Slashdot Mirror
EPA Fuel Economy Myth: Too High, Too Low?
ThosLives asks: "I have seen here on Slashdot , and just about every other publication, numerous articles about fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, and the inaccuracies of EPA fuel economy stickers. For instance, today there is a review of the Toyota Prius that had the famous line 'Since no car really achieves the EPA estimated mileage...' I happen to drive a car with an EPA sticker of 21 city 25 highway (all figures in miles per gallon). I've driven the car for 47000 miles and the lowest I've ever seen is 23 and some change; the highest, 36.3 (I'm probably about 60% highway 40% stop-and-go and yes, the high was on a long highway trip). My all-time average is about 28.5. As most people get less than the EPA mileage, how does the Slashdot readership fare when it comes to EPA sticker vs actual experience, and on what type of vehicle?"
"Am I a rare breed that can drive my car (2.0L I4, 170 HP, 6-speed manual) aggressively (I've had coworkers and friends say 'woah!' more than I'd like to admit *grin*) and still stomp the EPA sticker? Did I get lucky with a phenomenal car? Am I enough of a counter-example to thwart the belief that the EPA figures are 'too liberal'? Are fuel economy issues just FUD from [insert lobby group of choice]? Or is the answer simply 'it depends on how you drive, what you had for breakfast, and the color of your neighbors' cat?'"
Your mileage may vary.
i drive a saab 900 SE turbo. mileage should be around 27 hwy, I generally get 27, and on long trips the computer reads 30+.
city gets lower than the 22 rating, around 18.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
My Cavalier gets pretty close to the sticker on average, but blows its doors off on long interstate trips. Everyone likes good gas milage, but it's not like the dealership is lying to you. The car should be within the range of city to highway. If it isn't in there, then you should demand your money back.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It's a company car with the 3.4 liter engine. I am a fairly assertive driver and put at least 25,000 miles a year on it. I've had 3 very similar cars over the last decade and consistantly get over 25 mpg in a mix of Interstate and light city driving. I think the operative phrase here is "Your mileage may vary".
For some reason I seem to get reasonable good mileage regardless of what I'm driving. At one time, years ago, I had a 1976 Mercury station wagon, totally a battleship with a 460 V-8 and managed to average 14 mpg with that boat hauling my 5 kids and wife. Again, I emphasize that I'm not an economy minded driver. I am a "Get from point A to point B" with a minimum of fuss and delay sort. I never get more than 10 mph over the posted limit, so I mostly go with the usual flow out here in the plaines. A little over a year ago I drove my mom's Buick to Arizona for her. It's got that nice 3.8 liter engine and is not a light car. I drove 1,750 miles in two days and got 28 mpg, but admittedly it's all Interstate driving, but out West traffic moves at 80+ mph. I was reall surprised. I've also driven some larger Chrysler products on long trips with mileages that were similar. I've concluded that modern cars do a pretty durn good job of fuel economy even in some of the larger configurations.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Canadian fuel mileage estimations are a bit more accurate, but they are never going to be exact since everybody drives differently. The assume driver only, no wind, no hills, no AC. Nobody drives like that. All they are really for is comparing different cars.
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
I'm a bit of a wonk when it comes to gas milage: I keep track of all of my gas purchases.
I used to have a standard 96 Ford Escort (no AC) that regularly got around 30-35 MPG in about a 60/40 Highway to "City" split. I can't remember what the EPA numbers were for that model, but I remember that I was around or slightly above them.
I now have a MINI Cooper S (fun f**king car). Under the same driving conditions I was getting about 23-24 MPG, which was lower than EPA. I have since moved and the drive is now 30/70 HW vs City and it has dropped to the 21-22 MPG range.
My girlfriend claims riding with me is like "being in a video game". I'm pretty sure that is a good thing.
While my car has never even gotten close to the City mileage listed on highways I often beat the given numbers by 2-3mpg. In the past, most of the other cars I've had (Mazda, Toyota, Ford) have been somewhat close with the Japanese models definitely falling short in almost every instance. The only one that ever was totally accurate for me and my driving style was the Ford.
Some of my friends who drive more like rational people tend to always beat the numbers slightly.
for me to know the EPA estimates, but my 1990 Ranger (with a V-6) gets around 25 with my daily drive to/from work, which is a bit of city, bit of highway, lot of hills.
Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
I drive a Honda Civic which is rated at 32 city and 38 Highway (guesstimate). The lowest I have seen mine is 31 and the highest was 40. I drive freeway about half the time. The rest is me on the frontage roads avoiding the neverending road construction on the freeway.
I drive a very regular route to work with a 2003 Civic every day, 50 miles each way. I get a good 36-40 miles to the gallon consistently.
;)
Until my tires were under-inflated by about ten pounds--then I was getting 35.
Car: Audi TT(6spd 225HP 1.8L turbocharged sports coupe). EPA: 20/28. Actual average for a tank has ranged from a low of 24mpg to a high of 33mpg. The 24mpg is a fairly even mix of city and highway driving. That value seems to correspond pretty closely to what one would expect from the EPA numbers. The 33mpg is all highway, of course, in sixth gear, with no turbo.
My dad used to do extreme highway miles on a series of Ford Escorts. EPA mileage was 36, but he would regularly get 44-48 mpg.
I'm driving a '97 Cadillac Deville, and have gotten as high as 28 mpg on a long interstate trip. City mileage is around 20.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
i get about 10MPG in my 327ci/300hp/PG 1967 Impala SC.. using premium fuel with lead additives, and i should be adding a few gallons of full-on race gas to the tank, but at 4.75-6.00 per gallon, i just can't afford that.. it's 47.00 to fill my tank in the first place..
i dream of getting 15MPG..
i hate microsoft.
Of course, MPG greatly depends on how you drive, the state of the car, the fuel, the weather, traffic, and terrain.
The EPA numbers are a relative guide. They won't tell you exactly what you'll get for fuel consuption. However, you can easily use the EPA numbers to compare two cars' relative fuel efficiency. In fact, I submit that there is no better guide available for cars sold in the US.
I don't recall the EPA sticker figures on my car, but I have a '98 Saturn, and I get 31-35mpg.
Of course, I drive like a little old lady from Pasadena (not the one of the Beach Boys fame, though). I usually skip breakfast (perhaps it saves weight?), and my neighbors cats are grey...
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" --Karl or Groucho, I forget...
When it was new my 2000 Jetta TDi got wicked good mileage - made it from Ohio to the Bay Area (the long way) on less than 4 tanks. There are all sorts of stories on the TDi Club pages about these VW's long legs.
Now it's a little older, runs only in San Francisco city traffic, and burns B100 (bio deisel) so YMMV definitely applies.
\Drew National Data Director, John Edwards for President
The first and most obvious question is: Does the poster have any idea how to compute MPG? And if so, what method was used?
I know that parking on a hill and eyeballing the fuel gauge would result in a hefty boost to my MPG!
I had a 97 Toyota Corolla. I believe the EPA numbers were around 30/35, but the dealer told me I would actually get 37 MPG. Of course I thought he was lying, but damned if he wasn't exactly right!
The 2004 Prius I test drove last year only registered 33 MPG max. I told the salesman thanks but I'll stick with my Suburban (13 MPG).
... but there may be tougher rules in EU. MG TF 160HP 5gear manual getting up the mountain every morning with a really heavy foot :-) : :-)))
7.0l for a 100kms
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
For example, how many people in the car, how much do they weigh? Anything in the trunk?
How much fuel is in the tank (it's heavy, and if they assume you have a full tank, you'll burn more fuel than if you always drive with less than half a tank)?
How much air in the tires?
What accessories (lots of speakers, a/c)?
If you don't ever have to go up and down hills, and always drive between 45 and 85 degrees Farenheit, that's going to make a big difference in your milleage. Tire preasure too.
... has the aerodynamics of a large cardboard box, but I get close to 30mpg (mostly country roads) which I think is higher than its EPA 26mpg highway rating...
My mileage dropped drastically after pieces of the neighbors' cat got caught in the air intake.
If it hadn't been a black cat I wouldn't have run over it at night.
So, yes, mileage depends on the cat's color.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
When the weather is warm, and that seems to be the biggest factor, I get the EPA-rated 70 mpg or more in my 2000 Honda Insight. 55 on cold winter days.
Driving at moderate speeds is also a big factor.
" how does the Slashdot readership fare when it comes to EPA sticker vs actual experience, and on what type of vehicle?""
:p
100 MPG, scooter. So there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_mileage_may_vary
It's a travesty when a 3800-pound 2004 Pontiac GTO (classed as a compact car) that gets, in reality, about 20/26 is "rated" by the EPA at 15/18, and gets a $1000 "gas guzzler" tax...while the 8000-pound Ford Excursion in the next parking spot gets fuel mileage so bad that it isn't even rated...but is eligible for medium-duty-truck tax writeoffs, and no "guzzler" tax. The whole system should be dumped in favor of vehicle choice, not artificial limits put on cars by the government.
(I've had coworkers and friends say 'woah!' more than I'd like to admit *grin*)
Ye who speeds, cuts people off, and winds through traffic, is the first to reach the red light.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I have a low-end 600-class sportsbike (Suzuki SV650S). I'm not sure the EPA even rates such things, but with a tank size of less than four gallons and no indication of gas level beyond the trip-meter, you get very familiar with your fuel economy.
What I've found most interesting is the huge variance in mileage with riding style. I average about 40 mpg, but if I stay with low revs and keep accelaration more along the lines of what cars do, I can get 50-60 mpg. If I really push the bike with high revs and big acceleration, I've actually seen it go as low as 20-30 mpg. (Each style averaged over around 100-150 miles of driving.)
The EPA is more concerned with emissions.
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
I have over 43,000 miles on my 2002 Honda Insight and my lifetime average is 61.1 MPG.
This is lower than the published numbers but considering the way that I drive it is still pretty good.
I've gotten about 10% better than the milage sticker said.
I bought a '99 Saturn SL1 brand new back in '98, to serve as my commuting car.
The fuel economy sticker on it said that it would get 38 mpg on the highway. The first few years I had it, it averaged about 44 mpg, today, it is almost 6 years old, has 120,000 miles on it, and it gets about 39.
On an aside, I'm a very happy Saturn owner... The car may not have much "get up and go", nor much "style", but in 120k miles, it's _never_ been in the shop, still has original brakes, etc. only the tires (and oil) have ever been replaced... and the original tires even lasted for 85k! I definitely recommend this as a commute car, unless you're over 6 feet tall.
Lets see:
2000: AVG MPG=26, 16k mpy
2001: AVG MPG=23, 13k mpy
2002: AVG MPG=22, 9k mpy
2003: AVG MPG=21, 10k mpy
2004: AVG MPG=21, 10k mpy
Thats an average. If I look at individuals, I see as high as 38mpg and as low as 14mpg.
As has been said "Your milage may vary".
(yes I have a 5 tank moving average availble too...)
As a side note the gas increas is only going to cost me about 200$ more a year. But it has driven the number of miles down I drive... and consequently how much I spend on trips. Interesting ehh?
I'd have to say that the biggest part of keeping my fuel economy up is keeping my car in good shape though. I had the muffler on my car die recently, the pipe basically decided to rust off the muffler body. I noticed a little bit of noise, but the pipe was still in the muffler and they were both connected to the car so nothing looked out of place. The big tip off that something was really wrong was the reduced fuel economy. Took it in to a trusted mechanic, got it fixed, and the mpg was back to where it should be.
Also, keep your tires inflated to where they should be. I'm told this is the best way to increase fuel economy.
If not now, when?
I have a inline 4 170 HP with a 6 speed manual trans too, and you get better milage then me.
Mine is rated 21/28
I get 24 or 25 average with never less then 23 and a high aroung 30 (9 gallons over 280 miles) wich did include grid locked traffic for an hour and a half (leaving long island at 3:30 pm on a Friday).
I know I read an early review of the Honda hybrid (the one that slashdot linked two when it was brand new or not out) and the author claimed 70+ MPG when driving on hills (but highway) and trying to keep milage up. They are rated at 50 MPG I believe and all I hear is claims they do not get as good as advertised. So maybe reviewers in general can't devide or something.
Even my 10 year old saturn got what it was rated for in general use, though I never got the 33 Highway that the EPA claimed even when it was even only 5 years old. I believe it was 25/33. I consistently got 28 average use with about 31 on trips.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Similar for me. I only keep track of my mileage when I'm trips, but my 28 mpg highway rated sedan consistently gets over 30 mpg, and I've hit 33 mpg several times.
I've heard it said that a typical vehicle gets the best mileage at 55 mph, and that for every 5 mph above or below that, subtract 1 mpg. I'm an aggressive accelerator, but I rarely go much over the speed limit any more, so this might be where some of my luck comes from. In fact, the best mileage I've ever gotten was when following my father-in-law when he was driving a moving truck at about 55-60mph the entire stretch from Chicago to Kansas City.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
i drive it moderately hard. if i were to take it real easy, i'd be getting over 50mpg.
I've always get between 2-5 MPG less than the EPA ratings in my cars. I can get the EPA ratings, but only if I don't speed. None of this surprises me given how the tests are performed and what criteria they use for city (urban) and highway (extra-urban) loops.
:)]
Now what is interesting, but not really surprising, is I get the best gas mileage from my V8s. They work a lot less than the 6s and 4s I've had when you get on the highway [car body design is a great factory in this, obviously
My '03 vw gti (with the 1.8t, not the vr6, 5 speed manual) is supposed to get around 24 city/31 hwy. The car definately has some zip to it. I put the zip to good use, and my overall average is around 30.1mpg. So, I dont think your the only one.
I wonder what this discussion(though all ancedotal evidence) will say about how accurate the epa is about their milage claims.
Oh my, I think Dave just turned into a bear.
for the non U.S. residents here
I own a 2002 Toyota Prius. Just rolled 50,000 miles tonight. Highest tank MPG was 62. Rock bottom worst was 45 MPG. Normal commuting mileage is 57-58 (without A/C), 52-53 with A/C.
Driving habbits matter. My wife (lead foot, middle name of "Never Say Brake") gets a good 10 points worse than I. Short hops in city/suburb traffic will lower the gas mileage down to the low 40's. Careful use with highway/rush hour traffic will push it toward 60.
It is like anything else. Your mileage may vary, but for me, the government underestimated the mileage.
how loaded your car is, how much you drive up hill, how often you brake or decelerate, now hard you accelerate, which way and how hard the wind is blowing (literally), how bald your tires are and whether they are aligned, is it a hot day, cold day...the list goes on.
seriously there are tons of physical factors that will affect your mileage. The EPA estimates are just that - estimates. Values that are in the ballpark of what you can expect to get.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
My 1997 Honda del Sol, which I sold last year, had an EPA sticker of 30/36. When I used to commute long distances, I'd routinely get 34-35 MPG on a tank. By the time I sold it, when it was six years old, sat in the garage for over a week at a time, and rarely got on the highway, my typical mileage was 29. Not too shabby when you consider how much evaporation probably happened... (seriously, I drove so little that I had to remember to go start it up now and then, or the battery would go dead.) That was a manual transmission.
I well remember my first car.. a 1985 Honda Civic, which on one round trip to San Diego (about 110 miles each way) got 40 MPG. Usually she got about 35. Never got below 30 that I recall. That was an automatic transmission.
My husband doesn't get the EPA mileage, though. He didn't on his Toyota Camry and doesn't on his Honda Accord. I'm not sure why; we definitely have different driving styles, but I couldn't tell you what might be the differences. Maybe I'm more inclined to take my foot off the gas, or maybe it's because he uses air conditioning more (though some folks argue that the wind drag from open windows hurts fuel economy more than running the AC). But we don't have the same experience with fuel economy, that's for sure.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
I've driven the following over the years and found all of them to be close to sticker mileage:
'02 Impala LS (3.8L, GM 3800 Series II)
'95 Bonneville (3.8L, GM 3800 Series II)
'88 Pontiac 6000 (3.5L I believe, fuel injected not carb)
I don't recall ever checking my '85 Grand Am, that had the Tech-4 in it.
...(Cat got my tongue)
I had the opportunity to drive a 2004 Cadillac Escalade last week, and on the highway it got 19.5 mpg, which suprised me a LOT. I expected 15mpg because of the hype associated with SUV's.
Check out This article. Good news for those of us who don't quite make the mileage grade.
I drive a '76 Chevy Cheyanne Super 20 Camper Special. So, I average about 5-6 miles to the gallon, city, and maybe around 11-13 highway.
=]
Of course, it has two thirty-gallon tanks, so it's a monster to fill. However, I only fill it about once or twice a year! Wanna know why? I bike. It's better for ya.
USA Today did a test drive of this car and a hybrid (I believe it was Toyota's, but it may have been Honda's) and found the diesel Jetta got from Michigan to Washington, D.C. on a single tank while the hybrid needed a fill-up. The hybrid and the Jetta have equal-sized gas tanks, and the hybrid's EPA numbers are higher. The result of the (admitedly unscientific) test was that the diesel numbers were more true-to-life.
just want you to know your "pimpin" ride is passe and makes you look like a cheesy PWT. Would you happen to be a Jersey Resident? Would yourname Happen to be Carl Britaninaninuski?
My previous car was a '93 Ford Probe. It consistantly beat the EPA fuel mileage estimates by about 3-5 MPG My current car is an '02 Dodge Neon. It's consistantly worse than the EPA estimates by about 3-5 MPG.
Reading some of the other posts, it seems that older cars beat the EPA mileage and newer cars do not. Is it possible that the EPA changed their methods for estimating mileage?
Side note: I sure miss my '93 Probe. Sniff.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The sticker said 21 hwy / 15 city.
I have a problem getting anywhere near that expecially when the tires are smokin, and the engin is roarin.
Oh, and I drive way to fast to worry about Cholesterol let alone mileage.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
It had to be said...
I think, therefore I thought.
I have a 1992 honda civic vx (hatchback type). I'm not even sure what it's rated for, but I regularly get over 40, and have seen 50. Mine is driven almost exclusively to work and back home (15 miles, all but 2 miles is highway)
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I'm sure part of fuel economy depends on what the air is like where you're driving. Driving on a highway through Kansas fields would likely get you better mileage than going between the cities in California....or it could just be the Techron....
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The slashdot readership has probably faired the same since this story originally ran. Oh, wait.
Yeah, right.
This Wired article talks about how hybrids MPG stats are somewhat skewered because of the way the EPA performs the test partially based on emissions, which hybrids don't produce.
I personally would hope this is not the case, as I am excited about getting the new 2005 Lexus RX 400 H hybrid which comes our next year.
2001 Nissan Maxima, 5-speed. The epa rating is 22 city, 27 highway, but I regularly get 40 mpg on long highway trips with the cruise control set at the speed limit.
When I first got the car, I got 14 mpg in the city, but the mileage rapidly improved as the car was broken in.
Since mileage depends so much on driving style, the EPA ratings are not only a standard distance, but a standard style. It is only for comparing cars, not an actual expected value for your driving.
"For instance, today there is a review of the Toyota Prius that had the famous line 'Since no car really achieves the EPA estimated mileage...' "
If the review came out today, how did that line become so famous so fast? Or is this really a "famous" line? I live in a cave, so maybe I missed that one.
If I don't get mileage reasonably close to the EPA numbers, I take the car back to the dealer and ask them to check it out.
'99 Corvettte six-speed manual transmission, on the highway at 80 on a 300 mile trip, no mountains, 32 mpg. If I could drive 55 or 60 I could probably get close to 40 on the highway on reasonably flat ground. In town with as little stop and go as possible I can get 20-25mpg. Alot of stop and go it's closer to 15-17. I'm really surprised how good the gas mileage is on this car. Run that 350 horse engine at low rpm and it delivers pretty good mpg. Run it up for fun and the mpg drops faster than the mercury in minnesota in january.
the EPA tests bear little resemblance to reality --Toyota for one has complained bitterly about the testing methodology even with it's seemly higher numbers. The tests were designed in the 70's with a different set of goals in mind. Due to intense lobbying they have remained in effect-- if they reflected real world numbers things would have to change -- follow the money 'remember hybrid cars are impossible to build' at last count they are building them on 6 different assembly lines / plants and the waiting list is weeks -- it's bad for oil until they gasify all that coal.
I ride a Honda 500 cc motorcycle and get 50~70 mpg depending on how I ride it. The only trade off is that I put better quality gas in it because its engine runs a hell of a lot better on premium gasoline. People should really look into two wheeled transportation as it's fun to ride and a lot more economical than the vast majority of cars.
Cars, like anything (say computers) are best at what they are designed to be best at. Just as Intel processors are very good at things that can be pipelined and demand high throughput, Via processors are very good at using low power and a small footprint. If you try using the device for something it wasn't OPTIMIZED for it will not perform - regardless of how great it can do what it is really meant to do.
If you look at Prius (and hybrid designs in general) they are based on city based use cases. Shut off the engine at the stop light & fuel economy goes up. These same cars on the highway won't perform as well. As to the 'Highway' and 'City' designations - these should be used a general baseline, not the rule.
I have personally found that some cars do better than their EPA while others don't. Lots of factors weigh in... age of the car, using the correct octane gasoline, how well you keep the car maintained, if you cary around 150 lbs of crap in your trunk, the kind of tires you use, is the car in alignment, and the list goes on.
The truth of the matter is that if you have the same circumstances that the EPA had when it tested the car, you can expect around those result.
As a prior poster put it:
Your mileage may vary.
so my milage is aweful. I just returned from a 1600 mile, 80mph round trip averaging 15mpg. For a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a cinder block, that's not bad!
Fritz
_____________
Huh?
EPA rated at 19 mpg. I get around 20 mpg.
The official EPA MPG is 23 city, 31 highway on my 1995 Toyota Camry. To put that in perspective, I drive to-from school, Massachusetts to North Carolina at least half a dozen times each year and I've never averaged less than 35 mpg on the trip. I think my all time best was 41 mpg, but the climate was perfect and so I didn't need any AC/Heat the entire trip. I'm not sure how accurate the city side of things is, but I know the highway estimates are super conservative. Of course, even though I drive aggresively, I do have the 5-speed manual and spend most of my time in 5th. Oh and in case you were wondering, I regularly get 4-6mpg better than what I get while driving my mom's 1994 automatic camry, so I know that definately plays into it.
Just in case you were curious, check this website out for fuel efficiency data for all cars run by the EPA.
My '71 Impala with a 350cid V8 and 4bbl carb gets about 10mpg when I can manage to avoid lead-footing it. If I'm engaging in 'spirited' driving it can dip as low as 8.
Its been my daily driver for about a year, but I've just recently switched to a '95 Geo Prizm that gets about 32ish mpg. It doesn't really have any capability for agressive driving, but it sure makes corners more fun.
My 9 year old s-10 that I abuse on a regular basis (its my thrash vehicle) still averages 23mpg at 180k miles, and its a 6 cyl. The est mpg on the sticker was 20/24, I think...something around in that spot. So, I'm still at the range it says.
People that claim they never get the EPA rating need to learn not to speed up and slow down as fast as possible. If you see the light is red a few hundreds yards away, don't accelerate just to stop. Try to keep inertia in mind - remember your high school physics!
I drive (and keep meticulous gas consumption records on) a 2000 Subaru Outback wagon (2.5 L 4 cyl). My lifetime efficiency at last calculation is 23.92 MPG. EPA reported is 22/27. My best recorded is 31.43 MPG -- I think my father had the car on a long trip and actually drove 55 the whole time.....
I did notice that driving fast in this car sucks fuel. I also figure that I pay at least a couple of MPG in AWD tax.
My experence is with older Corollas, more specificly the wagons American stock.
*all 5-speed*
1976 (2t-c 1.6l) - 40mpg on Premium Texaco gas, all else where Arco was closer to 30mph. This was during the gulf war when prices were damned high, but it still was more cost effective for me to buy premium. Pretty much highway driving.
1979 (2t-c 1.6 cat). This got 30mpg no matter what I did, 28mpg after 300,000 miles or so, but I suspect that switching to larger tires might have skewed my figures. I actually got 20mpg once during a road trip in california, I suspect rank fuel.
1997 corolla (4a-fe 1.6). This was a friends, but the milage was 32 on arco gas, or 37-40mpg on Chevron Premium. Combo of Seattle hills & freeway.
Currently a 1998 nissan sentra. I belive the EPA is 29/39. Reality for me is 40mpg on arco gas. Not bad for an auto that is using a timming chain. Haven't tried premium or other brands yet.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
When people say, "My SUV gets great mileage - 25 MPG", I'm thinking, "But my '626 gets 27 MPG towing a boat. It'd likely do better than 25 MPG towing your truck."
My 626 has a 16 valve 2.2 liter engine with a 5 speed manual. The high gear is pretty high, and I spend most of my time in it.
Using cruise control seems to give me 3 or 4 MPG under similar conditions. Going 65 MPH rather than 75 MPH gives me approximately 17% improvement in fuel economy. That is, at 65 MPH I get 40 MPG. At 75 MPH, I get more like 34. It's still legal to drive at 65 MPH in a 70 MPH zone as far as I know.
My other cars typically have gotten mileage quite close to the EPA.
Last year, I drove 35,000 miles. I've done the math. Gas is a significant expense for me. Insurance is cheap on a 16 year old car. Maintenance has been very low.
My previous car, a 1978 Dodge Omni, had a life time average of 27 MPG. However, just after I installed the cruise control, I went on a trip. I set the cruise for indicated 55 MPH, and drove for 8 hours. I pulled into a gas station, and was only able to put 10 gallons into the tank. I had gone 400 miles. That's 40 MPG. It's also 50 MPH. So, the speedometer read low by about 5 MPH, and the car went a long way at 50 MPH. It had a 1.7 liter engine with a 4 speed manual. Forth gear was really too low. I really did not need all that torque once at highway speed. However, car companies seem to think that torque sells cars - in all gears. So, few cars come with a proper cruising gear, in my opinion.
-- Stephen.
I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind it, but vehicles over a certain GVWR (e.g. light-medium duty trucks or pickups) are excluded from being rated for gas mileage by the EPA. So, in buying fleet vehicles, etc. we're always left to guess. However, as far as Ford vehicles go (my personal favourite), I've found that vehicles rated by the EPA generally perform the same as vehicles not rated by the EPA with similar engines as far as gas mileage goes. Sorry to bore you, I guess this was just another troll of mine for an "informative" moderation.
==========
Intelligence should not be rewarded; ignorance should be punished
==========
I consistently get 5 MPG better than the EPA ratings on the highway, and about the EPA ratings for city when I'm stuck in traffic.
That's for relatively open highway speeds in cruise control. But due to the way that the engine and transmission is rigged, the fuel efficiency goes down very fast at speeds over 70. (Over 60-65, really, but it becomes human noticeable at 70.)
I have changed my commuting habits to avoid peak periods, as it is a waste of both a) gas and b) my time, on those days when I drive to work instead of taking the bus.
1) Driving style ...
;)
2) Condition of individual vehicle and quality of maintenance
3) Location and altitude
4) Type and quality of gasoline used
The list goes on... all of these factors are beyond the control of the EPA and will affect your mileage. There are also build tolerances involved... no two cars will produce exactly the same amount of power, nor the same mileage.
Wanna improve your mileage?
1) Change the oil regularly (also #1 way to help your engine live a long time - try synthetic if you can afford it)
2) Inflate the tires properly
3) Make sure the exhaust is clear and catalytic converter isn't plugged (exhaust shop can check this if you're getting poor mileage)
4) Change the oxygen sensor(s) at their service limit
5) Change the air filter regularly
6) Don't carry extraneous junk in the car/truck (reduce the weight)
7) Use a good quality gas of the octane level required by the vehicle
8) Get regular tune-ups
9) Accelerate evenly... stabbing the gas pedal hard forces the ECM to enrich fuel to produce maximum power - but poor economy results
There are many, many other things you can do, but not too many readers are going to want to clean and repack their wheel bearings (where applicable) every so many years...
2001 Dodge Durango, with the 5.9L engine and the 3.92 tranny. I get 12~13 mpg around town, 16 on the highway, 33 down a hill with a tailwind...
The thing was ordered for towing (can haul more than a Hummer2) a travel trailer. I should see about just buying a second car for work commuting...
I wish to contest thy point of view, and amend it to:
Ye who speeds, cuts people off, and winds through traffic, learned how to drive in Boston.
The whole system should be dumped in favor of vehicle choice, not artificial limits put on cars by the government.
The truck exemptions (that allow for SUVs to have pretty much any fuel economy [or lack there of]) came from the late 1970s when most trucks were used by farmer and construction workers. The idea was to help those people, who generally are involved in small business and make peanuts anyway.
Times have changed, now everybody and his brother has an SUV or pickup truck (even if they don't admit it). The regulations haven't changed, not because of a scam, but because the federal beaurocracy is a mess. Sure, the oil-loving administration isn't going to hurry along any changes, but they aren't doing anything actively to prevent such changes either.
Of course, despite all this, I have to worry whether or not I'll pass smog tests when I move to Cali in August.
...you insensitive clod.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Sounds like he has a Ford Focus SVT, just in case anyone was wondering.
"In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats."
I drive a 1994 Ford Mustang GT (the 302 or to others known as a 5.0)
I ust to get when originally bought it easily 26mpg but i was on a split of 40city/60hwy
nowadays i do almost 70city/30hwy and with 160,000 miles i get 21 mpg.
Overall not bad for the age and type of car IMO.
(PS im a lead foot...)
when i drive about 50/50 with city and highway, I never, ever get close to the EPA ratings. I'm always lower than the city stat, but most of that (if not all) is attributable to driving style.
On long, long highway stints I have hit the EPA highway stat for my car. (2001 vw jetta 1.8t, 5 speed)
if i drive it 'right' i'm sure i could kill the EPA stats though.
For those that care ... I got married and sold it and inherited my wife's car '94 Corolla. I'm moving up in the world. Funny thing is ... I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, she has a B.S. in Elementary Education and we share a car.
By the way, is it just me or are there a lot of EEs ( my type) marrying EEs ( my wife's type) ...
Personally, I get right about exactly what the mpg estimate is for my car - 36 highway, 27 city.
What folks have to realize is that there are many factors that affect mileage. Air temperature, altitiude, road type, fuel type, tire inflation, engine tuning, air filters, spark plugs, exhaust system, using AC, driving style, etc., etc. The list goes on and on.
If, in your sitation, many of these items are not optimal, you will get WAY less mileage. If more are better, then you can get better mileage.
There just is no way to come up with a number for mileage and have it apply accurately to everyone.
Decrease price/gallon and people will buy more gas guzzlers, use up the finite oil supply sooner, and pollute the air faster.
Somehow that doesn't sound like a good plan to me. Hell, I think we should raise taxes on gas...
"I hate quotations." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
4cyl of some size i don't recall. It was stickered at 26 city 33 hwy, and i generally get around 15 in the hills of berkely and 38-40 on highway trips. In San Diego my mpg is around 23-25. My average milage works out to about 28mpg over the 40,000 miles I've owned it, or roughly $1100 a year in fuel costs. I generally drive hard in city traffic, lots of stops and accelerations to avoid the pedestrians. On the highway, I don't really like to get pulled over, so I set the cruise at 80 and try to stay just at that speed and use good driving skills to make up time on the way.
Ye who speeds, cuts people off, and winds through traffic, is the first to reach the red light.
... and is the first person to reach for the red light override button.
My '03 Hybrid Civic had (I think) 48/47 on the sticker. When I drive it, the "MPG" meter in the dashboard ends up around 42-46. At the pump, I actually get 39-44.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
I have an '89 BMW 325 with 210K miles on the clock (original drivetrain - it's still on its first clutch). It regularly gets 25mpg even though the sticker says 22. I took the engine apart two months ago to fix a blown headgasket, and the only worn engine internals were the camshafts (the cylinder walls were pristine, you could still see the crosshatch!)
I suspect that the car gets such good gas mileage because the worn camshafts cause the valves to open less, letting slightly less fuel into the engine. Or, maybe it's just a damn fine car. Oh, and thank you BMW for making it so easy to take apart!
You Americans could learn a lot from the rest of the world when it comes to getting more MPGs.
:-)
Just do what we do -- use a bigger gallon!
Low-tech solutions to hi-tech problems
A lifetime mega- or giga-rev counter/accumulator. In a sales situation, use revs/mile to determine how hard the car has been driven.
A lifetime fuel intake counter/accumulator. Keeping track of your fuel economy is automatic. Print out graphs, whatever.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these babies!
I have a 2002 Prius, which I bought new 2 years ago. I get about an average of 45 mpg...
:) So I use it quite a bit. (road trip from Florida to Maine and back and moving from Florida to Colorado put a few miles on it) Overall I am VERY please with this vehicle. Its probably true that Prius owners are the best salesmen for this cars...
It has over 60,000 miles on it now
Its gets a little getting used to, as the engine turns off when your driving sometimes. I have gotten it up to 120mph (only once) and it handled it well. When I drive to the mountains though, its definatly has a hard time going up mountains. (it uses both engines together for the incline)
I plan on buying another one. I test drove the Honda and was not as impressed. I strongly suggest test driving one before buying it, to make sure you like it. If you want a car that speeds up faster than anyone elses car, get a sports car. If you want an economical car, thats really good on gas and you like gadgets like touch screen displays, look at the Prius.
Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
"Ye who speeds, cuts people off, and winds through traffic, is the first to reach the red light"
Or gets to the green before it turns red!
I wonder if the estimated MPG on the sticker takes into account when and where you would be driving? I have a Pontiac Sunfire, which was advertised as having from 24 MPG city up to 34 MPG highway. Generally it's been getting around 25 MPG. During a recent trip out of state (from CA to NM), my mileage got up above 33 MPG. On the flip side, I recently took a job where I have to commute within Los Angeles, often during rush hour. Now my mileage is only 17 MPG!
Pontiac Bonneville SSEI...big assed heavy sedan with a supercharged 3.8 liter V6. 240 HP, 280 torque. Not a sports car, but it can get out of it's own way pretty darned well.
:) )
Currently averaging 25.1 mpg. Off the top of my head I think it is supposed to get 18 city/27 highway...I haven't had too hard of a time cruising at 32+ on long trips without interruptions. I do mostly highway.
I wouldn't recommend it in the city though...the milage goes way down pretty quick, but if you are on the highway, it's really pretty good, with lots of room and comfort. (heated leather and a heads up display in my windshield...these are wonderful things.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that your epa depends directly on the type of terrain you drive upon. Climb a hill (regardless of how small it is) and you change the variables. Once more, go downhill and you change everything. The other thing you have to think about is that actuallystarting the car kills a lot of gas. If that wouldn't count, you would indeed be pretty close to the epa. It's all about the little things which accumulates.
full of $hit
with hybrids the higher MPG is in the city because of the "regenerative breaking system". you can check honda.com and toyota.com for proof
There are so many factors that influence mileage that the EPA sticker is an estimate, not a guarantee.
If your tires are underinflated by a couple of PSI you will see a drop in MPG. If your spark plugs are under gapped, you'll see a drop in MPG. If your wheel bearings are not properly packed...If your alignment is off... If you and your passenders are heavier than the EPA took into consideration...If you buy cheap spark plug wires...If there is too much carbon inside of your distributor cap...If your PCV valve isn't properly working...If your oil is too dirty...If your air filter is too dirty...If the gasoline in your area isn't formulated properly...If your transmission isn't filled to the proper level...If your O2 sensor is not operating properly. I could go on for half an hour. Automobiles are more complex than people like to think they are. The ECM measures so much data and makes so many adjustments to improve emissions (and as a side effect fuel mileage) that a couple of little problems can have a MAJOR impact on your fuel economy.
A few after market mods to your car can make it outperform one fresh from the factory. For example, if you replace your ignition coil with a higher voltage model you can set the gaps on your spark plugs wider and increase your fuel economy and horsepower. However that can cause your engine to heat up faster than it was designed to and cause more wear and tear on other engine components. The factories have to come up with a balance that will give decent performance to the greatest number of people.
It's not unlike the CPU market. Some CPUs can be overclocked without any problems, and others can not. Same thing with cars.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
- All time high: 29.7 MPG (if I remember right, about 6.7L/100km) on a highway trip from Phoenix to Grand Canyon and back;
- Aggressive city driving: about 20MPG;
- Economy city/highway driving: or on above 24MPG.
Funny thing about this car - the faster it goes (up to 100mph), the less fuel it consumes.I drive a 2001 VW Jetta (2.8L 6 cylinder), which the EPA lists at 19/28. I average just about 28 on the highway at 75MPH, but it drops quickly if you go higher. I was once patient enough to calculate mileage while driving 70MPH, and came up with nearly 30MPG -- not a bad improvement really.
With city driving, however, I rarely get more than 15-17MPG. Could be my lead foot and all that low end torque, though...
This is as big as they get, curb weight of ~4400lbs, 5.7Ltr V8 LT1, 4L60E tranny. "Drive it like I stole it".
Good days, 20mpg. Bad days, 16.
One of the guys in my group was talking about getting a smaller car for the "gas savings of 200$ a year"... we told him it was a loss since he would be spending that 200$ on "Why the hell did I sell my car" therapy.
this is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
Life time average: 21 MPG.
-- Stephen.
28 / 37 (cty/hwy) is EPA for the 5 speed base model.
My real world milage is more like:
32 / 40 (cty/hwy)
But, it being a manual, I overdrive the hell out of it whenever possible and let in the clutch to roll down hills without dragging the engine. I guess it all depends on how you drive.
[Car Geek]
My 40mpg estimate is while running the engine at a consistant 2900 rpm in 5th gear.. works out to about 62mph. 76mph is the next good breaking point, which works out to 46mpg or so -- great for long trips through areas with speed limits of 70-75, like most of I-94 west of Wisconsin, but is also a tag too illegal for me on my 55mph posted daily route..
[/Car Geek]
5.7L 275hp V8, 6 speed
Sticker says:
City 17, Hwy 26
My 155,000 miles say:
City 17, Mixed 23, Hwy 29
As with the original post, that 29mpg is going from gas station to gas station on long trips (>1000 miles).
-C
Or perhaps the last to make the green (or yellow)....
I've been driving my new toy for about 3 weeks now and love the common-rail direct injection turbodiesel engine. It still sounds like a diesel when it starts (but very muffled, more quiet than a Jetta TDI) but sounds like a gasoline engine once its warmed up. No diesel smell either. I bought it because I loved my 1996 E300D and I'm a diesel fan.
Anyway, my first tank of fuel lasted 580 miles, I calculated about 34 mpg combined city/highway (about 75% city). EPA sticker is 27/37. Not bad for a car that weighs a little over 4000 lbs. I'm taking it on a cross country trip this summer, can't wait to see what the real highway mileage is. (I also want to test out the ~370 ft/lbs of torque for passing!!)
That said, I would still like to see a turbodiesel 3-series BMW here in the states.
May such a driver be ever cursed with poor cellphone reception and the cold dregs of yesterday's Tarbucks beverage spilt on their lap.
And that was before the breakin was finished! Of course, it's a motorcycle :)
Take up riding. Save some gas.
All I have is a bicycle .. and it didn't come with any milage sticker.
I'm supposed to get 22/28 in this car but I do far better than the EPA numbers. In the three months I've owned it, I've been averaging 31mpg. I'm driving about an 80/20 highway/city mix [1] which should skew it towards the high end anyway but not above the EPA highway rating for the car. Oh yea and this is with the A/C on pretty much all of the time.
Other user reviews I read about the car prior to buying seemed to indicate that this kind of milage was typical for most people. I have no idea why the EPA numbers suck so bad in comparison.
[1] Living in Houston will do that, this place is dominated by highways. Plus I have a 30 mile (one-way, reverse) commute for work and take every possible opportunity to get the hell out of here which adds up to a lot of highway driving.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
'03 Honda Civic 4-door, manual, claims 32 city, 37 highway. I seem to average about 33 in normal driving (70/30 city/highway split) and can get slightly above 40 on 100% freeway road trips.
When I was in the beltway consulting business, I heard that dealer feedback to EPA about the inflated numbers was positive - they liked telling their customers "well, you probably won't get 30 [or whatever] unless all your trips are 55 mph on the freeway". This was their way of building credibility with their customers, who of course didn't trust the numbers anyway.
Incidentally that was almost 20 years ago!
I get about 300 miles per tank in my town of 30,000. Lots of frequent stops.
On the highway, I'd say I can get up to nearly 600 miles on a tank.
only 10k miles on it but 20 city 27 hiway with very little variation
Slashdot. News for nerds & leftists, stuff that matters.
Toyota doesn't mess around. They've also sold the hybrid technology to ford. Let's not forget that toyota is also releasing a hybrid which does 0-60 in 4.03 seconds and tops out around 155mph. Don't walk away from this thinking Toyota is maniacally evil, if anything, they've got their shit together more than most automotive companies.
Sorry for being a toyhead, they please me immensely. Something tells me, if the author of the article was driving a volta, miles per gallon would be the least of his worries. I think toyota pretty much tops the list of fuel economy, on any playing field. Prius wins in my mind, not strictly because of fuel consumption, but by the name that's behind it.
I get about half the mileage listed on a 2000 Dodge Ram 2500 HD 4x4.
I get about 19 miles to the gallon on these cars -- almost exactly the EPA numbers. I do tend to drive fast, but don't accelerate rapidly or ride my brakes much. Most miles are on the Florida Turnpike before traffic hits.
I have about 31500 miles on my 02 Civic.
Sticker said 30 City, 38 Highway
Lifetime average of 31.9
I don't think it's reasonable to quote a max or min for a single tank, but for most freeway driving I get something close to 34-35 and for city I get something around 30. I don't know how to assess exactly how much city vs. highway driving I do, but I've averaged 43 miles/day in the time I've had the car. That includes some long trips, and a pretty good amount of city driving.
Indeed. My 1994 Plymouth Sundance (2 door 'Duster' hatchback) with all its 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual glory is rated in the mid 30s for highway mileage. I managed to average 45 for highway, which is the vast majority of my driving.
Those 300 mile drives to Canada from my home in central Minnesota will let you run the tank dry so you can get a good estimate, heh.
Time to get that CTO reclassified as an SUV. It just so happens that it's a really small and light SUV. ;) Nothing really wrong with that eh? :P
Life is not for the lazy.
Funny, here in Australia, I can't remember EVER seeing a Fuel efficiency rating!
I don't think I have ever seen a car over here that even *shows* the mpg on sticker (or here in aus kms per litre).
I drive a compact (Toyota Corolla Hatch) and I have no idea if it is good bad or indifferent, or if it is performing to spec...
All i know is I have a 40 litre tank, and get about 700km's Highway, and about 500km's City. So 10.5 Gallons, about 440 miles. So I get about 44 for Highway, and about 30 for City.....
Why does it "seem" to be really important to know this in the US, and completely irrelevant here in Aus ?
lounge around on the blue couch
For some reason, the GM cars I've owned get much higher than the EPA on the highway and slightly higher in-town. I had a Dodge Intrepid that got worse mileage than the EPA, so much so that I took it in to make sure everything was working OK. On a good day with a bit of a tailwind I could maybe hit the highway EPA with that one. With the GMs I've owned, I could routinely get ~8 mpg over the EPA.
My focus is rated 30-35 MPG
Most of my commute to work involves 5-10 mins of stop and go, 15 mins of highway and 5 minutes of more stop and go. putting about 50 miles on the car per day.
It has a 13 gallon fuel tank, but I never drive it to the Fuel low level, so basicially for the sake of Fuel economy I say 10 gallons cause it's easy to compute that way.
Generally, I cant give an exact average on the car. It seems to like the summer season better. the last tank I filled got me to 311 miles, so roughly 31 MPG. This is the highest I've seen it this year. the tank before that got 300, before that 280. generally speaking I average about 270-280 miles on a tank during the summer, which is pretty much in the epa standard.
In the winter, its a much different story. I know that driving is going to be a little slower but generally I go the speed limit the whole way to work. During the winter I Average between, 250-230 miles per tank. The lowest being 200 during the coldest portion of this winter. It could be becasue its idled more to get warm in the morning, but generally its a lot less.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
My '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee beats EPA by about 2MPG, probably 50/50 highway v. city.
I used to have an '86 Pontiac Fiero. It blew the doors off the EPA rating, which was 24 city. At the time I was only doing city driving and routinely got 35 MPG; after I had a major tune up that involved a new oxygen sensor and repacking the wheel bearings, I saw 42 MPG for nearly a full year.
Pretty impressive that 18-year old technology pretty much matches what the hybrid electrics do today; the car was clearly far ahead of its time. (I still miss it.)
I bought a Jetta TDI last Oct and I couldn't be happier. 42mpg city average and fuel $1.60/gallon
The advertised MPG for the 2000 Nissan Altima is 25MPG city, 28 highway. I don't have an instrument that measures MPG, but after watching my miles and how much I pump at the station, I estimate I get about 20MPG average.
:) Mmm...
This is why I'm excited about the upcoming 2007 Nissan Altima Hybrid. Nice, big beautiful car that's more efficient.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero." - Steve Wright
That's what I get. I got a fuel efficient Sentra that I bought in 1994. Reported mileage was 29 city, 38 highway. That's almost exactly what I get afer 90,000 miles and ten years. I got an 11 gallon tank. I did make it from San Fran to LA nonstop on 1 tank once.
One wonders about the conditions under which the fuel economy of the hybrids is evaluated. Maybe that's the problem.
"...who search the reason of things
Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
2.3L I4 Auto
EPA Sticker 24 City 30 Highway
Have been tracking it since I got the car.
18MPG average, varies 16MPG to 21MPG.
Average Economy: 18.23MPG
Total Gas Gallons: 219
Total Gas Cost: $397.79
Average Cost per gallon: $1.799
Fillups: 21
Worst mileage on a single tank: 15.97MPG
Best mileage on a single tank: 21.46MPG
Miles: 4037
Haven't been on any long trips yet.
I'm always flooring it whenever I have the chance!
Don't speed much, just accelerate as quickly as possible all the time!
--
Free Linux Shells!!
NicoNet 2000
http://www.niconet2k.com/
My honda insight CVT hybrid gets about the rated mileage(58mpg). Here are some important points:
I drive conservetively (65-70mph highway)
I overinflate my tires by 5psi
I live in NJ (winters hurt milage badly)
I drive mostly highway
I use Mobil1 0w-20 synthetic oil
I rarely use AC
Now, I averaged over 70mpg (15 mpg over rating) in the southwest so location is a huge factor. If people drive conservively, respect momentum and try to work with it, don't use AC much, keep up with maintanance and live in a warmer climate I'm sure they will get well over the estimated ratings.
With that said, people aren't going to do that and will forever bitch about their car's poor gas consumption.
1.8 L I4, 5 speed manual. Right about now I'm hitting something like 29-30 MPG with a good amount of city driving. That recently, however. About a year ago I was hitting something around 33 MPG. Highest I've recorded was 45, which was highway, cruising around 70 all the way. EPA rating is 31/37. Though at 120 HP, it's not too much, but it's one helluva decent car that's pretty reliable, has a decent amount of pickup, and doesn't break down on me all the time. Hey, it's a good, cheap car.
1000 mpg in my Ford Explorer* Top that!
* - When dropped out the back of a C130.
My previous cars generally followed EPA estimates. I had a 24/30 Honda Accord and generally got about 25 mpg.
I have a Cooper S also. For long highway trips the computer says I am getting like 35, but I am actually getting around 30.
Why do these computers lie?
BTW, I hope your windshield is holding up...
In cold weather the Prius got between 35-40. Now that the weather is nice, I've been getting 48-52 for my commute. My wife who does more short trips and sits at lights with the AC on gets quite a bit less. The first 5 minutes in the Prius is very poor (about 25) as it is agressive in maintaining the engine coolant temprature for the low emissions. If it was designed for millage instead of emissions, it could do a lot better. Where the car does a fantastic job is in stop and crawl driving if you are not using the AC. It does that with the engine off 90% of the time. Conventional cars don't fare nearly as well as you are stopped too short to shut off the engine and sitting idling is zero MPG. An extra bonus is the car doesn't overheat in those conditions like my old car did. A warm day and stop and crawl traffic would usualy result in some loss of coolant.
The truth shall set you free!
I drive a '99 Cadillac Seville STS. I track all my gas expenses and mileage on a per mile basis. Incredibly enough, I'm pretty much on the sticker, which is 17/26hwy, and my average overall so far is 25.90mpg.
Luckily, I work nights, so I get to bypass all the traffic patterns that normally cause shitty mpg. Also, here in Colorado, the roads are all N-S or E-W, and usually 40mph, so that's right there at the low end of my 3rd gear (usually breaking 1500RPM at that point.).
Basically, it's all about how you drive, when you drive, and where you live. Hills, turns, lights, and other people affect how you drive just as much as how fast you brake and accellerate. Keep things nice and slow, and you'll do fine. Don't speed when your approaching a red light- what's the point, you're just gonna stop! Don't take-off on green lights- you're just burning extra gas. The only place I take off is on interstate onramps, and only cause it's fun AND good for my engine. But pretty much, try to drive before or after rush hour. Drive as much as possible at night if you can- being able to drive city speeds without the stop and go puts most cars right in their most efficient output ranges.
By the way, I can only recommend FULLY a program called Handy Car. I use it to track all my fill ups and mileage. Since it's on my 3650, I have it with me everywhere, even on road trips.
Cheap as well!
When my 1998 Mitsubishi Montero Sport gets roughly the same mileage as my dad's '63 Mercury Montclair did when I was in highschool (my dad made me keep a log). For those of you that didn't have one, it was basicly a tank on tires. I don't remember all of the specs (we sold the car 20 years ago), but I remember helping rebuild the 408cc Engine. It also had a standard Ford 2 speed automatic transmission. It was big enough to seat 6 linemen from my HS football team in seatbelts. I'd estimate the milage as 20 city, 25? highway (I only used it to go to school & work after school, no long distance driving). Another interesting note, my parents both had '76 Honda Civic hatchbacks (both were sticks). They got 36mpg in the city, and ~45mpg driving between Bellingham & Seattle. Show me an average car that can do that today.
The EPA estimate is based on the emissions of the vehicle. Recent cars have a number of additions which reduce emissions, but don't affect mileage.
Call it optimizing for the benchmark.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
I moved to the US 8 years ago and when I arrived I considered gasoline "free" as it was so cheap. It's still amazingly cheap now (despite what the natives believe)
My car costs $35 to fill (I live in Silicon Valley) and it spends most of its week life in traffic standing still, so god only knows what it's doing in reality, although the fuel computer reports about 28. Oddly enough on a trip to vegas last week it reported 32 at 80mph.
The same vehicle in England (where I'm originally from) would cost $86 USD to fill, or literally around $5 - $6 a gallon.
The car culture of the US will not change until we start getting close to paying $5 / gallon. That's when we'll see those SUV's being left at home socker Moms realizing they *can* live without the caravan.
For me, it's still free, and $5 / gallon is not here yet, but it's defintitely in the mail folks.
Because I was buying a new truck for my business. It explains that highway mileage would vary between 17 and 21 mpg. I think if you drive in a non-aggressive manner you'll get better than average every time.
My old SUV got 23 and 24 mpg routinely on long halls and an average of 16 in town. If you drive a manual transmission, on average you'll get better mileage do to less drivetrain power loss. I think the hybrids have been inflated, a conspiracy?, well maybe... I think that people at the EPA, like anyone in the business world like to please their customers and push certain products.
If insurance agents, the EPA, and ultra environmentalists really got their way we would all drive very functional sedans. Very boring, very functional sedans, because it would lower the cost of doing business, and it takes the risk out of dealing with variety. I know the EPA should be impartial, but since when has a government agency really been untouchable?
I drive a 2000 Jetta TDI, and I am no light foot with it. The EPA rating for the car is 42/48 and my personal lifetime average for the car is currently at 47.1 MPG. On longer trips of predominately highway i have had mileage about around 52-53 miles per gallon, this is with cruising at 70 mph. Got to love driving a diesel car :)
Of course, if the US used correct size gallons (4.55l) then you would all get further on a gallon of gas.
21 highway, 17 city, exactly the epa ratings....
1. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.
I drive a '96 4cyl 5spd s10, and have been averaging about 28-29 mpg in 'suburban' driving, I believe my highway top was 33.6 about a year ago... epa stickers are 19/26...
Not too long ago, I had failing spark plugs causing missing when I gave it too much gas at low engine speeds... my solution was to drive the vehicle harder, running up to higher rpm's before shifting... and my mileage went UP. I was boggled, I'd been driving for years thinking I wanted to keep the engine speed as close to idle as possible to maximize efficiency, and vagually recall getting like 23 and 24 mpg in suburban/highway driving... Now I wind up a bit before shifting and enjoy higher efficiencies...
-Erik
Wind resistance is a function of the square of velocity, so doubling speed from 40 mph to 80 mph creates 400% more drag on your car.
if you want better gas mileage, SLOW DOWN.
EPA: 28 MPG highway
Actual: 33 MPG
0 to 100 MPH in less than 10 seconds and not 33 MPG.
And the ability to accelerate smoothly from 30 mph in 5th gear (1100 rpm) to 170 mph. Try 5th at 1100 in your vehicle, expensive variable valve timing or not.
Pushrod V8's rule.
And I might as well be wiping my ass with $20 when it comes to milage.
My 2002 Nissan Frontier EPA projection is 22 city/25 highway. After 2 years with regular maintenance I've averaged 24 MPG. I suppose the biggest effect on your mileage is the type of driving you do. I'm about 60% highway which I'm sure helps. I do notice (this is probably obvious) that after a tune up or oil change my mileage goes up. So always take care of your vehicle and it's cheaper in the long run.
As an example, the highway test dates back from when the maximum highway speed in the US was 55 MPH. Now that most of us live pretty near a place where they can do at least 65 on the highway, the EPA test probably ought to be updated as well.The current EPA highway test has an average speed of 48 mph.
But since you asked for useless data points: My '03 Hemi Ram gets just about the same mileage as the EPA said it would (12/27), which surprised the heck out of me, 'cause I'm always 10-20% low. (Hey, I drive a 350 horsepower truck. Of _course_ I use the loud pedal...) Then I got a used '95 Miata and I get better mileage than the EPA expected. I don't _think_ I'm slowing down in my old age...
I'm doubly surprised about the Miata. The top gear is so low it's _got_ to have been designed to ace the 48mph average speed EPA highway test, but somehow I still do slightly better than what the EPA expects on the highway and I match the city figures... even with a weekend at the autocross...
-JDF
the stickers always seem quite conservative, I've always seen higher numbers in real life. Case in point was my beloved '87 CRX, it was 30/35 mpg, but I don't think I ever saw below 33 city, and saw as high as 56 highway (yes, on a long trip).
I wish the gas prices would keep going up, and someone in DC would push for higher mileage ratings. I really think that the money will just have to force the change to more fuel effiecient cars. let's hope it happens soon.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
the sticker is something like 14 city, 19 hwy.
,featureless midwestern interstate), i get 23 hwy.
:)
I get around 11 city, and, if i really, really baby it (i.e. set cruise control at 79 on flat
The 11 city is because of my driving style. Drive it like you stole it. Part throttle is just for controlling car rotation
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I get better than the EPA rated mileage of 16/24, averaging about 20/30 according to the onboard guage and some calculations at the pump. The car is a BMW E46 M3. It's certainly no Geo Metro, but the actual fuel economy was somewhat suprising. Part of this probably has to do with the engine being only 6cyl.
Jeepers --- I get 43 msg with my 1986 Chevy Sprint, that always starts, doesn't burn any oil, and rides rock-steady at 70 mph on the freeway. Plus I can haul lumber, bricks, furniture with it, cause its a hatchback. Not to mention driving it home from work through the middle of Hurricane Isabel last year.
Hybrid, schmybrid. Who needs all that pointless complexification? 3 cylinders, 43 hp (yum!), and 1300 lb curb weight works for me! They used to make cars like this --- why not any more?
And don't give me poop about the dreaded 'highway safety' bug-a-boo. I don't ask more of my car than it can give, I drive defensively, and I feel no particular urge to prove my manhood on the road (I had a kid instead --- much more fun!) Plus, I err on the side of caution by assuming everyone else is driving like an idiot. So far, I've not been disappointed.
Who really *needs* hundreds and hundreds of hp anyhow --- and for what? I get my groceries home jast as reliably as the nervous wispy woman in the huge SUV next to me who looks uncomfortably like she's driving an apartment building. But it only costs me $8 to fill my tank.
And I can see why people are upset, but don't really agree with them.
If you are somebody who likes to speed on the highway, you're not going to get the sticker MPG of 48 to happen. You'll end up somewhere around 40 MPG. The test was of course dome at 65 MPH, if you drive that speed most of the time you'll have a chance to hit 47 MPG.
If idle at all at any time in city driving, you're going to take an MPG hit. The EPA's rating of 48 MPG is clearly based on the fact that you'll be able be able to use the auto stop feature all the time. In the real world, you don't... in crawling traffic you need to wait until there's a 2-car length gap before you move forward or otherwise the auto stop will not reset and you'll have to idle. If it's colder than 40 degrees outside, auto stop is dead on arrival and in city performace you'll have to settle for about 38 MPG.
Wanna use the A/C? That'll be 3 MPG off your total, please drive around.
Still, if you know that EPA tests cars in a lab environment rather than the real world, you'd be surprised that they didn't publish higher numbers. On a day that you can roll down the windows and fully use the auto-stop, I've seen 55 MPG show up on the dashboard. It can be done, you just have to be aware of when you're using fuel and try not to get into situations where you're wasteful.
You didn't use US EPA ratings and then measure economy in imperial gallons did you? That would yield the numbers you put up. Remember, a US gallon is only 3.8L while an imperial (oh the irony) is 4.54L.
Is rated about 22-28 mpg...
I tend to get a low of 13 if I'm driving badly, to an all-time high of 28mpg (straight freeway, no hills).
Guess I can't complain.
2002 X-Type 3.0l
Why should we raise taxes on gas? You must be a democrat, that's there answer for everything.
I burn 89 octane w/ethanol except when I cant get ethanol, then I burn whatever is cheapest. This summer in Utah I got 27 and 28mpg regularly while burning the lower grade 85-87 octane. It must like the higher altitude.
Most people would say I baby my car and do not drive it as agressively as a sports car should be. But I'm rather proud that I am at 180K miles and still have the original clutch! :)
BIG COCK!
The EPA tests are designed to test emissions. Their goal is to reduce pollution. That part works.
During the emmisions testing, fuel consumption numbers appear as a by-product. But those numbers do not represent an attempt at any realistic measure of actual, real world mileage. They are, however, useful in comparing vehicles.
In other words, you won't get the same mileage as the EPA. But if you trade your car in for one that measures better than your old one in the EPA tests, you probably will get better mileage than you used to. The absolute numbers aren't very meaningful. The relative ranking is.
I average 24000 miles a year on my '96 Suburban. With the back end full of parts and tools it gets 18-24 mpg in the winter and 16-20 mpg in the summer. I have no complaints.
I admit that I always get confused at this point. A gallon is 3.79L is you're in the USA, 4.54L in the UK... I think there are about 3212 yards in for each furlong per fortnight, but I can't for the life of me remember how to convert from a furlong to a mile. Since 92% of the world's population is metric, can we start again in base 10?
I have a coworker who swears that she's never gotten less than 40mpg driving her Jetta TDI.
Of course the downside is the rather harsh, negative statistical impact it has on one's life expectancy.
But then you also get to go 0-60 in less than 2 seconds on a pretty low-end cycle; so when you die you had that going for you! (AND... you get to feel good about yourself for checking the donor box on your license!)
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
For real. I track mpg compulsively, and this car has had sustained bouts of *averaging* 44 mpg. In the past few months it's getting 36... since the last oil change. Hmmm. It's a mix of 8 mph over limit on highway (usually 800 mile trips), and very aggressive city driving. 5 speed manual, smallish 4 cylinder.
I still think it's weird. But Saturn's a weird car. Got the ugliest dashboard I've ever seen.
While it is true that with age a cars mileage will tend to get worse due to carbon build up, what really effects your mileage is the quality of fuel that you use!! The higher the octane does not matter, but which brand most definitely does. For instance, at the risk of sounding like a corporate sponsor, Shell gas on average gives me about 30-40 more miles per tank than most gas.
I own a 1997 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP (supercharged 3.8L V6). The window sticker claims "18 city, 28 highway." It's been damn near dead-on.
When I lived within 10 miles of work (Richardson/Dallas TX area), I was getting 17.6, according to the onboard computer. When I drove it on long trips on the highway--i.e. drive it up to Michigan from Texas--I'd start out getting around 30, and it'd drop to about 28.6 by the end of the trip. If I really feathered the accelerator when entering the freeway after a rest-stop, I could sometimes keep it at 30 for the trip, but that's pushing it.
In the 215,000 miles I've driven the car (I still have it and I drive the heck out of it), the gas mileage hasn't strayed much. It went up for awhile when my transmission was going out, by virtue of the fact I only had 1st gear half the time. Repairing that brought my mileage back down, in return for actually being able to accelerate. My highway mileage went as high as 32, right before my alternator died. (It was probably already dead, actually.) Repairing that brought me back to par. When my catalytic converter went, my mileage dropped to around 15-16 MPG. Fixing that brought it back up.
Right now, I live in Arlington, TX, and I have a fairly long commute back over to northeast Dallas. I drive the car hard, though, and get about 19 - 20 MPG (closer to 19). Given that my current driving mix is between highway and city, though, that's about right.
So all in all, I'd put the EPA estimate dead on.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
They also depend on what gas you put in the car. Some cars do drive better on supreme.
When I used to live about 400km from my hometown, I spent the first while driving home on regular, it took about half a tank to get there (45L tank?)
However, when on a whim I tried "Supreme," it actually took me just a little over a quarter... so milage and bang-for-my-buck was actually better on the more expensive gas. Possibly this also has to do with the mountainous terrain and the fact that the gas gave me more power - not sure.
I do know that I regularly stick injector-cleaner in, so I shouldn't be getting plugged there. Therefore, I'm willing to state that better gas can give you better milage (and not all gas stations give the same quality gas either)
... drove 800 miles on ONE tank of gas in a twin turbo-charged diesel V8 Audi A8? Fuel economy depends on your driving habits, aerodynamic, and weight of the car.
Which is only useful if you're passing the last stoplight on the road. Otherwise, you'll lose your time advantage at the next light.
Sigh... modern cars get almost no miles/gallon.
Advertised around 23/32 mpg.
I get around 21/33.
But mine is black, so it's sleeker at higher speeds!
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Oh, and FWIW, it'll still do 97 MPH in second gear, even with all those miles on it. (Thanks to a computer from ZZ Performance, and a few other upgrades.) That 3800 Series II is a damn fine engine.
Program Intellivision!
My Excursion gets a whopping ONE mile per gallon.
I think all car manufacturers should strive for a goal as ambitious as this. Here's why:
a) it makes calculating your miles per gallon trivial
b) it helps you easily budget your annual GAS expenses
c) it helps you distribute OPEC barrel prices fluctuations across your fiscal 'budget' year
d) you can kill yourself in your own home FASTER than your wife can even ask, "What the hell are you doing in the garage with the door closed!"
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I'm not an expert on cars, but I'm sure there are numerous factors that influence fuel economy. How well maintained the car is, the style of driving, the road conditions (there is more to it than just "highway" and "city"), etc. There is no way the manufacturer could accurately predict the fuel economy. While they may be useful when comparing cars (a car with a MPG of 35 will most likely get better mileage than one with a MPG of 15), I would take those numbers with a grain or two of salt.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Wait, I'm driving a 155HP Golf Mk4 TDI 4motion. I usually drive about 40% Autobahn @110-130mph, yet my average consumption is about 7.5l/100km - if I did my conversion correctly, that's about 31-32mpg. If I drive slower, I can easily go beyond 35mpg. So I guess 25mpg is not even close to being fuel efficient...
awww yeah.
I have a 1976 Honda 360t
thats a 2 cyl. 360cc engine.
it's leaking oil, and has f*cked up seals in the firing chambers, which means I'm loosing efficiency on the compression... and I still get between 40 and 50 MPG.
It cracks me the hell up when I'm gassing up and the car next to me is some giant SUV, and the soccer mom is making the hard choice between feeding her kids, or driving her car...
dear america, wake the hell up, you selfish bastards you.
With a 1450cc motor, I have yet to get the sticker values for real... I tripped across the US last summer doing all highway and figured I would try something out... I did one full tank at 55mph and another at 70mph... Truth be told, I got better milage at 70 than at 55. I did this traveling through South Dakota to Sturges, so there were no real variables such as hills or cities to travel through.
Has anyone else done trips like this in their car or on their bike and done the same test?
flinging poop since 1969
Yo, just take off your muffler, replace your air filter with screen mesh (keep the big bugs out), use octane boost with every tank, and replace your plugs ones with a higher heat range.
Instant gas mileage boost.
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
I'm somewhat embarassed to say I've kept a log of every tank of gas in the last 3 years.
mean mpg = 21.5
std deviation (per tank) = 2.4 mpg
min = 17.8
max = 27.8
EPA estimates are 20,27.
I drive mostly in the city with a lead foot. So the numbers are close in my case.
You can never equivocate too much.
I don't want to say it, but....
Do they taste good on toast?
Sorry, it had to be said.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
When I lived at my old house my mileage was pretty cool - I pulled about 600 miles a week on a tank and a half of gas.
I moved close to work and gas mileage changed - I only pull about 82 miles a week - but I fill up every 15 days now.
For some reason my car is burning a lot more fuel driving a few miles with some lights, as opposed to the long haul I did on country roads.
Literally - Doing 60 miles on a commute in a day burns less gas than 18 miles thru some neighborhoods.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Air Conditioning seems to GREATLY effect the mileage in my Mazda 626. Perhaps it's because it's a four cylinder, but I can tell you that not only is power range noticably effected, I lose 1/3 my mileage.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
My grandfather used to tell me that during WWII, they would add a water can and atomizer to the air intake in front of the carbuerator to increase the mileage. He described it as a small straw in the air stream. My understanding is that this works because water expands more than air does, and the temperature change is going to be higher because the atomized water will evaporate, which cools the air. It is this change in temp that gives the power used to push the pistons, so by pre-cooling the air, you will be able to harness more energy.
I drove my 1967 Dodge Dart (273ci V8, automatic transmission) from Los Angeles to San Francisco (400 miles) in 3 hours 45min (avg 110mph) using I little over 14 gallons of gas (about 28MPG). This was right after rebuilding and tuning the engine, putting on new tires, and I got lucky in that I almost never had to touch the brakes the whole trip. I never got over 16MPG in normal use. Clearly, Your Mileage May Vary. Under the right conditions you can get astounding economy out of a 35 year old chrome-grilled yellow monstrosity, and under the wrong conditions you can get abyssmal performance from a Chevy Sprint or Toyota Prius. It's important to remember that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, it's just a single data point.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
My 90 ZR-1 was stickered at 16/25. I got 18 city, and from 27 (80mph) to 33 (65mph). Not too shabby for 375 hp.
:)
Its replacement, a 2004 Z06, is stickered at 19/28 and I'm seeing 18.5/33-35 quite respectable and 405 hp to boot.
I love it when some econo-box criticizes my sports car as a gas guzzler and finds out I get better milage than they are
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
At some point, you are going to have car manufacturers trying to make a car that will do well on the artificial EPA fuel economy test -- we may well have seen that with the Prius. Toyota actually complains (I'm not sure if they're sincere, mind you) that they are not allowed to specify any numbers other than the EPA numbers -- they'd really like to tell people what they really would expect, but federal law prohibits that kind of thing.
That said, I'm selling my MR2 Spyder Thursday and buying a new Prius. Mostly I need more space for my family -- the two-seater just isn't cutting it.
The MR2 specification is 26 City, 32 Highway. I usually get about 28 mpg doing fairly aggressive mountain and city driving.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
My diesel 2001 Jetta TDI gets about 54 MPG for highway driving (doing 75+ MPH), and about 48 MPG in the city. It has 90,000+ miles on it, and still drives like a champ. Plus, diesel prices fluctuate less than gas does.
r g/
Before people start to complain about environmental concerns, do the research first.
http://www.tdiclub.com/
http://www.biodiesel.o
I did a lot of research when I bought, due to my long commutes (150+ miles/day), and I save, on average, between $250 - $300 per month, which essentially paid for the monthly payments.
Great car. They also have Diesel Golf, Beetle, and Passat models, if the Jetta doesn't float your boat. Worried about not being able to find diesel? When my low fuel light comes on, I still have a 2 gallon reserve, or about 80 miles in the city, but in reality, it's not that difficult to find diesel.
They're definitely worth checking out. I plan on being able to keep the car for a number of years, as the engines last forever. Sorry to sound like a diesel advocate, but it's a great, comfortable car.
I drive a Honda Insight (2000, 5-speed, silver) and get an average of 63 MPG on my 12 mile commute in mixed traffic. (The Insight is a hybrid, for those who don't know, and has a MPG calculator on the dash.) That said, what I've discovered is that driving styles dictate mileage, in a way I didn't expect. Reading a few hybrid fan sites, I tried a driving style other than the granny-goes-to-church style. I find hybrids (or at least mine) does best when you get right up to your cruising speed as fast as is reasonably possible, depending on the assist motor, and then kick back and cruise, enjoying for the maximum amount of time your best mileage. It works!
97 Ford Ranger, EPA 17 City / 23 Highway.
I drive 33 miles to work, about two thirds of that highway. I get 20 MPG consistantly.
When I travel to Virginia, a 140 mile trip all-highway up route 85, I notice I get an extra 1-2 MPG extra.
So I'd say they're spot on.
But my 12v Audi engine sees much better gas mileage at 75mph than it does at 55mph. 70mph seems to be the sweet post for maximum mileage on long hauls for this car but not only is 75mph better than 55mph near 80mph gets me only slightly less gas milage on long interstate drives and gets you there a hell of a lot faster.
--- I do not moderate.
Any one of these can swing fuel consumption. Driving my Jeep like a granny, shifting once I hit 1,500 rpm (not a problem since it has so much torque) gets me close to 18 or 20 mpg, even with big tires. If I drive around like "normal" people I'd be getting closer to 11 or 12 mpg in the city.
However, having lived in a suburb where I would have to drive 45 miles a day just for work, to now driving less than 5 miles/day if at all has meant that by moving to "the city" I have reduced my personal emissions/day tremendously.
One interesting to note about tire pressure. I left San Francisco (65 degrees) and pumped the tires to 33psi cold. By the time I got down to Fresno it was getting a bit squirrely. When I checked the pressure it had hit 40psi! I let it back down to 32psi and continued onward. Coming down the 10 heading into Phoenix it felt weird again. Lo and behold, the 115 degree ambient temp had pushed the pressure back up to 38.
The point being that you need to keep your tires inflated to the pressure that gives you the lowest rolling resistance. I'll be changing out the 33x12.5 to 33x9.5 tires.
Keeping the car well maintained is also a bonus.
Any chance you're driving an SVT Focus (2.0L, 170hp, 6MT)? I drive mine like a bat out of hell - one pedal to the floor at all times (either the gas or the brake) - and I get 22-24 MPG. On long highway trips I've seen 31-32 MPG.
I work in the automotive industry, and YMMV is a very true statement. Mileage depends not only on driving style, but also on:
-Quality of gas
-Ambient Temperature
-Tire type & inflation pressure
-Type of route taken
-Engine & drivetrain tolerances
-Altitude, Humidity and Rain (or lack thereof)
-Road surface
Another factor that may influence your mileage is a calibration chance in the engine computer. Manufacturers frequently change the programming of engine computers to tweak various factors including driveability and emissions. Certain calibrations may yield amazing mileage but can cause a car to stall at inopportune times and would be scrapped.
Have you seen my stapler?
I'm driving a 2001 Saturn SL2 (1901 cc DOHC 4-cylinder, with 5-speed manual transmission (gearbox), transverse engine, and FWD). It is rated at 27 MPG in the city and 38 MPG on the freeway. After 40 months and 33,000 miles, I have achieved 37.4 MPG lifetime (6.32 liters per 100 km). Conservative driving, light weight (2,501 lbs./1137 kg) and the 5-speed manual transmission have all played a part. I have no freakin' idea why the EPA issued such a low number for city mileage, that's a mystery.
Another Saturn owner told me his 1997 model, with automatic transmission, averages around 35 MPG (5.91 liters/100 km). My experience is that a lockup torque converter really helps mileage with an automatic transmission, regardless of make and model (above a certain speed, in top gear, the transmission links the engine and tires directly just like a manual tranny).
I achieve very close to my average in both city and highway driving most of the year. Cold winter weather (down to 0 degrees F in Cincinnati) and air conditioning (R134A freon) in the summer (up to 95-100 deg F here) can both reduce the mileage to the middle or lower 30 MPG range on occasion.
Driving on country roads and interstate highways (in the slow lane, say, 52 MPH or 83 km/h) has given me as high as 40 - 44 MPG, making up for lower mileage in winter and the extra load of the freon compressor (used sparingly) in the summer.
</BEGIN biased rant> I have good interior room, nice features, low pollution numbers, and 95 percent USA parts content. And some people are getting well over 300 thousand miles (480,000 km) on the original engines (lost-foam casting process). Before we talk about hybrids and other exotic solutions, consider going "back to basics" -- light weight but sturdy, small engine, good engineering and build quality, priced agressively. Over 14 million were made from 1991 - 2002, used units are coming down to the $5K to $8K range in my local market. As for mine, I'm satisfied. It's not for sale at any price. </END biased rant>
In my case I have a 2003 Chevy Silverado regular cab, long bed which weighs about 4400lbs and has the Vortec 4800 V8 and 4L60E 4 speed automatic transmission. I drive foot to the floorboard most of the time, and pretty much all city driving. It is EPA rated at 15 city, 19 highway. I have measured it between 16 to 18 dependably. I would guess that driven conservatively on the highway it is capable of better than 20 MPG.
I don't track around town mileage as my city hosts the annual Distracted Driver's Convention. Legions of them have made the choice to settle here and we all pay the price
I make a tank sized road trip twice a month to visit family and I get a consistent 28 - 30 mpg. Rolling hills of western Iowa, leaving behind a black cat that haunts our neighborhood and headed for a marmalade, mitten pawed long hair. I think cat magnetism adds 10% to the mileage figure both directions.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
and measure the difference in your mileage. I've got a '01 Explorer V8 AWD, which I usually drive like a bat out of hell getting 18.5 mpg commuting with about 70% Hwy miles. As a test, for an entire tank of gas, I drove like a wuss, like there was a quail egg between my foot and the accelerator, never more than 2K rpm. This meant very gentle starts, keeping top speed down to 65, and leaving lots of room in front so you have to brake less, driving in the right hand lane, and allowing lots of folks to speed past. Results: 21 mpg, a 13% increase, saving about $4 a tank @ $2/gal. Psychologically, it was pretty peaceful driving that way and it didn't take that much longer to get there, so now I routinely drive in a kind of half-wuss mode and I'm getting 20 mpg, mainly because its less stressful. I think this car is EPA rated for 19 Hwy.
Hybrids are interesting, but the economics are not there yet. I calculate that if a Hybrid Civic (epa 51 mpg) costs $4900 more (after rebates & incentives) than a standard Civic (epa 38 mpg) and gas is $2.10/gal, you'd have to drive it over 300K miles to break even. Anybody who is buying these cars deserves an attaboy for being a brave pioneer and donor to developing technology.
Current car: '95 Olds Cutlass Ciera station wagon (3.1L V6). Mileage: 19 to 24 MPG, mostly 1 to 3 mile trips in moderate traffic, occasional 75 to 250 mile highway trips. I spend about $10/week in gas on the average, and a trip from my home on Cape Cod to Boston and back (150 miles) costs about $12.
Last car: '89 Ford Festiva (nicknamed "The Escape Pod", 1.3L I4). Mileage: estimated 40 MPG, all short trips (home to supermarket once each week, plus monthly trips to the MicroCenter computer store). I'd put about $5 of gas into it every two months, though I probably lost more than I used from evaporation through a hole in the gas tank. It was a "disposable car", meant to last through one summer. I ended up driving it for three years. Buzzy, dangerous, but fun.
I used to drive cabs for Boston Cab, back in the '80s. It was my day job for a few years while I did the rock 'n' roll habitrail thang. Mostly Chevy Impalers and Ford Crown Vics (some ex-police cars with 4bbl 305 or 351...wicked fast even with 100K on the odometer), some Checker Marathons (w/MOPAR 225 I6), occasionally a Volare, New Yorker, or K-Car. Average 10 MPG, with a 80/20 mix of city/highway. Lots of idling in traffic, on taxi stands, plenty of "point 'n' squirt" driving. Gotta love that rear wheel drive...
I've got a lead foot, so I expect that my mileage is going to suffer. Still, going from the Festiva to the Ciera wagon last year was sort of jarring, having my gas expenditures multiplied by 16. Part of that was moving from the city to the Cape, where I have to drive every day (as mentioned above, the Festiva wouldn't leave my driveway much more than once a week). Still, I think I'd get nearly 40 MPG or so from the Festiva these days (even without a patched gas tank).
Oh, and after I bought the Ciera for $2K used (with 64K miles on it), I sold the Festiva to a friend for a dollar. It was that or junk the poor thing. I do miss that little car.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Bought an early-90s Chevy Cavalier last winter. It crapped out on me, and had to have the "modgule" (as my mechanic wrote it) replaced. Mileage leapt from 18-20 to 28-30. No joke. I have no idea what could have been making that change, but I'm damn happy about it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
First off, I think it's only fair to base mileage figures on full-to-near-empty consumption. After all, a car weighs more when it's full of fuel than it does empty. Haven't you ever taken on a load of fuel and suddenly noticed how "boaty" the car feels, or how the back end suddenly seems to have a mind of its own?
Personally I fuel up completely just because stopping for gas is an inconvenience I'd prefer to do as infrequently as possible. This also means I drive until the warning light comes on, then fill up as soon as it is practical to do so (which may be 50 miles later). The warning light comes on about 260 to 270 miles from the last fill-up, depending on whether I'm going uphill or downhill (the sensor seems to be mounted in the front). If I get significantly less than that, something is wrong, and I don't have to do any math whatsoever to figure this out. I had a blocked injector causing stalling, hesitation, and other issues, and that did knock 20 or 30 miles off the distance before the light came on.
I should also add that you have to consider what you did during that last tank before you jump to the conclusion that your car is ill. If you had to idle it for long periods of time, that is naturally going to impact economy, since idling achieves 0 mpg in any vehicle. But if you have two consecutive tanks where you come up short, that probably bears investigation.
If it really matters, I drive a somewhat beat-up 1991 Toyota Celica GT. Everything still works though, except for the air conditioning, and I really can't complain about it. It's been remarkably reliable for an $800 car. Brakes, tires, some vacuum tubing, and the voltage regulator and battery are all that have needed replacement in a year and a half, and all of those were old when I got the car. The battery probably wouldn't have died if I'd been more attentive and replaced the regulator sooner.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I have a 2000 Honda Insight hybrid and I've found that the mileage I get varies very widely based on terrain, driving condition and, most radically, driving style. The EPA sticker on the Insight is 60mpg city / 66mpg highway. I drive about 60% highway and 40% city (in the San Francisco Bay Area), and I've averaged 60mpg over the life of the vehicle.
The most amazing part of the experience is how much driving style impacts mileage. Driving conservatively (accelerating modestly, staying under 65 on the freeways, braking slowly and coasting into stop signs, etc.) I've been able to get around 75mpg on a tank. Driving aggressively (accelerating quickly, going 70-75 on the freeways, stopping quickly, etc.) the mileage goes down to closer to 50mpg. I've actually done full-tank experiments, intentionally changing the style of my driving, and this has consistently been the result.
The EPA doesn't actually rate the milage by running the car over a course and measuring the amount of fuel to get from A to B. It runs the car on a sniffer much the same as used for emissions testing. It reads the amount of hydrocarbons emitted by the car and BACK CALCULATES to figure out how much fuel must have been used. Obviously, if a car has multiple catalytic converters and doesn't give off much HC emissions, it must be sipping fuel!
I wish I were kidding about how stupid this really is. Basically, a Prius only gives of the emissions of a car getting 50+ mpg. The only Prius actually getting that milage is going downhill with a tailwind. The Hondas are even worse.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
V6, ~250hp, 5 speed, regular unleaded.
THe epa numbers are 21/26 mpg.
I get 30 highway (sometimes more, I tend to speed a little). And 24 city.
My numbers were about the same as the 21/26 above when I was driving around with no bumper( waiting on the body shop).
I was going to mention that a manual transmission can give you much better mileage than an automatic, but looking at the epa page, they used a manual for the testing. Shoots that theory in the foot.
...my bike get's about 3 meals/day, though after a period of getting 2/meals per day effeciency seems to improve. You laugh, but I can spin at 20 MPH and sprint well over 30. Check out how many calories are in a gallon of gas and tell me how efficient you feel your Pirus is now....
It's mostly about knowing your car, especially if you have a manual trany. Most of the modern day cars have 6-8 fuel injection ports, the higher your RPMs the more ports open, the more fule you use. When I car about the milage I get in my RX-8 (rated at 18/24), which is only on a long highway trip, I keep my RPMs just under 3500. Why? Because under 3500 RPMs the engine is only using 2 of 6 fuel injectors. Between 3500 and 6500 its using 4 and above 6500 it used all 6. When I'm watching it I can get close to 35 MPG. When I'm not watching it I get right around the EPA milage.
If you don't want to worry about it find out the RPM turm on/off points before you go test drive and see if the critical points fit in with your driving.
You can also buy after market chips that change when these ports open. They also give you a little selector panel inside your car and you can change from "high fuel economy" mode to "performance" mode.
My F250 7.3 liter Diesel consistently averages about 19 miles a gallon. YMMV definately applies here though- I get great mileage if I keep the RPM's below 2K, which translates into 73 MPH. Even if I'm pulling 10 tons (yep, it is a valid work truck, not a yuppie status symbol) it still gets 12-13 MPG. I know a lot of people will cite the larger quantities of carbon monoxide and sulpher it generates, but my last F250 went over 400,000 miles before dying and I expect this one will as well, thus eliminating the tons of toxins required to make a new vehicle. I've often wondered, but have been too lazy to actually calculate out, if it is environmentally better to keep an old, well running but low mpg vehicle on the road rather than buy a new high mileage vehicle that requires 30 tons of pollutants per vehicle to make (so I've heard). Surely someone in this crowd has worked on this....
My '03 SAAB 95 Sports wagon Areo (a 4 cyl hi pressure turbo) which gets an almost unbelievable 35 mpg on the highway when not "pushing it". When you push it, the engine delievers ~280 hp which is quite impressive for a stock 4 cyl. But I'm even more impressed when I compare it to my '00 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro which gets a pretty sad ~28 mpg on the highway with not quite the same amount of power. Its amazing what a turbo can do for power without hurting the economy. Guess thats why I'm choosing to go with a turbo upgrade in the Audi rather than go for the always on supercharger.
What a horrible thing the ESRB just did to the game industry.
71 ford torino: 9-10 mpg all the time, city or highway.
74 vw super beetle: about 25 city, 27 highway, 22 towing a trailer
80 suzuki ts250: 50-55 depending on the weather
I have a 2004 Acura TSX (2.4L I4, 6-spd manual) that requires premium. It's rated 21 city / 29 hwy. The 5-spd automatic is actually rated better, at 22/31.
... (only 7k mi/yr)
My averages over the last year:
Lowest mpg: 18.7
Highest mpg: 25.0
Total mpg: 21
Miles per day: 19
I live just 3 miles from work, haven't driven farther than 50 miles at a time, and tend to have a heavy foot around town. My long-term average is right at the city estimate, which is probably about right.
You want a sig? I can get you a sig... Hell, I can get you a sig by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish.
From what I understand, this has become one of those annoying things like buying a video card or what-not, where the manufacturers have optimized the design to preform well on benchmarks. The benchmarks were designed to simulate real-world conditions, but the simulation is only so good, so there is a descrepancy.
That being said, I ride a motorcycle and get about 50 mpg in town and 60 on the highway. It's a 1983 Honda Nighthawk 650. On a lot of newer bikes of comparable size that I've read specs for the fuel economy is not so good. It seems that lately motorcycles have been optimized for performance over gas milage.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
it's the 90CS Quattro Sport, 5 speed. The car itself weights just shy of 3500 lbs, and then there's occupants. I'm still amazed at how agile it is with all that weight being pulled around by a 2.8L engine. The AudiWorld page for my particular car says 19mpg city, 24mpg highway but I can get closer to 30 in the city if I manage to not do craziness around town. I tend to shift at lower RPM's, I catch some flak for it but I go to the gas pump half as much as they do.
Everyone that's driven this car is very surprised because it doesn't look like much but it can handle the rice boys fine. If it's in anything except clear conditions, don't even try. You've never lived till you spin all 4 wheels on gravel or ice while it gets grip. I can't imagine what putting a supercharger on there will do. I've had the car for over 2 years and I still get goosebumps from the performance.
... except my 35 anniversary Mustang GT which got about 16 no matter how I drove it. My '89 CRX got about 50 highway, and 42 in the city for most of the 11 years that I owned it. My current Turbo Bug is very sensitive to how I drive it. It gets about 32 in the city and 28 on the highway unless I am very careful to accelerate slowly and shift correctly. My Yamaha FZ6 gets between 50-60 depending on how I ride it.
.
In the '84-'87 or so range, Nissan made a 1.7 diesel and stuck it in their Sentra with a 4 speed manual. Had A/C too. I will never forgive the big Texas truck that killed my car.
I ran it about 5 years. If I didn't run the A/C then the milage was normally just over 40 mpg, mix of city and short interstate jaunts. But the nice thing was any long distance trip got 55 mpg. A/C cost me 5 mpg.
Oh, yeah, I loved that car.
jon
Why hello, Mr. Darl McBride, and welcome to Slashdot!!
THE NERD IS THE COMPUTER.
1969 Chevy ElCamino. When I got it, used it got about 12MPG around town and a best of 18 on the Interstates of NM and AZ. Then I rebuilt the engine, all GM parts inside, Edlebrock intake with a small (600CFM) Holley carb, headers, Mallory distributor. 17MPG in town and 25 on the highway, with the A/C on. The cam was from the 325 Horse 327, great mileage and plenty of go pedal. It also passed 75 CA emissions standards with no add on smog crap. I think it's called efficiency.
I did tune a 78 Triumph Spitfire that had and EPA of 27 highway and got 36.5. I used to make a living tuning for mileage, back when you colud re-jet the carb and change the advance curve in the distributor.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The EPA gas rating is a Federal Govt issue, but many states have different gas blends, and sometimes different blends at different times of the year to meet air quality standards. Here in California, there's ethanol and other oxygenates in the gas. The sum total of which, reduces the amount of real combustible gas per gallon, and so reduces the MPG. So, it matters what color the neighbors cat is, what month it is, and where you buy your gas.
The reason most people don't get the advertised mileage is because they goose it at most every opportunity and race up to the light and then get on the brakes. More sensible driving patterns will get better mileage. I like the hybrid cars because they provide real time feedback both in text and graphics as to your mileage and fuel consumption. I wish conventional cars would do this also.
according to a quick search on google (google search) there is a huge benefit, put forth by the Bush administration, for outrageously large vehicle. Read about it here and here.
I'm riding a Honda Rebel around town now. The car I replaced with the bike was a 1992 Toyota Corolla that pegged in at about 30 MPG on the highway and 21 on the city streets. Since most of my driving was city streets, I'd have to fill up every week or less, depending on the travel schedule. The cost of gasoline now would make my average trip to the station about cost between $25 and $50 per week, again depending on how many times I needed more gas.
I've had the bike for about 2 months now, and I think I reached $50 total in gas this weekend. I haven't figured out the total mileage yet; when the tripmeter reaches 150 miles, I get paranoid that I'll have to cut in the reserve (2.1 gallons in the primary, .6 in the reserve) so I fill up. I always go in and put $5 on the counter, fill up the bike, and go back and get my change. I'm guessing that I'm hovering around 80 MPG.
And I'm getting a tan while I run errands.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
The EPA nailed it with their 55/45 (city/highway) ratio rating of 16 city, 21 highway. I haven't measured the highway yet, but the mixed mileage is right around 15.9 mpg with every tank. I'm actually pretty impressed with the EPA estimates. Oh, and I'm not a careful or slow driver. So it seems the EPA is doing a pretty good job. From the way people talk here I didn't expect much of a corellation between the ratings and real life.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
My preferred method of transportation gets 1.2 gallons per mile....
Which is better than a hybrid car for certain numbers of people.....
Fellowship 9/11
I strongly suggest test driving one before buying it, to make sure you like it.
My wife is tech phobic. She has no interest in most of my expensive toys. When I got my used hybrid, it came with the NAV system. All my wife thought is great another driver distraction to cause an accident.
Now that she learned it is simple to use (enter an address, intersection, or point of interest), she borrows my car anytime she needs to go someplace unfamiliar. Having the car prompt by voice the exit is in two miles on the right is less of a distraction than going down the freeway while looking for the exit needed. Is it the next one or is it still a few miles away, or did I already pass the Halsey street exit? With the nav the uncertain driving and trying to make U turns is eliminated as well as saving gas simply by not getting lost. In bad traffic, taking the nearest exit for a detour and having the routing automaticaly update is less of a distraction than trying to find a detour in an unfamiliar neighborhood.
Driving fewer miles by not being lost doesn't change the EPA MPG rating, but it does cut down the total miles driven.
The truth shall set you free!
I have a 2004 Volvo S60. One day, I was traveling downhill on a highway while drafting a semi. I took my foot off the gas and amazingly kept accellerating.
My 'Instant MPG' read 99MPG, but I don't believe it... I bet I was getting more than that.
All these SUVs are beginning to embarrass me. Everybody knows that reason that people buy them is because:
1) They get '$4000 cash back'. Or something like that and they need the money.
2) 'No interest and no payments until 2006!' Or some other absurd offer like that.
3) 'Just show your paycheck stub to trade in your current rust bucket and drive away in a giant houseboat on wheels for $100 down'.
4) You can write off the entire cost of the vehicle as a tax deduction. This got slipped in the middle of one of those 1000 page Defense budget appropriations bills years ago.
What is really getting to me about these people who drive around (alone) in these HUGE vehicles is that they have no sense of public shame. Everybody knows that American solders are getting killed in the Gulf daily to protect the oil supplies, so these assholes blatently drive around in a car that gets 10 miles per gallon (roughly 4 km per liter) and then they put some flag decal on their back window to show how much they support 'our boys'. If they really cared about whether or not the solders were getting killed then they would be driving a car that gets 30 MPG and there wouldn't be any need to send 130000 solders to the Gulf to ensure the oil supplies.
Everybody knows this. But all SUV drivers just don't give a fuck. And they seem so overjoyed to stick their HUGE vehicle in everybody's face to remind people that they either don't care or they're just too stupid to make the connection.
Everybody knows by now that the giant SUVs are just given away as tax write-offs. Myself, I would be ashamed to drive around in one of those because everybody would know that I cheated the taxpayers through a bogus tax-write off to get one. But they, the SUV drivers, just don't have any sense of public shame. They must think that the rest of us are happy to see them coming down the street in giant houseboat on wheels.
We're not. We're embarrassed by you. You make us look bad to the rest of the world. Everybody in the world looks at Americans now and says 'How can these people be so vulgar and stupid and have so much money?'. It's not a situation that has any real long term growth potential or stability. Then they start to analyse the situation and realize that the whole US economy is held up by the willingness of foreign parties to buy US government Treasury Securities to support the giant US government deficits and by the willingness of foreign parties to use the US dollar as a defacto global currency. So when the Chinese (who finance most of the US federal government deficits by buying Treasury bills) start buying the oil that they need directly from OPEC through private deals (not on the open market) and paying for it in Euros, the Americans are going to be in a bad situation. Because no one will need them or their bullshit anymore.
A lot of these SUV owners don't seem to realise that this giant piece of shit that they're aiming down the road is in all likelyhood the last new car that they are going to own. And, if things get real bad, they may find themselves living in it. That's their retirement housing: a Ford Expedition sitting on cinder blocks with the seats torn out and Winnie-the-Poo curtains on the windows. Renting a 5x5 meter plot in a trailer park built on a depleted Uranium dump site for $3000 a month.
why the fuck keep americans acting like there is nothing outside the US of A?
you see it almost everywhere. like, in this question.
dude. there _are_ cars outside the usa. they're even used.
back on topic. rover 214, average fuel usage i had so far: around 7l premium / 100km. do the fucking conversion into miles per gallon yourself. (imperial miles? nautical miles? imperial gallons? american gallons?)
when oh when will the last few countries come to SI heaven.
Altough, around 2 months ago I performed a 'test'.
During the whole tank of gas, I accelerated as slow as I could never pressing the gas more than 1/4 of the way. I knew the lighs were going to turn red, so why accelerate? I eased on slowly and came up to the red using as little break as possible (a waste of energy)... maybe even rolling into the light as it would turn green and _then_ slowly accerlerating.
On the highway, I would stay in the right lane (insane for me). The speed limit is 70, but I would hold 63.
For the tank I averaged 35mpg.
Moral of the story. The car you choose does have a lot to do with your final MPG. But your driving habits also have a huge amount to do with your fuel usage.
I drive a brand new 2004 Mazda RX-8. It's got a 1.3 liter naturally aspirated rotary engine that generates 238hp @ 8500rpm.
The sticker said it will do between 18 and 24mpg. I've been getting closer to 13. My best was 16 on a roadtrip. It's a fun 13mpg, don't get me wrong, it's just nowhere near the "18-24" that's on the sticker.
Here's the strange part. I can baby the car and shift at 3000-4000rpm and I'll get the same mileage as when I beat the piss out of it and shift at 9000rpm.
The moral of this particular story is...this one likes it rough, so drive it like you stole it.
1. Check your tire pressure at least once per week, preferably before you drive the car for the day. If the tires are properly inflated, you get lower rolling resistance, which can improve fuel efficiency as much as four percent.
2. Change the air filter once every three months. With a clean air filter, you get better engine breathing, which can improve fuel efficiency several precent.
3. Keep the fuel-delivery system clean. That means you should run something like Chevron's Techron additive to your fuel about three times per year to keep the fuel injectors clean. Also, consider having the fuel injectors removed and cleaned manually by a good auto repair shop every 36,000-40,000 miles or so. A dirty, potentially-clogging fuel injector can not only hurt fuel efficiency, it also hurts overall engine performance, too.
4. Replace the spark plugs at slightly shorter than manufacturer-recommended intervals. An improperly-working or worn spark plug can hurt fuel efficiency and overall engine performance quite a bit.
5. Don't drive too fast. Keeping the speed under 75 mph usually helps fuel efficiency since you're dealing with less air resistance when running at lower speeds.
6. Keep the windows closed on a sedan or coupe type vehicle if you're travelling above 40 mph. An open window causes considerable air resistance at higher speeds, so much so that you actually use less fuel with the windows closed and the air conditioner running than having the windows open when you're driving on the freeway.
i've been using 87 Octain for 20000 miles and getting around 30mpg. i took a day trip recently and used 89 octain. i also kept it on cruise @65 for about 300 miles and got 41mpg. also avoiding agressive starts/stops helps a lot.
in every car i've driven... hmm... i think i've gone through half a dozen of them at least, mostly Nissans and Toyotas... but in every instance i'm able to meet or exceed EPA at least 90% of the time. often times i am able to get freeway ratings when the majority of the driving is still done in the city!
whenever i read an article about how some reviewer is unable to meet the EPA, i've always thought that it's because they drive with a lead foot. cars, especially those with smaller engines, get more mileage when you accelerate less and maintain a constant speed (freeway driving characteristics). i'm a very laid back driver, i never drive above 3000rpms for instance. i also try to maintain the constant speed and that's my secret to get top mileage. but i'm sure there are plenty of people that are constantly accelerating, or driving like they're late for something. that kills mileage.
granted hybrid vehicles don't drive exactly like gasoline powered cars, so the driving characteristics have changed yet again. you need to make it run on the electric powered engine more than the gas to get top mileage. the prius does have a monitor showing which components are active, so if the reviewer paid some fair attention to this, he could probably meet the EPA.
it's just like how Honda Insight owners try to hit the 100mpg mark. they drive like it's a game and are able to score big. they listen to what their cars tell them, and drive accordingly. it's all possible. but if people refuse to learn to drive the car the way it's meant to be driven, they'll never get the results the car is truly capable of.
now if people refuse to learn how a particular car behaves, the only other way to meet EPA is if car designers designed a car not for maximum possibilities, but rather design around the average driver that doesn't care and refuses to learn something new.
... and some are fun to drive to boot! My Passat Wagon (really, an Audi A4 in drag) get 30mpg highway, can haul four adults, three dogs, and baggage, and has good handling. For real fun (albeit with lesser mileage), an Audi S6 wagon will light your fire.
Compare the cost and weight of the Passat Wagon ($28000, 4000 lbs gross) to a bloated, wallowing land pig like a Ford Exhumation (er, Excursion) ($40000, 9200 lbs) -- there's no comparison. Unless you have an irrational desire to have a lot of ground clearance that you'll probably never use.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
I drive a 1998 Saturn SL2.
On a trip to Southern California, I kept track of the mileage. I consistently got ~ 32-33 MPG, cruising at > 75 MPH with 87 octane gasoline. The EPA rating is 31, so I'm happy.
I don't know about around the town.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
One thing that can drastically change you're MPG is having a turbocharged vehicle. If driven properly you can achive wonderful mileage(that's what turbos were invented to do), however if you're like me, it's petal to the floor boost gauge to 10psi, and fuel to a quarter of a tank....
I think the entire CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) concept has proven to be terribly flawed. It was intended to accomplish some measure of efficiency improvements (vs the bad old days), and it worked for a while: average fuel economy (as estimated by EPA estimates and overall sales) did improve. But now, we're dropping economy again.
Why? Because if one person buys a Prius or other economical car, it does not increase overall economy. It merely offers the manufacturer to sell a big honkin' gas guzzler to someone else. In the case of
Buy a Prius if it makes you feel better, but it does not necessarily make a difference overall.
And for those of you plastering nasty faux parking tickets on SUVs: since the manufacturer makes so much more profit on an SUV than a Prius (which may actually be a money-loser for Toyota), maybe instead you should thank them for subsidizing your Prius.
Besides, for all you know, the Prius driver is actually commuting to work in a 737 (working out of town) -- while the guy driving his SUV may in fact drive very little.
But such subtle distinctions make little difference to the finger-waggers who live in the pure certainty of their moral superiority.
The one problem that I do have with SUVs: they are very dangerous to those of us who drive regular passenger cars, and meanwhile they are no safer for the occupants of the SUV than passenger cars. Your frontier fantasy is irresponsibly putting others at risk. Thanks for listening.
The way I keep my fuel economy near EPA is by not driving in reverse.
... then again, since I have a TURBO, it all depends on how I drive it :) Seriously, it is rated to 19/26 city/highway, but I get more like 30/38 just because I take it easy most of the time and am not using the turbo (still in negative vacuume air pressure for the engine). Since its a 4 cylendar engine, it gets gas mileage like a 4 cylendar when the boost is not going. But, if I push it to full boost and 7500 RPM, I get ~8 mile per gallon.... so I guess the estimate works out since may people will drive the car hard, and others will drive it like I do for the majority of the time. Its just nice to know that I have the power there if I need it for some unknown reason.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
1977 Dodge Diplomat, 383 CID V8, 400+ HP
This was on a 450 mile trip two weeks ago, through 120 degree F heat. It might get about 7 MPG around town, but with all the power to spare, it does great on the highway.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
i hope read this so you know how pathetic i think you are for not buying a car because it has a kevlar timing belt. the fabric strip inside of the belt is kevlar, which is a cloth that resists tearing a cutting very well. it probably costs a dollar more. The cars are nothing short of amazing, i dont even own one but i respect them all for being so damn cool. you betta recognize
That's the whole point of them being hybrid - to get the stop-start efficiency of electric and the power of gasoline engines.
Light little cars can be fun too...
In Louisana we have this thing called 'car sailing' on I-10 between Lafayette and Baton Rouge. On some nights the wind is really strong and blows in straight west to east direction with solid 30 MPH gusts.
Late at night when there's no one on the road, get one of these little light cars like a Hyundai Accent or Ford Fiesta. Go down the highway in the center lane with the wind pushing the car (a stong tail wind). Get the car up to about 70 MPH so that there just a slight aerodynamic effect on the body. Then a gust of wind will literally lift the car and blow it into either the left or right lane
. Lift off the gas to allow gravity to reduce the speed by bringing the weight of the car back onto to road.
It really is a form of sailing. Probably stupid and dangerous too. But a great feeling. Really 'organic' and not easily done in a heavier 'muscle car' like the TransAm.
With a little creativity these small cars can have their amusements too.
and the cold dregs of yesterday's Tarbucks beverage spilt on their lap.
and all over their stereo deck causing it to behave quirky since it is situated in such a way that said Tarbucks invariably drips and spills on it as you rush off to work.
Stuff that matters.
I drive two used Fords: a 1999 Contour with the Duratec 24v engine, and a 2000 Merc Sable with the standard Vulcan engine. Both cars are just about right on the EPA numbers, maybe a mile higher. My driving is either city or highway, as I live in a city of 50K, close to work, and take the occasional road trip.
The Contour has 79,000 miles, and the Sable 60,000.
USNG: 14TPU4605
Those numbers tell you how different cars rate relative to one another in situations that approximate city traffic and highway traffic.
You can multiply that with a "personal factor", which depends on your driving habits and where you live, in order to get your true gas mileage. Just divide your actual mileage by the EPA mileage and multiply any EPA mileage you see for a new car by that.
Occasionally, EPA ratings will be way off for strange reasons, but they do try to measure them reproducibly and they do give you useful information.
my method:
:/ )
Fill up tank fully whenever possible. This allows me to use the trip odometer to make a rough guess at the actual mileage. On a weekly basis, this satisfies the stat monkey on my back.
Write down vehicle mileage, gallons pumped, total cost and date. The last one is great for looking back six or twelve months later. It's handy for recalling long trips or times with heavy loads. The four columns fit nicely in a small wirebound notepad.
Use the notebook to track any significant maintenance on the vehicle. It helps keep track of intervals.
Track all of this in an Excel spreadsheet.
Charts are my crack. I like to graph the data and look for trends. It's interesting to note seasons, tires (winter tires vs summer tires) and long trips.
I average a full fillup every five or six days.
Through April 22:
Total miles: 31635
Gallons: 1,534.092
Cost: 2,445.82
Lifetime MPG average: 20.5
Average price for gas: 1.58/gal
Longest interval between fillup: 339 miles (yes, I ran out
Average fillup interval: 224.6 mi
Fuel cost per mile: $0.08
Vehicle:
2002 Ford Ranger
3.0L V6 engine
5spd manual tranny, 2WD, 87 octane gas
What about liters per 100km???
I get twenty kilometers per litre, that's about fifty miles per gallon, on average, and that's with a very ordinary turbodiesel, nothing fancy or especially fuel economic (and a pretty quick driving style).
With my 1996 Saturn SL-2, I can squeeze out 34.4 MPG... can't be putting the pedal to the metal to get that high though.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Hybrids are nice if all you need to transport is your own butt, but diesels are very powerful long lasting engines that get great milage. The emissions are also better than gas except for particles, but I would rather have that then some of the crap that comes out of a gas motor.
I personally drive a Dodge Ram with a cummins diesel, since I work from home I rarely drive it, but when I do it's usually a road trip with a trailer in tow.
I get 18-20 which is great for a full size truck.
2001 Audi A4 1.8, stage 3 turbo (280 hp/300 ft-lbs). I get around 300-320 miles to the tank (15 gallon, which includes 2-3 gallons spare), depending on how hard I drive it.
I think the factory claims 22/28, which sounds about right. Too bad the stock car makes only 170 hp (110 less than mine at this point).
People, people, people! Turbochargers are ALWAYS spinning, and ALWAYS moving air. Period! Its a closed system, and the only way around it is via the wastegate which is shut until you reach maximum boost.
:D
Of course, at low rpms the effect isn't very noticible because you'll still be generating an intake vacuum - only it'll be slightly less than a naturally aspirated car. Now it depends on the turbo and what its compressor map looks like, but even a little gas (like when cruising) will spin the turbo fast enough to significantly cut down on intake vacuum. Get on the gas a little though, and you should see the vacuum decrease to the point of equilibrium, where the turbocharger is compressing air approximately as fast as the engine could suck it in by itself. Up to and including that point, its relatively easy for a turbo to move air because theres very little resistance. Above and beyond that though, you start generating positive pressure (boost), which is where the real work begins, drivers start having fun, and the fuel economy goes to shit. But nomatter what the engine is doing, the turbocharger is always doing its job, or at least trying to. Even at very low engine RPMs, your turbo can still be spinning at 10,000+ rpm, which is gonna move a little air no matter how you slice it.
So yes, parent is right. Turbocharged cars are always turbocharged. Its a common mistake to assume that your turbo isn't doing any work until it starts to generate positive pressure (boost).
Now get out there and enjoy the power-snails people!
Fuel computer stats are calculated from either the amount of time the injectors are open (which is surprisingly accurate in most cases), or in carb-fed engines, from a flow rate meter that actually measures the amount of fuel drawn into the carburettor. The only problem with injector time measurement is if you have an old fuel injection system like LE-Jetronic which has a vacuum-controlled fuel rail regulator. At low vacuum (high manifold pressure, ie. throttle wide open under load), the rail pressure is increased and more fuel flows, so the measurement is lower than it should be.
I am driving around a perfect little European city car. It's called the Toyota Yaris. It has a 1.0L engine, manages to get me where I'm going, it's actually a bit spiffy on the pick up too. I drive it in Norway, the country with all the hills and moutains too, never had a problem on a hill.
I just checked the Brit site for MPG. Of course a British gallon is bigger than a US gallon, but it states it gets 52.3mpg. The conversion works out too 43.58mpg US. I do get the advertised MPG too.
BTW... if I had purchased the turbodiesel... my next car, I would get 53.5mpg and the car would do 0-60 in 12.9 seconds and drive up to 100mph (and that's the 1.4l, not the 1.5l)
I wouldn't want to be biking right behind you...
The phrase 'whoever smelt it dealt it' would not apply.
1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS
EPA Says: 17/25 MPG
I get: 10/18 MPG
... and estimate in gallons. There's enough of a difference that over a whole tank of petrol you should be able to work it out.
Maybe if you switch between the values it will convert the last value displayed, which would be even easier.
i was quite stunned at the EPA variance on my ducati 916. the literature says 45mpg, but i'm lucky to get 30mpg on a typical commute day. but then when i go on longer, less aggressive trips i've seen my mileage go up to 50mpg. that's a massive difference just based on the type of riding i do.
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
The Pirellis fitted to my '88 Citroen have a maximum pressure of 90psi - which seems a *little bit* high for normal day-to-day use. The factory-spec Michelins run at 30psi front, 28psi rear - even though the tyres recommended now are fairly substantially different from the old-style Michelin Xs that would have been fitted when it was new.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Saab have been making cars with turbocharged engines for about 30-odd years now, so you'd expect them to be good at it. I quite like them, but my girlfriend doesn't. Oh, and the ride isn't as good as my old Citroen - I've kind of got used to the Rolls-Royce ride, Subaru handling and Massey-Ferguson complexity.
It has a manual transmission, and I believe the sticker said estimated 50mpg highway. The lowest it's given is in the mid-40s (mostly in-town, stop and go driving) and it typically gets around 50, with a high of 52mpg on a trip through the desert.
542km and you ran out? 360km average between fillups? Ouch. That must really hurt.
1200km on a single (50L + 10L reserve) tank isn't that much of a feat nowadays, is it?
1) Engine displacement
Larger engines draw more air/fuel mixture into the cylinders, then burn it.
2) Number of cylinders
In an internal combustion engine, the cylinders are constantly accelerating, therefore, more cylinders = more energy consumption just to keep the engine going.
3) Vehicle weight
Heavier vehicles take more energy to accelerate and increase the amount of friction in the wheel bearings.
4) Aerodynamics
Vehicles that are less aerodynamic lose more energy to wind resistance. Opening a window affects wind resistance, too.
5) Transmission
If your transmission is better matched to the speeds at which you commonly drive and the range of rotational speeds at which the engine runs most efficiently, you get better gas mileage.
6) Engine care
If you keep your oil pan full and change it often enough, your engine will continue to run nicely for a very long time. Wear produces small leaks over time, which affect gas mileage by sapping power and causing incomplete combustion in the cylinders.
7) Intake system
A friend of mine switched to a high-flow air filter and gained 3 miles per U.S. gallon. This is because the engine doesn't have to work as hard to take air in to the cylinders as a result of higher flow rates. A higher possible flow rate results in less vacuum at a given engine speed. Also, carburetion vs. fuel injection makes a difference. While a well-tuned carburetor is just as good as fuel injection, carburetors are subject to gasoline loss due to evaporation.
8) Exhaust system
The engine also has to push exhaust gases out. A less restricted exhaust system makes that require less work. I've heard of improvements ranging from 0 to 5 miles per gallon as a result of switching from a stock muffler to an irritating glass pack muffler.
9) Driving style
If you drive faster, it takes extra energy to get to gain those precious miles per hour. If you regularly run the engine to the red line, you consume gas much more quickly than someone who keeps it in that range of max efficieny most of the time. If you run your air conditioner, the compressor for the refrigerant consumes a significant amount of gas. (The heater doesn't, though, since it runs off the same system as the radiator, which works all the time that the engine is running.) If you have a gazillion watt stereo system, it consumes energy through your car's alternator. If you don't believe me on that one, look in a physics textbook. Oh yes, and my favorite, if you drive with one foot on the brake pedal at all times, you'll sap energy and wear your brake pads down.
99 Civic Si. That is actually the best I've ever gotten. There are many things that affect fuel economy. Temperature outside, type of roads you drive, elevation, tire pressure, tread compound(rolling resistance), how well you maintain your engine, etc... I like to drive and I drive my vehicles hard. I do all of my own maintenance. My fuel economy varies most with a change in temperature outside. Fuel economy is worst in the winter when the car spends the most time out of closed loop(car's ECU running off sensors). Even in the winter I generally get around 22 miles per gallon. I drive about 36k miles per year on average. Most of my driving I wouldn't exactly consider highway, more like curvy country roads. Did I mention I like to drive? :-) Most people could improve their fuel economy by simply monitoring their tire pressure and keeping up on vehicle maintenance at the proper intervals. Oh and just because your car CAN go 100k miles on the same set of plugs and wires doesn't mean you should... Anyhow, as far as EPA ratings go, I find they are fairly accurate, even as far as my driving differs from how they test vehicles.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
I've got a Volvo S80 T6. EPA is 19/26. Everyday I drive 100 miles, 90 of it on "highways" (see Upstate New York's definition of highways) and 10 through stop and go construction traffic. I get 24.6 MPG (digital read out on dash helps get it exact) on pretty much every tank. Note, the highway I drive on mostly are 55 MPH and you can always find at least one asshat going 50, or a tractor going 30. Also, it's very hilly (both up and down) so I suspect that evens it out.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
I drive a Subaru Outback VDC (6 Cylinder engine/3.0 liter) and it gets right in the advertised mileage according to my general calculations done since I bought it 7k miles ago. I would say that my driving style is moderate to aggressive depending on the situation and who I'm compared against. Sometimes I do scare coworkers :).
For my driving I commute to and from work on "average" terain and I do lots of road mileage driving out of town to hike/bike/etc.. So far it has been right in there.
city: 17 MPG
highway: 24 MPG
combined: 20 MPG
Trip computer shows 20.1 MPG average, but that's with a lot of highway driving.
It's a great car, but I need to get a new one soon. Maybe if I ever graduate... Well, I can dream.
'Are fuel economy issues just FUD from [insert lobby group of choice]?'
With the end of the oil reserves within clear sight, I'd say no, it isn't FUD. And apart from that we have a couple of potential disasters right in our faces:
1. Iraq seems to be a long way away from stability and success in any sense of the word 'success' as we presently know it.
2. Saudi Arabia is beginning to destabilize as a consequence of the increased terrorism that is a consequence of we-all-know-who attacking Iraq without thinking.
All we need now is Sharon and the ultra-extremists in Israel inflaming even more hostility in the region, so that situation gets out of control, and Israel starts throwing their non-existent nuclear weapons around.
I'd say, all in all, there is a very real risk that we can have a massive oil crisis in less than 1 year from now because of these things. Maybe it won't happen, maybe sense will prevail, but certainly not if people in general just turn up the volume on their favorite 'reality' TV show and sit on their hands. I believe that to avoid having it come crashing down, we need to get rid of the Bushes, Blairs and Sharons, and we - you and I - need to think seriously about a more frugal lifestyle.
Yeah, I know, most people won't take this seriously. You will eventually, though.
You get a lot different mileage at 6,000 feet above sea level than you do at 100 feet above sea level.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Somehow, I highly doubt it - 25 gallon tank, and you can watch the fuel gauge drop as you drive...
BTW - Before anyone flames me (this is anything but an SUV, folks), I only use it as a "recreation" vehicle - off-road, etc. It isn't a daily driver (hell, there is no A/C in it, and I had to bypass the heater core because it has a leak) - for that my 1994 2.3L 4-banger Ranger suffices...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Normally, driving part highway, part city I get between 24 and 26.
Now with the gas prices so high, I tried something (which I read years ago and works only with a stickshift):
- upshifting as early as possible, i. e. at or below 1500 rpm (with my 5th it's not possible, have to go to 2000 rpm). This means that one shifts into 2. gear after a few yards, turns corners in 3. gear and drives in 5th or 4th gear with 35 mph speed limits
- softest acceleration (and touch of gas pedal) possible, no stepping on it
- always turn engine off at red traffic lights or when it's forseeable that car stands for more than 3 seconds.
- always turn engine off when coasting downhill (within reason, not on very long slopes) or towards a red traffic light
- correct tire pressure
For one tank filling, I did it religously and got 30.04 mpg - that's over 15 % less than what I normally use. The next time - less religously - I got 28.4 mpg.One drives better on the right lane with this driving style which gives a totally different driving experience after getting used to the mechanics of low rpm shifting and driving.
A new air filter (long before this test) resulted in 1 mpg savings.
It killed me driving my 1967 VW beetle and realizing that some serious efficiencies are somehow getting overlooked in new cars.
My Beetle on a good highway cruise got 33 MPG and slugging around the streets of San Francisco got 25 MPG.
(I know the answer but I'll ask)How does a 36 year old car, with a 1.5 liter motor get these kinds of mileage, much much more than the standard fleet average for practically all current automakers?
Even a 2004 econo-car with a 1.5liter probably only gets 40/32 compared to my thirty-six year old getting 33/25.
The rise in fuel efficiency over thirty-six years does not seem in anyway to parallel that other current tech curve Moore's Law. Hmmm.
--Chris
Most of the time I ride one of my motorcycles. 95 GSXR at 35mpg and 02 Softail at 42mpg. If I need to carry something that I can't carry on the bike, we use my wife's Suburu Outback which I think gets around 32mpg. If we need to carry something that won't fit in back of the Outback, we add our trailer. With that, the mileage drops to about 25mpg (carrying one motorcycle while moving half-way across country).
:-)
For fun and excercise we ride our bicycles which gets, as one person said, 1 Chipolte per trip
[John]
Shit better not happen!
If we repeat it enough maybe it will be true:
Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jung-Il support John F. Kerry, shouldn't you?
Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jung-Il support John F. Kerry, shouldn't you?
Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jung-Il support John F. Kerry, shouldn't you?
Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jung-Il support John F. Kerry, shouldn't you?
Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jung-Il support John F. Kerry, shouldn't you?
Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jung-Il support John F. Kerry, shouldn't you?
...Can I ask a question here?
What octanes are used in the US? Here in Norway we have 95 and 98 octane, I've never seen anything below 95 in my life.
If you have so low octane numbers, that might just explain why american gas is cheaper (other than tax issues of course), why american cars have poorer efficiency than european ones, and why there are totally different car models even for the same manufacturer on different shores of the Atlantic; e.g., have you got Ford Ka in the US?
On the other hand, it might be that one place they use RON and the other MON to measure the ON, but their difference in value is at most a few points.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
it got about 13 MPG when I really stomped on it and layed rubber all over town, and about 14 MPG when I tried to drive like a little old grandma.
Can anyone say lack of incentive to drive conservatively?
ANywayI figured I had burned some environmental karmic points, so my next car was a diesel VW Jetta which averaged abut 50 MPG
..........FULL STOP.
What you have to ask yourself, is why the govenrment are litterally pushing people to buy SUV's. Easy enough to try and build up the plausability for expending living people to protect, not oil (as how can you class it as protecting, when you are taking it?) but the interests of the oil companies.
I think an invenstigation needs to go underway, it is, or should be, illegal for this kind of law to be put in place.
I am shocked that this hasn't been a source of massive outcry, and protest, but hey, you don't want to be anti-patriotic.
Thanks for posting this, the fact that it hasn't been modded up, and the only AC reply is you are jealous of car sizes, shows what kind of a sick and twisted world this is!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
always turn engine off when coasting downhill (within reason, not on very long slopes) or towards a red traffic light
You should really reconsider about this one. Without your engine running your brake booster won't work either.
Imagine running down a hill or towards a traffic light and suddenly a child is running across the street or a car is coming out from a gateway.
You won't be able to react this fast and turn on your engine to regain the full force of your brake booster.
Furthermore it's very likely that your power steering also won't work correctly which will make evasion almost impossible at certain speeds.
Greetings.
You got me interested. Care to share a few tips with the
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
As other readers mention, the EPA testing methods were developed in the '60s and '70s and are grossly outdated. The numbers, developed for conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (especially among hybrid vehicles where the manufacturers take advantage of the testing methods thus skewing fuel economy data to their advantage) don't provide consumers with an objective measurement of fuel economy in real-life driving situations. For example, while the speed limit is 70 miles per hour on most interstates the EPA highway figures reflect an average highway speed of only 60 miles per hour -- also they don't compensate for aggressive acceleration while merging onto highways, etc. For an objective comparison, the EPA testing methods need to be updated to compensate for new hybrids, SUVs and the like.
I drive an ozone depleting, terrorism supporting, 2004 Z71 Chevrolet Tahoe. The EPA figures on the tag in the window claim 14 City and 18 Highway (MPG), however I get about 12 in the city and 13 on the highway at 70 MPH (15 with a tail wind) and only about 10 MPG at 90 MPH. Boo!
Being from the UK i decided to translate the estimates into miles per liter , thus removing the confusion about gallon volumes.
1 US gallon = 3.785411 Liters
1 UK gallon = 4.54609 Liters
20 MP(US)G = 20 / 3.785411 = 5.283442141 miles per liter = 24.01 MP(uk)G
intrestingly in the uk we have the highest fuel cost for an oil producing nation , due to the 80% tax per liter of fuel so MPG is very important when buying a car!
Current fuel price = 0.82 per liter = 3.10 per US Gallon
1 uk pound = $1.81
So for a US Gallon of petrol (Gasoline) we pay $5.61 !
The mini i owned averaged 40 MP(uk)G = 33 MP(US)G
The nissan sunny my father owned averaged 50MP(UK)G = 41 MP(US)G which is the best perfromance we have had from a petrol car. This was due to the light weight body, very high compression lean burning engine and no cat converter.
I've noticed that my mileage spikes if I leave the oil in my car a bit too long. I drive a '94 Escort wagon with 155,000 miles on it, I average about 85 miles/day with a commute from Providence to Boston.
Anywho, since the car has so many miles on it, it leaks a bit of oil, I can't use 10w-30 because it tends to pour out if the engine gets too warm in Boston traffic. I use 20w-50 oil and I guess it loses some viscosity when it ages. My mileage goes from 30 to 35 mpg at about 2500 miles and I know I have to get my oil changed within the week.
I also see a spike if I'm low on transmission fluid, but I tend to 'feel' that first as it will 'kick' when shifting.
The two things I've been doing to save gas are to coax the auto-transmission into the lowest gear whenever possible by easing off the gas and letting it downshift, and by letting the car warm up for about two full minutes before driving. I live four blocks from the onramp, so letting my engine and transmission warm up before I'm moving 90MPH has been quite beneficial.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Even after the gas guzzler tax the Pontiac GTO is still cheaper to buy in the US, then the Holden Monaro (on which it is based) costs in Australia.
(Even allowing for currency conversion, on road costs, etc) (And the GTO has slightly better specs, apart from the ugly nose (To Australians))
Cars in the USA are cheap compared to most places.
I drive a beat up old honda civic 1986 1300 engine and am not sure the estimated milage, nonetheless I find myself getting 32 in the city(Stop and Go) and 38 on the Highway. Haven't had a tuneup in a year.
when it isn't raining 3/4 of the year, like it is over here. And if it doesn't get as cold as -20 degress celcius in winter. So no bike for me.
--Coder
If your city has a proper computerized traffic light system then speeding in town rarely does much good.
If you live somewhere that still bases their lights on timers though, the story is rather different...
I live in a city of about 7 million, and shockingly the light system is not computerized. I know exactly what will happen if I hit or miss certain lights on my way to work. Some lights I'll accelerate etc to make, others I won't bother.
Yes, rush hour traffic sucks.
Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
you have to think about the air pressure where you live. Driving a 96 nissan sentra in colorado i get about 29 highway. Highway in Alabama closer to 37....
my other sig is a commando
This has got to be a joke. Aside from, as you say, the adverse affects upon the brakes of driving whilst the engine is not running, on most modern cars (the exception being Saabs) the ignition key is usually also how the steering lock is engaged. I'm now imagining some lunatic in a car slowly accelerating down a hill with no steering and brakes that are the mechanical equivalent of a placebo. That might be how Daffy Duck drives the idiot-mobile, but just about the only thing that it has going for it in the real world is that this guy would probably eliminate himself from the gene pool within days of getting his driver's licence. Unfortunately, he'd probably take out a few other people with him.
I'm also wondering about the idea of turning the engine off at red traffic lights. It seems to me that this will result in an immediate fuel saving, but restarting the engine is going to cause a drain on the car's battery. Assuming that the alternator hasn't been removed to give a couple of extra MPG, the extra work needed to recharge the battery to its previous level is going to use some extra fuel. This also assumes a zero-cost start for the engine.
Finally, driving everywhere in the wrong gear is just plain wrong. Aside from the slow acceleration, exacerbated by the 'soft touch' on the pedal, that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you, going around a corner in too high a gear is dangerous. It can adversely affect a car's handling.
Lunacy.
1998 Mazda 626 ES-V6, 2.5L V6, EPA rating 27MPG highway
trip to philly yesterday, including some stop-from-70-and-go-to-70 traffic and idling for 30 minutes in a parking lot: 27MPG.
The kicker? 260,000 miles. No crap.
I've been driving VW Turbo Diesel cars since 1984 and can really recommend them. My current model is a Jetta TDI Wagon, which we bought in Texas (since the dealers in California all wanted "markup") and drove all the way to the Bay Area, getting 52 MPG, going around 80 miles with the AC all the way up.
When we filled it up at truck stops we were able to use the higher pressure truck diesel pumps, and of course the Diesel was considerably cheaper than gas. Fuel efficiency and lower price really add up, especially when you have a long trip or commute.
The modern TDI engines are great, they have tons of torque and are very responsive (TDI = Turbo Diesel Injection). Now I'm looking forward to the 310hp 5.0l 10 cylinder VW Touareg TDI coming out soon :-) (553lbs.-ft. of torque!)
I haven't looked into using Biodiesel yet, but it seems to pick up more and more. It would certainly alleviate the residual bad conscience due to the particle emmissions from the Diesel. Just read an amazing story about a family driving from the Bay Area to Argentina on biodiesel picked up along the way. Actually worthy of a /. post!
i just bought brand new honda jazz 1.5 l. ...
...
...
it has about 90 hp.
i can go down to about 5.5 liters per 100 kilometers
at an average speed of 100 km/h on the highway.
stop and go in city, the highest would be 7.5 liter
per 100 kilometers.
it is a phenomenal car. it has like two spark plugs
per cylinder, total 8 spark plugs. it has some
niffy aerodynamic design and at 110 km/h it
kindda feels like flying
of course i have to watch out twice as much, since
it only weights 1070 kg. at 90 ps, that is one
ps per 11 kilo. also getting hit by a SUV (what
two-three tons?) wouldn't be fun
oh and yeah, even though the manual says there is
no need for oil additives, i did convince myself
to add that one liter of teflon to the engine
i mean if i can go down to 5.5 liters per 100 km,
i guess i can be a bit environmentally
un-friendly.
I have a 2003 Nissan Pathfinder that is rated at 15/19... I typically get just about 1 mpg higher than that..
My 2000 Mitsu Eclipse (GT, V6) got WAY over the sticker estimate. It is rated at 20/27, but I always get about 23 around town and 31-33 on the highway. Then again, I don't drive like a typical eclipse owner.
I usually average just about what the EPA says I should. Highway or city driving, it is just about right on. This will vary, of course, if I am driving more aggressively or hauling extra cargo in my VW EV, but that is not how the EPA tests for mpg.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
...WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? YOU AMERICANS HAVE FREE GAS! There. Now I feel better. Well, not really. In Norway we pay $1.5 per litre, and we are in most areas 100% dependant on a car. With just 4 million people scattered around in a semi-large country public transportation is scarce and expencive. To see anything else than you own wall you need to drive. The good thing is that the roads here are in such a state that it is very economical to use the 5th gear. So unlike your comparisons, we save fuel when we drive out of town. Max speed is 90kmh, but usually it's 70kmh. Far different from yout highways where you need the 5th or 6th gear for speed, we use it for economics. Why the price is so high? 90% of the price is taxes! Most of them environmental taxes so that we should drive less. BUT WITHOUT A CAR YOU MIGHT ASWELL SIT ON DEATHROW#&%#"/%#%&! Jesus. I have to stop before I go amokk again thinking about the idiots in charge. Apologise the trolling.
Getting back in the spirit of the original post, yeah, I sometimes stomp all over the EPA sticker, and sometimes get considerably worse. My 2001 Continental has a good size V8, and is rated 17/25. I've never gotten as low as 17, even in lots of city driving. And I drive it hard. I do, though, often get less than 25 on the highway, but this is Michigan -- we go 85 in a 55.
The best mileage I've gotten, though, is 31 mpg. This was pure highway, cruise control set for 65, but the car was loaded with three huge people plus my small wife, and all of our luggage for a month.
Typically, my fuel economy indicator hovers right around 22mpg, with maybe 40%/60% city/freeway. Not bad for a V8, and a powerful, quick one at that. Yeah, laugh at the car for what it is, but I'm telling you it's a sleeper.
--Jim (me)
I've never gotten the highway EPA mileage even when going down hill from the Colorado rockies into town.
Perhaps you are like the Beardstown Ladies and their stock market gains? They weren't performing the calculations correctly - so of course they beat all the professional investors.
MPG = Miles traveled / Gallons Used
You have to be consistent on the amount of fuel placed into the car for a few time too. If you overfill on 1 attempt, then underfill as you calculate the mileage, you can pumpup your results.
And just remember for those of you who live where they put MTBE or Ethanol in your gasoline, that part of that gallon of gas is really oxygen...any car with an oxygen sensor knows this and richens up the mixture...decreasing your fuel economy.
No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
2004 Jetta Wagon TDI (GLS trim), standard transmission:
Average 47 mpg
2002 Pontiac Trans AM WS-6, standard transmission: Average about 32 mpg (more if its cold)... that's with a V8.
My diesel VW gets significantly more mileage than my friend's hybrids... but that might have something to do with a lack of stop and go traffic for their hybrids.
"After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." - Tao of Programming
There are of course other factors, ranging from the time of day you get your gas (gas expands when its hot). How much you drive on the highway, nice long stretches of high rpm helps keep many of the parts clean. However I still say nothing can beat a manual transmission -- I won't buy an automatic.
This is the wrong approach to a feul efficient hybrid design.
You are supposed to drive off the electric motor and batteries all of the time and utilize a gasoline engine only as a charger to the electrical system. In the city you would rarely run the gasoline engine until the batteries dropped below a threshold (30%?) and it would run continuously at a fixed RPM until the batteries reached an upper threshold (70%?). On the highway, the power consumption would be equal to that of the gasoline engine generation and so the engine would run continuously, but at a fixed RPM. You'll also find that the Prius and Insight do not have external charging plugs -- you cant charge your car while sitting in the garage.
The notion of always running at a fixed RPM would allow you vehicle manufacturers to tune the engines to run at only that speed and optimize the heck out of it for efficiency.
Of course, this would also mean that a charging engine would probably run on it's own for several minutes after you turned off the car, just like your radiator fans do today. But this might be avoided easily enough with a kill switch on the ignition.
But the current designs of switching power plants as you drive means that you are running your gasoline at a variety of RPM speeds and therefore cannot be as efficient as possible. I seem to recall that Ford tried something along these lines with a Ford Taurus back in the 1980's or something like that and they were able to hit 200 MPG by limiting the gasoline engine to only running as an auxilary battery charger rather than a primary power plant for the vehicle.
I think this would be a much simpler design to utilize as well. You'll find some electric vehicle manufacturers are already building out poney carts that attach to the car and provide additional driving range through the use of an external gas powered electric generator.
Of course, if you really want to go with high efficiency, then diesel power cannot be beat if you are designing to a single rate of speed for the engine
Can we get you to run for Pres this year over the incumbent Luzer?
According to google ("mpg smart") they have been shown at auto shows in the USA but I guess that's sort of a freak show... "Here is a car you might want if you didn't work for an oil company".
When I purchased a car last I chose the VW Jetta TDI (Diesel) over the Hybrid cars like the Prius because, for the type of driving I do, the TDI typicaly gets better gas milage. My average is around 51 MPG (mostly highway driving).
The TDI is by no means a speed demon, but it also feels a lot faster then the hybrids I have driven.
Of course, there is a trade off, my exhust is certianly a touch dirtier then a hybrid car.
If you were only paying $2/gallon for gasoline, you'd think 30 mpg was quite reasonable, too.
That's 0.43 Euro/liter, if I'm doing my math correctly. And it was less than half that price when my car was built. No shock with these prices that America's most popular vehicle is rated at 16/21.
(1994 Ford Escort - EPA 30/38... but in real life, 31 around Seattle, 33 on the freeway with the cruise set at 80 mph.)
1993 Jeep Cherokee. 4 cylinder, 2.5l engine, 5speed manual. I average about 18mpg Highway, about 15 city. It's on its third engine.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
have always been in the sticker range of mpg (going from memory here..).
- dakota 4x4 ~ 17
- grand am ~ 25
- nissan 4x4 ~ 23
- rsx ~ 30
This is mixed driving. Just average beating around and checking the odometer/gallons on every tankful for awhile.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
There are so many variables that can cause changes in mileage -- altitude, ambient temperature, wind patterns, traffic, driving habits.
For me, the only way I have ever gotten close to the maximum EPA mileage was to make sure I slowed to a stop at red lights, never pressed the gas too hard and slowed when going up hills and sped up going down.
and nothing more. The vast majority of people will NOT get advertised mileage in normal driving. Most will get less. (Hybrids are a perfect example. I know two people with hybrids (both Priuses) and neither has managed to get more than 40 MPG. (Both are, admittedly, incurable leadfeet)
On the other hand, however, there are reports of some vehicles getting better-than-advertised mileage. The Corvette for example is advertised 18 city/26 hwy. There are several reports of achieving over 30 MPG from this car. At 70 MPH on the freeway in 6th gear. (The engine is a 5.7L OHV V8 that makes around 350 horsepower and over 370 lb-ft torque. The car is capable of a high 12-second quarter mile on a good track with good tires).
So yeah, mileage numbers vary heavily. For the most part though they tend to be at least somewhat optimistic.
A friend just had a Prius as a loaner, and another friend just bought the Honda Civic hybrid.
Being new and eco-geeky, both cars have extra instrumentation to let you know how/what the hybrid gear is doing, including instantaneous mpg readings. I haven't talked with the friend with the Civic since shortly after she bought it, but the friend with the Prius mentioned that the readings on the mgp meter tended to modify his driving habits. I wonder how much mileage on regular cars could be improved just by this type of feedback.
As a counter-example, back in the late 70's a college friend's Chrysler had a simple form of this - a yellow light that would come on when you were driving 'too aggressively' for good mileage. So of course there were efforts to keep the light on as much as possible.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Nissan XTerra.
The dealer I bought it from additionally posted the manufacturer mileage estimates. So that whopping 17mpg was right on the nose.
The best thing, is I have a bumper sticker on the back of my SUV that says "Global Warmer", the dirty looks I get while driving are crazy!
My wife and & I "share" our cars... which arises from the fact that we only have one child seat. So whoever has our son at the moment, gets our Toyota Sienna, and whoever doesn't, gets our Toyata Camry. Both of these vehicles have a 1MZFE toyata v6, the sienna with the vvti head and the camry without, which translates into a modest HP increase for the sienna (about 25hp) the torque ratings are the same. The sienna is about 300 lb heavier than the camry. Both have automatics, and I believe both are EPA rated 19/26.
:) People here in Atlanta seem to treat the roads as a raceway... average freeway speeds are probably up around 75-80MPH even where the legal limit is 55MPH. That's gotta have an effect.
I've always tracked my mileage by going from full tank to full tank, but lately I found a palm app called "Fuel Log" (Open Source Free SW = cool) and have been using this for the last several months to track our milage.
This is where things get odd... The sienna over the same city/suburban driving routes with the same driver consistently gets better gas milage than the camry, like 21 vs 19. But on the highway, the camry does better, usually around 27, vs 24-26 for the sienna. When I drive a specific car it always gets better gas milage than when my wife drives it. I tend to drive harder than my wife does... go figure
Our previous vehicles usually did much better than EPA ratings. My old Escort GT was rated 25/30 I believe, and I never once got below 30, usually averaged around 32, and got as high as 35 on a couple of long hwy trips. My wife's old Mercury Tracer would consistently beat it's 29/35 EPA rating, and on a couple of long trips even topped 40mpg... Our even more previous car (94 honda accord) was much the same way.
Leads me to wonder if Toyotas simply don't match well to the EPA test. Who does these tests anyway? The manufacturer or the EPA or some 3rd party? Anybody Know???
Keep in mind that EPA cycles probably make the assumption that you stick to the speed limits
So how does it feel to sink all that work into a project and realize that Detroit will not care at all about your ideas and will continue to build gas-guzzlers and sue or bribe the government everytime the Feds want to raise CAFE?
But seriously, we have urban, extra-urban and "combined" mpg. I find that I get almost exactly the "combined" mpg from a car once it's been run in, and I don't do many long trips. On long trips the mpg is quite close to the extra-urban rating. The EU measurements are actually very good compared to the pointless "constant 30mph/constant 56mph/constant 70mph" figures that were used in Britain until about 10 years ago.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I consistently get about an extra mile per gallon than the EPA says I am supposed to. Unfortunately that does not make up for the fact that the last 3 times I filled up cleaned my wallet out entirely.
www.olin.edu
I don't know about hybrids, but I have had a VW Jetta TDI (turbo Diesel) and I have gottne very consistantly high MPG. I think I am at about 46-47 average between city and highway. And don't make any comments about pollution, I can pass Ca. immissions (you probably wouldn't know its a diesel if it didn't sound a little different).
Lowest advertised rate in Europe is 2,9 liters per hundred kilometers. In a mixed environment, the actual usage is about 3,2 - 3,4 liters depending on the way you drive.
Sure, you only get horsepower of 34, but still. The car is ultra-cheap. 7500 EURO.
Someone to beat this.
that's right. I get 31MPG average driving about 200 miles @ 81mph on the highway.
EPA says 21/29.
I usually get in the 27 to 28 range, but most of my driving is rural/suburban, neither of which matches the EPA's definition of city or highway driving.
The minute the 2.5L 6 cylinder TDI diesel engine is available in the US, I'm trading it in. More torque, better mileage, whoo-hoo!
I drive a geo prizm and get 40 miles per gallon.
Of course after about 10 miles I have to push the car to my destination, but while those driving by are laughing in their SUV's, I'm laughing all the way to the bank...well, mostly grunting...but there's a lot of time for laughing I could be using...leaves time for my hobbies...ya know...like...pushing things.
--"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
EPA: 17 city, 25 highway
Typical: about 17 city, 26 highway
Worst city: 16
Best highway: 28
1-3) They are offering this crap on every car now.
4) Just another law that the accountants found a loophole. Big surprise here. In an effort to allow farmers to buy more pickup trucks they put this waver in. Now it's spiraled out-of-control with real estate agents driving the big Lexus SUV.
Just keep to the simple fact: They are a menace on the road
Did all of you americans know that fuel prices here in Norway because of all the large SUV that is currently being sold in the USA? The morale here is obvious, most individuals can accept using more fuel than they would in a smaller car, but they disregard the fact that their choices have an influence on people in the rest of the world. Now I have to pay more to keep my small car running because so many people feel that it is their right to have as big a car as they want...
My Prius (version 1) gets about 46 mpg average. Not as good as I was hoping for when I bought it, but pretty friggen awesome just the same. I traded in a Pathfinder for the Prius, because I mainly use it commute to my day job, and decided that it would be a good thing to impact the environment less than I needed to. The Pathfinder, by comparison was getting around 16 mpg. The Prius loves hilly roads like the Palesades Parkway in New York, where I get around 60 mpg. The 'city' mileage on the sticker does not mean New York City - where I get around 16 mpg.
http://www.smileproject.com
Most of my driving is within roughly five miles of my house. This is in a fairly hilly part of Cincinnati, in residential neighborhoods, with twisty streets, overgrown areas (a mall where one wasn't five years ago), and lots of traffic signals. Did I mention it was hilly? The street I live on is about a quarter-mile long but has a 500 foot altitude gain.
When I go through a period of driving mostly in that area (grocery stores, restaurants, dance class, malls that weren't there five years ago), I usually get something on the order of 20 mpg.
On the other hand, we drove to Ottawa last year. The first day, after we got out of Cincinnati, it was more-or-less flat (relative to my neighborhood). And we got something on the order of 32-36 mpg. That, of course, was all interstate.
My recent tank is doing about 23 mpg, a blend of my neighborhood, plus some driving to places relatively far off (flatter, more highway-like conditions). Again, it's all about how I'm using it at the time.
These aren't the only factors I've notices. For instance:
- How much weight I'm carrying. If it's me, my wife, and perhaps a few bikes, I do better than when hauling a piece of furniture, a bunch of groceries, and me and my wife.
- Load on engine. Air conditioning causes a hit on mpg.
- Season. Overall, I get better mileage in the spring/fall than summer (A/C) or Winter.
As always, your mileage may vary.I use the metric system, you insensitive clod.
Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
Condition of car. I put new tires on my car, and mileage improves. Likewise, it seems to do better after a scheduled service.
I've got a 1989 Ford Probe GT, I *THINK* the sticker rated it at 24/28. I've kept track since I got it and I consistantly get 37.9 city/42-44 highway.
I have a secret, I really do change the oil on time.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
I have a 2000 Cavalier 2.2L Auto... I have been checking my efficency lately, and it's for some reason been getting better. I buy my gas in liters and my car records km, so I use L/100KM. I went from 9.8L/100KM to 8.2L/100KM, and this was with no change that I know of. I have since replaced my air filter (oops, it was 25,000KM overdue) and filled my tires. Today will tell me if it's a difference. My driving is about 95/5 Highway/Urban mix. According to Transport Canada I should get 10.2L/100KM (Urban) and 6.90L/100KM (Highway). Mind you, I drive 110-120KM/hr highway and the test is not done at that speed.
I looked up: 1 imperial gallon = 4.546 l 1 US gallon = 3.785 l Any idea of what this is: 1 US gallon(dry) = 4.405 l?
Ok, for you anti-SUV folks (it's really considered a "cross-over" anyway), I just want to say that I'm just answering the question.
EPA for my FX is 15/19 premium fuel required. I've got as low as 13mpg (aggressive driving and still very new), and as high as 21mpg (on cruise at 65mph).
Just another day in Paradise
They do not do road tests. Rather they measure exhaust from the vehicle.
I think you mean "highest gear possible," right? As in, lowest RPM for the given speed.
I do the same on my car. After having it this long, I know where all the shift points are, and I let off the gas just ahead of where it might shift just to trigger the shift a little early. Then, once it's shifted, I give a little gas back so that I can keep accelerating (albeit more slowly) in the higher gear.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Ahh, so YOU'RE one of those crazy 30mph-in-a-45mph zone people!
Please, get the hell out of the way for people who know where they're going.
Use up the finite oil supply sooner and faster, and maybe that will be just enough of an incentive to implement real alternative fuel. Simultaneously you'll also solve both the Middle East and Texans problems.
The EPA numbers only moderately emulate city or highway driving. The "human factor" has largely been removed from the process. This is probably in an effort to bring some meaningfulness to the numbers. If all cars are measured equally, then the numbers should mean something (in theory at least).
Does the typical driver of a Ford Focus drive their car the same as the typical owner of a Camaro? I'd highly doubt it. This is where (I think) the formula fails. I rarely have numbers that fall as low as the EPA estimates. I'm a pretty gentle driver especially on the highway and the roads I usually drive on are flat. If I lived in hilly terrain, or accelerated like a bat out of hell, I could not achieve the MPG I get.
I'm not a slow driver, nor do I hold up traffic when I leave the stop light but my foot gets very steady when I achive speed. That is the trick to good mileage, stay steady. Once your mass gets rolling only apply the power required to keep your speed.
The EPA numbers are estimates, applied in exactly the same way on every vehicle tested. I wouldn't doubt that it has happened where a manufacturer has "tuned" their product to give good results in the tests. Kind of like PC makers will tune a PC to give good benchmarks. Your results may vary, the numbers are for comparison purposes only.
Oh, and the hybrids may not provide accurate results in tests designed to be a good average for gas engines. The best results may come from a different method of driving.
Remember this when comparing fuel efficency across the pond.
I used to drive a 1987 Honda CRX Si when I was 16, and before it got carry off with me in it in a flash flood, nearly killing me. I would routinely get 45mpg city and 50+ mpg in it on the highway. And it was a 4 cylinder gasoline engine! OF course, it only produced 80hp and the car had a curb weight of about 1200 lbs. But that's higher than epa.
Our Chrysler mini-van used to get 25/25, but as it has aged, it gets about 20/20. So it used to be right at EPA, now it is a little low.
MY 1994 Plymouth Duster meets EPA specs, my 1968 Mustang exceeds gets better than what I have read that it was expected to get originally.
Remember, 75% of gasmilage has more to do with how you drive than anything else. The other 25% is, engine displacement, number of cyinders, and number of accessories being driven by the engine (like power steering, air conditioning, power brakes...well not so much power brakes since it onyl takes power when you are stopping.) Believe it or not, things that use the engines power to cause it to produce more power such as a supercharger or a turbo charger will usually increase your gas mileage, especially on the highway. Why? Because you no longer have to bury you foot as much to get speed.
Derek Greene
It all depends on how I drive.
In city traffic, I can attain the EPA city number if I drive smoothly without accelerating hard all the time (unless there's traffic).
I find I can consistently beat the EPA highway figure by going about 65 mph (in non stop-and-go traffic of course).
Self awareness - try it!
I've found that my wife's car, a 2001 Oldsmobile Alero, while having many electrical problems, does in fact fall into it's EPA of 21-27mpg. It sits right around the low 20's usually, in mixed city/highway driving. My car, a 1964 Dodge sedan with a big block 318, gets about 25mpg in the same driving conditions. It doesn't have an EPA rating, but the manual claims it has 'nickel-squeezing gas economy' and an 'eager engine with lots of go', and it is pretty decent for an older car. Now how an Alero with a 2 liter 4 cylinder engine gets worse mileage than a 40 year old 5.2 liter V8, I have yet to figure out.
- True and relevant. The USA's import situation is directly affected by the difference between production and consumption; reducing consumption cuts imports just as directly as increased production does.
- Perhaps true, but irrelevant. Oil is fungible, and while Persian Gulf oil goes primarily to Europe and the Far East it would be simple to re-route the tankers so that all of US imports came from there... or none of them. This would have no effect on US import dependence, the political implications of e.g. Wahhabi financing of hate teaching, or anything else of importance.
- Perhaps true, but equally irrelevant for the reasons stated above.
Roughly half of all US oil consumption goes for motor gasoline, while over half of all US oil consumption is from imports. You could make every passenger car in the USA run on electricity and you would still not eliminate oil imports (though you'd probably collapse the world market for oil for a while and bankrupt a kingdom or three).Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
but that is when it is going downhill, with a 40mph wind at my back, with the tires at ideal pressure, the AC off, the air temp below 50degF, when I've skipped breakfast, after a big dump, no other passengers, the spare tire sitting at home, and my aero kit installed.
.... and that's rounding up.
Other that that it gets around 8mpg
Two bikes on the roof cost me about a 10% penalty when I calculated it on a previous automobile. I believe that I am a pretty conservative driver. I usually accelerate slowly and tend not to use the brakes very much. (For example, the VW, with 130-140,000 miles on it, is still running its second set of pads and passed Virginia's safety inspection, where they pull two wheels and look at them, earlier this month.)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
EPA: 19/28 I actually get 30 highway.
I regularly get 50 MPH with my Honda Civic Hybrid. I drive pretty aggressively and have 2 hours of commuting each day for work. Some is stop and go, but most is 50 mph highway. The best I have seen is 53 mpg on a tank, the worst was 46 mpg when I was running the Air all the time...
I think the EPA on it is 35/41 with my standard transmission. Depending on the time of year, I get between 37 (winter) to (an all-time high) 42 (summer). This is in the Northeast, where traffic is pretty dense. I would say my driving is about 60-65% highway and I usually have to get gas every week and a half, depending on how much driving I do on a weekend.
So, I'd have to say the EPA numbers are pretty close to what I'm actually getting. Took awhile to figure out the best way to drive it to get those numbers. All and all, I'm pretty happy with it.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
Whoever says EPA is never right is probably right, but both my Jettas almost never get below the EPA sticker. My 1999 Jetta TDI had a sticker of 42 MPG City, 49 MPG Highway and I NEVER got below the highway mileage, usually averaging about 52 MPG (take that Prius). Oh, and you can run biodiesel made out of renewable vegatable oil.
My 2003 Jetta 1.8T (I got a need-for-speed, actually acceleration) is listed at 24 MPG City and 31 MPG Highway. I kick this thing in the ass in the highway and still get 31 MPG. My wife drives it very occassionally for a 45 minute commute and gets around 36 MPG.
So I don't know what line Toyota or Honda is trying to feed us with these hybrid cars, but stick a turbo in a diesel car and look out...
...a '70 Impala with a big block Chevy motor, you insensitive clod! The gas gauge doesn't work and the speedometer runs about 10 mph over actual speed. I just have to guess when it's time to fill up. Every third gas station seems to work for me. I never have to put in more than 20 gallons of 93 octane each stop!
I drank what? -- Socrates
My mileage has varied - probably the best mileage I saw was 45 mpg when I was travelling a very long distance with a hilly section. However... I am happiest about having this car when I drive to work... very short distance 6 miles but local (no highway) driving with 7 stops. I love at lights ecspecially long ones the feature where my car "shuts" off and as soon as I press the clutch in the car comes back to idle... really cool feature for long lights. I think I am seeing 35ish mileage for in town driving... all in all I am happy with having to fill up my car every 3 weeks... or only once on the 640 round trip to maine... which now costs me about 22 dollars...
Assuming that the alternator hasn't been removed to give a couple of extra MPG, the extra work needed to recharge the battery to its previous level is going to use some extra fuel.
This is correct.
Whatsmore to say: you will burn up much more fuel starting the engine than having it idle for about a Minute (this depends on your idling speed).
Finally, driving everywhere in the wrong gear is just plain wrong.
What you can do to efficiently save gas is to use a high gear when you have already accelerated and the street is going straight ahead.
You will save much more fuel by constantly keeping your speed with a "calm" foot than accelerating extremely slow.
This is also not to hard to explain physical:
When you accelerate you need force (the force results from the torque - the gears are the lever: M = F*l; F = M/l) generated by your engine (F = m*a).
This force is used over a certain time span (long if you accelerate fast, short if you accelerate slow). Having a certain time and force this will result in work (W = F*t or W = m*a*t).
As you can see work will almost stay the same.
Accelerating fast will give you a short "t" but a high "a". Vice versa for slow acceleration.
Now let's have a look on what's happening when you are going straight ahead.
With a certain speed you have a certain kinetic energy. To keep the speed you'll need to constantly produce energy (E = W = P*t, with P being the engine power (1)) by "accelerating" (you won't recognize it as accelerating because your speed should almost stay the same).
This is where a lot of people mess up and the consumption increases.
For example let's take a constant speed of 30.
Most people will have their speed drop to 25 than accelerate to 35 and than they'll let it drop to 25 again.
But their cars will consume much more fuel because they have to work against the aerodynamic and road resistance in order to accelerate.
If you keep your speed steady your engine haven't got to work so much to bear down the breakaway torque.
To point this up you could put a book on your desk and then drag it for a few centimeters (or inches if you prefer that). You'll recognize that you will need comparative lot of force to move the book but once it is moving it's quiet easy.
I hope i could clear things a little bit up and didn't mess up with the physical explanation because i learnt it all on german.
(1) Torque and engine power are always connected with each other: engine power is the result of the product of torque and revolutions.
Greetings.
Not sure where you came up with your facts, but based on my experience with many SUV owners, myself included (although mine is a 1974 Scout II and doesn't fit in to ANY of your arguments), here are the top reasons why I think people buy SUVs.
1) Americans like big cars.
This has always been true. In the 50's, 60's and 70's American cars were huge. In the 80's American automakers, due to EPA regulations and some misguided marketing exec's plan to compete with foreign manufacturers, decided to build tiny tin can cars. Americans hated them. In the 90's American automakers figured out how to get around emissions/milage standards by building SUVs, that fall under the light truck category rather than car. The average american LOVES them.
2) They are a Sport Utility Vehicle
An SUV is designed with versatility in mind. A Toyota Prius is fine for the hippie bachelor and his new age girlfriend, but if you live in the real world, have 2.5 kids, coach a soccer team, make weekly trips to home depot, and like to take your bass boat to the lake on weekends, a hybrid just isn't going to cut it.
3) American cars suck
I grew up a Chevy guy, so I can mostly relate this to GM. The GM smaller cars are complete crap. My sister has a 2000 Pontiac Sunfire with 50,000 miles on it. She has taken extremely good care of it, and it's a cute little car, but it's a pile of junk. Random things like the radio, seat belts, weather stripping, etc.. keep falling apart. GM doesn't have anything that will compete with the smaller Hondas and Toyotas in price, quality, performance and durability. If you, like me, prefer to buy a car made in the good ol' USA (I know, Honda's are made in Kentucky or someplace, let's conveniently ignore that for the moment) the light truck platform is currently the only way to get a vehicle that will actually go 100,000 miles.
I think your four reasons are excellent points that apply to purchasing new cars in general. The first two are extremely bad reasons to invest in a new car. The third I would think you would be happy about due to the fact it gets some smoking, rusty, ugly piece of junk off the road, and the fourth is just a stupid tax loophole.
As far as your original rant that people drive by themselves in these vehicles, there could be a variety of reasons. Mom could be going to pick up the soccer team, Dad could be going to Lowes for a new bathroom vanity or it could simply be that once the owner bought a $45,000 truck he/she couldn't afford the electric bicycle that would make YOU happy.
Find coupons in Greeley
All I know is my dodge neon is like a lawnmower with side doors and a larger gas tank.
What is all this concern over gas mileage? You people are a poor excuse for Americans. Where are your balls? Did Hillary Clinton steal them? We are consumers, we live in the country and many have died for this country to give us a choice as to if we want to buy the hybrid or buy the gas guzzling SUV. I've visited many soviet block contries where you have only one choice in car that you can buy and you have only one gas station in the whole city with a population of 2 million people. Imagine the lines. I remember.
Let me re-iterate, we are consumers, which mean we consume. You pay for something, you damn well better get what you pay for. If i'm going to pay +20k for a vehicle and it's only going to seat one person and only have a range of 50 miles (IE electric cars), that thing better give me a "hummer" along the drive, so I'll feel better about walking the other 30 miles I have to commute.
Let's not forget safety...
http://www.ems.org/suv/facts.html
Put it this way, when you go out to a singles bar, do you look for the economical, slightly overweight, read books, fair skinneded, drinking iced tea girl, or do you strive for the tall, slender, tanned, blond haired, big breasted, outgoing, bombshell. I don't know what you observer, but everyone I see there is going after the bombshell.
Never settle for less. Strive for more you pussies.
reassign null to be the tape device - it's so much more economical on my time as I don't have to change tapes_BOFH
I have a 2001 Nissan Sentra.
The claimed fuel consumption is in L/100km
8.5/6.1 City/highway
I consistently get 6.8-7.1. I'll admit that I do a lot of highway driving, but I also drive quite aggressively in the city. If you're constantly speeding or changing speed you're wasting gas.
If you floor it at every green light, you're wasting gas.
If you sit on cruise control at a single speed at a lower speed (around the speed limit) you will get much better mileage.
Subaru Justy was the best damn little car in the world. in general it got high 30's to low 40's. On a road trip ( and getting in the slip stream behind some truckers) I was able to get 50 mpg. Course it was *TINY*, and very noisy inside.
meh
EPA:
City: 28
Highway: 38
Reality:
City: 25
Highway: 35
Things could be better. Cruising at 55 MPH, the dash readout claims instantaneous mileage of 50+ MPG. If the car was a hybrid it would recover a lot of the losses in city driving and probably beat 40 MPG for that too. That would cut about 1/3 off the fuel consumption of a vehicle getting the EPA average (more in actuality, because the city consumption of a conventional car would be considerably higher).
We can make a huge difference. What we lack is the broad cultural knowledge that we can (too many people deny the facts), and the will to do it.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
My 1999 4x4 Chevy Suburban is rated at 12/14 but on a recent trip to Wisconsin we consistently got 17mpg!
I have found that the EPA ratings are inaccurate - but they are mostly uniformly inaccurate so they give you something to use to compare vehicles.
KK4SFV
1 Highway
0 City
Interesting, I'd wondered if getting AT LEAST 60% better than EPA was typical for the car, the engine, or what.
Now both Cliff & I are driving the car in a manner not quite recommended by the mfr: keeping revs below 2500 as much as possible, and not downshifting in favor of brakes. (Right, Cliff?)
This exact same driving strategy has never brought me this same improvement in MPG, so I'm assuming this engine's "dynamic-range" must be better. (Ok, audio term: I meant the engine's ability to efficiently meter and use fuel at the widest possible range of loads.)
I will say that this normally-aspirated engine is the first I've seen able to have high and low MPGs as far apart as a turbocharged engine I used to have. In both cases, a mellow driving strategy produces HUGE improvements in fuel economy. (Note: I said nothing about low speeds, or light-foot: there are plenty of times you might see me --uh-- passing. But I'm still proud of getting numbers so wildly higher than EPA.)
Thanks Cliff, I needed to know I wasn't crazy, and the guys at that hot line we can call weren't much help in this regard. I'm calling them today and pointing them to this thread...
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
My Accura and Maxima both got the excellent MPG promised. They were both standard transmissions, so you could even do better than the rated MPG if you didin't drive to hard (both cars were too much fun to drive slow!). I had a Ford Taurus wagon that was supposed to get 22 and never did better than 16. Most of the people I know have had similar experiences with Ford, and very few people buy them again (they fall apart too!). MY recomendation; a nice japanese car with a standard transmission (subaru WRX is my next car)
My T Pass (Boston) and my bike get me where I need to go reliably for like $50 a month. I don't know how much fuel a T train consumes per person (especially because it consumes kilowatt hours, not gallons), but it's not much. My bike is less.
Read jack phelps dot net
My car is a 2003 Volkswagen Passat with the 4 cylinder 1.8L turbo. It is rated at 21 city and 30 highway. I have kept detailed records since I got it, and I have averaged 25 mpg. I have a mix of driving that is slightly more highway than city.
In recent long highway trips I have gotten 31-32 mpg. I have noticed a seasonal effect with poorer milage during the winter. Some weeks in the winter I will average only 22-23 mpg and during the spring it pops up to 27-28 mpg. The summer seems to be between spring and winter. If I was at home I could post the entire spreadsheet. That would be seriously geeky, but this is slashdot.
In general I have no complaints about the ratings. They have been a fairly good but not perfect predictor of my personal experience.
I have a 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 4.7L V8, and the 5 speed auto trans (well, the only trans mated to that engine in a WJ), and I average 16.8 or 16.9 MPG. The EPA rates mine at 14 city and 19 highway. My commute to work is about 16 miles, mostly back country roads (yes, a geek in the country), with a few traffic lights and some "city" driving once I'm actually in the middle of town. So, I guess I can't complain at all, since I'm getting about 6-7MPG better than the 1994 Ford Bronco that used to be my daily driver, which is now my trail rig.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
what im not understanding, i drive a rather old 1993 Coupe deville its sticker rating was 26highway 16 City way back in its heyday, i REGULARLY on long drives get around 25, the car has been decently maintained, if i ever get another car that has anything LESS than its current 4.9L V8 by god it had BETTER get well above 30mpg, i find it quite disturbing people talking about getting mid twenties out of 4 cyl and small v6s
WTF are you smoking? I get 22MPG in my 99 Durango. I got 25 in my 94 LeBaron, and 28 in an Isuzu Rodeo. My wife gets (according to her nifty electronic gauges) 16MPG in her 99 TownandCountry Minivan.
I have 4 kids. You fit 2 adults and 4 kids (with car seats) into a Prius.
Oh, and I have a motorcycle that gets 50MPG.
Why are you driving that gas guzzleing 30MPG car all by yourself, when you can get 100MPG on a Honda scooter from the 50's?
That's the beauty and the danger of America: People who don't have a clue are allowed to shoot their mouths off.
So until you go buy that Honda scooter, I'll consider you a Troll.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
It's for sale. It can barely reach 30 MPG at a slow 60 MPH cruise, and I've got a new car that will do nearly 50 MPG under the same conditions and is otherwise equivalent.
How much would Dad save by having Lowe's do the delivery, or renting the box truck from Home Despot for an hour? I bet he could rent a load's worth of truck every week for the extra payment he's making for that SUV, and just pocket the savings in fuel.Mom had a choice between the electric bicycle and the flip-down DVD option. She picked the one that leaves her fatter, less fit and with a lower life expectancy, and her country in worse shape in several different ways. She deserves all the disgust being levelled at her.
What the USA needs is $5/gallon gasoline. We're already paying that much, but the extra $3 or so is coming from income taxes for defense and the like. Let's put those costs on the actvities which create them and see if America doesn't get smarter about things.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
...at least for GM vehicles. I used to work at a Chevy dealership. Occasionally someone would bring their vehicle in *insisting* that the mileage sucked and they couldn't be reasoned with. The customers method was usually recording the mileage and gallons at each fillup and doing whatever magic math they deemed correct to come up with mpg numbers. Oh, yeah, and most of the time it was a manual shift vehicle.
We had a locally built rig to use to check the mileage. It was a 1 gallon container, an electric fuel pump, a pressure line and a return line. We would connect it up to the vehicle, start it, and run it out of fuel to start the fuel system completely empty. Then we would put exactly 1 gallon of gas in the container, record the mileage on the vehicle,as well as the mileage on the chase car (to verify the odometer was correct) and both cars would take off. We made sure to drive the car easy without being a grandma driver, no hotrodding or heavy acceleration. Simply going with the slower flow and keeping within the speed limits. We would drive until the car drained the gallon container. Then we pulled onto the shoulder and compared miles traveled.
The route was planned to include a mix of city and highway driving in hopes we would end up with miles traveled in between the 2 advertised numbers. The route included about 6 miles of in town traffic, with at least 3-10 stops, depending on the lights and traffic, and 5-20 mile stretches of open highway in between.
We performed this task no less than 10 times during my 7 year stint at the dealership and the results were fairly conclusive. It beat the advertised highway mileage *every single time*.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
"They've been proven at Indy"
If anything, they proved that despite every available rule advantage, the buick V6 could not produce enough power over 500 miles to be competitive. Now, I know they qualified well, but that was four laps. If you ran that kind of boost for all 200 laps, they would last perhaps 20 of those laps, if you were lucky.
The engines were troublesome precisely because a pushrod cannot spin that fast, unless you spend obscene amounts of money.
All of that aside, the configuration used at Indy had the same bore spacings as the stock engine, but shared nothing else.
I find the engines to be terrible lumps; they're heavy, they don't rev worth crap, and they make a sound more suitable to a school bus. They're a picture of why GM cars generally suck.
The only reason people were making more with carbs was because the existing injection systems were primitive and not really designed to work well with a motor flowing more are than specced. That is generally no longer the case.
Also, the fuel injection can respond to thinks like temperature and air density...usually a carb is tuned for one temp/barimetric pressure and if the weather changes too much you're going to lose power.
Blar.
The sticker said 30 in town and 40 on the hiway.
My 5 speed stick shift averages, after 18,000 miles, better than that. In town, even with air conditioning, I consistantly get 30-32mpg. On the interstate I get 43mpg at 65 and 40mgp at 75. Cruise control really helps.
On the other hand, if you're buying a Mustang, you want to see power and maybe even low mileage (low mileage = more burn = more power per cubic inch). So on a "performance" car, low mileage is "good" so they may not cheat as much.
:wq
I love people who buy the porsche and then drive 55. Why bother. You could have bought a buick.
Yes, but burrito-powered vehicles contributed more noxious fumes to the atmosphere than diesel. Consider the CO2 and NO emissions, which, as of the time of this posting, are not required to flow through a catalytic converter.
Are you filling it with *imperial gallons*, perhaps? :-)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that EPA estimates really are wildly inaccurate. Are they at least *systematically* inaccurate? That is, if EPA rates vehicle X at 40mpg and vehicle Y at 20mpg, and normal drivers actually get 20mpg from their Xs, does that mean that they actually get roughly 10mpg from their Ys? If there's a systematic error then you can still use the numbers to comparison-shop, which is quite useful.
driving in today I got 35.4mpg, avg speed 51.2mph during a 50-ish minute commute from plymouth to needham ma. this included highs of 80-ish and several short stretches of stop-and-go.
/anecdote
this is significantly higher than the epa estimate for my little supercharged wonder.
for the life of the car (28,000 miles so far) I've averaged about 28mpg, as I used to do more city driving before I moved.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
I have a 2004 Prius. Unlike other cars, it really does match the EPA mileage, at least on the highway. We routinely match the official 50mpg number on freeways. Around town, though, we've never seen anything close to the 60mpg claimed. Typical numbers are 40-45, but a cold engine on a short commute tends to drag the number down to 30-35 or so. Our whole-tank mileage tends to be pretty consistent at 45 or so.
Ever heard of a Global Market? 100% of USA oil comes from this market. 100% of Persian Gulf oil goes into this market.
It's not as easy to grasp for the average tekkie (or even the average businessman who drives the monster SUV).
I did a trip to Berlin and back in our Audi A4 with a 85 kW TDI engine. Fully loaded with people and luggage, rolling gently at about 150 kph average over the autobahn and spending three hours in traffic jams on the way back, the car consumed about 50 litres for the trip of exactly 800 km, which is around 6.2l/100km, 38 mpg. Considering the traffic jams, that's an admirable figure.
In Finland we have SUBSTANTIAL Gas tax. That means MPG has real result in my pocket. /gallon. Most of it taxes.
BAD MPG is from 70's soviet union made vehicles which is about 30 MPG and modern cars get around 60-70MPG. We pay 1.2 Eur/litre =~ 5.67$
If US would get anyway near similar TAX on gasoline [Passed with reduction of other taxes] Your thinkin 30MPG is good fuel economy would change. Also that would bring small shops closer to places where people live in order to reduce driving.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
The effects of GWBush's work will not be felt until after he is out of office. Are you really so foolish as to think that within two or three years, a machine as complex as our nation's economy can be turned?
If you want to blame someone for our current economic state, blame Clinton.
If you didn't have your "liberal goggles" on you'd remember that the economy was starting to turn DURING the last election.
That combined with fairly good performance (0-60 in 8 seconds) makes me think the car has a perfect balance between performance and fuel economy.
2004 93 SS
This is due to design decisions on the part of the auto makers: the hydraulic torque converter is a huge energy sink. If they used CVTs or a hybrid with a generator between the engine and transmission input shaft (turning the RPM difference of the slippage into electricity instead of converting it to heat) the difference would be a lot smaller, perhaps even negative.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I have a 2002 Chevy Avalanche 4x4. It has a 5.3l V8 and I get 20 mpg on the highway. I don't really measure it for city driving except for how many miles I get per tank of gas. Because there's a wide disparity between how the Avalanche gets used from day to day and week to week, there's no right answer to how far I go on a tank of gas. But I expect to see 350 to 400 miles on the trip odometer when I fill the tank. That represents 2 to 2.5 weeks worth of family use. I use to have a 77 Chevy half-ton truck with a 350 V8 when I was a university student. It was probably 1000lbs lighter than the Avalanche. I tried hard to suck all the efficiency out of it I could. I entered an IEEE sponsored road rally to try and get the best economy in my vehicle class. I duct taped all the body gaps, and with some coroplast and more tape, covered over all the big holes, like the wheel wells. The truck box was faired over with more corplast and tape. In the end, I basically had an aerodynamic shell over the truck. On top of that, I leaned my carb out to probably dangerous levels (it was a short trip ;) The best I could get out of that was 19mpg.
So I count myself lucky, that all the computer based efficiency and emission systems on my Avalanche really do a world of good. I'm still amazed that a big old SUV like the Avalanche can get 20. I've had a minivan that could barely get 20.
I drive a H2 everyday back and forth from work and on the weekends. I get 11 miles to the gallon in the city and 13 on the highway. It isn't as bad as most people think when you look at the F-250 and F-350 trucks that get close to the same. I enjoy driving my H2 and gas prices will not effect how much I drive it.
Add to that the fact when I bought my car it doesn't list gas mileage ratings. My vehicle as well as most heavy duty trucks do not have to publish MPG ratings.
2002 Nissan Sentra (Spec V). In stock form it had ~170hp/~185tq (crank) with a 6 speed. I got about 24/28 with it, which is what it was rated it. Three years and 50k miles later I've replaced the factory intake and header for increased power (~180hp/195tq) and now I get about 25/30. I would also say I'm an aggressive driver and don't baby the car at all.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
It's also dumb. It's like measuring how tall someone is by weighing them. Or calculating your CPU speed based on temperature.
There's a relationship in all these cases, to be sure. But height and weight are not directly proportional. Nor is fuel economy and emissions. There are so many other factors that measuring emissions is a lousy way to do this. Fuel economy is stated in miles per gallon-- why not do your test drive and then measure the MILES DRIVEN and the NUMBER OF GALLONS USED and get the real fuel economy? The EPA method baffles me.
You forgot a few details, like extremely low repair costs ("Hang another plastic panel on this door, Harry!"), high safety ratings (steel box construction, just like those Volvos), low insurance costs (low repair costs, plus who steals Saturns?), no exterior rust (plastic side panels, again), seats 5, good-sized trunk, 3000-mile pneumatic spare tire (no 50-mile donuts here, thanks), daytime headlights, and a body model that doesn't change for about 5 years, so parts are cheap. Not to mention that it looks just like all those other generically styled sedans by Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Plus, it's built in Kentucky.
I always thought that buying a used car could be safely summarized in 3 words: Nissan, Toyota, Honda. Imagine my surprise when I bought a GM. (Saturn is a GM subsidiary, and GM has incorporated many of their ideas into other product lines.)
1998 Saturn SL1, 5-speed manual, 78K miles, 35-40 MPG average. When I drive it into the ground in about 15 years, I'll buy another Saturn.
Same thing here. Not sure how it works, I just know that when I make a left at a certain light to start my run, if there's not traffic blocking my left, and I hammer it, I can hit a couple greens. Normally there's traffic, so I just go slow and meander up to the red light, and it usually turns just as I get there. Then I'll have to hammer it hard to get to the next one before it turns red. If I don't make that light, I get stuck in every other one on the way home. Otherwise, after I clear that one light, if I stay around the speed limit i'll cruise through every light without much waiting.
Driving from NYC to Florida i used to get over 500 miles per tank in my 328is (manual trany)
The car is rated for 24 city / 31 hwy. I've on occasion, been able to break 24 in weekly commuting, but just barely. On long highway trips I may get around 28 though. I've never seen anything over 30.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
I happen to drive a car with an EPA sticker of 21 city 25 highway (all figures in miles per gallon). I've driven the car for 47000 miles and the lowest I've ever seen is 23 and some change; the highest, 36.3
1995 Ford Escort absolute base model (actually, I got floormats). My figures are surprisingly similar to yours. When I did a lap of the country (US) I was hitting high 30's the entire way. I drive very aggressively (well, as aggressively as one can with less than 100 ponies, haha), and consistently get high 20s to low 30s. EPA estimates are 23/28. I use high octane and synthetic oil (90,000 miles and I expect another 90,000), which may be part of it.
Yeah, people laugh at my car, but the only time it had a signifcant problem was when I hit a deer on the freeway. Even then I managed to limp to the repair shop ($3,000 worth of damage). Consumer Reports gave it their best rating for maintenance costs.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The Mazda 6, any of the Volvos, and the Saturn L300 wagon are all excellent cars too. They might be a little smaller than a mini-van or a 60s style wagon but they're much better to drive, get better mileage, are comparatively affordable and a lot nicer looking. I've always tried to own station wagons. Even compared to mini-vans the cargo space just seems more appropriate to what I carry. Most of us don't carry more than 4 passengers around anyway.
Look up these words:
- Shell Eco-Marathon
- MicroJoule
Choosing a vehicle is certainly your choice.
Facts to know:Did you know that everyone who drives cars is subsidizing the liability insurance of SUV drivers (SUV damage is significantly higher than car damage). It wasn't until recently that insurance companies started increasing the liability insurance for SUV owners. However, it is still light years away from the actual amount that should be charged. How does it make you feel knowing that millions of middle class (and below) citizens are making it possible for the upper middle class to afford their SUVs due to this subsidy?
As far as government subsidies...
Cars are not allowed a tax deduction anywhere near this ridiculous level. Thanks Republicans!I found this great site that gives you an instant measurement of your fuel mileage QuickDrive.com The mileage calculator for your cell phone can be found at the same URL.
Cliff... you drive an SVT Focus (probably) or Sentra SE-R (unlikely), don't you? I've got the Foci, and I always get more than the sticker... I'm supposed to get 21/25, and I get 24/29 instead, in regular driving.
Honda says the 2003 Element EX should get 21/24 MPG (city/hw). I've always gotten 1-2 MPH less than spec'd. Its a 5-Speed, 4WD. I'm pretty sure that the weight of the driver they used in their calculations/tests wasn't mine though. : )
"Am I a rare breed that can drive my car (2.0L I4, 170 HP, 6-speed manual) aggressively (I've had coworkers and friends say 'woah!' more than I'd like to admit *grin*)"
No, you're not a rare breed. You're an idiot and an ass who should be forced to drive a Geo Metro with a n engine governor.
There is exactly one thing that determines how much fuel your car uses: how far you press the gas pedal.
:) - this is where the major differences in economy usually show themselves.
There are various factors that will affect how far you want to push the pedal (wind, hills, desired speed, flat tires, etc.), but ONLY the position of the pedal affects the rate of fuel usage.
The practical message here is that you can reduce fuel usage by not pressing the pedal as far. If you're in stop and go traffic, you will use a lot more fuel if you try to accelerate to 60MPH between each traffic light. If you accelerate slowly, you'll use less fuel.
There is an obvious crossover point when the decreased rate of usage is overshadowed by the longer time needed to geet from point A to point B (obviously, you'll have 0 MPG if you just leave the car idling
- The Sigless Wonder
I was on a waiting list for a Prius to replace my Plymouth van (averaging 20mpg) when my commute went from 40miles/day roundtrip to 100miles/day. I was told the waiting list was at least 4-5 months, and my van was having problems, so I purchased a Corolla instead, which is averaging about 34mpg. Not as good as the Prius, but the $7K discount will pay for a lot of the extra fuel cost.
I can only hope that the very lively demand for hybrids motivates the auto makers to ramp up production and bring down the prices. I don't see the oil prices coming down significantly any time soon.
I have a 94 Probe GT and I get an average of 27.5 MPG, which from everything I can find, is higher than that cars Highway rating from the sticker. I dont exactly light foot it either, but I dont race around like some folks. I drive about 1/3 city and 2/3 highway in my daily travels.
Maybe EPA uses MPG and Km/L and fails to calculate it. That's usual in american agencies. =o]
I still can't understand why you insist using units like 33/37 inches or 5 feet and 8 inches.
I'm 174 cm tall.
Here, if you say you have 5 feet, we'll think you need 5 shoes
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a time back in the early 80's when the average stated milage ratings for most advertised cars seemed to hover around 30-35 MPG. Since then though, it seems that the average ratings seem to hover in the low to mid 20 MPG range. To me, this makes it look as if fuel efficiency in general has gotten worse over the past few years.
If so, why? Has Detroit just given up? Is there some vast conspiracy between the auto industry and the oil producers? Did the EPA change it's measurement metric? Surely some of the technological advancements in automotive design have had some sort of positive effect on consumption?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I average between 12mpg and 14mpg in my 1990 Bonneville SSE (Thusly looking at a motorcycle)
I got 60 m.p.g on a VW Golf Turbo Diesel once on a long trip. Regular mileage was generally better than 50 tho.
My SUV is not being subsidized by your insurance premiums. I own 3 vehicles. Most famililes with SUVs have more than one vehicle. With multiple vehicles come multiple discounts.
But regardless, there are plenty of insurers out there. What they charge per vehicle is part of their marketing and economics. If they were losing money on SUVs, they would charge more and they could. If my insurance company did, they would loose my business.
If your're not happy with your rate, shop around. When you go to buy a car, check on the insurance rates before you buy. Stop blaming other people.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I live in California.
When they added MTBE to our fuel, not only did the cost go up, but the power and fuel economy went down.
Now that MTBE is being removed, my fuel economy is back up again, better than I ever remember it, and my car is more responsive.
I wonder if politicians ever considered the additional pollution caused by lowering gas mileage with an additive designed to lower pollution and is disaterous to the environment.
I have a 1996 VW Passat TDI. It's a turbo direct-inject diesel. It's clean, quiet, quick, and gets a consistent 50 miles per gallon on the highway. I get about 44 in the city. Winter diesel has slightly less energy than summer diesel so in the winter I get more like 47/42.
It still is MUCH better than gas cars, and loads more torque. I may trade it in soon for a new Jetta TDI. I'll never drive another gasoline car.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
I'm not blaming other people. This is a documented fact. The same thing was happening with sports cars. State farm was the last of the companies to up their rates when they realized that 100% of all Porsche owners in California were customers of theirs!
In other words, I'm paying even MORE to to cover the liability of your SUV because you get a discount?!?!?! You just proved my point. Have you ever heard of collusion?!?!?Might I suggest we make a poll of this? Ok, it's against our general polling philosophy of having meaningless polls, but do we have to be that dogmatic?
I always top off the tank of my elderly-but-serviceable 1986 VW Jetta (1.8 litre gas engine, 5 speed stickshift) and know what numbers are in family, and what ones aren't. I have a whole pile of gas station receipts with numbers on them to prove it.
Around town it's 10 litres/100 km. I refuel when the tank is down to 1/4, and start thinking about gassing up at 360 km.
On the highway it's 5.8 litres/100 km. I don't even look at the gas gauge until 550 km.
When the car was new VW quoted 10.1 city, 6.5 highway on leaded regular. Since such gasoline hasn't been available for years I experimented and found it runs best on mid-grade unleaded. I have no complaints.
...laura
I have an electic scooter, which I find good for running around doing errends.
Me:
1993 Nissan Sentra XE
Average in warm weather - ~30 mpg
Peak in warm weather - ~40
Average in cold weather - ~25
Peak in cold weather - ~32
Claimed MPG 29/29
My Friend
Toyota Prius (first rev. I forget what year)
45-48 when he's not paying attention
50-53 when he is
Claimed MPG 52 city 45 hwy
LOCATION
we both live in the twin cities
Driving style
I drive quickly (to the extent that the sentra can accomplish it)
My friend drives like a grandmother
I think that people who complain about the fuel economy from their hybrid cars don't realize that they have to drive like they got miss daisy in the back seat. The prius provides feedback about the economy you are getting on a dashboard screen. If you pay attention to it you can realize how much effect personal driving style has on your MPG.
Because most people are ass monkeys who keep their foot pressing the gas pedal into the floor in direct conflict with the current traffic flow, weather or even common sense.
EPA rating: 22 city/ 32 highway
;) but otherwise pretty stable. Overall I'm pretty happy with my mileage.
In RL: ~20 city. My local driving is a bit odd, in that I'm less than a mile from work. Due to awkward geography & lack of sidewalks(?!) I still drive about half the time. The rest of my driving is all over town, including some (non-rush-hour) freeway stints. Still, you'd think my aggressive driving would take more of toll...
~30+ highway. Depends on speed (55 is better than 75 --darn it!
I have a fairly new (just made the first payment...) Civic Hybrid (with automatic continuously variable transmission, which means that it does not get as high mpg figures as the manual tranmission models do). EPA mileage: 49 city/48 highway. So far, I am averaging 40.9 mpg (combined). I've taken it on a long highway vacation trip (where I got it up to 45 mpg), but most of the driving has been in town.
I have discovered that there is a learning curve to driving this car, almost like a manual transmission car. You can achieve very different mileages based on how aggresive you are on your starts and such. The average is rising as I learn the tricks of driving the car - past couple of tanks of gas have averaged 42 mpg or better.
I have heard that Toyota and Honda would love to post slightly lower figures, but that the EPA requires the figures to be the ones actually created by their testing (which involves a track on ideal conditions with a professional driver who knows the car inside and out). Just as the EPA does not want a car company to inflate the figures (for Hummers and such), they don't want the figures downgraded. Thus, it appears that the figures for all vehicles are higher than any of us will likely encounter unless we're coasting down a mountain pass with a good tailwind...
Let me repeat that for those with poor reading comprehension: It makes next to zero difference where US imports originate! The world market for oil is just that, a world market. Reducing US imports by the fraction coming from the Middle East would not reduce Middle East production by that amount; it would just cause the total pool to shrink slightly and each producer's output to be distributed a bit differently.
It would actually cause slightly greater cuts in production in the west, because shipping costs from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela to alternate destinations in Europe and the Far East are higher than from the Middle East. On the other hand, it would cause world oil prices to fall and decrease the profits of all oil producers.
but it should be pointed out that while bikes get great mileage, their exhaust is considerably dirtier than that of larger engines.
1994 Mazda Miata, just clicked over to 100,000 miles. City milage: 30, highway: 35.
I've got both city and highway conditions, and I drive the car hard. We change the oil every 3K miles, and use a synthetic. Runs like a top.
On a long trip the dash board said 38MPG and in regular city traffic, it says 23MPG. It's just amazing how much stop and go traffic can affect your fuel efficiency.
For my commute to work, I get the best MPG on the planet: Infinite MPG. I made a conscious effort to live close to where I work, so, every day, I either walk or ride my bike. No parking bullshit to deal with, no navigating through traffic, I get to indicate "0" (zero) on my insurance under "miles to work", and I get good de-stressing exercise every day-- Something those of us in technology, with the necessity of sitting in front of our monitors for long periods of time, really need.
Pet peeve: Maybe one of the friggin' problems with the EPA is they're using *MILES* instead of kilometers for their measurements. The old-ass English system of measurements are reserved for dipshit Mars Orbiter engineers and the general ignorant public who feel all warm and fuzzy about a system they're used to instead of practicing common sense. There's no valid excuse for the United States' continued use of this arcane, vulgar, offensive system, and it costs us millions every year we stick with it. Pisses me off.
Along the lines of fuel economy, I saw a great bumper sticker the other day on the back of an old Geo Metro that read: "50+ MPG. Who's laughing now?!" Some people have legitimate need for large vehicles, but most don't. I honor those who choose efficient cars, as it presents with logical, intelligent transportation that saves resources for the betterment of others.
Sorry to be a bit OT, but efficiency and issues of transportation are of great interest to me and I feel that, especially these days, they're very important to discuss.
A 2000 Sentra GXE automatic, 2001 Sentra GXE 5-speed, and a 2004 Sentra SE-R Spec V 5-speed.
First one: lowest number and highest number match epa numbers.
Second one: lowest number and highest number match epa numbers.
Third one: lowest number 8mpg lower than epa number, highest number matches highest epa number (I have quite a lead foot in this car).
Mileage of first two derived from calculations made at fillup; mileage of third from onboard computer.
Ok, it's supposed to get something like 18 MPG with the straight 6 motor, so I guess this illustrates the impact of aging on vehicle systems.. although on a new computer controlled car that impact just seems to be that it simply doesn't work..
We always reach for the technical solution first don't we? I should add to my post that although I get poor mileage, I burn very little gas because I live in the very center of the American's third largest city, Houston, and most everything I want to visit is within 5 miles from home.
Where you live is more important than your mileage.. at least in a big city.
I have a 2003 prius and I get around 46.5 mpg. When driving on longer trips I can get it higher. I also get killer miles per gallon in bumper to bumper traffic because I am only running on electric during that time.
On the right we have the gas hog camp, burning 2 or 3 gallons of oil everyday to move 2 tons of steel to and from work. On the left we have the environmentally friendly camp, braving the elements and sweating up a storm to bicycle for 2 or 3 hours to and from work. Why does this situation have to be so black and white?
.5 liter engine, that will easily get 100 mpg due to (1) above.
Why can't someone develop, legalize, and mass produce a commuter vehicle with the following specs:
(1) Weighs 500 lbs or less
(2) Has 4 wheels or the ability to balance itself (sorry motorcyles, mopeds, etc.)
(3) Seats 1 person in an ENCLOSED compartment (sorry Segway)
(4) Travels at least 35 mph (again - sorry Segway)
(5) Uses all the latest engine technology, but with, say a 2 or 3 cylinder, 40 hp,
(6) Due to mass production, would cost ~$3000
This would be an ideal 2nd vehicle for most families and provide a year-round alternative that is environmentally friendly, but also CHEAPER! With my budget, I'll never buy a Segway for 3K. However, I would save thousands of dollars if I had something like this. It would certainly help those impovershed inner-city folks driving around in broken down 1978 Monte Carlo's because it's the only way to get to/from a job. I think such an invention would fight pollution, poverty, crime, traffic problems, etc.. all in a fell swoop.
Of course, the only way this would ever happen is:
(1) We all boycott the motor vehicle as it is, and tell Detroit we'll drive something like the vehicle above if they offer it.
(2) Detroit is destroyed in a massive terrorist attack
(3) We all start driving smaller and smaller vehicles and hope the trend is towards something like the above in the next 30 years.
I just hate that my wife and I are forced to take on two car payments, consume an insane amount of gasoline, and pollute, in order to hold down our two jobs. We could probably better our situation in a heartbeat, if we could drop a car payment in favor of a cheap alternative that doesn't lack in convenience.
We're not going to switch to mass transit. Ever. It relies on masses wanting to go to the same place (or at least along the same route) at the same time.
Individual vehicles are much, much more time efficient and versatile. What we need is better, faster, more automated cars. Something that will travel to the destination at 700 mph while you take a nap.
Say, a little electric car that you drive into a tube, then the maglev system engages and zips you off along the track to the station closest to your destination, then it switches back to wheels and you drive off to exactly where you're going at 30-60 mph just as you would now. Preferably, driving up the sides of buildings and parking right at the door of the room you're going to, as illustrated in Minority Report.
Ok, this is silly, but I admit I'm younger than the glory days of giant Ford LTD wood-grain station wagons. A mini-van solves most "kid" problems nicely, and minivans (at least in my state) happen to be classified as station wagons, with lower license plate registration cost and lower insurance costs.
Anyone with kids who has had both a minivan and an SUV monster should be able to tell you that the minivan offers far more usable room than your SUV. And minivans drive better. I've experienced it, my folks can attest, and even my yuppie keep-up-with-the-Jones' neighbors have recently ditched their SUV for a minivan for the same reasons. Its a shame that minivans seem to hold a certain stigma, but they're often the better choice.
Oh and so I'm not completely off topic, my Grand Caravan right now gets about 18/23 mpg, but probably low because it needs new tires.
{ - Generic Guy - }
So until you go buy that Honda scooter, I'll consider you a Troll.
Why is 50mpg OK for you, but everyone else must get 100mpg to be OK ? Nice double-standard there.
Also, don't get so defensive. It looks bad. I doubt he was talking about people 4 kids. Most likely, he was talking about people who drive SUVs just to drive SUVs.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
I believe the EPA numbers for my car are something like 25/30. I still get 30-32 on highway trips, depending on the number of hills, and how twisty the road is. Not bad for a 14 year old car.
Derek Lewis
(remove the spam-free to email me)
either.
And E-85 and biodiesel would help stretch out petrolum researves by quite a bit. Long enough for them to refill.
Even if you only want to use it once a month, when there are weekends and holidays that everyone wants to go out for, an SUV still has to exist for everyone who wants to use one.
Renting is for exceptional circumstances only, not routine occasional use on an inflexible schedule.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the EPA test assumes seal level driving. If you live in an area that is at higher altitude, the lower oxygen content of the air will adversely affect your milage. For example, cars here in Denver, CO (which is at 5,280 feet above sea level) never perform anywhere close to the EPA estimates.
CUShane
OK, that's city, isn't it?
;-)
As for the "LEV" sticker, I too have a green sticker, and I too would have to disagree with it, on soot grounds
As for what I drive, that's currently a 2002 Toyota Avensis. Looks a bit Camry-ish. Previous one was a Citroen Saxo, best described as a four-wheeled bicycle (crappy 1.5D engine, had about the same econ as the avensis -- on half the power, a third of the torque). Next one, unplanned yet, but hybrid/hydrogen and steer-by-wire are definitely on the checklist.
When in the US (been there a couple times), I'm amazed to see that no matter what I drive, I have can't really do a complete Detroit-Grand Rapids shuttle without a fillup in the middle. I drove just about every rental junk available. Mulhouse-Paris round-trip on a fillup, no problem.
Pfff...
...so I prefer alternative fuels. I suggest NutriGrain cereal bars. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign energy resources, I find they...ummm...burn far cleaner than burritos, if you know what I mean ;-) .
I have to disagree. We do *not* need large, gas-hog engines for trucks and heavy equipment. I know of *no* heavy equipment that runs on gasoline today (they're all diesels, or for the really big stuff, diesel/electric). Big gas trucks are inexcusable. An F-350 SuperDuty with the PowerStroke diesel will get 17-19 mpg while doing 70mph towing 4000 lbs through a hilly area (and have enough power that you don't know the trailer's even there). Conversely, an *empty* same truck with the gas V10 will get no better than 10-14 mpg. Point being, diesels make more power with much better fuel economy.
You may call me a troll for saying so, but if you (the universal you, not the specific you) buy a big truck/suv and get a gas motor, you're a total idiot.
The Sacred Chao says, "MU".
This is also a good sheet to use.
My point was that why was he saying that 30MPG is 'good', when higher efficiency transportation is available. I was hinting that his choice of a 4 wheel vehicle is not much different than a choice of an SUV. There are better alternatives when you're doing nothing but looking at MPG (assuming the traveler needs his own transportation).
Also, don't get so defensive. It looks bad. I doubt he was talking about people 4 kids. Most likely, he was talking about people who drive SUVs just to drive SUVs.
I have a general problem with the 'high and mighty-ness' of those who don't drive SUVs as if they're the only ones capable of saving the world. Add to that, that most SUVs REALLY AREN'T that much worse in MPG than most other vehicles (my bike gets 100% more MPG than my SUV, but his car only gets 50% more. The Honda scooter would be 500% more than my SUV, while a Viper would probably be 50% less than my SUV.) and the biggest complainers really just have nothing more than penis envy. -shrug-
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
My car's EPA ratings are 22 mpg city and 30 mpg highway (manual transmission). I typically average 27-28 mpg through every day driving, and on road trips can get 32 mpg. Not bad at all considering it's got 170k miles on it (original engine & tranny) and that I've been getting those numbers or better since 1996 when I got it. It's actually a 1993 model car.
I've also found my impreza wrx to also be pretty close to the EPA ratings,
overall average: 23.8MPG
High: 28.1 MPG (ignoring partial fills)
Low: 19.3 MPG (ignoring partial fills)
I don't leadfoot too often but it sees its fair share of WOT...
I was unaware that all plastics are derived from petrochemicals.
I'm pretty sure that there are other sources for cellulose, given that cellophane is a plastic.
(Btw, I agree with you for the most part. I'm just picking on your all inclusive statement: "... and plastics come from petrochemicals.")
Driving styles totally impact the mileage with hybrids. We have the Honda Civic Hybrid and when I drive I get about 41-44 MPG with combined highway and city driving. We live in a very hilly area, so we probably tax the gas engine quite a bit compared to if we lived in a relatively flat area.
When my wife drives, she gets about 38 miles per gallon consistently. The strange part is that I drive faster than she does. However, I think I "optimize" for the hybrid more. I ensure that I roll as much as possible with the engine off, I take off slower from stops (usually), and I try to keep the engine RPM below a certain level.
We also noticed that if you accidentally un-seat the gas cap a bit you can get better mileage. Something about the fuel pressure putting less fuel in the engine. It was good for about 3-4 more MPG.
TTFN
My POS Ford Focus ZTS with 4 spd auto does not do any better than 24mpg (mostly freeway). That, plus a large amount of other problems with the car, have forever estinguished any interest I had for domestic cars. Toyota, here I came.
they would not be so understaffed and have such budgeting problems that they could some work done. you can't expect an agency to be it's best when the funding isn't there, look at our schools and health care same issues.
"... the ignition key is usually also how the steering lock is engaged."
4-position ignition switch:
LOCK ACC ON START
There is extra resistance to get from ACC into LOCK and you must be heavly drunk to accomplish that. You flick the switch from on to ACC to kill the engine and immediately back into ON.
"... but restarting the engine is going to cause a drain on the car's battery."
Sheesh! - starter draws maybe 100 amps with a warm engine for 2/10 of a second. Alternator charges with 30 amps for 6/10 of a second to make up for it - keep wondering.
If you would have argued that the initial possibly increased fuel consumption of starting the engine would not make it worth turning it off - that's been researched and not the case.
If you would have argued excessive stater wear, you would have had some point.
"...that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you,..."
That's not happening at all if you stick in the righ lane - you're just mindfucking.
My civic DX 02 just turned 35k miles. The sticker said 33/39 mpg, but on the highway I've never had better mileage than about 35mpg (when I drive with 65). The city mileage is about 30mpg. I suppose this is within the "your mileage may vary" tolerance... :)
Despite the 260 hp, my car actually qualifies as a LEV (low emissions vehicle), which is quite a feat and demonstrates that Honda engineers really know how to design an efficient engine.
Moreso than GM. They bought the same V6 for the '04 Saturn VUE which I average around 23 MPG in mixed highway/city driving. Ah, who am I kidding? There's no such thing as highway driving in Raleigh-Durham.
That said, many of the dubbed 'crossover' SUVs - Highlander, VUE, Tribute, Pilot, etc. - are no worse than most midsize sedans.
My 2004 Nissan 350Z claims 18/26 and I have been getting 21 to 23. My commute is 70% highway, 30% city. Probably just means I am not driving it "correctly", since I seldom bury the needle unless there is room to zoom. :) Rte 1 is a blast though...
http://www.beamjack.com/images/zpics/page1.htm
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
I've had a 2004 Prius since last November. Got about 15K miles on it already. I like the car a lot and I've seen per-tank averages as low as 38 and as high as 48. Usually falls right in the middle.
One thing I realized is that the Prius isn't a hybrid in the sense most are expecting: It's not a 50/50 responsibility between the two motors. It's basically a gasoline car with an electric assist for accelleration. The electricity for assisted accelleration comes, as much as it can, from braking and coasting.
I read somewhere the basics of the EPA test, and while they may be reasonable for gasoline cars (at least for comparison purposes, if not actual numbers), they really are inaccurate for hybrids. For example, I think the tests are only run for a couple minutes -- and I've seen my Prius average over 100 MPG for a couple minute stretchees. I've also seen it average 20MPG for couple minute stretches. Depends on how much electricity there is waiting in the battery in many cases.
Cheers.
I remember owning a 3 cylinder Chevy Sprint back in the early 90s. I am sure it made 40 MPG and it wasn't even a hybrid! Sure, it wouldn't do more than 65 going downhill with the wind in its back but it was fine for around town...
Why has the auto industry buried this type of research? I am sure with 10 years of advancements the smaller engines could perform as well if not better than some hybrids. I am all for the new technology but why not continue to use conventional engines just make them more efficient and/or smaller. I remember a discussion on cartalk a while back on how the HP-to-weight ratio of cars has changed so much it is scary. Why do they continue to develop these unnecessary powerful engines for average city driving. It is not only killing more and more teenagers every year but continues our dependence on foreign oil. Unless we change our attitude towards automobiles, this trend will always be there.
It isn't just the SUV owners that need a reality check. It's the Mustang owners too. Anyone who drives a car for more than essential needs should reconsider what vehicle they buy.
--Bill
Hey you theorizing dwerp - I am driving that way at times, no sweat at all - that's a small car, not some monster SUV small dick compensation tank. Ususally, there is enough vacuum in the booster to cover a couple of breaks and then, just push harder or turn the engine on.
The situation you describe - kids running around - that's urban living areas with 25-35 speed limits - can't turn the engine off at that speed anyway.
For 7 years I drove an 86 Honda Accord, when I traded it in it had 207,000 miles on it and the last tank of gas I got 30.5 mpg. I now own a 98 Honda CR-V and love it, no the mileage isn't as good (mid 20's) but for the first time in my life I actually fit in my car (6'4" 220lbs). In my Accord my knees were forced to the side so that the steering wheel would fit. I can now get in and out of my car without contorting my body. Also when I traded it in the muffler was in the trunk, this was the 4th time it had rusted through, so even though my mpg is worse in the CR-V I am guessing it is better in the emmisions dept. than my Accord ever was! So I used to be anti SUV and I never considered any of the big ones, but for me comfort finally won over fuel economy.
Well, unless I'm doing ONLY freeway driving on a tank, I don't usually break 20 on average. Funny thing is, I still have the window sticker and the listed fuel economy estimate on that is 14. The lowest I've recorded on a tank is 13. I still stubbornly refuse to get rid of the beast, although the demolition derby idea has come up more than once! ;) The Electra (affectionately named the Yorktown) only has 53k on the odometer though, so it's practically new under the hood (wish I could say the same for the paint though.) I still drive it because it gets better fuel economy than any new SUV matching its size, and is probably safer. The lower center of gravity makes it more stable than an SUV, and the fact that the bumpers (solid steel, no plastic or impact absorbing material here) are at least at normal car height, so it's safer for everyone else. Plus, the energy required to manufacture a new car is of far greater concern to mother nature than the fuel I'll burn driving this tank for the next 10 years, so I'm actually helping the environment! Or so I tell myself.
Nah, I either keep at normal traffic speed or I go 5 or 10 miles over, but I always leave early and arraive early. I only slow down when I don't know the area well and I'v got to see roadsigns for making turns.
Early is on time, on time is late.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I'm supposed to get 20 and 28, I think. I average 23.5 and my records go back to when I bought it used in 2001. I doubt it was serviced much/at all before I bought it. Anyway, the best I have ever gotten is 26mpg on a highway trip, but I drive fast. In the snow in NH it got 18. I have the OEM tires and maintain everything very well, but still my mpg is low.
Hey, daffy!
There is extra resistance to get from ACC into LOCK and you must be heavly drunk to accomplish that. You flick the switch from on to ACC to kill the engine and immediately back into ON.
There's a reason why the ignition key isn't usually in a convenient position to play with whilst driving, and that's to discourage idiots from fiddling with it whilst driving. Unfortunately, you seem to have found a workaround that involves leaning around the steering wheel whilst cresting the brow of the hill. That, my friend, is dangerous. If something unexpected were to happy whilst you were performing your 'flicking' operation, (for instance a collision caused by you groping behind your steering wheel whilst cresting a hill), the likelihood is that you'd be trying to recover whilst moving at speed and with your steering locked.
I'll give you your second point, about battery drain, because I'm in a hurry to get to your third point.
That's not happening at all if you stick in the righ lane
I'm not sure here whether you mean right-hand lane, or correct lane for your speed.
If you mean right-hand lane, you're probably talking about the slow lane in a country that drives on the right. Claiming that it doesn't annoy anybody at all assumes that you are driving faster in the slow lane than anyone else in that lane, otherwise at some point somebody who was driving faster than you would have caught up with you. Now obviously I'm no expert in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that a policy of consistently driving faster than anybody else in the slow lane doesn't quite square with your claims of hyper fuel-efficiency.
On the other hand, if you're talking about being in the correct lane, you're implying that you change lanes as necessary. Lane changing probably means that your speed increases and decreases as necessary. However, because you seem to think that it's a good thing to accelerate whilst in too high a gear, your acceleration is going to be slower than just about every normal person on the road. I repeat, that is likely to annoy the long queue of traffic behind you.
Get your facts straight!
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the facts of the case are these. The deceased, keen to save a buck or two, was known to engage in some unusual motoring habits. On the fateful day in question, travelling at 40mph and approaching the brow of a hill, he took his eyes from the road and a hand from the wheel, leant forward and was in the process of switching off his vehicle's ignition when unseen by him because he was looking down in the process of switching off his vehicle's ignition, a large truck was approaching from a side road. Hearing the truck's horn, the dearly departed glanced up. We can only conjecture as to what exact thoughts went through his poor head at this time, but it seems clear that the shock of what he saw caused him to involuntarily 'flick' his wrist a deadly one-sixteenths of a revolution further than he intended, thus engaging the steering lock. Unable to steer, and unable to accelerate out of danger due to being no less than two gears too high for his speed, our intrepid fuel economist got himself creamed. The only bright spot in this whole sorry affair is that his heirs and successors were able to salvage almost a half a tank of gasoline from the wreckage.
Good luck, and try not to take anybody else out, in your quest to fulfil your Darwinian destiny.
EPA numbers are 363,000 City/524,000 Highway. I do mostly city driving. Oh yeah: It's a T-Bird supercoupe. I think the record is 484,000 one week while I was commuting a long way to work by highway at very early and way-too-late hours. Each week I might see variations of as much as 10%, mostly due to the temperature of the gas: in the U.S. gasoline is sold by gross volume so you get more bang for your buck when the gasoline is cooler. The attitude of the car while fueling plays a role too. I can't always completely fill the tank on a non-level apron.
I am not a crackpot.
hi,
i bought a new Mazda Protege in the end of 1993. it was a demo car and had 3502 miles on it when i bought it. when the insurance company totalled it for someone running a red light, it had 207,000+ miles on it. i had fastidiously kept records on mileage and gas prices.
the car had a 30/26 MPG sticker on it when i bought it. the lifetime average for the car (minus the initial 3502 miles) was 29.? MPG with a spike at 33 and a trough at 25.
sTc
Most things worth doing are worth doing twice. -- me I think or was that my boss' methodology?
Yes, turbo diesel cars get incredible mileage, but the particulate emissions -- despite dramatic improvements over the past decade -- still fall near the bottom of the heap.
So, if you want to improve your mileage to save a couple of hundred dollars a year and/or to reduce dependance on foreign oil, a diesel is definitely the car for you.
On the other hand, if you're concerned about that grey haze hanging low in the sky that you notice every morning driving to work and wonder about what it's doing to your lungs, you might want to consider other technologies.
Here are some handy and hopefully not dreadfully obvious tips for saving money on fuel.
clip and save
* Switch to a more economical car
if you have multiple cars in your household, you don't have to buy a new one, just make sure the person who drives the most gets the highest-mpg car.
or, if you have a recent model SUV, you may be able to trade it in and get a nice economical sedan, AND have money leftover.
when choosing a car, get the smallest engine available, combine it with a manual transmission (preferably a 5 or six speed, whichever has the highest final drive ratio), manual air conditioning, and no extra-weight accessories like a motorized sunroof, 14-way power seats, or trailer towing package for example.
It may make sense to choose a diesel or hybrid vehicle, but you need to compute the payback period, since these vehicles usually cost more to purchase, both in list price and in the lack of discounts because of limited availability. Consider a $3000 up front cost that saves $300 a year in fuel. If you aren't going to keep the car 10+ years then don't bother.
choose a car with a tachometer for sure, and even better find one with a dashboard display of mpg so you can adjust your driving habits in real time.
if you choose a normal gasoline engine car, check the owner's manual before you buy to make sure it doesn't require premium.
* Choose a sensible route to work
of course, for some people there is only one obvious way to get to work and back, but for others there may be some alternatives. drive the alternatives for a week each, make a note of driving time, exact distance, number of stoplights, fuel used, and whether there are convenient shops and malls along the way at which you can do your errands w/o having to go off course.
Generally, the shortest route that consists mainly of highway driving will be your best bet, then if necessary take an alternate route home on "errand day" that passes by your dry cleaners, grocery store, etc.
* Combine multiple trips
i'm about 5 miles from civilization (10 miles round trip) so if I can do three errands at once instead of one at a time, I can save 20 miles of driving. this is about 1 gallon in my car so about $2.00 at current gas prices.
if I can combine errands like this once a week at least that's $104 per year.
* Drive gently
get up to a maintainable cruising speed and keep it steady.
For automatic transmissions, accelerate in a manner that allows the transmission to shift fairly early.
For manual transmissions, shift early all the time, even if you have to press the gas pedal pretty far down to keep accelerating. pushing down the pedal 100% at 1500 rpm is more efficient than pushing it down half way at 3000 rpm. (neglecting the effect of non-linear throttles).
anticipate stop lights, traffic, and intersections then slow down in advance. when you lift your foot off the gas and coast, you are probably getting 100+ mpg for a short time. this is preferable to keeping your foot on the gas (e.g. 20 mpg) all the way up to the stoplight and then hitting the brakes, coming to a stop and getting
0 mpg. if you time it right you won't even have to spend the energy re-accelerating from a stop.
* Simple things that together add up to one or 2 mpg
turn off the a/c. climate control systems often leave the compressor running even if it is quite cold outside, so find the a/c button and turn it off. the climate control system will still function for heating and ventilation and when it actually does get hot you can turn the a/c back on just when you need it. some cars have an economy mode so use that in preference to the normal a/c. check the owner's manual as sometimes it isn't obvious how to engage the economy mode.
if you aren't worried about crime, lower your windows when parked on a warm day so you might not need the a/c when you get back in the car.
if you are a pack rat, clean out your car. the excess weig
My Chrysler LHS gets 23 in the city and 31 on the Interstate. This is a big 10 year old car. These hybrids should get way better than it. I'm glad I'm sticking with it instead of trying one of these "fuel efficient" things.
It is unbelievable that some US made vehicles ship with such large engine capacities. Some US vehicles seem to develop pathetic amounts of power for such a large displacement. Do they deliberately set out to make their vehicles inefficient? Also, looking at the aerodynamics, handling, suspension design, and general bulk of many US vehicles, Americans have only themselves to blame for their gross inefficiency and the absolutely dismal driving experience offered by many of those big american heaps of junk. I have driven many American cars, and have yet to find one that is refined, practical, and efficient that is offered on their domestic market.
Diesel looks to be the way to go - at least in the medium term - and maybe longer term too with biofuels (petrol vehicles can run on biofuels too - ethanol etc.) taking over. Sadly biofuels use lots of land to produce - hardly a magic solution.
Diesel engines are simply nicer to drive anyway. It is a shame for US consumers that the reputation of diesel engines was damaged so bady by the dismal creations of the US automotive industry in the 70s and 80s. My Passat TDI develops more power from a 1.9L engine than the 5.7L Cadillac diesel produced, and loads more torque. Modern turbo diesels are often quicker than their petrol equivelents in the same models of car (many big cars now have 0-60 times of 6-8 secs), and they offer the excellent low down torque which gives better drivability than the petrol equivelent. 75%+ (and growing) of the top end of the car market is diesel powered in Europe (by unit sales), with excellent high performance diesels from BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, and Mercedes. There are also a need breed of diesel performance vehicles in Europe like new Alfa Romeos. In addition, many smaller diesel vechicles are available from nearly every manufacturer.
Anyone having driven these cars, particularly at speed will instantly notice how much quieter they are at cruise speeds, and should appreciate the superiour fuel economy.
Having just disposed of my bulky petrol Saab in favour of a VW Passat diesel, I now get 51mpg around town - mostly in heavy stop-start traffic, and about 54-56mpg on long high speed runs. I don't know of any petrol vehicle of comparable size and displacement that can match both the performance and economy of a turbo diesel.
Diesel engines are also stronger and less complexed. Due to higher combustion pressures, they have a solid cast iron block. They are slower turning, and rev lower, so less mechanical wear. They have no ignition system or oxygen sensor - a primary cause of failures in petrol vehicles. In addition, they have lower exhaust gas temperature, so are kinder to the turbo. You also have the added advantage of the wonderful sound of (sadly getting to be hardly noticeable on modern engines) diesel clatter. Pilot injection practically eliminates this, but if you get a vehicle with separate turbo / exhaust downpipe, you get a nice audible whine from the turbocharger when you accelerate with the windows right down.
Incidently, there is no cloud of black smoke from modern diesels, contrary to the experience of many people from the US with their domestic products of past years. It is only because of the political corruption in the US, and the dominance of big business over American politicians that fuel standard there are so poor (look at high sulphur content etc), the tax conditions are so favourable to such grossly inefficient monster SUVs, and the fuel prices are so low.
Modern diesel technology is developing rapidly. In the next few years, expect to see this technology advance rapidly, cut emmissions still further, and particulates / nitrous oxide emmission to near negligable levels while increasing both power and torque significantly. I will never buy another petrol vehicle, and I hope people will at least test these vehicles before buying another petrol drinking monster.
...because the SUV drivers are also consuming the items you mention, so that part is a wash.
The SUV (or "yuppie truck" as I prefer to call them) is the bigger resource-sink, all other considerations being equal. Realize too that I *am* cutting slack on that last part since I'd be willing to bet the yuppie truck owners are consuming more of the other stuff too!
Good point about warning signs. Waaay back, I used to have a Porsche 914 (ie, a "VW/Porsche"), and always kept track of the mileage. One fillup, I noticed that it had gone way down, something like 30%. When I opened the engine compartment, it was pretty obvious why: Gasoline was dripping from one of the pipes.
Dodge Magnum!
340 Grocery go getting horses! All it needs is a ball hitch to tow Delaware to California.
The station wagon isn't dead, it was just taking a break.
I have 2 cars, an 85 BMW 325e & an 86 BMW 535i. Both are inline 6 cyl engines, 2.7 liter & 3.5 liter respectively. The 325e has 202K miles and the 535i has an unknown number of miles, I bought it with a broken odometer at 169K miles. I run Amsoil synthetic lubricants in both cars from the engine, to the transmission, to the diff. I also have the 2-stage rechargeable air filter from Amsoil. With the synthetic Amsoil lubricants in my car I go 7500 miles between oil changes. For the 325e I drive about 30K miles a year and that means 4 oil changes instead of 10. That means 20 quarts of oil instead of 50 quarts of oil that need to be disposed of. Also, there is the oil filters that need disposal so total 24 units of waste compared to 60(used oil + filters). As for the transmission and differentials I got 3 times the rated distance using Amsoil, so that is about 1/3 the waste as with petroleum gear oil & ATF. The 535i (with auto trans) is rated by the EPA at 16 city / 21 highway. With Amsoil I get 22 city / 25 highway. The highest I've seen is 27 mpg at 55mph with cruise control. For the 325e (manual trans) it is rated at 21 city / 28 highway. I get 26 city / 33 highway. The highest I've seen is 35 mpg. Other things I do to keep my cars running efficiently is every other oil change I do a valve adjustment, I run narrower tires 195/60/14 Nokian NRW all season tires) on both cars and rotate every other oil change. Also, I change the 02 sensors at the recommended interval of 30K miles. What's cool is my cars are almost 20 years old and they are just as if not more fuel efficient than most new cars (and all SUV's) coming off of the assembly line. By running Amsoil I also save time & money and reduce the amount of waste generated by my car. Better fuel economy means less pollution produced by my cars. On just fuel costs I save about $1392.25(@ $2.20 per gallon), or about 795.35 gallons of gasoline over 1 year (both cars total about 30K miles per year each and are 50/50 highway / city). The other cool thing about synthetic oil is it uses NO PETROLEUM base products. This means we do not need to import or use oil from the Middle East. If every car ran on synthetic oil and burned less fuel as a result we would reduce the amount of oil imported and less pollution in the air and in the ground from improperly disposed oil or capsized tankers etc etc.
Just my $0.02.
~ryan
Okay, how about we go over how the multi-car discounts work: Let's say you're an American male with one wife and 2.5 children, three cars, and a dog. The 2.5 children don't drive, and neither does the dog. You get a 2-3% discount because you have three vehicles under the same insurance. Okay, assuming that the insurance company is making, I don't work in the industry but I'll assume a reasonable 5-10% profit per policy, so they're still making a profit, just not as much.
Further enhancing the attractiveness of such a setup is the inherent stop-loss function of accidents - supposing that you get into a collision, you have, depending on your habits, let's say a 15-20% probability of being in the same vehicle as your wife, thus requiring double medical payouts but you'd have that problem anyway, and, fortunately, you only wrecked one vehicle. Supposing that you both crashed, that's two cars damaged, two drivers potentially injured, and sufficient injury to keep you off the road and/or suspension of your license will render the third vehicle safe from use. (I would imagine people like Jay Leno would get a similar discount because if he kills himself in one car, he can't very well go kill himself in another)
You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
States mandate minimum insurance coverage for individuals. The households who can least afford it pay a much HIGHER percentage of the vehicle's cost than the wealthier individuals who drive significantly more miles.
Also, they aren't operating at a profit for SUV policies. They are (or at least were up until recently) LOSING money. They are doing this to attract wealthy customers (the ones who buy SUVs).
Car-only customers rates stay the same, even though the cost of covering accidents is less. Car-only customers are in effect SUBSIDIZING the switch of consumers from cars to SUVs.
Many states have elected State Insurance Commissioners (or something similar) that have to okay these kinds of changes. Is it in their best interest to increase policy rates for the wealthiest individuals (and businesses) in the state?
Macabre fact: deaths are significantly cheaper for insurance companies than life threatening injuries. Isn't it in their best interest to increase the number of deaths and decrease the number of life threatening injuries?
Just so you've heard it, I think my neighbor runs his air conditioning way the hell too much. It's loud, and right underneath my window. It's been right at 70 degrees here the last three or four days, and his AC runs a lot. Mine's off.
I can't imagine how cold it is in his house. Anyway, just because you haven't seen the bitching doesn't mean some of us aren't concerned about wasting energy in general. Unlike with the SUVs, though, he pays the same rate I do for power and his AC unit. I don't think he gets a tax credit for keeping his home at meat-locker levels.
People should drive whatever they want. Or use their AC however much they want-- but they should pay the real cost. No tax credits for "business" SUVs. No exemptions from fuel economy or emissions laws for SUVs. Just like with the AC, if you want it, you pay for your use, including paying for any damage to the commons that your use causes.
As if OPEC can affect the US's oil supply independently of the rest of the world.
If you weren't born yesterday, you will remember the Asian financial crisis of 1998. During this time, oil demand from large parts of the Pacific rim cratered. OPEC didn't ship any more oil, but the USA was awash in the stuff and premium gas fell below $1/gallon in some places. It didn't matter what caused the surplus of supply over demand, the effect was that US prices went down and fed our economic boom. (No, it was not all the dot-bomb phenomenon; it had lots of help.)
Similarly, it wouldn't matter if the US stopped buying oil from the Middle East. Without some reduction in demand we'd still have to find oil somewhere, so the other oil we'd buy to replace it would come from a customer who would buy the Persian Gulf oil instead. The net consequence to supply/demand relationships would be zero.
The situation is similar if we cut our needs by the amount of "our" Persian Gulf imports. The effect of this is to cut world import demand by some small fraction. All OPEC would have to do is cut production by the same amount, and oil prices stay right where they are. The situation would not last long; China's oil demand is rising quickly and would quickly consume any savings, allowing OPEC to go right back to pumping as much as they want.
Neither should the "independence" of the US from OPEC oil be considered a triumph. So long as we import oil, we will be paying the world price for it. We do not own our foreign suppliers; they sell into a market at what the market will bear. Nobody is going to give us sweetheart deals if they can get something better. If OPEC action, terrorist attacks, or other events cause the world price of oil to spike, the USA will be paying the same price as everyone else.
The solution is to find sources of energy (or build systems for using energy) that are cheaper than oil and can substitute for oil. People will switch when it's cheaper than using oil, and to make this happen we need to charge the full cost of all oil-related problems to oil users.
Modern diesel engines are very competitive with gasoline engines when it comes to performance, and always outperform "gassers" in fuel economy. As an example, the Mercedes E320 CDI outdoes the gasoline E320 in many ways:
- 0-60mph acceleration (CDI 6.6 seconds, gas 7.1 sec);
- torque (CDI 369 lb-ft, gas 232 lb-ft);
- fuel economy (CDI 27 mpg city and 37 highway, gas 19 and 27).
The CDI has less horsepower (CDI 201, gas 221), but it outperforms the gasoline car. But, really, torque is what pushes the vehicle forward. More torque is good. Horsepower is more of an indication of your maximum speed.Given that the current land speed record for a pickup truck is held by a diesel, diesels can go very fast. In the case of the land speed record, the truck from Banks Power is street legal in California. It hauled its own team trailer to the Salt Flats, and then immediately made qualifying runs of 172 and 192 mph. After some "tuning," it set an official record of 217.314 mph. A peak speed on another run was 222 mph.
Slightly more mundane, but still impressive, is the speed records set by a production Honda Accord diesel. As the article states: Honda's new Accord 2.2 i-CTDi Sport has this week set no fewer than 19 world speed records and achieved 3.07 litres / 100 km (92 mpg) fuel economy to boot. (Note: Imperial gallon is 25% larger than U.S. gallon.)
So, you can pass all the gas cars on the Autobahn, in your diesel, and leave them really far behind because you don't have to stop to refill your tank!
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Besides the driving cycle being out-of-date, the simulated load of the car (aerodynamic drag and mass) is figured out by some very out-of-date and rough formulas.
The drag coefficient is guestimated by looking at a bunch of variables (ca. 1977) like whether the car has gutters, what angle the windshield is at, etc. The frontal area is measured by taping a square-foot sheet of cardboard to the front of the car and photographing it from 50 feet away. Thus cars with a short hood (like my old Element) get penalized.
Also, it is OK to not "keep up with traffic" in the test if your car is underpowered. To inflate their fuel economy ratings, Honda shifted up a gear at very low RPM, giving them insanely high numbers. Then they put a rule in place saying that you had to shift at x percent of redline, giving e.g. Ferraris incredibly low numbers (they did practically the whole test in first gear). So then automakers started putting in the "yellow line" (WTF?) that said you should really sorta kinda stay out of this RPM zone, but the engine won't break, and the rev limiter won't kick in for another few grand.
Bottom line, the EPA numbers have very little to do with reality. Take a look at C&D or Consumer Reports (or CAR if you're in the UK) to get more real-world numbers.
You really don't understand trolling, huh? What you say is supposed to inflame but be believable at the same time. A charicature (look it up) just doesn't work.
(And AR-15s are for girls. My grandmother gave hers away last year because it was too effeminate for her.)
Engine size, intake port size, squish ratio... blah blah blah. Why hasn't anyone mentioned throttle extension (and the lead-foot phenomenon)?
You won't burn much gas if the car is at idle.
Therefore propelling your car via the accelerator is why fuel is consumed (at any kind of rate). Watch how people drive sometime. Many floor it to the next red light then jam on their brakes. Few use as little as necessary to maintain flow of traffic / get where they're going.
How many people put their auto into neutral for long hills (or drive stick)?
Or accelerates at the optimum efficiency of the engine (two thirds to full open)?
Or uses depth of focus to determine the length of acceleration?
Or maintains a near empty fuel tank / trunk / backseat to reduce weight?
Or regularly checks their tires to make sure they're inflated to spec?
Or runs an injector cleaner through to ungunk?
Or swaps off winter tires, stat, because they drag like mad?
Or switches off the AC on mild days? Or runs the AC on the interstate (because AC may somtimes be more economical since window airflow increases drag)?
Or doesn't use the cruise because its un-economical?
Or buys gas on sale days?
To address the previous post, why try and modify behavior with a tax? Why not inform them on what they can do to increase efficiency? Taxes only upset the market.
BTW I drive a heavy, gutless, rugged (drivetrain is exceptional for class), dependable vehicle. A '95 Subaru Legacy 2.2L sedan. If only the rear brakes were designed a little better...
--
Don't spend more than 10% of the time on the problem. Devote 90% on the Solution
It's really this simple: America is FULL of OBESE people, now let me clairify that I am not talking about your run of the mill fat guy (or gal) I mean people who have their own gravitational pull.... stop making excuses for your lifestyle, if you are really that hindered by your girth there is really only one thing to do......... (drumroll) change it!! you don't need an SUV to get you to work unless you live at the end of a rock-strewn trail in the middle of the mountains (certain parts of Long Island don't count, sorry guys) You would think with the environmental devistation that we manage to pitch upon our planet on a daily basis we could put aside our egos in an effort to better our........ never mind
Not if the next 15 lights in a row are timed (like they are in SF)....
While i'm all about finding a car that matches your personality, my experence with toyotas has lead me to believe that they not only have spirit, but they have good karma. The cars i've owned have been econoboxes, not much in the way of acceleration but good high end speeds that can be maintained for hours at a time, till you run out of gas or america. I remember driving the 88 Celica All-Track turbo between seattle and portland in under two hours.
American cars drive nice and quiet. I imagine part of this is our use of cast pistons rather then forged. Forged are stronger but expand more when heated. Cast are often weaker but don't require the same warm up time, and seem to be more quiet. I wouldn't consider an American car though based on my obervations in the 80s/90s. Everyone I know that bought a Dodge or a Pontiac circa 1997/1998 now have blown headgaskets. This has gotta suck having to do engine work after only about 50,000 miles. Needless to say, while they had some faith in American cars in the 1990s, they are trading them in for imports.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Late last year my brother sat down with a couple of his fellows and ran through the economics of biodiesel. Short story: the only economical way to do it is to convert coal. The problems were; one, if you dominate a market as a consumer, your consumable becomes a commodity, thus mickie-D's waste oil will no longer be free...two, and this is the biggie....if you converted all(meaning ALL) of the farmland in the US from food production to strictly oilseed stock, it would supply California's energy needs for about 4 months. Yeah, you read that correctly...California, not the US's.
Oh, and by the way, if you do set up a biodiesel generator in you backyard and you use the stuff on the roads or commercially, you have to pay fuel taxes on it, IIRC 36.5 cents/gal.
I've heard that you can get rid of water by adding "gas line antifreeze" to your fuel. Makes your car smell bad though, but you shouldn't need to use it more than once.
It's the same idea behind sin taxes on tobacco products. Upset the market and modify people's behaviour. People don't think about their own health years down the road, but the money they have to spend today will get their attention.
Imagine if you had to pay $10 a gallon tomorrow. You'd start thinking of car pooling, driving less, trading to a more economical vehicle, public transit. A carbon tax that reflects the true long-term costs of gas guzzlers is needed.
Otherwise, good restatement of "oil is fungible". It is amazing how many so-called geeks are ignorant of such basic economic facts.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
...of a typical lying, bloviated rightwing A-hole.
Like Bill O'Reilly, for instance. Can't get more bloviated than that.
Uh. unless we look into the Bush family, of course.
A human being is worth $millions just economically speaking. Increased exposure to lethal risks is not worth fuel economy simply on cold economics. Armor your loved ones in SUVs. Fuel taxes literally kill. Europeans are foolishly impoverishing and killing themselves with their fuel prices, but what can you expect from societies that are so moribund as to sterilize themselves below replacement rates. I'm proud to be an American, in an American style (multinational Daimler-Chrysler manufactured) SUV, and a 15-passenger van for my family of 11.
I have the classic extension to what you have. There are streets where I live that work that way if you go 5 km/h over the speed limit, others at 10 km/h (and one I know of that works at 5 km/h under). So why do they reward you for breaking the law? The only thing I can figure is so the cops can ticket you...
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I currently drive an Audi TDI so am familiar with the issues and wheer I live, the temperature can drop to minus 15C overnight during winter and we do not have a problem starting.
OTOH, if you live at Scott Base, then you probably really do want gasoline.
See my journal, I write things there
My '92 Tojo Corolla DX wagon(1.4L w/5-speed)averages 35 mpg. The EPA sheet claims 25 city and 30 highway. I usually pull 38-41 on long highway runs at about 68 mph (2,800-3,000 rpm in fifth gear).
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
No, seriously, I've read that once a diesel vehicle is converted to using vegetable oil, you can prepare the vegetable oil in your own kitchen. The emissions would be better and, goodbye, Middle East dependence.
Would appreciate any comments, as I am seriously considering this alternative in the future. (I guess, co-ops could be set up to pump the vegetable oil into our vehicles.)
I haven't heard a whisper about this recently.
Is it because this is a new/old technology or is it because there are some serious problems that make this alternative not really viable for everyday driving??
Here's a question. When the weather gets cooler. What do you use to keep your faceplate from fogging up?
My Prius gets within the range of the EPA estimates... my last tank was 54 mpg. This is driving either with or faster than traffic... in a speed limit of 55 I am usually driving 70-80 and getting around 53+ mpg at those speeds. Here's my website for my Prius:
t ml
a y_ release.html?id=20040623
http://homepage.mac.com/priustech/Prius/Menu9.h
I traded a 2001 Prius for it... my lifetime average was about 47 (the combined EPA for the Classics was 48 mpg).
Toyota says that most Prius owners are getting above 45 mpg:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/displ
2001 Ford Focus zx3 automatic 2.0L Zetec (DOHC) 130hp/135ft-lb 30mpg city, 35mpg highway. It tends to go even higher during the summer.
Buy the case, veggie oil costs $8/gal.
;-)
Plus, if you run out in downtown Washington DC, you'd better have a metro card to get back home and brew up another pot, 'cause filling stations don't carry it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why does anything new/old automatically get labeled "stupid"?
New/"old" in that the original Model-T fords were built to run on veggie old but got redesigned due to the low cost of petroleum.
Did you just make my point again? Veggie oil is more expensive than pertrolium based fuels...by a factor of 8 or more. (That's gallon for gallon. I'm not sure what the available energy is in a gallon of vegetable oil, but it's probably not 8 fold gasoline)
I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying its not economical. Veggie deisel looks kinda neat, but so do batteries or solar, they're just not quite prime-time.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Okay here goes: Petroleum was say 35 cents per gallon many years ago, now it is up to 2 dollars a gallon or more. How cheap is that?!
Restaurants pay to have their french fry oil hauled away. Hence, they give it away to those who ask.
Two college students converted a VW truck to oil in S. Dak. and drove it all the way back to Minn. on converted oil they obtained free from restaurants. How dumb is that??
That is what got me interested in the new/old concept.
There's a lot of controversy over the EPA mileage ratings for cars - understating the higher mileages to make the lower mileage SUVs look better. But the real scandal is the EPA emissions ratings.
I looked into buying a 1989 BMW 325i. The EPA said it would produce 9.7 tons of CO2 per year. I thought that was pretty high, especially for a 2864lb vehicle. But when I ran their own numbers, it turns out to cough out just under 93,200 pounds of CO2 per year, almost 5 times the EPA spec.
Their annual 15,000 miles costs them $1625 for regular gas at $2.06, or about 789 gallons. At under 6.5lbs:gal, that's under 5130lbs of gas:year. Some DOE chemists say that the weight of gasoline's carbon (12) plus 2 atmospheric oxygen (2*16) molecules in each product CO2 molecule mean that the CO2 weighs 18 times the input gasoline. The 2864lb car therefore produces just under 92,300lbs CO2 per year, over 32 times its own weight *every year* - almost 700 tons of Greenhouse insulation since it rolled out of its Bavarian nest 15 years ago.
How much of the atmosphere am I tainting? If I used this stuff the fast way, huffing it in my garage (at Standard Temperature and Pressure), its 0.1144lbs:ft^3 would fill a cube about 100 feet on a side. Dispersed to somewhere over 0.033% of the volume of the atmosphere, that's 3000 of those 100' cubes a year - 3 1000' cubes - 3 billion cubic feet - stretching 300,000' to the "top" of the atmosphere (past 50mi), my dirty air stands on 10,000sq': 100' on a side. Every year I cover almost a quarter acre with dirty air that's killing me slowly. In the 15 years it's been burning, it's covered about 3.5 acres; about 300 million Americans doing that would account for half the total CO2 covering the 48 "temperate" states... 100% of the total across my lifetime... if only we kept the CO2 to ourselves.
Over 46 tons of CO2 per year? That's almost *5 times* the car's EPA spec of 19400lbs CO2. Where do they get that number? They claim that they're getting the numbers from the DOE lab "GREET" model - so on top of the 46 tons CO2 spewing from my car, there's production, refining, distribution of gasoline, plus NO2 and methane (CH4) - probably at least 50 tons! If they're using the superlow CO2 ratings in their environmental "planning", maybe we're a lot farther down the road to hell than even sensible alarmists believed. Get Christie Whitman out here - she's got a lot of 'splainin' to do!
--
make install -not war