Comments (14) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   In 1977 Honda had FIVE models getting over 50 MPG. My ‘65 Corvair got 30, my 67 Lotus got 35(at speed). Suddenly, we’re seeing a “comeback” in higher mileages- more related to oil cartel past actions than design.

   Farnsworth probably would have destroyed his prototype TV if exposed to today’s programming.

2. 

   Gladius said, 4 months ago

   While there is some interesting information here, I’ve seen it before elsewhere. This is not a cartoon. What I admire in political cartoons is the chance to boil down a lot of information and controversy into one imaginative image. That isn’t what I see here. Sigh…

3. 

   oldlegodad said, 4 months ago

   An ill conceived attempt at education of the “muricun” public. They don’t give a $h¡t. Is jackson still dead?

4. 

   harleyquinn said, 4 months ago

   Ok smart guy with what you have laid out we should only worry about how much fuel is burned. Never mind what fuels advances is pushing the limits into what we do. If you do not build that fancy high end sports car and sell it, for a profit of course, you might not get the extra smooth and fuel saving gear box that was develop for that car. And in a few year instead of upgrading the whole fleet with what works you are stuck with the same old.
   Back then you only had a few models to choose from and the quality and standers you can not even compare with today. Today to get your lie um I mean statistic you have to take into account more kinds of cars and trucks and such that there were cars on the roads back in that day.

5. 

   lalas said, 4 months ago

   HQ – no matter how you equivocate… it is pretty weak that we’ve increased 3.2 mpg in 86 years.

   And please explain this sentence:
   “Never mind what fuels advances is pushing the limits into what we do.”

6. 

   PUPPYSAURUS said, 4 months ago

   HQ, Libs can’t get past fossil fuels = bad. And they think innovation springs magically from the mind of some eco-freak sitting in a hut somewhere.

7. 

   Right_On said, 4 months ago

   “Overall fuel efficinecy for vehicles in the US”

   So in 1923, we had tractors, 1/2 ton pick-ups, and cargo vans?

   I can make any numbers look like this if I compare apples to oranges.

   Try these numbers again with 5 passenger mid size vehicles (or the equivalent to what we had in 1923) and see what you get. I bet it won’t be this misleading 3 mpg.

8. 

   motivemagus said, 4 months ago

   Fair question. See this: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
   I’ve poked around their Fuel Economy Guide for 2009 (note he has 2006 up there), and found some interesting things. While your “apples to apples” question is legitimate, we also have to consider the average on the road today, counting up all the cars there, and it is unquestionable that (1) SUVs and “light trucks” had a CAFE exemption, and (2) those were the most popular cars in the US for much of the last couple of decades. In that case, the number above is accurate.
   But in terms of comparing five person mid-size vehicles – which is a debatable size, by the way– Model Ts weren’t great at holding five – I find this:

   Compact cars: 11- 42 MPG (best score: hybrid Honda Civic)
   Midsize cars: 11- 46 MPG (best: hybrid Toyota Prius)
   Large cars: 11-25 MPG (best: Sonata and Accord - note huge drop on the high end, since there are no hybrids in this class)
   SUVs: 12- 32 MPG (best: all hybrids: Ford Escape, Mazda Tribute, and Mercury Mariner)

   I downloaded the data and checked means:
   Compact cars = 22.0; without hybrids = 21.9
   Midsize cars = 21.3; without hybrids = 20.8

   I could do more, but this is probably good enough, and you can download the data for yourself from these links. So it’s 7.3-8.0 MPG improvement over 85 years including hybrids. Yes, that’s better than 3 MPG, but still not impressive. That’s almost one MPG per decade.

   Happy now, Right_On? We can do better than this. Note how much better the hybrids run, for example.

9. 

   PUPPYSAURUS said, 4 months ago

   Ha ha! I knew it! We’ve found an eco-freak with all the answers…Do you live in a hut, Confounded Human? I’ve got a better idea, let’s compare the fuel-mileage of comparable cars in the U.S. to the green paradise of Europe…taking into count less driving and transport vehicles…maybe that would be a better guage. Has europe improved over it’s predecessors?

10. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    I’m not one for bumper sticker politics, but here’s one that stayed with me. I saw it on a huge dump truck:

    “If it isn’t grown, it’s mined”

    Take a look around you and you will see that it’s true.

11. 

    motivemagus said, 4 months ago

    Guys, did you just completely ignore my post or what? We can do better than we are now.
    
    No one said anything about Europe, NoFearPup – though for the record they do drive much smaller, more fuel-efficient cars on average. (The Smart Car has been around for years there, for example.) One contributing factor is the price of gas, which is three to four times what we get here. So, yes, Europe’s car manufacturers probably have improved in efficiency, though it’s complicated by the fact that post-WWII shortages forced people to drive smaller vehicles anyway – like the Mini.
    Churchill, you’re right. Furthermore, unlike grown resources, mined ones are limited. Especially complex chemicals like petroleum, which aren’t readily recyclable like elemental metals.

12. 

    dtroutma said, 4 months ago

    Europe has practical rail service, because they improved infrastructure and service. They have fuel efficient cars because TAXES made gasoline and diesel costly enough to raise mileage rates, decades ago. Here in the U.S., we had to wait for oil company excessive profits on a limited resource to make people even consider it. Aerodynamics does help at highway speeds, but does essentially nothing at in-city surface street speeds, where we burn most fuel. Conservation, NOTconversion to “fuels” that burn MORE petroleum to produce, like corn ethanol, is where the answer lies.

13. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    I agree about corn ethanol. Ethanol can be effective but you have to use sugar cane like Brazil. This one was definitely a hijacking by the corn ag corps.

14. 

    Right_On said, 4 months ago

    motive … nice job on the numbers. Unfortunately, it’s still apples to oranges, as the early vehicles didn’t have the transmissions, gearing, safety, comfort and all the other features of the modern car.

    It’s like saying that a bi-plane only needed 500 ft of runway, but a 747 needs a half mile. Apples to oranges.

    Grab me an engine of today, and put it in the car of yesteryear, and let’s calculate the mileage. And grab the engine of yesteryear and put it in the car of today, and tell me what you get. Then, you can start making comparisons …