Honda loses Small Claims Civic Fuel Economy suit

[olson_jr]

Here are the dyno traces that are driven to get the EPA's FE numbers.

They started adding additional tests in 2008 because no one got sticker mileage.

Notice anything unusual about the highway trace?

From

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

[whoaru99]

I was (perhaps not atypically) imprecise in my wording. Much weighty, structural stuff has been added to cars since the late 1990s. There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago explaining the nontrivial reasons why a stripped-down model 1989 Civic could get 50 mpg but a 200x model couldn't. It's not just the fluffy electronic stuff.

You mean like 70hp vs. 150hp?

People always talk about those earlier cars getting better gas mileage. Sure, a number of reasons but most of them, IMO, are because the cars were producing a fraction of the horsepower of the comparable model today.

 

[mhardy6647]

exactly... which they could get away with because of the vastly lower overall weight of the vehicles (both large ones and small ones).

 

[whoaru99]

Usually a couple times per year I get the pleasure (not) of riding in vehicles that are quite a bit like those older econoboxes when I travel internationally. No thanks.

 

[Goodwill_HiFi]

Simple......Go buy a stripped down 1950's sedan.
The crumple-zones are engineered to take the HIT so you don't. Cars are replaceable....body-parts, life-time aches/pains aren't.

Sigh....... and give up all the progress made since then? There is a difference between real safety such as collapsible steering columns, seat belts, and so on and the electronics and air bags everywhere that is currently "needed" to have a safe vehicle.

 

[Goodwill_HiFi]

I was (perhaps not atypically) imprecise in my wording. Much weighty, structural stuff has been added to cars since the late 1990s. There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago explaining the nontrivial reasons why a stripped-down model 1989 Civic could get 50 mpg but a 200x model couldn't. It's not just the fluffy electronic stuff.

I'd be interested to know more about that.

You've seen this video, yes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
(1959 Chevy vs. 2009 Chevy)

That's not even a fair comparison. That 59 was the GM X frame....... weak, and used for only a few years. Not typical of the era, or body on frame designs. Besides, we're talking 80's and 90's cars........ a 59 is irrelevant.

 

[rmeade]

Power to the People!