• Please note that there are a few updates and clarifications made in the Audiokarma Rules, mostly relating to advertising and the addition of the new "Paying it Forward" & "Giving back" forums in the AudioKarma Audio Marketplace section.

Vehicles and mileage (then and now)

Wolverine said:
.... If we have to start competing for oil with India, China etc
Click to expand...

We are, that's one of the reasons gas is so high.

Detroit has once again been caught behind the curve spending most of their $ churning out Trucks/SUV's because of the higher profit margins rather than employing the long term strategic thinking that will allow them to compete on a global scale.
Click to expand...

Detroit has been building trucks and SUV's because the demand is there...... if the demand was present, neither would the profit margin.
 
arrow 68 said:
If Federal Gas Taxes were higher there never would have been Mondo SUV Land. And the excess tax dollars could have been used for other sensible funding. Of course I use the term sensible loosely.
Click to expand...

Your complaining that the gas tax isn't higher?

..... Man, we are so far behind the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, then we could be like the UK and instead of paying $1 to $2 for the last 20 years we could have been paying $4 and $5 all that time.
 
Goodwill_HiFi said:
We are, that's one of the reasons gas is so high.



Detroit has been building trucks and SUV's because the demand is there...... if the demand was present, neither would the profit margin.
Click to expand...

If you look back a bit, you'll see a post where I explained how Ford created the SUV market and why it was more profitible to them to have people in trucks than station wagons. Oh, nevermind.

I'm going to get a Kenworth. I hear there safer. To hell with economy. If I can afford it, I should get anything I want.
 
MikeCh said:
Then, hopefully the tide is changing.
Click to expand...

Probably not in the vehicle segment I'm in.

Our largest rigs are 365hp and we hear a meaningful number of customers asking for more. We're working on that; maybe as much as 500hp for the top offering in the next model. But, with the emissions rules getting tougher and tougher, it makes it harder and harder to cram more power into a reasonable size, weight, and cost package.
 
Fast_Eddie said:
If you look back a bit, you'll see a post where I explained how Ford created the SUV market and why it was more profitible to them to have people in trucks than station wagons. Oh, nevermind.
Click to expand...

Ford may have pushed SUV's and trucks with marketing, but that's hardly creating the market. The Explorer, to which you claim was the result of Ford's creating the market, didn't appear till 91 as a Bronco II replacement. SUV's were already out there being sold, and for quite some time...... Bronco II, Chevy S-10 Blazer, fullsize Blazer, fullsize Bronco. If people buy trucks and SUV's the manufactures will of course capitalize on that, like any other business would do in a similar situation. In Europe people want (and buy) smaller vehicles because gas has been high for years, and roads are narrow, so smaller has been the norm for years.
 
My first Ford "SUV" predates all of the above by a bit.

bronchusspiffed.jpg


Just got this roll of film developed, fully 32 years (probably almost to the day) after this photo was taken.

Now, if you want to talk about bad gas mileage... you're lookin' at it. But what a fun and wonderful vehicle otherwise it was.
 
Goodwill_HiFi said:
We are, that's one of the reasons gas is so high.



Detroit has been building trucks and SUV's because the demand is there...... if the demand was present, neither would the profit margin.
Click to expand...

I was not really arguing that the demand was not there. More to my point was that Detroit gave up trying to compete with the imports by building a good small/mid-size car. They stayed safe and kept building trucks/SUV's that are cheaper to produce and have the larger engines that was their strong suit.

I would not exactly say that Detroit created the SUV market but people/kid haulers were always needed. The station wagon all but disappeared in the 80's and 90's and people were funneled to Vans/SUV's as the only alternative.

Cheap gas masked bad decisions by Detroit. Demand was there for trucks/SUV's but not enough of it to save the Big 3 from losing their overall lead in total market share.
 
Wolverine said:
Cheap gas masked bad decisions by Detroit. Demand was there for trucks/SUV's but not enough of it to save the Big 3 from losing their overall lead in total market share.
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree on the bad decisions part...... Detroit, like any other business will build to what the mass's demand, which in this case was trucks and SUV's. ANY business will do that, since that's where the money is. It only makes sense for them to spend the most money on the vehicles that sell and bring in the most profit.

While, I would assume that they must have given some thought to the strong SUV and truck sales coming to an end, they can't see the future. While they can plan ahead, they can only use today's information.
 
I'm out after this as many of us are getting sucked in deeper than we mean to go.

The fact that SUVs did indeed exist before, yet represented a small share of the market, illustrates my point. Every family in America didn't drive a Bronco. They drove a station wagon or sedan. Or more to the point, they were driving mini-vans at the time of the Explorer explosion. But even more to the point, it wasn't a product that was so clever, it was the marketing. I mean, who wants to drive a mini-van when you can be an adventurer in a "Sport" Utility Vehicle? And trust me, the motivation was exactly as I stated before. It was much more profitible to sell a truck as it was much cheaper to make (at the time) without the safety requirements and as I said, it didn't count against corporate fuel mileage figures.

But it's a moot point. It doesn't matter if we got sucked in by slick marketers or if we just don't tend to think too straight sometimes. The fact is, our average fuel economy went down from the 80s to the 2000s while the rest of the world went the other way. Looking at it now, I'm not sure it was such a good move.
 
Lemme work backwards here, through my Toyota's over the years:

2003 MR2 Spyder - 2200lbs, 145HP, 1.8L - about 32mpg hwy.
1991 MR2 Turbo - 2800 lbs, 200hp, 2.0L - about 32mpg hwy.
1986 Corolla FX Hatchback - ???? lbs. - 115HP, 1.6L (carbed), about 30mpg.
1985 MR2 - ~2200lbs, 115hp, 1.6L (EFI) - about 30mpg.

Umm....see a common factor? I might be a bit off on the weights (+/- 100lbs). Now with all of those MR2's, my in town MPG kinda sucks - but that's cuz I like to rev it up and waste gas. :) Highway cruising has been pretty consistent in fuel milage for nearly 25 years.

Ironically, one of my coworkers has newish (2000+) Jeep Liberty that gets a whopping 14mpg Highway. WTF is with that?
 
I drive a '91 MR2 (NA). I rarely see the highway. Usually do 30 or close to it around town. On the rare tank with some highway driving, I can get up in to the mid 30s.
 
ShaneC said:
Ironically, one of my coworkers has newish (2000+) Jeep Liberty that gets a whopping 14mpg Highway. WTF is with that?
Click to expand...


There's something wrong with that Jeep. In addition to our 1991 VW Jetta, we also own a 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a ...(shudder)... V8, that see's most of it's miles during winter. Our Jeep gets 18.5-19.8mpg consistently depending on how much it's driven at highway speed.
 
Fast_Eddie said:
I'm out after this as many of us are getting sucked in deeper than we mean to go.

The fact that SUVs did indeed exist before, yet represented a small share of the market, illustrates my point. Every family in America didn't drive a Bronco. They drove a station wagon or sedan. Or more to the point, they were driving mini-vans at the time of the Explorer explosion. But even more to the point, it wasn't a product that was so clever, it was the marketing. I mean, who wants to drive a mini-van when you can be an adventurer in a "Sport" Utility Vehicle? And trust me, the motivation was exactly as I stated before. It was much more profitible to sell a truck as it was much cheaper to make (at the time) without the safety requirements and as I said, it didn't count against corporate fuel mileage figures.

But it's a moot point. It doesn't matter if we got sucked in by slick marketers or if we just don't tend to think too straight sometimes. The fact is, our average fuel economy went down from the 80s to the 2000s while the rest of the world went the other way. Looking at it now, I'm not sure it was such a good move.
Click to expand...

Agreed!! :yes:

I think both Detroit and the public (the demand side) are equally to blame. The CAFE standards had they been properly utilized,increased and implemented as intended would have IMO helped either stop or at least slowed down the declining mileage trend. The standards were allowed to be bastardized because of Detroit lobbying and people's short sightedness about the future of gas/oil prices.

I now step off my soap box.......
 
Goodwill_HiFi said:
Do you still have it?



Wow! What took so long :scratch2:



How low are you talking?
Click to expand...

1) No, but it still exists and is in running condition. I bought it from and sold it back to my parents; my father later gave it to a friend (who has since passed on) and his son is restoring it. It is a '74 and had considerable rust by the late 1980s. The drivetrain, though, I suspect, is immortal.

2) Dunno how it got separated from my film and mixed in with the debris at my father's house.

3) 10 mpg was the best I ever got out of it.
 
Fast_Eddie said:
I drive a '91 MR2 (NA). I rarely see the highway. Usually do 30 or close to it around town. On the rare tank with some highway driving, I can get up in to the mid 30s.
Click to expand...

I do miss the old '91T dearly, but the cost of premium gas makes the loss a little more bearable.

For my next car, I may have to go back to the '80s again.
 
I drove a 96 Metro 5 speed with the 'big engine' (1.3l I4) for a few years. Never broke out city/hwy but overall my driving 39.8 mpg.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom