Slashdot linked to Jalopnik's
story on the RSV on Friday. Among the comments is this gem from Kulprit442:
I remember seeing car ads from the past (just because I am an automotive pop culture nut) and it wasn't uncommon for the small cars of the 80's, 70's and even 60's claiming 30-40mpg...so why with all the technology in 30 years can we not make alot more vehicles get alot more than they are now. I still say conspiracy!!!!
The thing about those old cars is that they didn't have much horsepower. The RSV included the 1.7L engine from the mid-70's Honda Accord. The sedan of today offers as its smallest engine a 2.4L 177 hp version, with a 3.5L 271 hp V6 available on the more premium trims. In 1988*, the Accord only offered 98 hp in the DX/LX and 120 hp in the LXi, both with 2.0L engines.
Over time, manufacturers have offered more power, and buyers have accepted it. Today's 110 hp engines find their way into subcompacts ranging from the Toyota Yaris (106 hp) to the Honda Fit (117 hp), or end up as part of a hybrid system, as in the 2009 Toyota Prius. (Ye olden subcompacts often made do with about 66 hp, but nobody truly liked them.) I don't really blame manufacturers nor buyers for this, though. Power is a lot more
fun than economy, no conspiracy needed.
Although weight could soak up the performance difference between modern and older cars, the trend appears to have been for power to increase faster than weight. That 1988 Accord is only 2482 lb. for the DX sedan, for 25.4 lb/hp. The 2010 LX sedan weighs 3230 lb, for 18.2 lb/hp.
* This being as far back as MSN autos provides data for it, and I'm not interested in doing heavy research on Memorial Day weekend.
As an aside, I find it hilarious that the idiots whining about fuel efficiency are also the clowns demanding more safety features of dubious effectiveness, which all have a non zero weight.
Anyway, I remember thinking ye olde Volkswagene with a whopping 100hp was the bomb. Now I can't live without at least 250hp.