I have a neighbor who just made an automotive purchase that made me stop and think.

He bought a late 70s/early 80s VW Rabbit. But not just any Rabbit, a Rabbit diesel. The car itself is in very good shape since it came from the southwest, but that isn't the kicker. The kicker is the mileage he's getting with this thing.

52 MPG

Even better, he brews his own bio-diesel at a cost of .47/gal.

Somehow, I think the rest of us lost something along the way from the late 70s to 2011.

Made me stop and think.

Just found this via a quick google :

>>"The 1978 VW Rabbit diesel had a curb weight of 2145lbs."<<

2010 golf TDI weighs 3033.

We didn't 'lose' something, we gained.

[/thread]

Edited June 18, 201114 yr by balthazar

Time to fix that.

What would you suggest?

You can't think that the manufacturers haven't been looking at exactly this since the '80s.

My Dad's '84 Escort L diesel (which became my first car) got that kind of mileage. Made a great tow car behind the Winnebago. 2.0L diesel, 5spd manual. But other than A/C, it was completely stripped...vinyl interior, AM radio, manual everything. That lack of content wouldn't be too popular today, I'm afraid.

GM used to have some high mileage models--remember the Chevette diesel, Chevy Sprint, and Geo Metro? Tiny, very basic cars.

Edited June 18, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

52 mpg highway or city?

52 mpg highway or city?

Highway probably...my Escort got 50-55mpg regularly highway...

52 mpg highway or city?

I'm assuming the number comes from somewhat mixed driving with a heavy emphasis on highway.

But I'd have to ask.

52 mpg highway or city?

I'm assuming the number comes from somewhat mixed driving with a heavy emphasis on highway.

But I'd have to ask.

Please ask him. I am very curious.

What would you suggest?

You can't think that the manufacturers haven't been looking at exactly this since the '80s.

Well,

1) I think that they took their collective eye off of the ball in the nineties.

2) The government needs to reexamine its role in this and reform what needs to be reformed.

3) A greater focus on domestic Alt fuels that can service the existing fleet should be a priority.

4) That the manufacturers push for such fuels to get the Feds off of their backs.

That's just for starters.

There is no reason that we can't get results like this if we make a mission out of it.

1. They may have been sidetracked with technology/electronics, yes.

2. The Gov't is incapable of this.

3. & 4. Agreed.

What would you suggest?

You can't think that the manufacturers haven't been looking at exactly this since the '80s.

Well,

1) I think that they took their collective eye off of the ball in the nineties.

Automakers became obsessed with the easy profits from trucks and truck-based SUVs in the '90s..they were cheap to build, highly profitable, and had fewer regulations than cars...then that market faded over the last 5 years or so...

Edited June 19, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

1. They may have been sidetracked with technology/electronics, yes.

2. The Gov't is incapable of this.

3. & 4. Agreed.

and +1

something interesting would be to find a car liek the 240z and see what kind of mpg it could get with ...say, a 3.8 and 5 speed, an ls and 6 speed, the 2.0L turbo/5/6speed or the 2.4L DI w/ 5/6speed. any of these combos would keep the car fun to drive, and possibly lower the weight.

CRX... recent 50/50 driving mix... 48 mpg. Though, I can't brew my own gasoline.

2-wheeler and fuel-efficiency guru Craig Vetter has a proposal for what he calls "freedom machines" Basically an alternative class of 2-4 wheeled vehicles like cyclecars that would have to get 100 mpg highway but would be free from most crash and safety regulations so they could be as simple and light as possible.

I think in the US 3-wheeled cars are still classified as motorcycles so I can see them becoming somewhat popular as high-mileage car alternatives.

Its pretty common for modern Golf TDI's to get 45mpg+ and you still get modern conveniences and crash protection.

Only 52mpg? He must be racing it.

As an aside, it was when I was passed, up hill, by a similar vintage Rabbit diesel while I had my foot pinned to the floor in my '83 Caprice 3.8 litre that I resolved to be rid of that car ASAP....... but it did get 30mph highway.

Only 52mpg? He must be racing it.

As an aside, it was when I was passed, up hill, by a similar vintage Rabbit diesel while I had my foot pinned to the floor in my '83 Caprice 3.8 litre that I resolved to be rid of that car ASAP....... but it did get 30mph highway.

That must have been a pretty sickly 3.8 (or badly geared) or the Rabbit must have gotten a helluva start. I own a '83 Impala 3.8 (and a '81 Bonneville 3.8 ) and have driven a '78~'80 Rabbit diesel... and the Impala/Bonne would beat it hands down.

I remember back in '87, we got pulled over in the Rabbit diesel because it was not able to accelerate fast enough from a traffic light.

Edited June 29, 201114 yr by SAmadei

I'm thinking it was gearing. It was my great grandfather's car. Despite being quite wealthy and president of a large company, he was also very frugal. It was a mildly optioned Caprice Classic, and I can see him in 1982 after the fuel crises ordering the V6 Caprice with the tallest gearing possible so as to get good highway mileage.

Perusing the internet... 0-60 times... '82 Caprice 3.8: 16 seconds. '79 Rabbit Diesel: 17.8 seconds -- 1/4 mi times... '82 Caprice 3.8: 20.6 seconds. '79 Rabbit Diesel: 20.7 seconds.

They're both quite slow.

The "uphill" part may have been what killed me...... btw, I didn't say it wast a fast race..,.

I'm thinking it was gearing. It was my great grandfather's car. Despite being quite wealthy and president of a large company, he was also very frugal. It was a mildly optioned Caprice Classic, and I can see him in 1982 after the fuel crises ordering the V6 Caprice with the tallest gearing possible so as to get good highway mileage.

If you got 30 mpg, I could see that, as well. The '81 Bonne never hit 25... I'd say the same for the Impala... which was my grandparents. They got the V6 to be frugal... but they didn't want to be without power, so I'm sure it was more aggressively geared.

Perusing the internet... 0-60 times... '82 Caprice 3.8: 16 seconds. '79 Rabbit Diesel: 17.8 seconds -- 1/4 mi times... '82 Caprice 3.8: 20.6 seconds. '79 Rabbit Diesel: 20.7 seconds.

I'm not knowing the diesel Rabbits, but those times are optimistic, and only if its in top tune. It was hard keeping my friends (I think it was an '80) diesel Rabbit going well. It was stick but it constantly had some issue or another. Dad must have put a pound of welding rod in that car over the months to keep it going back and forth.

Come to think of it, Dad put a lot of welding rod in VWs of the era (for a GM guy). I remember a few things coming off Dashers and Squarebacks. One of them lost a door, that he welded back on. LOL.

Only car I ever experienced slower than that Rabbit diesel was my '81 AMC Eagle Kammback... which initially had a 0-60 time of 59 seconds. After I replaced a missing rocker arm, it was much quicker... 26 seconds. This is where I learned that dragging around a heavy AWD system wasn't really worth it.

Driving across flat states (Illinois, Missouri, Indiana) without a car full of stuff my car will get 48, I imagine it would get some incredible mileage if it lost 1/3 of its weight. Modern diesel technology is extremely impressive.

Only 52mpg? He must be racing it.

As an aside, it was when I was passed, up hill, by a similar vintage Rabbit diesel while I had my foot pinned to the floor in my '83 Caprice 3.8 litre that I resolved to be rid of that car ASAP....... but it did get 30mph highway.

WOW... 30 mph on the highway? That's blistering fast.

Driving across flat states (Illinois, Missouri, Indiana) without a car full of stuff my car will get 48, I imagine it would get some incredible mileage if it lost 1/3 of its weight. Modern diesel technology is extremely impressive.

Get out the Sawszall and find out.