Hi all,

Found this article comparing / contrasting current vehicles overall and the ones available in 1981. Interestingly enough, the average fuel economy for both now and in '81 is exactly the same! Other interesting tid bits in there, so check it out when you have a chance...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/01/Auto...ends/index.htm

Cheers!

John Smash!!

One thing the article might have mentioned is people have more cars and they drive farther, faster.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

This is likely the source material:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r05001.pdf

Several threads have batted it around. Everyone I've circulated this to has been shocked at the numbers. The weight vs mpg is the kicker- even a child figured out that if we'd simlpy held the line on weight & acceleration while making the same strides in efficiency, we'd be in better shape. The ubiquitous question is "why are we driving such heavier cars?" ...as they climb into their Yukon.

When it comes to GM vehicles, there's almost NO difference between 1981 and now. They made huge, ugly, unreliable cars then, and they make huge, ugly unreliable cars now.

Oh, wait! GM has more models that offer leather interiors! What an innovation!!!

I'll have to say they make more reliable vehicles now than before. I have an 01 and it hasn't started leaking from the rear main seal yet and back then it was a problem...lolKevin

2004 silverblue 5 sp.

My dad was always a GM "True Believer", and yet every car he ever bought was nothing but a piece of s***.

Pontiac Grand AM: This vehicle had a goofy problem with the brakes that would make the pedal suddenly stiffen when trying to stop the car. You'd have to lift your foot off the pedal really quickly and then reapply pressure if you didn't want to fly through an intersection. This happened about every one out of ten braking applications. The car was in the shop at least 20 times over three years. It also ate brake pads every 7500 miles. GM denied this was a problem, since the brake pedal didn't do the anomaly when the mechanics drove it. The car did it once to me, and after that I refused to drive it or even be a passenger in it.

Pontiac Grand Prix: This vehicle blew alternators about every 25-30k miles.

Pontiac Fiero: They never could get the front-end alignment truly lined up correctly. As a result, it went through tires every 30k miles and pulled to the left for four years straight. It also had a TERRIBLE electrical system. It blew fuses all the time. Also, it had the nasty habit of just refusing to start up. You'd wait another hour and it would start up just fine. This was a terrible, worthless car.

He also owned a Chevy Cavalier blew water pumps and other internal components; blew a brake seal too.

The only good car that dad ever owned was a Ford Ranger XLT. It lasted for 275,000 problem-free miles.

I have a '93 GMC with 176K trouble free miles. Just regular maintenance.

A company I used to work for had a fleet of Lincoln Towncars and Cadillac Fleetwoods. Most of them with over 500K miles. The major problems with the GM products were small. Stuff like the A/C compressors dying. And sometimes the electric windows would quit. Mechanically, the cars ran very well! In fact, most of our drivers preferred to drive the GM's vs the Fords.

Of course, all of this is relative. Every car manufacturer makes good cars. Every car manufacturers makes bad cars...

<Best Tank Economy!><Best Tank Endurance!>

Was the Ranger developed fully by Ford, or did Mazda's engineers help out on it at all? I know for a while Mazda sold it as what, the B2000 or Tribute or something? I'm just not sure if they had a hand in the development at all. They do indeed seem to be pretty solid trucks.

Y'know... That's a very good question. Either way, it was one heck of a solid truck! If only it was offered as a hybrid, heh heh. The hillarious thing is that four bad GMs and one really good Ford did not make the old man swear off GMs. He actually still thought GM made a better car, despite the fact that none of the four GM cars ever outlasted the car loan (and never made it past 90,000 driven miles), and the Ford Ranger lasted for 8 years of really hard mileage.

I think cars are like religion to some folk, I guess.