Sitting in traffic in my Mazda, sandwiched between a Hummer H3 and a Jeep Commander, I had plenty of time to contemplate how we had arrived at our current state of affairs. Behemoths continue to plague the roadways, posing both a danger to other motorists and a waste of precious resources. Despite the gas rationing of the 70s, we have returned to our gas guzzling ways. But apparently it hasn’t always been that way.
As a devotee of things vintage, I had occasion to come upon the following ancient advertisement for the 1950 Nash.
More than 25 miles per gallon for that old barge?!! Surely this was mere puffery, overstatement by some long defunct Madison Avenue ad agency? A little googling brought up this piece contemporary to the time of the ad. The comparison of 1950 vehicles yielded some surprising results. Reading down a bit, it seems that the old Nash did indeed live up to the claims of the ad.
On a basis of gasoline mileage alone, the Studebaker Champion placed first with 26.551 miles to the gallon, the sweepstakes-winning Mercury second with 26.524 mi., and a Nash Ambassador third with 26.424 mi. Next, in order of ranking: Nash Statesman, 25.522 m.p.g.;…
In fact, the two large Nash models both performed as advertised. True ad copy?!! Strange indeed.
I wondered how a large 57 year old automobile would compare with a modern vehicle, replete with modern electronic enhancements.
Toyota lists gas mileage figures for its basic 4 cylinder Camry as 21 local and 31 on the highway. The average would be about the same as that 57 year old 6 cylinder Nash, 26 miles per gallon.
The old Nash manages to pull off this feat while being longer and carrying nearly twice as much luggage space. The length of the Toyota is 189.2 inches, the Nash is 201 inches. Luggage space for the Toyota is 15 cubic feet, the Nash is 28.8. (Note that all of these figures are taken from the ads of the respective manufacturers.)
Given recent new restrictions on gas mileage claims, one must assume that Toyota’s figures are fairly close to accurate.
So what has the passage of 57 years brought us? Apparently, very little.
Perhaps we must still await the arrival of a waste-powered Mr.Fusion to power a flux capacitor.
Marty McFly, where are you?
A good car, that struggled on half-way through the 1950s.
The good fight has been lost many times . . .
Indeed – GM’s announcement of “the 1st Full-sized Hybrid Pickup!!!!!”, featuring a v-8 engine & “25% better gas mileage” (meaning what? an avg of 10 mpg instead of 8) goes to show that Detroit still doesn’t get it.
I’ll make a few points. Understand that I am not excusing the choices that have been made over the decades by the auto industries, but rather explaining how an old Nash is different from a new Toyata, despite their similar fuel economy numbers.
One big difference is emissions. Those old cars didn’t have restrictions on emissions. Technology in this area has come a long way, and improving the emissions that are put out by a vehicle adds inefficiency to the system. So even though both cars get mid-20’s mpg, the Nash is putting significantly more pollutants into the air.
Another difference is power. A typical Nash Ambassador came standard with a 6 cylinder engine that put out a maximum of 88 horsepower. Nowadays I’m not even sure if you could find a 4 cylinder engine with that little horsepower; even the little 4 banger in the Camry puts out nearly double that.
One other thing I’d point out is that in the article you linked and quoted where the Nash achieved 26.424 mpg, it was a contest to see how high they could get their fuel economy. Doing something similar with a modern car will allow you to get much, much above the EPA estimates. In fact, I bet this guy could take that camry and double the fuel economy of the Nash Ambassador.
A lot of people complain that they don’t get the mileage out of their cars that the EPA says they should; personally, I get better mileage than EPA estimates. But then, maybe those are the people blowing by me on their way to slam on the brakes at the stoplight a couple blocks up.
If more people would just have a bit more foresight and think about their driving more, they’d probably increase their personal fuel economy by 4-5 mpg which, en masse, would be a gigantic cut in national fuel usage.
ejmw, It’s true that these 2 vehicles have many differences not considered by my comparison. As to that old article, the test was constructed to average out to a speed of 42 mph, approximately what I figure our modern city and highway numbers would average out to , or something close.
To me the significant thing to take away from this is that a large vehicle can be fairly fuel efficient, if not powered by a monster motor. The 5 cylinder Hummer H3 was at least a step in the right direction, but, alas, it is now offered with a larger engine.
I completely agree boran2. I hope you didn’t take my post as a criticism of your excellent diary, but rather a supplement to it, as that was my intention.
Not at all. I was glad to see your comments.
Our cars would get better fuel mileage if Big Oil would stopping cheating the consumer with hot gas…
http://www.kansascity.com/news/hot_fuel/
That’s an excellent series, and thank you for posting the link.
That is an interesting series (and something I had never heard of), but your assertion is a non-sequitur. Your car’s mileage would be the exact same, you’d just be spending a little bit less money to fill up your tank.
not exactly..your car is getting less mpg because there is less carbon..or energy..
No, because the fuel comes to equilibrium temperature with the outside environment once it is in your tank. You would get less miles per tank of gas, because you have less gas in your tank, but not less mpg. The amount of fuel in your tank has nothing to do with the efficiency of your engine.
I am still waiting for my James Bond personal jet pack from the big “science is wonderful” age back in the 60’s.
Charles Nelson Pogue, a name to Google.
It’s coming, keep checking your mailbox.
It may go down in history that the most harmful idea in our planet’s history was the idea of combining a car body with a truck chasis and motor and coming up with the SUV.
I can’t remember the name of the guy who proposed then got his company to implement this great idea, or the name of the company he worked for, but it conceivable that when large portions of NYC goes under water, he will be searched for and hung.