this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
399 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
57432 readers
3273 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i had a geo metro that had greater range.
so confusing why this exists.
Could you convey that you were both rich AND stupid just by driving your metro?
Just the one.
This is a frankly baffling comparison. I don't think I could think of 2 more different vehicles if I tried. Believe it or not, range is not the only thing people consider when purchasing a vehicle.
It's a truck, meant to tow and haul loads. If this is its range unladen then it's hauling range is 50% or less of this range. Meaning a full charge gets you 82-103 miles, which makes it nearly useless as the thing it's supposed to be: a truck.
Believe it or not, some people tow short distances, and some people use trucks as trucks without ever towing at all.
But Tesla specifically marketed this as a fully capable truck, which it is not. The F-150 Lightning gets the same range towing as the Cybertruck gets with no cargo.
Of course it is. Once again, range is not the only factor people consider when choosing a vehicle.
Yeah, but how long did it take you to refuel your metro? Surely it wasn’t faster than a few hours.
Or never if it gets to cold for a while.
Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s. Geo metro was only 3 cyl and sipped gas. my lil 92 eclipse for over 45mpg highway, i don't even think it was rated that high.
The early 90s was mostly a perfect storm for fuel economy.
You had the computing power available to make use of CAD and develop more aerodynamic designs with less significant overhead (i.e., doing it by hand).
EFI technology had matured and carburetors were broadly defunct, allowing more efficient operation in a broader range of environments.
The US had updated its archaic lighting regulations to allow for more aerodynamic headlight shapes.
A lot of the safety technology that adds weight to modern cars either hadn’t been developed yet or hadn’t trickled down to the average vehicle.
So you had a confluence of more efficient engines, more aerodynamic vehicles, and cars that were still small and relatively lightweight.
well, i actually had both a '92 3ycl (suzuki engine) and then later had a 4cyl monster metro. i think that was like a 96?
just dont turn on the ac
Haha! Same. My eclipse was only rated 90hp from the factory, and i bought it with 150k miles. Good thing it was a stick
Probably in the early '00s but I mean that's completely unsurprising considering the strides we've made in safety, comfort, and most importantly emissions since then.
I regularly get 43-46mpg highway with my 4 cylinder TLX, drops off like crazy atoms town though.
I agree that economy peaked In the 80’s-early 90’s, but if you take into account how much bigger, and heavier cars are today, we’re not that bad. Also, a lot of weight and size goes towards the superior crash safety in modern cars.