Model T has same fuel economy as modern cars

wow. this really makes me wonder if any research has really been done to actually increase fuel economy or not.

FAIL.

big ol' FAIL. course its obvious why, no ones ever really had to put serious research into better fuel efficiency (until maybe recently)

Well-written article. To me, it seems evident that the next evolutionary step for automobiles is electric power. The efficiency gains are dramatic, and many of the properties of electric motors are undeniably superior to internal combustion, such as a flat power curve and a much higher RPM limit. Imagine replacing many of those complicated, heavy, mechanical systems with wires. Now, if we could just figure out the whole electricity storage issue...

My first reaction was that it's depressing that the fuel economy is the same. However, modern day cars do have much greater horsepower, which translates to speed, but also ability to accelerate...which may not seem that important, but it is if you're trying to get out of the way of a 18 wheeler that lost its breaks or something... Plus, modern cars have a lot more to them than the Model T did - air conditioners and radios and and and all add to more weight, which would help explain the lack of an increase in fuel efficiency - add that to the Model T and it's mpg would go down.

Not excuses, just some explanation - it may not be as bad as it seems.

yea, what david taylor said....

I dont know much about cars, but i know that they run on ancient sunlight, and that's no good.

Yeah, I totally know what you're saying, Tori. The lighter, the better: that's the aim of those cars that run on compressed air, a contributing factor to their fuel efficiency. We just need to see, though, that we haven't made much progress since the inception of the automobile, and with that knowledge act.

You guys - it is making a comparison between a Model T mileage and the "average" mileage of vehicles today.

"Average" means that the statistic includes all those gas guzzling hogs (cars / SUV's not women) people drive.

Get a load of this; the Federal Government in establishing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) standards for the auto manufacturers, exempted those big gas guzzling pigs (that have been so popular in wasteful America) from meeting the (stricter) fuel mileage standards of a passenger vehicle by allowing them to be classified as or in the same category as a truck.

Now, realistically, how many of you who stroke yourselves for driving those pigs haul around hay, or lumber, or fertilizer in the rear leather seats?

That's what you get when you vote Ripusoffican! It's called corruption, manipulation, deception for their personal gain - it's a perfect example. YouknowwhatImtalkinabout?

Also, I've been involved in racing engine development with some involvement in Winston Cup. I'll tell you - it's all about efficiency, period. Now, a race engine by necessity requires a much higher rpm range - and horsepower, but the same technology and innovation from those progressive innovators (not all racers are innovators) have greatly contributed to modern engine design - and fuel mileage.

But, BUT, the problem as I see it as a result of my own R&D is that the fuel we are provided by big greedy oil severely limits significant improvement in the efficiency of mass production / produced engines.

There is technology that has never been incorporated into mass produced engines - be it to avoid paying royalties or pressure from bigger, more powerful and influential oil companies - I don't know.

the model-t was also designed to run on vegetable oil right?

I think so but I'm not sure.

Its just sad that we have not come much farther in 100 years, because greedy oil companies. We should put oil execs on trial for slowing down the progress of the world

..Voyagerfilms
I do agree wholeheartedly but even with all the incorporation of Technologies on fossil fuels for more efficiency, you cannot support that an alternative avenue shouldn't be brought forward.The world is slowly grinding to a halt under this regime of the all encompassing 'Black Gold'.
Whatever the new way would be it must be sustainable and hopefully cheap enough for all and sundry to afford.

It's not surprising; our society and culture is based so much on getting things done and progression at a rapid pace no matter the cost--in this case, it's the environment and gas prices.

Electric is the way to go. No doubt about it. We should begin the infrastructure already.

Kudos to you, Adumbration. This is horrible and hilarious. Perhaps the article should be titled ADUMBNATION (submitted by Adumbration). I believe the first cars ran on straight alcohol. (They were happy cars). When Prohibition came along things changed. Be careful of the electric cars. If they are plugged into renewable energy (not coal and nuclear) then they become carbon neutral, or close to it, as far as the operating power. We can't all be buying electric cars and then plugging into a coal/nuclear grid and think we are doing something good for the planet. Some have suggested using extra batteries as a backup for grid power (i.e. in a truck or government fleet). They would charge either from the grid (or hopefully carbon neutral biofuels) and then be able to plug back into the grid, giving off the stored battery electrical capacity in times of need. The worst thing about electric cars is the electromagnetic radiation. Not good for kids or adults (cancer promoter). So you need to think about your immediate surroundings when in a car. Take readings with an EMF meter before purchasing an electric car.

What do you expect? Do the right thing? For the consumer or the bottom line?
WARNING: beware the hybrid.

One of the points I'm seeing here is, no matter how far we've come in other technologies, the car is still, basically, a fossil fuel burning engine that hasn't changed all that much in 100 plus years. Why have we been so lax in our efforts to evolve where road vehicles are concerned? It couldn't possibly be the co-operative efforts between car manufacturers and oil companies to keep us forcebly limited in reaching beyond to more Earth-friendly modes of getting around.
Not in this day and age, surely. (ahem)
That would be as crazy as getting rid of electric trolleys in favor of diesel burning buses.
Oh, wait. That DID happen.
We've been strangleheld by outdated ideas from outdated sources that refuse to give way to new ones due to the addictive diseases, Greed and Control.
I haven't owned or driven a car in over 25 years.
Now, you know why.

... wonder what do we do with all this power and speed if most of the time people is stuck in traffic jams.
Probably just a simple horse instead of horsepower will do.

If Electric is the future, fine. But what would happen to those who live in the third world? This is a place where electricity is more exception than the norm and that is where the infrastructure does exist enough to transmit.
In this age where nuclear energy is the only reliable from of generation and first world countries would rather commit hara-kiri than transfer technologies or better still encourage/let it evolve.
So what, only those in the highly industrialized economies will be allowed to own cars?

My Dad had a car collection that included a canary yellow Model-T. He used to take my brother and I for ice cream in it every Sunday and we would have to eat the ice cream REAL fast on the way home to keep it from running down our arms as it melted in the wind. Some of my favorite childhood memories happened in that car. It was promised to me when I grew up but my Dad wound up having to sell it (broke my heart). I understand it wound up in a car museum somewhere in Florida. Would love to find that car and revisit my childhood one more time. My Dad is dead now....and the runny ice cream is but a distant pleasant memory.

"The Model T and Model A were dual-fuel vehicles. The distributor, which sent a spark to each cylinder, was "digital": You used the five digits of your left hand to pull the lever on the steering column to advance the spark timing as you drove. When running on alcohol you would advance the spark timing a great deal more than for gasoline, to accommodate alcohol's cooler-burning, high-octane qualities. The dual-fuel vehicles also had a carburetor that could be adjusted from the inside of the automobile by turning a knob (incorrectly termed the choke) on the dashboard....The Model T got 34 miles per gallon compared to our corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of 35 mpg today." ..............David Blume

thats amazing its burns the same thing and gets the same gas mileage as newer cars. petrol hasn't changed and it seems that cars haven't much either

Actually, gasoline has changed in the last 100 years.

Even in the late 1960's and early 1970's you could purchase what is now considered "race gas" at the pump with 100 + octane rating.

Why is high octane good you ask? Because the fuel is more stable during extremely critical periods in the compression cycle proceeding ignition and during the combustion process. The additional stability of the fuel not to auto ignite or to prematurely flash burn the light end of the fuel allow(s) engine builders / designers to utilize high compression ratios - a major factor in the potential efficiency and a significant contributor to horsepower and torque production of an engine.

A lead additive was used as a cheap way to increase the octane - and put lead into the atmosphere. So, lead was fazed out and octane lowered.

to the original question, yes. i'll take my heated leather seats, cup holders, AC, radio and power everything. besides, i have a honda. 30/35mpg baby oh yeah :) despite the "we're running out of gas and our ozone is going to kill us" people, i'll take my faster car that runs on gasoline that won't run out for hundreds of years which by the time we will have alternative fuel sources anyways. flux capacitor anyone? lol

nowadays american cars are mostly disasters. we lost the good stuff once we hit the 80's

We really need to think smarter and stop working harder.

Seems like the only solution the Republicans are willing to accept when it comes to the oil crisis is --- drill for MORE oil.

Um, yeah, we could do that.

OR we could re-invest in our mass transportation systems. I for one would LOVE to take the bus. I hate sitting in rush hour traffic for 2 hrs sucking in the exhaust of the pickup in front of me creeping along at 2 miles per hour. Small problem: I'd actually have to drive 10 miles to actually get to the bus stop nearerst my house! And even when you get to the bus stop, what do you find? A small sign nailed to a telephone pole next to a massive highway that says "Bus Stop." There are no benches, no shelter, nothing. If it's raining, then you stand in the rain. If it's 40 below zero and snowing, then I guess you and the little old lady standing next to you will stand knee deep in frozen slush for an 1hr and a half because, oops, the bus is late for the 100th time.

Both parties hate mass transit and that's why it sucks and gets little to zero funding.

What if we actually invested in our bus system? Turned them all into clean burning alt energy vechicles, built ACTUAL bus shelters (hell, make'em big enough to put a Starbucks in! Make it a place people would WANT to go! You could sit and read the paper in a comfortable building!) and took the routing and schedule seriously enough to where people could actually take the bus?

That would get a ton of people off the roads (less wear and tear on the highways, lower taxes, less traffic) and have a lot of other benefits.

Crob - those are fighting words!!! Take them back boy!

Okay really, all we need are more Starducks to continue the clear cutting of trees (in a world already short of trees) for their coffee cups, and more oil and resultant chemicals processed and dumped into the environment, and I'm not done yet, and more "mom 'n pop" small businesses put out for corporate war sponsoring arrested development decadent CEO's and fat cat shareholders to further plunder the pockets of American's who need to earn a living by dipping into the tip jars filled by those of us who SUPPORT, get this - and it sounds crazy I know, but SUPPORT working AMERICANS.

What was the topic of this thread?

Oh ya, I don't personally like busses because I dig trains, but a buss is at least mass transit - but I doubt as efficient.

Our elected officials are very irresponsible for neglecting issues of wasteful, unsustainable practices which by the way, on the surface is beneficial to those established big companies who dominate any given field - not the United States as a whole and not the American people.

Enough with corporate greed dictating the policies of our great nation already!!!! Vote the traitors out of office and make a statement to those misguided and misperceiving Republicans.

Okay, okay.

It doesn't have to be a Starbucks! Ha ha.

The Ford Company today would be back in business if they just followed the Founder's dream and produced automobiles with internal combustion engines designed to run on 100% non-polluting, carbon neutral alcohol.

No, no, Crob, you said it. You vote for destroying the planet. You can't take it back. No! Well, alright - even though I perfect, I guess I could fid it in my heart to let it slide this time. LOL

We need to get out of reverse.

Am I the only one who knows that the oil industry secretly bought the rights to a water powered car in the 1920s ... and promptly destroyed the science.
No wonder we've made little progress if this level of strategic thinking has continued.

I live in sonoma ca. and we have 2 people that have mid 90s rav 4 toyotas, the are all electric and can go up to 120 miles without a charge. one guy drives to sf from sonoma 45 miles. What happened?? It's 15 years later and we have the pruis? The cost to drive the cars is about 3 cents a mile. there are no oil changes and has very few moving parts. and yes my 2002 pontiac gets 20 miles to the gallon.