Things You Learn as an Old Car Driver

[Trapped in T-wilight Zone]

I have known of the trick for many years, however I have never had a nylon available when I could have used one. I have run with belts missing several times, usually only a short distance so as to not over-heat the motor. I don't want to turn a minor annoyance into a major reconstruction.
W2

 

[GHT]

Things you learn as an older driver. Car manufacturers embellish the truth about their products fuel consumption.
No, surely not. The Focus that Ford claims can do 56.5 mpg, can only achieve 39.5 mpg. Surely the BBC have got it wrong?
Misleading MPG claims.

 

[LizzieMaine]

They don't tell you that's downhill, in neutral, with the engine off.

 

[Big Man]

I had a 1979 Ford F-250 that could pass anything ... except a gas station.

 

[Big Man]

One thing you learn as an old car driver is to tell people not to slam the doors of your car. Why people feel the need to slam a car door I'll never know. I'd like to slam their head in the door every time they do it.

 

[dh66]

One thing you learn as an old car driver is to tell people not to slam the doors of your car. Why people feel the need to slam a car door I'll never know. I'd like to slam their head in the door every time they do it.

Modern cars are so **** air tight that you have to slam the doors to get them to shut. Doesn't mean someone doesn't need a good one upside the head, though, just on general principle.

 

[jamespowers]

One thing you learn as an old car driver is to tell people not to slam the doors of your car. Why people feel the need to slam a car door I'll never know. I'd like to slam their head in the door every time they do it.

Works for me.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Those mileage numbers the car makers publish, are official government figures from tests done by the Environmental Protection Agency, a branch of the US government.

EPA official gas mileage is calculated by an official formula after an official EPA test. The test procedure, rules and regulations are well known to the auto makers.

When these mileage ratings first came out, a lot of car makers thought their products were unfairly given poor ratings, but it was a quirk of the way the tests were done. Some cars came out better, some worse than on the proving ground.

The engineers learned to jimmy the car's specs to get the highest rating. For example, there are weight categories like 2500-3000 pounds, 3000-3500 pounds etc.

If your car comes in under the cutoff, the test machine is more lightly loaded. A car that weighs just a few pounds more can be loaded 500 pounds heavier, cutting mileage noticeably.

In the seventies this led to car makers installing expensive aluminum bumpers and hoods on some cheap cars just to get the weight down a few pounds to make the cutoff. The first Ford Escort had its gas tank reduced from 18 to 16 gallons for this reason.

It also led to complicated calculations like, if we put aluminum bumpers on Pintos it will increase our costs $5 a car but it will allow us to sell another 5000 Lincoln Town Cars without violating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations. So, does the profit on the Lincolns make up for the loss on the Pintos? That kind of thing.

By now, after 25 or 30 years they must have this down to a fine art. In other words the cars are optimized for the government test, not real world driving.

And, there is no use blaming the car companies. They have no choice. They MUST comply with government regulations, and they MUST publish the mileage ratings of their cars. Anyone who doesn't optimize their cars to meet the regulations, will lose sales and guarantee bad publicity for themselves.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Went back and read the story you linked. It states plainly that the car makers do not embellish the mileage claims, they give the official EU numbers according to official government tests.

They also point out that these tests are done in a laboratory and do not represent typical driving conditions BUT they do result in comparable numbers between cars, because all undergo the same test.

It sounds like their experience is similar to the EPA in the US.

I guess no matter how the government and the car makers try to provide accurate scientific information, it is too much to expect an English publication to tell the truth.

 

[jamespowers]

Those mileage numbers the car makers publish, are official government figures from tests done by the Environmental Protection Agency, a branch of the US government.

EPA official gas mileage is calculated by an official formula after an official EPA test. The test procedure, rules and regulations are well known to the auto makers.

When these mileage ratings first came out, a lot of car makers thought their products were unfairly given poor ratings, but it was a quirk of the way the tests were done. Some cars came out better, some worse than on the proving ground.

The engineers learned to jimmy the car's specs to get the highest rating. For example, there are weight categories like 2500-3000 pounds, 3000-3500 pounds etc.

If your car comes in under the cutoff, the test machine is more lightly loaded. A car that weighs just a few pounds more can be loaded 500 pounds heavier, cutting mileage noticeably.

In the seventies this led to car makers installing expensive aluminum bumpers and hoods on some cheap cars just to get the weight down a few pounds to make the cutoff. The first Ford Escort had its gas tank reduced from 18 to 16 gallons for this reason.

It also led to complicated calculations like, if we put aluminum bumpers on Pintos it will increase our costs $5 a car but it will allow us to sell another 5000 Lincoln Town Cars without violating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations. So, does the profit on the Lincolns make up for the loss on the Pintos? That kind of thing.

By now, after 25 or 30 years they must have this down to a fine art. In other words the cars are optimized for the government test, not real world driving.

And, there is no use blaming the car companies. They have no choice. They MUST comply with government regulations, and they MUST publish the mileage ratings of their cars. Anyone who doesn't optimize their cars to meet the regulations, will lose sales and guarantee bad publicity for themselves.

A very good explanation of why they make tin can cars now that people erroneously think are safer. lol lol

 

[Stanley Doble]

The amazing thing is, how heavy the new cars are and how little room they have inside. If you park a 1965 Ford Galaxie sedan beside a new Taurus you would swear the 1965 car is heavier, but in fact it is lighter by nearly 1000 pounds.

I kid you not. I was surprised myself but here are the facts:

2015 Taurus specs http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-car-buying/ford/taurus-sho/specifications/

1965 Galaxie specs http://www.oldride.com/library/1965_ford_galaxie.html

If you read the spec sheets in detail some odd facts pop out. The Taurus, with a 215 cu in six cylinder engine, weighs 4342 pounds while the Galaxie with 240 cu in six is almost 1000 pounds lighter at 3412. The Taurus has a 112" wheelbase while the older car has 119" and overall length is 202" vs 210".

The heaviest Galaxie, the V8 equipped Country Squire station wagon is 3949 while the luxurious LTD 4 door hardtop is only 3588, still considerably lighter than the Taurus.

I might also point out that the 1965 car has a far roomier, more comfortable interior and the trunk space is bigger too.

Some progress in 50 years!

 

[Big Man]

... I might also point out that the 1965 car has a far roomier, more comfortable interior and the trunk space is bigger too.

Some progress in 50 years!

I would never have guessed about the weight of the old vs the new. However, being the owner of a '65 Ford Custom 500, I can most assuredly attest to the room. At 6' 6" and 370 pounds, I have plenty of room in my old Ford. Trying to fit in a new car, no matter what the make, is next to impossible.

 

[buelligan]

Thats because of all the crumple zones, safety zones, sound deadening, and emissions equipment. All that adds weight but it does make the car safer in the event of an accident.

 

[jamespowers]

Thats because of all the crumple zones, safety zones, sound deadening, and emissions equipment. All that adds weight but it does make the car safer in the event of an accident.

Not if you get hit by the 1964 galaxy.

 

[Big Man]

Not if you get hit by the 1964 galaxy.

Hate to disagree with you, but based on 35 years of experience in the Fire/Rescue business, you are a lot safer in a wreck today than in years past. I have, unfortunately, responded to way too many motor vehicle accidents with fatalities. The overwhelming majority of the fatalities were in the earlier days of my career rather than in the latter.

 

[jamespowers]

Hate to disagree with you, but based on 35 years of experience in the Fire/Rescue business, you are a lot safer in a wreck today than in years past. I have, unfortunately, responded to way too many motor vehicle accidents with fatalities. The overwhelming majority of the fatalities were in the earlier days of my career rather than in the latter.

Figure it this way, when two all steel heavy cars hit each other; you are going to get injuries as they were equal. Now when two marshmallows hit each other the bumper cars don’t hurt anything. However if steel hits marshmallow……:doh:

 

[Big Man]

Figure it this way, when two all steel heavy cars hit each other; you are going to get injuries as they were equal.Now when two marshmallows hit each other the bumper cars don’t hurt anything.However if steel hits marshmallow……:doh:

That would work if the marshmallow didn't weigh 4,000 pounds and travel at 60 mph. [huh]

 

[rjb1]

Actually, your steel/marshmallow analogy has some validity. Modern cars have a lot of "soft" things (crumple zones and air bags) to absorb the energy in a crash. Older cars don't have those - but that doesn't stop me from wishing that I still had my old '65 Chevy Impala fastback.

(Speed doesn't kill, but rapid deceleration does...)

 

[jamespowers]

That would work if the marshmallow didn't weigh 4,000 pounds and travel at 60 mph. [huh]

Well, lets have a look at that:
http://youtu.be/kRJdHkvIRYw

I have one of these cars. Guess which one.

 

[1mach1]

Well, lets have a look at that:
http://youtu.be/kRJdHkvIRYw

I have one of these cars. Guess which one.

I hope yours does not have the gangsta wheels on it....:doh:
Although, you do live in Cali.