fuel economy

In earlier Ford post EPA was blamed for poor fuel economy of new vehicles. How does burning more fuel equate to having cleaner air? I notice significant fuel use difference between Case 550G and 650K dozers.It has simular engine and is 6 years newer. We also have a 99 Case 9007B excavator and 2012 Doosan dx80 excavator. Will be first and last Doosan my boss will own. Also uses more fuel than the Case.I know I am dumb, so I was hopping for enlightenment on why new equipment burns a lot more fuel! Greg

I think it is just people looking for something to complain about. Give me an example of a 7000 pound vehicle getting 16 MPG in town 30 years ago, my truck does it everyday.

What 7000 lb. vehicle made now gets 16 MPG with "in town" driving? I'm not aware of any pickup truck weighing that much so I assume you have something bigger?

During the winter my Chevy Tracker with a 2 liter gas engine only gets around 15 MPG with stop-and-go driving. My Dodge van gets around 14 MPG in the winter with a 3.8 gasser. My 2005 Subaru with a 2.5 gasser gets 18 MPG. My diesel Ford F250 with 4WD, extended cab and long-bed weighs around 5500 lbs. and gets around 13 MPG with "in town" average MPGs.

Better go weigh your ford again

Hey John, I got to go back to work on JD 450 hydro push spreader, has Laneway sticker still visable on it! Its a crappy job ! My 11 year old daughter competed against your granddaughter at Worcester school talent show.Your son and dil sat behind us. Your granddaughter won! I still think we could improve fuel economy on all vehicles. Greg

My 1994 F250 with 7.3 IDI turbo diesel, 4WD, extended cab, 8 foot bed with a fiberglass cap, and two full 19 gallon fuel tanks and me and my dog sitting in it - weighed 5750 lbs. on the scale. My NY title says it weighs 5200 lbs.
I also had a 2000 Ford F350 dually on the scale with extended cab, V10 engine and 4WD. That weighed 6600 lbs. with me and my dog.

I've got the same question about why European small diesel cars that get 60 mpg (proven,not theoretical) can't be sold here because they don't meet emissions standards. They burn less fuel. Isn't that creating fewer emissions?

Mazda b 2000 no radio no power steering just basics 32 mpg nissan fronteer radio power steering etc 19 mpg chev work truck basics 6 cyl 24 mpg .350 chev 4wd full time got poor gallons per hour then chev in gleaner running full open

You can immediately improve fuel economy by getting rid o ethanol.

Actucally it the opposite. In the early 60 a 40 hp VW might get 25 mpg. A mustang with a small v-8, 13 mpg.

Today I have a buick v-6 27 mpg best highway. City worst 20.

IMHO, to meet epa regs, the carb went bye-bye. Hello computers and fuel injection, better mileage, cleaner air.

The other day I walked past a very old F150. My eyes burned from the gas smell.

You keep the cars up today, it isn't unheard of for them to go over 200K. In the 60, 80K the engine was using oil. 100K time for a rebuild.

Can't remember the date, lets say 2026, cars are expected to get 50 mpg. Can't remember what trucks are to get. This change wouldn't have happened without government oversight.

John,
My '04 F-250, 6.0 diesel, 4WD, extended cab, 6'-9" bed, fiberglass cap scales right at 7,000.
Not arguing--just saying.

In the early 60s the VW bug had a 36HP engine in it. I built and rebuilt many of them underpowered valve eating engines back in the day. #3 and #4 cylinder ran hot due to the oil cooler being above them and those 2 cylinders ate valves. I have an old Plymouth Valiant that got around 27MPG had the slant 6 and a 3 speed in it. I also had a good many other cars from the 60s that got 30 plus MPG

Old, you are right 36 hp and later 60's vw 40 hp, had both. I never got that kind of mpg with my slant 6. Cousin had a mustang 12-13 mpg.

Think about it, why was the vw a hit? The MPG for most US cars sucked. I remember there were a few different 440's they could pass everything except a gas station. Dad had an 88 olds, step on gas watch the fuel gauge go down.

Still think the government is responsible for better milage and cleaner air.

I agree with everybody, it doesn't make sense. My 97 dodge ram 3500 4x4 club cab diesel dually weighing 7000 pounds gets 23 mpg highway at 70 mph. Stock it had 180 hp, it now has 268hp and no emissions crap. I adjusted it a bit in the driveway. Gotta love Cummins 12 valves.

My 06 f350 4x4 crew cab diesel dually weighing 9000 pounds got at best 16 mpg at 50 mph. It came stock with 325 hp and all kinds of emissions crap and related issues and is still stock and broken down in the driveway and has been for over a year.

Some of the reasons are obvious, the ford weighs 9000 pounds. The cummins has a lot more torque than the ford. As they improved on efficiency they increased hp and added more junk to help burn unburned fuel. If I launch the dodge hard it let's out a puff of black smoke, if I launched the ford hard it didn't produce any smoke until the emissions system started to fail.

If you keep burning your exhaust until it's clean your truck is not going to have much power so I guess they figure if they add more fuel your hp will come back. I don't know.

EPA rules for the European diesels had a few quirks that made them economically impractical In US market. Awhile back it was the "use the current road fuel" that was higher sulfur compared to the European low sulfur fuel- pre 2007(?) when the ultra low sulfur became available in US. The crash standards for smallest models was minor issue. Another I read about on Smart cars was failed EPA tests for car class -but passed for heavy truck at the car standards. Seems the rules on testing required a OBD2 plug and computer control so testing machine could do shifting and throttle , spark advance without a operator/driver and get a readout- and the high mileage European Smart diesel getting 60+ mpg was a manual tranny missing the spark advance and couldn"t be auto shifted by the computer-car missing the plugin- record/readout. The over 10,000 truck class let a driver do manual shifting and throttle control with a tailpipe wand reading emissions at idle and cruise speeds- computer readout not mandatory although preferred- the default for not proper computer was the manual testing procedure but that wasn"t allowed on the car class. Smart Car in gas with auto trans passes EPA procedure test-but needs about $1500.00 factory cost for airbags, side impact, rollover protection and bumpers to meet US market requirements. Nissan Diesel cars and pickups have a engine current for US market-- but now the Diesel is higher than gasoline and engine a bit weak for the HP race. VW TDI-Turbo Direct Injection(?) engines have the power and economy- but cost is a bit more than some of market willing to pay so market share is not as good as European market- about 30% of light vehicles are diesel compared to about 10% in US market as of couple years back- and that figure includes the under 10,000 trucks with the various diesels from 5.9 Cummins to 7.4 Ford/IHC. RN

Old,
I never thought about comparing the VW with other economy cars of the time.
I had a '62 Falcon 170 CI 3 spd stick and I could get 27 MPG all day at 65 MPH. The automatics were much worse however.
Friend of mine had the Valiant with the small slant six and 3 spd stick. He got the same mpg as me but, as much as I hate to admit it, his Dart was a little bit faster. LOL

I drove a 97 Tracker for 5 years. 16 valve, stick and never got worse than 30 mpg combined driving.

I can't quite figure out if some of you guys are against the emmisions regulations, or in favor of them, but since I worked as an auto mechanic back in the 70s, and witnessed first hand the effects of the emmisions regulations, I can tell you for sure that reduced emmisions from the tailpipe also directly reduced the performance and miles per gallon of any given make or model of car.

The performance reduction was the BIG reason that engines kept getting bigger and bigger in the late 60s through the late 70s. Those engines were being choked down so much that it took a 454 under the hood to equal the performance of a 350 just a few years prior. I firmly believe that given the technology we have today, we could easily attain 25 to 30 miles per gallon in a 1/2 ton truck with a medium sized V8 engine, IF we could just get rid of the emmisions controls and let those engines run like they were intended to.

I too had many cars that never pasted a gas station. But at under 25 cents a gal no big deal. I also had a few cars that got better then 30 MPG like my Austin America and my Alfa Romero

(quoted from post at 13:43:38 03/08/14) Actucally it the opposite. In the early 60 a 40 hp VW might get 25 mpg. A mustang with a small v-8, 13 mpg.

Today I have a buick v-6 27 mpg best highway. City worst 20.

IMHO, to meet epa regs, the carb went bye-bye. Hello computers and fuel injection, better mileage, cleaner air.

The other day I walked past a very old F150. My eyes burned from the gas smell.

You keep the cars up today, it isn't unheard of for them to go over 200K. In the 60, 80K the engine was using oil. 100K time for a rebuild.

Can't remember the date, lets say 2026, cars are expected to get 50 mpg. Can't remember what trucks are to get. This change wouldn't have happened without government oversight.

Click to expand...

A very old F150? You don't suppose that maybe, just maybe, that old Ford was on its last legs and sadly in need of a complete tune-up? I've owned a few Fords myself. Never had any issues with over-rich exhaust because I kept them tuned up.

What is going on now is they have figured out how to make big power and still be compliant on emissions. There has always been a horsepower war going on and the average consumer likes that. If the majority of consumers wanted more economy we would not crave all that power.

Many comparable vehicles from 20-30+ years ago were getting the same or similar fuel mileages compared to todays vehicles. The big differences are power, and safety. We have half ton trucks with 400+ HP and getting 20+ MPG. Sports cars running 11-12sec quarter miles and getting mid 20's MPG or more.

(quoted from post at 15:24:25 03/08/14) What is going on now is they have figured out how to make big power and still be compliant on emissions. There has always been a horsepower war going on and the average consumer likes that. If the majority of consumers wanted more economy we would not crave all that power.

Many comparable vehicles from 20-30+ years ago were getting the same or similar fuel mileages compared to todays vehicles. The big differences are power, and safety. We have half ton trucks with 400+ HP and getting 20+ MPG. Sports cars running 11-12sec quarter miles and getting mid 20's MPG or more.

Click to expand...

The 1/2 ton trucks of today are achieving their better fuel mileage through the use of taller gearing and over-drive transmissions. If you hitch one of those trucks to the same trailer that you used to pull with a 20 to 30 year old truck, and lock out the over-drive as per instructions, the miles per gallon would be the same as the 30 year old truck, and most likely, the 30 year old truck would out perform the new one.

Well duh! that"s a given......if you"re talking mpg. All of us who push eth don"t argue that. But look at cost per mile. That"s what pays the bills.

Yes, it was very old, bunggie cords for tailgate to keep the sides from flopping. Very sick. Need a tune up decades ago.

Old most of the cars I had were gas hogs. The slant six got the best. Had a 273 4 speed in a cuda, lucky to get 15-16. When the engine went south, I even put a slant six in it.

Dad had a 6 cylinder ford. It may have gotten close to 20 on open, but put a cap on back, 12.

Perhaps my memory isn't as good as yours, but cars today are light years ahead of the ones I had.

And I too remember $.25/gallon days.

Kid in high school had a 66 440 mag GTX. It would out run the cops at the time. It made a big sucking sound. Couldn't pass up a gas station.

You are right on. We have pulled the same truck with a 7.3 and you can not have any tools or much of anything in there and scale in the 7500lb class.

My 97 dodge with cummins engine regular cab and 5 speed with almost empty fuel tank 6060 lbs. the first year I had to buy tonnage stickers for it because it was over 6000 lbs. Then for the next year they changed the rules and no longer need the tonnage stickers.

The GM diesels with DPF burn on average one gallon of fuel per tank full just to clean the filter. How is that smart? That is why diesel economy tanked after 07. Did not return until '11 when DEF was introduced.

Old, did some checking, here is what I found.

1960: The 170-cubic-inch (2.8-litre) "LG" (Low-G, referring to the relatively short engine block casting and crankshaft stroke) in the Valiant, and the 225-cubic-inch (3.7-litre) "RG" (Raised-G, referring to the relatively tall engine block casting and crankshaft stroke) in full-size Plymouth and Dodge Dart models.

I never had the 170 cube. I had a 225 single barrel and 225 2bbl. I never came close to 20 mpg. Perhaps I had my right foot in the carb or on the brakes.

I also had a D200 with 360 with a 411. Loads of pulling power, poor milage.

Everyone talked about the plymouth 318. I was lucky to get 15-16. It was a hot rod.

Daughter has a perus, 50 city, 47 highway.

I love today's cars, cleaner, better mileage, more comfort.
George

When I was 16 I was passed down my mom's 64 Buick Special with a 225 V6 and automatic. That car got 27-28 mpg on the highway any day of the week. The 2009 Ford Taurus I bought new only got slightly better. Fuel injection and electronic ignition were brought in because most people wouldn't keep their cars tuned up properly so the computers now do most of the work for you.

My 83 f150 w/ 460. 435 new process / 205 new process weighs 6200. My 99 3500 dodge ex cab with a full tank weighs 7200 .A ford ex cab with a 7.3 that is less than 6000 ......... OK

Back in the day I pretty much had to have a car that did well on gas due to my job. In 1974 I got as New Dodge van with a slant 6 and a 3 on the tree. It got 13PMG form the day I got it but at the time I was making $225 per week from my morning job delivering news paper so no big deal. First tank of gas I out in gas was $00.199 per gal but it soon went up to around $00.50 per gal. I also rode a lot of motorcycles back then to that got 100MPG plus

I had a 60 Falcon with the 144 ci 6, single barrel Holly carb with points and condenser and a manual choke. You could put 6 of us high school kids in it, or 4 and be more than comfortable with plenty of room for beer and rock and roll. I could get 30 mpg all day long every day and it makes me wonder just how far have we really come with these hockey boxes we drive every day.

My 2011 Super Duty Diesel never gets below 16 MPG around town, runs 18 on the highway and 14 pulling a trailer.

Had it 3 years now.

I had a honda 305. A dollar was all the gas I needed for the week. Going to college. Lived 5 miles from campus.

$3 was more than needed to fill the 10 gallon tank on VW.

I think it was the early 70's when gas prices jumped. Never did get back to $.25/gallon
George

About the last thing I want is a carburated engine to take care of. Fuel injection and electronic ignition have helped to extend the life and power of engines. Matierals are better also. Rods, for example, are made of powedered metal now. Tolerances are much tighter in modern engines, and friction losses are much less.

I just remembered C A F E standards. I'll post a like if you want to read about it.

I remember when car manufactors cried, said they couldn't meet them. I think for a while, they were thrown out the window. Now they are back and I think trucks, suv are included this time.

Some of you may have had cars with good gas mileage, but over all there were more gas guzzlers then fuel savers. That's why the epa passed the standard.
CAFE Standards

In Mississippi it was 1974 that gas priced jumped and the long lines due to a shortage of gas etc. I traded in a 1972 Chev Vega for that van. It got around 30 MPG but used a qt of oil every day. First motorcycle I had was a 1867 Honda 50 that got around 150mpg

(quoted from post at 15:36:08 03/08/14) I've got the same question about why European small diesel cars that get 60 mpg (proven,not theoretical) can't be sold here because they don't meet emissions standards. They burn less fuel. Isn't that creating fewer emissions?

Click to expand...

that 60mpg European car claim should be taken with a grain of salt. That vehicle's engine would have averaged 20HP to move it while burning the 1 gallon of fuel.
Pretty small vehicle, at slow speeds with a tailwind, down hill.

Rusty,

I will agree the 70s were the worst of the economy when emission controls were being added. The computer and fuel injection of the 80s really made that much better.

I see increases in emission controls reducing mileage for a year or two until they get it figured out and do both.

DEF was one of the best ideas in a long time.

(quoted from post at 17:17:22 03/08/14) My 97 dodge ram 3500 4x4 club cab diesel dually weighing 7000 pounds gets 23 mpg highway at 70 mph.

My 06 f350 4x4 crew cab diesel dually weighing 9000 pounds got at best 16 mpg at 50 mph.

Click to expand...

Highway steady speed mileage has little to do with weight. It's about rolling friction, air drag and parasitic losses in the drive train.
Stop and go city mileage is all about less weight to use less fuel to get that mass accelerated several times during a short trip.

(quoted from post at 17:33:05 03/08/14) so market share is not as good as European market- about 30% of light vehicles are diesel compared to about 10% in US market as of couple years back- and that figure includes the under 10,000 trucks with the various diesels from 5.9 Cummins to 7.4 Ford/IHC. RN

Click to expand...

Last Tuesday I looked at the pump prices of fuel in Rome Italy.
$9.30 US per US gallon for 95 octane gasoline. Diesel was $8.64US per US gallon.
Explains why there is a market for light highway diesel vehicles.

What about the cost to the taxpayer

My wife's father has a 2003 tdi vw jetta, standard tranny, 52
mpg!

My 2000 f250 7.3 4x4 reg cab 8ft box weights 7010 or so, on the gravel yard scale,?? Gvw is 8800#

Better parts and life expectancy in the newer engines?...Come on..... They are working the newer engines so hard trying to squeeze so many HP out of such a small package that the overall life expectancy of a new engine can't even come close to the older engines. Yes, an engine might now go 200,000 miles before needing to be rebuilt, but the older one, with proper maintance, is also capable of going 200,000 miles. Heck, even if you only get 150,000, per rebuild, out of it and are able to rebuild it 3 times your still going to have a longer overall life span than the 200,000 mile engine that is so worn out it's impossible to rebuild, (if it's rebuildible)......

That's just my opinion on the 'modern engines' that I've gotten over the years based not only on mfg claims, but on actual customer experiences with the longetivity of the newer engines -vs- the older engines, in their machines.

If you want to go to a component level, take Cummins (and others but the Cummins I've heard a lot about), with their 'fractured' rods in their engines. The old ones have been working fine for years and could be reconditioned, if needed, when the engine was rebuilt. The new ones are basically a one time use only and CAN NOT be reconditioned, or anything else if they get out of round, etc. I know a guy that builds a lot of them, for a living, and he said the problem is they often distort, get out of round, etc, etc because of the heat and other factors. Unlike the old rods the new ones will shatter and create much bigger problems than the same 'failure' would have caused with the old rods. He said he will not put one of those new 'pieces of junk' in an engine he builds. Funny thing is some engineer designed them so the rod cap, and the main body would interlock due to a need to keep the cap from slipping side to side.....I've worked on a lot of engines over the years, some that have been running nearly every day, and rebuilt several times over their 40 plus year life....and are still running and doing their job just fine. Thing is they do it all with 'antiquated' technology.

I could keep going with the problems I've either seen personally, or heard about from others, with the new engines -vs- the older engines. Funny when the old ones go bad the parts to repair them are typically affordable. Think about something as common to a diesel as an injector. The majority of the old ones could/can be bought for literally pennies as compared to just one of the new ones that often cost as much, or more, than a full set of the old ones. Then throw in the computer that controls the whole shebang. Let it go bad and your often out more than the machine is worth by the time you pay someone to troubleshoot the problem, hope the first diagnosis is correct. Hey, when the computer cost $2000 and the labor to say that was the problem was another $1000, and the down time cause by it was another $20,000,...then there was another $3500 in labor, and another $2500 in parts, and another week of downtime to repair the a second cause of the problem (a wiring harness problem causing the computer to throw false codes and cause a semifaulty self diagnostic), and then another day, and another $1500 for a new stepper motor, all just to repair a 'throttle issue that wouldn't allow the engine to reach it's maximum RPM. .......All the time a mechanic looking at the old machine could have said hey, the throttle linkage is broken...and repaired it for ALOT less.

But everything has to be electronic controlled in the name of fuel savings, environmental cleanliness, etc, etc. That said, explain the savings in this scenerio. An engine using 30's technology, all mechanical fuel system, etc, etc that moves x amount of material in a day using 30 to 40 gallons of fuel -vs- it's replacement (newer machine) that moves less than half the material in the same amount of time using 130 to 140 gallons of fuel. Again a situation presented to me by a customer's operator when asked how he liked his new machine....beyond the fuel usage he said 'well, at least I've got A/C now....LOL'

In the end the old engine will be running, and rebuildable, long after the new ones are melted down and made into a newer engine, and that same cycle repeated over, and over because the new engines aren't usually worth rebuilding when they reach the 'end of their life'. Look in any salvage yard and see the amount of vehicles in there with blown engines (again something I've done since I work for several salvage yards)if you still need proof.

Federal blend subsidy expired 15 months ago.

I had a 4 ton Hino with a rebuilt 165 HP non turbo diesel. It was a 6.0 litre. Not a lot of power but empty it got 15/16 MPG. Better than my 2000 Chev. 2500 with a 6.0L gas engine. I know ones gas and ones diesel but the Hino got incredible mileage in my opinion. The 6.0 in the Chev. has good power but horrible mileage for a much smaller truck. The 1 1/2 ton Hino's with a 4 cyl. turbo diesel routinely get 22-24 MPG. Why can't they stick an engine like that in a 1/2 ton? I don't think anybody would complain about poor mileage.

Thanks for all the replies. Just for fun I looked up fuel economy of '87 f150 15 city 17 combined 20 highway. then Iooked up '06 f150 14 city 16 combined 19 highway. The '87 was the 6 with 4 speed, the 06 was the 6 with 5 speed .I owned both trucks and thought newer truck should of had better fuel millage! I am not anti technology,I just think we can do better. Greg

I am an avid snowmobiler. For six seasons I had 600cc sleds. I always had problems running out of gas while the guys on the larger displacement sleds never did, at least not that I saw. in '05 I stepped up to a 700 and haven't run out since.

(quoted from post at 23:53:26 03/08/14) Better parts and life expectancy in the newer engines?...Come on.....

Click to expand...

Gasoline engines outlive the diesels now. 300,000 on a gasser and they still run but the chassis is rusted away.
Find the persons who vote for the governments that haven't reined in the EPA with a reality check. Give those liberals a blast instead of us for ruining the diesel engine.

well it looks like the trucks are getting lighter all the time i wonder how they last hualing a real load and what about the salt that get under every thing

Don't you think that fuel injection and electronic ignition would have been a natural progression by the manufacturers as they tried to one up their competition? As gas prices increased since the late 70's, market demand would have had the Big 3 finding ways to better fuel mileage and all of this would have happened without the EPA and considerable expense to the consumer. I'm not against clean air, but I do think we have to walk a fine line between tolerable pollution and pricing ourselves back to the stone age.

(quoted from post at 07:03:15 03/09/14)
Don't you think that fuel injection and electronic ignition would have been a natural progression by the manufacturers as they tried to one up their competition? As gas prices increased since the late 70's, market demand would have had the Big 3 finding ways to better fuel mileage and all of this would have happened without the EPA and considerable expense to the consumer. I'm not against clean air, but I do think we have to walk a fine line between tolerable pollution and pricing ourselves back to the stone age.

Click to expand...

Electronic ignition is good. Fuel injection is good, but electronic fuel injection takes it too far. Mechanical fuel injection in diesels worked very well for many, many years. Chevrolet even figured out how to make mechanical fuel injection work way back in 1957 with the 283 engine in the Corvette. Resulted in 283 horsepower out of 283 cubic inches.

wonder if a 54% tax has anything to do with higher prices

Well,I have friends in Sweden and Denmark. They don't brag about that kind of mileage,they just state it as fact and can't believe what we drive over here.

When the EPA first got involved performance and mileage suffered a lot. It took a long time for the car companies to get back to the performance and economy of the 60's cars.
Today's cars can often outperform the old muscle cars thanks to computerized engine controls.

A good bit of what hurts mileage on today's cars is all the stuff people think they need. Power seats, a/c, and all the insulation that makes new cars quieter than old cars, plus all the safety equipment that adds weight.

The idea that old cars couldn't or didn't achieve good mileage is often not based in fact. The old compact and intermediate cars were the size of what's considered a full size car today. Many of those cars got extremely good mileage. Heck, even my parents full size 66 Ford wagon got in the upper 20's on the highway. I drove a Maverick in high school. That thing got over 20 mpg in town.

(quoted from post at 15:26:28 03/09/14) When the EPA first got involved performance and mileage suffered a lot. It took a long time for the car companies to get back to the performance and economy of the 60's cars.
Today's cars can often outperform the old muscle cars thanks to computerized engine controls.

A good bit of what hurts mileage on today's cars is all the stuff people think they need. Power seats, a/c, and all the insulation that makes new cars quieter than old cars, plus all the safety equipment that adds weight.

The idea that old cars couldn't or didn't achieve good mileage is often not based in fact. The old compact and intermediate cars were the size of what's considered a full size car today. Many of those cars got extremely good mileage. Heck, even my parents full size 66 Ford wagon got in the upper 20's on the highway. I drove a Maverick in high school. That thing got over 20 mpg in town.

Click to expand...

It's not so much that folks WANT all the bells and whistles as it is the dealers who PUSH all that stuff. There really isn't any choice in the matter. You take what the dealer has on the lot or you walk. Our 2012 Silverado has stuff that we never use, and I would prefer it wasn't even there, but it's all part of a package that includes the stuff we DID want.

When I decide I want a new vehicle I go to the dealer and order as close as possible to what I want. Just did it with my 14 Escape and the price is as good or better than buying one of the lot as the dealer has no finance cost to him. As far as fuel mileage the new one has about 110 more hp and is getting 2+mpg better. Chuck

It's not so much that folks WANT all the bells and whistles as it is the dealers who PUSH all that stuff. There really isn't any choice in the matter. You take what the dealer has on the lot or you walk. Our 2012 Silverado has stuff that we never use, and I would prefer it wasn't even there, but it's all part of a package that includes the stuff we DID want.

Click to expand...

I've had this discussion with friends that work or have worked at Buick, Merc, Ford, Nissan, and Mazda dealers. Anything that didn't have the bells and whistles sat on the lot while the cars with the toys sold. People that ordered cars generally ordered them loaded.
Ford does package some of their options, but that's because that's how customers ordered them anyway.

(quoted from post at 14:03:15 03/09/14)
Don't you think that fuel injection and electronic ignition would have been a natural progression by the manufacturers as they tried to one up their competition? As gas prices increased since the late 70's, market demand would have had the Big 3 finding ways to better fuel mileage and all of this would have happened without the EPA and considerable expense to the consumer. I'm not against clean air, but I do think we have to walk a fine line between tolerable pollution and pricing ourselves back to the stone age.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

(quoted from post at 10:07:32 03/10/14)

(quoted from post at 14:03:15 03/09/14)
Don't you think that fuel injection and electronic ignition would have been a natural progression by the manufacturers as they tried to one up their competition? As gas prices increased since the late 70's, market demand would have had the Big 3 finding ways to better fuel mileage and all of this would have happened without the EPA and considerable expense to the consumer. I'm not against clean air, but I do think we have to walk a fine line between tolerable pollution and pricing ourselves back to the stone age.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Click to expand...

the problem is one of balance. Prices have gone up about X10since the 70's.
.40 gas is not close to $4 and a 3,000 car is now over 30,000.
However wages overall have not kept pace.

(quoted from post at 07:22:15 03/10/14)

(quoted from post at 10:07:32 03/10/14)

(quoted from post at 14:03:15 03/09/14)
Don't you think that fuel injection and electronic ignition would have been a natural progression by the manufacturers as they tried to one up their competition? As gas prices increased since the late 70's, market demand would have had the Big 3 finding ways to better fuel mileage and all of this would have happened without the EPA and considerable expense to the consumer. I'm not against clean air, but I do think we have to walk a fine line between tolerable pollution and pricing ourselves back to the stone age.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Click to expand...

the problem is one of balance. Prices have gone up about X10since the 70's.
.40 gas is not close to $4 and a 3,000 car is now over 30,000.
However wages overall have not kept pace.

Click to expand...

But a whole lot MORE cars are being sold today than in the 70s, and likewise WAY MORE gallons of gas are being pumped. You would think that the sheer increase in volume should offset the ridiculous increase in price. For instance, in the mid 70s, I bought a brand new 13 inch color TV. Paid right at $400. I can buy a very similar TV today, with even more features, for around $100.