# Small car sales leading for the second month



## begreen (May 3, 2011)

Could this be a trend? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/04auto.html


----------



## Later (May 3, 2011)

$$ always changes people's minds.


----------



## woodsman23 (May 4, 2011)

I drive a 06 ford 500 and it gets a respectable 29-31 MPG on the highway, for a 4000lb car and the most quite and comfty ride and AWD to boot i don't understand why these cars were not a bigger hit...??



























I put on 47,000 miles in 10 months and had not one issue....  go figure. I'd buy another in a minute.


----------



## Flatbedford (May 4, 2011)

Nice looking car. My '06 Focus gets about the same mileage and is not as nice or as big. It has just over 105,000 miles on it and has only been in a shop once for front brakes at about 92,000 miles. I have done all scheduled maintenance myself and replaced the tires twice. I think the domestic cars have come a long way since the disastrous late '70s and '80's.


----------



## jdemaris (May 4, 2011)

woodsman23 said:
			
		

> I drive a 06 ford 500 and it gets a respectable 29-31 MPG on the highway, for a 4000lb car and the most quite and comfty ride and AWD to boot i don't understand why these cars were not a bigger hit...??.



My in-laws in northern Michigan have an 2006 AWD 500 with the 3 liter engine.  27 MPG is the absolute best highway mileage they've ever gotten with it and 25 is more the usual.
They also had a 2001 Escape AWD with the 3 liter engine that got 25 MPG at best.  They recently swapped it in for a 2010 Escape AWD with the 2.5 liter four-cylinder engine.  They've gotten a best of 30 MPG with five people riding in it which is pretty amazing.


----------



## coolidge (May 4, 2011)

I just picked up a 97 Toyota Tercel with 274k on it. It is getting 43 mpg, not bad for $600.00 if it last.


----------



## Jags (May 4, 2011)

BG - even I, as a SUV and full size dodge driver, am considering trading in the dodge on a small stick shift for MPG.  I don't put many miles on the dodge and I have a 5 x 10 trailer that will haul as much as the truck.  I still have to have a tow vehicle, but am looking at a smaller daily driver.  This is the first time in my life that I have ever considered anything but full size (If you call a Jeep Grand Cherokee "full size").  I think many factors have helped to change my mind.  Changes is the vehicles for one, with them being safer and better ride than yesteryear is a big factor. Then fuel, and even the change in traffic/parking/speed.

Downside is that I will have to test fit the car to me.  I am a fairly sturdy dude at 6' and about 240 on the scale and not all of them were designed with my frame in mind and I am one of the smallest males in my family as well as having some fairly huge friends (one of them is 6'6" and about 280 and then his little brother is 6'11" at about 460 - yes, I said 6'11")


----------



## begreen (May 4, 2011)

The last big car I had was a 1956 Packard Clipper. 352 engine, 3 speed automatic, 2 speed torque convertor. Great car that could seat 7 or 8 comfortably, but at best it would get 16mpg. Now we have an older wagon style, 7 passenger, Honda Odyssey that gets 25mpg around town and up to 29mpg on a trip if you stay at the speed limit, even fully loaded. It's no racehorse, but gets the job done.


----------



## Jags (May 4, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> The last big car I had was a 1956 Packard Clipper. 352 engine, 3 speed automatic, 2 speed torque convertor.



(Pssst...2 speed trans, but I won't tell anybody.)


----------



## jdemaris (May 4, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Packard DID use a two-stage, four-turbine, "lock-up" torque converter besides the planetary gears.  
Buick also had a two-stage torque converter when the Riviera first came out with the new TH400 trans.  Two speed converter and three speed trans. behind it.

16 MPG for that car with a 352 V8 and a four-barrel carb is impressive.  I wonder if it had the overdrive option? I never owned a Packard with that setup, but that Twin-Drive lockup converter was supposed to get as good mileage as a stick-shift. They were pretty high tech with that lockup system.  Especially considering that most US cars did not have lockup until late 70s, early 80s.

My 1966 Chevy Bel Air with a 283 and Powerglide can barely get 14 MPG with a wind pushing it down a flat highway.


----------



## Jags (May 4, 2011)

jdemaris said:
			
		

> I wonder if it had the overdrive option?



The overdrive option was typically used on manual trans Packards.  The lockup converter gave a true 1:1 ratio (no overdrive), but no slipping either.  That was a big deal in those early days of auto trans.


----------



## begreen (May 4, 2011)

The transmission shifted so smoothly that you would only hear the engine rpms change. It was kind of eerie. IIRC, GM introduced the two-speed torque converter when the Packard patents were up. They put the electric, self leveling system in the Toronado using the same design as the Packard. It had torsion bar suspension in which a motor twisted the bars to stiffen them and raise the vehicle. It was a pretty advanced car for its day. Rode great, even with a crowd aboard. Needless to say it was a great party car, but it was also great in snow.

Sad to give her up, but I was smitten.


----------



## Jags (May 5, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Rode great, even with a crowd aboard.



I joke when driving the 56 that a volkwagon is nothing more than an outY pot hole.  Bumpbump.


----------



## SolarAndWood (May 5, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> I still have to have a tow vehicle, but am looking at a smaller daily driver.  This is the first time in my life that I have ever considered anything but full size (If you call a Jeep Grand Cherokee "full size")



Gas would have to get very high before I would stop driving my 12 year old 3/4 ton to work and add a 3rd car to the fleet.  We drive my wife's hybrid whenever possible and I am considering putting the motorcycle on the road to offset some of the truck miles.  While putting $150 into the tank at a time hurts, that paid for truck is much cheaper to operate than that 3rd car would be.  And I fit better.


----------



## Jags (May 5, 2011)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> While putting $150 into the tank at a time hurts, that paid for truck is much cheaper to operate than that 3rd car would be.  And I fit better.



The only way I could justify it, is if I were to eliminate one of the existing vehicles.  You have an advantage over me with the hybrid already in the family line up.  I have nothing in the stable that gets over 18 MPG currently.


----------



## SolarAndWood (May 5, 2011)

Jags said:
			
		

> ou have an advantage over me with the hybrid already in the family line up.



That is definitely what seals it for us.  We probably put 85% of our miles on it every year.  Other than my 6 mile commute, runs to camp and my urban scrounging, the truck gets driven very little.


----------



## webbie (May 5, 2011)

We have one Subaru...they don't get great mileage due to the AWD - maybe 25 MPG. 
We find ourselves using the Passat (30 MPG) much more - that's a big difference in MPG, although it may not sound like much. 

I would say that our next car purchase will be very tuned to even higher MPG. I would be very happy if more of the small clean diesels start being installed in US Cars....I'd love a Subie Forester with the diesel (as in Europe)....and maybe even the new Jetta (nicer, bigger) with the diesel. 
40 MPG would be really nice.


----------

