Over the last 100 years, we’ve gone from having very basic airplanes to landing on the moon. We’ve gone from using an abacus to handheld computers. We’ve gone from telegraph wires to cell phones. And yet, the Model T, waaay back in 1908, got more miles per gallon than MANY of today’s, modern, top-o-the-line cars. How is this possible? How have so many technologies improved so amazingly much, yet our fuel efficiency has barely changed?
By the way, 27.5 mpg isn’t the average mpg for cars — this is what the automakers have to get to by 2012! We’re not even that far yet!
January 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
It’s a little more complicated than that. Many of the major car companies have deals with oil companies and their profits would suffer if they released a car with incredible mileage. We have the technology, but the people in power don’t want to use it.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Yeah, I figured. But it’s weird to me that fuel efficiency has barely gone up since 100 years ago, and most people are fine with that.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Well, most people don’t have a clue what’s possible because oil companies and others spend lots of time and money to bury this kind of thing. Tesla had an electric car that ran off of energy pulled out of the air! Free and clean fuel for everyone? Big business decided that was a bad idea and now we pay out the nose for the destruction of the planet.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:30 am
David @ PlanetThoughts is running a competition where participants place flyers on fuel-efficient cars (40 MPG and above) which tell car owners how cool they are, and how their actions are helping the planet.
For more information on the competition, please visit:
http://super-cars.planetthoughts.org
January 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
you want to see something neat? Check out this http://www.aptera.com (no i have no financial interest in the company).
Also, re: what was discussed above. The major car manufacturers had no interest in increasing the MPG of their vehicles because until recently the price of petroleum was prohibitively cheap so as to dissuade green companies from starting up. If they did start, they were bought.
We have plenty of inventions which would allow for energy production enough to drive our cars. The issue is that whichever alt. fuel wins the upcoming race to take over will be the one which the most companies can profit from. “Almost free energy” is a great and implementable idea. The only issue is that the lack of profits will stop major companies from pursuing it.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
If you were to reimplement the Model T’s basic specifications with current technology, you could get a lot more than 27 MPG, but you couldn’t get the car registered for use on public roads. Add the stuff (like brakes on all four wheels, airbags, NHTSA-spec bumpers, a minimally-crashworthy body and emission-control equipment) you’d need to be legal, and you’d still have a car that hardly anyone would buy, because it would barely be able to keep out of its own way in traffic. Try driving an original (36 HP, about twice as much as the Model T) Volkswagen to see what I mean.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I’m not saying cars haven’t got a LOT better in other ways. I’m just saying you’d think they’d get a lot more than 27 mpg. Even though I’d like to drive a Model T at least once, I wouldn’t want to have it as my car
January 24th, 2008 at 6:35 am
heya dudes, im not saying cars haven’t got better but they still suck!! hehehehe. I have a jaguar myself and i sometimes ride my bike, it’s great!! helps me get round London. Anyways great site c ya forum buddys loooool xxxxx
January 25th, 2008 at 7:52 am
i love my car, its a pink honda jazz, the fuel economy is just sickening. (a bit like how much i wana go out with lizie). its got a 0-62mph of 14secs which is phenomenal for my engine size which is huge at a 1.4l.
love from caspar xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
January 25th, 2008 at 8:04 am
heya x – hows everyone doing ? i have a big juicy land rover myself, i know its abit of a naughty fuel guzzler in the same way i eat things. givin out a holla to all my friends, debate websites suck xxxx
January 29th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Just before my car played a red head “game over”, i was asking myself about how to change it. So after this braincheck, i decided to use a little motor bike, i mean a scooter from Suzuki. Why ? Cos’ bikes are more usable in towns, cos’ my travels for the most of the year are less than 50 kms, cos’ bikes pollute 7 times less than a car, and cos’, it’s a single like vehicule (i can load one person more thant me), just like all people sitting on their car every day (i can see them when i roll).
Why can i do this too, although i have 2 childs and the 3st is coming ? Because my girlfriend get a
January 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am
(Sorry, my first post wasn’t full)
Why can i do this too, although i have 2 childs and the 3st is coming ? Because my girlfriend get a car, with 5 seats under. And we use this car just for the most important, (like going to the wall mart etc.).
Did i said that my scooter run 25 kms / liter ? 1 gallon equal 3,7854118 liter, so i can run over 94 kms per gallon. Around 58 miles per gallon. Right ?
In France, the price is 1,332 €/L so 1,9616364 $/L, 7,42560158 $/Gallon.
Perhaps the solution is here for USA : upgrade the price to the same level as Europe ?
May 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I have a 2005 jetta turbo diesel with has a 1.9l 4 cyl engine. The car has almost every ammenity that you could want plus the ride and precission engineering that you would expect with a German car (although it is built in mexico) I still get almost 60 miles per gallon. It is rated at 45 but I drive very gingerly. I run it on BioDiesel which I make myself from used cooking oil and the whole process costs me .46 a gallon. My next project is to sell this car since it is worth more than I owe do to the demand for diesel, and buy an old diesel rabbit. I will modify the rabbit to be more aerodynamic and also strip alot of weight from it. The biggest problems with fuel economy has to do with weight, aerodynamics, excessive AC weight and requirements, plus unescesary sizes. People in the U.S.A. want huge cars with tons of power and big displacement engines for some reason. All so they can go 80mpg in their big trucks and SUV’s (glorified minivans) and wonder why they use so much fuel. Sometimes it makes you wonder if humans are worth saving.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
1980 datsun b210 getting 36+ mpg with a 1.4 liter 5 speed
was worth rebuilding end to end. it is what it is and does what it does. little 1.6 liter front wheel drive nissan sentra’s do about the same and much snappier response.
geo/chevy/metro.. 1-2 clicks to the emergency brake lever to shut off headlights but not drag brakes adds 15 mpg for unloading the alternator, 65 mpg is that easy. these are “old news” and running carburetors. modern fuel efficient intake methods could do real wonders, they arent offered and should be.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Sir, I commend you. One day I would like to get a small old car, fix it up, and drive around TOO cheaply. Kudos, “old guy”.
December 8th, 2008 at 2:31 am
You are truly a crazy limey, Caspar. Good luck finding your eco-warrior girl, yo.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I just love you guys, you are so interesting, sometimes i come on here to read some of the posts and i just get the craziest hard on, then i just think about saving the planet and stuff and well you know the rest, well any way, i'm tall, have dark hair, brown eyes, i love going to the gym so im pretty ripped and i love walks in the park. I'm looking for an eco-warrior type girl into walks, saving animals, bondage and other fun stuff, if your intersted just post back and we'll get in touch.
love caspar xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
December 11th, 2008 at 1:43 am
I'm sure it wasn't a linear progression, I just added that in to connect the two datapoints. Sadly, I wasn't going off average mpg for today's cars… it's even worse. 27.5 is the goal that automakers have to get to by 2012, they haven't even got that yet.
Any differences in speeds and driving conditions would seem to benefit today's cars. Driving conditions were bad roads back then; now we have nice, paved, mainly straight roads. And driving speeds tend to be worse for low speeds (such as below 30mpg).
I do agree that it's partially the consumers' fault, but the auto companies also share blame. They have dragged their feet on setting and achieving fuel efficiency goals for too long, and now you see foreign car companies cashing in on the market for more fuel-efficient cars. The car companies need to really push higher mpg goals.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:23 am
False comparison. Look at the differences in speeds and driving conditions from 1908 to 2008. And a linear profile of average gas mileage from 1908 to 2008?? Doubtful. I'm gonna guess it dipped far lower than 21 mpg and we're trying to fight our way up from there.
Also, there are currently plenty of vehicles that get better than 27.5 mpg. The consumers need to buy vehicles with the environment in mind.
Quit putting it on the automakers and the companies. It's our fault for how we live and the choices we make.
December 12th, 2008 at 1:35 am
I completely agree on your last point. In the end, you have to blame the consumer for not demanding more fuel-efficient cars, and for buying based on other things. It's like if I bought the cheapest and sweetest cereal I could, then complained that it wasn't healthy. Now that more people are valuing fuel efficiency a little more, we should be seeing the car companies react by making cars with highers mpgs.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Agreement Reached!
December 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Low speeds = high gas mileage. The only reason city gas mileage is lower than highway gas mileage is due to the stop and go nature of city driving.
Also, I mis-wrote when I said driving conditions. I meant more the functions of today's cars. Today we've got radios, air conditioning, GPS, etc. The cars are running computers in them to control ABS systems and stuff like that. All of these extra systems means more juice gets sucked from the battery. More juice from the battery means more power generated by the alternator. More power generated means worse gas mileage.
I might be a little confused by what you mean by average gas mileage. There is the difference between trucks and cars as well as the difference between highway and city mileage. Companies that sell trucks will obviously have a lower mpg rating than a company that doesn't. This doesn't mean that they don't have other more fuel efficient options and makes them look bad compared to a company that doesn't offer trucks.
Also, companies such as GM are introducing Hybrid pickups and SUVs (although they're having a rough go of it being essentially bankrupt).
To me it just seems like people want to blame the auto companies for offering vehicles that consume more fuel because people are buying them. If no one bought them, they wouldn't sell and this wouldn't be an issue.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:49 am
That's what I'm talking about
March 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Interessante Informationen.