In going with an older wagon, a major part of my decision was that it STILL was going to get in the low 20s mpg! From 1990! I didn't want to get something from the late '70s though, no matter the beauty of the car, 12mpg would be too low I guess for better illustration, how is it that the smaller ford taurus wagon from 2006, with either a 155hp or 200hp engine, got no more than 25mpg, where the buick roadmaster of a decade earlier with a 250hp engine and a larger car overall besides, got precisely the same fuel economy? (both probably less than 25mpg, depending on maintenance). I suppose by '95 we had fuel injection, MAF sensors, and-- I'm fairly ignorant, but perhaps some other electronic feedback/control for more efficient engines? The biggest improvements, as compared to say a 1970s car. Were their any improvements made between 1996 and 2006 (roadmaster to taurus)? Wondering how this could be!
You'd have to look at the companies' shareholders to get that answer. I doubt that many wind-generator companies own shares in them.
When I read the title, I was going to answer: Everyone being maxed out on their credit, due to the over inflated housing market over the past few years..... In my opinion the reason both cars get the same mileage, even though there is more weight and mass in the Buick, is the increased power level in the Buick. More torque will not require as much throttle to get a given object up and going. I would say that the Ford requires far more throttle to get going, even though it may be lighter. 100 hp and probably around the same amount of torque difference is huge. For example I have a friend that owns a 67 Chevelle with a mild 327. His engine makes around 350 hp. My 540 in my 64 Chevelle makes 704 hp. The 64 gets anywhere from 15 to 18 mpg depending on how I drive it. The 67 gets 13 to 16 on it's best day. My car is heavier than the 67. But my car requires very minimal throttle to get up and going and also to maintain speed. On the interstate the 64 can run 70 mph with the throttle bearly cracked. The 67 has to have at least 1/4 throttle to run the same speed. Sometimes just because a car is lighter and newer it's not going to mean it will be as efficient as something older.
Yes, I was confused by this, too, but what he means is, why hasn't FUEL economy gotten better. I looked them up. For 1996, which was the last year you could get a Buick Roadmaster wagon, the only engine available was a 5.7 L, 260 hp V8 rated at 17/26 city/highway mpg. The '96 Roadmaster wagon weighed just over 4500 lbs. As far as the Taurus, there's a bit confusion (at least on my part) as, according to the autos.msn.com website, the last year for which Ford offered a wagon version of the Taurus was 2004. There was no Taurus wagon in 2006. Anyway, the base engine in a 2004 Taurus wagon was a 3.0 L, 155 hp V6 rated at 19/26 city/highway mpg, so BerniniCaco3 is correct. These mpg ratings are nearly identical. The '04 Taurus wagon weighed just under 3500 lbs, or more than 1000 lbs less than the Buick. I would agree with Motion. Just because the car is lighter, if the engine is less powerful, it has to work harder. The Buick weighed 30% more than the Ford, but its engine had 67% more horsepower. Per pound of weight, the Buick's engine had to work less hard than the Ford's engine. On balance, the mileages came out about the same. I would also point out that trying to compare the fuel economy of a Ford Taurus wagon with that of a full-size Buick wagon from a different era is really a bit like comparing apples to oranges. It would be a more useful comparison to look at, say, a '96 Taurus wagon compared to an '04 Taurus wagon and see how mileage has improved, if it has.
Yup, the big factor is the ratio of weight vs. power. Why haven't MPG ratings continued to significantly improve over the past few decades? You have to ask yourself if we have reached the peak of internal combusion engine design or is there a big push of $ and influence from the petroleum industry to keep building fuel hogs? The mind boggles.
It's always easy and more fun to blame conspiracies. I think the answer has several aspects. Yes, there will ultimately be a limit to the efficiency an internal combustion engine can achieve. No, I don't think we're there yet, but any new innovation costs more money, at least initially, and consumers are reluctant to pay more for a car. So manufacturers don't generally push mileage unless the government kicks them a bit AND consumers demand it. Consumers don't always demand it. The huge success of SUV sales between about 1995 and 2005, when Ford was selling every Explorer it could make, is certainly an indication that people were buying on the basis of something other than fuel economy. It's certainly not in the interest of the oil companies to suppress new gasoline-engine technology. Their fear is not that we'll use less gasoline, but rather that we'll stop using it altogether if the price gets too high and go exclusively to fuel cells, batteries, or whatever.
I like Henry's rationale: Up here, the state-owned Hydro company sells its renewable energy (dams and wind-generated across the country and into the US. For us, it means cheap hydro, but to us, they always send us info about the Second Cost of appliance ownership. The power cost. So we get 'incentives' to buy high-efficiency lightbulbs, appliances, etc. Then they bump the rates up. They also control the building code regs, so we can't install a rooftop wind-generator, unless... we disguise it. Or... unless we use the energy generated via mechanical means... Those whirlygig roof ventilators make good air compressors. Compressors run your AC, your fridge and your freezer which can run 24X7. The building code only deals with compressors in commercial buildings. 4 of the 18" diameter rooftop whirlygigs in a 10 MPH wind will keep a 50 gallon air tank pumped up to 150 psi, even with the fridge and freezer connected. If you can't save on road fuel, save on the money-pit costs.
Engine efficiency HAS gotten better. Todays cars use more energy to accelerate more mass and run more accessories plus ethanol added fuel has less energy than the straight gasoline of decades ago. For highway cruising weight means near nothing, ask any long haul truck driver. Aerodynamic drag is #1 factor at highway speeds, that Roadmaster is pretty slick aero-wise so requires no more energy to keep going as the smaller Taurus. Throttle opening and RPMs which are governed by gearing determine the rest. The Taurus with far less power and near as much weight as the Roadmaster relies on steeper gearing to accelerate acceptably in town. While the torquey Roadmaster is loafing along at perhaps 1500rpm(not needing the torque multiplication of a high gear ratio) doing 65 mph the Taurus could be turning another thousand revs.
In the real world, I doubt the Roadmaster wagon will get the same or better mileage than the Taurus wagon. I have a '94 Caprice sedan with the same LT1 260 HP engine and my real world figures are 16/23.5mpg. The wagon versions (Roadmaster/Custom Cruiser/Caprice Estate) are geared nearly 10 percent higher numerically (3.08 verses 3.23) so that alone will reduce mileage due to increased engine/accessory/ friction without regard to the extra few hundred pounds. My '66 Biscayne 427 wagon saw quite a jump in mileage when I installed an overdrive transmission with locking torque converter (15 to 19mpg on the highway). That is a viable option for many 60's or 70's cars and some older ones too. Engine friction is the largest consumer of fuel at cruising loads so reducing RPM and improving driveline efficiency will give decent gains in mileage.
You're saying the RM,CC wagons use a 3:23 and the sedans are 3:08 right. seems logical. So, the wagon's engine is turning over 5% faster than a sedans. Fuel economy differs more than that in my experience, perhaps a matter of a given engine operating in it's powerband. Internal engine friction accounts for very little at cruise or any other time. Mass is the #1 factor for in town driving, it takes a lot of power to accelerate the car's mass over and over again. On the highway aerodynamic drag is your #1 factor and increases exponentially with speed, with weight having very little bearing on fuel economy. Ask any trucker his fuel economy difference between an empty rig and one fully loaded. I have owned a (305)CC and 9C-1 Caprices and experience a with "civilian" LT-1 equipped Caprice. All of them are just loafing at highway speed. If it helps to settle any argument; I'm not sure what gears any had but can report 22 hwy mpg with the 305 CC and 27 in the LT-1civilian Caprice, never kept my foot out of the 9C-1s long enough to bother with recording fuel economy. Interesting, isn't it that the LT-1 was able to get ~20% better fuel economy than the smaller engine in the car with perhaps better aero but turning 5% faster. I'll bet if measured we'd find a much larger throttle opening needed for the weaker engine. Granted that your 427's carb is not as efficient as even the TBI on the other cars but in the same car I'd be very curious to see how close 7 liters with a carb could come. I wonder if 20 mpg or so might not be coaxed out of that dinosaur.
Some versions of the LT1 powered big cars (Caddy Fleetwood/Roadmaster sedan) use a 2.73 axle. Some civilian versions of the Caprice may have used it as well. My Caprice is the 9C1 police version with the 3.08's. My 23.5mpg was obtained at a mostly steady 74mph over flat and rolling terrain with a few mountain grades of 2 to 4 percent. Engine friction IS the largest user of fuel at cruising loads. Thats precisely why engines are slowed down with overdrive gears and locking torque converters. To test your theory, place your car in a lower gear and see if it gets the same mileage as it doesn in overdrive while cruising at highway speeds under identical conditions. It won't. All the overdrive conversions I've done over the years have improved cruising mileage. The aerodynamics of these vehicles did not change. My 2 Olds diesel wagons are identical except for the final drive gearing. The OD equipped car with 2.93's and a .67 overdrive gets 6 more MPG on the highway (65 mph) verses the non overdrive equipped car with 2.73's. (22.5 verses 29mpg). The only difference between the two is the engine RPM. The OD equipped car's engine turns at 72% the RPM of the non overdrive car. Both have locking torque converters. In stop and go driving, anything that improves driveline efficiency will improve mileage. My '66 is a consistant 15mpg in stop and go driving, but the higher stall converter does hurt somewhat under those driving conditions (converter clutch engages at 21 MPH unless overriden). Your '91, with a similar specced 7 liter engine, should get slightly better highway mileage than my '66 as I'm sure it is a little more aerodynamic. Your transmission is the same as mine. My car has a 3.55 axle ratio but could get better mileage with something numerically lower. I like the overall performance and I don't do a lot of long distance driving with the car now, so the gearing will remain the same. I tend to think, that with a camshaft, jetting, and a gearing change, I could approach the mid 20's under ideal cruise conditions (55 to 65 mph, flat road, no wind). The 19mpg works for me however.
My 1971 Ambassador gets 19-20mpg on the highway at 65mph. My Magnum RT, with a larger displacement engine that makes just under twice the horsepower, get about 25mpg under the same conditions. The Magnum is a much more aerodynamic car, and has somewhat less frontal area to boot. It also has an electronic controlled, 5-speed auto tranny with lockup torque converter. It also has the mixture controlled by O2 sensors under cruising conditions. In other words, these two cars are comparable from a functional standpoint, yet the 35 year newer car gets 25% better mileage AND has twice the horsepower. I do agree however that compared to a late 80s or early 90s V8 station wagon, the mileage of the Magnum isn't much better. That's true for a lot of cars; remember when you could get a 50mpg economy car from almost all the manufacturers, like a Geo or diesel Rabbit or CRX hf? And nowadays most "economy" compact cars only get 35mpg and to get 45mpg people pay through the nose for a Prius? The main reason behind this phenomena of course is that people discovered that they really hated driving cramped, underpowered POS's and as soon as the fuel price spikes of the mid 80's wore off people wanted comfortable cars that could merge on the freeway and stopped buying true economy cars. I used to have a diesel Escort, it got 50mpg and people hated me because even flooring it I couldn't get anywhere close to the speed limit before the merge lane onto the freeway ended... so now I take my motorcycle everywhere, 60mpg and it'll go way illegal fast Best of all it only costs 5K new... 20K cheaper than a Prius and gets better mileage to boot. That's a lot of savings on purchase price and operating costs. Why doesn't everybody ride a motorcycle since it's so much cheaper to buy and operate? Again, most people would rather be comfortable than buy a truly economical vehicle.
Old post but it does seem like a crock at times, we had hi MPG cars in the 80s, no one wanted them, but today they can't even come close. Those GEO metro 3 cylinders cars are still hot items with 45+ MPG in town. I member they have a nice vert too. Almost like the more emission junk they put on a car, the more gas it uses, yet runs cleaner somehow????? Which don't make any sense, cept to those in charge..............
In this part of the country, I have 9 reasons I don't ride a motorcycle: October November December January February March April May June
You can now get fuel-injection conversions, for those: https://www.amclives.com/collection...uel-injection-system-with-fuel-command-center These goodies seem pricey. But, claim to be all domestic-made. If you want bargain prices, you'll have to go trans-Pacific junk, as usual. Beware though, the conversion kit required for adapting Torqueflite automatics to yours (also fuel-saving?) looks like any machinist could fabricate one on a lathe, saving you plenty of dollaros:
