak, an analyst with Morningstar. "Everyone expected tough times in North America, but the results looked bad across the board."
The company has been hit particularly hard by falling sales of sports utility vehicles, which Ford relied on for profits. Sales of the Explorer mid-size SUV fell 32pc during the second quarter and sales of the larger Expedition declined 42pc as buyers turned to smaller cars from Asian competitors as gasoline prices climbed towards $3 a gallon.
madf
|
What a great thread!
Talking of safety, I can help but think that if all steering wheel air bags were removed and replaced by a big sharp spike, how much more safely would people drive. Those that didn't would be removed from the gene pool, bonus.
I'm just bitter after having my car wrote off - a brain dead in a van that shoved a car into mine.
Steve.
---
Xantia HDi.
|
|
|
|
|
