What car - Good MPG at 80 mph

JohnRW1621 wrote: I will give no false numbers because I really can not remember what they were, but... Back in '98-'01, I ran around Metro Detroit in a '95 Civic Si Coupe. If you have ever been on the racetrack that is I-275 and I-75 south to Toledo...that car loved to live at speeds greater than 75mph and more often closer to 95mph. Economy was good. Road stability was good. Throttle response was good, etc. Good luck finding one or similar.

This is my commute(Toledo to Monroe/Detroit). My '97 Accord LX 5-speed gets about 35, straight highway. My '96 Civic EX 5-speed got about the same. My '98 Integra RS auto got about 33. Combined highway/city, Integra got about 28/30, Civic got about 27/29, Accord gets 31/33. I haven't had the Accord on a long trip yet, but I can easily see this thing getting 35mpg steady state. I like the Accord the best so far. Sucks down regular and is EASILY the nicest of the bunch. Paid $1500 for it(same as Teg/Civic). Actually has torque, loves 80-90mph. If I slowed down to 70, I'm sure it'd get about the same mileage, maybe a little more consistant. Once I throw in a different ECU and tune it, I'm sure 40mpg is within reach. Honda ECU's are notoriously sloppy with fuel at partial throttle cruising, they gain a LOT with tuning. I never downshift from 5th past 65-70mph, this car has plenty of torque to pass. Sits at about 3100rpm at 80mph.

My friend with the K20 swapped/nitrous '97 Civic coupe gets easy 50+ out of his DD MK4 TDi Jetta.

yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: It all depends on the cars and how long your interstate drive is/how consistent your speeds are. To piss you off further, my '91 sho pulled 33.1mpg going to Richland, mi and 32.3mpg back last weekend(80-85 sustained). Best yet with it, but its lowered about 1.5" since the last time I was on open highway. It has more power than stock too...... I would never recommend a 22yo taurus that behaves like a dsm to someone though. When they're right though, they literally eat miles.

It doesn't piss me off.

I just assume some are bad at math or exaggerate to be awesomer at driving.

carbon wrote: Sportbike= solved.

Sportbikes do get decent mpg. Not phenomenal like some would expect. Also, factor in running costs like tires and brakes. Then factor in gear to commute in a somewhat safe manner. After those expenditures are taken into account it's not quite the savings you'd expect.

Believe me, I wish it was.

In reply to z31maniac:

...Just as I assume some drivers are simply not smooth/conscientious enough to beat EPA estimates or their cars are too poorly maintained to achieve its true mpg potential.

carbon wrote: Sportbike= solved.

Don't buy a first gen zx10......I'm only getting 32-34 mpg from it.

Part of that might be the fact I have heard the upper 3000rpm's song, and well......I liked it.

Xceler8x wrote:

carbon wrote: Sportbike= solved.

Sportbikes do get decent mpg. Not phenomenal like some would expect. Also, factor in running costs like tires and brakes. Then factor in gear to commute in a somewhat safe manner. After those expenditures are taken into account it's not quite the savings you'd expect. Believe me, I wish it was.

Yeah, grippy tires last 3500 miles at $350 a pair. A sportbike in no way, shape, or form is a cheap commuter appliance.

Driven5 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: ...Just as I assume some drivers are simply not smooth/conscientious enough to beat EPA estimates or their cars are too poorly maintained to achieve its true mpg potential.

I appreciate your condescension. I really do.

But it doesn't get much smoother than flat ground with the cruise control set.

yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: It all depends on the cars and how long your interstate drive is/how consistent your speeds are. To piss you off further, my '91 sho pulled 33.1mpg going to Richland, mi and 32.3mpg back last weekend(80-85 sustained). Best yet with it, but its lowered about 1.5" since the last time I was on open highway. It has more power than stock too...... I would never recommend a 22yo taurus that behaves like a dsm to someone though. When they're right though, they literally eat miles.

Richland, MI - sooooo Mad Dogs and Englishmen, I assume? Might have been there myself, but was here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.591980494187904.1073741840.159960587389899&type=1 instead.

In reply to kazoospec:

Not clicking on a facebook link while on the work compy, I'll presume Gilroy? I have family that live nearby.

This took about 45 seconds to find once I figured out where "Redwood City" was. Buy it.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/4003469401.html

z31maniac wrote: I appreciate your condescension. I really do. But it doesn't get much smoother than flat ground with the cruise control set.

Glad the appreciation can go both ways.

I have calculated the mpg at almost every fill up over the past 15 years or so. I almost never use cruise control anymore. These two statements are directly related.

Cruise kills milage.......use what inclines and declines to your advantage, then troll people.

Its not like we're talking about that sw20 awhile back that claimed "50ish" mpg during a comparasin of modded vehicles(I think in C&D) I still think they had to have had extra fuel hidden on board.

I still use cruise, but I rest my foot fairly heavy on the pedal, so it doesn't back off going downhill.

yamaha wrote: In reply to kazoospec: Not clicking on a facebook link while on the work compy, I'll presume Gilroy? I have family that live nearby.

Sorry, nope. Furrin Group MSU autocross.

The list of lean burn hondas is as follows:

92-95 Civic VX (1.5l hatchback, non california) 96-00 Civic HX (1.6l coupe, 5spd) 00-06 Insight (1.0l 5spd) 01-05 Civic HX (1.7l coupe, 5spd) 02-05 Civic Hybrid (1.3l sedan, 5spd or CVT)

I believe that is the full list. No CRX had lean burn, HF or otherwise. Civic hybrids 06 and newer do not have lean burn.

I have a '92 VX. It's slow, but gets 48 mpg at 75-80 mph. I have been averaging over 50 mpg over the last 3k miles. I usually drive 65-70 on the interstate, with some stop and go mixed in.

And its Gilmore, my bad........berkeleying kilroy thread is still on my mind.

lnlds wrote: I got 35 mpg out of my integra 80 @mph.\

No you didn't.

Spinout007 wrote: Since we are talking outlandish mpg claims, my BONE STOCK FD rx7 would knock down close to 30mpg @ 90mph. And it liked that speed! Seriously that was its happy place.

Outlandish is right. No you also didn't.

HiTempguy wrote:

lnlds wrote: I got 35 mpg out of my integra 80 @mph.\

No you didn't.

Spinout007 wrote: Since we are talking outlandish mpg claims, my BONE STOCK FD rx7 would knock down close to 30mpg @ 90mph. And it liked that speed! Seriously that was its happy place.

Outlandish is right. No you also didn't.

The Integra i would absolutely believe depending on modifications. The LS trans was geared pretty damn long. We had local guys when the Honda scene was strong hypermiling with those things as their daily beaters getting obscene gas mileage.

Here's my outlandish claims:

1) 1990 MX6 GT. 41mpg to the GRM $2012 Challenge. Routinely gets mid 30s combined.

2) 2004 Mazdaspeed Miata. Best highway tank of 32mpg. (repeatable 3 times. Normally 30mpg.)

Those are both taken in the 75-85mph range.

I might be talking out of my butt here with this but I think one of the only 'sport' bikes that will acheive super duper mpg is the Ninja 250. You seem to lose mpg once the displacement increases.

  an EG Civic will knock down 35 mpg. I had a 92 dx hatch and usually averaged in the 35-40 range. I did achieve closer to 50 on one longer road trip keeping it in the 70-75 mph range. The absolute worst mpg I ever got with that car was probably low 30's and that was beating the snot out of it.

  I bought a '10 Yaris brand new and drove it for 43k miles. It will get 35 mpg at highway speeds. I got 42 mpg on one longer road trip in it. That was a nice car to eat up highway miles in it. It was pretty comfortable but got to me too small for me (lack of space). If you go this route, seek out a rear sway bar for it. It is a noticeable improvement.

  I currently have a Fit and it will meet your mpg criteria. I usually get a consistent 34-36 mpg lately. I have gotten 38 mpg in it before but not lately. It is comfortable at higher speeds around 75-80 and I have had it up to 90-95 before. Probably a little more buzzy than a Yaris on the highway but overall a better car.

   I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet...Ford Zx2. It is basically a 2 door Escort sport coupe. You will definitely be able to find one in your price range. Won't be hard to get 35 mpg on the highway in one. Rear sway bar from an Escort GT or Escort Wagon is a cheap junkyard upgrade that helps handling. Also, if you look hard enough for these, Recaros from a Mazda Mx-3 will bolt right in. I had these in an Escort hatch and they were fantastic on road trips.

92dxman wrote: I might be talking out of my butt here with this but I think one of the only 'sport' bikes that will acheive super duper mpg is the Ninja 250. You seem to lose mpg once the displacement increases.

Mine is churning at 5k going 70....

HiTempguy wrote:

lnlds wrote: I got 35 mpg out of my integra 80 @mph.\

No you didn't.

Spinout007 wrote: Since we are talking outlandish mpg claims, my BONE STOCK FD rx7 would knock down close to 30mpg @ 90mph. And it liked that speed! Seriously that was its happy place.

Outlandish is right. No you also didn't.

the last fill-up for my Integra netted me 35 mpg ... half of the tank was highway 75 - 80, the rest of the tank was around the neighborhood, to and from town ... 35 mph locally, and 60 to 70 to and from town ... so maybe only a slight exaggeration on lnlds part

wbjones wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

lnlds wrote: I got 35 mpg out of my integra 80 @mph.\

No you didn't.

Spinout007 wrote: Since we are talking outlandish mpg claims, my BONE STOCK FD rx7 would knock down close to 30mpg @ 90mph. And it liked that speed! Seriously that was its happy place.

Outlandish is right. No you also didn't.

the last fill-up for my Integra netted me 35 mpg ... half of the tank was highway 75 - 80, the rest of the tank was around the neighborhood, to and from town ... 35 mph locally, and 60 to 70 to and from town ... so maybe only a slight exaggeration on lnlds part

20gal tank, 300+miles to just over half w tank indicated. Road tripping, this was 16 years ago, quick dirty math at the pump was right at 30mpg. And yeah at 20 years old I was willing to run 90mph down the interstate for extended periods of time.

If you want something a little "cushy" a saab 9-5 2.3t 5 speed, with a stage 1 or economy tune, will get you somewhere in the 33-37 range depending on winter/summer blend fuel if you can keep your foot out of the boost. Of course, you'll have to deal with more maintenance than an Asian econobox. I promise that 10 speakers and cushy heated (and possibly cooled) seats more than make up for the seemingly fragile cup holders and very frequent synthetic oil changes (5k).

According to fueleconomy.gov, the Saab's ain't gonna get anywhere near the mileage you claim.

No motorcycles for me. Too tired and old to ride one daily. Already lost enough friends on them as it is. Plus, I suspect I'd get quite wet in the rain riding one of those, eh?

I already owned a MazdaSpeed Miata. Didn't like the 6 speed and annoying gearing on them. Otherwise a nice car but doesn't fit the budget cap.

Thanks for the info on the Honda alphabet soup.

On another note, I'm seeing used Volts in the mid 20s. They have an HOV sticker which may come in handy... Isn't GRM doing some sort of article on that car???

Going to continue researching. Great ideas fellas.

My 96 5-spd civic dx coupe got right around 35mpg at 80mph. Just the base-model civic with manual steering and power nothing, cost me $1400 and I put 21k miles on it before selling it for $1650.