Bring back the station wagon!

About 14 MPG, tops.

Downhill...with a tailwind.

6 people in a T had a name...suicide.

Not true. The average 4 cylinder car today would need probably 10,000
of them together to produce the pollutants that the unbalanced T 4
banger would and can do that at about double the efficiency.

Unsafe, inefficient, uncomfortable...don't bet on it. Hell, VW is
having enough trouble selling the "new" Beetle, and it's a pretty good
car!

 

Go sit on a fire hydrant.

 

Huh?

The Pacifica has been a sales bomb, although it's reportedly a VERY
competent vehicle...why it doesn't sell, I haven't a clue, other than
people think it's just another minivan.

 

My '95 Concord is a far better car than the '48 Chev. and it gets far
better fuel mileage with much less pollution.
Of cars like the '48 Chev. should be banned from regular use, unless
then have a modern drive train.

 

I had 3 VW Bugs. They were very good when NA cars were too large for me
and gas eaters, but I'd not want to return to no defroster, new muffler
every two years, poor steering on slippery surfaces, etc.
Todays cars of that size are far superior. See the Toyota Corolla for
example.

 

Very heavy, slow acceleration, was initially very expensive, but now
being cleared out at low price like many large vehicles.
I looked at it to replace my '95 Concord of the same ground area, but no
way I was going to drive around another 1,000+ lbs.

 

I agree. I've never had one, but now I have the need for a SW of Sebring
size. The NA SWs of the past were just too big for me.
The Vans and then SUVs killed the SW.
In Europe there are a number of new nice sized SWs. With their higher
gasoline prices SUVs aren't nearly as popular.
Here VW and Volvo SWs are very expensive.
The Ford Focus SW should fit my needs functionally, is a good price, but
a 3 wk rental in the UK showed it to be of lower quality than I like.
That rental was the base model.

Magnum, heavy, poor visibility, too low and inferior RWD handling.
Pacifica, heavy and yes like a mini van. IMO the mini van is just as
function-able and a very good price, but doesn't meet my handling
requirements.
Caliber is a possibility, a few inches slightly higher I like, up to
date technology, very well priced, but I have concerns re loading two
golf bags across the back. Those clubs do fit across my wife's Sebring
at the very back, leaving adequate room for 4+ std. luggage bags.
I'll be renting the Caliber to assess it. I'm in no rush, such new
technology needs a few years to shake it out and hear real reports from
owners.

 

Give it another look. I love my 2000 Canadian Focus wagon so much that I
still look forward to driving it. The little dear has never read Consumer
Reports so it doesn't know it's not supposed to be the best car I've owned
in 4 1/2 decades.

Because Ford in North America decided not to redesign the Focus like in
Europe, they've been able to drop the price substantially. Plus all the bugs
(which were never as bad as the press made them out to be) have long since
been worked out.

Anyway back to Chryslers. I also like my Grand Voyager.

 

What the hell are you saying? That I cannot use my 1940 Chrysler
Royal, fully restored, better than your POS 95 Concord? Apparently,
you do not know about the restored car hobby.

 

Here in Florida, the Pacifica is very common on the road. The wife
and I rented one when we were in OK for my daughter's wedding, and it
is a very nice vehicle. My in-laws are thinking of getting one. It
really is just a big station wagon!

 

It seems like a very nice one as well, which is why I couldn't figure
out why it wasn't selling, but others have alluded to being
underpowered (not a real issue, but a phony issue most people these
days seem to THINK is real) and heavy. If the vehicle weight yields
bad ecomony, that would be a big drawback.

I don't think most of the American public is smart enough to figure
out that it's really a "station wagon" and not just another minivan.
People in this country these days do seem a bid dull in the head, as
to which their choices in car and politicians would allude. Why else
would they think the economy is in such great shape when real hourly
wages have sunk 8% under Dubya??

 

Not as it was in the UK last May, I won't waste my time looking at it.
It was a brand new Focus SW and the road noise was so bad we couldn't
talk while driving. Friends who took a drive in the back seat said the
noise was coming from the rear wheels.
I suspect lack of adequate sound insulation which the large roof
amplified.
Previously we had two Focus hatch backs and didn't experience this road
noise problem.
The fuel mileage was also not that great, for a stick shift smaller
engine. Only 36 MPG with 90% highway, only about 1 MPG better than my
wife's Sebring V6 Auto gets under similar driving.

 

"Ford's Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more
fuel efficient than the current Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle --
which manages just 16 miles per gallon."
-- Detroit News, 6/4/03

And while the Model T boasted 25 MPG in 1908, average car mileage for
2004 according to the EPA was only 20.8 MPG! The Detroit News admits
that even this EPA figure is inflated, as "most drivers achieve only
about 75 percent of the [EPA mileage] figures."

-----------------
Obviously nobody wants to own a Model T as a daily driver today. But
with modern manufacturing methods and a dedication to simple
practicality, we could have a decent car that gets good mileage, doesn't
include a lot of stupid extra gadgets, and is shaped in such a way that
you could actually put something in it. I'd love to have a simple car
like that. A lot of cars come close, but as soon as a particular model
starts selling well, such as the Civic or Corolla, the factory starts
fancying it up and increasing the price. I'd love to have a brand new
1980 Subaru hatchback. What a great car, but most of them are used up,
worn out, and scrapped by now. Unfortunately Subaru doesn't make
anything like it any more.

 

HAH! Ask my now departed Model T fan, my maternal grandfather. His
'21 T got 14-16 when driven around LA streets, and he was quite the
mechanic. However, part of that may have been from driving the hoary
accessory water pump and a much larger generator. Years later, my '50
Ford Fordor got about the same mileage, with barely 16 to 17
attainable on the road, even with overdrive. Competing Chryslers
products had equal to or better power output (100 BHP for the '50
flattie V8) but always turned in far better economy, even though they
were flatheads.

The oil companies, which Dubya represents, have wanted gas guzzlers
all along (see the comments from Buick Division's president in 1958
when his Buick Super got 8 MPG in '58's Mobil Economy Run) and have
been pressing the Repukes in Congress to repeal ALL CAFE requirements.

First, subcompacts do not NEED power steering. Get rid of that. When
Honda went from manual to power in '79, gas mileage dropped by 2-3 MPG
immediately. Also, cut power output. EVERY VEHICLE SOLD in the US
today is overpowered for what it needs to do...period. Cut power
output, increase economy...form follows function, even with modern
niceties like MPFI and ECMs.

My nearly 30 year old Honda gets 30 MPG with the AC on around town,
and it's NOT a real tiny car. There's no excuse for gas guzzling
subcompacts today, except the idiocy of American consumers and the
greed of oil companies.

Another example: New Golf with the 1900cc turbocharged (non
aftercooled) diesel and 5 speed. I had a '79 VW Rabbit with the
naturally aspirated 1500, good for 47 MPG around town and up to 56 on
the road. The Golf's good for maybe 51 on the road, 43 around town.
Why? More displacement and bigger injectors to take advantage of the
turbo, plus unnecessary power steering and more body weight. The
larger bore Bosch injectors cause less effiency at lower power
settings, but are not interchangable with the old jerk-type injectors
on the 1500.

These are not improvements. They're stictly geared to give buyers a
little thrill when passing illegally on a two lane road and make the
oil producers happy.

 

Power steering is very desirable with FWD, even on smaller cars such as
the Corolla and Escort. We had a '79 Horizon and rented a '86 Escort
without; very tough to park.
As for oldie cars getting good fuel mileage, my '56/'61 VW Beetles of
1.1/1.3L were similar to my current '95 Concord. My '70 Datsun 510 of
1.6L was also similar. The Datsun ran circles around the very slow over
30 MPH VWs.
I just happen to record ALL my fuel consumption and work out the
mileage, city, trip and overall. The Palm PDA makes this very easy to do.
Larger cars have gained more % wise over the years on fuel mileage than
the smaller ones.
Chev 6 cyl cars of '49 to '55 got 17 MP(US)G highway if driven carefully.
Today my '95 Concord and my wife's V6 Sebring get about 29 MP(US)G and
they run circles around the other cars I've mentioned.

You are right in that if horsepower were reduced mileage would improve.
I'm currently looking at possible replacements for my '95 Concord and
find even with the more efficient engines of today the fuel mileage is
similar. Tuning for much higher horsepower is the cause of this.

 

Remove all of the creature comforts such as HVAC, all of the safety
systems, both structural (steel cage) and ancillary (air bags, seat
belts, good brakes, etc.), limit the speed to 30 MPH and require you to
drive uphill in reverse to get enough torque multiplication, and getting
25 MPG would be a piece of cake even for an Expedition.


Matt

 

Funny, neither the President nor anyone from an oil company has ever
told me what kind of car I have to drive. I'm still amazed at the ever
increasing American propensity to blame somebody else for the dumb
choices they make.


Matt

 

You don't have to buy the highest horsepower engine available. I bought
an 06 Sonata last December. I drove a couple of V-6s (250+ HP) and a 4
cylinder (160+ HP) and the 4 was plenty. I got it with the 5 speed
transmission and it is a hoot to drive. It has move acceleration by far
than my V-6 Chevy truck or V-6 Dodge Grand Caravan. And it still gets
29 MPG commuting to work (about 70% highway/30% city) and a little over
30 on the highway.


Matt

 

"Ford's Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more

And what is cruising speed with a non hot rodded model T ?
Probably not 65 - 70 mph of today.

 

I disagree.
The key is to make a specific engine / body / drivetrain as efficient as
possible.
A car designed with only HP in mind will not provide good mpg, however it is
possible to have
balance all the requirements in a single package.

Simple exhaust system tuning has been shown to improve HP and increase mpg
on the 300M