MPG; Don't Jump from the Frying Pan into the Fire

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
Our 2006 Taurus got 17 mpg on the last tank, worse than my 3/4 ton quad cab 4x4 diesel pickup has gotten recently, but we live on a hill and more ethanol has been added to gas lately. The Taurus is in good shape, with fairly fresh plugs, rgeular fluid and air filter changes, 35 psi tires, etc.


Somethings wrong with the poor thing. We owned a 1990 Mercury Sable wagon for ten years (we had the 3.0L variant), and I can't recall the thing ever going under 20 mpgs, and it was used the vast majority of the time in urban conditions.

Truck, you seem to be on a zealous campaign to either repeal the law of physics or justify using a full-size pickup as a commuter car -- not sure which. As to the first, you're going to have to go to a MUCH higher authority than you'll find here. As to the second, do whatever floats your boat and what you can afford. Beyond that, consider what you're asking us to accept -- that a 5-6k thousand pound vehicle takes less fuel to move from A to B than a 3k thousand pound vehicle does. Do you not see why you're getting some resistance against your insistence on this point???

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

"As to the first, you're going to have to go to a MUCH higher authority than you'll find here."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Colonel, I'm still here.

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
Our 2006 Taurus got 17 mpg on the last tank, worse than my 3/4 ton quad cab 4x4 diesel pickup has gotten recently, but we live on a hill and more ethanol has been added to gas lately. The Taurus is in good shape, with fairly fresh plugs, rgeular fluid and air filter changes, 35 psi tires, etc.


Somethings wrong with the poor thing. We owned a 1990 Mercury Sable wagon for ten years (we had the 3.0L variant), and I can't recall the thing ever going under 20 mpgs, and it was used the vast majority of the time in urban conditions.

Truck, you seem to be on a zealous campaign to either repeal the law of physics or justify using a full-size pickup as a commuter car -- not sure which. As to the first, you're going to have to go to a MUCH higher authority than you'll find here. As to the second, do whatever floats your boat and what you can afford. Beyond that, consider what you're asking us to accept -- that a 5-6k thousand pound vehicle takes less fuel to move from A to B than a 3k thousand pound vehicle does. Do you not see why you're getting some resistance against your insistence on this point???


The difference today is we in NJ are forced to use ethanol gas. This has reduced my mpg by a lot and yet ethanol's reduced mpg is not reflected in the pump price here. "F" the b*stard politicians. We are forced to pay extra money yet today's vehicles don't need ethanol gas to pass the emission tests. It's a total political crock of sh*t! The use of ethanol actually raises NOX emissions over using "real gas".

Whimsey

 

[1sttruck]

"We owned a 1990 Mercury Sable wagon for ten years (we had the 3.0L variant), and I can't recall the thing ever going under 20 mpgs, and it was used the vast majority of the time in urban conditions."

Do you live on a 700 ft hill ? Did the gas at the time have lots of ethanol in it ? The 99 Taurus was getting less than 20 mpg in the winter, but my son and I got 32 mpg on a highway road trip. Nothing is wrong the car, it's where we live, the current fuel, and city driving. The old EPA estimate for the 2006 Taurus was 20 mpg city, if it was still made it'd be less than that, so 17 mpg is in line with city mpg estimates.

I've never got less than 17 mpg in the truck, never got better than 21 mpg, no matter what it's loaded with, highway only or city only. If it doesn't square with your world view well sorry, that's just the way things are.

What it does point out is the apparently typical small vehicle 'monkey trap', where a peanut is placed in a coconut, the coconut staked down, and when the monkey grabs the peanut you have him because he just won't let go of the peanut. In this case people don't seem to be able to distinguish demonstrated fuel economy as being different from vehicle size, and they'll refuse to believe that their 'not a SUV' small vehicle gets as bad or worse mileage than a vehicle that weighs twice as much.

Again, sorry if the crummy mileage that a lot of small vehicles get doesn't square with your world view, but that's just the way things are.

 

[crinkles]

Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
That can not be right I drive my 2003 Camry I4 like I just stole it and the lowest I have ever gotten was 26MPG in it and my Interstate averqage is like 32 or 34 MPG and that was on my way to Florida. So people would have to be driveing like John Force to get numbers that bad or their vechiles are all poorly maintained!! I maintain my vechile like it is going to save my life some day maybe that is why I get such great milage.

My Dodge Dakota 4X4 used to get 21 average but my best was 24MPG and my worst was 19. My Dad drives his Tacoma like he stole it and he never gets lower then 22 and My Moms Tundra wich she drives very easy turns in about 19MPG on average. So those numbers are not right!!


John, there must be a huge difference in the engine management systems between US and Australian I4's. I typically get around 25 MPG combined cycle, best ever is 30.5 MPG on the open road.

Reason I say this is, a lot of things that should be happending due to enigne electronic control just aren't. like, if the coolant is not up to temp, it is not supposed to shift to O/D. yet it does - I can click the overdrive off and it will shift up so it must have been in O/D while I'm just 2 minutes away from base. Also, under cruise control switching O/D off supposedly won't allow engine braking because cruise control is activated, but, it does brake the engine when I have cruise on and sitch O/D off.

So I blame my poor Australian mileage on ECM not being there, or bad fuel, or 10w30 oil??

ANother thing, Scanguage II does not work in my car thats another reason why I think the ECM isn't quite there...

edit: I do maintain religiously, I don't know what more I can do. The sprak plugs for my camry are just the regualr ones, not iridium, maybe that would help?

 

[1sttruck]

http://cars.about.com/b/2008/04/01/toyota-announces-non-hybrid-prius-v6.htm

Toyota announces non-hybrid Prius V6 Tuesday April 1, 2008
Toyota has announced a new version of the Prius that will be powered by a V6 engine and conventional automatic transmission in place of the standard four-cylinder hybrid powertrain.

"Our research shows that many people buy a Prius because they want to project the image of being environmentally friendly," says a Toyota spokesperson. "The Prius V6 bestows the same 'green chic' while delivering the performance and acceleration of a conventional mid-size sedan."

The Prius V6 will use the 3.5 liter 268 horsepower engine from the Toyota Camry. In place of the HYBRID badge, the Prius V6 will get a HY6RID badge -- which, according to Toyota, stands for "High-performance 6-cylinder Racing Inspired Design."

EPA fuel economy estimates for the Prius V6 will be 17 MPG city/25 MPG highway, compared to 48 city/45 highway for the Prius hybrid. "Those are still respectable fuel economy figures," says the Toyota rep. "I mean, it's not like they're driving a Seq -- er, a Suburban." -- Aaron Gold



http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123842/pageId=133351

The as-tested prices of the vehicles range from a low of $27,245 for the Malibu to a high of $32,545 for the Altima.

2008 EPA Fuel Economy City, mpg 17 19 19* 19*
2008 EPA Fuel Economy Hwy, mpg 26 29 26* 28*

 

[1sttruck]

What can tow 12k lbs, do high tens in the 1/4 mile, and get over 30 mpg ? A Dodgemaha; driving a Dodge diesel 1/2 time and a 600cc sport bike 1/2 time commuting (believe it or not neither will really get that good of mileage towing or running the 1/4 mile). Anyway, I've been running the numbers to see if it makes sense to get a vehicle with better mileage for the 10k a year commute. At $5 a gallon and assuming 45 mpg for a Prius it will take 12 years to break even at a $20k purchase price, remember it's incremental mileage improvement over what I'm getting now, but I suspect the mileage is too optimistic and it looks like the cost is too. At 37 mpg and $23k it would take 16 years to break even. Bikes cost less so that's what I'm looking at, even though I couldn't drive it year around.


http://thegreenagenda.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-toyota-prius-test-drive-experience.html

Fuel efficiency was a let down. Maybe it's because I was driving in the burbs, but I couldn't see how the Prius could get me stellar fuel efficiency unless you drive it primarily in congestion during commutes to and from downtown. After driving for slightly more than 6 miles around the South Hills, my final MPG was 37. That is great compared to what I get now, but I could purchase a gas powered VW Gulf that gets about the same fuel efficiency.

The price was a little steep. The base price of the Prius was around $23,000. After accounting for options the retail price was around $28,000. The car was equipped with a $5,000 package that included DVD navigation and a camera that shows you what is behind you when you are driving in reverse. These are extras that some people do not mind paying for but I'm trying to keep my monthly payments low. I'll take the free map and rear view mirror for $0, thank you very much.

 

[swalve]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
http://cars.about.com/b/2008/04/01/toyota-announces-non-hybrid-prius-v6.htm

Toyota announces non-hybrid Prius V6 Tuesday April 1, 2008
Toyota has announced a new version of the Prius that will be powered by a V6 engine and conventional automatic transmission in place of the standard four-cylinder hybrid powertrain.

"Our research shows that many people buy a Prius because they want to project the image of being environmentally friendly," says a Toyota spokesperson. "The Prius V6 bestows the same 'green chic' while delivering the performance and acceleration of a conventional mid-size sedan."

The Prius V6 will use the 3.5 liter 268 horsepower engine from the Toyota Camry. In place of the HYBRID badge, the Prius V6 will get a HY6RID badge -- which, according to Toyota, stands for "High-performance 6-cylinder Racing Inspired Design."

EPA fuel economy estimates for the Prius V6 will be 17 MPG city/25 MPG highway, compared to 48 city/45 highway for the Prius hybrid. "Those are still respectable fuel economy figures," says the Toyota rep. "I mean, it's not like they're driving a Seq -- er, a Suburban." -- Aaron Gold



http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123842/pageId=133351

The as-tested prices of the vehicles range from a low of $27,245 for the Malibu to a high of $32,545 for the Altima.

2008 EPA Fuel Economy City, mpg 17 19 19* 19*
2008 EPA Fuel Economy Hwy, mpg 26 29 26* 28*


Note the date of the article...

 

[BrianWC]

Yep, date should be a give away to anyone not desperate to poke holes in the Prius. As for the second article, I could drive 6 miles in almost anything and get 37 mpg. That's a real thorough test.

 

[BrianWC]

1sttruck, you are correct about your last post. If people would only drive what they need when they need it, their fuel bill could go waaay down. I jus wish I was brave enough to commute on the interstate on a motorcycle and then switch it out at home before picking up the kids from school.

 

[1sttruck]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/seda...ison/index.html

Comparison: 2008 Honda Civic vs. 2008 Mazda 3 vs. 2008 Subaru Impreza vs. 2009 Toyota Corolla
Economy class: Earning frequent-flyer miles needn't be painful

For this test, we established the following ground rules: Losers from the last small-car comparison (July 2007) were not invited back, meaning no Hyundai Elantra, Mitsubishi Lancer, or Nissan Sentra. Further, each had to be all-new or recently freshened, carry a base price within a few bills of 20 large, and be powered by a four-cylinder engine. Oh, and lest we forget, they had to shift as most Americans prefer-automatically. In fact, the take rate for automatics among our contestants, whether actual or forecast, ranges from 72 percent for the Impreza to 93 percent for the Corolla, with the Civic and 3 filling the void at 82 percent.


MT fuel economy

2008 Honda Civic EX 25.0 mpg
2008 Mazda 3s Grand Touring 20.9 mpg
2008 Subaru Impreza 2.5i Premium 20.9 mpg
2009 Toyota Corolla XRS 22.3 mpg

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_0805_2007_honda_crv_update/index.html

Long Term Update: 2007 Honda CR-V

Avg econ/CO2 21.9 mpg/0.89 lb/mi

 

[Cutehumor]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
http://cars.about.com/b/2008/04/01/toyota-announces-non-hybrid-prius-v6.htm

Toyota announces non-hybrid Prius V6 Tuesday April 1, 2008
Toyota has announced a new version of the Prius that will be powered by a V6 engine and conventional automatic transmission in place of the standard four-cylinder hybrid powertrain.

"Our research shows that many people buy a Prius because they want to project the image of being environmentally friendly," says a Toyota spokesperson. "The Prius V6 bestows the same 'green chic' while delivering the performance and acceleration of a conventional mid-size sedan."

The Prius V6 will use the 3.5 liter 268 horsepower engine from the Toyota Camry. In place of the HYBRID badge, the Prius V6 will get a HY6RID badge -- which, according to Toyota, stands for "High-performance 6-cylinder Racing Inspired Design."

EPA fuel economy estimates for the Prius V6 will be 17 MPG city/25 MPG highway, compared to 48 city/45 highway for the Prius hybrid. "Those are still respectable fuel economy figures," says the Toyota rep. "I mean, it's not like they're driving a Seq -- er, a Suburban." -- Aaron Gold



http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123842/pageId=133351

The as-tested prices of the vehicles range from a low of $27,245 for the Malibu to a high of $32,545 for the Altima.

2008 EPA Fuel Economy City, mpg 17 19 19* 19*
2008 EPA Fuel Economy Hwy, mpg 26 29 26* 28*


that's gotta be a joke, right??

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Civic with only 25.0MPG?? Did they measure that MPG while driving in downtown Chicago rush hour traffic during a blizzard? That's absurd MPG for such a car!

 

[BrianWC]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor

that's gotta be a joke, right??


Yes, for those who are missing it, that was an April Fools Day post.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"We owned a 1990 Mercury Sable wagon for ten years (we had the 3.0L variant), and I can't recall the thing ever going under 20 mpgs, and it was used the vast majority of the time in urban conditions."

Do you live on a 700 ft hill ? Did the gas at the time have lots of ethanol in it ? The 99 Taurus was getting less than 20 mpg in the winter, but my son and I got 32 mpg on a highway road trip. Nothing is wrong the car, it's where we live, the current fuel, and city driving. The old EPA estimate for the 2006 Taurus was 20 mpg city, if it was still made it'd be less than that, so 17 mpg is in line with city mpg estimates.

I've never got less than 17 mpg in the truck, never got better than 21 mpg, no matter what it's loaded with, highway only or city only. If it doesn't square with your world view well sorry, that's just the way things are.

What it does point out is the apparently typical small vehicle 'monkey trap', where a peanut is placed in a coconut, the coconut staked down, and when the monkey grabs the peanut you have him because he just won't let go of the peanut. In this case people don't seem to be able to distinguish demonstrated fuel economy as being different from vehicle size, and they'll refuse to believe that their 'not a SUV' small vehicle gets as bad or worse mileage than a vehicle that weighs twice as much.

Again, sorry if the crummy mileage that a lot of small vehicles get doesn't square with your world view, but that's just the way things are.


Truck, I don't have an agenda, nor do I have any "world view" concerning mpgs of cars, trucks, or whatever. It is you who campaign endlessly to justify owning and using a full-size pickup as a passenger mover. Why so sensitive about this??? In all honesty, I really don't care if you use a Peterbuilt tractor to drive your family around in -- it's your money and it's a free country.

My comment was merely based upon my ten year observation of the behavior of our Vulcan-powered Sable wagon. Your numbers appear most unusual, given our experience. I'll agree that your operational circumstances were different from ours, and that may account for differences. But don't expect to post unusual numbers and have no one ask questions. This is a discussion board. And no need for launching into a diatribe about "world views" just because someone asks a question. Again, why so sensitive?

 

[swalve]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Truck, I don't have an agenda, nor do I have any "world view" concerning mpgs of cars, trucks, or whatever. It is you who campaign endlessly to justify owning and using a full-size pickup as a passenger mover. Why so sensitive about this??? In all honesty, I really don't care if you use a Peterbuilt tractor to drive your family around in -- it's your money and it's a free country.


When you can't argue facts, attack motivation. They use that in politics all the time.

 

[1sttruck]

"Truck, you seem to be on a zealous campaign to either repeal the law of physics or justify using a full-size pickup as a commuter car -- not sure which."

The point I've been trying to make is that it's not the size of the vehicle, it's the mileage, but people just won't let go of vehicle size. If I drove a performance car or minivan and got the same mileage no one would say a thing, but people do think it's their obligation to save the earth by scolding large vehicle owners.

The more I look into mileage, the more I talk to coworkers and frieds, the more apparent it becomes that a lot of people get similar mileage that I do in the city, with vehicles weighing half as much. Why ? Look at some of the reviews that I posted, say the one on mid size cars, where they were comparing 1/4 mile times. When I was driving bikes 'squiddly 'was a term for newbies who were trying to do the race replica thing, but squids can hold their heads up high compared to the weenies who are looking at Camry 1/4 mile times. All of the mid sized sedans tested have more hp than my 9000lb gvw pickup.

If people are concerned about fuel mileage then be concerned about fuel mileage, otherwise just say you don't like large vehicles becauise they're large.

 

[1sttruck]

Below are some 'pivot table' results of the 2008 EPA data. I looked at the average combined mpg of vehicle type and make vs number of cylinders, and the 'pivot table' will average all of the vehicles so selected. For instance the overall average combined mpg for 6 cyl 2wd minivans is 17.9 mpg, the overall average for 6cyl compact cars is 20 mpg, both pretty humble for such small vehicles.

6 cyl MINIVAN 2WD 17.9
BUICK 19.0
CHEVROLET 17.3
CHRYSLER 17.4
DODGE 17.4
HONDA 19.0
HYUNDAI 18.0
KIA 18.0
NISSAN 19.0
TOYOTA 19.0


6 cyl COMPACT CARS 20.0
AUDI 20.0
BMW 20.3
HONDA 21.0
JAGUAR 18.0
LEXUS 23.0
MERCEDES-BENZ 19.4
PONTIAC 20.0
SAAB 18.5
SUBARU 20.0
TOYOTA 21.0
VOLKSWAGEN 20.0

4 cyl COMPACT CARS 24.5
ACURA 22.5
AUDI 23.3
CHEVROLET 26.5
CHRYSLER 21.8
FORD 28.0
HONDA 30.3
HYUNDAI 28.5
KIA 29.0
MAZDA 25.5
MITSUBISHI 24.0
PONTIAC 25.0
SAAB 22.0
SUBARU 21.3
SUZUKI 23.5
TOYOTA 27.5
VOLKSWAGEN 24.5

6 cyl SMALL PICKUP TRUCKS 2WD 17.3
FORD 17.3
MAZDA 17.3
NISSAN 17.0
TOYOTA 17.5

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
...

The point I've been trying to make is that it's not the size of the vehicle, it's the mileage, but people just won't let go of vehicle size.
Yes, it's the mileage. You insist that your critics are harping on size (perhaps some are), but most of us wonder why, if outstanding mileage is really important, why not drive a vehicle that actually gets outstanding mileage? Big pickups aren't as awful as a lot of hard-core greenies think, but really, arguing their "fuel economy" is tilting against windmills. And when the car makers get serious about CAR fuel economy (when we really demand it), and they start gearing them the way trucks and SUVs, then the list of mid-size cars with mediocre fuel economy will shrink quickly.

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
If I drove a performance car or minivan and got the same mileage no one would say a thing, but people do think it's their obligation to save the earth by scolding large vehicle owners.
1) I'd feel sorry for you because of your fuel economy, irrespective of what you were driving; 2) I save the earth by doing my job, not pestering people for driving inefficient vehicles. In the end, I'll leave it to economic forces to do the "scolding" on this front.

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
The more I look into mileage, the more I talk to coworkers and frieds, the more apparent it becomes that a lot of people get similar mileage that I do in the city, with vehicles weighing half as much. Why ? ...
The more I look into it, the more relieved I am to drive a high-efficiency vehicle. Sure, it's great that the trucks are geared so that in town they approach car mpgs, but that overlooks that given present fuel prices, both are, at least in my opinion, awful.

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
If people are concerned about fuel mileage then be concerned about fuel mileage, otherwise just say you don't like large vehicles becauise they're large.

What exactly is the logic here? Whether or not one is concerned about fuel economy has little bearing on whether or not one likes or dislikes large cars. Some of use who care about fuel econ care about vehicle size, and some of don't. Hey, for the first year I owned the Prius, it was garaged next to my wife's Sequoia.

No truck, most of us don't bug you because you drive and defend a large truck, we bug you because frequently go so far in defending your preference that you trample logic into oblivion.

Seriously, have a good weekend.

 

[1sttruck]

"The more I look into it, the more relieved I am to drive a high-efficiency vehicle. Sure, it's great that the trucks are geared so that in town they approach car mpgs, but that overlooks that given present fuel prices, both are, at least in my opinion, awful."

I agree, and find that once people have to really pay for their ride they are starting to realize it too, and sometimes will even acknowledge it. It's also why I'm looking at ways to lower the cost of driving. One of the bikes I'm considering will get over 60 mpg commuting, when driven legal. A coworker has been getting 64 mpg on his, which averagred with my 18 mpg if used 1/2 time would result in over 40 mpg combined. Not bad, still having the truck as well as zipping around when desired. But, I'm leaning towards faster, less grown up bikes, ones that might only get 50 mpg commuting.