Who says they don't build 'em like they used to?
I was looking up some fuel economy figures on www.fueleconomy.gov and noticed that they've updated all of the cars in their database (which goes back to 1985) with new-for-2008 fuel economy numbers. I often get emails or blog comments asking why today's cars don't have the phenomenal fuel economy figures they once did. People tend to cite cars like the Honda CRX HF -- a flyweight two-seater that was advertised at 50 MPG city/56 MPG highway.
For a better picture of where we've come, compare today's Honda Civic sedan with its counterpart from 20 years ago. Using the 2008 formula, a 1988 Civic with an automatic transmission got 25 MPG city/32 MPG highway. A 2008 Civic with an automatic transmission scores 25 MPG city/36 MPG highway. At first glance, it would seem that we've made little progress -- but bear in mind that in 1988 the Civic had a 92 horsepower 1.5 liter engine, while the 2008 Civic has a 140 horsepower 1.8 liter engine. Furthermore, the '08 Civic weighs over 500 lbs. more than the '88 Civic -- largely because of safety hardware like front and side airbags, anti-intrusion door beams, anti-lock brakes, and a high-strength-steel safety cage, none of which will be found on the twenty-year-old Civic.
Check out more cars and you'll see the same story. 1989 Toyota Corolla, 23 city/28 highway. 2009 Toyota Corolla, 27/35. 1988 Toyota Camry V6, 17/22. 2008 Toyota Camry V6, 19/28. (All these figures are for cars with automatic transmissions, by the way.)
Even our performance cars are getting better: The 245 horsepower 1988 Chevrolet Corvette is rated at 15/22 with a manual transmission. The 2008 Corvette has a bigger V8 that produces 185 more horsepower, 79 more lb-ft of torque, and gets to 60 MPH nearly 2 seconds quicker -- and it scores 16/22. Which means the new Corvette can kick the old Corvette's butt in a drag race, and use less fuel while doing it.< p>And what about the old Civic CRX HF? Recalculated for the new 2008 tests, its EPA fuel economy estimates are 41 MPG city/50 MPG highway. The closest Honda came to a modern-day CRX HF was the Insight (which went out of production in 2006) -- 48/58 with a manual transmission. Today's Honda Civic Hybrid has EPA ratings of 40/45 -- and unlike the CRX HF, the Civic has a back seat, airbags, air conditioning, an automatic transmission, plus it won't get squashed like a bug if it gets hit by a mid-size car. All in all, I'd say we've come pretty far. -- Aaron Gold
Photo © Honda
Aaron, you are right that we have come a long way in terms of fuel economy but we have taken several steps backwards in the area of quality anf fit & finish.
I was at the Toronto Auto Show last week. I visited EVERY display as I am in the market for a new SUV and not sure what to buy.
I slammed doors and domestic doors sound like a microwave oven closing; imports sound solid, safe and well fitting.
I pressed down on dashboards and domestics creak and give way; imports are solid and quiet and unyielding.
I wiggled half open windows and the domestics have a lot of side to side play while imports are solid and firm.
I stood back and looked at fit & finish and found several domestics where the trunk/door/hood are obviously seated unevenly. Imports were way better.
I am still unsure what to buy although the Toyota 4Runner and the Acura MDX really caught my attention.
So while fuel economy has improved, domestic quality has regressed. Sad but true.
Michael
Aaron,
We have come a long way, despite the government reg’s that continue to kill gas mileage and vehicle styling and looks. Safety and EPA reg’s are what have killed gas mileage. Look at the mid 70’s, when these regs started. Many smaller fuel efficient cars where ran out of the country due to these regulations. We now have all cars looking the same, due to having to make aerodynamic vehicles to gain the required gas mileage, while meeting EPA standards.
If the government let the market dictate what is made and what sells, we would have both better, mileage AND decent looking cars that don’t all look the same except the front and rear fascias.
More government in anything kills creativity and choice, period.
I’m one of those former owners of a CRX HF (an ‘86 with A/C). It was the perfect college car. As a hatchback, it had ample cargo volume to haul all of my stuff back and forth from home. And it had a fine OEM stereo. And, believe it or not, with only 58 HP, it was quick off the line, up to about 35. But the horrible gear ratios that were set up for fuel economy may it extremely sluggish in gears 2-5. If I remember correctly, 2nd gear ran all the way up to about 70 and 3rd topped out at around 100 (its top speed). This made it horrendous on the interstate, but I also got up to 60 MPG on the highway!
I was also the victim of a “fender bender” that you warn about. At very slow parking lot speeds, I hit the side of a Ford Escort that “flew” out of nowhere. The Escort had a very small dent in the front right fender. The CRX? Totalled! I’m not kidding.
What about the civic VX? Going back to your May 12, 2006 column I already mentioned it, but it bears repeating. The civic VX was rated at 60MPG (or 3.9l/100Km, 72mpg in Canada).
You also left out another key figure which may not be measured for comparrison but should really be discussed at some point, emmissions. The polutants that come out of a 911 turbo today vs a 1988 are really staggering. My IS300 from 2001 has incredible numbers compared to some of my older cars. While I still think that we can do much better in both areas, they have really come a long way in 20 years. I would like to see Audi bring more of it’s Racing R8 Diesel technology to the US. Imagine the bragging rights from producing a 600HP super car that is more quiet (realtively compared to the competition), cleaner, and gets 35 to 40 MPG highway. They could make endless comparisons to other super cars. Then start dropping that technology into the S8, S6 and S4 to really hurt the competition. It would sell.
Hear, Hear!!! Get rid of gov’t. regs!!
I think cars lost their soul and style after about 1971!!!!We need less garbage on our cars, not more!!!
“Hear, Hear!!! Get rid of gov’t regs!!” What kind of playground logic is that? Maybe we should bring back R-12 to expedite the removal of the ozone layer and also DDT so we can enjoy birth defects and get rid of those pesky eagles and other raptors as well. C’mon guys, yes regulations and such may stifle free design in some ways, but overall we’re much better off because of it.
You should also consider the durability of the modern engines – does anyone need a “valve job”, or a new Head gasket before 50M miles? How about newer engines getting over 150,000 without an “overhaul”. Spark plugs every 25,000 miles anyone? Points and condenser to go with the plugs?
They don’t build ‘em like they used to -
and thank goodness!
I’m in total agreement with Phildee… As a former automotive technician, I can attest to the fact that powertrains (ESPECIALLY domestic ones!) have advanced in leaps and bounds over, in example, late 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s offerings. Modern fuel management and diagnostics as well as better overall foundational engine designs have allowed for the average useful vehicle lifetimes to at least double, offer better driveability, economy, longer service intervals and much less incidence of repair/breakdowns, whether or not the general public wants to admit it or not. I can’t tell you how many times I just wanted to laugh in someone’s face when they would bring their 2 or 3 year old pickup in for a driveability problem and find out they’d replaced “that thar fuel injection crap” with an antiquated 4 barrel intake and Quadrajet carb, swearing the whole time that it ran so much better, but it uses alot of gas, won’t idle, smokes, etc, etc… It never ceases to amaze me that people think they know better than an auto manufacturer that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on design and testing.
Well I for one still enjoy old cars with 3×2 carbs with points and condenser. I have modern cars that I enjoy driving and working on but my old one is the one that makes me truely happy. Modern technology is quite amazing and will continue to evolve and help create even better cars.
Dave, don’t get me wrong, I LOVE old cars also. There isn’t a new car out there that can make your heart beat like any of the offerings made from ‘71 back (the only possible exception being the T-type/GN Buick Regals). I ache to have my ‘70 Torino GT/Cobra morph (or one like it) back, and I will soon (my absolute fave out of the many musclecars I’ve had). I was merely illuminating that for everyday bread and butter transportation advancements in technology (brought about by the aforementioned regulations) have brought much improved (and cleaner) products to the masses.
I have to say that I am impressed and even proud of the way auto makers have developed a social consciousness toward fuel waste and the ecology, even though it was driven by regulation and consumer expectations. I agree with pretty much everyone above (except “wisconsonite”, who’s probably been eating too much of the local cheese and the cholesterol is clogging the viens in his brain, or he’s been in those woods so long, he’s forgotten there’s a world out there!). The car industries have shown that if there’s a will/demand there is a way. We’re on the brink of new technologies in diesel and other energy sources. Let’s not applaud ourselves, but use this inspiration to double our efforts, now that we know it can be done!
Hawaiian Don says:
“I have to say that I am impressed and even proud of the way auto makers have developed a social consciousness toward fuel waste and the ecology, even though it was driven by regulation and consumer expectations”
—————
Hmm, maybe it’s just my MBA talking, but what do you suggest SHOULD drive automotive engineering, if not government regulation and consumer expectations??? Should they just ignore what both the government and consumers demand and just build whatever crap floats their boat? This is a business we’re talking about. And thank God for that!
It could be your MBA… I don’t really know. But obviously Hawaiian Don was simply inferring that it wasn’t altruism or social conscience that drove these positive moves. It was government regs and consumer demand. But if I’m understanding your point correctly, you are saying that those are the only two appropriate forces that should come to bear on auto manufacturers. I would respectfully disagree. I believe that in all areas of endeavor- business or otherwise- ethical considerations and conscience should and do play a role. They dont always prevail over the desire for profit (especially in larger corporations where corporate conscience is a difficult concept to implement). But it is nevertheless an important goal for business entities to aspire to. Otherwise business as a whole becomes merely a renegade in society that pragmatically does whatever it can get away with. I remember Enron among others and think that a little conscience could have gone a long way. It makes a strong third leg to the stool(along with gov regs and consumer demand) to the stool that, when not ignored, can make the other two all but unnecessary.
Oops…didn’t mean to repeat “to the stool”. Oh well I made my point I guess.
Bryan W…Here’s one favorite saying by Henry Ford (I believe) that automakers have been living by, perhaps even to their demise…”BIG CARS, BIG PROFITS”. Even in the face of consumer resistance and CAFE requirements, the cars keep getting bigger(eg. Accord). I havent heard from one of my old Accord customers that say they like the Accords new girth(actually they hate it)and its size can’t help its MPG (Govt. regs.)…but you can bet it justifies a higher price tag (a.k.a. profit). When a company puts short term profits above the needs/wants of the buyer, it will probably be more profitable in the short run, but not in the long run.
I think a brief review of the US auto industry through the 50’s- 80’s will point that out.
*And yes, I’m not afraid to point my finger at my favorite car company!
Before we praise too highly government regulations, let’s remember that regulations did NOT give us raidal tires, disc brakes, ABS, stability programs, brake assist, etc, etc.
Maybe it’s MBA talking, but consumer awareness and competition have done as much to make our cars safter, I suspect, as government regs. And by the way, remember Ralph Nader’s beloved Corvair (without which no career for Ralphy)? The faults he complained about were fixed by the time his book came out! Yes, he killed the Corvair, but a lot of good it did.
And government regs aren’t particularly benign. Consider DDT: Rachel Carson and desciples got it wrong. After years of study, it’s been proven that DDT did not have the deleterious effects on birds as Carson claimed. But what it did was prevent millions of people–childrunnnn included–from dying from malaria. Of course, those are just people in a faraway land. We can regulate them out of existance.
But are cars better now? My Fiat 850 Spider got between 30 and 35 mpg in the early Seventies, largely because it weighed 1600 lbs and had the frontal area of a BB. But man, if a ‘74 LTD hit me with one of those government mandated “five mph bumpers,” this post would have been written by a grease smear.
You know John, that’s what is so tough about gov regs. It is sure hard to know when enough is enough. Those who have said that regs have hurt design and choice are correct. But the problem is that those who have said that they have improved safety and emissions are also correct. The government has a hard time knowing where to stop regulating once it starts because there is always a rationale for more. Yet without those regs it’s hard to make a case that today’s cars would be as safe or as clean as they are. In my opinion industry would have made some improvements on its own but to suggest that it would have made all of the improvements on its own without regulation, stretches credibility. You make a number of good points that add to my inclination to eliminate these governmental decrees. I really wish we could but believe we can’t and won’t.