in 1976, nissan sold a car that got 43 miles per gallon

[spanone]

i know this because i just did some construction that uncovered a pile of newspapers from 1975 & 76. in one of the 76 papers, nissan was selling a car that got 43 miles per gallon.....what happened?...that's what i get on my hybrid NOW.

32 years later??????

[stopbush]

1. Deleted by poster

[spanone]

2. yep, changed it

[trotsky]

3. Many, many factors. Some good, most bad.

The good: extra weight due to safety features. Airbags, anti-lock braking systems, traction control, all add weight to a vehicle, decreasing its fuel efficiency. The bad: not caring as gas remained relatively cheap - fuel economy took a back seat (pardon the pun) to horsepower, size, and gee-whiz features like GPS, DVD players, etc.

[Terry_M]

4. 43mpg by those standards is not 43mpg by today's

Don't know what it'd be by today's calculations, but definitely noticeably less.

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. Well it was 43 at the gas pump.

I'd call that real.

Yes, and the Big 3 are selling cars with that kind of mileage TODAY, only in other parts of the world, not here.

We have to supply big bucks to the oil companies. Look at that connection sometime. Patents bought up, etc.

[Terry_M]

31. The standards...

For measuring how many miles per gallon a car can get were revised since that time. If today's formulas were applied to that, it would probably be in the area of 30 miles per gallon.

[Tesha]

37. I'm sorry, but you'd be wrong.

I owned a 1978 VW Scirroco with a 1477 cc engine that routinely
got north of 40 MPG and once, just for a lark, I pushed past 50 MPG
on a 250 mile highway trip.

Gallons haven't changed in volume nor have miles changed in length.
But engines sure have, and cars have sure changed in weight, and
it's very hard to find a car that weighed as little as this VeeDub did
nor one that has a <1.5L engine. And it's not all GPS, ABS, and CDs;
it's mostly people wanting luxurious ride, sound dampening,
heavy power seats, and other creature comforts all combined with
excessively-big engines.

Tesha

[BelgianMadCow]

38. When you fill up, you will see the "real kilometers" and the real litres, but the amount of litres

depends on the TYPE of driving you do.

The type of drive to do is standardized - and probably the type to do has changed considerably. Highway traffic of the past does not equal today's highway traffic.

I hope that clears up things (partially - your question is definitely valid)

[Terry_M]

42. I'm not saying that the actual mileage you get is different

What I'm saying is that the way EPA measures the mileage stamp that gets put on a car has changed. They will look at the same car and with the old method of counting slap on a 40mpg sticker on the car, and with the new way of counting slap on a 30mpg label on the exact same car. They got stricter. They changed their standards because it is thought that the old way of measuring was overestimating the MPG. Some people feel that the new method is underestimating MPG. Either way, the point is that the old EPA 43mpg label that was stuck on those cars needs to be adjusted before really comparing it to today's EPA labels.

[lithiumbomb]

39. i believe he's talking about his real world mileage

...rather than the EPA standard mileage. The EPA standards have indeed changed and would be lower for that car today. But if he calculated that he got 43mpg based on the amount of gas he bought, then that's what he got.

[razors edge]

5. 1908 Ford Model T - 25 MPG

2004 EPA Average All Cars - 21 MPG

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg


A 20% decrease in mileage over 96 years of innovation. :wtf:

[Confusious]

22. Yes, but

the model t got 20 horsepower on that 25 mpg. now you get 200.

[krispos42]

28. Yeah, at the car's top speed of 40 mph...

With a roaring 20hp.


I'm pretty sure that if today Ford wanted to build a 1200-pound car with a 20hp gasoline engine, they could do a hell of a lot better than 25mpg!

:-)

[gravity]

6. It is easy to make a fuel efficient car

Just make it really small and put a weak engine in it. Chevy had the Geo metro reaching 50 mpg.

The hard part is making a mid size economy car with adequate acceleration getting 40+ mpg, so that people will actually buy it.

[laconicsax]

8. Define "adequate" as you use it.

[gravity]

9. Enough to merge into traffic with ease

and accelerate uphill.

GM produced the GEO metro with a version that got 50 mpg, but not enough people bought it so they discontinued the smallest engine options in favor with a little more power.

The magic formula for fuel efficiency is smaller car mass and weaker engines, but there is a point where it gets too slow/small for the average American consumer.

[laconicsax]

20. I used to drive an '82 Tercel wagon with 62 hp.

It accelerated considerably slower than most (if not all) newer cars on the road at the time (1998-2001), but I didn't have any difficulty merging into traffic since merging is a cooperative effort made by the car entering traffic and the cars already in traffic. Accelerating uphill was only an issue on mountain passes if I was going under 60 in 5th gear.

'Too slow' as defined by the average consumer is a joke. If you drive slower, you get better fuel economy. So says the 40 mpg I can get on the freeway if I keep it under 65 compared to 32 mpg if I average 65-70 mph. It's nice to be able to drive a long stretch at 75 or faster, but ultimately not necessary.

[SoCalDem]

32. In SoCal traffic, you are LUCKY to go over "move two feet & stop"

:grr:

[Mugweed]

14. What's wrong with a "weak" engine?

The problem is people who think every red light is a pending drag race. Nobody needs 400 hp unless they are trying to haul heavy equipment up a muddy slope, and then they need a few more heavy-duty features that the average citizen doesn't. Face it, you're commuting and not much else. The only time you go off road is when you pull into your driveway. A car is a tool to get from Point a to Point B. I don't know about you, but I want my tools to be affordable, efficient, and work when I need them. Flashy and overdone are for those that have holes in their lives to fill with objects. Your need for a 400-500 hp engine just begs the poor self-esteem judgement.

American automobile dealers have been cashing in on that for far too long. GET OVER IT! Surrounding yourself by a gas-guzzling extension of your insecurities is no improvement.

[gravity]

18. American cars have the same classes of engines as Asia and Europe

They all have been getting more powerful over the past two decades.

What I am talking about week engines, I mean something less than 100 hp which actually makes it more difficult going between going between point A to point B. I am not talking about anything that is just to make up for a small penis.

To make extremely fuel efficient vehicles, you have to make sacrifices in practicability, which is what all auto manufacturers have to deal with. They can all make something that can get 50 mpg, but they can make a lot more practical car with seating for 4 with 35 to 40 mpg.

[laconicsax]

21. Please explain how having less than 100 hp actually makes it more difficult

to go from point A to point B.

[gravity]

41. It is doable

but slow acceleration makes merging into traffic more difficult and going uphill can be slower.

If people thought that the gas savings would be worth it, they would buy cars with smaller engines and more auto companies will produce them in this country.

Most economy cars today get good gas mileage while still providing adequate performance needed to comfortably drive US roads and highways. When you start getting into the 40+ mpg range, you will have to sacrifices that are harder to sell to the public.

[JBear]

40. My TDI Jetta routinely gets 40+

and it is still a kick to drive! Yes, I am driving a car with less than 100 hp, but who needs more than that? We towed a small sailboat down to Florida behind it and still got about 33 mpg averaging between 65-70 mph!

Add to that, my old 2001 TDI Bug was seen towing a trailer with 110 gallons of BioDiesel up the mountain between Greenville and Asheville - maintaining 55 mph the whole time! It isn't HP, it is torque you need for drivability and diesels have torque.

These cars already exist!!!

:bounce:

[GodlessBiker]

7. Gallons were bigger back then. Inflation and all, you know.

[Mugweed]

10. Nissan existed in the US then?

I don't recall. What I do recall is that I had one of the first cars called Sentra (OK, my dad bought it and I bought it from him a couple years later). It was a 1982, and had a DATSUN logo on the right rear end and a NISSAN logo on the left rear end. I didn't think that Nissan existed in the US market before that. It got 40+ mpg and worked beautifully up until the body rusted out around the still-purring engine in 1996. I can vouch for the mileage because the fuel gauge gave out in 1989 and I was working on math for years. Meanwhile, there have been and continue to be cars with better mpg available in other countries that somehow aren't sold here. I keep hearing Randi Rhodes talk about the 1970-something SAAB that got 60+ mpg, was that sold here in the US? Probably not.

[spanone]

13. it's an ad that was in the newspaper in 1976 they must have been selling them

and they were advertising that mileage...

[Mugweed]

15. I was 8 in 1976.

That might explain my not knowing if Nissan existed. You have an ad, and I trust you. I learned something today.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Datsun was the name of Nissan's small car series

So it was Nissan that was making the Datsuns that were being sold in the US in the '70s.

[CreekDog]

29. Nissan was in the US back then --they were Datsun

also EPA mileage testing was recalculated some years ago. whereas in the late 1970's the methodology provided wildly high MPG ratings. that said, by today's methodology that car is probably getting 35 mpg, still better than many cars.

however, i agree with the overall point that improvements in technology have gone towards more power rather than greater efficiency.

[carlyhippy]

11. Was Nissan around in 1976? I thought it was Datsun back then

Carly

[Spirochete]

33. They made Subarus too, I believe.

[GOPisEvil]

35. Subaru has always been a division of Fuji Heavy Industries.

Although Toyota owns a minority stake in the company. Nissan did own 20% of Fuji for a while, but no longer.

[Fumesucker]

12. I have a cousin in the UK with a turbo diesel Audi..

The thing is by no means slow and gets over well over 50 mpg. (yes I know Imperial gallons are bigger)

I'm not sure of the model, A3 maybe?

[On the Road]

16. People Obviously Weren't Buying Them

That's why the CAFE framework is so good. Automakers have incentives to do whatever is necessary to get consumers to buy fuel efficient cars so that they can avoid penalties and sell more larger more profitable cars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. CAFE standards dropped

my dad's twenty five year old BMW 321 I has the same mileage as the hybrid

did I mention that you can find higher MPG vehicles in Europe than the US right NOW

Some made by Ford as well

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. The Datsun Fairlady 240Z was started here in 1969.

But it got popular by about 1974 or so. The other models came afterward. Nissan bought out Datsun (spelled Datson) in Japan much earlier. The name was switched in the 1980's for uniformity in globalization.

Toyota Celicas were big here in the early '70s. The Celica (and Corolla too) was sporty then, but not as race-worthy as the Zs (240, 260, 280, and then the 280ZX).

I still have a 280ZX, the last of the original body-type, that I bought new in 1983, but it needs another rebuild (its 3rd, because they do rust-out from the inside). My late husband was a Z-genius... raced them, and restored and customized them.

(But gas cost about 25 cents a gallon then, in the early '70s. At least where I lived, it did. I drove coast-to-coast for less than $50. And we could fly 'stand by' non-stop for $98.)

[Greyhound]

26. How cool. I had a '73 240, now I have an '86 300. Both were/have been

wonderful cars.

The 240 was a better pure sports car, but the 300 is better on long trips. Both get about 21 average and 30 on the highway if you keep it to 65.

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. The Zs at first were considered "a poor man's Vette".

Working 20-somethings could afford a 240Z, and that was the boomers' age then (of course a very large population group), so Datsun was very fortunate with breaking into our market with the right car at the right time. Everybody wanted a Corvette but they cost too much for most people.

(In case you're old enough to already know this, some here might not.)

Actually, I think a car like that would be a winner for Detroit now.

[elleng]

25. Was that the Datsun I drove with friends

from Chicago to Denver?

[krispos42]

27. What was the frontal area of that car? And the curb weight?

Frontal area directly relates to drag and thus fuel economy, especially when driving at highway speeds.

Weight relates directly to power needed for "acceptable" acceleration. Lighter cars need less power to achieve a set rate of acceleration.


Make a car short, narrow, and light and you're well on your way to high fuel economy.


The problem is that coming from Japan, a nation of short, thin people with old, narrow streets and high gas prices, Nissans were naturally much smaller than an American-designed car would be.

An American manufacturer would not bother making such a small car for the small niche available available at the time, whereas the Japanese filled the niche by simply exporting cars they were already selling in Japan.


The mileage of Japanese cars began going down as they adapted them to the American marker and they become taller and wider.




I'm looking at the stats from www.fueleconomy.gov for 1985, the earliest they have listed on there. I'm comparing subcompacts.

Honda Civic with the 1.3L engine and a 4-speed manual, Ford Escort with the 1.6L engine and 4-speed manual, Toyota Corolla with 1.6L with 5-speed manual, Chevy Spectrum with 1.5L engine and 5-speed manual, and Nissan Sentra with 1.6L engine and 4-speed manual.


The fuel economy results?

Honda: 32 city/38 highway
Ford: 29 city/39 highway
Toyota: 26 city/33 highway
Nissan: 26 city/34 highway
Chevy: 32 city/39 highway



The Ford and Chevy do pretty well.

Now, granted, the Japanese cars had better fit-and-finish and were more reliable, but the basic fact is that if you make the car small enough, high mileage is easy.


What's interesting about the Toyota Prius is that it's a fair amount bigger than any of the cars listed above, yet gets about 33% more miles per gallon, averaging in the mid-40s.

[kenny blankenship]

34. And who thinks that this car could pass modern crash tests?

[lithiumbomb]

36. safety and emissions standards

A car built in 1976 probably pollutes more than a 2008 model by a factor of 100, as well as lacking anything remotely close to modern crash standards. Airbags, safety cages, etc etc, add hundreds of pounds to a car, and emissions controls siphon efficiency.

And you can get your hybrid now from Ford, Honda, GM, Toyota...

[bhikkhu]

43. 47 MPG Highway from my 87 Honda

That was a carburated Civic. My stepdad still has an 87 Honda CRX, and gets an actual 48 MPG driving it.

...so reading current mileage standards always makes me mad too, especially when they say how you can't just up the standards and expect the technology to catch up! I believe the standard engine in the 09 Accord has 271 Horsepower, and gets worse mileage than most of them have for decades. Its not just Detroit that has been on the wrong track.

[OwnedByFerrets]

44. I bought my 77 Toyota Corolla because it was supposed to get

51 miles a gallon and I drove a lot. I was upset at paying .79 a gallon for gas.:rofl: In actuality, it never got more than 35 miles a gallon even on the road. And I had to put premium gas it it or it would gum up the jets.