Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Pain Point?

PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
edited April 2014 in General
People started to grumble at $2 per gallon that gas guzzlers were doomed.

Then it was $3.

Now they're talking about $4 gas as the tipping point where people start to dump low mileage vehicles for more efficient choices.

Seems like we have a moving target.

Will we ever reach a Pain Point and see people dumping larger vehicles for more economical rides?
«1

Comments

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    I think the quick retreat of fuel pricing after the Katrina spike gave some owners and buyers hope that fuel would stay under $2/gal. Now that it's settled in the $2.50-$3.50 range lots of buyers are actively ignoring the gas guzzlers.

    I think it's been tipped as you say but those that have such vehicles are keeping them for the times that they are needed but picking up additional vehicles for everyday use. Sales of new BOF SUVs are down everywhere from 10-30%.

    A lot of these vehicles may disappear as the time comes to renew them.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    If you take a look at the car dealers, at least around here, most of the cars, new and used, displayed prominently for easy viewing from the road are larger vehicles.

    Just a casual observation ;)
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The profit is still in the big vehicles so it makes sense to promote them. But in the same way that bread, milk, eggs and OJ are in the far corner of a supermarket it makes sense to keep the high margin products in the customer's eye to make them walk the aisles to find the basic necessities.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    I used to think so, but maybe not.
    Europeans routinely pay more for gas than Americans do.
    They still sell a fair number of big cars, and SUV sales are rising there.
    They also sell alot of small cars too, so maybe the tipping point is $5-6.00/gal which has been the traditional European price point.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Buying behavior was changing at $3 but I would say $4 is a significant behavior changing pain point. A pain point a la 80's where there is a sea change in buying behavior. Don't get caught in a Guzzler resale wise.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Remember that from $1 to $2 looked like a 100% increase(igoring inflation)

    $2 to $3 is only a 50% jump

    $3 to $4 is only 33%

    So while each level is $1, the underlying increase in pressure can actually seem to be less to most folks.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Appreciate your point but look at the gross dollar difference. 15000/20=750 g x $4= $3000 a year for gas!. At 40 mpg you could save $1500 per year.
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    The price of gas may not be so much the problem but if we start to see lines like we saw in the 70's and 80's.

    I don't know if it could happen today, but if you were a driver back then , you remember the pain on sitting in line on you odd or even number day.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Big vehicles are a bargain right now. I have one Toyota dealer down $9k from MSRP on a Sequoia limited 4X4. It may be the one I buy. Still looking for the right color.

    If I was driving as much as you I would probably have a Jetta TDI. For me $5 per gallon gas and 15 MPG is not even a factor in my budget. My water bill is higher than my gas bill each month. We will run out of water before we run out of fossil fuel. I am going to ride in comfort. I don't plan on leaving a fortune to my children. If they get a $1000 when I die it will be more than I ever inherited.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    I ccould drive a Mazda3 and get to work and back in 2.7 gallons. I could drive an ext cab 4x4 and use 5 gallons.
    I end up parking the 4x4 and using a 3.8 L car that needs 3.1 gallons. The car was purchased for $1k more than a year's gas use of the truck. That was about $15000 less than the cost of a new Mazda3 would have been with tax and interest. I got 90% of the efficiency difference without the huge outlay. With a car that uses 3.1 gallons instead of one that uses 2.8 gallons a day to go to work, what price change in gas will drive me to PAIN? The savings that 40 mpg offers comes with other discomforts. The savings from an i4 over an efficient V6 is barely more than a dollar a day at $2.75 a gallon gas. With sales tax of $1100 for any new car, that's almost 1100 days just to recoup the sales tax. I know keeping a 4x4 around for weekend errands is costly but I kissed that money bye when I bought it. What I could recoup by selling or trading it is barely over half of what I bought it for. The majority of that loss has already happened.

    The pain was answered with the jump from 16 mpg to 29 or 30. That was from V8 to V6. The pain from 30 to 40 is only a 33% reduction in fuel cost. After the 100% from '03 to '07, getting back 33% of that with the convenience of a 40 mpg car doesn't seem so improtant. There in no room in the back seat of any 35 or 40 mpg car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Appreciate your point but look at the gross dollar difference. 15000/20=750 g x $4= $3000 a year for gas!. At 40 mpg you could save $1500 per year.

    Back in April, I borrowed my uncle's 2003 Corolla to take a trip up to Carlisle, PA and back. I averaged 37.4 mpg in basically pure highway driving. Now I was raised on big cars and pickup trucks, so I may be a bit biased, but I found that Corolla to be a cramped, uncomfortable, rough-riding, jittery, underpowered little thing. Short of some hybrids and maybe a Diesel Jetta or two, I doubt there are very many vehicles that I'd be able to get 40 mpg out of. So by my reasoning, 40 mpg is a mythical, unreasonable number to start with. And even some of these cars that people are claiming 40 mpg with, that's not automatically a given that I, personally, would be able to attain the same mpg with my type of driving.

    FWIW, I just came back from a similar trip in my 2000 Intrepid, and got roughly 30.7 mpg off that tank of gas. That trip ended up being about 281 miles. I paid $2.679 for gas. I figure that the Intrepid cost me about $4.34 more than the Corolla would have on that trip. That $4.34 spent was well worth the improved comfort, ride, handling, performance, quiet, stretch-out room, etc.

    I am curious though, to see what the "tipping point" truly is with gas prices. I'm somewhat insulated, as my commute to work is only about 3 1/2 miles, and even with all other driving I probably only do maybe 6,000 miles per year. Back in 2005 when prices started shooting up, I did make it a point to start cutting out unneccesary trips and such. And when the Intrepid finally bites the dust, it'll most likely get replaced by something more fuel efficient. But that's mainly because fuel-efficient cars have gotten better and more comfortable in recent years. I could probably be happy with an Altima 4-cyl, rated at 26/34, or even a Civic with the CVT, rated at 30/40, both of which would give me a savings over my Intrepid's 20/29. But if we were still in an era where small cars were of, say, 1976 Accord or Pinto quality, you wouldn't be prying my hands off the steering wheel of a Caprice or LeMans anytime soon!
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    you are very insulated. work is 47 miles away for me. I have to fill the tank every 3rd day making that trip home 75 minutes long.
    I went with a 27 mpg car when I started doing that long drive. Gas was $1.59 back then. That was $5.57 a day for round trip to work. That price is gone forever.

    That same car is $9.30 a day for gas this week due to higher gas price. That's $3.73 more a day 3 1/2 years later. About a buck a year of increase in the per day cost.

    For a 3 mile trip to work that would be measured in pennies per day.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    You can have it both ways in a few years with a comfortable economical diesel vehicle.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Oh yeah, trust me, I know I'm lucky! Heck, most of my driving is actually done in a 1985 Chevy Silverado! About the most I'd ever wish for out of that thing is 16 mpg on the open road. I actually find it more comfortable than the Intrepid though...easier to get into, and oddly, more supportive on my back. You'd think that the more supportive contoured seats they have nowadays would be better, but somehow, that thin, flat slab that they call a backrest on that Silverado just seems to hit my back in just the right place.

    My uncle used to drive a 1997 Silverado to work. His job was around 45 miles away. That truck would usually get around 18-19 mpg. He got transferred to a job that was around 65 miles away. The Silverado was getting up in miles, so he bought an '03 Corolla as sort of a sacrificial vehicle, to use to rack up miles and run into the ground commuting to work. I forget now how much gas was back in May of '02 when he bought it, but it was a pittance I'm sure, compared to today. He still has the truck, which he uses when he needs it, but does most of his driving in the car.

    I've tried driving that car a few times, to save gas, but for the most part, the fuel savings isn't worth the pain and agony it inflicts on my body!

    As for my Intrepid, the main reason I don't drive it is that I let one of my roommates borrow it. He works about 20 miles away, and in that commute the Trep would get around 25-26, whereas the truck would only get around 15. And being an old truck, I just wouldn't trust it to hold up with him pushing it that far every day.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    ghastly prices...do the oil companies, oh, I'm sorry...it's the futures traders. And the oil companies. Do they think that everyone is going to just blindly go along with these spikes? It's driving increased development of alternative strategies, yes it is.

    Maybe they're trying to make, I mean squeeze, hay while the sun is shining. For them.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    consequently, our "pain point" IS a moving target as we soon forget the "good ol' days" and adapt to the pain. I remember when gas first exceeded ONE DOLLAR/g and fuel economy was all the rage. The demise of the gas guzzler was a given, a "no brainer". But when the the world didn't end, people resumed their wasteful ways, even at a higher price. I don't know why the US population seems less affected by price than Europe, but we do seem willing to drive gas guzzlers at any cost.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The EU has adapted to the high cost of fuel, with diesel. They still have a lot of luxury vehicles to choose from that use less fossil fuel. Until we get close to the cost of fuel in the EU, we will continue to drive gas guzzlers. We do drive a lot more miles than the average EU driver. If all my trips were under 10 miles I would consider an econobox. With the crazy drivers on our freeways I will continue to drive a large safe vehicle. I don't care if gas is $10 per gallon.
  • toobertoober Member Posts: 1
    Gas may seem expensive, but it is still extremely cheap for what it is and how convienient it is.

    I agree with the idea of people adapting to the pain point. Its a hard habit to break, and in most peoples mind, they have no choice but to pay for it and whine about those "evil oil companies"
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    It is more than fuel prices I think. When I was in England two years ago they were paying something like 7 bucks a gallon depending if I figured liters correctly. But not only that a Big Mac was 7 bucks. Food cost more, housing was pretty expensive and wages were less than here. So the break point would be easier to forget here. To use a public Rest room in London cost you a buck, well 50P and you can imagine the fun we had with that expression.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    The government gets a boost from high fuel prices. The $75000 a minute profit that Exxon makes is taxed heavily. I have to gross $5 to take home enough to buy a gallon of gas. Look at all the tax in the price of a gallon of gas. What else is there in it besides tax and oil coming out of the ground?

    Bush is now claiming a $168 billion federal budget defecit next year thanks to taxes on fuels rolling in.
  • kronykrony Member Posts: 110
    Ahh the government...take the recent fuel mileage legislation...

    Problem: The US uses too much oil.
    Solution: Require automakers to make vehicles with better mileage.

    So...if your goal is mileage...and we live in a capitalist society...raise gas taxes to put gasoline at $6/gal. Some thoughts:
    1. Drives behavior that you only buy a car with bad mileage if you a. need it or b. want it.
    2. E85 can be taxed less, if the desire is to push E85 (different discussion on whether that is right)

    Haven't we learned what happens when automakers produce vehicles not driven by the consumer?
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    Until there is a crisis with lines and rationing, or doubling of fuel costs, we're only going to see incremental gains.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    Decided to just get out of the long drive instead of buying a higher mileage car. Bought house that is 31 miles closer to work. Commute one way will go from 47 miles to 16 miles. That should save about 850 gallons a year for my work commute alone. In addition, the schools and shopping will be closer which may save another 400 gallons a year family wide. Will go back to driving my Silverado ext cab 4x4 which will use 2 gallons a day for the round trip to work. With gas at $3.15 a gallon that is $3-4000 a year of potential savings, not to mention the 80 minutes a day it took to drive those extra 62 miles and stop for a tank of gas every 3rd day. Can't wait for moving day.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Decided to just get out of the long drive instead of buying a higher mileage car. Bought house that is 31 miles closer to work.

    Congrats on the new house. Personally, I wouldn't move closer to work just to save on gasoline. I'd do it for quality-of-life issues, such as more free time, a house that suits me better, better neighborhood, convenience, etc. But it sounds like you're doing that anyway, and the shorter commute is just one of many benefits.

    I moved closer to work about 4 years ago. Commute went down from about 14 miles each way to 3.5. It would usually take me abut 25 mins to get to work, and 30 to get home. Now, in a worst-case scenario, it might take 10 mins to get to work, and 10 to get home. So even though my commute wasn't that bad to begin with, I ended up shaving off 105 miles of driving per week, not to mention picking up nearly three hours more of free time each week because of the shorter commute.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    Thanks,
    There are always trades to make. Some things that will be lost are having acreage, change of schools, and proximity to long time friends. Gains will be worthy and gas savings is only one piece. 47 miles can be dangerous after long work day making safety near the top of the list. 80 minutes is a lot of time per day. I looked at work as a 6 day week where one day was driving extra miles. Wear and tear on cars caused time, money, and energy spent maintaining. New lawn to mow will be 1/5 the size of my current one.
    The new house is bigger, nicer and there is a convenience from being close to many places that are far away today. It took 3 years to decide on this and gas went from $1.60 to $3.15 during that time.
    I had a reasonable drive to work for 11 years prior, and I remember it as an easier, less stressful time.
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    For me, I tend to live where I *want* to live, and just deal with the commute, and gas price. I use to live on a quarter acre, but now that I live somewhere with more land, I don't think I could ever go back to a small yard, and a neighboring house within spitting distance - at least not until I reach retirement age anyways. In my area, you have to move out to the sticks to find a decent chunk of land. I prefer a quiet home environment, and lack of traffic around my home, and am willing to pay the price of gas, and deal with a longer commute time to have this. My wife and I both commute 25 miles one way. That's just OUR preferance, and I don't blame anyone for doing what dave8697 did if he truly is happier overall.

    The one thing my wife and I did do was to buy fuel efficient vehicles. We didn't specifically go replace our cars with more fuel efficient ones, but instead did so as our previous cars needed replaced. My wife's daily driver, as well as mine both average 30 mpg for our commutes. What's interesting is that my wife has an '08 Mitsubushi Lancer, and I have an '02 Hyundai Elantra. Both of these cars seem to be as large as the 89 Honda Accord my father-in-law use to own back when we were dating - although I have never looked up interior specs to compare. I am 6'-0", and my wife is 5'-6", and both of these cars are comfortable drivers for us.

    A couple of years ago, we decided we wanted an SUV as a 3rd vehicle for traveling, and hauling our dogs, so we bought a 4 cylinder SUV that we put about 5,000 miles a year on. Even with the SUV, we get mid 20's around town, and high 20's on the hwy - and it's an automatic and 4wd.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    A year ago we were here talking about "pain points" and whether $4 gas would change the way we drive and the kinds of cars we buy or don't buy. Now that we've been through $4 gas I'm kind of leaning to the answer being a resounding "yes".

    The auto industry has hit its own pain point now and has to change as well.

    Even though gas prices are plummeting at the moment, have you permanently changed habits or not?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Wow, hard to believe it's been a year! Personally, I don't think $4 gas changed my habits much, because I had already changed some habits once it hit $2 and started staying there on a consistent basis.

    Now that it's cheap again, I've noticed that a lot of people seem to be driving faster again. I wonder if people are going to start dumping their small cars and going back to bigger vehicles? If there ends up being a glut of small, economical cars on the market, prices might drop, and it might be a good time to snatch one up, in preparation for the next time prices rise.

    1-2 years ago, I had thought about what kind of car I would get, when my 2000 Intrepid finally kicks the bucket. I was thinking of something like a V-6 Charger, possibly an Altima V-6, or maybe a Saturn Aura with the 3.5. And I have to admit, when the Pontiac G8 first came out, I was tempted. But earlier this year, gas was "only" around $3.25 per gallon...once it hit $4, the G8 sort of slipped my mind!

    Back in 2007, I tried driving my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, to see if I could tolerate something that small. I couldn't...at least, not that particular car, but that's not to say that the same would hold true for ALL small cars.

    Anyway, next time I need to buy a new car, it would probably be a 4-cyl Aura/Malibu or Altima. It just depends on my financial situation. I don't really drive that much anymore, maybe 5-6,000 miles per year, so while fuel economy is still a concern to me, it's not as big of a concern as it would be to someone who does a lot of driving.

    One big area where high fuel prices made me change, though, was in the home. Once home heating oil prices hit $5+ per gallon this summer, I broke down and made the decision to switch to a heat pump. Now that heating oil is down to around $3.00/gallon, it might take a long time to recoup my investment. But, at least I'll have central air conditioning now. And whole-house heat, as the old oil furnace didn't have vents upstairs...just whatever heat rose up through the stairwell. And I also got some electrical upgrades in the process, as it's an old house and some of the old wiring and the circuit breaker weren't adequate. So overall I'm satisfied. Plus, I know fuel prices aren't going to stay low forever!
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Nope, fuel won't stay low forever. I'd say my driving habits have permanently changed a bit. I've always been a fairly fuel-efficient driver so it's not about driving technique. But I always try to combine trips or cut out a trip when possible now. And with kids involved sports, we parents are definitely looking to carpool as often as possible since we'll spend a lot of the winter driving all over the Commonwealth of PA.

    I'd say I see some "happy days are here again" types that are blasting around, but I think there's a lot less "racing to the next traffic going on.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    In my little isolated corner of the world gas prices are holding at $2.17, but 90 minutes away it's under $1.80.

    Hope we avoid euphoria!
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    My habits were already semi-fuel-frugal before. The post-Katrina gas prices did chase the Toyota truck out of my driveway though.

    Point is, I think the fuel economy choices we have now suck. Everybody goes around saying "Wow! This one makes 30 mpg, that's excellent!". To them I say, no it's not, it's barely above mediocre. And the real sickening thing is all these carmaker ads playing now talking about their highway EPA ratings, which are not only low but also do not represent the mileage people will really get in their regular driving.

    So my point is, will the automakers learn their lesson properly this time and focus on fuel frugality from now on when they design new models, or will this be 1980 all over again? Because my choices in truly fuel efficient cars right now from ALL automakers are almost zero. It's 2008, the new century, let's get with it.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "I don't really drive that much anymore, maybe 5-6,000 miles per year."

    In that case your Intrepid should serve your needs for a long time. That's unless you get tired of it, but it's my impression that, like me, you like to keep your cars until the wheels fall off. Well, okay, maybe not that long for your daily driver, but quite long, nevertheless.

    Sure, it's nice to have a new car, but in a way it's kind of a luxury to drive something that doesn't owe you anything.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Point is, I think the fuel economy choices we have now suck. Everybody goes around saying "Wow! This one makes 30 mpg, that's excellent!". To them I say, no it's not, it's barely above mediocre.

    AMEN!

    I owned a string of 4 Nissan Sentras, an '81, '87, '91, '96, and now an '07 Versa and the mileage has just evaporated over time. All of them were 5 speed manuals. The '81 got me 48-50mpg combined and 54-55 highway. By the time the '96 came around, I was down to 36-38 mixed and 42-44 highway. My 6 speed Versa being heavier was getting me 32-34 mixed and 35-36 highway until ethanol rolled into town and those numbers have dropped by about 10%.

    Is there ANY reason we can't see those kind of numbers out of normal cars anymore?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Is there ANY reason we can't see those kind of numbers out of normal cars anymore?

    I can think of a bunch of reasons. Weight, power, size, safety. A Versa weighs about 2700 pounds. Just to put it in perspective, the base weight of a 1968 Dodge Dart hardtop is 2715 pounds. And that's with a 475 lb lump of a slant six engine, and the extra bracing to make up for the lack of a B-pillar!

    In 1981 standards, 2700 lb would put you heavier than a Citation or K-car, maybe just below a Ford Fairmont, or about what an '82 Celebrity would start at. And I doubt if any of those were getting 35-36 mpg on the highway except in extreme circumstances.

    Your Versa would also be safer than any of them, with airbags, better side impact protection, more controlled crumple zones, etc. As for size, the 102.4" wheelbase puts it above the K-cars (100.3"), and not that far below the Citation (104.9) or Fairmont (105.6). At 66.7", it's around the same width as most of them, and what it lacks in length, it more than makes up in height.

    Speaking of height, I wonder if that might take its toll on fuel efficiency at highway speeds. At 60.4" tall, it's starting to blur the line between car and minivan! I'm sure it has a very low drag coefficient, but that height increases total frontal area, so I'm sure that has to be a drag.

    How much hp does a 1.8 Versa have? 122? I'm sure it would blow away most cars from 1981. Now if you have something cheap and small enough from 1981, it's going to be loud and buzzy enough that you're going to feel like you're going fast, even if you're not. But your typical 2700 lb car from 1981 isn't going to have anywhere near the performance of a Versa. Maybe a Chevy Citation X-11 with the fuel-injected V-6, but then you're not going to be getting 35-36 mpg on the highway, no matter how gently you drive it.

    Just out of curiosity, how are your driving habits on the highway? 35-36 does seem low. I was able to get 37.4 out of my uncle's '03 Corolla when I took it on a trip once. But the Corolla is a bit lighter, and not as tall as a Versa, so that might be enough to make a difference. I also drove it gently, staying around 55-60, maybe rarely getting up to 65-70, but always trying to accelerate as slow as safely possible.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Everyone seems to take the idea for granted that more power is a GOOD thing.

    If I had the choice for my commute car of car A that gets to 60 mph in 10 seconds and makes 45 mpg or car B that gets to 60 in 8 seconds and makes 36 mpg, I am going with car A without question.

    But that's the problem with all these cars today, and their sucky fuel economy. They are all much heavier and much faster than they need to be. And BTW, the weight problem is tied in to the speed thing, because a car that can go faster needs chassis improvements and wheel and tire upsizing to handle the extra speed.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Everyone seems to take the idea for granted that more power is a GOOD thing.

    If I had the choice for my commute car of car A that gets to 60 mph in 10 seconds and makes 45 mpg or car B that gets to 60 in 8 seconds and makes 36 mpg, I am going with car A without question.


    Point well taken, but compared to 1981, more power IS a good thing. Good Lord, some of those cars back in 1981 could take 20 seconds, sometimes more, to get from 0-60! More power IS good, up to a point.

    And nowadays, more power isn't necessarily going to hurt your fuel economy, at least not like it did in the past. Cars today are more like turbos in that respect, where you get the power when you need it, but at the cost of fuel economy. But when driven more gently, you'll get the economy. Back in the old days, if you had a strong engine, you got bad fuel economy no matter how gently you drove it!

    Power and the ability to go fast no doubt do add some weight to a car, but I'm still convinced that a lot of it is also because of increased rollover protection, better side impact protection, improved crumple zones, etc. And then there's insulation, which can add hundreds of pounds to a car. I'm sure modern cars have more of it in them than older ones did, in order to make them quieter.

    FWIW, it probably only takes 20-30 hp to move a small car along at a steady 60 mph anyway, so any modern engine is only using a fraction of its available power to do that. Therefore, I don't think making the engines smaller and weaker is going to help very much with fuel economy. Although it will irritate people when they actually NEED that power, such as for merging, passing, etc., or when they load up the car.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    All of that, plus those old cars with good fuel economy were much slower to accelerate (low horsepower and tall gearing), and had leaner air-fuel ratios than current emissions standards will allow.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Toyota is talking about releasing a 1.3L Yaris with about 10% less hp, 15% less torque. They are estimating it will make 15% better fuel economy. I would say that is good evidence that more power is in a fairly linear relationship with less fuel economy......

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Another former Sentra owner! I had an 87 before I drowned it. It was a slug but dependable as all get out, easy to work on and would get over 40 mpg on a trip.

    There's no way they shouldn't be able to produce a car now that gets that kind of mileage. Yes, the cars have gotten bigger and heavier but the technology has advanced.

    Do I like a car with a lot of zip? Sure, but not all of them have to have that.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Never considered my Sentras to be sports cars, but they weren't slugs either. The base Focus I had as a rental in LA back in 2001, now THAT was a slug :shades:

    I agree 100%. What has happened to our perception of what "good mileage" is? Heck, my 1966 Chrylser Newport with the 383 V8 was getting 19mpg when it had 220,000 miles on it.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Did the 87 Sentra offer more than one engine? I ask because this one was slow. It had replaced an 80 Accord which, while not a sports car by any means, was pretty zippy.

    Of course the real slug of my various cars was that 69 Volvo 142. If it wrere any slower it would have been going backwards.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    All of our vehicles since 1979 have been 5 speeds so that kind of disguises slug-ness a bit :shades:

    1.6 liter was the only size engine available for the 87
    image

    That body style was similar to my 81.

    Once we got to 1991 there were 3 engine choices, 1.4, 1.6, and 2.0 liter. I had the 1.6 so that explains why I didn't notice much difference. I liked the B13 body style the best of all my Sentras. This photo was just after someone stopped short for a deer in front of my wife:)
    imageSee more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    A 1.4? Are you sure the 1.6 wasn't the smallest engine for the Sentra from the mid-'80s on, for the U.S. market?
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Mine was a five speed as well. Looked just like your picture but in alight metallic blue of some sort.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Heck, my 1966 Chrylser Newport with the 383 V8 was getting 19mpg when it had 220,000 miles on it.

    I briefly had a 1967 Chrysler Newport hardtop coupe with a 383-2bbl, but didn't have it long enough to track the mileage. 19 mpg sounds really good for something that size, though. My '67 Catalina convertible, with its 400-4bbl, could get about 17-18 mpg if I kept my foot out of it.

    Maybe I should've held onto that Chrysler? I got rid of it back in 1999, around the same time that I got my Intrepid.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    That is only my opinion, of course. After Katrina, when prices rose to over $3 / gallon, it didn't seem like too many folks changed their driving habits. However, this past summer, when the price broke the $4 / gallon barrier in most of the country, I think there was a general panic about fuel mileage.

    Folks couldn't dump their SUV's fast enough, and cars like the Civic, which you could get for around invoice in the spring, suddenly became as scarce as hen's teeth (with an increased transaction price to match). Public transportation and carpooling became more popular.

    I was lucky in that I started a new job with my company that allowed me to work from home .. now, instead of commuting 21 miles each way to work every day, I go into the office once every 2 weeks.

    Now that prices are hovering around $1.75 / gallon (national average - I paid $146.9 for gas earlier today), will folks go back to their SUV's and pickup trucks? Perhaps, but in much smaller numbers, I should think. I don't think you'll see folks buying a large SUV or full-sized truck unless there is a real need for it (large family, need to tow).

    A co-worker of my wife used to drive an '01 (or so) Chevy Tahoe. Over the summer, she and her husband bought a used Toyota Corolla (mid 90's, I think) and put in a reconditioned engine. I think they spent around $1000 to get it up and running. She drove it back and forth to work most of the fall. When I went to my wife's work last week, I noticed that she was back driving the Tahoe. Now, this could be due to the poor weather we've been having in Colorado lately, but it could also be that she is just more comfortable driving the Tahoe.

    andre, I second your comments about the cramped interior of the Corolla. Some friends of ours have an '06, and I drove it once. I'm only 5'11", and I found myself uncomfortable behind the wheel. More so than I did in our '03 Focus or my daughter's '06 ION - both of those cars were reasonably comfortable for me to drive.

    pf, I owned a '91 Sentra - I think they only came with the 1.6L and 110HP, unless you got the SE-R, which came with the "hot" 2L and 140HP. I don't specifically remember the kind of mileage I used to get with it, but it was the car that took me from CA to CO when I moved there in '93.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Now I started reducing trips and slowing down after Katrina but I agree that the population as a whole didn't get it until $4 gas. That's a memory I hope stays with us.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    But I also agree we don't have many improvements economy wise to choose from. My last real small car was a old Civic SI hatch back in the 80s I think. Thing ran forever on a gallon of gas. I also had a B-210 slug that got great mileage and it might have been responsible for me feeling we needed more power than was offered by many small cars at the time. I got a Pulser for my son and it wasn't bad on fuel even if it almost made me swear off of Nissans.

    But the pain point has changed me I believe. I no longer need at least 150 HP no matter how small the car. I love my Tahoe and use it as a SUV should be used, towing and hauling. I don't love my 4 banger but I like the mileage it gets and plan on keeping it till the wheels fall off. The only thing that will get me into a new small car is if they make one that gets the kind of mileage of an Insight for the price of a Aveo, or maybe I could stretch it to the price of a focus. Other than that I moved to a smaller place and don't have to commute. From most of the people I talk to most people have changed how they drive even if not as many changed what they drive as some had hoped.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    I remember my, I think, 85 Sentra. The thing was slow but on a trip it would break 40 mpg no sweat. I'm thinking I could live with a car that slow again.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I will "echo" that! :-)
    (pun intended, given the model of car I drive for my commute, which by the way is not nearly as slow as most cars I drove in the 80s.....that was before I could afford a new car, or even a fast used car)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

This discussion has been closed.