56mpg?? Are they telling the truth or bullshitting?
>CRX
>5k redline
Poor burgers.
Why did the japs never give you their proper engines in the 80s/90s?
>>14859114
the way it was rated at the time, yes they were telling the truth. Small cars with limited ethanol/methanol in the fuel, decent compression and a really lean burn did get pretty good.
the 84 S12 turbo 1.8 was rated a like 40 highway.
>>14859120
the HF was a fuel economy version of the car and had stupidly long gearing (70mph can be done in 2nd gear)
>>14859125
forgot to mention that everything else about the gen1 HF sucked : it had torsion springs, negligible damping, almost no suspension travel and bottomed out all the time (even in 45mph lane changes). It was a single purpose car : commuting while using less fuel than competitors. What amazes me is the US models never got the back seats.
>>14859120
People were still worried about the oil shit.
>6tr v8 engine
>170hp
>7mpgs
I'll never understand what people see in old muscle outside of the frames.
Measured differently back then, but not too far off.
Remember these things weighed less than a ton. Today 3200lb is considered lightweight.
>>14859252
>Today 3200lb is considered lightweight.
Obesity is a growing epidemic.
>>14859206
Because the real horsepower was closer to 300 and torque number far greater. Tire technology made them seem slower than what they can actually do.
My standard model got 54mpg highway.
My civic wagon gets 45 highway.
they get damn good MPGs.
>>14859461
Kek, no. But when your car weighs 1800lb, a 50 hp bump makes a huge difference.
>>14859461
>was closer to 300
Could we stop talking about limited production show room cars and talk about what pretty much everyone owned.
The 150-180hp v8s.
>>14859125
>the way it was rated at the time
What changed?
The length of a mile or the measurement of a gallon?
>>14859520
The test protocol. How fast it accelerated, how often it stopped, etc. The test back then was fairly unrealistic. It wasn't just a rolling treadmill at a constant speed, but it was closer to that than it is today.
It's quite easy to beat EPA highway mileage estimates today accelerating slowly, not using the brakes, and engaging cruise control. But it's not very realistic.
>>14859556
But it's not difficult and not inacurate to say the HF could get 56mpg
>>14859560
No, it's not with careful driving.
>>14859481
Cry more
Hey - that reminds me. Remember the Top Gear episode where they compared the fuel consumption of a Prius to a BMW M3? First they drove them carefully and slowly and of course the Prius get much better mileage. Then they asked the Prius driver to drive flat out with the M3 following behind - and easy feat for an M3. The M3 got better mileage in that case.
>>14859597
Because hybrids get better milage in city type driving. On the highway the electric motor and battery don't do anything, it's dead weight.
>>14859605
even in the event of total battery failure like the gen1 insight was known for (because id did not have an internal or external cell leveler) they are still getting 50+ mpg on the highway.
Some smaller pushrod i4's from japan were getting 50MPG on carburetors in the 70's.
How one drives matters a lot. However, in a tiny 1.3 or .9 litre Atkinson cycle engine, i doubt that even at WOT all the time it will consume as much fuel as a decently modern BMW sedan unless you have a very very specialized set of test perimeters.
>>14859114
4.5k rpm redline ?
>>14859120
I think it was backroom deals between corporations, specifically GM, to ensure they didn't get completely slaughtered by imports in their home market
>>14859468
is your wagon RT4WD? what year is it?
>inb4 le current year maymay
>>14859556
>It's quite easy to beat EPA highway mileage estimates today accelerating slowly
James May disproved that, you end up using less gasoline briskly accelerating to the desired speed then cruising as opposed to slowly accelerating to speed
>>14859708
Didn't Mythbusters prove that hypermiling or whatever works?
>accelerate really slowly
>turn engine off at long stoplights
>cruise control
>and some other shit i don't remember.
>>14859726
cruise control works for sure, I personally don't see how starting and stopping the car at a red light helps fuel economy, but i'm not an engineer, and considering you're giving a steady rate of fuel over a longer time period, I don't see how slowly accelerating to speed helps when you use a decent amount to get you to speed then just cruise
D series engine i'm guessing? Lean burn ftw, Honda know what they are doing when it comes to fuel efficiency
>>14859733
You burn more fuel accelerating faster off the line then if you slowly ease onto the throttle.
If your car has a trip computer, reset the counter and watch the mpg go down faster when you floor it all the time.
>>14859802
I didn't say floor it to get to speed, I said briskly accelerate which should be interpreted as half throttle to 3/4
>>14859733
If your engine is running at a red light, you are burning gas and aren't moving, therefore you are getting 0 mpg.
>>14859864
but what about the amount of fuel used for starting the engine back up? and what if this is in stop and go/bumper to bumper traffic?
>>14859590
Cherry pick more.
>>14859933
That's Chrysler's entire v8 lineup other than the 318 for 1972. That was the first year of emissions so those numbers were when they started getting detuned, some 1971 and earlier engines were more powerful.
>>14859114
>no ethanol fuel
>aerodynamic
>light
>tall gearing
>high compression
Bitch please. These things can get upwards up 80mpg if you hypermile them with some ecomods.
>>14859744
the crx HF didn't have lean burn. That is a feature reserved only for the 92-95 civic vx with d15z1 engine. now a d15z1 in a crx HF could very well yield a 60+mpg crx
>>14859959
>>14859590
By 1972, the smog era hadn't completely started. Most of these number being lower is due to the change from gross to net hp in 1972. By 1975 however, the smog era would be in full effect, with truly pathetic engine outputs.
>>14859708
>anecdotal evidence
Slow acceleration is best for MPG's.
>>14859726
>>14859733
Actually, unless you're driving on a completely flat road without any curves, cruise control can be outperformed by a skilled driver. Iirc VAG is working on that though, with adaptive cruise control that uses GPS data (road curves and altitude differences) to provide optimum MPG.
>dat mileage on cars 25+ years ago
Are modern pigfats even trying?
>>14860109
>current cars
>infinite mpgs
>>14859989
The 383 was bored to 400 cubic inches and lowered compression and the 426 hemi was dropped for 1972 because of emissions.
>>14859114
It deserves a swap
>>14859206
'American Muscle' be like
>V8
>12 liters of displacement
>35 HP
>3000 nm torque
>vmax 40 mp/h
>>14860546
>3000 nm torque
>not 2213 pound-feet
you almost had me yuro-kun
>>14860361
That's a funny looking LS1
>>14861518
I see you're spending your memes well
>>14859928
it's been calculated.
>>14859997
>VAG is working on that though, with adaptive cruise control that uses GPS data (road curves and altitude differences) to provide optimum MPG.
Volvo Trucks already have this on their FH models, it also change to the gear which is best for the hill infront of you and several other thing. New trucks basically drive themselves these days if fully equipped.
>>14860361
That's a wierd looking K20.
>>14859928
Starting the engine takes electricity, not so much fuel. If it didn't result in a net gain in fuel economy, it wouldn't be applied nowadays.
>>14861518
>LS1
>Front engine, FWD
I think you mean LS4.
You people talking about the benefits of fast acceleration versus slow acceleration aren't going to get any headway because you're not putting any numbers out there and likely you're not necessarily talking about the same thing.
Like there's a difference between accelerating at 1/3 throttle, 1/2 throttle, 2/3 throttle and full throttle. One person talking about a "fast" take off might be calling fast 1/2 throttle while another might only consider wide open a fast take off.
Generally, you get the best fuel economy by doing what's necessary to stay in the power band, and there are even exceptions to this statement.
>>14859933
That's literally an entire range of engines, kys
