Green Car Congress has digested the EPA’s Report on Vehicle Fuel Consumption and CO output for the period covering 1975 through 2008. For the fifth consecutive year, fuel economy of light-duty vehicles has improved. This trend reversed a long period of declining efficiency, which started in 1987, the all-time peak year for maximum economy (22 mpg average). Model Year 2009 economy is estimated to be 21.1 mpg. The period from 1975 through 1981 saw the most rapid increase in efficiency, starting at 13.1 mpg. A chart highlighting the changes in weight, horsepower, performance and economy follows:
Some of the significant trends are the increase in average weight to 4108 lbs., which is more than during the “land-barge” era of the early seventies. Horsepower has increased 65%, to 225, while 0-60 time has decreased by almost the same amount: 67%. But 1987, the peak economy year to 2009 present a starker picture. Fuel economy is almost the same, but weight increased 28%, horsepower almost doubled, and performance increased 27%. This indicates that that all of the technological improvements in efficiency, whether in the power train, aerodynamics, or rolling resistance have been offset by increased weight, safety and improved performance.
I’d venture to say that weight increse can partially be attributed to the increase in light duty pick up truck and full size SUV sales.
Without the dramatic increase in truck sales I bet light-duty fuel economy would be much higher. The actual efficiency of the average car or truck is better today, we just buy more trucks.
Amazing numbers.
1) Still 49% truck sales in 2009
2) 27% 4wd/awd
3) The precipitous decline in the % of manual transmissions.
I looked through some of the links without success to try and figure out what “Adjusted Fuel Economy” means. I’m just a tad too cynical to take on faith what “Green Car Congress” and the EPA have to say. The 0-60 times don’t look accurate to me, I can only think of a few vehicles that do worse then 9.5 seconds. Even most trucks and SUVs beat that number.
Anyone else read the “Percent Multi-Valve Engine” and chuckle at the thought that some may assume that as late as 1998 most of us drove a single valve engine :)
Adjusted means that all the prior years’ EPA fuel economy numbers have been revised to conform to the new 2008 and up numbers, so that it’s an apples-to-apples comparison.
Imagine a car with the weight of 1987s average model with an engine from 2009s hypothetical average model. Zing! And the thing is if you “keep your foot out of it” as my dad used to say you’d still get pretty good fuel economy.
In this thread they talk about a project Mercedes did. They took a W201 Mercedes, (190D) and replaced the drivetrain with a modern C250 CDI drivetrain.
http://www.mbworld.org/forums/190e-w201/315150-2009-c250-cdi-vs-1988-190d.html
I forgot to add that they try to make the C250 the winner, even though the CDI powered 190 destroys it in every benchmark test.
Average weight has gone up due to increased truck and SUV sales but it is also out of control from NHTSA’s goal of saving everyone from themselves. The weight will continue to rise as new side (45 degree) impact standards get phased in in 2011.
I’m all for building safe cars but enough is enough; when does personal accountability come into play? We will get to the point of diminishing returns the way we are headed. If you want to save fuel, you have to save weight. That is definitely something the auto industry learned in this “examined” period from 1975 until 1981.
All true, and also true is that most classes of cars have gotten a lot bigger. Today’s Civic is a giant compared to its 1975 model year ancestor. Then again, the average person is bigger (around) today as well.
<i>I’m all for building safe cars but enough is enough; when does personal accountability come into play?</i>
Notions like “Personal Responsibilty” will almost always be trumped by the “Everyone is a Victim” ethic at the NHSTA, IIHS, etc. The control freak personality demographic is very strong at such places.
<i>We will get to the point of diminishing returns the way we are headed.</i>
+1. Although don’t underestimate the environmental pushback. The envionmentally conscious demographic is starting to wonder why they must take a 2 or 3 mpg loss so deranged drunks can roll and flip vehicles with minimal injury. Watching safety freaks battle tree-huggers over this issue in upcoming years should be entertaining.
I don’t know that “personal accountability” has anything to do with it. You’re assuming that everyone who is injured or killed in a car crash is responsible (“accountable”) for that. What, pray tell, about the people who are hit by a drunk driver who loses control of his vehicle on a two-lane road late at night? The people who are driving a car and hit black ice, without warning? The people who have the cosmic misfortune to share the road with an inexperienced teenaged driver who hits the shoulder, over-corrects, and sends his truck spinning across multiple lanes of oncoming traffic? Or, for that matter, what about the passengers (especially the involuntary ones: children) of bad drivers who aren’t responsible? Should they die because they made the mistake of getting into the same car as a bad driver?
I’m not saying we can eliminate every road fatality. I am saying that advances in automotive safety have saved thousands upon thousands of lives, possibly even someone you know or care about. That is, on balance, a good thing. Safety features aren’t just for the driver: they’re for everyone that driver might encounter.
I know most of those in TTAC land disapproves of CAFE, but I shudder to think what that weight number would be without it. Educatordan, you are right on. Imagine how fast today’s cars would be if they weren’t so damn portly. Or, shoot for 11 sec 0 to 60, roll back the blubber and see a real mileage gain…I don’t see why you can’t have the safety if you use high strength materials and you minimize the upper range of the weight class. It’s pretty sad that all of the early mpg gains were wiped out by outsized vehicles…
I know most of those in TTAC land disapproves of CAFE, but I shudder to think what that weight number would be without it.
It might not be that much different. Two factors, practical economics (what a person can afford) and desire (what a person wants) are really the arbiters. In the real world, practical economics almost always wins. Everyone wants a Ferrari, but most can only afford a Toyota. Besides, the market (consumers) always find a way to get around arbitrary government mandates.
Exactly, golden2husky, how much safer is a 2009 Mazda M3 wagon than the 1997 Ford Escort LX Wagon with dual airbags and most of the safety advancements of the 1990s behind it? I’ll bet the Mazda is higher % heavier than the Ford compared to the % safer it is. Or how about my 0ld 1982 Chevy Celebrity, it wasn’t going to win any drag races but with it’s 92hp Iron Duke, 3-speed auto combo, it used to get pretty solid 29mpg in mixed city/rural driving. What kind of fuel economy would it get today with a modern four cylinder engine? (Remember it did have 5mph bumpers that year, which BTW was pretty freaking awesome for a kid still occasionally screwing up as they learned to drive.)
I think we are going to see cars from some companies that will start heading back towards 1987 style weight via extensive use of aluminum and carbon fiber composite materials. The target weight for the rumored Audi Ur-Quattro is around 3000lbs.
I want to know what went into “adjusted” Fuel Economy, did they take into consideration the fact the way a car is rated has changed since then or that most cars run richer now than they did in the 80’s.
To my knowledge, new cars run leaner. Can you provide a citation for that claim?
Isn’t it obvious that so many trucks are being sold?
A large percentage of the USA herd grazes near or upon coastal areas.
As that Gore guy keeps melting polar ice and the oceans rise people will need to yank their chattel out of rented storage units and need a vehicle to move it inland to storage units elevated higher to avoid the deluge.
You bring up an interesting point, even if it was in jest. Lately I was thinking about why it is most major population centers are near the coast. I’m sure the draw of waterfront views, boating, and fresh seafood have something to do with it, but probably the biggest factor is that cities grow over centuries, and just a hundred years ago, and to a certain extent even today, most commerce comes from water-based shipping.
Yes, there are some exceptions, some towns that grew out of rail travel like Kansas City or through exciting relaxation of the law like Las Vegas, but almost every place worth living in is pretty close to the water.
What’s more disturbing (and not in these figures) is the overall oil burden on the US economy.
In 1970 there were approximately 110m vehicles travelling about 10,000 miles per vehicle. In 2005 there were approximately 250m vehicles travelling 12,000 miles per vehicle. 1970 required about 92b gallons per year, while 2005 required 175b gallons!
It’s worth noting that the DOE recognised the problem in the late 1980s/early-1990s but nearly nothing (effective) was done. The head-in-the-sand approach has cost trillions.
Thanks to the pursuit of personal “freedom” of choice to buy inefficient larger vehicles you’ve handed control of transport energy overseas. USA, you must be very proud.
I am proud of the U.S. auto industry in spite of its trials and tribulations. Are you proud of yours?
No. Ford and GM Holden were forced to give fuel efficiency (and quality??) a priority kicking and screaming like childish brats. They’ve also fed the “more power is better” knuckle dragger as nearly their only marketing strategy.
I thought the recent neutering of todays cars felt familiar. History repeating itself folks.
When looking at the market shift to “trucks”, keep in mind that the federal definition of a “truck” includes minivans, cute-utes and cross overs. A 1975 Ford Country Squire station wagon was a “car”. A 2009 Toyota Sienna minivan is a “truck”.
C&D had a good column on this back in 2004:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/04q2/saving_gas_through_semantic_definitions-column
As is a PT Cruiser, HHR etc…
The frozen-in-time CAFE rules have a whole lot to do with the frozen-in-time fuel economy numbers of many vehicles. Engineers made engines bigger and vehicles heavier whilst still staying under the CAFE limits. Now that we are in a time when CAFE limits are starting to ratchet back up we are already seeing a shift towards improving fuel economy instead of going for more size and more horsepower.
With only 6% (!) of vehicles selling with a manual transmission, how long will it be until the only way to row your own is to keep an antique alive?
Eheu fugaces and all that.
It’s not an unexpected trend. Modern automatics can get better fuel economy than manuals, and with increased traffic on almost every road there is an increased demand for the simplicity of an automatic vs a manual as stop and go becomes the norm.
Plus, with automated manual AKA DSG gearboxes, you get the full control benefits of a manual without the hassle of a clutch pedal, so everyone wins. Pure manual gearboxes are going to go with way of wood frames, hand crank starters, and the dodo bird – and not a moment too soon.
NulloModo, It’s a terrible trend. Modern transmissions just contain more computer-controlled crud to go wrong. In my personal experience, I’ve had much less problems with manual transmissions than automatics (well except for a Renault Fuego that broke clutch cables ever 15,000 miles.)
Years ago, I commuted with a manual gearbox into Boston with no undue stress. I also enjoy the personal selection of the appropriate gearing. I think that’s the thing about it, -I- am involved with driving the car.
(Lest you think I am some sort of electronic luddite, I write computer software for a living.)
From 2001-04 my daily driver was a 1989 Caddy FWD Fleetwood coupe. The 4.5 liter engine gave me 20-21 MPG overall and 24-25 on the highway. 0-60 was about 10 seconds; IMO nobody NEEDS more than that in a everyday car. Good interior room and trunk space in a reasonably sized package (3400 pounds, 100 inch wheelbase). Upright windshield and low beltline for good visibility. Give it some better dash and accessory electronics and I might be still driving it today.
Here comes the important point: Never did I feel that I was riding in a deathtrap. And this was the last year before air bags (at least for the driver). It did have ABS. It did not have stability control, traction control, adaptive cruise control, backup sonar, backup cameras, front airbags, side airbags, curtain airbags or triple reinforced A pillars as thick as an elephant’s leg.
If someone wants all that stuff, great. What about those of us who would like the option NOT to have all that stuff? I could buy another ’89 Caddy today and still not feel unsafe, or that I was taking dumb risks with my life in any way.
In fact, my personal standard for a daily driver is anything 1974 and up. That’s the year three point belts became standard. If folks back then had just all worn the dang things, we could have saved ourselves a lot of the ensuing madness, I think. Remember, air bags were mandated because people were not wearing belts; they were originally designed to save unbelted occupants from themselves and only recently stopped being designed to that standard.
Agree 100%. I went from a mid 80s Olds Calais with only seat belts, disc brakes and padded dash to a 99 Cavalier with traction control, ABS, dual air bags,disc brakes, crash testing etc. The car was destroyed in a rear ender while I was waiting for the left turn arrow to turn green on my way to work. I was more “safe” in the Cavalier than the Olds by what factor ? Is my brother who is still driving the Olds in Tucson “less safe” than he was taking the NY subway every day ? More safe than he and his wife were in the moving truck that took them to AZ ? How far do we want to take the paranoia?
The replacement for the totalled vehicle was an 05 ION without ABS or traction control. Am I less “safe” now than I was in the Cavalier ? And by a factor of what?
Since I am not planning on driving into any barriers in a lab any time soon, I think I’ll be just fine. Any more idiot proofing and we’ll all be driving the 6000 lb monsters the Big Three predicted in the 70s.
BTW: I have never felt unsafe driving my 63 Valiant [3 speed on the column, seat belts, drum brakes,non power steering] in the entire 28 years I have owned it.
+1 regarding A-pillars and visibility.
The visibility in todays cars is approaching hazard levels. I drove a rental CTS in Chicago recently — a decent whip performance-wise, but visiblity — holy crap! Gun slit rear window, high beltline, small windows. In that car, there is NO way to adjust the rear and side view mirrors without having blindspots the size of Paraguay. In crowded Chicago traffic, I’d rather have had my sisters ’99 well-kept, MT Altima.
+2 on visability, and don’t forget the C-pillars.
Take any driving training course, and the first thing they will tell you is the importance of visability – being able to see around you and where you are going. I’m a younger fella, but I’m used to older BMWs with low belt line and greenhouse glass sized windows (they were designed like that for a reason!), and it is such a treat to see everything around me – it is easier and I’m a better drive than when I’m in some bunker-esque new vehicle where I can’t see squat.
Percent truck sales 19% in 1975 when most trucks were bought by contractors and farmers and others with an actual need for a truck. 49% today, when the vast majority of trucks will never carry loads greater than a week’s worth of groceries.
John Horner makes a good point about the definition of a truck, but still, we need to get commuters out of trucks and into small cars.
I can’t really buy the weight increase as a result of the “safety” factor. Or more than a small percentage of it.
For decades the automobile got bigger and heavier, with only a slight blip when the oil panic of 73 forced the manufacturers to re-evaluate what they were offering.
Even after that lesson and billions spent retooling to build more efficent cars both in size, interior room and fuel economy, every generation of the industry’s product once again got bigger and heavier. I think the safety aspect is less a reason that it is an excuse. The industry’s tendency is to show little restraint in size and weight when offering up the “new and improved” year after year.
I guess my age is showing again. As a kid , I was hauled around in a 54 Chevy Suburban. In turn this was replaced by VW buses. I got my license in a 65 VW bus. I lived . Luck was involved surely, but so was common sense. My newest cars are 88 BMWs. 4 w disk brakes, ABS and seatbelts. Along with well engineered crumple zones , a fairly stout roof and a good greenhouse. 3100 lbs ready to go. After driving a bug for 20 yrs in my earlier days, I feel comfortable and safe in this near classic. When you read of auto fatalities, the majority are the result of being “ejected” . Buckle up! I never did until my kids insisted on it and trained me. Now I feel naked unless I’m lashed in. The biggest piece of safety gear is between your ears, use it.
Why do we need more horsepower out of every new model year vehicle? The “need for speed” has been shoved down our throats for decades by advertising machines paid by the auto industry , and every year the new vehicles cocoon passengers with more materials that separate the driver from the road. Reduce the power of the engines and the perception for greater speeds and watch the fuel economy increase.
Before the Big Brotherites start cheering for more government-imposed fuel efficiency solutions, we should explore some more logical, market-friendly options.
First of all, how about a “back-to-basics” publicity campaign promoting the modern 4-cylinder midsize sedan? The image of a modern 4-cylinder Hyundai Sonata blowing past the Bandit’s Firebird, or a Ford Fusion being secretly envied by a frazzled minivan-driving soccer mom, might resonate with a lot of people and do more good with fewer tax dollars.
Something else the North American market needs is to restore towing capacity to the average family sedan. How many families drive big, thirsty SUVs simply because they own a camping trailer? A $20,000 (diesel?) sedan with a 3,000+ pound towing capacity could pull a lot of consumers away from SUVs and minvans, and strikes me as a major market segment in the waiting. So where is it?
Another factor here is that, for a variety of reasons, Americans have always liked big cars. And, the car companies like big vehicles because they usually have a higher profit margin. When Congress killed the land yacht with CAFE it took less than a decade for the car companies to find alternatives. The Light Truck Exemption opened the door for the minivan and SUV fads. CAFE or no CAFE Americans still like big cars and as long as gas is cheap they will eagerly buy Tahoes and Grand Caravans, the bigger the better.
There are two cars in my garage. A 1967 Ford Thunderbird and 2010 Honda Odyssey. Both vehicles weigh just over 4,000 lbs. The Thunderbird has a 390 cid (6.4 liter) V-8 and averages around 12 mpg. The Odyssey has a 3.5 liter V-6 and averages around 21 mpg. The contrast here is that while the these vehicles weigh about the same, the Odyssey has around half the engine displacement of the Thunderbird, but averages almost double the mpg. The Odyssey also has safety and convenience features that were unknown 40 years ago.
The story here is that cars keep getting more powerful, heavier, faster, AND more efficient. Also, the fleet mpg is going to go up or down in tandem with the fuel prices of 3-5 years earlier. Fuel prices went up dramatically from 78-82, the fleet is slowly re-engineered for better mileage demanded by the market, and the fleet mpg average goes up. Fuel prices plummet from the late 80s into the early 90s, and the fleet again chases customer demand – larger and more capability. The Suburban of the 90s replaced the Country Squire or the Ford Club Wagon of the 70s. In the 80s, well we made do with smaller and less capable than we wanted as we dealt with high fuel prices and CAFE. We are heading into another one of these eras now.
If you want a big, comfortable vehicle for your family, better get it now before CAFE eliminates it and we are stuck with another car that cannot safely merge onto a freeway on-ramp with a camper in tow.
And I don’t want to hear from another person with no kids in a big congested city who will tell me that I have no right to a large, safe, comfortable and powerful vehicle for my family if I am willing to pay for the gas.
Great Stats, Paul.
The relevant comparison is between 87 and 09. Instead of improving MPG by 50%, they improved 0-60 by that amount, and HP by even more. It is depressing that, despite all the tech, average MPG is lower today than at the peak. Hopefully a steady stream of 100,000s of Priuses and an even bigger stream of 40 MPG Modern Diesels in the next few years, combined with 6, 7 and 8 speed transmissions (autos now are as efficient, if not more, as manuals!) will reach new records in MPG soon.
CAFE is largely irrelevant, it does not deserve most of the credit for the increase in MPG (the higher fuel prices of 79-85 and 05-09 do) bu tit also does not deserve much blame either.
Any increase in fleet MPG results in lower than otherwise gas prices for all of us, other things being equal.
Why is that depressing? I find it exhilarating. It’s good to know that the sheeple are able to get around the dictates of Euro-weenies and green tree-huggers. Let the market decide, I say. Also, your notion that increased MPG results in reduced gas prices is questionable. Reduced gas prices are a function of demand and supply, along with external add-ons, like taxes. Everyone in the US could start riding bikes and the price of refined fuel may not go down much, if at all, since China and the developing countries will quickly soak up excess supply. And if gas tax revenue decreased, do you think our helpful politicians would not raise the tax, thus keeping the price higher? Basic economics and government fiscal policy is really not that hard to understand, by the way.
… other things being equal.
I know you said this, but in the real world of economics, things are never equal, as the market is continuously self correcting and always ready to overcome inertia.
…any increase in fleet MPG results in lower than otherwise gas prices for all of us…
What you say is simply speculation and, as I mentioned above, likely wrong given market dynamics. What is true (and maybe what you meant to say) is that if you own a car that gets high mileage, then the increased MPG may reduce your cost over time, but this has nothing to do with the price of gasoline, and has nothing to do with the cost for your neighbor, unless he also has a similar car.
[Please fix the edit feature for those of us not tied to Microsoft–it doesn’t work on Firefox and Linux–so I have to write three posts instead of edit my original comment–thanks.]
There was nothing speculative in what I said. It was based on tons of past data that prove my point, including Paul’s summary table in this article. It was also based on common sense and far more knowledge of economics taught by no less than three Nobel Laureates during my MBA studies, and almost straight A’s in all 19 courses we had to take for that degree) at the Sloan School.
The decline in gas prices after the significant improvements in MPG in the 80s are undeniable, and the decline in gas prices in late 2008 after people reacted to $150 oil by a monumental shift away from dinosaurs SUVs and even pickups and to fuel sippers like the Civic, Corolla, Accord and Camry (top 4 in May 08!!) was equally impressive.
But common sense alone is sufficient to appreciate my points.
And just because everybody in China wants to buy and use a car, and they do so at a rapid rate, and will also cause an increase in gas prices for all of us, othert things equal, is only one more reason for us to be rational and efficient and not contribute to the price rise by going back to the automotive atrocities of the 90s and early 2000s, v8 Explorers, Expeditions and Suburbans, and full size pickups that few need, and all of which are far inferior to an efficient BMW 330 or so, which has double the MPG of the above hippopotamuses, and is a far more satisfying vehicle for the auto enthusiast.
The decline in gas prices after the significant improvements in MPG in the 80s are undeniable, and the decline in gas prices in late 2008 after people reacted to $150 oil by a monumental shift away from dinosaurs SUVs and even pickups and to fuel sippers like the Civic, Corolla, Accord and Camry (top 4 in May 08!!) was equally impressive.
Please consider another alternative: gasoline peaked (spiked, actually) in March 1981. This was associated with Iraq-Iran war. The price dropped to about pre-1976 levels (the market reached its inflation adjusted equilibrium), but spiked again in 1990 when our buddy Saddam invaded Kuwait. Prices peaked again 6/08 (then end of the last financial bubble) and then plummeted drastically as the world entered recession. Take away those peaks (and the resulting drops–drops you associate with fuel efficient cars) and you’ll find the price fairly stable across the past three decades. So, I’d argue it was not fuel efficiency at all, but political-economic concerns that caused the peaks and drops. Corrected for inflation, the price of gasoline at the pump has been fairly stable regardless of what we choose to drive.
On the other hand, if “peak oil” ever happens, we can expect supply to dwindle as demand increases. In this case the market will dictate that most people buy fuel efficient cars. Markets have a way of regulating human action (kudos to Mises) in a way that government never can.
…is only one more reason for us to be rational and efficient and not contribute to the price rise by going back to the automotive atrocities of the 90s and early 2000s, v8 Explorers, Expeditions and Suburbans, and full size pickups that few need, and all of which are far inferior to an efficient BMW 330 or so, which has double the MPG of the above hippopotamuses, and is a far more satisfying vehicle for the auto enthusiast.
I agree with you about one thing, a BMW is generally more satisfying than an Expedition. But if I was a woman hauling around the kid’s soccer team, it might be a different story. You see, it is not up to you, or me, to determine for another what is and is not satisfying. Such hubris is the mark of the liberal who, generally speaking, is dissatisfied with his own life, and will not be content until, to use Bob Dylan’s phrase, everyone is in the hole he’s in. Individual consumers make rational decisions every day without anyone telling them what to do, or making value judgments for them.
I am fairly conservative and a stauch free-marketer, BUT there is just a ton of advantage to buying smaller, less powerful, and more fuel efficient vehicles.
I just hate to say it, I really, really do, but Government incentives to buy smaller vehicles may be the way to go. Perhaps the easiest way is simply to raise gas prices, with rebates for those who’s living depends on driving (trucking for example) as long as 100% of the extra revenue gets re-invested into infrastructure/transit or goes towards paying China out (that plus stop spending trillions of borrowed dollars…).
The fact is, a Datsun 210 could get up to 50mpg in the 1970s. This is not some funky weird micro-car, but a fully functional normal economy car. I’m not suggesting everyone drive Datsun 210s, there are not enough cool people out there for that, but certainly as has been said, stop the HP and size growth, and begin to focus R&D money back to making the best cars possible in all shapes and sizes that all get excellent fuel economy. It will be amazing what could develop, sports cars included…
For the record, I’m not some Prius owner, but rather drive a Prius eating, gas sucking 1980s BMW Alpina that gets some 14-16mpg city and 26mpg hwy.
I’ve been trying to get a grassroots movement going for years now, trying to incentivize tax rewards for moving to a smaller vehicle, but not penalizing anyone who feels they need a larger vehicle. It would probably help if I had a real platform (or blog), but I have to work for a living.
For the first time in 10+ years, our newest car does not have 200+ HP. We bought a 2009 Pontiac G6 Sport Package, which has the 2.4L Ecotec and the new 6 speed automanual trans. With the fairly fresh motor, we get highway mileage in the low-mid 30’s. I can’t wait to see what we’ll get once the motor ‘loosens up’ a little bit. With the 6 speed, the car never really feels short on power and on the interstate the car does not lack for power to pass. It’s been a pleasant surprise for us, as we remember the ‘mileage’ specials from the ’70’s and ’80’s, and those were quite disappointing.
What I really want to know, is where can I get a Firebird Formula like the one in the ad? That would REALLY make my day!
Aw man, I miss my 77 Sunbird now. The way the body rolled so far underneath between the wheels, the built-in snow and mud traps in the rear wheel openings, the cowl vents along the side under the dash (no air), the Radial Tuned Suspension (RTS). The memories. It was a 3.8 V6, uneven firing too. Shallow trunk, still had under the bumper hood release too. It was a great first car. Also, the non-clutch fan to save money made so much noise under accel it seemed like a Harrier taking off.
I wrote” …is only one more reason for us to be rational and efficient and not contribute to the price rise by going back to the automotive atrocities of the 90s and early 2000s, v8 Explorers, Expeditions and Suburbans, and full size pickups that few need, and all of which are far inferior to an efficient BMW 330 or so, which has double the MPG of the above hippopotamuses, and is a far more satisfying vehicle for the auto enthusiast.”
M. Presley replied: I agree with you about one thing, a BMW is generally more satisfying than an Expedition. But if I was a woman hauling around the kid’s soccer team, it might be a different story. You see, it is not up to you, or me, to determine for another what is and is not satisfying.”
You may want to check out the excellent 3 and 5 series wagons, new or used. My fiest cousin who lives in Amsterdam, Holland bought a 3 series wagon now that they have two young kids, and they are all very satisfied with it. But even if you need more space, or much more space, than these 3 and 5 series derivatives, there is always the Minivan. Of course, people are free to waste their money on a fuel hog Hippopotamus Suburban or expedeition instead, but the Honda Odyssey has more than plenty of room and in fact a much better ride and handling, at a fraction of the MPG and maybe even the price. I am fully within my rights to make a recommendation, nd offer my own opinion about various choices, and if they ignore it at their own risk, fine with me.
I have no problem with people using large SUVs and full size pickups as intended, off-road, but I do object to Mall Poseurs, and I should be free to express my opinion.
” Such hubris is the mark of the liberal”
I cut off the rest of the clueless psychobabble right here. You do not seem to understand that conservatives can be and frequently are quite efficient and want to CONSERVE things, including fuel, and also the environment, they may be intensively using. Those who know me would laugh at the implication that I am liberal. I am quite conservative (yet independent) voter, and in fact I have not voted for any Democrat, much less liberal, since 1998.
“Individual consumers make rational decisions every day without anyone telling them what to do, or making value judgments for them.”
They have the right to make uninformed and irrational decisions all they want. After all, a sucker is born every minute, and a fool and his money are soon parted, aren’t they. And last time I checked, we have freedom of speech, including making choices and judgements, and there is nothing wrong with calling a hippopotamus a hippopotamus. if I was a hypocrite, I would call it a gazelle, but that is not me.