Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
I have a similar comparison between my 2000 bmw z3 and 56 Chevy bel air with a 74 Chevelle engine and I have tested my z3 mpg and got 29mpg and knowing my z3 tank and bel air tank are the same size and every week of daily driving my z3 has about a quarter of a tank left and my bel air typically has half a quarter left so I guesstimate my bel air gets about 20 or 25 mpg but because I work at a dealership I get to see the mpg of every brand new car that comes in and I've seen 4runners tundras and Silverados that roll onto the lot rated at as low as 15mpg how the fuck is my car from the 50s more eco friendly than a considerable number of new cars on the road today if my car had a overdrive I could probably understand but I have a 3 speed automatic that it came out the factory with I should be needing to have at least a modern engine and transmission to make my bel air comparable but no just having a early 70s motor is enough to get better mileage then new 2024 trucks
Here, you dropped these:
. , . : ; , .
The bel air probably doesn't have any emissions stuff. That's why it gets better gas milage than you expect, whereas the newer stuff absolutely does. Plus trucks are geared for torque, unlike a car, which reduces mpg. A more apt comparison would be to older ('50-'70s) trucks, where you were probably talking more around 9-10mpg without emissions.
Also remember that those trucks are both heavier and less aerodynamic than your Bel-Air. A well-equipped Tundra or Silverado is pretty close to the weight of your Bel-Air and Z3, combined.
I guarantee that your 70s motor isn't really all that eco-friendly. Once all the emissions stuff is warmed up, those trucks are honestly pretty "clean" in regards to tail pipe emissions compared to even a car 20 years ago. Remember that CO2 and water aren't the only things emitted, and while they're worse on the CO2 front, anything without a catalytic converter is going to emit some pretty nasty stuff in addition to all all the CO2.
I used to own a 2012 Jeep Patriot. I swapped the air filter, fuel filter, spark plugs, plug wires, and coil pack. Chrysler sent technicians to me to verify that, yes, as long as I kept the tach between 1000 and 2000, I was getting 35/50 mpg.
I figured this out because I was a delivery driver at the time, and managed to go from Lexington, KY to a town in northern South Carolina that I cannot remember the name of, on one tank of fuel.