All things considered, it's not exactly a fair comparison. Pre emissions, safety, and relatively low output cars to modern high performance cars that are crash safe (in many areas) and have less than 1% emissions of their old counterparts.
A number of carmakers pride themselves when they improve the fuel economy of newer models over older ones, but how much more efficient have cars gotten over, say, the last 50 years or so?
As it turns out, it sort of depends. The U.S. government didn’t actually track fuel economy until 1964. However, we were able to get a good idea of earlier numbers thanks to some old issues of Road & Track we have lying around.
How does the mpg of some iconic classics compare to their modern counterparts? Check out our consensus over at Classic Motorsports.
Like what you're reading? We rely on your financial support. For as little as $3, you can support Grassroots Motorsports by becoming a Patron today.
All things considered, it's not exactly a fair comparison. Pre emissions, safety, and relatively low output cars to modern high performance cars that are crash safe (in many areas) and have less than 1% emissions of their old counterparts.
While you are absolutely correct, perhaps an argument could be made for total level of pollution?
Compare all the modern cars and their mileage etc. To those few remaining vintage cars and their lack of use?
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:All things considered, it's not exactly a fair comparison. Pre emissions, safety, and relatively low output cars to modern high performance cars that are crash safe (in many areas) and have less than 1% emissions of their old counterparts.
And the way fuel economy is calculated/reported/advertised has changed a few times in that 50 year period as well. Fuel economy.gov did apply retroactive modifiers to change the numbers of cars before the most recent change (2009?), but obviously it wont work for stuff made in 1964. It does go to 1984, so that might be a bit more apples to apples.
The last EPA test change was for the 2008 model year. The current cycle gives cars a lower rated fuel economy than the old cycle would.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption would have been a fun comparison too, if only the data were publicly available...Although, once again, the old and new would have been skewed from using different HP (gross vs net) rating systems.
Driven5 said:The last EPA test change was for the 2008 model year. The current cycle gives cars a lower rated fuel economy than the old cycle would.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption would have been a fun comparison too, if only the data were publicly available...Although, once again, the old and new would have been skewed from using different HP (gross vs net) rating systems.
FWIW, the cycles have not changed. How they are calculated has. At least since 2008.
It's still the FTP75, FTP75@50, Highway, US06, and SC03 that are used to calculate sticker fuel economy.
Current cars are pretty amazing compared to those I grew up with. Safer, absolutely. More powerful with still decent fuel economy, absolutely. (I didn’t buy my Mustang to hypermile it and yet I’ve seen over 26 MPG on a tank a number of times on road trips. Not bad for 400+ HP). With that said the advances in safety add weight and the technology to meet the fuel economy with power and low emissions adds complexity. Not to mention everything needs to be an SUV to sell now.
One of my early cars was a MK II Jetta GLI that was stupidly fun to drive even with only around 100 HP. Wasn’t really fast in a straight line but wow was it fun on a twisty road. It would also turn 38 MPG on highway trips because it was light. Probably a good thing I never got in a serious accident though. They wouldn’t be able to sell something like it today and yet it was the “performance” model when I bought it.
Wife's 2014 Accord with 2.4 liter 4 cylinder and CVT and 140k plus miles on it still gets 38-40 mpg while easily keeping up with freeway traffic without us even trying. I am still amazed by that for some reason.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:Driven5 said:The last EPA test change was for the 2008 model year. The current cycle gives cars a lower rated fuel economy than the old cycle would.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption would have been a fun comparison too, if only the data were publicly available...Although, once again, the old and new would have been skewed from using different HP (gross vs net) rating systems.
FWIW, the cycles have not changed. How they are calculated has. At least since 2008.
It's still the FTP75, FTP75@50, Highway, US06, and SC03 that are used to calculate sticker fuel economy.
The US06 and SC03 came out in 2008. So, while the cycles did not change, new cycles were introduced.
In reply to ProDarwin :
??? I knew them from before 2008. And I know I've ran US06s prior to 2008. I don't remember when they actually came out, but they were in use prior to 2008. I think the SC03 was the result of Cadillac's cheating with the Allante, which totally changed how the car ran with a/c on. That was in the 90's.
Or do you mean in the equation? And even then, "including" them wasn't actually true in 2008- OEM's are still allowed to use a two cycle cert as long as the 5 cycle is close enough. The actual 5 cycle requirement is just now phasing in. I know we've been using the two cycle calculation for most of our products.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:All things considered, it's not exactly a fair comparison. Pre emissions, safety, and relatively low output cars to modern high performance cars that are crash safe (in many areas) and have less than 1% emissions of their old counterparts.
All the same, the best fuel economy cars I had were from the 80s.
I mean, TECHNICALLY I could hit 42 mpg with my '02 Volvo, but my '89 Golf and '90 Sentra could do it with ease, and no shenanigans.
Displaying 1-10 of 24 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to log in to post.
