When I was a teenager I owned an 85' Honda Civic Hf which got 49mpg city and 55 hwy. This was a normal combustion engine which I believe was carburated, if memory serves me correctly. Pretty old technology by todays standards. My question is , why cant car manufatures just improve upon this inexpensive technology and produce a car which get comparable fuel economy. Even the Cvic hybrid of today only manages 46mpg city and 51 hwy. How can my 20 year old civic do better for a lot less money? Why must we pay big bucks for a hybrid. Why doesnt Toyota or Honda or ?? make something like the old Civic Hf's with today's technology. Something affordable without using a hybrid engine?? I believe consumers would sacrafice performance for some improvements in gas mileage, especailly with today's gas prices...

Red

i think that fuel economy is a plus side....i think the whole hybrid concept is based on emission and not really fuel economy....i guess u have to compare the polllutants that ur 85 civic hf produced as compared to the hybrid and newer cars of today...


just a thought

Yes, we can't do as good today on fuel economy because safety and emissions standards have added weight and reduced efficiency of cars. That's why the emissions laws are so incredibly STUPID - the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by an engine are directly related to how much fuel it burns!!! Rating emissions polution by particle per million of unburned hydrocarbons and other such nonsense is total BS. A vehicle made thirty years ago that gets 17mpg, is no dirtier in total volume of greenhouse emissions, than an SUV produced yesterday with the same gas mileage is! The only way to emit less harmful gasses, is to burn less fuel - period.

Wait a second.....The cats burn the unburnt fuel to reduce the emissions. So, then, since we have a "afterburner" that does not increase fuel econ, but does burn fuel, where reducing emissions even though where burning more fuel doing it. Thats because where wasting heat in the cat. Now, its kinda stupid, but thats what is true, you gotta agree with that. And, I dont believe most modern emmisions reduce fuel econ that much if any. Dont forget the 85 honda is a tiny shit box. Kiss your ass goodbye if you crack up. The newer honda is probly freaking huge and heavier. BTW, 85 alot of smaller cars already had injectors so, carb is doughtful. And, honestly, I dont believe a 85 honda got 49 city. NO WAY.

I did some tests on my new truck in 1984. I tested every tanks and got exactly what the sticker said I would get. I then removed a bunch of the "technology" and added a bit of my own, the mileage went to 23 mpg. This was on a half ton 2wd gmc pickup with some easy driving. Best mpg I had seen on a full size truck.

BTW, 85 alot of smaller cars already had injectors so, carb is doughtful. .

actually, i have an 88 honda accord and that's carbureted. it was the last year that injection was only optional. carbs dissapeared the next year. actually, an 80's civic is pretty damn small even smaller than my accord and they may actually get that mileage with their 70 horsepower engines lol. if you want the ultimate fuel economy, just get a non-racing motorcycle or something or better yet get an old ford festiva 3 banger and rip out everything except the driver seat and necessary stuff, such as the shotgun rack in the back window:icon16: lmao... then you have a 2000 pound car getting huge mileage. maybe the 4 inch wide tires help out a little too lol

Something no-one has mentioned. That '88 Civic didn't have 160 hp either. And yep, cars are way heavier than they used to be. I think that safety should be more optional. Do I really need airbags that kill when i wear a seatbeat? If the bags go off, can the car be repaired cheaply enough? But that's another story....
So where do I buy a diesel?

Per gallon of fuel, a diesel stores more energy measured in BTU's than gasoline. It also puts out less energy than a gasoline motor if measured in BTU's. In usage of actually energy...gasoline is FAR, FAR more efficient!!!

Some one mentioned how much lighter the car is then vs today and that's the biggest reason for the mileage difference.

I've read a new industrial diesel that was claimed to be 40% efficient. That's way above the 30% that I'm used to.
Gasoline engines are down around 22% last I read. The gas engines' lower compression can't let them compete with diesel.
And I'd still like to find a light-weight diesel car.
BTW: I've read that gas and diesel fuel is now much cleaner, in Ontario Ca., as of June 1st/06. Direct injection gas engines should become available, at increased efficiency. now if we can get the weight and horsepower down....

The strides made in engine technology are pretty amazing. For years, N. American companies didn't do much because they were on top and not much pressure to improve in many areas such as safety and efficiency wasn't there from the public and our govnerments. The Europeans had the handling down so the Japanese went for long term cost efficience by tighter quality controls and continually increased fuel economy. Now that gas prices are growing faster than the NASDAQ in the late 90's, the race is on to improve mileage without sacrificing mileage. I'm thinking of replacing my beat up (people like to pull in front of you or into the side of you where I live) 97 Civic for a Fit. I'm going to give it 2yrs or so since I've only got 125k on the car (turned it this morning) and the car's paid for.

Just to clarify and earlier point, per volume, diesel is more effient but per amt of energy stored, gasoline is.

http://www.allpar.com/ed/diesel.html
Here's a bit of info on engine efficiencies I just found

Speaking of efficiency. I'd love to see a 405hp LS motor run 30mpg on 87 octane. The LS6 does it on premium. (91 in some areas but 93 in mine?).

When I was a teenager I owned an 85' Honda Civic Hf which got 49mpg city and 55 hwy. This was a normal combustion engine which I believe was carburated, if memory serves me correctly. Pretty old technology by todays standards. My question is , why cant car manufatures just improve upon this inexpensive technology and produce a car which get comparable fuel economy. Even the Cvic hybrid of today only manages 46mpg city and 51 hwy. How can my 20 year old civic do better for a lot less money? Why must we pay big bucks for a hybrid. Why doesnt Toyota or Honda or ?? make something like the old Civic Hf's with today's technology. Something affordable without using a hybrid engine?? I believe consumers would sacrafice performance for some improvements in gas mileage, especailly with today's gas prices...

Red
Not sure if anyone said this yet, but your '85 civic probly had all of 75 horsepower, a 0.9L four banger, and did 0-60 in 15 seconds or so. standard new civics have around 200 horsepower, do 0-60 in nearly 5 seconds and use a V-6. when you said that people would sacrifice performance for economy, you were for the most part, wrong. sorry, but until gas is consistantly over $4 a gallon, we americans will never give up our dependance on oil. just look at europe for inspiration.

oh and about compression ratios, just give us leaded gas back and MPG will skyrocket. however, pollutants will also go way off the charts. its a compromise. best combo would be something like a honda insight, with a 2-cyl turbo diesel, and a big electric motor. the diesel would only be used as necessary to run a generator. the car would run on electricity alone.

Per gallon of fuel, a diesel stores more energy measured in BTU's than gasoline. It also puts out less energy than a gasoline motor if measured in BTU's. In usage of actually energy...gasoline is FAR, FAR more efficient!!!

Some one mentioned how much lighter the car is then vs today and that's the biggest reason for the mileage difference.

I'd have to agree with these for sure.

Goose is just about right on that issue in his last post.

And anyone who wants to question hybrid technology, it's been used for decades in diesel locomotives. It's just that now there is new technology making it practical to use in smaller applications. Primarily in the department of electrical energy storage and in small motors and generators.

Per gallon of fuel, a diesel stores more energy measured in BTU's than gasoline. It also puts out less energy than a gasoline motor if measured in BTU's. In usage of actually energy...gasoline is FAR, FAR more efficient!!!
Sorry but that statement is very very wrong.

Efficiency is measured by (energy out/energy input). Fuel volume has no influence.

Yes diesel engines are almost twice as efficient as petrols. Peak efficiency of a good diesel engine is over 40%, petrols just beat half that.
Further, diesels have a wide and flat effiency curve, petrols have a small island of peak efficiency which is very easy to miss.

Energy content:
Diesel = 39 MJ/Litre
Petrol = 34.5 MJ/Litre

Not sure if anyone said this yet, but your '85 civic probly had all of 75 horsepower, a 0.9L four banger, and did 0-60 in 15 seconds or so. standard new civics have around 200 horsepower, do 0-60 in nearly 5 seconds and use a V-6. when you said that people would sacrifice performance for economy, you were for the most part, wrong. sorry, but until gas is consistantly over $4 a gallon, we americans will never give up our dependance on oil. just look at europe for inspiration.
mostly right. current civics go from 0-60 in about 7 seconds, and they use a naturally aspirated inline 4 engine.

also, on the subject of diesel engines vs gasoline engines. Diesels also don't have a throttle body or carburator. they just have a straight intake, this means that there are way fewer losses to intake restrictions and such. another advantage to diesels are the lower emissions. not only do they have better fuel economy but they also emit fewer bad emissions per ammount of exhaust. they emit more NOx but way fewer unburnt hydrocarbons, same goes for carbon monoxide.

I'm glad someone else thinks that reducing fuel economy for the environment makes a whole lot of sense.

I'm glad someone else thinks that reducing fuel economy for the environment makes a whole lot of sense.

Was that with sarcasm or without?

I'll agree with Millermagic.
Carburators (I think there's an "e" in there somewhere) used to be able to lean out to 22:1 at cruise, but that put NOx's way up.
Nice to know that now we have to put unburned fuel into the cat to clean everything up.

An interesting test would be a purpose built carb engine for nice street use with an accurate carb settings and such and NO emmision control devices to see just how it might stack up for the readings. Someone probably already knows?

If it was cheaper, we'd have them.
The companies tried to save money. Remember how bad cars ran before injection and cats? Stalling, bad idle, bad off idle, stumbling at cruise, bad fuel economy, etc.
I believe we've probably got the cheapest system that will meet emissions.
One Venus per solar System is enough.

When I was a teenager I owned an 85' Honda Civic Hf which got 49mpg city and 55 hwy. This was a normal combustion engine which I believe was carburated, if memory serves me correctly. Pretty old technology by todays standards. My question is , why cant car manufatures just improve upon this inexpensive technology and produce a car which get comparable fuel economy. Even the Cvic hybrid of today only manages 46mpg city and 51 hwy. How can my 20 year old civic do better for a lot less money? Why must we pay big bucks for a hybrid. Why doesnt Toyota or Honda or ?? make something like the old Civic Hf's with today's technology. Something affordable without using a hybrid engine?? I believe consumers would sacrafice performance for some improvements in gas mileage, especailly with today's gas prices...

Red

Perhaps you should begin with asking yourself the question of why that old car consumed so little fuel!

If we compare a car from the eighties with a modern car, we can notice that the modern car is much heavier and that it's engine tend to bigger and more powerful. During the last 20 years the chassi of most cars have been reinforced, mainly to improve the safety in a crash. But today we also have more sound isolation and electronics in the car which add to the weight of the car. This together with the increased power of the engine will reduce the fuel consumption.

If the car is fitted with a less powerful engine fuel will be saved, but does most people buy the car with that engine option? No, usually not.

Today we also have catalysts on the engine to reduce emissions. To reduce tailpipe emissions is very important because every year they kill, and make thousands of people sick. For the catalyst to function properly the air fuel ratio must be kept at lambda 1, if we could run the engine leaner it would conume less fuel but the catalyst wouldn't work.

I've read a new industrial diesel that was claimed to be 40% efficient. That's way above the 30% that I'm used to.
Gasoline engines are down around 22% last I read. The gas engines' lower compression can't let them compete with diesel.
And I'd still like to find a light-weight diesel car.
BTW: I've read that gas and diesel fuel is now much cleaner, in Ontario Ca., as of June 1st/06. Direct injection gas engines should become available, at increased efficiency. now if we can get the weight and horsepower down....

For a turbodiesel like the ones found in heavy trucks and similar they have an efficiency that peaks at around 45%, smaller diesels are probably a bit less efficient. Gasoline engines, as the types you find in a car engine has an efficiency that peaks at 30-35%. But at part load the efficiency goes down faster on a gasoline engine than on a diesel.

A typical gasoline engine can typically reach a specific fuel consumption of 250 gram per kWh, that's equal to about 33% efficiency.