How many new cars get an honest 40mpg?

[Drew99GT]

Tater, you're getting better fuel mileage by using tires that are a hair larger in diameter? I've been thinking about doing that on my Corolla - stock is 185/65-14 like yours. Plus, for some reason, the 185/70-14 size is about 5 to 10 bucks cheaper/tire. I calculated that at 70 mph, I'd be running about 200 rpm less, and already at 3500 rpm at 75 mph.

You related to tatersalad???!!

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: badtlc
2008 Ford Focus with a Manual would do it easily. If you really do keep it to 60mph or less, the focus sees 45+mpg regularly.


Do you have one that's doing so (or data showing supporting this)? That's a full 10 mpg better than the EPA highway figure for the car. . . .


Thats based on ME driving my mother's 2008 focus for a few weekends.

EPA estimates are a croc. All they did by changing the method was help the [censored]-poor wasteful drivers out there feel justified with their [censored] gas mileage. At least the old EPA numbers made those people ask why they were getting [censored] mileage and raise SOME attention to the fact their driving style is wasteful.


Easy there -- just asking where your #s came from. I'm well aware of the controversy surrounding the EPA numbers (I regularly beat them too). OTOH, a full 10 mpg above EPA is right up there, so not an unreasonable question from me. Good on you for working a Focus up to this level.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
Originally Posted By: badtlc

What is "to the tank numbers?"


What I mean is drive the entire tank and fill up whats the mileage, rather then the "butt dyno" for mileage. I can tell you tank to tank what my car has gotten for the last 2 years. Lowest was 31.1 while I was in Athens, Ga 2 weeks ago best was 49.4 on the way there when I filled up in Fayetteville, NC after visiting family overnight.

If I was counting just what it gets on the highway I could say 56.1 which is what it did for 8 miles per my scanguage. I don't see that as accurate compared to 41-42mpg that I get each week when I calculate my mileage after I fill up.


Well those numbers are from 3 different tanks of gas. All 3 were calculated by taking the # of miles on the tank and dividing by the gallons used. The fill ups were all at the same pump, too. I dont know how on earth you can calculate mpg using a butt dyno. That is just retarded.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: badtlc
2008 Ford Focus with a Manual would do it easily. If you really do keep it to 60mph or less, the focus sees 45+mpg regularly.


Do you have one that's doing so (or data showing supporting this)? That's a full 10 mpg better than the EPA highway figure for the car. . . .


Thats based on ME driving my mother's 2008 focus for a few weekends.

EPA estimates are a croc. All they did by changing the method was help the [censored]-poor wasteful drivers out there feel justified with their [censored] gas mileage. At least the old EPA numbers made those people ask why they were getting [censored] mileage and raise SOME attention to the fact their driving style is wasteful.


Easy there -- just asking where your #s came from. I'm well aware of the controversy surrounding the EPA numbers (I regularly beat them too). OTOH, a full 10 mpg above EPA is right up there, so not an unreasonable question from me. Good on you for working a Focus up to this level.


It was easy. This thing just censors out the word c-r-a-p.

 

[BrianWC]

tater you run a scangauge II?

 

[Cup of Joe]

Originally Posted By: BrianWC
tater you run a scangauge II?


I have an SG but I don't run it per'say. It glitch's the ecm controlling the transmission. I worked with linear logics techincal department and have tried 2 different SG's and 2 ecm's it always glitch's. Because of that I run it when I need it checking gauges and what not but mostly its in the glove box. It works perfectly in all my other cars just not my daily car.

 

[Cup of Joe]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Tater, you're getting better fuel mileage by using tires that are a hair larger in diameter? I've been thinking about doing that on my Corolla - stock is 185/65-14 like yours. Plus, for some reason, the 185/70-14 size is about 5 to 10 bucks cheaper/tire. I calculated that at 70 mph, I'd be running about 200 rpm less, and already at 3500 rpm at 75 mph.

You related to tatersalad???!!


Yes the diameter is larger almost 1 inch. Stock was 23.5 new tires are 24.3 speedo slowed down 3 mph (my speedo was slow 3 mph right off the lot) and my odometer is off 7.8%. I have LRR tires, dunlop SP20FE so I cannot tell you how much difference is from the size change and how much is the low rolling resistance. The price was within 1 dollar of the OEM tires that had worn out of round.

You are turning wicked high rpm's compared to me, at 80 I was doing roughly 3k revs. The change in rpm was only about 100 maybe 150 revs for me but different car different transmission. But the tires have made a serious difference, it was tough to get 41's on my OEM tires now well see below.

tank 1 355.63 miles 9.75 gallons = 36.47mpg
tank 2 433.03 miles 8.17 gallons = 53.00mpg
total 788.66 miles 17.92 gallons= 44.01mpg

The pump was wicked slow on tank 1 so I was over full to the point it ran down the car and on the ground. Filled up again on the way home same pump now working correctly which is tank 2. Tank 1 should have only been 8 something gallons. I also found my missing receipt from my Athens trip and my mileage came up to over 39mpg for the entire trip going 80-85mph there and back with a really bad tank in athens.

 

[Cup of Joe]

Shoot caught it to late, I meant my speedo was fast 3mph not slow already now its dead on.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles

I have an SG but I don't run it per'say. It glitch's the ecm controlling the transmission.


Out of curiosity, what model car is it and what exactly did it do to the trans computer?

 

[Cup of Joe]

2006 Kia Rio automatic I always thought it was unlocking the torque converter until recently when it has happened under acceleration in 2nd gear (torque converter is not locked in 1st, 2nd or 3rd gears. Now I think the ecm is glitching with the request from the SG and causing the transmission to slip into neutral for a split second. According to the SG the rpms read as 5443 everytime it happens even though the revs never rise that high. I also have a spare 06 ecm same situation with that ecm as well. I cannot comment on 07 or 08's. The trans ecm is integrated in the engine ecm.

 

[Tornado Red]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
VW TDIs are not able to be sold in the Northeast and California, since they can't meet NOx emissions requirements in those states. This will change in 2009 or 2010 with new emission technology.

Around here 2002 TDIs go for a lot.

Unlike gasoline VWs, TDIs are much more reliable.

Correct about TDI reliability... but the problem was never with the cars, it was always the weak dealership service. Too many untrained mechanics, pressured to work too fast.

The 2009 Jetta TDI is currently being delivered to dealerships. Each dealership is getting ONE this month, so prospective buyers can take it out for a test drive. The first real deliveries should come in July. The Jetta TDI Sportwagon should not be much later. They will be sold in all 50 states.

 

[Mucho_MPG]

Buy a VW if you like watching it being hoisted up on the service lift quite often. So very unreliable....

 

[Tornado Red]

As you can see from my sig, I put a lot of miles on my Golf. It's my only vehicle, it's my work vehicle. The secret to its reliability is simple -- I stay away from VW dealerships whenever possible.

 

[Mucho_MPG]

Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
The secret to its reliability is simple -- I stay away from VW dealerships whenever possible.

 

[Cutehumor]

diesel fuel costs more than the reg gas. hybrid saves there over the long run?

 

[mstrjon32]

I recently returned from a trip to Germany where we rented a Peugeot 207SW 5-speed diesel. We drove it about 1200km, including a nice mix of city driving and autobahn driving with speeds up to 175km/h for extended periods of time (did I mention I love Germany?)

It averaged 4.2L/100km according to the onboard trip computer which works out to 56 mpg. If you've already forgotten from the last sentence that was with 100 mph+ driving. It was comfortable, attractive, and spacious. It did better than any of the stupid hybrids they sell here and did it with out the unnecessarily complex drivetrain.

French or not, I'd take that Peugeot long before I took a hybrid.

 

[saaber1]

Originally Posted By: mstrjon32
I recently returned from a trip to Germany where we rented a Peugeot 207SW 5-speed diesel...56 mpg.


Thanks for posting this! I too am blown away by how this type of mileage is "normal" for Europe whereas here people are begging companies to bring over anything fuel efficient. The thing I keep seeing is that manufacturers believe that americans will never accept "putting their foot to the floor" for normal driving.

In other words, we are used to big lazy engines and not small, high-revving engines matched to manual transmissions. They are probably right but there has to be enough of us that love manuals and don't mind revving the p.i.s.s out of it once and a while (for small gas engines I mean) that they can bring these cars over. We need them!

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: mstrjon32
I recently returned from a trip to Germany where we rented a Peugeot 207SW 5-speed diesel...56 mpg.


Thanks for posting this! I too am blown away by how this type of mileage is "normal" for Europe whereas here people are begging companies to bring over anything fuel efficient. The thing I keep seeing is that manufacturers believe that americans will never accept "putting their foot to the floor" for normal driving.

In other words, we are used to big lazy engines and not small, high-revving engines matched to manual transmissions. They are probably right but there has to be enough of us that love manuals and don't mind revving the p.i.s.s out of it once and a while (for small gas engines I mean) that they can bring these cars over. We need them!


It is because the US has the highest emission standards and the highest safety standards. The safety standards add a lot of extra weight. The emissions standards force engines to be tuned far from max efficiency. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[wapacz]

In my understanding when it comes for diesels the US concentrates more on the NOx emissions and less on the particulate while Europe is the opposite.

Also some places you have to watch the conversions of gallons. As at least in UK the gallon is bigger than what we call a gallon in the US.

But yeah I want a small turbo engine. Like the 1.6 turbo that gm put in the astra. It has 180 hp and a 5 second overboost that supposedly makes it feel much more responsive. Then at the same time it is only a 1.6 liter engine so when its not getting boosted it has to get decent milage.

 

[glennc]

Originally Posted By: mstrjon32
I recently returned from a trip to Germany where we rented a Peugeot 207SW 5-speed diesel....

It averaged 4.2L/100km according to the onboard trip computer which works out to 56 mpg.

French or not, I'd take that Peugeot long before I took a hybrid.


I had a very similar experience with an Alfa diesel a couple of years ago. Not only was the economy great but the torque of the 140hp turbodiesel made it feel considerably faster than much more powerful cars when driving around town or accelerating in high gear. It felt genuinely quick.

I was not able to match the mileage figures you quote, but I could keep it in the 4.xl/100km range when driving easy and usually around or under 6l/100km when driving fast on the highways. So, say 40-50mpg typical.

One thing that does diminish the appeal is the premium that has appeared in the US for diesel fuel.