Why isn't fuel economy better?

I realize that after a downsizing trend two or three decades ago, cars are once again getting bigger, heavier, and faster. Civics are now more of a vehicle than Accords of earlier generations. Kia now makes "near luxury" cars and so on. But, reflecting on the fuel economies of some of my former vehicles, I recall my '92 Grand Am, '94 Escort, and '95 Probe averaging better fuel economy than my '06 Accord. Yes, we're talking about a few hundred more pounds of weight, but with all the advances in technology, why couldn't my Accord get twice the fuel economy of a 16-year-old Grand Am? It seems to me that overall fuel economy reached a standstill in the late 1980s and has slowly creeped down in the last decade. Why does it take spending thousands more on a hybrid today just to get similar mileage out of a gallon of gasoline than did my 1984 Pontiac Fiero?!?!

CAFEs are going up, but generally only because trucks and SUVs that have been selling so well the last decade have made modest improvements in fuel economy, thereby boosting a manufacturer's average even though smaller vehicles remain virtually unchanged. GMs small car - the Cobalt - gets only ONE mile per gallon more than did the 1985 Cavalier that it eventually replaced - despite similar displacements and weights. 23 years of "advances" in automotive technology for ONE mile per gallon? Give me a break! I could go on all day long with specific examples, but I think we all get the point.

These are just the thoughts running through my head at the moment after reading the article on the ROC home page about the history of VTEC. I find it amusing that the present-day Accord gets almost half the fuel economy of the original Accord from 32 years ago. Yes, I know it's not even the same car - the only thing that remains unchanged is the model name.

Something tells me the big oil companies are preventing these advancements. We're still being propelled by explosions of gasoline forcing down pistons. Electric cars existed 100 years ago. Where are the advances? If the auto industry had improved at one-tenth the rate of the computer industry, we truly would have flying cars - or at least anything that got less than 100 MPG would be hit with a fuel guzzler tax.

These are good questions but the answers aren't that hard to find.

Over the last 20 years ALL vehicles have gained significant weight and horsepower. I contend most of the engineering expertise in engines has been spent creating more power instead of economy. It has nothing to do with oil companies.

Just looking at the Honda Accord:

1979 - 1.6L - 68 hp - 2000 lb - 29.4 lbs/hp
1986 - 2.0L - 110 hp - 2529 lbs - 23 lbs/hp
1998 - 3.0L - 200 hp - 3241 lbs - 16.2 lbs/hp
2008 - 3.5L - 268 hp - 3567 lbs - 13.3 lbs/hp

The Accord's weight is up by 1.78X and power is nearly 4X the original. It is far quicker. The current Accord outperforms many top sports cars of 10-20 years ago.

So I think automakers have NOT been motivated to increase fuel economy at at the expense of comfort and performance. The USA at least likes big comfortable vehicles. A Lincoln Navigator weighs 6200+ lbs. Cheap gasoline has made it easy for Americans to indulge.

Finally, higher gas prices are driving a change.

I'll add another thing. Yes electric vehicles have been around for a long time. Electric golf carts are widely available.

But batteries have improved slowly. You see this in electronics - not just automotive. A notebook computer still won't run all day on a battery. Maybe 3-4 hours. We've gone from nicad to nimh and now lithium ion. There is plenty of motivation in the electronics business to improve batteries. But progress is slow. That's why electric cars by and large, still suck.

Great points, Hofffam. There's no conspiracy theory here.

Everyone wants safety and luxury features, and they are heavy.

Horse power and fuel economy are also decreased by the drain of additional load from anything driven by a pulley under the hood. Higher draw from electrical devices, air pumps, climate control and emission control systems sap a little too. I still think the design of the Honda Ridgeline transmission should incorporate a way to "free it up" when coasting without throttle input. Next time you go down a long grade put it in neutral and and see how smooth it trucks along @ 900 rpm.

Gary in NH

Everyone wants safety and luxury features, and they are heavy.

And at least in America, everyone seems to want to be able to stomp the pedal and GO FAST!

I do wonder how the power-to-weight ratio for a 2008 Accord stacks up next to the muscle cars of yore. I think "many here among us" would be surprised. (Or to cast this another way, can you imagine a 1968 Hemi Cuda with the kind of electronics & fuel injection that we have today? :eek:)

I have had 4 cyl Accords since 1981. I have found that the gas mileage improved with every trade. All were 5 speeds up until 2005 then the mileage droped a couple of MPG with the 2005 automatic. Now have the 2008, much larger, heavier, and more HP. No trip MPG to report to date. Local MPG has been within Honda estimates with less than 3,000 miles.:)

A little hunting and it looks like a 'Cuda weighed ~3400 lbs. Horsepower varied of course with engine and it was SAE gross, not net then. If an engine then had 300 hp SAE net, the lb/hp ratio would be ~11.3. That's less weight per hp than the Accord.

But I bet the Accord stops faster, corners better, and of course pollutes less with higher fuel economy. Much safer, quieter, comfortable, and more reliable.

A few months ago Motor Trend did a comparison test of the 2008 Accord, Camry, Altima and Malibu, all with V6 engines. 0 to 60 times were as follows: Accord - 6.5 sec, Camry - 6.2 sec, Altima - 6.3 sec, & Malibu - 6.5 sec. But the real eye opener was the following quote:

"Truth is, each of these family sedans is intimidating, at least when looking back 20 years at our "Top-Speed 10" test from September 1988, in which we pushed 10 of the day's fastest sports cars to the limit. Turns out every one of these household heroes is quicker to 60 and the quarter mile than seven of those sports cars, including the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, BMW M6, and Chevy Camaro IROC-Z. Want more? The Altima and Camry outpace the Porsche 928 S4 and the Ferrari Testarossa, respectively, to 60. So when Dad says, "Hold on," he means it."

A few months ago Motor Trend did a comparison test of the 2008 Accord, Camry, Altima and Malibu, all with V6 engines. 0 to 60 times were as follows: Accord - 6.5 sec, Camry - 6.2 sec, Altima - 6.3 sec, & Malibu - 6.5 sec. But the real eye opener was the following quote:

"Truth is, each of these family sedans is intimidating, at least when looking back 20 years at our "Top-Speed 10" test from September 1988, in which we pushed 10 of the day's fastest sports cars to the limit. Turns out every one of these household heroes is quicker to 60 and the quarter mile than seven of those sports cars, including the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, BMW M6, and Chevy Camaro IROC-Z. Want more? The Altima and Camry outpace the Porsche 928 S4 and the Ferrari Testarossa, respectively, to 60. So when Dad says, "Hold on," he means it."


It is true that all the cars were faster to 60 than the M6, the IROC Z, & the 300ZX but the Altima and Camry were not faster than the 928S4 or the Testarossa.

Car 0-60 Time
2008 Nissan Altima 6.3 Seconds
2007 Toyota Camry 6.2 Seconds
1992 Testarossa 4.7 seconds
1985 Testarossa 5.3 seconds
1986 Testarossa 5.3 seconds
1989 Testarossa 6.2 seconds
1987 Porsche 928 S4 5.5 seconds
1991 Porsche 928 S4 6.2 seconds
2006 Honda Ridgeline 3.5 seconds

Here are some Honda Accord Times

1976 Honda Accord 13.8
1981 Honda Accord 13.4
1982 Honda Accord LX 13.0
1986 Honda Accord LXi 9.8
1990 Honda Accord EX 10.0
1991 Honda Accord EX 9.4
1992 Honda Accord EX 9.8
1993 Honda Accord LX 10.1
1994 Honda Accord EX 9.3
1995 Honda Accord LX 8.5
1995 Honda Accord LX V-6 9.1
1996 Honda Accord EX V-6 8.8
1998 Honda Accord LX 7.8
1999 Honda Accord LX V-6 7.4

Here are some cars we remember as being quick but weren't.

1974 Dodge Challenger 318ci 9.6
1982 Dodge Challenger 12.1
1973 Dodge Charger SE 440ci 7.4
1977 Dodge Charger 400ci 11.8

2006 Honda Ridgeline 3.5 seconds
:eek: :eek: :D :D

Typo - that was supposed to be 2.5 :D

And at least in America, everyone seems to want to be able to stomp the pedal and GO FAST!

I do wonder how the power-to-weight ratio for a 2008 Accord stacks up next to the muscle cars of yore. I think "many here among us" would be surprised. (Or to cast this another way, can you imagine a 1968 Hemi Cuda with the kind of electronics & fuel injection that we have today? :eek:)
Here's my favorite HS ride (and college too)
weight 3500# 360hp 0-60=4.9 sec. 5-8 mpg on bright red gas (I know because my buddy drove & I bought the gas and enjoyed his rejects) ;) :eek:
Oh, and I tell my son that my Accord 3.5 KINDA reminds me of it! Well, sorta, ok a little.

Here are some cars we remember as being quick but weren't.

1974 Dodge Challenger 318ci 9.6
1982 Dodge Challenger 12.1
1973 Dodge Charger SE 440ci 7.4
1977 Dodge Charger 400ci 11.8

Once the smog pump reared its ugly head in the mid-70s, those big blocks didn't cut the mustard, did they?

Here's my favorite HS ride (and college too)
weight 3500# 360hp 0-60=4.9 sec. 5-8 mpg on bright red gas (I know because my buddy drove & I bought the gas and enjoyed his rejects) ;) :eek:
Oh, and I tell my son that my Accord 3.5 KINDA reminds me of it! Well, sorta, ok a little.

I really got a kick out of seeing the '67 GTO "geotech" posted. I also drove a '67 GTO in college. Terrible gas mileage, monster quick. But in terms of gas mileage, I have an '03 Accord coupe that was "sticker rated" at 31 mpg. I've gotten as high as 36 mpg, and I routinely get 32 and 33 mpg with it, even driving at 70+ mph with the A/C on. The '08 Accord couple is rated at 28 mpg (hwy.), but I'll bet it'll get 2-3 mpg better if you just drive it like a sane person....or take some Prozac before every trip. I do think gas mileage is going down, but at the same time, we're demanding more and more powerful autos, and with more and more "standard" equipment. That comes at a price. My '03 Accord is almost as powerful as my '67 GTO, but it's a FAR better vehicle. The '08 Accord is even better. And I'll trade the "better" for a little decrease in gas mileage.

If I'd wanted wonderful gas mileage, I would have bought a Honda Fit. I didn't. I wanted the best truck money could by. So I bought a Ridgeline. No very good gas mileage, but nobody held a gun to my head and made me buy a Ridgeline. I bought it with eyes wide open.....bad gas mileage and all. And "bad", as you all know, is a relative term. Ridgeline is still better than most any truck its size. And it's a helluva lot better vehicle.
Tom