- This topic has 14 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
I want to know what y’all think about old vs new cars and their comparative fuel mileages. Are new cars truly better at getting more MPG and what are your experiences?
For example, I can compare my last truck and my current truck which are vastly different in age (41 years old vs 7 years old) and a huge difference in the powertrain. City/Highway is averaged out here:1974 Chevy C30- 12 MPG w/ 454, 4 speed manual without an overdrive, and 4.10s in the rear.
2008 Chevy Silverado 1500- 16mpg w/ 4.8L(293) and automatic 4L60-E 4 speed with OD, and 3.23s in the rear.Now keep in mind, the 1974 is a much heavier truck with thicker sheetmetal, bumpers, and frame. Nothin lightweight about it not to mention the cylinder heads weigh 100 pounds+ a piece alone and the transmission weighs 25 pounds heavier than the 4-L60E not including the massive cast iron bellhousing.
The 2008 only weighed in at 4,400 curb.How is it that a 41 year old truck that was the 3500HD of its day with twice the engine and gearing that efficient wheras a 1500 only did 4 MPG better on average? Are we truly progressing in the MPG department? Just something to think about and discuss. I’d like to hear others opinions and experiences!
-
Replies
-
I have a pair of big block chevy heads. They do not wiegh 100 pounds a piece.
Consider the flip side of your fuel economy numbers. If each vehicle holds 30 gallons of fuel, you’re going to refuel the old truck at 360 miles and and the new truck at 480 miles per your fuel economy estimates. Lets say you’re driving both trucks to a single location. You have to stop to fill the old truck first so you might as well fill the new truck. The old truck drank all 30 gallons while the new truck only drank 22.5 gallons at 360 miles. I picked 3.30 a gallon for fuel since that’s about the current price of gas down the street. The old truck cost almost $99 to fill while the new truck cost about $74. The savings is nearly $25 just on that one fill up. I’d say that the four miles per gallon is a significant improvement.
[quote=”no_common_sense” post=114608]I have a pair of big block chevy heads. They do not wiegh 100 pounds a piece.
Consider the flip side of your fuel economy numbers. If each vehicle holds 30 gallons of fuel, you’re going to refuel the old truck at 360 miles and and the new truck at 480 miles per your fuel economy estimates. Lets say you’re driving both trucks to a single location. You have to stop to fill the old truck first so you might as well fill the new truck. The old truck drank all 30 gallons while the new truck only drank 22.5 gallons at 360 miles. I picked 3.30 a gallon for fuel since that’s about the current price of gas down the street. The old truck cost almost $99 to fill while the new truck cost about $74. The savings is nearly $25 just on that one fill up. I’d say that the four miles per gallon is a significant improvement.[/quote] Very good points. Your forgetting the engine efficiency aspect of it however. With the 74′ I am running at 2k-2.7k rpms regularly…even at a cruise depending on speed. The ’08 stayed most of its time at 1.5k rpms due to OD and different gearing. I guess I should rephrase my question…have powertrains really gotten more efficient? There is a drastic difference between displacement and gearing..not to mention carberated vs fuel injected. Only 4 MPG better on a 4.8L vs a much bigger 454 with much lower gearing and no OD that dumps fuel down the intake rather than injects it. We can also take the v6 f-150 ford ecoboosts real world numbers for comparison: 15-20 mpg depending on driver habit and wheelbase. You made some good points I’ll give you that but keep in mind we are not comparing apples to apples here. 350 or 302 vs 4.8L is a apples to apples comparison.
I guess I’m a little confused at what the point of this thread is. Basically what you’re saying is that your relatively new gas guzzling brick, “only” gets 33% further on a tank of gas than your old gas guzzling brick. At least that’s what I’m reading.
[quote=”McWicked” post=114712]I guess I’m a little confused at what the point of this thread is. Basically what you’re saying is that your relatively new gas guzzling brick, “only” gets 33% further on a tank of gas than your old gas guzzling brick. At least that’s what I’m reading.[/quote] Well your kinda getting it. I mean I started this thread to spark some discussion about old vs new and how they compare in fuel mileage and efficiency. Not just my trucks, but I wanted to see others opinions and experiences as well. My trucks were simply an example to start things off however, it seems that its become more about my trucks. Now onto your comment about “only” 33%, I know from an engineers perspective such as yours, the comparison seems quite stupid however, the 33% difference is quite insignificant when all factors and specs are taken into account. The 454 provides twice the power at only a 33% fuel economy loss as you’ve calculated. Say my “old brick” had an OD gear…I probably would surpass the 08′ in fuel economy right?
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114719]The 454 provides twice the power at only a 33% fuel economy loss as you’ve calculated.[/quote]
Twice the power? Really?
Anyway fuel economy has improved greatly in the last 40 years, just not in a very linear fashion. From the early 70s to the early 90s fuel efficiency really skyrocketed. Then due to ever stricter safety standards (and the birth of the SUV) vehicle curb weights started to rise again. This left fuel economy rates fairly stagnate from the mid-90’s through the early 2000’s.Most gains in fuel efficiency came in part from more efficient engines, but mostly from making cars smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic. There’s not that much room for engine efficiency improvements with current materials. But in the long run, it’s all a null issue… since we’ll all be driving electric cars.
The power certainly gets delivered to the wheels more efficiently. As yes twice the power, I have had both on the dynometer 300 vs 425 hp at the flywheel (ok maybe not twice the power) but certainly twice the torque. I also would like to disagree with your blanket statement of 70s-90s the power and fuel economy skyrocketed. The power and fuel economy was actually hindered until the mid 80s or a little later due to emissions controls and de-tuned engines..power dropped off. It wasn’t until the late 80s or the 90s that the power returned due to more efficient fuel and ignition systems+computer controls. As long as I live I will never drive an electric car my friend B) . I would rather convert to diesel or natural gas before that happens.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114725]The power certainly gets delivered to the wheels more efficiently. As yes twice the power, I have had both on the dynometer 300 vs 425 hp at the flywheel (ok maybe not twice the power) but certainly twice the torque. I also would like to disagree with your blanket statement of 70s-90s the power skyrocketed. The power was actually hindered until the mid 80s or a little later due to emissions controls and de-tuned engines..power dropped off. It wasn’t until the late 80s or the 90s that the power returned due to more efficient fuel and ignition systems+computer controls. As long as I live I will never drive an electric car my friend B) . I would rather convert to diesel or natural gas before that happens.[/quote]
Re-read what I wrote. I never said “power skyrocketed”.
[quote=”McWicked” post=114726][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114725]The power certainly gets delivered to the wheels more efficiently. As yes twice the power, I have had both on the dynometer 300 vs 425 hp at the flywheel (ok maybe not twice the power) but certainly twice the torque. I also would like to disagree with your blanket statement of 70s-90s the power skyrocketed. The power was actually hindered until the mid 80s or a little later due to emissions controls and de-tuned engines..power dropped off. It wasn’t until the late 80s or the 90s that the power returned due to more efficient fuel and ignition systems+computer controls. As long as I live I will never drive an electric car my friend B) . I would rather convert to diesel or natural gas before that happens.[/quote]
Re-read what I wrote. I never said “power skyrocketed”.[/quote] My mistake, I forgot to add fuel economy. Detuning the engines killed fuel economy as well. Retarding spark advance and adding emissions controls on the carbs really hindered fuel economy as well. Manufacturers have to find a balance between fuel economy and emissions. The original cats on 1975-80s vehicles choked the engine and cause fuel economy to suffer for example. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I really don’t mean to sound ignorant, but I don’t trust anything the EPA or the gov tells us. It is biased towards certain “beliefs” and altered and exaggerated studies. I live my life through real life experiences, not a bureaucrats altered statistics. Again please don’t take this as me being “one of those people”.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114731]I really don’t mean to sound ignorant, but I don’t trust anything the EPA or the gov tells us. It is biased towards certain “beliefs” and altered and exaggerated studies. I live my life through real life experiences, not a bureaucrats altered statistics. Again please don’t take this as me being “one of those people”.[/quote]
I think this is the part where I motion the waiter over and ask for the check…
[quote=”McWicked” post=114733][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114731]I really don’t mean to sound ignorant, but I don’t trust anything the EPA or the gov tells us. It is biased towards certain “beliefs” and altered and exaggerated studies. I live my life through real life experiences, not a bureaucrats altered statistics. Again please don’t take this as me being “one of those people”.[/quote]
I think this is the part where I motion the waiter over and ask for the check…[/quote] I agree, we have reached an impass. Let’s agree to disagree.
I have some Four Wheeler magazines from the early 80’s that show when equipped right trucks back then were getting into the upper 20s for mileage. Just wait for the new rules and regulations to hit the market and it will spell disaster for any real trucks left, all we will have is some neutered shell of a truck.
The real question should be if all of the technology that makes the vehicle more efficent worth the extra cost of buying and maintaining them. The average price of a new car is $30,000.00 I could buy a lot of junkers for that kind of money and keep my own truck going for years making my truck more efficent because I have been driving the same vehicle and not buying a new car that needs new resources. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Economical-Differences-Between-New-and-Used-Cars-/10000000177639772/g.html
The only thing I would add is that parts are generally cheaper for older cars than newer ones and are easier to replace.
[quote=”brokemechanic3000″ post=114770]I have some Four Wheeler magazines from the early 80’s that show when equipped right trucks back then were getting into the upper 20s for mileage. Just wait for the new rules and regulations to hit the market and it will spell disaster for any real trucks left, all we will have is some neutered shell of a truck.
The real question should be if all of the technology that makes the vehicle more efficent worth the extra cost of buying and maintaining them. The average price of a new car is $30,000.00 I could buy a lot of junkers for that kind of money and keep my own truck going for years making my truck more efficent because I have been driving the same vehicle and not buying a new car that needs new resources. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Economical-Differences-Between-New-and-Used-Cars-/10000000177639772/g.html
The only thing I would add is that parts are generally cheaper for older cars than newer ones and are easier to replace.[/quote] I do agree, lets change the question is the efficiency worth the cost? Truth be told I don’t believe so. The new regulations will destroy the industry as a whole, not just the trucks. I agree wholeheartly, a new car should not cost $30,000 especially if I don’t even want all the gizmos and dodads that it comes with. I’m perfectly fine with something that I can just DRIVE(and has a radio haha). All these features, emissions controls, model bloat, safety components, etc. all decrease efficency. I’m the same way, I will keep an older vehicle running to save me money(parts are cheaper, less to go wrong etc.), and it does save resources. Not having cats on my vehicle saves platinum, rhodium, and palladium which are the three precious metals commonly used in cats. Since the vehicle never had cats then I don’t ever have to buy cats which would use up valuable precious metals. Fluids are cheaper since I am not forced to use a synthetic and copper spark plugs are much cheaper even in the long run compared to iridium or platinum. The sheetmetal on the body is weldable because it is not a wimpy 22-26 gauge that dents if you look at it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.