Mopar tops the list of most fuel efficient cars...

[bull]

... in 1981 and 82.

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1978-1981/
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/09/1982-a-banner-year-for-high-mpg-cars/

So why is it that a 1981 and 82 Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon can get up to 50 mpg (5 mpg better than Prius at the top end) but nothing in Mopar's lineup now can get more than 30?

Food for thought (or in this case, discussion).

[ODZKing]

Because those first Omni's were basically a VW Rabbit.

[bull]

Because those first Omni's were basically a VW Rabbit.

So in an age when gas prices are high and the demand for high mpg cars is up, Chrysler chooses that time to not emulate those carmakers like VW who fill that demand? Smooth move Ex-lax. Where's Iacocca when we need him?

Oh, BTW, the '83 Charger got up to 51 mpg: http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/18/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1983/

[rav440]

i'll bet those 50mpg cars were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd . not that i look at many new cars but i did go a few weeks ago with my daugther who was looking for a new car and everything i seen atleast had A/C and power something .

[ODZKing]

So in an age when gas prices are high and the demand for high mpg cars is up, Chrysler chooses that time to not emulate those carmakers like VW who fill that demand? Smooth move Ex-lax. Where's Iacocca when we need him?

Oh, BTW, the '83 Charger got up to 51 mpg: http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/18/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1983/

 

[Steve P.]

Haven't I been saying this all along?? ?? ?? Lee Iacocca took a problematic company and did what was GOOD for THE COMPANY. He told the GAS GODS to shove it and built econo cars that got great mileage and could be built and sold cheap.

Many changes have been made to today's cars that add weight. Weight takes away mileage. Also they were NOT very flashy. Just as GM's EV-1 was not anything to write home about looks wise. BUTTTTTT,,,,,,,,,,,   even with the added weight and maybe a few luxuries like A/C and a power seat for us broke back guys, these cars would STILL see at least 35 - 40 MPG...

Detroit has tons of technology on the shelf. If they would advertise it "right", the way they sold us Avalanches and Hummers, they would be selling cars and trucks just as they did in their hay day. Remember the ad:  "WHAT REAL MAN WOULDN'T WANT A HUMMER"? Or the Rebock * "T" shirts that everyone had to have when their commercials filled the TV waves??  We are a STUPID country of people. (for the most part). TV can sell us ANYTHING.. Mood rings. Pet Rocks. Chia Pets. Even rubber dog shit.... Why aren't they selling us on saving money at the pump?? Saving our planet? Saving on insurance? Saving on room in our garages? Hell, they have a very large percentage of this country sold on "CLEAN COAL"... Let me tell you something right now. I worked in coal fired power plants. I would rather work in asbestos without protection than ever work in a coal plant WITH protection ever again. There are hundreds of areas that coal cannot be contained even if they CAN superheat the exhaust to reduce it. (Works like a catalytic converter on a larger scale).  Yes, it will reduce what comes out of the stack. BUT, not the scrubbers or anything before that stage. Nor does it do anything for the people mining it, transferring it or living and working around it.  The simple fact is that we have plenty of it. Plants are built now to burn it. Many jobs are created due to it. So there is downfall on that end. What's new? The fact is and ALLLLLLWAYS HAS BEEN,,, EFFICIENCY has NEVER been a big deal in this country. If nothing but efficient cars were being sold and TV commercials were all sunny and warm about how much (((((( MONEY ))))))) we will save we could take our level of problems WAY down. Iacocca did it and Brazil has done it. We just need someone with a big enough PAIR to END all this crap.... Don't look to our past, present or future presidents either. We as a nation have to do it. Force it. End the big industry vacuum.

Now please, before anyone wants to give me crap about their job or their muscle car, STOP. Once Ethanol becomes the norm we will all be converting to it as it WILL give you more power. Isn't that what we are all looking for anyway?

Riddle me this.  Why aren't ALL of our trucks diesel? They last much longer. Have a much greater towing cap. Have NO ignition problems. Best of all they get great mileage. So WHY does my F-250 Super Crew have a V-10 GAS HOG engine? I get 10.5 MPG and am only dragging around 4 tires @ 6400 pounds.  As Ron, (Firefighter) what MPG he gets with his 1 ton DUALLY with crew cab @ 8400 pounds and a C-Diesel.... He gets MUCH better mpg with his big ass enclosed trailer, LOADED, than I get empty!!! Empty he is in the 25 MPG range as I remember it.... And yes, he is sitting on 6 tires and weighs about 2K# more than mine.   

[lisiecki1]

if they can come up with a way to get rid of the deposits ethanol leaves i'd be all for it..........

[Steve P.]

Yes. Deposits are an issue. They always have been with gasoline too. Over the years the fuel companies have developed some good additives to control deposits in gas sucking cars. This will be true IF we stick to 10% ethanol as well. But research is already showing that the higher the % of ethanol to gasoline is the lower the deposits. In fact I just read a study that says E-85, (85% Ethanol to 15% gas), shows LESS deposits than straight gas alone does.

Keep in mind that most cars burned ethanol back in the 20-30's when gas was very high and also in the winter. I've heard that many never spent the extra money on gasoline when booze was so much cheaper...   

It seams that I remember my grandfather telling me that they use to use alcohol in their radiators in the winter also.   

[lisiecki1]

i don't know if it's the weather here or what all is involved, but e85 plays hell with deposits in our bikes in texas.....we try to find gas stations that are straight gas only when we're riding....of course we're dealing with much higher than normal compression ratios on our bikes, which may also be a factor....i don't know enough about it to make a truly educated conclusion.

[Steve P.]

By far no pro here either, but from what I am understanding the E-85 has a HIGHER octane level than our best gas... Maybe it's all in the tune. I don't have first hand or hands on knowledge, I am just doing much reading on the subject.

[bull]

i'll bet those 50mpg cars were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd . not that i look at many new cars but i did go a few weeks ago with my daugther who was looking for a new car and everything i seen atleast had A/C and power something .

Probably but that's only one small point to the argument. The main point I'm trying to make is that Chrysler doesn't even offer "50mpg cars that were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd" and they should. There's nothing wrong with a carmaker offering a 13mpg muscle car as long as it also offers something to compete with companies that actually meet demand.

[Blown70]

I did a neck crank the other day saw a light blue dodge OMNI drving.... you would have thought it was a HEMI CHARGER.....  I did not know any were still on the road.....

[Old Moparz]

I knew a couple of people that had Omni/Horizon cars & & don't think any of them ever got anything close to 50 MPG. I've always been pretty skeptical at whatever a manufacturer claims.

[Steve P.]

My sister in law had a turbo Shadow that got a little better than 30 mpg. 26K on it and the turbo locked up. The dealer, (that did all her work and oil changes), told her, tough luck.. She is now driving a foreign mini van.

mother in laws old K-car was close to 35 mpg in the early 80's.

Bull, I agree. I am just pissed that what is important to everyone is tossed aside to make the FUEL GODS even richer. Having gas hogs for sale was the reason for mopar bringing in Mitsubaruota. They made up the mileage that mopar lost.  Ford did it with Isuzubaru. GM did it with those ship-box Geo things.

Like I say, it burns me that WE are not forcing these issues. We just keep following the flock...

Ford had a diesel Ranger that got near 50 mpg. The gaskets used on those engines were crap and blow-by didn't help them. Most of them saw 100K and went to the crusher. My buddy had one and loved it. He said it was nose heavy, but it would pull one hell of a load for it's size. 4 banger/5-speed

[ChgrSteve67]

People buy big trucks and SUVs because they feel safer and can intimidate others driving small cars.
As long as people can afford to feed them they will continue to buy them.

The car companies built want everyone wanted until gas got above $4 a gallon and the housing market tanked.
Now that gas is back below $3 its back to business as usual.

The cash for clunkers program is no different than when they offered a rebate and carpool lane stickers if you bought a Hybrid. People didn't buy them because of any reason other than to feel special.  Make people think they are special if they get in on an offer and they will take if they can afford it or not. Oh the housing industry mess comes to mind again.  How many people are down at the dealer right now turning in thier "clunker" for a new car they cannot afford.  We are still in a recession with rediculious unemployment correct?  Yet more than 200,000 people just bought a new car. and what get me even more is that with the position Chrysler is in they are matching the CARS rebate obviously taking further losses for the cars they built. Talk about giving it away.

I still have my 9 year old PT Cruiser with 125K on it, get 19MPG and just passed smog with flying colors.
Figure I will still have it for another 3 or 4 years unless someone wrecks it.

My parents had a subaru back in the mid 80s that got 44 MPG.
I kept asking about the gas gauge thinking it was broken because the needle barely moved after driving it for 3 days.

[bull]

That's true to a point. The fact is though that Honda, Nissan, VW and Toyota among others started out in the US with fuel efficient cars and have stayed the course with them while later adding less-efficient cars to their inventory to attract those people you're talking about. Now Nissan and Toyota have big pickups in their lineup and Toyota and Honda created Acura and Lexus which are luxury models. So while the foreign auto companies have increased their offerings Chrysler has actually gone backward rather than maintaining and building upon its past successes. So here we are, when we need higher mpg cars, Chrysler is caught with its pants down when they could have been competing. And this discussion doesn't even touch on the quality issue which is a seperate problem. It's frustrating, and they still don't seem to get it. I have to wonder now how many of the cars bought during this cash for clunkers madness were made by GM, Ford and Chrysler. If it weren't for Chrysler doubling the govt. kickback money I doubt they would have sold many at all.

[Steve P.]

 

Along the same lines, I don't understand why DODGE never takes the advise of their present and would be customers with their interiors. I'm talking trucks here. I have spoken with dealer/owners and people AT dodge division about it and all have said they are aware of the lack of comfort and one told me his own father drives a Ford truck due to it's comfort. (That has to be a slap to the dealer/owner). At Big Daddy's show a few years ago I met a big wig in the interior design division and had this conversation with him. His answer was that DODGE needs to hold back something for when the CUMMINS DIESEL is NOT the draw anymore. What a joke!!

Every year I go test drive a new 3/4 ton with a crew cab and diesel. Every year they try to tell me that the new Dodge has a much better ride. Every year I leave the dealer with my 02' F-250 in complete comfort.    People allllllllways bust my chops about being so heavy into mopars and I drive a Ford. Trust me. If Dodge would spend a bit of time on their suspension and interiors I would be driving a diesel dodge right now.... On the other hand, if Ford would use a cummins in their 3/4 and 1 ton line up I would own a new one of them....

Back on topic though, I damn sure agree that very many would be driving an AMERICAN car that got great mileage and could easily park it. When I had my last shop in Rochester, NY. MOST of mu customers had a daily driver for work that got great mileage and was easily parked in tight spaces. With NY State Inspections I saw these cars every year regardless...  And like I said, if they advertise something enough it will be sold by the millions.  Anyone for a SHAM-WOW??

[Todd Wilson]

i'll bet those 50mpg cars were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd . not that i look at many new cars but i did go a few weeks ago with my daugther who was looking for a new car and everything i seen atleast had A/C and power something .

Probably but that's only one small point to the argument. The main point I'm trying to make is that Chrysler doesn't even offer "50mpg cars that were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd" and they should.

You will see a car called the   "500"  very shortly. 40's to 50's in the MPG department. Gas and diesel engines.


Todd

[RD]

my 95 BMW 318i gets 32 mpg all day long.  not bad for a 14 year old car with a lil bit of luxury to boot.  now if only i can get rid of the GM 4L30E transmission it has in it I will feel better.

[Todd Wilson]

. Trust me. If Dodge would spend a bit of time on their suspension and interiors I would be driving a diesel dodge right now.... On the other hand, if Ford would use a cummins in their 3/4 and 1 ton line up I would own a new one of them....

Dodge is still building trucks.  Not luxery comfort vehicles with a bed.  The stiffer the suspension the rougher the ride but the ability to handle more weight. When I start loading heavy and hauling I dont want to be floating around and bottoming out in my comfortable luxery vehicle with a bed.


Todd

[bull]

And like I said, if they advertise something enough it will be sold by the millions.  Anyone for a SHAM-WOW??

I don't know if that matters. Honda and Toyota advertise as much as Chrysler and who sells more? Looking at the numbers it's pretty easy to determine what the public prefers, and now that Toyota and Nissan are building full-size pickups there's even less of a need for what the "big three" advertise and deliver. Competition requires that you compete and it seems to me that Chrysler is just sitting on the bench watching.

[Todd Wilson]

And like I said, if they advertise something enough it will be sold by the millions.  Anyone for a SHAM-WOW??

I don't know if that matters. Honda and Toyota advertise as much as Chrysler and who sells more? Looking at the numbers it's pretty easy to determine what the public prefers, and now that Toyota and Nissan are building full-size pickups there's even less of a need for what the "big three" advertise and deliver. Competition requires that you compete and it seems to me that Chrysler is just sitting on the bench watching.

The Ricer full size trucks are a joke. I have yet to see one pulling a big 5th wheel camper down the interstate or slugging a cattle trailer out of the muddy field.


Todd

[bull]

i'll bet those 50mpg cars were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd . not that i look at many new cars but i did go a few weeks ago with my daugther who was looking for a new car and everything i seen atleast had A/C and power something .

Probably but that's only one small point to the argument. The main point I'm trying to make is that Chrysler doesn't even offer "50mpg cars that were also a 0 luxury ride no A/C stripped down non power anything and a 4cyl 4spd" and they should.

You will see a car called the   "500"  very shortly. 40's to 50's in the MPG department. Gas and diesel engines.


Todd

"Very shortly" is about 16 months from now.

[bull]

And like I said, if they advertise something enough it will be sold by the millions.  Anyone for a SHAM-WOW??

I don't know if that matters. Honda and Toyota advertise as much as Chrysler and who sells more? Looking at the numbers it's pretty easy to determine what the public prefers, and now that Toyota and Nissan are building full-size pickups there's even less of a need for what the "big three" advertise and deliver. Competition requires that you compete and it seems to me that Chrysler is just sitting on the bench watching.

The Ricer full size trucks are a joke. I have yet to see one pulling a big 5th wheel camper down the interstate or slugging a cattle trailer out of the muddy field.


Todd

Maybe, for now. But they're still cutting into the domestic 1/2 ton market and you can assume they'll continue building them bigger if there's money in it.

[Steve P.]

Trust me Todd. I "AM" comparing apples to apples... My 3/4 ton can carry as much if not more than the Dodge 3/4 ton and it has never had a mushy ride. It just does NOT have a harsh ride. I have had a few full loads of rock in the back and many skids of tile in it as well. It handles very well loaded or not loaded and it's very comfortable either way.

My 02' has about the same mileage as my neighbors 03' dodge and they both sit outside in the sun all the time. ALL my paint is intact and shiny and my dash looks as good as new. His paint is crap, mostly blown off and his dash is cracked from side to side. He also has a 99' dually that he uses for his work. He says the dually has a better ride but his paint and dash are crap on that truck too. He has also had lots of work done on his fuel injection on the 03'. The biggest thing I've had to do is replace the battery last year. 6 years on a factory or most any battery in Florida is most unheard of..

Also I see many more foreign trucks being used for contracting and hauling boats here all the time. There is not one of them I am comfortable in though. No butt to floor leg room. They are more like sitting up in a chaise lounge to me than a seat.