40 MPG Plateau?

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: Since everyone can get 25-50% better mpg than the EPA estimates on their old cars, presumably everyone can do the same driving a new car with the same driving skills. So, these new 40 mpg cars become 50-60 mpg cars in the hands of the commenters here. As for me, I seem to get in the EPA range in my cars whether they be new or 25 years old.

The only vehicles I've owned that did not exceed the old EPA highway numbers were the Swift GT, and the 2000 Sonoma 2.2L 5-spd. Here's my list of % above EPA's new numbers:

2000 Accent +14%

2002 Elantra +9%

2006 GMC CrewCab +13%

1988 Corvette Averaging -2%, (not had any tanks without an auto-x)

1989 Chevy 1500 +16%

1993 GMC +16%

2000 Suzuki Grand Vitara +9%

So I'm only running an average of 11% over. Not quite that magicval 25-50 you're talking about. It's also what I'm hearing frin the newer Sonata and Elantra owners too. They're averaging about 5-10% above EPA combined for their mixed driving.

by the numbers i get worse mpg than epa says i should driving my 1988 M3, but over the last 3 tanks i've averaged 2mpg over the new gov. highway rating on my new-to-me 93 325is (probably 80/20 hwy/city). i cant speak to others experience but i've done my math and trust it. miatame's claimed 25 is on the high end, but those engines can be lugged around under 2k rpm easily when you arent playing around for quite good mileage.

Bobzilla wrote:

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: Since everyone can get 25-50% better mpg than the EPA estimates on their old cars, presumably everyone can do the same driving a new car with the same driving skills. So, these new 40 mpg cars become 50-60 mpg cars in the hands of the commenters here. As for me, I seem to get in the EPA range in my cars whether they be new or 25 years old.

The only vehicles I've owned that did not exceed the old EPA highway numbers were the Swift GT, and the 2000 Sonoma 2.2L 5-spd. Here's my list of % above EPA's new numbers: 2000 Accent +14% 2002 Elantra +9% 2006 GMC CrewCab +13% 1988 Corvette Averaging -2%, (not had any tanks without an auto-x) 1989 Chevy 1500 +16% 1993 GMC +16% 2000 Suzuki Grand Vitara +9% So I'm only running an average of 11% over. Not quite that magicval 25-50 you're talking about. It's also what I'm hearing frin the newer Sonata and Elantra owners too. They're averaging about 5-10% above EPA combined for their mixed driving.

We did get better... substantially better, around 10-15%, with my old commute and my wife's commute, but my new commute is a little more "you're not going to cut me off, and I have a turbobrick that will sure as hell beat you to whatever light you want to race me to" than before. I suspect that when I start driving the PT Cruiser that will stop a bit.

Do you guys live in really flat areas? That would help.

Still my point remains. If you consistently get better than EPA MPG in your old cars, why wouldn't this continue with a new car?

For a "new" car datapoint.

I get 31-32 on the 55mph speed limit highways (so going 60-65) in my mazdaspeed3.

29-30 on the freeway (@75-80).

28 in my normal mixed driving, but nothing I would really consider city driving (find me on a map and you'll see what I mean).

The one time I did burn a decent chunk of a tank (2/3s or so) in the city, it was still 24mpg for the whole tank. So doing mostly city driving I still make close to the epa highway mileage.

The lack of "real" city driving makes it tough to compare my mixed numbers to most people (like @ fuelly), but I beat the 18/26 (20 combined) the epa says.

EDIT: Sure I could push those down easily enough, but I'm not driving to maximize economy or anything, I'm just not hooning about.

I'm sure it will with a new car. In all honesty I can see my wife driving a new accent and getting 45mpg out of it. Her drive is 75 miles roundtrip, 90% highway and she doesn't drive above 70mph and is in no hurry to get there.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Couple of things. One, this is some interesting info. More confusing than it seems. But the other thing- you hit on it here. Looking at 40 vs. 50 MPG makes it look like there's no point in doing anything at all. But we're not getting 40 MPG. Shoot, I live in Colorado. My wife has a 4Runner. I can't tell you how many times we've walked up to the wrong one in a parking lot. Can't swing a dead cat witout hitting a 4Runner in Colorado. They're like the unoffical state vehicle. We get around 18 MPG (another point about that in a minute). Get that up to 25 or 30 and we're making a difference. Get rid of the 4Runner and get an Insight and we're making a big difference. *I don't feel too bad about her driving the 4Runner. We've made some decisions that mitigate the impact of the low MPG. We live in the city. She drives about two miles to work. Maybe three. She uses less gas than a guy in a Prius who drives in from the boonies. Still, given my druthers, we'd get rid of it.

I don't know about you, but if I lived 2 miles from work I'd be riding my bicycle to work the 265 sunny days of the year in Denver. It's not only emissions free, but better for your health. I'm also pretty sure the Subaru outback gots your 4runner you beat 2:1.

tuna55 wrote: Oh yeah? Fuel injectors still deliver an imperfect amount of fuel at almost any given load too. Perfect? Tall order.

Are you suggesting that carburators meter the fuel better than fuel injection? Really?

Not so much.

They are a guess, sometimes reasonably good.

In terms of accuracy and consistentcy- EFI>Mechanical FI> carbs.

Generally, fuel injection is as perfect as the calibration can be. And noting how emissions can be manipuled, it's pretty darned good. There's a good reason carbs are not on any modern cars.

fuel injection is simply better drivability more efficient and produces better power. there is nothing a carb does better than injection.

KATYB wrote: fuel injection is simply better drivability more efficient and produces better power. there is nothing a carb does better than injection.

It umm leaves you stranded when trying to restart your hot engine in high altitude better!

The mileage numbers you guys post as a group are unbelievable.. I struggle to average 20mpg in the mazdaspeed6, The highest mileage I have have received from the miata was 24.6mpg.

I would strive to be less of a lead foot but I am afraid I would die of boredom on my way into work...

40 mpg/60mph average. Did that with my Fiesta on a 880 mile trip.

Want to make your car get better mileage ? Get out your ball peen hammer,the big one and pound dents all over the car, like a golf ball. Re: Myth Busters

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Oh yeah? Fuel injectors still deliver an imperfect amount of fuel at almost any given load too. Perfect? Tall order.

Are you suggesting that carburators meter the fuel better than fuel injection? Really? Not so much. They are a guess, sometimes reasonably good. In terms of accuracy and consistentcy- EFI>Mechanical FI> carbs. Generally, fuel injection is as perfect as the calibration can be. And noting how emissions can be manipuled, it's pretty darned good. There's a good reason carbs are not on any modern cars.

Did you read that anywhere in there? I never said anything remotely close to that.

Capt Slow wrote: The mileage numbers you guys post as a group are unbelievable.. I struggle to average 20mpg in the mazdaspeed6, The highest mileage I have have received from the miata was 24.6mpg. I would strive to be less of a lead foot but I am afraid I would die of boredom on my way into work...

Mine still sees triple digits at least once or twice/tank while posting those #s. Passing logging trucks is no time to lollygag around.

huge-O-chavez wrote:

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: In reply to huge-O-chavez: The 1999 M3 is rated at 17/24. 25 would be a big stretch.

I usually go by fuelly data. I find that its a community of people who are trying to brag about how well their cars do in mileage with a bunch of regualr folks just sprinkled in.. The data is about as close to real world as you'll get. 25 mpg is doable according to the data on fuelly. 30mpg.. Not so much.

25 on fuelly was mixed driving. His 30 number was highway. I believe that. My 540i6 would do 30 on the highway, but averaged 22 forall of my driving, which aligns with the fuelly numbers.

tuna55 wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Oh yeah? Fuel injectors still deliver an imperfect amount of fuel at almost any given load too. Perfect? Tall order.

Are you suggesting that carburators meter the fuel better than fuel injection? Really? Not so much. They are a guess, sometimes reasonably good. In terms of accuracy and consistentcy- EFI>Mechanical FI> carbs. Generally, fuel injection is as perfect as the calibration can be. And noting how emissions can be manipuled, it's pretty darned good. There's a good reason carbs are not on any modern cars.

Did you read that anywhere in there? I never said anything remotely close to that.

Maybe I'm missing part of what you were arguing about.... Maybe mentioning that injectors are imperfect, seemingly implying that the imperfection is anywhere near carbs...

Streetwiseguy wrote: </cite

Civic VX. No fun to drive, but...

Mine is! I get 43mpg city if I drive nice

I have never once stopped to calculate the gas mileage out of my '93 Civic. I just drive it and when it is low on gas refill it.

In reply to 93EXCivic: 10 gallon tank, 450 miles= 45mpg, easy

iceracer wrote: 40 mpg/60mph average. Did that with my Fiesta on a 880 mile trip. Want to make your car get better mileage ? Get out your ball peen hammer,the big one and pound dents all over the car, like a golf ball. Re: Myth Busters

Or put 45 psi in the tires. It makes a difference.

huge-O-chavez wrote:

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: In reply to huge-O-chavez: The 1999 M3 is rated at 17/24. 25 would be a big stretch.

I usually go by fuelly data. I find that its a community of people who are trying to brag about how well their cars do in mileage with a bunch of regualr folks just sprinkled in.. The data is about as close to real world as you'll get. 25 mpg is doable according to the data on fuelly. 30mpg.. Not so much.

I AVERAGED 26 (US) mpg over a year on my M3. 30mpg highway trips were not a stretch.
The same driving is getting me 51 (US) mpg in the TDI golf. (rated: 44 hwy) Beating the numbers isn't that hard.

njansenv wrote: I AVERAGED 26 (US) mpg over a year on my M3. 30mpg highway trips were not a stretch. The same driving is getting me 51 (US) mpg in the TDI golf. (rated: 44 hwy) Beating the numbers isn't that hard.

Don't doubt it.. I do better than the rating in my civic..

The original poster was just being a bit of a 'bagger pud with his "accord is a green car" comment.

He must be jealous that the modern v6 accords match the early e36 m3's in terms of 0-60, 1/4 mile, fuel mileage, and horsepower.

My dual cab 2011 F150 with the 3 valve 4.6 regularly gives me 18-20 in town and 24-26 on a combined highway/side street (mostly highway) - according to the mpg meter on the dash.

I reset it after every 5-6 tanks of gas and I've been consistent with those numbers for months.

I don't know what year of Corvette Bobzilla has (probably a TPI 4+3 era one), but I do know I've gotten almost 28USMPG out of my dad's 2002 convertible Camaro w/6 speed on the highway before.

Now, while civic's may be awesome, my 1996 Civic CX is a piece of GARBAGE. WIth only 185,000kms (the owner I bought it off of had it since 10,000kms), it rattles, squeeks, rides poorly compared to even my Swift GT! I do get good gas mileage though (even driving like a dink), usually 550km's per 35 litres.(6.36l/100kms) 37USMPG. I bet I could do 40USMPG cruising on the highway in the summertime at 70mph. That is usually 50% highway/50% city.

If I could have a modern car with ~150hp, and an honest averaging of 30+USMPG, I'd be happy. 35 would be ideal. I honestly see a Veloster turbo in my future depending on what happens with my STi.

tuna55 wrote:

JoeyM wrote: Why can't sports car guys and tree huggers just work for the common goal of smaller, lighter cars. The reasons why may differ, but it is something achievable that would allow everybody to win.

Well, for starters, I will have three kids in May and I have a 75 lb dog (used to have two). There's no real way to convey all of them using something small and light. Carseats are gigantic.

What is you could have something that was large and light?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D-uhKHy7mk&feature=player_embedded