Fuel Economy

[SteveG1988]

With fuel prices going up again, how bad are our cars on the highway?

I get about 30-32 depending on the highway and terrain. 23 or so in town.

[corco]

I get 20, which usually means for roadgeeking excursions it is actually cheaper to rent a small car- if I drive 1600 miles in a car that gets 36 MPG  over two $30 dollar rental fee days with gas at $2.70 a gallon, it's $180 while in my own car it would be $216.

A few days ago I towed my car with loaded Uhaul trailer from Laramie WY to Phoenix on what ended up being all interstates and got 17.2   averaging 70-75 MPH

[jwolfer]

With fuel prices going up again, how bad are our cars on the highway?

I get about 30-32 depending on the highway and terrain. 23 or so in town.

I have a 1990 civic and I get around 35 mpg.  We need more diesels here in the US!

[Chris]

48 miles per gallon. Diesel.

[SteveG1988]

The issue with my kia is its small fuel tank, 13.7 gallons, slightly less than my old car, which got slightly lower mpg. so in a way my kia goes farther per gallon, but overall it goes less distance.

[jwolfer]

48 miles per gallon. Diesel.

Look at the gas Smarte car... hideous and around 50mpg.  You could get a VW Golf or Jetta, regular size cars and get MPG approachign the smarte car

[corco]

The Smart (no e, in any market) car is a fashion statement and only a fashion statement. It's also really easy to park, but no intelligent person buys those vehicles for their fuel economy. In fact, it doesn't get anywhere close to 50- the EPA has it at 33/41, which tends to be a little bit conservative, but still nowhere near 50. A gas powered Fiesta gets only marginally worse good gas mileage (29/40) and is an actual car, and like you said a diesel Jetta gets 30/42, so anybody who says they bought a Smart car because of its good gas mileage is an idiot- I can only see that you would buy one if you lived in a big city and it's easy to park, but beyond that I don't understand why people buy them.

Somebody in Laramie, Wyoming owned one, which was just preposterous- I would be scared to death to take that thing out on the interstate or really anywhere in the high plains with the heavy winds and high truck traffic, and to get anywhere you have to drive out there on the interstate or high plains- that seemed like the worst possible car for somebody to own in rural Wyoming

[Truvelo]

The issue with my kia is its small fuel tank, 13.7 gallons, slightly less than my old car, which got slightly lower mpg. so in a way my kia goes farther per gallon, but overall it goes less distance.

I don't know what 13.7 gallons is in liters but I can get 55 liters in my car and it covers 600 miles.

[Chris]

13.7 gallons = 52 L

Though I assume it's not that much if your car/truck runs 20 mpg. It's a pain in the ass having to refuel every 250 - 300 miles.

[agentsteel53]

In fact, it doesn't get anywhere close to 50- the EPA has it at 33/41, which tends to be a little bit conservative, but still nowhere near 50.

how did they screw up that design so bad?  I was getting 43 out of my '89 Escort at 241000 miles, and that car I was not afraid of driving in the snow in rural Wyoming or wherever.

the Smarte Carte weighs half as much as the Escort - is it not reasonable to expect at least 80mpg, especially given technological advances over the last 20 years, and the fact that the car would not be a total beater?

[corco]

I think it has to do with safety requirements and engine designs and things like that- I had a 1990 Dodge Colt for a couple years that got over 40 as well. For some reason the best cars ever produced for fuel efficiency were in the late 80s and early 90s- we've never been able to replicate that.

I'd guess maybe it has to do with aerodynamics- the Smart is basically a golf cart brick (which is why I would not want to drive that thing in high winds- it probably wouldn't be horrible in the snow because it's so short, although the tires are really small) while your Escort had something resembling a sloped windshield and aerodynamic design

[SteveG1988]

The smart uses premium fuel as well. also the 89 escort had a 90HP 1.9L I4, and less safety features built in, so it was a simpler car.

[oscar]

The Smart (no e, in any market) car is a fashion statement and only a fashion statement. It's also really easy to park, but no intelligent person buys those vehicles for their fuel economy. In fact, it doesn't get anywhere close to 50- the EPA has it at 33/41, which tends to be a little bit conservative, but still nowhere near 50. A gas powered Fiesta gets only marginally worse good gas mileage (29/40) and is an actual car, and like you said a diesel Jetta gets 30/42, so anybody who says they bought a Smart car because of its good gas mileage is an idiot- I can only see that you would buy one if you lived in a big city and it's easy to park, but beyond that I don't understand why people buy them.

"Really easy to park" is the key consideration, for urban dwellers where street parking is tight, and the Smart will fit in tiny spaces no regular car can squeeze into.

But I agree something like the Smart would be totally non-competitive on a rural Western Interstate, because of its small size and lousy aerodynamics.  My Prius (50mpg if I'm lucky, 45-48mpg more typical) gets better mileage even though it's larger, and is otherwise adequate as a road trip car (it's what I usually use on road trips, but it has its limits especially in the mountains). 

[Chris]

A Smart or Mini are also expensive cars for their class... I agree these are lifestyle cars, not really practical due to the lack of luggage space, and I can't imagine they are comfortable cars for long distances, yet being too expensive as a second "shopping cart" unless you have a lot of money. The most basic Smart models are still in the $ 13,000 - 15,000 range, and the better equipped models are approaching or exceeding $ 20,000. The Mini is even more expensive, starting prices are well over $ 20,000 in the Netherlands.

[agentsteel53]

Prius (50mpg if I'm lucky, 45-48mpg more typical)

really?  I got 55 regularly when I rented one a few months ago.  Was 99% highway driving, but apparently with the Prius it actually does better in the city. On one tank of gas, I got 62, doing about 55mph on US-491 and US-64 in northwestern New Mexico.

must've been the elevation.  Cars run more lean up in the mountains - less air implies less gasoline to mix with it for the ideal mixture.

[corco]

must've been the elevation.  Cars run more lean up in the mountains - less air implies less gasoline to mix with it for the ideal mixture.

Wait, what? I get about 2 MPG less in my car at elevation 7220 than I do down at 3000 feet- part of that is that I lose engine performance because of less air to mix with the gasoline, which means I have to push the gas pedal harder and therefore use more gas

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I get about 25 MPG with my '93 MX 6. Though my 94 MX 6 was still getting 30 MPG (after getting over 35 MPH when I first got it in 2001) when I sold it last year.

[Duke87]

Over the 17,820.1 miles that I drove my car from when I got it on June 22, 2009 through November 24, 2010, I averaged 31.128 MPG.

Pretty consistent with the EPA rating of 27 city, 33 highway.

[Brandon]

I think it has to do with safety requirements and engine designs and things like that- I had a 1990 Dodge Colt for a couple years that got over 40 as well. For some reason the best cars ever produced for fuel efficiency were in the late 80s and early 90s- we've never been able to replicate that.

It's because of all the extra equipment we've added to vehicles over the years.  A lot of extra safety equipment.  Side-impact beams, multiple air bags, etc are not cheap nor light.  Then we have tire pressure sensors, and now the idea out of the Feds that we all need backup cameras.  That's not light in the least.  I can see the side-impact beams, but the rest, IMHO can go.  Do we really need air bags when we have seat belts?  Should we be saving people who are too stupid to buckle in?

[agentsteel53]

I have heard that airbags do enhance the survival rate of the belted as well.

then again, the one serious accident I was in, I was hit at an angle and spun around two or three times violently.  The seatbelt kept me in place and saved my life.  The airbag solely gave me some mild burns on my hands. 

[jwolfer]

I think it has to do with safety requirements and engine designs and things like that- I had a 1990 Dodge Colt for a couple years that got over 40 as well. For some reason the best cars ever produced for fuel efficiency were in the late 80s and early 90s- we've never been able to replicate that.

It's because of all the extra equipment we've added to vehicles over the years.  A lot of extra safety equipment.  Side-impact beams, multiple air bags, etc are not cheap nor light.  Then we have tire pressure sensors, and now the idea out of the Feds that we all need backup cameras.  That's not light in the least.  I can see the side-impact beams, but the rest, IMHO can go.  Do we really need air bags when we have seat belts?  Should we be saving people who are too stupid to buckle in?

And we still have red turn signals in North America.  Don't get me started

[SteveG1988]

The focus i had before my kia lacked the following safety features. Side Impact Airbags, traction control, stability control, Anti Lock Brakes, rear brakes were drums. so pretty much in the weather back in North Dakota the focus would get stuck, or skid into a curb (bent a rim like that) when braking hard. I would rather have the safety features.

[oscar]

must've been the elevation.  Cars run more lean up in the mountains - less air implies less gasoline to mix with it for the ideal mixture.

My experience has been the same, but I'd assumed it was less air resistance at altitude.

[mightyace]

but I'd assumed it was less air resistance at altitude.

That may be true as well.

It is claimed that footballs and baseball fly farther in, say Denver, than they would in a coastal city like NY, LA, Miami, San Diego, etc.

[Brandon]

The focus i had before my kia lacked the following safety features. Side Impact Airbags, traction control, stability control, Anti Lock Brakes, rear brakes were drums. so pretty much in the weather back in North Dakota the focus would get stuck, or skid into a curb (bent a rim like that) when braking hard. I would rather have the safety features.

My PT Cruiser is the same as the above, and I've never had those problems here in NE IL or anywhere around the Great Lakes snowbelts.