Current Fords less fuel efficent than Model T?

[renata]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/04/ford.sierra.reut/index.html

The Sierra Club, a leading U.S. environmentalist group, plans to run advertisements criticizing Ford Motor Co. for making vehicles that are less fuel-efficient now -- on its 100th birthday -- than when it began.

The ads, scheduled to run in The New York Times and BusinessWeek, note that the Model T got 25 miles to the gallon nearly a century ago. The headline reads, "1903-2003 A Century of Innovation ... except at Ford." Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford's average vehicle now gets 22.6 miles per gallon, with its popular Explorer sports utility vehicle getting 16 miles per gallon, according to the Sierra Club ad.

Does anyone know whether it is factually true? And if it is true, is it because the reasearch for fuel efficiency is not profitable, or because cars now have many more features that require power?

 

[Andonyx]

If it is true it could depend on a number of factors...

First you have to determine if effiency is merely a how much gas to go this far proposition. It usually is, and that leavs out a key factor, performace.

And not just straight line performance. I would be willing to bet and original Model T couldn't go much over 45, carried four passengers comfortably and reached top speed in 30 seconds or more.

A new Explorer can do 105+ reach 60MPH in 9 seconds, and carry four adults plus another 2000lbs of crap.

I honestly don't know if it's really worth the trade off in fuel or not. But back then nobody made a car that could do all that so we could see exactly how much gas it would have used.

 

[AlH]

That might be but there are other considerations about the early Fords, they may want to take into account oil loss (leaking) during operation that might tend to increase the petroleum product usage of early cars.

Page on reducing oil leaks in Model Ts
http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/scmtfc/Tech0300.html

Henry Ford was quoted as saying, "If it isn't dripping, it's out of oil."

Are they willing to relax emission restrictions to get better milage?

From http://www.e-insite.net/ednmag/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA185948

If you think of your car's engine as a device that converts gasoline chemical energy into mechanical energy, then you might believe that the engine that powered your car to work today and the engine that went into the first car Henry Ford built in 1903 are almost the same. In the eyes of the EPA, however, the engines differ significantly. For example, the hydrocarbon emissions of a subcompact car built in 1988 are less than one-thirtieth of a 1921 Ford Model T (Reference 1). This statistic is even more impressive when you consider that the subcompact has four times the horsepower and nearly twice the gas mileage, and it weighs 300 lbs more than the Model T

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hopefully, Ford with it's billions, will couter this tree-hugging crap in some way..

Unfortunately, the average person who buys into the Sierra Club crap, can't comprehend the type of information that Andonyx and AIH just provided....

 

[fishbob]

A Model T probably weighed somewhere under 2,000 lbs. A modern Taurus weighs around 3,500 to 4,000 lbs. An Expedition weighs around 6,000 lbs. People are pushing a lot more mass down the road at much higher speeds. The per pound per mph efficiency has increased a lot.

 

[69dodge]

What everyone else said . . .

Google ("model t" "top speed") yields lots of info, as always.

The Model T weighed 1200 pounds. Top speed around 45 mph. 22 horsepower engine. The Model A, which had a 40 hp engine, took 29 seconds to reach 60 mph.

The "features" that require lots of gas are quick acceleration and high top speed.

And anyway, this website gives the Model T's gas mileage as "about 13 to 21 miles per gallon". Kinda like my car. Except it can go nearly three times as fast. I think I'll pass on the Model T. (Although I'd love to have a spark advance/retard control that's accessible while driving.)

 

[Ladewig]

For me the advantage of the modern car is not the top speed, acceleration capabilities, or raw power; it's the safety features. When one looks at safety progress over 100 years, it is pretty impressive (although it was rather slow moving).

Besides, for the first 3/4 of the century (excepting the war years), consumers, producers, and governments were unconcerned with gas mileage.

I file this statistic in the "so what?" category.

 

[_Q_]

I think that Ford engineers could come up with a car that would absolutely crush the model T with respect to fuel economy if they were only required to "meet or exceed" other model T characteristics such as:

1) payload
2) safety
3) top speed, acceleration, braking, handling
4) reliability
5) emissions
6) passenger comfort
7) reliability/service lifetime.

Let's face it, Ford already produces cars that clobber the model T's fuel economy while being light years ahead of it in all of these other respects.

Some of the things that use more fuel are requirements (e.g., safety, or a minimum level of performance for use on the street). Other things aren't requirements, but are what people want.

Their argument reeks of lousy reasoning, and lowers my estimation of the Sierra Club.

Now you've got me all bent out of shape!


Q

 

[Andonyx]

What everyone else said . . .

Google ("model t" "top speed") yields lots of info, as always.

The Model T weighed 1200 pounds. Top speed around 45 mph. 22 horsepower engine. The Model A, which had a 40 hp engine, took 29 seconds to reach 60 mph.

Dude! I was just guessing and I was freaking dead on. Sorry nothing scientific to say here, but I just feel good about this.

 

[Dancing David]

So the Sierra club is trying to make a point, maybe not the best way possible. And the auto manufacturers tell lots of lies all the time too.

Is there some reason the Sierra Club should meet a different standard than the car companies?

Diogenes: can you prove that the Sierra Club is as irrational as say Earth First, did they do something to hurt your feelings? They are not exactly tree/bunny huggers, they are a PAC that promotes conservation. One of the more rational ones , unfortunately.

Would Jesus drive a Ford?

 

[BobM]

Hm...

How much would my MPG improve if I only drove my car as if it were a Model-T?

 

[BobM]

Is there some reason the Sierra Club should meet a different standard than the car companies?

Sun-Tzu would say that it's best to attack from a well-defended position.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes: can you prove that the Sierra Club is as irrational as say Earth First, did they do something to hurt your feelings?

No... I just think they are another useless bureaucracy, with a lot of do-nothing high paid executives, treating themselves to the kind of lifestyle they suggest everyone else should avoid, and operating under the guise of a non-profit organization... ( just my opinion..)


The misleading information about Ford helps support this.( IMO ).. The fact that Ford lies also, is no excuse...

 

[Dancing David]

Good points all, they apply to so man 'not for profits'

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

all good considerations. The Ford model T n' As can not be adequately compared to what is built into vehicles today, apples and oranges in my view.

but

Why do city slickers and suburbanites need 350 plus horsepower in a vehicle that will be used to get groceries, chaufeur the kids, for car pooling to work, and to go through window pickup? People are driving around pickups made for towing 5th wheels and horse trailers which they do not own.

I see many people gunning their vehicles from a starting stop and racing past everyone to just be stopped by the next red light (and everyone they passed catching up to them) and do it over and over again (and not just teens showing off in their "rods".

I understand there is a market for these vehicles but against all reason the market is grwoing in suburbia and amongst the cosmopolitans.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

but

Why do city slickers and suburbanites need 350 plus horsepower in a vehicle that will be used to get groceries, chaufeur the kids, for car pooling to work, and to go through window pickup? People are driving around pickups made for towing 5th wheels and horse trailers which they do not own.

For the same reason people tie large rubber bands around their ankles and jump from high places...

No good reason...

 

[jj]

For the same reason people tie large rubber bands around their ankles and jump from high places...

No good reason...

#define SARCASM 1
Oh, come on, they do so need great big cars weighing 2 english tonnes to move around one 150 lb person! Really, they do.
#undef SARCASM

I wonder, how does my 10 year old Plymouth Acclaim compare to a model 'T'. It gets about 25 in town, 33 or so crosscountry, a quart every 3000 miles for oil, takes 4 in comfort or 5 in friendship, 3 suitcasesand 4 overnight bags, 2 camera bags, 3 tripods, has AC, heat, a roof ...

What's the tradeoff here?

 

[jimlintott]

Is it fair to blame Ford for responding to market pressures. Their product line could easily be double or more in fuel efficiancy compared to the Model T but the customers (the one's with the money) don't want it.

It's a bit apples and oranges too. I don't know how many vehicles were in Ford's product line in the day of the model T but today's line up is huge. I would bet that if you excluded trucks and SUVs that the current passenger car line is way above the average. I think a Grand Marquis would beat the average.

Some anecdotal evidence about living with Model Ts, apparently they would throw connecting rods with surprising regularity. Carrying spares for a long trip was recommended although a road side repair was possible. A modern car is scheduled for its first tune up at 100,000 K (62,000 m). That kind of mileage would have been difficult for most model Ts to attain in a lifetime.

The Sierra Club should be pressuring the people who drive the monstrosities. The manufacturers will respond. When pople wanted safety they got safety. When they want big they got big. If they would just start wanting efficiency and smaller size the manufacturers would happily oblige.

 

[dsm]

Is it fair to blame Ford for responding to market pressures.

Sure it is. It's one way that you go about changing those market pressures. And it seems that Ford is getting the message:

http://www.edmunds.com/news/innovations/articles/43026/article.html

The Sierra Club should be pressuring the people who drive the monstrosities. The manufacturers will respond. When pople wanted safety they got safety. When they want big they got big. If they would just start wanting efficiency and smaller size the manufacturers would happily oblige.

Forgive me, but this is a "chicken and egg" mentality. If the Sierra Club only pressured the people, then little would change as the people would simply say "but I want a big car and there are so many available -- is it my fault they aren't fuel efficient?" The Sierra Club does regularly pressure the people buying the cars, but that doesn't mean it should let the manufacturers off the hook for not producing efficient vehicles!

 

[fishbob]

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2160.htm

Ford Festiva 2-door hatchback
Wheelbase, in. 90.2
Overall Length, in. 140.5
Overall Width, in. 63.2
Overall Height, in. 55.3
Curb Weight, lbs. 1797
Cargo Volume, cu. ft. 26.5
Fuel Capacity, gals. 10.0
Seating Capacity 4
Front Head Room, in. 38.6
Max. Front Leg Room, in. 40.6
Rear Head Room, in. 37.4
Min. Rear Leg Room, in. 35.7
ohc I4 1.3 / 5-speed manual: 35/42 mpg

FORD makes a car that goes 2x as fast, uses 1/2 the fuel, is safer, more reliable, more comfortable, costs less in current dollars than the Model T. Who drives one? The typical American driver wants to drag an extra ton of steel down the highway. The car companies give the public what the public wants.