Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Nobody told him | marijuana field Next »
He flew over the Atlantic Ocean in 1927 on a single tank of gas.
And I can’t go 300 miles without refueling my car in 2009….
WTF!!!!
(Charles Lindbergh)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: B.S. via Advanced Lol Builder
 | John in OK on Money Shot |
| John in OK on Out Like a Trout |
 | itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| itsybit on Paint By Poll Numbers |
| itsybit on Out Like a Trout |
 | Lllll. on Paint By Poll Numbers |
 | JP on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | Stinky Whizzleteats on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Because you don’t have a 1k gallon fuel tank -.-
No, no, no… the point of this LOL is that we need to put airplane fuel in our cars!
Yes!! Whoever wants to beat the world speed record in a Honda Civic please form an orderly line on the left.
Oh, I’ve got a twin-turbo volvo with a t3 in it…can I try?
Jet fuel is actually readily available at racetracks with the right permits. I can’t put it in my car, though. *so sad*
*Twirls wrenches between fingers* Hmmm…let’s see what we can do about that no-jet-fuel-in-the-Volvo…
Avgas jet fuel. 100 Low-Lead would be really bad for your car. (assuming it has a catalytic converter)
Crap, I forgot you have to use =/= and not the brackets for “not equal”
So, Avgas =/= jet fuel.
yup. avgas = diesel or kerosene (kinda, sorta) – you can run your mercedes or semi on it, but not a race car
Don’t tell Audi or Seat. They keep winning races with diesel cars.
Famly Guy Did It!
D’oh! Curses! Foiled again!
Shoot, I thought it was “carefully screen your car’s passengers to make sure they don’t have weapons.”
I don’t have a 1K fuel tank on my car??? Oh…ok
Well, you’re literal answer to my rhetorical “WTF” LOL is duely noted.
People like that take the fun out of WTF. They are always asking, ” like, Where’s the Fun?” You know, if ya gotta ask…
And your car doesn’t go 200 miles per hour.
Haha, win!
Well… he was flying an airplane in the 1920s, which didn’t weigh more than your average toyota, and had a larger gas tank, was a manual transmission which uses less gas, and the fuel used for the plane is much different than what’s used today. Not to mention he didn’t have to stop in traffic.
Manual transmission? In an airplane, you say…INteresting. Never seen an airplane with a clutch pedal before.
(For the irony challenged and/or people who don’t know much about planes…airplanes don’t HAVE transmissions.)
Sure they do, after a fashion — I think a constant-speed prop counts.
Helicopters have transmissions….prop planes have a reduction hub….not a transmission…
Look past what it’s *called* to what it *is*.
Are you suuure, Mr. David Snootypants? I’ll go tell my boss that the transmission he put in his biplane is just a 140lb addition for nothing, them. We’ll take it out and see how well you test fly it for him.
What’s the oldest bird you’ve flown, then?
Some WWI fighter plane engines had a reverse gear. Trufax.
No, just…no. No piston aircraft have transmission, it’s all fed directly to the propellor. The propellor pitch angle can be changed and the fuel air mixture can be adjusted, but there are no reverse gears. Some modern piston and turboprops can get reverse thrust by changing the pitch of the prop, but definitely not WWI fighters. The closest thing to reverse you got back then was a group of guys pushing your plane backwards on the ground
Light enough airplanes in strong enough winds with a skilled enough pilot can fly in reverse. But that has nothing to do with the engine.
bring up the revs and drop the clutch.. she’ll do mach 2 from a standing start, easy.
I lol’d – I’ve heard people say this about their 4x4s too.
I lol’d at your comment. Thank you for making my day. XD
Some have reduction gearing. To reduce a high revving engine to a slower propellor speed i.e. an engine turning 4000 rpm would cause the propellor to rotate at 4k rpm, not efficient as the tips of the props would go supersonic and be useless and noisy.
Some airplanes have wings.
If the Nazis had won the war we’d have better cars.
Lindbergh would agree with me, no Godwin’s law here so pffffff
That’s exactly the kind of thing Hitler would say.
Hitler had a picture of Lindbergh on his desk.
Maybe this ‘Lol’ picture… who knew Hitler Loled.
Then again he did love animals like all Liberals (Hitler was a liberal don’t you know!)
No, no, no, Stalin was the liberal, Hitler was the conservative.
Very well said, sir. Remember, folks: Lawful Evil can be found on both sides of the political spectrum.
I know what you mean.
Obama is the dictator of the extreme far moderate.
JA, WIR KÖNNEN!
Sock.
Monkey.
Business.
I thought “extreme far moderate” was pretty funny.
Yeah, me too.
I prefer Chaotic Good, myself.
Personally, I’m neutral evil.
That’s because you’re awesome. NE ftw
They were both assholes.
That’s a misconception.
The Nazis were National Socialists. Zeev Sternhell, in his book Fascist Ideology, wrote that the understanding of fascism has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” According to Marxism, fascism was the polar opposite. However, this opinion was driven primarily by the fascist’s and communist’s rival views of the way socialism should be applied.
Gene Edward Veith, Jr writes in Modern Fascism, “Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered on national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong, centralized governments and rejected a free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.”
After 1942 or so, Lindy was actually a respectable example of a pacifist patriot.
After 1947, so was Hitler.
Sometimes it’s just better not to speak, yeah?
Um..lindberg served as an “advisor” in WWII, training pilots on the P-38..and he got so tired of being a forced “pacifict” that he got his tail quietly into a plane and shot down an enemy fighter..which got him promptly and quietly returned stateside as it was technically illegal..that and if Lingburg got shot down, all hell would break loose.
There was no “forced pacifism” — my understanding is that he remained a pacifist and was still anti-war, but following Pearl Harbor, decided that the best way to save lives was to shorten the war, and so he hooked back up with the military. (He also worked on the B-24 and with F4U crews, too.)
But much more expensive.
The VW beetle was the Nazi’s car for the people and it’s a heap of junk.
Herbie is gonna run you over tomorrow.
With Lindsay Lohan in the drivers seat.
No, if Hitler had stuck with designing cars instead of people, THEN we’d have better cars.
Now that’s funny!
You do know that Goebbels direct descendants own BMW and Rolls-Royce, yes?
Apparently you never heard that Joseph Goebbels has no living direct descendants. Joseph Goebbels and his wife Magda had six children, one boy and five girls, but Goebbels and his wife murdered all six of them before committing suicide themselves as Berlin was being overrun by the Russians on May 1, 1945.
You are probably thinking of Magda Goebbels son, Harald Quandt, from a previous marriage. At one point he owned about 10% of Daimler-Benz and 30% percent of BMW. But he is certainly no descendent of Goebbels.
WTF = where’s the funny
Word.
I concur with thee.
More funny in your comment than in caption.
He had 450 gallons of fuel in his plane. His flight distance was about 3600 miles or so. So that’s what? Eight miles to the gallon?
Yep, 8 miles to the gallon. That’s more than a Hummer though.
Actually, that’s about 2/3 the mpg of an H2 or H3.
8 mpg is closer to your average 18 wheeler.
Yeah, I know. I was just being flippant and facetious.
I bet you’re the life of the party, Killjoy Buzzkillington
Would anyone like to hear a story about a briiiidge?
Is it to Nowhere?
Actually, the average 18-wheeler gets 5-6.5 mpg.
“He had 450 gallons of fuel in his plane. His flight distance was about 3600 miles or so. ”
… , he had half a pack of cigarettes and was wearing sunglasses …
blues brothers WIN! way to go danbala.
The OP and the mods must be feeling really stupid now for posting this.
Why start now?
He had all that STL spirt behind him.
Pfft. That won’t get you to the end of street…unless the Cardinals are playing.
Yeah, anytime you want to replace your windshield with a fuel tank and steer using a periscope and looking out the side windows…
… warn me so I can get off the road in time.
i regularly get 300 miles out of a full tank, and i never run it down until its empty. get a more fuel efficient car.
That’s not so great if you have a 16 gallon tank, not-so-smarty-pants.
who says i do? a full refill for me is around 8 gallons. my car is meant to do 50 miles to the gallon, but as it only has a wee engine i tend to put my foot down a bit to compensate for the lack of power, which is why i dont get quite as good fuel economy as i should. nevertheless, my comment stands. GET A MORE FUEL EFFICIENT CAR.
Agreed. Go green!
Can your Prius pull a six horse trailer up and down the rolling hills of Texas or Tennessee? No? Thought not. Until they come out with a good, “fuel efficient” truck, those of us who have livestock need those big ol’ gas guzzlers that the President tried (and failed) to wipe out.
or wench that prius out of the snowbank at 10,000 feet?
if i had all the $$$ i’d have me a military surplus humvee, but in the mean time, i don’t begrudge the folks who actually put working rigs to work.
- what gets my goat are all the suburbanites who ‘need’ those huge suvs that never get dirty, never get on a gravel road, and never ever get into 4wh drive — it’s all status and compensation for lacking cajones
They lack boxes?
What’s even worse is that many of those “truck” drivers are women.
I believe in purpose-built vehicles. I have a minivan, and we bought it for road trips with all of our family. I’m working out my finances so I can buy a small commuter vehicle soon. I hate taking 7 seats to work, so I try not to.
8 gallons and a wee engine? Sounds like a ForTwo. Am I right?
Um, maybe because a car doesn’t hold like 500 gallons of gas. It has nothing to do with price.
As soon as I finish attaching this 500 gallon tank to the back of my truck, it will! Can you hand me that duct tape?
I’m kind of picturing Me Gibson’s car from “The Road Warrior” with the 2 50 gallon drums on the trunk
You might need some zip-ties and crazy glue, too. crazy glue? Oh, to sniff.
Yes, zip-ties will definitely help! Don’t need the auxiliary fuel lines flapping around. No crazy glue, though. I will end up with my hand permanently attached to the tank. Me and crazy glue, we don’t get along. Or we get along too well. Something.
Lots and lots of duct tape?
Everybody stand back. I have a soldering gun and I’m not afraid to use it.
I have a cutting torch and an oxyacetylene tank and I’m kindof afraid to use it!
I’m kinda afraid you’re gonna use it too. O_O
Maybe….I shouldn’t have filled the tank up yet?
*runs away*
No, no, no, use JB Weld…totally safe to use with a full tank!
Very stupid comparison.
Spirit of St. Louis –––– My Nissan Quest
450 gallons ––––––––– 18 gallons
4,000 miles ––––––––– 400 miles
8.8 mpg –––––––––––– 22.2 mpg
1 occupant –––––––––– 7 occupants
No airbags –––––––––– Driver, passenger, rear and side airbags
2,888 lbs. loaded –––– 4,400 lbs. loaded
Max 133 mph ––––––– Max 128 mph
Cruise 110mph –––––– Cruise 75mph
223 HP –––––––––––––– 240 HP
23 lb/hp –––––––––––– 18.3 lb/hp
9 cyl. Radial engine –– 3.5 L V6
27′ 8″ long –––––––––– 17′ long
46′ wingspan –––––––– No wingspan, but only 6.4′ wide
Ceiling 16,400′ –––––– Cannot fly
Engines have come a long way, but I don’t think I want the body of my minivan loaded with aircraft fuel with the way drivers are today. I’d prefer airbags. THAT’s why have the the “annoyance” of frequent refueling. However, I’d prefer that to the “annoyance” of icing on my craft.
Your Quest can go 128? Have you tested that?
Not yet, but I’ve gotten close…
That was someone else’s record, which is decent for a minivan.
My old minivan could barely do 70. But it was a 4-cylinder Dodge Caravan. O_O
I had the accelerator pedal get stuck on my 4-cylinder minivan. No matter what I did, it kept going faster and faster. I was going to call the police and have them clear the autobahn, except I didn’t have a phone back then, and I was on a deserted two lane road in the US. It was terrifying, or mildly interesting or something. Before I turned off the engine, the slugvan had broken the speed limit, it had gotten up to 50 MPH in a 45 zone.
The pedal had gotten caught in the floor mat. I smoothed out the floor mat and went on my way. But if the key hadn’t worked and the shift lever had broken off in my hand, and the clutch pedal had frozen, and the brakes had overheated, and it was a steep downhill, I could have gotten to speeds well over 70 MPH.
“It was terrifying, or mildly interesting or something. Before I turned off the engine, the slugvan had broken the speed limit, it had gotten up to 50 MPH in a 45 zone.”
The sad part is, it took 5 minutes to get to this point.
Really? You think they’d clear the road for a stuck accelerator? LOL! Put it in neutral and pull over. If the engine throws a rod or something, well, that’s why you have insurance.
Apparently, that happened to some moron in England a while back — his throttle cable got jammed, but he was “too scared of the loud noise” to leave it in neutral until he pulled over. (He ended up running out of road and flipping the car.) Loser…
Ow ow ow. That hit a sore spot. My poor Frankencar just threw a rod and that might the end of the ol’ thing. It’s too old to sink too much more money into.
Wow. Amazing story. Minivans have come a long way since then, too. Mine will easily go 50mph – in first gear!
Thank you for your time in putting that together. I hope the OP reads it.
I wouldn’t expect the OP to read it. He obviously has no desire to learn facts.
Or be funny for that matter.
For the comparison between the Spirit and the Nissan Quest, I would like to sincerely thank you. It saved me the time.
Have you been trying to decide which one to buy?
You can never trust a used airplane dealer.
Show me the planefax.
sorry but reality is usually the truth
but “even the chinese build more fuel-efficient cars than the US automobile industry…” (I know I stole from Al Gore, even I am European, though!!) … hmmm Why didn’t I think about transferring Yugo cars to the USA… same quality as GM cars…
(P.S.: this cooment could include irony or peanuts…)
Yes, Lindbergh got only 8 MPG, but humor always triumphs over facts, and this post is funny.
My little ’93 Honda Civic gets more than 300 miles per tank. 10 gallon tank takes me just shy of 400 miles.
Three hundred miles a tank?
That’s pretty damn impressive.
Not really. My Hyundai goes a lot further than 300 miles on a full tank of gas. A lot of that is highway miles, though.
Apologies, I woke up right before posting and read “300 miles to the gallon” and thought they meant 30 to a gallon…
We meant without having to break down and stop at every wrecking yard within a 50 mile radius. maybe not all hondas are evil.
I’ve done about 360 miles on a tank, in my Nissan Versa. It was a straight shot up I-5, I don’t want to think about the miles I get per tank in town.
Airplanes =/= cars. Fail. -_-
Year = nearly 2010
Airplanes =/= cars
That is FAIL
Yeah, but…I was discussing the whole “flying car” thing the other day. Given the general competency of the average driver capable of moving in two dimensions, do you really think adding a third is advisable?
Yeah, how the hell are you gonna paint lane stripes in mid-air?
Laser pointers!
I don’t like where this is going at all.
Sqwirk cannot handle ambiguity
Add on sappy and/or preachy captions with or without cats, and I’m soooo there with you.
As somebody (it escapes me who, right now) once said, “I have two words for anyone waxing nostalgic about the ‘good old days’….Modern. Dentistry.”
considering the infestation of trolls lately, i think someone’s been letting the inmates loose… which is why i’ve got another 2 words for you. psycho. tropics.
(hint, make it one word, it makes more sense that way)
Which are sometimes the same thing.
…
What? Why are you people looking at me like that?
here’s a few more: small pox & polio vaccines, & penicillin
≠?
STOOPID nesting fail…I swear I hit “reply” on angrycat’s post. I know I did! (Ok, I guess I didn’t….)
That’s because he wasn’t driving one of those stupidly huge SUVs that get like .3331323 miles to the gallon.
Or π mpg.
Is that “pi”? Ahahahaha! \m/
Yes, it is. You want some?
I could go for some pie right now. Get me 3.14159 slices, please!
Mmmmmmmmmmmm, π
I’ll take some pumpkin π if you have any. Or any given chocolate π.
Bah, this pic is just fail. But i take it the captioneer wanted to point out how lame the car engine evolution has been. Petrol/diesel engines haven’t evolved much at all the last 50years. If the rest of our technology had evolved at the same pace we still wouldn’t have mobile phones and computer would still just about fit in a room and be about as powerful as a modern calculator.
Haven’t evolved much?
Direct Injection? Variable Valve Timing? Smart Stop? Hybrid applications?
It’s not what we can do, it’s what we are willing to pay to do. Gas is cheap.
Yeah. This makes about as much sense as “Computers haven’t gotten any faster in the last 5 years” just because the number before “GHz” hasn’t increased.
THEY HAVEN’T!
Not the one he’s had since the 80s, at least.
Keeps getting slower.
As it’s already been pointed out, this “tank” was 450 gallons of fuel. It was also NOT stored in a single tank, but FIVE tanks.
It’s nice to know whoever is approving these submissions for the front page doesn’t know how to take 30 seconds and check the facts on Wikipedia. Way to convince everyone gullible enough that fuel economy has gone down in 80 years. Dumbasses.
Ofc fuel economy hasn’t gone down, but it has in no way improved as much as it should/could have either. The entire thing about comparing a plain with a car is fail though.
Wait, and who’s to blame for this? That’s right. Consumers. They make what we’ll buy. We didn’t want fuel economy until recently so they didn’t bother.
This is meant to to be funny not a source of information. Do you actually come here for “facts”?
That would be the BEST plaigerised school report ever.
“You titled your report ‘I Can Has Lindburg?’ You get an F.”
I don’t care what the rest of the report said, if I got one titled “I Can Has Lindburg” they’d get a D at least.
Woohoo! *signs up for Jane’s class*
Barry just named an avowed communist as his czar of green jobs, to which the so-called stimulus package has dedicated $50 billion – $50,000 million -and the czar cannot define what a green job is? WTF!
I’m pretty sure my job’s a green job. I show up every day, and every two weeks I get some green.
WTF. This analogy sucks.
Well, cars would get 3-4 times as much mileage if the government could enforce tighter regulations. And if we could get rid of stupid republicans then there would be public transit everywhere which would also lead to better control of the people, less crime, less religious practice, less pollution, etc. As long as we let just anyone go wherever they want and use whatever resources they want we’ll never get them under control.
Four things:
1) The government never designed anything. It has, on occasion, subsidized businesses which create new products. That said, you can’t simply mandate better gas mileage; although it’s clear that some in Washington, and my home state of CA think you can. There is this little problem of the reality of technological limitations. The combustion engine can only be made so efficient.
BTW, money actually works better than regulation. The engineer who could invent a dramatically more efficient engine would make his fortune overnight (from the literally hundreds of millions of people who would buy it, not from the government).
2) As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you that the theoretical efficiency of the combustion engine is just about tapped out. There are some things that could be done to increase its efficiency, but it’s a problem of diminishing returns at this point – enormously increased cost to create and manufacture, for smaller and smaller increases in efficiency. The only thing that can really be done at this point, short of inventing an entirely new type of engine, is decrease weight. Right now, safety regulations in the United States are such that safety equipment requirements keep cars a great deal heavier than they could be otherwise. It’s a trade off: better safety, lower gas mileage, or vice versa.
3) Public Transit in the United States is a near total failure and a HUGE waste of public money – except for two or three specific systems (New York and Philidalphia, I believe, to name two). This country just isn’t set up for public transit to work (I work in the field of transportation). It works reasonably well in Europe because the city layouts have changed very little in 500 years. They are very compact and exceedingly dense (by U.S. standards). That, combined with a relatively low percentage of households with access to a car, combines for very high use of public transit.
4) I find your authoritarian streak extremely disturbing. How do you suggest “getting rid of Republicans?” How, other than through the threat of violence, do you hope to achieve “better control of the people?” How would this “control” enforce less religious practice? Would you follow China’s model of threats and arrests? Why do you believe that you know best about where people should be allowed to go? Would you suggest the use of armed checkpoints at which each private motorist would have to explain their purpose for being out and show their papers? Who is this “we” you keep talking about?
Personally, I hope you and people you’re with (the alleged “we”) never get within 1000 miles of political power.
Where’d “3-4″ come from? How’d you get that public transport = less crime? What does religious practice have to do with ANY of it?
He just thinks the government can wave a magic wand and wipe out crime. He believes that public transportation is a panacea. And he hate religion generally.
No thought involved, the guy (or girl) is just venting.
Except, of course, the Spirit of St Louis had FIVE fuel tanks.
Let me guess, YOU ARE AMERICAN and your car is less efficient than a tank, with my car I can travell more than 550 miles with less than 16 american gallons.
My car’s weight is about 2900 lb (it’s a little lighter, but that weight doesn’t include people and fuel) and it has 125 horsepower, in Spain the limits are 75 miles per hour, I’m possibly you have a car with more that double of horsepower, and you will never get more than 65 miles per hour.
You are gilty, american, you buy unefficient and pollutant cars with a lot of engine wich you’ll never use.
PS: before you say something about the durability of the car, I scrapped my old car with 260 thousand kilometers, the engine was still good, the engine always started in the first try (even the last time I started it when it had been about three months stopped) and I never had to repair anything except common like sparks, oil, and that shit… never changed the clutch
Interesting…what kind of car was it?
Don’t know why I didn’t check your numbers before.
550 miles on 16 gallons = 34.3 mpg. Plenty of American cars get mileage that good or better.
Not so interesting. I withdraw my question.
What kind of cars? Are you talking about small cars or big? In Europe volkswagen sells a car (lupo) wich can get about 65 mpg, but it’s very small.
The toyota avensis is between audi a4 and chrysler 300
It’s spanish but there are photos with it’s size… I hope you can understand something http://www.toyota.es/cars/new_cars/avensis/specs.aspx
Do you have any american car with that size and mpg? because in the USA websites I only see cars with a lot of horsepower…
I don’t have too much trouble reading Spanish, usually.
From what I gather, this car weighs 3009 lbs, has an 8.9 ft wheel base, a 15.4 ft overall length, and gets 39.3-47.1 mpg. It’s almost exactly the same size as an American Toyota Prius, which gets a combined gas mileage of 50 mpg; slightly better than the Avensis.
In looking around various manufactures and car models sold in the U.S., it is difficult to find models that get better than 40 mpg, although they do exist. It appears that just about every car company makes at least one vehicle which has an mpg rating in the mid 30s.
Of course, the problem with comparing cars built to be sold in America with even the same model car built to be sold elsewhere is that both emissions controls and safety standards vary so wildly from country to country. Pound for pound, the U.S. has some of the strictest safety standards for motor vehicles in the world. These standards, by and large, increase weight which, these days, is one of the biggest factors in gas mileage along with horsepower (please note that I am not saying ALL cars built for the U.S. market have superior safety equipment to ALL cars built for other markets; I am saying that, generally speaking, the average U.S. sedan is safer than the average European sedan).
Here’s an example of what I mean: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3703.pdf
If you don’t want to read the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety article (the IIHS is the best motor vehicle safety organization around in my opinion – sorry NHTSA), the synopsis is that the VW Beetle built for the American market in 2002 had significantly better bumper systems than the one built for the European market (I don’t know if this is still the case or not). This isn’t an anomaly either:
“A number of manufacturers equip their cars for sale outside the United States with bumper systems that are different from — and less protective than — the ones on U.S. versions of the same cars. ‘This doesn’t mean the cars sold in the United States have
good bumpers. Many of them don’t. It’s just that the bumper systems on cars sold outside the United States often are even worse,’ [Institute president Brian] O’Neill points out.”
This is one example of one system which increases safety and survivability (both for the occupants and for the vehicle itself), but which increases both weight and cost (albeit minutely). Apply this example across the board, the entire car frame and body, and one gets cars on the American market that are generally safer than those sold in other markets but which weigh noticeably more. Added weight drives down fuel efficiency – even between same model vehicles made for the U.S. and other markets.
Not only strict safety standards, but strict emissions standards, as well. Take the ForTwo, for example, which gets 60mpg in Europe, but only 39mpg here in the US, thanks to added weight and reduced efficiency to prevent too much particulate matter from coming out of the exhaust.
Good post, beatusmongous. That’s a great example of what I was trying to point out in my post. U.S. model cars get less gas mileage than their european (or Latin American, or Asian) counterparts.
BTW, you bring up a good point: decreased does not necessarily = more pollutants. The U.S. has very tight emissions controls, as you point out, and despite the fact that ever-increasing safety requirements has eliminated quite a few very high gas-mileage vehicles from the roads, our air quality has increased dramatically.
I live within 4 hours of L.A., CA (current holder of the coveted “Most Polluted Air in the United States” title for the last several decades), and visit the city regularly. While I wouldn’t call the air quality in L.A. good, it has enormously improved despite the continually increasing number of cars on the road.
Here are some statistics for air quality in the L.A. Basin:
Carbon Monoxide (in parts/million):
1980: 8.775
1998: 4.132
Nitrogen Dioxide (in parts/million):
1980: 0.169
1998: 0.085
Ozone (in parts/million):
1980: 0.103
1998: 0.070
High Ozone Days:
1980: 31.157
1998: 4.479
Sulfur Dioxide (in parts/million):
1980: 0.006
1998: 0.002
One just has to look at the air quality statistics to see what incredible strides have been made in improving the quality of the environment. Although L.A. air quality still isn’t great, it keeps getting progressively better, and the rest of the United States, which never had the pollution problems of L.A., has similar improvements over the last three decades.
Our cars might use more gasoline and we drive a lot more than most of the rest of the world, but they are also exceptionally clean burning.
Look at the Chevy Malibu LT 2LT. It has almost exactly the same numbers as a Toyota Camry, which could be considered the US version of the Avensis (only 5″ shorter). 33mph and 169HP. Not far off from the Avensis, either.
http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2009/malibu/features.do
http://www.toyota.com/camry/specs.html
Sorry, let me clarify. The Avensis is 5″ shorter than the Camry and the Malibu. The Malibu and the Camry are the same size.
Small of course – it’s simple physics. There’s only so much energy available in gasoline. The heavier the object, the more energy required to move it.
Actually, the prius is one of the most efficient cars everywhere, but let’s be honest, the last time I was in the USA (about three months ago) I saw more corvettes than prius, that’s the excepcion, I don’t mean that EVERY car has to be unefficient, but it’s the most common thing, I saw lots of mustangs and pontiancs, in Europe you don’t see that kind of cars.
Of course you can buy efficient cars, but that isn’t common.
About that New Beetle, in the last three years minimun requirements have increased a lot, and security is not an excuse, prius has good efficiency too and my avensis has the same security than prius if we trust toyota.
The camry says 22/33 mpg, that’s a huge difference so I don’t know how reliable is that 33 mpg, possibly it’s closer to 27-29 mpg…
The problem isn’t weight, the problem is that most of american cars have 250 and automatic transmission, and you will
PS: I forgot to say that I have the previous avensis (this has a few months) wich is about 12 cm bigger than the new one so the difference in size is less than 1″
Oh, please….I watch Top Gear. You guys on the other side of the Atlantic have plenty of high-performance options.
Also, if you saw more Corvettes than Priuses…were you in the middle of a ‘Vette rally or something? I can’t drive home without seeing at least one or two Priuses. (Usually driven by someone with a halo of smug superiority….)
Lol…and I don’t know why my fellow Americans refuse to drive a stick shift. I’ve always liked the control you get with a manual tranny.
My vehicle gets 27 MPG on the highway, which doesn’t seem terrible to me. Yes, it’s an automatic, because it’s hard to find anything else here.
Of course you have options to buy, but “nobody” buys those cars, it’s very extrange to see a car with more than 170 horsepower.
I live in a 250 000 habitants city and you can see here two ferraris (one 575 and one 360) one audi r8, one corvete z06 and a few porsche boxter the other cars don’t have those engines most cars have 90-140 bhp and it’s very hard to see one with more than 180 unless it’s a suv, and in Europe you won’t see many, here is extrange to see a nissan gtr, a 350, a subaru (any model) a mitsubishi lancer evo, a dodge (any model) and in the USA you see lots of cars (at least in NY, I have only been there) like that…
PS: I also watch top-gear
You are right that automatics use more fuel than manuals and that in the American market it can be difficult to find manual transmissions these days. Frankly, I agree with Eso in his preference for manual vehicles. I have always bought manual myself, both for the increased efficiency and for the more satisfying (in my opinion) experience of driving a stick.
Eso is also correct that in pointing out that both the different urban and geographic features which make the United States distinct from most European countries also play a large role in determining the kinds of cars that we buy. Americans spend a great deal more time in cars than Europeans do. This is due to less dense cities, more widely spread suburbs and much greater distances (generally) between cities than one finds in Europe. Americans move around a great deal more than Europeans do too (I have lived four different parts of my state in the last 8 years alone). All these reasons, and others I haven’t mentioned, make the American auto market significantly different than that of Europe. The average American tends to have a greater need of higher horsepower in their vehicles (I know a great many people who tow large and heavy trailers regularly).
Aside from the general difference in use of our vehicles, given that Americans spend a great deal more time in cars and trucks than most Europeans, the desire for a “fun” car probably ranks a little higher on most of lists than it does on that of Europeans (I am only guessing on this point, but it makes sense to me – if I had to spend three hours a day in my car, as I have in the past, instead of the 30 minutes I currently do, then I would probably be looking for a car that was more enjoyable to spend time in).
BTW, dissimilitude is right. High mpg cars are in great demand in the United States right now. Until very recently one had to get on a waiting list to buy a Prius.
I’ve never owned an automatic car but rented, I don’t like the sensation but there is another point more important than sensation and the fuel, the safety, Spain because has some roads in mountains, and thrust me, when I go in a mountain with snow with curves where if the car goes out you’ll be falling from a high cliff tall enough to kill everybody in the car, I feel more quiet if I know that I can use the gearbox to slow down if I have any problem with brakes, I know it isn’t a common situation wich never happened to me, but it’s there.
About fuel efficiency I forgot one detail, I was talking about my overall, the overall is 5.5 liters /100km and on road it’s about 4.8 so on the highway it does ~39.3 mpg.
On street it ups to 6.9 liters so it will make ~27.4 mpg.
The onboard computer calculates the overall and most of times I refuel the car i check that, I see the fuel price, how much I paid and how many kilometers I did and always maches.
Mmm, manual trannies…
You’re primarily comparing your single car and experience to a (somewhat inaccurate and rapidly changing) average American car.
First of all, if the EPA rates a given car these days at 32 MPG, it’s expected that a good driver who isn’t consciously focused on mileage will still get at least 5 MPG more.
Second, the people above me have already categorically debunked your “pollutant American cars” claim. Thankfully I don’t have to do that now.
Third, horsepower is not primarily intended to increase top speed. Most vaguely aerodynamic vehicles can exceed 100 miles per hour even with horsepowers lower than yours. More powerful vehicles are desired for their better acceleration and general performance, which is especially useful when merging into traffic and such.
Fourth, your vehicle’s durability was better than average, but not uncommon. Japanese, European, and American vehicles all commonly exceed 150,000 miles without major repairs. A clutch is expected to burn out before that, but its life depends almost entirely on the region the vehicle is driven in (hilly areas, stops/starts, etc) and driving style (leaving it in too long, resting the foot on the clutch when cruising, etc).
Fifth, I am suspicious that you “scrapped” a vehicle that always started and never needed significant repair.
Finally, stop bashing on America based on your (Europe’s) misconceptions about the country. You primarily hear our loud liberals (such as those who frequent this site) who will convince you that Americans are stupid, lazy, and generally don’t care. Just remember the dramatic differences between our nations (which I won’t enumerate–they are clear) both regarding land mass, history, and politics.
To no one in particular, I will concede to one thing: America has been stupid not to push for diesel vehicles sooner. The Prius and other hybrids are by and large horrible vehicles, massively expensive (this will change, but it will take time), and achieve very disappointing MPG that diesels have exceeded for years at a fraction of the cost. There are reasons for why diesels aren’t popular here, but frankly they’re just not good enough.
“stop bashing on America based on your (Europe’s) misconceptions about the country”
There are quite a few different countries and cultures in Europe, and the (mis)conceptions about the US are quite varied. (As is the quality of European cars, I might add.)
So, my point is? None, really. I just keep getting slightly miffed when Europe is addressed as one culture/one nation.
Your point should be that he acts like Europe is one entire, misinformed nation, meaning that he holds misconceptions about them, while saying that they should stop judging based on THEIR misconceptions…
Oh! I’m too stupid, lazy and generally I don’t care about trying to find my point… ZOMGWTF!!1!1!! I must be American!
Thanks for pointing out the diesel problem and the outrageous cost of maintaining a car like the Prius. You are absolutely right, diesel is a much better option. Unlike hybrids, they are easy and cheap to maintain, and are far more efficient than standard gasoline based motors.
I also agree that massive cost of hybrids will, like just about everything, come down with time. Right now, the money you save on gas is completely eaten up with maintenance costs.
Sadly, the world record for MPG was set back in 1973. It was done by a modified 1959 Opel T-1. What was the record you ask? Try 376.59mpg! It was part of a contest sponsored by Shell. After having disappeared for several decades and largely forgotten it has resurfaced. Owned now by a guy here in Seattle. h**p://www.seattlepi.com/local/351903_needle20.html
Anybody else notice that Lindy didn’t actually fly that nonstop? Dr dr dr…
Man, I don’t have a very efficient car, any renault, any skoda, most of opels, many BMW, many hiundays, many kias, most of citoens, most of european fords, most of mazdas, some mercedes, some volkswagen do the same MPG or better, I don’t have the most efficient car, my car pays 4.5% more of taxes because of that, that’s very common, the most common is toy pay 0, 4.5 or 9, my car is very common.
About the first point I never said that I’m focused on best performace, most of time I use the “autothrotle” in the speed limit, if I down the speed from 120km/h (75 miles) to 100 (63 miles) it can get 10% better, but I think the difference of isn’t enough to go as slow
Third my previus car had 90 bhp and it could go up to 115 miles (I never got that speed but it could) so I know that, but 125 bhp is more than enough to have a nice speed and acceleration to bypass without risk.
Fourth I know that it wasn’t uncommon, my father had a nissan blubird wich did 400 000 miles, (some worked even with 700 000) the only major repair were a water bomb and two clutches, my uncle had an honda civic wich was bought in the end 80′s wich did about 240 000 miles. I didn’t say that it wasn’t uncommon, I said that an efficient engine doesn’t have to have a lower life.
Fifth that car was 8 years old when I bought it my older children was 7 years old, that car was smaller and when I scrapped it we didn’t fit well, doors started to close bad (kids), the paint started to be worse and when I bought it I didn’t have much money so I wanted a better car. I needed a new car and the taxes where higher than the value of the car so selling it wasn’t an option and here you can’t drive until you are 18 so giving it to my son wasn’t an option too. All my nephews were older and had their own car.
And I’m not bashing about the USA based on my European misconceptions, I’ve been there five times I know that it has good things (food isn’t one of them unless you pay fortunes) I bought there my ebook reader and my leatherman. Who is talking about Europe based on misconceptions is you, if you weren’t doing that you’d know that the USA is more similar to Spain than Ucrania and that even having frontier with france the only thing that both countries have similar is the location and some things in the laguage.
Saying that diesel engines are worse means not to have driven a car with diesel engime made in the last ten years, diesel engines can compit in the wtcc and in le mans prototype, but they aren’t good enough.
Shit, i was replying to Eso
I know you’re from Spain and all, pero “bomba de aqua” es “water pump” en Inglés, no “water bomb”. “Water bomb” es algo muy diferente.
http://newmedia.purchase.edu/~Jeanine/origami/oribomb.htm
I wish we could have allowed the diesel Smart ForTwo over here. I’m upset that our ForTwo gets terrible gas mileage compared the European version, and that we don’t even have the option of the diesel. However, we will be getting the electric drive, which is great for a car like that.
If you can’t get 300 miles out of a tank of gas, you either bought the wrong car, or it needs some work, or you don’t drive all that well.
I like the idea of the statement, but in all seriousness – The Sprit of St. Louis had a 450 gallon tank to go over 3600 miles. That means if the tank was empty when he got there he got somewhere around 8mpg.
“Spirit of Louis”? PEELZ HERE!
I read this from top to bottom and saw the various smart-asses and knowledgeables butting heads. I have been over sea’s many times and the one time I remember was being in Spain during the time of Franco. My father drove a Renault Daphene and he would cuss that car because he would get it up to speed and it would start to run hot (notice I did not say overheat in that it did not have a radiator…it was air cooled).
My other trips over sea’s to Europe were in the 70′s and the only contact I had with cars there was mainly being tail end Charlie in a military Convoy going 35 mph on the Autobahn (we were artillery and the cannons do not have springs on them).
Here in the U.S. I have a 2005 Dodge Durango Limited with all the interior comforts one could want and it is powered by a 5.7 Liter V8 Hemi pushing 350 hp. I live in the Mountains of Virginia and on Rt. 81 (70 mph speed limit) I can get 24 to 25 mpg with the cabin temperature set to AUTO (72 degrees F. Avg) (Once I got 33 mpg, but I had an 18 wheeler drafting me). My “Beast” as I call it, gets better mpg than the wife’s Ford Explorer; 16 mpg on the same highway. She has a 4.6 Liter V8 with all the interior creature comforts you could want. Both vehicles have automatics, P/S, P/B, cruise, P/W, P/DL, ABS, Stability Control, Tow packages, Entertainment Systems. They are both alike except mine has the built in Navigation system. You would think the Ford would get better mileage since it is lighter than the Durango, but such is not the case.
he only car I ever had that got good mileage was a 1995 Subaru Outback Station Wagon. It had the 2.2 Liter H engine with A/T, P/B, P/S and A/C. On the open road, I got 36 miles per gallon. Around town, I got 23-25 mpg. So, if I ever buy another foreign car, it will be a Subaru.
Two of the three cars defy logic because they have automatics and A/C. By all rights the Hemi should only get a MAX highway MPG of 18. The Subaru should of suffered because of the A/C.
Maybe they got such great mileage because I do not put my foot in the throttle body. Don’t get me wrong, I do not start off from the traffic light at a crawl, but I keep my foot out of the throttle body (except the one time in my Subaru I drag raced a new High Power Mustang…and won. He couldn’t shift gears and did not know how to handle so much horsepower.)
Lindberghs plane had five tanks (two wing, one nose, one center, and one rear. He called it a flying gas tank.) but as he flew, he had to constantly keep an eye on his tanks and keep the plane in balance as best as he could. In his book, “The Spirit of Saint Louis”, he wrote how he fought exhaustion, wind, and a plane that kept drifting left to say nothing of constantly leaning out his carb and switching tanks.
If you want the world record holder, that would be Christopher Columbus: He crossed the Atlantic and only used three Galleons…