(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

green cars

M

mike plotner

Member
its ironc how people can brag about getting 40 mpg with a pris when a '81 Volkswagon Rabbit DIESEL gets better milage. shop teacher summed it up best "everytime they put some new envromentaly fridley thing on a car or truck the milage and preformance suck more." wouldnt mind haveing a jetta diesel as long as it wasnt made in mexico. have know of problems with the ones built there...
 
Took me one time working on a Jetta for my Brother; I don"t care if it got 100mpg...I"d roll it off the 1st cliff I came to! Couldn"t even gat a damn floor jack under it!
 
I have a Jetta diesel, my 1st Jetta, the other 2 were Passats. I don't understand the hatred?
Have either of you even owned one? I am guessing no.
 
Friend of mine had a JETTA. I thought he would never wear the thing out. Used it as a backup for his great Green Car that was a shop queen.
 
Friend of mine bought a Colt pickup back when they were new his had the diesel and he got 50 MPG and that thing had lots of power.
Wish they made a small pickup with a diesel.
Walt
PS I get 15 MPG in Ranger.
 
One of my sons had a Chevy Luv diesel. If you drove the snot out it it got 40 MPG (to the floor acceleration up to the speed limit) and about 45 MPG if you drove it nice.

Rick
 
Read an article several years back where a study had been done to determine what vehicles were really 'green'. The results were determined by the 'cost to the environment' created by everything from the resources used by the engineers as they designed the vehicle to the resources used while the vehicle was in use, and ultimately to the resources used to recover any part of the vehicle that was recyclable.

End result was that a Hummer was about twice as 'green' as a Prius, in total cost to the environment in the way of resources used from inception, though a a normal life expectancy, and on to the scrapper. In the end though the most environmentally friendly vehicle was an old, origional VW bug. It's total cost was about half that of the Hummer, or about 4 times less than that of the Prius.

On a larger level, got a customer that moth balled an old crane for a newer one. Per the operator the old machine used 30 to 40 gallons of fuel per day and moved X amount of material. The new machine, in turn, used 130 to 140 gallons per day and moved about half the total amount of material the old machine did.....But it had A/C.........
 
If my Prius made 40 mpg I would not brag, I would find out what the hay was wrong with it. My 2010 liftback makes 50+ mpg AVERAGE, and has all it's life.
 
"End result was that a Hummer was about twice as 'green' as a Prius, in total cost to the environment in the way of resources used from inception, though a a normal life expectancy, and on to the scrapper."
And that "study" has been proven to be absolute crap. It has been retracted and admitted to be full of errors and outright lies, by those who created it.
By the way, that "study" was funded by GM
 
There are two ways to capitalize on the Green sales scam advantage. First you could develop a way of showing that your product saves the planet from the muthical globe warmer, whether it saves water, energy or anything else publically recognised as being green. The second is to contribute money to a green cause showing that even though your product is no better than anyone else"s, you still get to raise the price of it as it helps the enviorment. The best way to reduce pollution is to simply maintain a well running vehicle.
 
Even if that particular study is flawed, one thing is for certain. Any vehicle that utilizes existing technology, that doesn't have to waste resources being completely 'developed', utilizes existing parts and materials that don't have to be 'developed' from scratch, and is fabricated with a majority of materials that are easily recyclable, things that can not be said about the majority of the current 'green', cars is going to be a good bet for actually being 'green' itself.............whether anyone will admit to it or not is another story.......

That said when a new, 'green' engine uses twice to three times, or more, fuel than a comparible 'old' engine design, to move half the material, should give anyone pause to think wether the technology being put into the new diesels being used in equipment is really worth it or not. Especially when the new engine has a problem and even the mfg says they don't have a scan tool available to them to work on it.......Seen it happen a few years ago as I was involved in trying to find a scanner for them and called everyone from the dealerships who didn't have the scanner to the mfg who said they only had one and it was damaged and they didn't know when they were going to be able to replace it............ With the old machines engine all you needed was a few simple hand tools, a few 'hard' speciality tools, and you could do anything needing to be done.....without needing a nonexistant computer to do it.......
 
I had a 75 Rabbit gas that was rated at 38 mpg. I often got over 40 with it if I stuck to the (then) 55 mph limit.
 
In my opinion there is not such thing as a green car. All powered cars either have a battery or a engine,....Right? Batteries have to be recharged, right? Well...........A coal burning plant a hundred miles away belches smoke into the air to charge the battery so that you dont belch gas fumes instead.
It is almost like trying to pump out the basement after a flood when the water running off the roof is dumping in the basement in the first place.

The only "green" cars are bicycles or horses.
With Methane as the pollution.
Nuff said.
 
I always figured a couple of Prius' would be kinda nice to drive over with my 9MPG Dodge Ramcharger! LOL They are (Prius') so UnAmerican, so Euro-Socialist follow the herd and believe green weenies like Algore ish...in other words heartily approved by the OB administration...thus, like I said: UnAmerican!
Too UnAmerican I do believe for even the likes of Algore and OB...don't see them proudly struttin' around in their stuff in a Prius or a Volt do ya? Not much in the way if "chick magnets" unless ya wanna pick up Hags like Aunt Nancy P and Diane Feinstein. I did hear that Chris Dodd and Barney Fwank were literally climbing on top of each other to get in a Prius though!
Fwankly I think Lyle's short and sweet answer above nailed it!
 
Like it or not, twenty years from now, the car you drive will look a lot more like a Prius than a diesel Rabbit.

The ratings at fueleconomy.gov only go back to 1984. The combined rating of an '84 Rabbit is 38 mpg, not bad even for a car as primitive and uncomfortable as the Rabbit. But that comes nowhere close to the 50 mpg rating of a 2012 Prius, a much safer and more comfortable vehicle. The Prius is 32 percent better than the Rabbit.

The difference is even greater if you compare the Btu content of the two fuels: diesel has 14 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline, making the REAL economy of the diesel equivalent to 33 mpg in gasoline terms. That means the Prius bests the miles per Btu of the Rabbit by a whopping 52 percent. Not to mention the Prius emits a fraction of the pollutants that your 32 year old Rabbit puts out.

Now I don't own a Prius, Volt or any hybrid vehicle for that matter. The economics aren't there today. But when gasoline hits 10 bucks a gallon (and it will someday), it will be a different story.
 
Gasoline does not have to hit ten bucks in many decades if you vote right, open up drilling wide open in the lower 48 and gasoline will be $1.50 a gallon in 2 years.
 
What ever happened to the story about the guy that built an engine that ran on water. There were at least two people make the claim. One was in the Henry Ford era and the guy, the car and his plans disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Then the other one was in the last ten years. It was on the evening news the guy was planning to sell the system to American car manufacturers. Now it seems he has disappeared. Was it a hoax or did the oil companies get to him.
 
Some of the stories about the super high fuel mileage of some of the older cars and mini-trucks are a bit exagerated. I still have (and drive off and on) two 1991 Volkswagen Jetta 1.6 liter diesels, a 1981 Chevy Chevette 1.8 liter diesel, and an Isuzu PUP 4WD 2.2 liter diesel mini-truck (a Chevy LUV).

The Volkwagens both can get an absolute best of 48 MPG on today's lower-BTU diese fuel. Off the main highway climbing steep mountain roads they get 38 MPG. (four door and five speed).

My 1981 Chevette (German Opel based) with the 1.8 diesel (Isuzu) gets a best of 45 MPG highway and 36 MPG otherwise. (four door and five speed).

My 1985 Isuzu 4WD PUP mini-truck (same as Chevy LUV) gets a best of 35 MPG and around 27 MPG beating around the back roads. 2.2 liter Isuzu and four speed manual. If it had a five speed I suppose it would do better but the 4 speed was the HD choice back when built.

My 1991 Geo-Chevy Tracker 4WD with a 1.6 liter gas engine has gotten 32 MPG on the highway.

I used to have an early Volkswagen 2-door Rabbit with the smaller 1.5 liter diesel that got 52 MPG. It was a roller skate on wheels but a great little car.

I also used to have a 1971 Fiat 850 Spyder - rear engine with 850 ccs. It got 38 MPG on gas.

All these vehicles are great on fuel. Main problem is that many if not most US Americans sneer at little vehicles that are a bit slow and not loaded with luxury options. That's why production ceased years ago. That and the US consumers inability to learn how to use and maintain a diesel. That is . . . until diesels no longer acted like diesels.

By today's defintion of green - I suspect with the emissions out the tailpipes, oil used to make the steel and tires and run the factories -these older cars aren't much greener then the newer ones. That is except one factor . . . I'm still drivingt them. Huge amounts of oil are wasted every year with the mentality of frequent vehicle replacement in the USA. Tons of older cars that used millions of gallons of fuel to manufacture - get crushed. What a waste ! external_link's "cash for clunkers" was a huge anti-green money and oil waster as I see it.

If you want to get as green as possible - run your gas car or truck on a firewood fuel smoke-collector system and replant the trees you cut down to run it. Yeah, not easy for most folk.
 
(quoted from post at 04:17:26 11/04/12) Like it or not, twenty years from now, the car you drive will look a lot more like a Prius than a diesel Rabbit.

The ratings at fueleconomy.gov only go back to 1984. The combined rating of an '84 Rabbit is 38 mpg, not bad even for a car as primitive and uncomfortable as the Rabbit. But that comes nowhere close to the 50 mpg rating of a 2012 Prius, a much safer and more comfortable vehicle. The Prius is 32 percent better than the Rabbit.

The difference is even greater if you compare the Btu content of the two fuels: diesel has 14 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline, making the REAL economy of the diesel equivalent to 33 mpg in gasoline terms. That means the Prius bests the miles per Btu of the Rabbit by a whopping 52 percent. Not to mention the Prius emits a fraction of the pollutants that your 32 year old Rabbit puts out.

Now I don't own a Prius, Volt or any hybrid vehicle for that matter. The economics aren't there today. But when gasoline hits 10 bucks a gallon (and it will someday), it will be a different story.
Click to expand...

LOL they all have the same body design now to reduce drag!

I don't really trust the EPA ratings. I knew people with the old diesel VWs. I never new any who got as little as 38 MPG. Thing here is that the EPA has been caught fudging the test. What they do is drive cars they like in testing to get the very best mileage possible. That explains why a lot of people who buy a small car complain that they are getting less than EPA ratings. Cars they don't like they drive the snot out of. That includes pickups and anything with a diesel because they really hate diesels. That explains why people with those vehicles get the same or better mileage than claimed by the EPA. I wish I had the link but I read something about a former EPA employee claiming that when they tested the Prius they never ran it faster that 45 MPH. That explains the people I know (we call em snow birds) who summer here and winter down south tell me that once on the interstate they are getting about 35 MPG. But they love em around town and the lakes. My #2 son's place of work got a couple about 3 years ago for the service techs thinking that they would save money. They normally keep cars 3 years. They dumped the Prius's after 12 months. Just were not getting the mileage claimed by the EPA.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 05:21:04 11/04/12) Gasoline does not have to hit ten bucks in many decades if you vote right, open up drilling wide open in the lower 48 and gasoline will be $1.50 a gallon in 2 years.
Click to expand...

Could you explain to this country boy how gasoline can be $1.50 per gallon when the going rate around the world is significantly greater? If you back out Federal tax, State tax, refining cost, distribution cost, credit card fees, profit etc. you need to be some where south of $1.00 per gallon wholesale.

Thanks in advance
 
I'm not too hot on Green cars. I personally prefer Black or Red. Although we do have a Purple one that I like right now!
 
Ironic? Our tax money was spent on the Chevy Volt and a company to make the batteries. The battery company is about to file ch 11, because the Volt isn't selling. Ironic, I here people saying nothing is made in America. Jobs are shipped off shore. Seems to me, myself included I don't own a Volt, in this case we don't want to buy made in America.

Pephaps we should put them in a box and sell them at a big box store:)
 
LJD, you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the cash for clunkers. It was a major disaster for many reasons. I wonder if anyone ever totaled up how much that socialist boondoggle added to our national debt?
 
Yup, I get 15 mpg with my '91 Ranger 4x4, and without the gooseneck tagging along, I get 14 with my '05 F-250 6.8L v-10 4X4. It don't figure.
 
I have three Ford Escorts with Diesel in them>they get between 40 and 50 mpg when you are driving on the highway,30to 40in town
 
Do you guys really think the guberment wants us to have economic vehicels, wouldnt that be like cutting a teet off the cash cow???
 
I'll bet you didn't expect it to go over three bucks a gallon. Yet it did, in the middle of the drilling boom of the mid nineties.

For gas to sell at a buck-fifty, what would crude oil prices have to be? $50 a barrel? Tell me what investor is stupid enough to finance a drilling operation with fifty dollar oil prices.

It's Economics 101: Higher prices leads to greater supply.
 
how crazy is it, that they think we need to trade in our old school cars that got over 30 mpg, easy to fix, to buy a new green peace junker that gets maybe 25+ mpg, crushes like a pop can, msde out of [recycle]plastic,, the money i would have to spend on one, [profit the imports company, banks, gov], will be just fine in my old american clunker's gas tank, food on my table, with a brewsky,,they can sink all the freighter's in the ocean hauling the imports over here to sell...
 
For starters there was no oil drilling boom in the mid ninties because oil was too cheap, there was an uptick in US domestic activity, particularly in shallow water offshore Gulf of mexico which was due to advances in seimic technology (3 D ) that made old wells viable again but that was almost exclusively natural gas, secondly, gasoline certainly was not $ 3.00 per gallon in the mid ninties in the USA, I don't know where you got the above stated information but it is incorrect. As to who will finance drilling look no farther than those oil companies you love to hate, the oil business is not short term, far from it, oil companies are constantly working to increase their reserves, to do less would mean they were soon out of business, some reserves are bought if the price is right but the majority have to be drilled for, in my nearly 40 years in the business actual world wide proven reserves, industry wide, have went up every single year, not down, up. If you are with the crowd that actually believes that increased supply does not equal lower price then I hope your not a commodities trader.
 
(quoted from post at 08:29:33 11/04/12) For starters there was no oil drilling boom in the mid ninties because oil was too cheap, there was an uptick in US domestic activity, particularly in shallow water offshore Gulf of mexico which was due to advances in seimic technology (3 D ) that made old wells viable again but that was almost exclusively natural gas, secondly, gasoline certainly was not $ 3.00 per gallon in the mid ninties in the USA, I don't know where you got the above stated information but it is incorrect. As to who will finance drilling look no farther than those oil companies you love to hate, the oil business is not short term, far from it, oil companies are constantly working to increase their reserves, to do less would mean they were soon out of business, some reserves are bought if the price is right but the majority have to be drilled for, in my nearly 40 years in the business actual world wide proven reserves, industry wide, have went up every single year, not down, up. If you are with the crowd that actually believes that increased supply does not equal lower price then I hope your not a commodities trader.
Click to expand...

Ok I am getting confused again: My chart shows gasoline price in the mid-1990"s between $1.50 and $2.00 per gallon. Your first statement is that there was no drilling boom in the 1990's because oil was too cheap. Then you go on to say oil companies are constantly working to increase reserves. Why do they reduce drilling when oil is cheap?
 
I don't have any dead certain numbers, but i know this much- We had a Dodge Omni hatchback that got used like a truck. That thing never got under 25 mpg with me driving and on trips with my "overseerer" (Mom) in the car it was up over 30. Friend had a Plymouth/Dodge Colt that got well over 35 all the time. Even today my 95 Wrangler gets a solid 20+ mpg. Meanwhile our 07 Explorer gets 17-18mpg, daughters Trailblazer gets about the same and less if she doesn't run at least mid grade fuel. Sons Colorado gets in the 12mpg area, even when I drive it. My 95 'Burb gets 11-12 mpg! Neighbors run half and 3/4 Chevy and Dodges with the sport packages and they report 8-12 mpg. My old 74 F250 with a 390 (I think) got 8-12mpg. We don't seem to be advancing much is my point. You can't get a bare bones 4 cyl, 5 speed, no AC, 4WD Toyota anymore. They all come with sport packages if they are 4wd. Too bad, cuz my 91 Toy got a solid 20mpg and lasted for 300K plus before the rust got it.

I don't think we're going to see better mileage until they stop adding so much junk to the vehicles. Give me a small, efficient diesel in something like a '70 C-10 or F100 and that would fill 95% of my truck needs.
 
You may be looking at a chart that was adjusted for inflation or $2.00 may have been the price in California during the ninties but the average for the rest of the USA during the decade of the ninties was roughly $1.25 per gallon. Most large US and international oil companies reduce Drilling when oil is cheap to cut the supply and raise the price or because it is not economic in their regions of operations but they still increase their own reserves through aquisition, as I stated below, they buy oil and properties when its cheap and drill the more economic plays. Many foreign governments have to sell regardless of price to generate revenue.
 
If one could buy a "green" car for under 40 grand a lot more people would be interested. It just is not cost effective. I priced a 2012 VW Passat diesel before I got my Grand Caravan that is advertised as 42 mpg highway at $27,000. That does not include tax, title, doc. fee, interest etc. etc. Not to mention the warranties companies offer basically cover the stuff that almost never goes out. $350 a month for six years plus repairs....
 
I meant to say "mid-oughts" not "mid-nineties". Mea culpa. Make that change and I stand by my previous post.

All businesses are in business to make money. If you can figure out a way to sell a product at less than it costs to produce it and still make money, then you're a financial genius and ought to be a billionaire.
 
Tanker, the EPA test is run on a dynamometer, rather than a track. So it is basically impossible to cheat it. That said, it is no secret that the stop and go profile of the city rating gives a huge advantage to hybrids like the Prius. Somebody once told me "tell me the rules, and I'll tell you how to win the game."
 
Owned one GREEN car a 1971 Duster 340 . And was it inviro friendly ??? not sure as it would leave lots of rubber residue on the roadway when ya pushed on the go pedal to far . Was it a fuel sipper ?? it would get over 19 mpg on a trip just crusen along at 90-110 . But i really did not like that Sassy grass green when ya saw it at night coming out the local watering holes.
 
Was a picture making the rounds on the internet.
It showed a store parking lot with one reserved section marked "green cars only" In one spot was parked a large GREEN SUV . LOL.:)
 
There is always a balancing act between emissions and mileage on new technology. It usually takes a couple of years to get it right.

The latest diesels with DEF and soot filters are an example of better technology. My 2011 with both blows the doors off my 2007 with neither on economy and performance.
 
The smaller Prius C (55mpg) sells for $19,000, The mid size Prius liftback(52mpg) sells for $23,000. The larger station wagon like Prius "V" sells for $26,000 (45mpg)
 
I thought you may have meant the mid 2000's but that little oil drilling boom and subsequent rise in price was precipitated by an unprecedented increase in world wide demand coupled with the previous 15 years of relatively light exploration activity in all but a few areas, the absolute proof that the high prices were demand driven is the absolute collaspse of oil prices in the first quarter of 2009 when the world wide economy was in deep trouble and demand in Asia fell by 70%. For most countries in the middle east, which are all low consumption nations, the strategy is to maintain production at a given levels and have a somewhat certain revenue stream, this strategy works well most of the time and especially so when high consumption countries have to try and make up the difference of increased demand in order to keep their economies on track. There is very little oil sold world wide below production cost, there are certain fields with high start up and infrastrucure costs but these properties are not developed unless the operators are sure of the economics, it is very easy to shut a well in and wait for market conditions to improve, just as a farmer stores grain if his cash flow situation allows. As technologies such as fracking develop and are used the techniques always improve and efficiency increases, extraction becomes cheaper and production goes up, it has already happened with shale gas, the cost of producing shale gas in the majority of US fields is 1/2 to 1/3 of what it was a few short years ago and it will get cheaper yet, the same thing will happen with shale oil.
 
Was reading some interesting stuff on the little Atkinson cycle gas engines used in the Prius. The engine in todays 2012 Prius is 38% efficient, Toyota claims to have a "Next generation" Atkinson cycle engine that is 45% efficient, ready for future hybrid models.
 
Mark even tested like that if you do to the floor acceleration drive like a mad man profiles on vehicles (Which is what the EPA has be accused of) that you don't like and run a different profile on vehicles you do like you get different results. Gotta remember no one is looking over the EPA's shoulder making sure they are doing it right.

Rick
 
Must have been the Chevy volt I was thinking of. Could have sworn there was one that cost $40000. I guess for me it is size more than the price. When they make one the size of a minivan or half ton or larger pickup I'll consider one.
 
Maybe the tec guys drove the snot out of the company Prius because they did not own it, like it, were embarrased to drive it, etc.

I have a 2010 Prius liftback that I bought new in July of 09. They have two trip meter / mpg calculator, 1 I only reset at each 10,000 mile oil change, which takes me a bit more than a year. The car has averaged a bit over 51 mpg over the 3-1/2 years I have owned it. We drive it at the speed limit to flow with traffic, so most of those miles are at 65 with maybe 20% at 75.
It,s been a good car. Haul it off to the dealer at 1 year / 10,000 miles for a tire rotation, 4 qts of new synthetic motor oil ( still looks almost new on the stick at 10K), top up the coolant and other fluids and it's good for another year.
The thing never gives a lick of trouble. At 500-520 miles on the other trip meter, the gas gauge is down to the last bar, so pull in and fill it. The pump has yet to click off at 10+ gallons, usually about 9.6-9.8 gallons, that after driving 500+ miles since the last fillup.
That kind of thumps you along side the head, saying, something pretty good going on here. This in a comfortable 5 passenger car.
 
Yep, the Volt lists for $41,000, because it is a "plug in hybrid" with a much large and expensive battery that adds a lot to the cost.
The non plug in hybrids are a lot cheaper because of smaller battery and less equippment needed.
 
You say your 340 got "19 mpg on a trip just crusen along at 90-110."

Are those Canadian figures or USA? I had a 340 Dart Swinger for years and it got around 14 MPG if I kept the speed down to 60 MPH. That's USA gallons. My 14 MPG in the USA equals 17 MPG in Canada (British Imperial Gallons). If you are using Canadian gallons and kilometers - your 19 MPG at 110 kiometers = 15.8 MPF at 68 MPH. Still pretty good for a 340 Mopar.

If you are using USA figures - then you'd better sell that secret of that car to the auto industry.
 
I had a 85 Buick Somerset Regal one time. 4 cyl. with a 5 speed. Made a run to OH one time (925 miles one way) and averaged 45mpg with it.
 
In the 1990's oil prices were between $10 to $22 per barrel (30 gallon barrel?), mostly in the $12 to $16 range when we were boycoting Irag's oil. Oil was only about $20 per barrel in 2000. It's about four times that price now.
 
US mileage . It did better on a trip then my one buddys slant 6 did by a mile per gallon at a faster speed. In my younger days i drove a little on the fast side . The 340 that was in my Duster WAS NOT the off the showroom floor 340 . Mine was the 71 340 that was tested by all the car mag.'s and when i got it came with 857 miles on the clock and a bald set of back tires . at the time i was a parts manager for a large Chry. Ply . dealer and one of the larger Hustle Stuff stocking parts dealer . My factory parts and service rep talked me into this car and i test drove the car on the Chry. test track before i bought it . It did everything they said it would do a 0to 70 in 4 seconds and a 107 in 13.23 on the 1/4 . and it WOULD take the speedo down past the 150 mark And did so many times .And it did get great mileage . I ran the wheels off that car as it had a 187000 miles on it when a soft plug blew on the rear of the right head and i had no time to work on it and it sat. But i still like my 68 Road Runner the best of all the car i had . And yes that one would also run.
 
Thinking back on it, as a then BB Chevy guy, the only green car I ever had was a '69 390 Mustang for a short time, and it didn't get very good milage, but my brother had a '69 428 CJ Torino, and I'm betting it got better than him. Back then, there were lots of green cars manufactured by Chevy, Ford, Chrysler, and not any of them got real good milage, and those were the days as far as I'm concerened.

Today on the interstate I was doing about 75 and came up on one of those "smart" cars and passed it. It was raining and kind of icky. Was an elderly lady driving it and I had to think that had it been slippery, a semi hauling behind might have sucked that thing up under the trailer. Just a thought.

Mark
 
"Gotta remember no one is looking over the EPA's shoulder making sure they are doing it right."

Tanker, you have to be joking. You can be dam certain the manufacturers are looking over the EPA's shoulder: They can't afford to lose even a tenth of an MPG because the test cycle wasn't done correctly.

Let's back off a second: Most vehicles aren't actually tested by the EPA. The OEMs are responsible for conducting the actual tests, and you can be sure they've done everything they possibly can to ensure they get the best MPG and still comply with the test cycle. All the data is recorded and forwarded to the EPA for review. The EPA runs their own tests on about 15 percent of the vehicles to confirm the OEMs are being honest with their tests. Given this procedure, the EPA is no position to skew or falsify results: they will be caught if the EPA results differ significantly from the OEM test results.

Some info on the test protocol at the link below.
EPA MPG test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
1990 VW Jetta idle problem
Replies
6
Views
585
Jonathan Lathbury
J
B
Cars
Replies
19
Views
4K
dhermesc
D
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top