Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Costs me a few bucks in gas to get there though.
Radio today said winter gas was in the pipeline and that it was cheaper to refine so the prices should go down. I thought all the ethanol in gas made winter and summer blends a thing of the past.
Regular here is up to $4.10. Getting 26mpg on the road in the van is okay, but 54.5 would sure be better.
I dread all Wal Marts. They are my last resort.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-stat- ion-wagons/
They actually end up being penalized for being efficient now. Plus it's harder to make improvements when they are already pretty efficient.
We'll end up with long wheelbase everything and no small cars at all.
“all of Detroit’s continuing models became more fuel efficient, and Detroit’s market share continued to be higher” than in the 2008 period, even as Japanese car makers became more competitive."
U.S. Car Makers Navigating Gas-Price Surges Better (WSJ)
LOL, obesity means 54.5 mpg may end up being high 30s for most drivers.
Eh, just doing the conversion from the raw CAFE numbers to what gets dumbed down and put on the window sticker probably translates to high 30's right there.
I suppose if some obese guy was upset that his new car wasn't returning the mileage he expected, he could make an issue of it. :confuse:
Funny thing is driving style is the biggest factor, by far.
In the anti-responsibility, instant-gratification age, though, that isn't a popular notion!
At the motel tonight here in Minneapolis, there are two cars from Iowa parked next to each other. One's an Insight and one's a Prius. Will have to try to spot them at the free breakfast tomorrow.
Where ya headed, Steve? At any rate, enjoy the trip!
The van got 24 on this tank, but some of them weren't trip miles. Rolled over 180k too. :-)
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/28/mythbusters-drafting-10-feet-behind-a-big-r- - ig-will-improve-mile/
Funny thing is it makes a notable difference. Even at 100 ft they did 11% better.
Don't try this at home (or in the car).
I do wonder if you're in the lane next to them (wes' geese style), not in the blind spot though, if you'd still get small gains?
Did get to watch TV for a change, but stuck to baseball (on mute to avoid the commercials).
Returning to the motel late Saturday I wound up parking next to yet another Prius fron Iowa. I thought those folks all burned biodiesel. Probably did have ethanol in the gas tank.
Oh, and I saw a biodiesel filling station attached to a farm supply store. It was $4.11 (diesel in that area was about a dime to fifteen cents higher a gallon).
Ford is touting the MKZ's mpg.
"All-new Lincoln MKZ Hybrid delivers more miles per gallon than every other luxury vehicle in America: EPA-certified 45 mpg city, 45 mpg highway and 45 mpg combined." (Yahoo)
Gotta help them reach the new mandate.
Heck, a 2.0T with AWD, while you're at it.
Though to get a manual you have to skip AWD.
Soon it will just be Subaru and the few lux carmakers that cheaped out and didn't develop a RWD platform (Audi, Acura, anyone else??). And after a while, maybe not even Subaru any more. The CAFE mandate might force them to go CVT-only. Gawd what a thought. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Rand Corp, has suggested that a national oil tax of $15 a barrel would be needed to help recover those costs — particularly energy security — and that a gasoline tax of at least 55 cents a gallon is needed just to address personal transportation's impact on pollution, greenhouse gases and security, said Constantine Samaras, a Rand analyst and engineering professor and an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.
Motorists, ... citing Edmunds.com car shopper data, still don't place fuel efficiency very highly on the list of car purchasing motivations."
California ZEV Mandate — Would a Gas Tax Be Better? (Inside Line)
Which Would You Rather: ZEV Mandate or Gas Tax? (Straightline)
Wait, why is that necessary? If a fuel tax was used for interstate transportation infrastructure, then fine. I guess that could even play into the "security" aspect. But pollution & greenhouse gases? Seriously? :sick:
(fairbanksirl.com)
Also, you're only taxed when the product is cheap. When it's expensive everyone automatically gets relief.
Politicians have an incentive to keep oil prices down because they only collect revenues if they do so.
Juice, cheap gas would encourage people to drive more and that would mean more tax revenue.
The result I guess would be more pressure on the highway infrastructure, so there'd be a need for the increased tax revenue.
Cue Joni Mitchell again.
Really, I just hate breathing the residue from folks burning tires and poorly tuned wood heating appliances. If people would internalize their stewardship responsibilities when they live in a community, this topic wouldn't even exist.
What mad world is this? The famously balky industry that once swore people could never afford cars with crazy technology like air bags has taken a leap of faith in its ability to invent and innovate.
"It's not outlandish at all to expect cars rated at 40 to 50 m.p.g. in combined driving 10 years from now."
Industry buys into fuel economy rules (Detroit Free Press)
Now, as opposed before in the days of "we can't average 25 mpg!" they realize mpg sells.
Funny enough, my family's 1985 Toyota Camry (a family sedan of the day) routinely returned 35 mpg. It's no wonder that when you add 1000#+ to a car that its fuel economy drops! Imagine where we'd be today if the drivetrain technology we've come up with to get our bloated vehicles around more efficiently was available with the same vehicles at half the weight?
Oh, the possibilities! :sick:
I've often wondered that myself. To use a personal example, my recently-purchased 2012 Ram Hemi got about 19.1 mpg recently on a trip up to Carlisle PA and back, which also included some local driving. In old car terms, that's probably akin to taking a 1964 Lincoln Continental and giving it the performance of a '64 GTO, an the fuel economy of a '64 slant six Valiant.
I think the '83-86 Camry is a really impressive car. It was rated as a compact at the time, but I'd consider it to be a good 4-passenger car. It doesn't have the shoulder room of something like a Plymough Caravelle, Ford LTD, or Chevy Celebrity of the era, but it definitely had adult-sized legroom and headroom.
However, my 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Camry. Its MSRP was $14,058. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $30,200 today! And it did 0-60 in 13.4 seconds, and its EPA rating at the time was 27/32, 29 combined. Adjusted to today's ratings, it's down to 23/29, 26 combined.
So, cars really have come a long way, in spite of the added bulk. But, it does make you wonder...if they took a 1985 Camry and gave it all the drivetrain improvements, but kept the bulk to a minimum, just how far advanced the fuel economy and performance would be.
Andre, you have a lot of specs at quick disposal; is the '13 Corolla indeed similar to the '85 Camry? I just guessed that they're comparable, but I imagine the'new Corolla weighs more than the old Camry.
I'd say the 1985 Camry is closer in size to the current Corolla than it is to the Camry. According to the EPA, the 2013 Corolla has 92 cubic feet of passenger volume, while the 1985 Camry had 93. The 2013 Camry has 103 cubic feet. To put that in old-car perspective, that '78 LeMans you once owned had 102.
However, I think the 1985-era Camry was laid out better than a modern Corolla. I've been in a few of them, and foud them to have good legroom, both front and rear. In contrast, I think the Corolla is a bit tight with regards to legroom. But, I'm sure a modern Corolla would do much better in crash-testing than a 1985 Camry would.
Weight-wise, I think the 1985 Camry Consumer Guide tested was around 2500 lb. I think a Corolla is aound 2600 lb, while a 4-cyl Camry is probably around 3200l lb.
Oh, and a 2013 Corolla is EPA-rated at 26/24, even with its outdated 4-speed automatic (in 1985, the Camry's 4-speed automatic was probably considered cutting edge). And while not a musclecar, 0-60 probably comes up in around 9-10 seconds, compared to the 13.4 that Consumer Guide got out of their 1985 Camry. I think a 2013 Camry 4-cyl, which is rated around 25/35, will do 0-60 in around 8.5.
That's no joke! What's the curb weight on your truck? I have essentially the same the same truck, only 43 years older, and it is (supposedly) 3,990 empty. Well, okay, mine's a 3/4 ton, which will add about 300# or so. Other than that, it is the same: Single cab, 8' bed, 2WD, V8.
My truck scoots with enthusiasm, yet its 307 cu in V8 is rated at 200HP. If it had that Hemi in it, I'd probably have trouble finding traction out of a light! :shades:
I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.
According to Edmund's, the GVWR on the Tradesman is 8610 lb, whereas it's 6600 lb on the ST and SLT models.
To make it more confusing, mine is an ST model with a "Tradesman" option package. Which is different from a "real" Tradesman. :confuse: Mine has the Hemi, but only a 6600 lb GVWR. I wonder what they do to the "real" Tradesman to beef up the GVWR like that? I'm sure just the Hemi V-8 alone would add weight compared to the 4.7, so I'm surprised there's not much weight difference.
For comparison, a Ram ST 2500, with the 8' bed, regulat cab, and Hemi, has a curb weight of 5464 lb and a GVWR of 9000 lb. So, it looks like the 1/2-ton Tradesman actually has a slightly higher payload capacity than a 3/4-ton ST. That doesn't make sense. :confuse:
Today I drove my '85 Silverado, just to get it back in circulation. Checking its fuel log, it was last filled up on 9/25, and had only gone 1.6 miles. So basically, I filled it up two days after I bought the Ram, drove it home, and it hasn't been touched since. I thought it would feel like a real dog after getting used to the Ram. It's lighter than the Ram, but still weighs about 4200 lb, according to the scale at the local dump at least. And it only has a 165 hp 305, 3-speed THM350C tranny, and a tall 2.56:1 axle. But, making the transition back to it wasn't that bad.
Oh, definitely! That $14,000 Camry that Consumer Guide tested in 1985 would come out to around $30,108 today, adjusted for inflation. But I just spec'ed a Corolla on Edmund's, and the most I could get it up to was $21,755 with freight.
Working backwards, that Corolla price would come out to around $10,116 in 1985 dollars.