Today's new cars are way overpowered...

[Gem99ultra]

I'm old enough to remember when that was a "goal" rarely attained. I bought one of the first (1968) Plymouth Road Runners; 383 cu. in. and 335 hp. It could do 130 mph, but in normal highway driving, on a good day I could get as much as 13 mpg.:laughing:

yep... I had a '69 Dodge 440 RT. Got about 13mpg. I kept working on it and working on it, and finally got it down to 6mpg But oh, how I loved that car!

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

C/D reported 20 mpg in overall driving. EPA figures are always wildly optimistic.

They are not optimistic anymore. Class action lawsuits prevent lying. I googled the car and it popped right up from C and D. My guess is the test drivers had their foot in it for the fun of it.

 

[Retiredguy2]

They are not optimistic anymore. Class action lawsuits prevent lying. I googled the car and it popped right up from C and D. My guess is the test drivers had their foot in it for the fun of it.

My information was from the PRINT MAGAZINE....BTW the EPA mileage estimates for my 2004 Saturn are 20 mpg city, 28 highway. I have NEVER gotten more than 24 on the highway and I am a very, very conservative driver.

 

[toppop52]

Cars aren't overpowered any more than guns are too dangerous, or sugar is a killer, etc... It's a tool, like a hammer, if you choose to misuse it, it's a weapon, if not, it's a tool. Freedom of choice says I can own a hammer, a gun and my 430 horsepower Firebird Formula.

 

[aczlan]

My information was from the PRINT MAGAZINE....BTW the EPA mileage estimates for my 2004 Saturn are 20 mpg city, 28 highway. I have NEVER gotten more than 24 on the highway and I am a very, very conservative driver.

For the 2015, the EPA says that the combined average should be 24MPG or 29MPG (depending on the engine): Gas Mileage of 2015 Chevrolet Malibu
Fuelly (car owners entering their fillups) has an average of 27.60MPG (with both engines combined): 2015 Chevrolet Malibu Mileage
Sample size: 17 cars
Miles reported: over 100,000
7 of the 17 cars have an average mileage of 27MPG or higher.
You can see the EPA test speeds at: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml


Aaron Z

 

[KennyG]

Having read C&D on and off for many years, I don't think I've ever seen them get close to the EPA estimates... or what average people will get. It's a performance oriented magazine and the writers are actual or wanna be racers.

 

[Retiredguy2]

:laughing:

Having read C&D on and off for many years, I don't think I've ever seen them get close to the EPA estimates... or what average people will get. It's a performance oriented magazine and the writers are actual or wanna be racers.

Although being a very conservative driver, I personally have never owned a vehicle that came close to the EPA estimates. My wife formerly had a 2011 Malibu with the 2.4 Ecotec...her mileage was about 23-24 overall with over 50% highway driving which was close to the city mpg EPA reported (22) rather that the ridiculous 33 EPA claimed as highway mpg. And she is just as conservative a driver as I am.

Most guys brag about two things and one of them is the mpg their vehicle gets....:laughing:

 

[toppop52]

The post was about cars being overpowered, not the fuel useage...

 

[Retiredguy2]

The post was about cars being overpowered, not the fuel useage...

Sorry TP52....It'S MY THREAD and the thread clearly mentioned fuel usage in the OP... Respectfully disagree with you !!!

 

[KennyG]

:laughing:

Although being a very conservative driver, I personally have never owned a vehicle that came close to the EPA estimates. My wife formerly had a 2011 Malibu with the 2.4 Ecotec...her mileage was about 23-24 overall with over 50% highway driving which was close to the city mpg EPA reported (22) rather that the ridiculous 33 EPA claimed as highway mpg. And she is just as conservative a driver as I am.

Most guys brag about two things and one of them is the mpg their vehicle gets....:laughing:

I think the EPA ratings are actually OK for comparison purposes. I get between the city and highway numbers for my vehicles until the weather gets cold. Just out of curiosity I have tried driving 55-60 on the highway in nice weather and find I get close to the Highway rating. I'd go out of my mind if I had to drive that way all the time though.

 

[KennyG]

:laughing:

Although being a very conservative driver, I personally have never owned a vehicle that came close to the EPA estimates. My wife formerly had a 2011 Malibu with the 2.4 Ecotec...her mileage was about 23-24 overall with over 50% highway driving which was close to the city mpg EPA reported (22) rather that the ridiculous 33 EPA claimed as highway mpg. And she is just as conservative a driver as I am.

Most guys brag about two things and one of them is the mpg their vehicle gets....:laughing:

I think the EPA ratings are actually OK for comparison purposes. I get between the city and highway numbers for my vehicles until the weather gets cold. Just out of curiosity I have tried driving 55-60 on the highway in nice weather and find I get close to the Highway rating. I'd go out of my mind if I had to drive that way all the time though.

 

[3930dave]

Olde School 400hp is not the same as today's 400hp engines. In this respect, I'm not talking about the specifics of measuring the hp.

Today, automotive sensors and fast computers are relatively cheap and easy to implement..... so, the Legal Departments allow these large corporations to market what are advertised to be high horsepower engines today.

When you drop the pedal on a well tuned late 60's big-block, there is no question about what is about to be let loose.

Between traction-control on up into today's platform stability systems, there is a lot of real-world use time where the full output of today's engines is not available.

Yes, these safeguards can be turned off..... sometimes just using the on-board computer and controls..... but even that process is designed so that nobody (or, more specifically, their heirs) can claim that they "accidentally" turned them off.

Engine output power is higher today, but on most vehicles ( when they roll out of the factory) it is not available 100% of the time..... for most drivers, that is a good thing, IMO.

Rgds, D.

 

[sld]

I bought the first RD400C 1976 that came to our Yamaha shop when I was 16, after reading a great article on them in the magazine. My first bike, a 72 Honda SL125 was a real turd in comparison. Everyone in my town was riding either a Honda SL350 or a Yamaha XT/TT 500. I could blow them all in the weeds except for 1 highly hopped up XT 500. My bike was mostly stock. I put some expansion chambers on it but could not afford the good carbs (which were jetted properly) and so my bike would foul plugs if you babied it with the jetting I put in. Too rich mains. Needed better needles for the pipes.



In '84 I bought an RZ350 and did a bit of roadracing on it. Man I sure wish I still had that bike. Toomey pipes and a few other goodies. It used to pizz off my Harley buddies because I could literally start it by hand (kick start) and it could out accelerate and blow past them.

I also bought the first Yamaha R1 in 1998 in Austin Texas. It was highly coveted, and numerous times guys would turn around and chase me down just to look at one in person.

How does the RD compare to the Honda XR350R I used to have. That thing would scare me.

 

[KennyG]

How does the RD compare to the Honda XR350R I used to have. That thing would scare me.

Then an RD would absolutely petrify you. I had an RB350 with a little moisture sensitivity. I was in traffic one rainy morning when one cylinder quit. I grabbed a lot of throttle to try to keep it going and when the 2nd cylinder kicked back in I found myself in traffic, in the rain at 40 mph with the front wheel about 3 feet in the air. It was a touch past exciting.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

That's what I would call a "puckering" experience!

 

[cmore]

:laughing:

Fun fun fun

:thumbsup:
:drink:
:cool2:
:dance1:

 

[dfkrug]

How does the RD compare to the Honda XR350R I used to have. That thing would
scare me.

The Honda XRs were 4-stroke, while the RDs and later RZs were 2-stroke. So figure on 75%+ more hp
per cc for the Yamahas. But the biggest issue was non-linear power delivery. Once you hit the power
band on most 2-strokes, it's Hang On.

 

[dfkrug]

How does the RD compare to the Honda XR350R I used to have. That thing would
scare me.

The Honda XRs were 4-stroke, while the RDs and later RZs were 2-stroke. So figure on 75%+ more hp
per cc for the Yamahas. But the biggest issue was non-linear power delivery. Once you hit the power
band on most 2-strokes, it's Hang On.

 

[sld]

That is scary. The honda would lift the front wheel in any gear it seemed.

 

[MossRoad]

About the only thing the little RD400 couldn't keep up with was a Kawasaki H1 500 triple. Those things were nuts.