For example, I have a 93 F-150 4x4 5.0 that gets 17 MPG with 180 HP, but the new F-150's have 300 HP at the same average MPG. Why can't gas mileage be increased by 35% like HP has?

 

I have several opinion on that. #1 is I am a firm believer that all the emmissions controls required now lower gas mileage. Someone tell me why the 1973 350 Chevy I had got almost (or better) gas mileage than my 2000 5.4 Triton? Emissions has got to be part of that.

#2, I'm sure they can increase MPG INSTEAD of HP. BUt as American consumers we have a love affair with HP, so the designers increase one at the cost of the other. When the majority of buyers want MPG over HP I feel you'll see a shift.

My 2 cents

 

I vote for no. 2. , Always hear "most HP in it's class" and not "highest MPG in class".

 

I'm not a "thermo-dynamic engineer," but doesn't MORE horsepower require MORE fuel in order to generate it? And if an engine produces more power on the same amount of fuel, isn't that an increase in efficiency right there?

 

because believe it or not that market is controlled by the oil men who it would hurt if we got better gas milage, you know there on course to hit a trillion dollars in PROFIT this year, and one of them being our president and vice pres.

 

The market is controlled by the consumers. Very simple. If the consumer stops buying cars because we don;t like the options (in this case MPG) the market will change to sell us somethign we want. Presidents and oil men cannot control this in an open market like the US. And thinking logically, even IF they could, why? If we all have more fuel efficient cars we will all drive more and buy more gas. Americans have a love affair with cars that will not go away even when we all have 50+ mpg vehicles.

1956MarkII, you hit it on the head. Engines ARE being built more efficiently. Each year they squeeze out more HP without a reduction in MPG. If the focus was shifted (by the consumer mind you) then the same engine would take a reduction in HP to gain MPG.

 

Editted out political content. -Beast12

 

Anyway, while emissions controls aren't the best thing for a performance/mileage combo, I'll take the cleaner air tradeoff. I have sniffed what a toasted cat smells like. Not good.

Comparing a 73 Chevy 350 with a newer engine is apples and oranges, in a sense. That 73 already has lousy internals, so the smog pump wouldn't have mattered, really. A 73 model anything didn't have all the safety equipemtn on it, either. If a 300hp Triton gets the same mileage as a stock 70s model 350 with ~150hp, I'll take it. I'll turn off the airbag in the truck, but I will take it.

 

It seems like one of the performance chips could greatly reduce HP and increase MPG.

 

Had a '93 Suburban, 350 CU. In., something like 260 HP, 14 MPG.
Now have '05 F-250, 330 Cu. In., 300 HP, 14 MPG. Can't complain.

 

Gas got cheaper from the mid 80s on through the 90s. Because of this, no one really cared about mileage as much as power. If the customer buying the car was looking for good mileage, the automakers would build one. Ford offers the Focus right now. Do you have one? If not then why? Try asking a car dealer what model has sold best up to 2 months ago.

If you want a vehicle with better mileage, it will be light, low powered, low to the ground. Does that profile fit your needs as a truck owner if you work your truck?

 

I don't know if this is necessarilly true. Comparing ornamental cabbage to ornamental cabbage, my father has a 1987 2WD reg cab F250HD XL with a 5.8L/5-speed manual/4.10 ratio and it has 210 HP - 305 lb/ft TQ. He usually gets between 17 and 18 mpg on the highway. My truck is a 2003 2WD reg cab F250 XL with a 5.4L/6-speed manual/4.30 ratio and has 260 HP - 350 lb/ft TQ, I get between 19 and 20 mpg. Now on top of that, at the scales, his empty weight is 5200 lbs, my truck weighs 6100 lbs. So it looks like the 5.4L is a much better bargain, mileage and power-wise, than the old 5.8L. He's got a lighter truck, with a higher axle ratio, then he should be getting better performance, right? I bet if we swapped engines, he could get 20 mpg easily in that paleontological marvel of his. He used to have a 77 F250 with a 4-speed/460 and that thing got mileage measured in inches per gallon. Its definitely getting better but we don't notice because the trucks are getting heavier and heavier.

 

Yes I do. Because I sold my truck and was going to get another truck but it didn't work out. I love my 25 MPG city/33MPG highway better anyways. Check out my signature.

-Matt

 

For those of us that have been around awhile, we know that during the 70's cars took a big hit on mileage and performance due to crude, hastily designed emissions systems required by the manufacturer in order to satisfy Federal emission requirements. Next there were a few oil crunches that hit the country in the 70's. That lead to the demise of the big blocks and mainstream V8 cars. Then came the 80's. Slowly, as technology advanced, horsepower and emission systems improved. Some of this is attributed to cheaper microprocessors. We began to see a return of some HP as well as improvements in mileage. This is also the last decade that I saw much concern for mileage. Every car add in a magazine posted the mileage; that's something you don't really see these days. In the early 80's, auto manufacturers discovered that by using a closed loop feedback control system they could control the air/fuel mixture more precisely than with just a traditional carb. This lead to more HP gains while still being able to pass emissions and with improved mileage. Then came affordable, mass produced FI engines. This once again allowed for even more precise control of the air/fuel misture. More HP, better mileage, and still passing emissions. All of this happened while at the same time there were nice improvements in cat converters, namely they became very free flowing. Also in the 80's, auto manufacturers began to take advantage of good areodynamics. The round and square headlights went bye bye thanks to the auto manufacturers wrangling with the Feds to allow them to make contoured ones. Remember, the Feds used to insist/require that manufacturers use the "standard" headlight. Anyway, this allowed manufacturers to lower the front of the hood. Better areo and more mileage. Less drag, thus more HP available to provide driver pleasure. At the same time, cars all began to look a lot alike.

In the 90's mainstream America began it's love affair with pickups and SUV's. We all know they sit much higher from the ground than a passenger car; this leads to aerodynamic problems. One way to improve mileage is to reduce the airflow between a car and the pavement below; kind of hard to do that on pickups and SUV's. Also, the general configuration of pickups and SUV's is simply not lending to smooth, low drag designs. From an aero standpoint, an ideal side view of a vehicle would replicate a teardrop cut in half. To make an SUV or pickup with that profile would result in a vehicle that's going to look insane although a car is more lending to such shape. Then, and finally, there are a few more things we did in the 90's/2000+. People don't like driving around on pizza cutters, we like tread width. Wider tires found their way back to all sorts of cars/trucks right off the showroom floor. We also like our vehicles to be able to leave a stoplight promptly; one quick and dirty way to do this is with lower rear end gears. Both of these result in a hit on mileage, especially on the freeway. We also added weight to the vehicles (lowers mileage); to mitigate the reduction in performance due to this weight engine sizes slowly grew larger (more HP). So, in a highly condensed version and in a nutshell, this is how we got to where we are today.

I've been saying for over five years that we're in a bad situation if there's ever a fuel pinch. Unfortunately, it came to be.

 

This ^ truck gets 15 to 17 on the hiway. It is hard to believe that almost 50 years later this hasn't gotten any better. Maybe their are a lot of things on a newer trucks that this one does't. Or maybe it just takes the same amount of energy to do the same work.
Cars do better on gas but to me they are just plan scary to ride in.