Oil change interval was 2000 I believe on mine according to the owners manual. But they didn’t have multi-weight detergent oil back then. Sure, we’ve made strides in oil, coolant and wheel bearings, but it doesn’t account for the lack of progress in mpg.
Sure, we've made strides in oil, coolant and wheel bearings, but it doesn't account for the lack of progress in mpg
Lack of progress in MPG? From what years are you talking about.
Cars on average mpg has easily increased more then 50% since the 70’s. That’s significant if you ask me. But I agree they haven’t increased much in the past 15 years or so.
For example: a 1986 Dodge caravan was capable of 26 mpg highway. The 2014? 25. Twenty seven years! A 1987 Honda civic got 39 highway mpg. The 2014 Honda civic gets the same 39 highway mpg.
Check out fueleconomy.gov and select find a car and have fun exploring.
@ Whitey
Why does Harley Davidson use a belt to drive the rear wheel of its motorcycles while my Yamaha or Suzuki uses a drive shaft that requires almost no maintenance for the life of the motorcycle, is self contained and more compact? Chain, belt or shaft…I choose shaft.
@TwinTurbo, I rode a shaft-driven bike for 9 years, and in terms of maintenance, you’re right, shaft drive is the way to go. However, no motorcycle manufacturer has been able to design a shaft driven bike that doesn’t experience drive lash, so you get a smoother ride with a chain or belt drive.
This points out something I’ve said often, that there are actually more important features, on a car and a motorcycle, that I consider more important than the final drive and the method of turning the timing sprockets. For example, on a motorcycle, I’d prefer something that is liquid cooled, has electronic fuel injection, has self-adjusting valves and comes with a shaft drive. However, if I had to give up one of those features because I wasn’t able to find all these features on a bike I liked, it would be the shaft drive. Likewise, if I found a car I really liked, and discovered it had a timing belt, that alone wouldn’t be enough to make me decide not to buy it.
It seems to me the biggest advantage to timing chains is that they allow lazy car owners to neglect the car’s maintenance. As someone who recognizes the benefits of diligent maintenance, that doesn’t seem like much of an advantage to me. The last time I had a water pump malfunction on my vehicle was 1989, and I attribute that to the fact that my water pumps now get replaced with every other timing belt.
Twenty seven years! A 1987 Honda civic got 39 highway mpg. The 2014 Honda civic gets the same 39 highway mpg.
And the 2014 Civic is a BIGGER vehicle. In fact the 2014 Civic is bigger then the 1987 Accord. It’s about 800lbs heavier…bigger engine…better acceleration.
You also choose a year AFTER the Cafe’ standards were set in place. So manufacturers aren’t putting a lot of research into pure gas mileage per-se. They have made improvements… but I’ve stated many times here they need to be pushed…or they won’t do it.
I’ve used this comparison before…(because it’s a good one). My wife’s Lexus ES-350 is almost twice the size of my 1973 Vega. Much…much better performance…Better safety…pollutes far far less…and gets BETTER gas mileage (by a lot). In fact you can pick almost any car from the 70’s and compare to a comparable vehicle today…and you’ll see a drastic increase in gas mileage.
Timing belts were used because they were quieter than chains and cheaper. Even if you think your timing chain car is quiet, you don’t know what was done to make it so. Extra sound deadening, dampers, ect. Belts also reduce vibration from crank to cam. This is exactly why Harley Davidsons use a belt final drive 'cause their engine thump like a jackhammer.
For those with a little gray hair, remember that GM cars in the late 60’s and 70’s would regularly need timing gear replacements at about 50,000 because the gear teeth were made of nylon to make the chains more quiet and would fail.
Also consider that 950 hp, 9800 rpm NASCAR pushrod V8’s use timing BELTS, not chains, because they reduce camshaft vibration harmonics. They reduce those dynamics on a grocery-getter at 2000 rpm, too. Consider that when you disrespect the lowly belt.
I agree with the improvements in mileage. Bigger, safer, cleaner, AND faster cars get the same or better mileage than their earlier models. The high mileage small cars of yore can’t compete in any way with the cars we have now. Just like today’s musclecars will trounce even the mythical 426 Hemi and L88 427 Corvettes of old.
Its got nothing to do with being lazy, and everything with having to shell out 800-1000 bucks to replace engine components where a known superior method exists. If you have to use a belt to counter vibration, thats putting a band-aid on a design flaw in my opinion. Balance the engine. There are plenty of 200K mile cars out there that use a chain in their design. Look at ford’s 4.6 in mustangs, cop cars, taxi’s across the country. By no means is it perfect, and there are examples of early failure - like any mass production car, but its much more durable. I ran my mustang for 200K before I got rid of it and never had an issue with the chain or chain guides.
Nascar examples are moot for me. Those engines are regularly torn apart.
Ultimately I wouldnt mind the timing belt if it were designed with quick, easy replacement in mind. A belt on a Harley is a different ball game.
@Whitey
I agree with your features list for bikes 100% and also what I would give up first. Neither of my shaft bikes had any noticeable lash at all. They are smooth as silk so I don’t have a point of reference there. One was a 1980 vintage, the other 2001. I have had a number of chain bikes and every one of those you could actually hear the chain, not to mention lubrication sling on the rear wheel.
How does the presence of a timing chain allow one to forego all maintenance? I hate timing belts myself but that doesn’t mean I’m suddenly going to skip ALL maintenance because I bought a car with a chain. I just don’t see that connection. Someone savvy enough to know the difference is more likely to be cognizant of all maintenance requirements rather than ignorant of them. Likewise, someone prone to ignore maintenance isn’t likely to suddenly jump up and take their car in because the mileage/time has elapsed for a timing belt change. They’re going to ignore all of it and then post on here about a snapped belt…
As for the MPG part, it IS odd how the sizes of models have changed isnt it. Although I really dont think the civic has changed in size a whole bunch, and would guess the weight has remained quite similar. But honestly, they can do better.
I remember one time on a lunch break I went with a coworker and he had a mid 90’s ford bronco. What was funny is the drinks from the fast food place we went to did not fit in his cup holders. And he was like oh yeah I forgot this was made before America was obese. Everything down to the cup holders have gotten larger.
Rarely do I come across them, but whenever I see an early 90’s dodge caravan its astounding how mini those minivans really were.
Be careful when comparing EPA mileage figures. In 2008 the EPA dramatically changed the way mileage is calculated, at ldast the numbers you see ehen you buy a car. The new numbers were computed with more realistic usage - higher speeds, faster acceleration, and AC use. The numbers for highway and combined mpg both dropped substantially, at least 10%, often quite a bit more. You cannot compare a current car and a pre-2008 car using the EPA numbers. If they stayed the same the car has improved.
The CAFE figures for each manufacturer still use the old EPA gas mileage ratings. All new cars have both old and new ratings, though the buyer doesn’t see the higher old-style ratings. That they’re used for CAFE is importang. When the EPA is settimg targets (like 54 mpg by whenever), they aten’t quite as tough as they sound, since they are using the old-style mpg numbers.
Although I really dont think the civic has changed in size a whole bunch, and would guess the weight has remained quite similar.
Quite simple to look it up. Took me all of 20 seconds.
According to this URL - The 87 Civic weighed in at 1946.7lbs.
And this URL shows the 2014 Civic coming in at - 2754lbs. that’s an increase in weight by 38%.
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2014/features-specs.html
And according to this URL…the 87 Accord only weighed 2529lbs - which is lighter then the current Civic.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1987/1421315/honda_accord_lx_4-door_sedan.html
duly noted
The extra structure needed to get good ratings in govt. and IIHS crash testing accounts for most of the added weight. Soundproofing is also often quite heavy and cars have a lot more of it than they uses to.
The extra structure needed to get good ratings in govt. and IIHS crash testing accounts for most of the added weight
The 2014 Civic is Longer, and wider then the 87 Civic or 87 Accord.
The 87 Civic is 163" x 54"
The 87 Accord is 178" x 53"
The 2014 Civic is 179" x 69"
The crash tests probably accounted for a good chuck…but so did making it a LOT bigger then it was almost 30 years ago. The new Civic is significantly bigger then the 87 Civic.
So essentially the argument here is that, given the higher safety standards and lower emissions requirements comparatively to the same model of yesteryear, we should be leaping for joy that we’re atleast matching the mpg
One reason we’re only matching MPG is that the EPA testing standards have changed. However, if you compare the 1991 Honda CRX to the 2015 Honda Fit, the Fit gets better fuel economy.
So essentially the argument here is that, given the higher safety standards and lower emissions requirements comparatively to the same model of yesteryear, we should be leaping for joy that we're atleast matching the mpg
How did you take away that from the discussion.
I (or anyone else that I’ve read) NEVER EVER said we’re happy with mpg. I know for a fact I’m not.
What I have said in this forum many many times…Manufacturers are very reluctant to do it on their own. I’m very happy for the new Cafe’ standards…But I think they’re too low.
I was being a bit sarcastic - sorry its hard to tell on a forum. To be really honest, and I know people will roll their eyes and think I’m into conspiracy theories, BUT, my opinion is that we’ve had the tech to get better mpg’s or not even need gas for decades but big oil has kept that effort out of business.
“I really dont think the civic has changed in size a whole bunch, and would guess the weight has remained quite similar.”
I clearly remember the early 1980s Civics, and they were much smaller and lighter than today’s model
By the way, I’m not posting any numbers
I’m just going from memory . . . I remember how small those older Civics were