http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...607200377/1148

Over the last 30 years engine efficiency has only gone up slightly less than 1% per year
even at the companies that emphasize it heavily like Honda, BMW, and VW
but that does not mean you could not get the additional 3% gain
from reductions in aero drag
or tire rolling resistance

 

that bill will never pass. It's just retarted.

 

Won't work and wouldn't be a good idea to attempt. If people want better fuel efficiency, let them get it by forcing the manufactures to change via the almight dollar, not the Gov't.

 

Personaly I think it's a good idea, especialy since in some cases manufactures are going backwards on fuel economy, 10 years ago you could get a compact dodge with the top engine and get 28/38 (1st gen neon 2.0 DOHC 150hp 5sp), now with the smallest engine you can only get 28/32 (caliber 1.8L 148hp 5sp), go up to the top engine and you're down to 23/26 (heck i've gotten 26 highway with my 4100+ pound magnum with a 5.7 V8), and since caliber is so overweight for a compact car even with the top engine (172hp CVT) it has worse performance than the 1st gen neon with the base engine (132hp 5sp).

 

I agree that economy is going backwards. Back in 1981 my parents had a 2.2 powered Dodge Aries. It delivered 39MPG highway. The dang thing was carburated even. My 98 Avenger has the 2.0 and the best highway milage I have recorded is 36.6 going mostly downhill through the Blue Ridge Mountains on US 77. Pretty sad we do not have a modern day Mopar that can give us 45+ MPG . I for one would put up with a slight loss of power for a good increase in economy.

 

NO, NO YOU WOULD NOT!!!
The corporate people tell you you want POWER, not economy. They do not ask you what you WANT, they tell you what you NEED.
Lol. Jk Jk.

But I agree. It's kind of stupid that now-a-days with over-drive transmissions, fuel injection computer controlled fuel systems, and everything else, we can't get better economy (or, at least, the same fuel economy as we were getting 20-30 years ago!)
Another thing- what the heck, why can't they bring us some decent small diesels? I mean, they can export them to Europe, but can't sell them here.[sm=dontgetit.gif] Doesn't Europe have strict diesel rules anyways?

They need to build a back-to-the-basics lightweight car, with a decent line-up of engines (such as, a few small gassers, and a couple diesels), with manual or available automatic transmissions. Nothing fancy, just something that gets good mileage, decent power, and is *gasp* light weight and not freakin feature filled. But no... they can't comprehend that!

As long as the corporate elites ignore common sense, they can continue to run their companies into the red, maybe they'll grow some brain cells someday. I don't really care. Ford, GM, and (I will say it) Chrysler can do as THEY please, but, the fact and future is CLEAR, the market is turning into a smaller-car, more fuel efficent market, something those 3 aren't really good with. (Yes, when introduced, the lrage cars like the Magnum, 300, etc. did well, but, after their "new"ness wore off, so did their sales). And, for their survival, they will figure this out, either by ignoring this fact, and seeing their marker share dry up, or, by recognizing and accepting this, and developing more fuel efficent vehicles, and perhaps, making hits that greatly gain back market share.

If they ignore the CLEAR wants of the market, they will get what they deserve. Just look at GM and Ford, they made it so that they made all their money off of trucks and SUV's, and now they practically have to give their vehicles away to get them off their lots. I feel no remorese for automotive companies, especially when they take steps backwards instead of forward.

 

Same here. Fuel is just out the nose.

I think it's going to be a difficult goal for some manufacturers, but a good idea. We need to stop relying on OLD times and improve. I can't believe some of you guys are being pansies about this and not wanting better mileage.