AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY

"Newer isn't necessarily better"

Recently Car and Driver tested three cars: two modern hybrids and one gas burning car from 11 years ago, the Chevy Metro. The rules were simple, drive like a normal person would. John Phillips writes:

There were no driving rules. Eco mode was not mandated. Using the air conditioner was legal. So were jack-rabbit starts and dangerous cornering speeds, neither of which we were able to accomplish. In short, we drove as we always do, trying to eke out some fun, and our observed fuel-economy figures reflect that. Indeed, that was the whole point of this test—to drive these things the way we’d drive regular cars.

The Metro didn't come standard with hubcaps. It had been driven 11,000 miles already. It was a stripped down economy model whose only fancy feature is a green light that suggests when to shift, it went from 0 to 60 in 20 seconds, with a top speed of 87 mph.

It gets 42 miles per gallon of gas. The hybrids?

Climbing out of the Insight or the Metro and into this third-gen Prius feels like climbing into a Lincoln Town Car. The Toyota’s interior volumes are up: The back seat is now all-day spacious for two pizza-fed adults, and compared with the Insight, the Prius boasts a bonus six cubic feet of cargo space.

Engine size and battery output have swollen, too, resulting in a combined 134 horsepower. That oughta demolish the wimpy 98-horse Insight, right? Nope. The Prius is 436 pounds fatter and was only 1 mph faster through the quarter-mile.

The Prius? It handled even poorer than the Metro, costs three times as much, and got 42 mpg also, just a little less than the $44 grand it costs. The Honda Insight got 31 miles per gallon, but it only costs about $25 grand.

The newer isn't really any better, its just a lot fancier. By using an electric motor to help with fuel economy, the Prius allows city driving to save you some fuel and yet have the amenities you want - and likely some you don't, such as engine-assisted braking and a readout showing how much fuel you're saving. The Metro is about as stripped down as you can get, costs as much as the Prius' battery replacement, and got the same mileage from 12 years ago after thousands of miles of travel. That's how far we've gotten in engine technology in a decade.

Still, there is some hope, Tim Blair workd up a comparison between a 2009 Hyundai Sonata V6 and a 1969 Dodge Charger with a 426 Hemi V8. Initially the test is obvious: the Sonata looks like a shoe, the Charger looks sexy and dangerous. Charger wins. When the driving started, however, it became sort of surprising.

Here's the stats:

POWER
Dodge: 425 horsepower Hyundai: 249 horsepower

0-60 MPH
Dodge: 6.9 seconds Hyundai: 6.9 seconds

QUARTER MILE
Dodge: 14.1 seconds Hyundai: 15.3 seconds

TOP SPEED
Dodge: 138 mph Hyundai: 146 mph

ECONOMY
Dodge: 7 mpg Hyundai: 23 mpg

Bo and Luke Duke are heartbroken. The Sonata is actually a pretty zippy car and despite being a rice burning import compact, it is faster than the Charger and it gets more than three times the miles per gallon. It's slightly slower off the line and on the quarter mile than the Charger... but not much slower.

The Charger is a souped up muscle car, it roars like a dragon and eats up road with ferocious desire for speed. It was designed to go fast and look good, and it did its job well... in 1969. Now its just not very impressive other than its extraordinary good looks. So the technology has gotten better over 40 years, just not a lot better. And we're still using the 100+ year old internal combustion technology, refined many times. Its way past time for something newer and better.