|
OBAMNA PHONE posted:You mean the rated mileage right? Because most people are not hitting those numbers, especially if it's a heavy vehicle or has a big engine It's a mixed bag. The EPA highway test is in general, slower than most people drive. Car and Driver and Consumer Reports both do their own independent fuel economy testing and you'll see that aerodynamic cars will actually outperform their rated fuel economy. One big winner I can think of off the top of my head is the current BMW 330i, which is rated at 34mpg highway but Car and Driver saw 42mpg on their 75-mph real world highway driving loop. https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/3-series Trucks and other huge frontal areas will underperform if you drive them fast. Heavy but aerodynamic cars will over-perform because the EPA test has lots of acceleration and deceleration in all of their test cycles, while real-world freeway driving is pretty steady state. Speaking of fuel economy and engines, I haven't seen it quantitatively measured but I've been hearing persistent rumors for years that gas turbo pickups get worse fuel economy towing than the N/A V8s did. Is there any concrete evidence of that? Is downsizing and turbocharging all based on lies? The worst offender seems like GM's new 4-cylinder truck engine, which is apparently less efficient than the 5.3L V8 in general.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Neither of them are new now, but my (soon to be) 15 year old Corolla gets a bit better fuel mileage than my old 1990s Mazda. Despite being bigger, heavier (probably more aerodynamic though) with bigger more powerful engine. Same size fuel tanks at 50L. If I really stretched it out I could get about 550km or so with the Mazda, and a bit over 600 with the Corolla.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
new cars be costing too much though
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:It's a mixed bag. The EPA highway test is in general, slower than most people drive. Car and Driver and Consumer Reports both do their own independent fuel economy testing and you'll see that aerodynamic cars will actually outperform their rated fuel economy. One big winner I can think of off the top of my head is the current BMW 330i, which is rated at 34mpg highway but Car and Driver saw 42mpg on their 75-mph real world highway driving loop. i think one of the worst parts of the push to maximize fuel economy by shrinking engines, direct injection, slapping turbos on them and tuning them for max torque is that they really can only pull off the good mileage for the first 50k miles and then it probably drops precipitously. the cost of cleaning carbon out of a DI engine is terrible. anyway for a really bleak look at how bad economy is for self reported consumption by thousands of people over hundreds of thousands of tanks of gas: https://www.fuelly.com/car/ram/1500 https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500 https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150 obviously ends up skewing towards people who give a poo poo about that (civic, prius, ect owners) but theres tons of people who drive their rams, f150s and shitterados and they clearly can't hit the rated mileage either but are those kinds of drivers even inclined to care if they do? probably not its crazy how good prius drivers manage to average: https://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
Somehow 22 Ridgeline's get 20.5 mpg, but I suppose they aren't driving 67 on the highway for an hour. I get like 26, if I'm towing 24. My F Series was like, 16.5 on a good day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:If I’m forced to give up sedans or 4 door hatchbacks I’m getting a base model land cruiser. I refuse to drive a cuv for any reason. They’re incredibly boring. Even my Jetta is more fun to drive and that’s not saying much. I'm just gonna drive old cars forever. I think I will have to acquire some scrap cars just to keep around as spares.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 07:44
|
|
|
Ambassadorofsodomy posted:Neither of them are new now, but my (soon to be) 15 year old Corolla gets a bit better fuel mileage than my old 1990s Mazda. Despite being bigger, heavier (probably more aerodynamic though) with bigger more powerful engine. My 1990 Saab with 2.0l engine and turbo gets 29mpg, which americans think is fine mileage based on what I can read online. I kinda think it's on the high side but other saab owners says it's on the better side for a turbo model actually. I'm contemplating putting a type 9 primary in it along with bigger injectors (431s), advance the timing and running it on E85. Doing the latter is very common here and it increases fuel consumption, but E85 is a lot cheaper and with bigger injectors and advanced timing you get a lot more lower end torque and alot more boost since the octane rating is like 104, you can also mod your APC unit for even more boost at higher rpms. I think a type 9 primary would make the car unpleasant to drive on gas in stock mode, but do the E85 mods and ity should be fine and possibly offset the fuel consumption increase. I want to optimize this car for cruising around 50-70 mph. Given the cost of a type 9 though, it's not an economically defensible idea even with gas prices being what they are it would take several years to recoup, but it would be fun...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:My 1990 Saab with 2.0l engine and turbo gets 29mpg, which americans think is fine mileage based on what I can read online. I kinda think it's on the high side but other saab owners says it's on the better side for a turbo model actually. US gallons and Imperial gallons are for some stupid reason different sizes which often trips people up when comparing fuel economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
29mpg for anything older than about 2005 is pretty drat good IMO yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 10:33
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:29mpg for anything older than about 2005 is pretty drat good IMO yeah Hello! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 10:57
|
|
|
dissss posted:US gallons and Imperial gallons are for some stupid reason different sizes which often trips people up when comparing fuel economy. I always defaullt to US gallons though. I count mileage in l/100km anyway. Hadlock posted:29mpg for anything older than about 2005 is pretty drat good IMO yeah My parents 1998 Mazda 626 gets a whopping 50mpg but it won't run properly on anything except premium gas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 11:32
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:It's a mixed bag. The EPA highway test is in general, slower than most people drive. Car and Driver and Consumer Reports both do their own independent fuel economy testing and you'll see that aerodynamic cars will actually outperform their rated fuel economy. One big winner I can think of off the top of my head is the current BMW 330i, which is rated at 34mpg highway but Car and Driver saw 42mpg on their 75-mph real world highway driving loop. My f30 330i is averaging around 37 mpg on my almost all highway commute with my best tank being just shy of 39 mpg so that number for the g20 is very real and attainable. It’s pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
My xB gets pretty crappy mileage for a four cylinder, about 22 city and not much better on the highway because I do about 80 and it's the opposite of aerodynamic, shaped like a box with a roof rack on it. But it's super reliable and fits my needs perfectly so I don't really care. I'm passing it on to my son and buying a Miata 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:29mpg for anything older than about 2005 is pretty drat good IMO yeah 87 Civic 1.3 currently sat in my workshop gets like 40mpg+ all day. Tin can cars the best, putting a smile on my face and going easy on my bank balance. mobby_6kl posted:Hello! Sincerely miss the Suzuki version of this that I had. It was the most basic, buzzy little thing but was great fun to hustle along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Hello! Mileage Georg is an outlier and should not be counted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Why did GM (and everyone else for that matter) stop doing fuel economy specials? They used to somewhat regularly crank out a taller-geared car for those who wanted it, both in the 90s with the Metro and much more recently with the Cobalt and I think Cruze: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15150385/2009-chevrolet-cobalt-ls-xfe-short-take-road-test/quote:The XFE remains a manual-only proposition, but the tweaks are now standard on Cobalt LS and 1LT trim levels. An even taller (3.63:1) final-drive ratio is another change on the '09 model that helps it bump highway fuel economy to 37 mpg. It seems really cheap to stick a longer final drive and maybe a milder cam in, why doesn't anybody do this anymore? The most recent example I can think of was the Fiesta SFE, one of which I happily drove for 5 years. This has been on my mind after this thread reminded me that manual transmissions can still be more efficient, the handful of manuals left on market are just not targeted at efficiency and the vast majority of autos have 8+ speeds and a really tall top gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Why did GM (and everyone else for that matter) stop doing fuel economy specials? They used to somewhat regularly crank out a taller-geared car for those who wanted it, both in the 90s with the Metro and much more recently with the Cobalt and I think Cruze: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15150385/2009-chevrolet-cobalt-ls-xfe-short-take-road-test/ probably due to CAFE rules letting manufacturers further game the fuel economy regulations
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:87 Civic 1.3 currently sat in my workshop gets like 40mpg+ all day. Tin can cars the best, putting a smile on my face and going easy on my bank balance. Boaz MacPhereson posted:Mileage Georg is an outlier and should not be counted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
OBAMNA PHONE posted:probably due to CAFE rules letting manufacturers further game the fuel economy regulations This and there's no room in the market for them anymore. The only people who bought them this last go-round with the Cruze Eco / Ford SFEs and the like were people who specifically wanted a brand-new high fuel economy car that was also purely gasoline-powered. Even contemporary reviews of the Focus SFE pointed out that it was priced pretty much on par with the Insight and Prius C, both of which had better fuel economy. If you were willing to buy a lightly used example of the most reliable car ever made, a regular Prius would have been a better choice than any of them for the person who just wants the cheapest to own/run car and doesn't care how it hits the numbers. Adjusted for inflation a barebones Focus SFE would be about $25-26k today; a new Bolt 1LT starts at $28k before the federal tax incentive. Even without the federal incentive, that sticker price difference is made up in 2-3 years of driving on electrons instead of gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
BP swapped festivas were good for around 38. Down from 45ish but with about 3x the power. The old 190es would get low/mid 20s without an overdrive transmission. Glacially loving slow and suck to drive 80s slushy OBAMNA PHONE posted:obviously ends up skewing towards people who give a poo poo about that (civic, prius, ect owners) but theres tons of people who drive their rams, f150s and shitterados and they clearly can't hit the rated mileage either but are those kinds of drivers even inclined to care if they do? probably not Anybody that commutes with an empty BOF truck that isn't getting used for any kind of actual work is a loving moron that deserves what they get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
cursedshitbox posted:BP swapped festivas were good for around 38. Down from 45ish but with about 3x the power. My last BP was a Kia Sephia that got just over 30 in the city and that was with me flogging it on a regular basis. It was quick and fun. I miss the old BG cars with BP motors, between my brother and I we owned a bunch of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Speaking of fuel economy and engines, I haven't seen it quantitatively measured but I've been hearing persistent rumors for years that gas turbo pickups get worse fuel economy towing than the N/A V8s did. Is there any concrete evidence of that? Is downsizing and turbocharging all based on lies? The worst offender seems like GM's new 4-cylinder truck engine, which is apparently less efficient than the 5.3L V8 in general. From personal experience with normal driving and towing, there isn't too much difference between the 5.0 V8 and the 2.7 EB in F-150s. Certainly no abysmal difference. The bigger difference was between the 6-speed and 10-speed transmissions. The 10-speed is several percent more efficient, especially towing. The 2.7 is far quieter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
cursedshitbox posted:
I always picture the driver of the lifted truck doing 90 while commuting to work screaming about dark Brandon’s gas prices as they go by
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
I would imagine modern crash standards and power everything all the time pushed cars into the 3000# category permanently. There's no regulatory or market head room for 1800# highway legal go karts any more My '94 neon had the thinnest carpet and no sound deadening, if you removed the spare tire and had less than half a tank of gas it clocked in just under 2000# I can't imagine many cars after that point were built to that low standard. Probably the Mitsubishi mirage
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Speaking of fuel economy and engines, I haven't seen it quantitatively measured but I've been hearing persistent rumors for years that gas turbo pickups get worse fuel economy towing than the N/A V8s did. Is there any concrete evidence of that? Is downsizing and turbocharging all based on lies? The worst offender seems like GM's new 4-cylinder truck engine, which is apparently less efficient than the 5.3L V8 in general. Dunno who first quipped it but it seems you can either have eco or you can have boost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
I drive an Ecoboost Fiesta ST and get 29 mpg at 80 mph. I get both. e: I do have a Cherokee with the ol Fiat 2.4L tigershark and it gets much worse gas mileage than my brother in laws year later Cherokee with the V6. Dr. Lunchables fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Sep 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:I would imagine modern crash standards and power everything all the time pushed cars into the 3000# category permanently. There's no regulatory or market head room for 1800# highway legal go karts any more May I suggest the best selling car in India the Suzuki Swift, you can get one from Mexico Or Baleno if you're middle aged faux edit: apparently the latin-am swift and baleno got 0 stars for crash safety (euro versions got 4) so get a Japanese one
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
Dodge is bringing back the Durango SRT Hellcat for one more go in ‘24. A straight carryover from ‘23. https://stellantis-na-product-media.info/dodge/durango-durango-srt
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Didn't they get sued over the 23? The 22 was supposed to be the last and they sold a limited edition. Then they brought out the 23 and 22 owners sued?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
phosdex posted:Didn't they get sued over the 23? The 22 was supposed to be the last and they sold a limited edition. Then they brought out the 23 and 22 owners sued? 2021 was supposed to be the one and only year, but it was all marketing gobbledygook. There was allegedly a suit, but nothing came of it. Nobody signed a contract with Stellantis that they pinky swore that it would be a one and only year. I bought a 2003 Mach 1 Mustang new off the lot, that was supposed to be a one time only limited one year run. Then they promptly built more in 2004. Lesson learned, one year only is a marketing gimmick. These companies are in the business of selling cars, and if they have a car that will sell, they'll sell it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
Extremely loving funny for any dodge buyer imagining their turd vehicle is special or limited edition in any way. Rubes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
OBAMNA PHONE posted:Extremely loving funny for any dodge buyer imagining their turd vehicle is special or limited edition in any way. Rubes. Counter point; Viper ACR
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:Counter point; Viper ACR Demon 170
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:Counter point; neon srt 4
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
Dodge will never die, because the US’s chief manufactured good is an 18yo boot with a preternatural thirst for a 96mo 18.5% apr auto loan and a lead foot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:2021 was supposed to be the one and only year, but it was all marketing gobbledygook. There was allegedly a suit, but nothing came of it. Nobody signed a contract with Stellantis that they pinky swore that it would be a one and only year. To be fair, they only made the 2021 Durango for one year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
Dr. Lunchables posted:To be fair, they only made the 2021 Durango for one year. Counterpoint: some of those 2021 were manufactured in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
Granite style counter: those were still just the 21 model year, as indicated by their VIN
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
My wife’s job has a requirement that they will only pay car reimbursement if you have a union made vehicle and the new car market is *dire* unless you want a pickup truck or full size SUV. https://uaw.org/solidarity_magazine/2023-uaw-union-built-vehicle-guide/amp/ Think Ford Escape is the only compact SUV on the list. Everything else is made in Mexico, even for US manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
smackfu posted:My wife’s job has a requirement that they will only pay car reimbursement if you have a union made vehicle and the new car market is *dire* unless you want a pickup truck or full size SUV. There’s the Malibu and CT4 not to mention the Cadillac Vs and Blackwings though. It’s not great, but basically every car made by ford or GM is on the list. e: the Jeep Cherokee is basically the definition of a CUV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 13:05
|
|