Care to try again? http://www.motherearthnews.com/green-transportation/miles-per-gallon-cars-zb0z11zblon.aspx #3: 1986 Chevy Sprint, 53 MPG (I had one of these) #5: 1986 Honda Civic Coup, 51 MPG (I had one of these too) #8: 1985 Pontiac Firefly, 47 MPG #9: 1985 Suzuki Swift, 47 MPG #12: 1989 Chevy Swift, 45 MPG #17: 1987 Suzuki Forsa, 43 MPG #21: 1984 Toyota Starlet, 40 MPG #22: 1989 Suzuki Swift, 40 MPG #24: 1985 Isuzu 750C, 39 MPG #25: 1988 Ford Festiva, 30 MPG 10 of the top 25 cars all came from the 1980's. And what were the top selling cars of 2013? 1: Ford F150, 23 mpg 2: Chevy Silverado, 22 mpg 3: Toyota Camry, 39 MPG 4: Honda Accord, 36 mpg 5: Dodge Ram, 20 mpg 6: Honda Civic, 41 mpg 7: Nissan Altima, 38 mpg 8: Honda CR-v, 31 MPG 9: Toyota Corolla, 34 mpg 10: Ford Escape, 33 mpg And as anybody can easily see, the best selling cars had the worst mileage. We had some cars that got some great gas mileage in the 1980's, but nobody wanted them. The Geo Metro and Ford Festiva were cheap cars for kids in college, nothing else. Oh, and the idea that "Motorcycles are high performance engines" is just nonsense. The Suzuki GN400 (I had one) was a great bike for mileage, a single piston 400cc beater. Excellent beginner bike, great on gas mileage. But nothing about this was "high performance" at all, especially not the engine (a high performance engine operates at higher compression, and requires a higher octane gasoline). Out of all my bikes over the years ( 8 ), only one had a "High Performance" engine, my Honda CB900F Supersport. My Suzuki was not High Performance, my Enduro was not "High Performance", and none of my Goldwings (GN1000-GN1500) has ever been High Performance. They simply get better mileage because they have an exceptionally low weight ratio. My current bike has roughly the same displacement (1520cc flat 6) as a 1967 VW Beetle (1493cc flat four). But at less then half the weight, it gets better mileage. Why can't you admit that the reason cars get such lousy mileage is simply because that is what people want? If people wanted high mileage, they would buy cars that get great mileage.
Yes, but it won't hurt them like it will everyone else and if they invest their money, it will only be the middle class paying.
Plug in a higher gas price and what happens? Even at the lower price the Japanese car makers came out of nowhere and ate our lunch. Clearly better gas mileage was part of the reason.
Common misconception. Can you tell me what year a Japanese car first ranked among the top 10 in car sales in the US? It was 1979, the Toyota Corolla came in at #9! That is an often repeated myth that Japanese cars dominated after the oil crisis. They simply started to sell more cars, but it was not until the mid-1980's that they started to make any kind of a major impact. And it was not because of mileage (gas was amazingly cheap at that time), but quality and styling combined with price. The cars with the top mileage (Chevy Sprint, Ford Festiva, Toyota Tercel, Dodge Omni, etc) have always been looked down upon by the majority of car buyers.
You can say that about any tax. Obviously taxes are levied on the basis of a cost/benefit assessment. Roads are a cost, schools are a cost, police are a cost, all subsidized by taxes. A sustainable environment has a value and in the case of fossil fuel both clean energy alternatives can be subsidized with the tax plus an equal kickback to each citizen which results in a triple positive. As long as you fail to compute longer term considerations all sorts of bad economics can be argued. Lowering the incidence of cancer and emphysema has a cost value too.
the best selling cars were trucks, trucks got the same crappy milage then as they do now, and because they're work vehicles and they wouldn't be best selling if it weren't for their necessity in construction, I wouldn't have my fuel sucking pig if it wasn't for my work... You're dliberately cherry picking crappy econo boxes for mileage other than the honda civic on the listthey were all crap vehicles, they didn't sell because they were substandard and underpowered not because of the fuel mileage...todays cars get substantially better performance per cc than cars from the 80s... I have had motorcycles for 40 yrs and tore down and rebuilt more than a few, they were all high performance compared to cars of the eighties, even the bad ones...
Absolutely the truth. I remember. Japanese cars started coming to America that worked when you drove them off the lot. The parts like doors and trunks fit and they ran a long time. Anyone remember the Vega? LOL One issue the Japanese cars had when they first came over was rust. The rusted out quickly.
My principal point, of course, is that higher gas prices means a public inclination to purchase cars with higher mpg. The fact that the Japanese made better cars that had high mileage doesn't change that. My Toyota Tacoma supercab pickup, purchased 2000, was about the best vehicle of its type I could find in terms of cost, quality and mileage.
They make better cars, particularly toyota and honda, worldwide toyota corrolla is the worlds best selling car Over 40 million sold, reliability, fuel consumption and quality it was great value....compared to a chevy sprint, pontiac firefly or any of the american econo boxes of the day it was no contest...
LOL, I had to replace my low gas mileage 300K Jeep Cherokee and I wanted to find a vehicle that would have the same capabilities, the same longevity, similar features, and the same towing capacity and I found it with a Toyota FJ Cruiser, which BTW has the same lousy gas mileage.
Oh nonsense! People buy trucks because they want trucks. And FYI, my wife and I have 4 vehicles between us. My Goldwing is my daily vehicle, for her it is her Dodge Ram 1500 (before that it was a Lincoln Towncar). My bad weather vehicle is a Chevy Silverado 1500. And lastly, our WInnebago. Like the vast majority of people, we buy the vehicles we want, mileage plays a very minor part in these decisions. And until a couple of years ago, the top selling vehicle lists often included SUVs. But those are now pretty much gone, not because of mileage but because of simple popularity. But Pickups have topped the lists for decades because of their versatility. And notice, the majority are "extended cab" and "quad cab" models, not the ones preferred for "work trucks". But these are the types that families want. Actually, I did not make that list. So do not accuse me of "cherry picking" anything. I gave the link, feel free to verify it for yourself. I simply picked out the cars that date to the 1980's (which was stated did not exist). Nothing more, and nothing less. And you are contradicting yourself. "Underpowered", that goes hand in hand with fuel economy, does it not? More power, larger engine, lower gas mileage. Sorry, you can not have both "performance" and "fuel economy" at the same time, it is a complete contradiction in terms. And the better mileage is simply because of technology. No surprise there. Lighter weight, smarter engines, you are acting like they could have built a 2015 car in 1983. In other words, you are applying your own definition of "high performance", that has nothing to do with anything. A "High Performance" engine is a definition of how the engine operates. They run at a higher compression then a standard engine, and require a higher octane fuel. A "high performance" engine requires Premium, or mid-grade at minimum to perform properly at all, just putting in "standard unleaded" will just not cut it. My CB900F was a "High Performance" engine. Put in Regular, and it did ok. Put in mid-grade, and both the performance and mileage increased (5-10 MPG). Premium, and it did even better, up to 15-20 MPG over regular. But if your engine is not High Performance, adding mid-grade or premium is simply a waste. Put premium in my Goldwing and my MPG increase is... oh, around 0 mpg. Because the engine is not designed to take advantage of the increased octane. What you are calling "high performance" is nothing but engine to vehicle weight ratio. Nothing more, and nothing less. Do not confuse that with a "high performance engine". They are not the same at all.
And do you know what a lot of that is because of? Simple the cars being made for the market. For large parts of the world, they drive on the left hand side of the road, which requires a right hand drive vehicle. Do you know how many years Ford has been making the Mustang in a right hand drive model? None. But next year, they will make the Mustang for the first time in right hand drive. The main reason why Japan dominates in world-wide sales is that they manufacture vehicles that can be driven all over the world. American manufacturers have been primarily making vehicles for the domestic market first, then secondly for the export that requires no modifications (in other words, left hand drive). Plus for much of the world, US cars (and motorcycles) are simply to big. I have lived in Japan, the Sprint was the normal sized vehicle there, a Corolla was considered a "big car". You are simply so North American-centric, you have absolutely no idea what the normal cars are overseas, and why the US cars do not sell there. Oh, they sell in countries that are left hand drive. My wife still shudders when she sees a "classic" Ford Falcon, because that was the preferred vehicle of the Argentinian Secret Police (and they bought tens of thousands of them). Mexico is also full of American Cars, also a left-hand drive nation. But England? Japan? India? Australia? US cars do not sell there in as big a quantity because they never really catered to that market. Ask most people to name a US car that was sold in England, and they can name only one: The Ford Prefect. And that is only because of 2 movies, Harry Potter and HHGTTG.
In the 1960's and 1970's, my family generally has 2 vehicles. One was an "econobox", a VW Beetle or Toyota Corona for fuel economy. This was the daily commuter car. Then there was a "family car", generally a Pontiac or Buick, 4 doors and lousy mileage. Those that keep trying to tie fuel economy to sales do not get it at all. Almost nobody buys a vehicle for fuel economy, they pick the car they want mostly for vanity. And fuel economy makes no difference in a vanity selection. For example, I drive over 60 miles each way through Baghdad by the Bay traffic in a full dress Goldwing. It gets around 30-35mpg, and is like a pregnant cow in heavy traffic. And I could have gotten a bike with better mileage and better handling for the traffic, but I simply love Goldwings. Period, only consideration, end of story.
Yes but everything you need will cost more. Everything!!! So your payday will buy less. Because everyone will have done what you have done and passed the cost on. That isn't progress. You are a consumer also. People will their cost one to you. The manufacture The transporter The wholesaler The distributor The chain store Etc. all will add their Obama taxes on to you. So tell me how much more money you will make and what that will buy you? Hidden inflation. The only one that wins is the rich and the poor and the government. The system isn't designed for the middle class. Good luck with your middle class dreams.
Get back to me when you reach third world incomes - meantime sorry but I cannot feel upset because someone might have to switch off a a light or two
We are not talking about "switching off a light or two". We are talking about the cost of everything going up including food. Who do you think that hurts the most?
You want to fight global warming tell that to Obama tell him to go after the biggest polluter and the ones with the largest carbon footprint on the Globe. The Obama government. How much CO2 do you think is put into the atmosphere so Obama can go play is rounds of golf in a desert? It cost Americans $250,000.00 an hour for the Air Force One so he can play golf. Yet progressive are telling me I need to make sacrifices. I need to change the way I live. My quality of life needs to suffer. My ability to feed my family needs to suffer. My way of life needs to suffer. All while the largest polluter ( the US Government ) grows larger and larger. The most inefficient organization grows. But I should struggle more to cloth my family so Obama can play more golf or have JayZ over for a party. Damn progressive hypocrites!!!
Did you manage to post that without betting spittle on the keyboard and monitor? Tell me something, what does President Obama playing golf have to do with the need to address Climate Change?
If that is the case, why is the Ross Ice Shelf melting?? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/266.abstract
Are you honestly trying to tell me that families in industrialised nations are so poor that spending a couple of dollars on stopping something that will cost MORE money in the future is a BAD idea? The Stern review and every report by economists since then has come out with the same result - spend money now or go bankrupt later
cars made for the market, well there's a groundbreaking concept and north american manufacturers never thought of that?... forget the left hand drive excuse over 80% of the worlds cars are right hand, there's only four major car driving countries that use left hand drive, India, UK, Japan, Australia the rest are too small too matter Botswana ya I'm sure there are lots of cars there...there's nothing to stop Ford from selling the mustang overseas, nothing but except it's a useless vehicle that won't sell, it's a niche market toy, ford will have done it's marketing and already knew that... american manufacturers Ford and GM have been building and selling cars overseas for decades, right and left hand drive just as Japan does... I'm European so don't try to pull the cars are too big for europe excuse, Mercedes builds full size cars as does BMW and other euro manfacturers, european highways are equal to north american roads, there are no shortage of big rigs on euro roads... amertican cars don't sell in england? really...number one selling car in england 2013 Ford Fiesta 2nd Ford Focus, 3rd Vauxhall Corsa(GM), 4th Vauxhall Astra(GM) how about that the top 4 are fords and gms...and righthand drive too, how is that possible, I guess ford can build right hand drive....ya they could build a right hand mustang but few will buy it, it's a novelty/toy for girls and people with too much money...Australia, Ford has been building cars in Australia since 1925..India-India owns that market no one can build cars as cheap and crappy as the Indians, not even the Japanese maybe if you're asking an american who has never left the country in his life...
