View Full Version : MPG happy
I am commuting every other week (though grumbling) 520 miles each way. I have a 2012 Focus SFE. I got 41.5 MPG yesterday. My lowest has been 39MPG. Yes I keep the ticker running, guess it is some sort of self validation, kinda like the running app on my phone.
Wow, pretty good and important for travelling those distances.
Good mileage was my reason for buying a Toyota Prius V in September. It really makes a difference.
I had a civic hybrid the year they came. Nice car but winter my mpg dropped into the 30s. I went over to tell my Prius neighbor this morning about my mpg.
I've been getting about 36mph out of a Mini Cooper.
Tussiemussies
10-5-13, 8:06pm
Still have my Honda CRX that gets into the 50s mpg, I that is mostly on the highways though. Still a great car for gas use...
SteveinMN
10-5-13, 10:22pm
Last tank on the Jetta Wagon was around 47...
I hope this car lasts forever because going back to lower mileage than this will be quite an adjustment.
Our home base is 100% related to automotive, Motown. I have heard about new features and designs forever. Then I look at the mpg and cringe. If so many models can pull good to great mpg Why are others still not doing it, is my gripe. Husband drives a bigger car (not a big three) and he got 38 driving it to TN. So not to shabby either.
I flirted with the idea of a new model that would be better for my three big dogs on the commute. But can't get past the lower mpg. Since I am stuck on the big three, well two. But being an average American I have almost forgotten the GM incident.
We get the following:
Mercury Milan Hybrid 40
Porsche 24
Diesel truck 18
plane 13
We spend quite a bit on fuel. Over $1,000 per month. Recent fuel prices are down some. The Milan uses 87 oct @ $3.00, the Porsche uses 93 oct @ $3.50, Diesel is around $3.75, and Avgas is $5.50.
I know the feeling of pride in mpg also--I bought my Prius in 2007, and I just take low gas bills in stride. I fill my tank maybe twice a month, and our gas bill for both my Prius and my DH's Honda Fit is about $80 a month. On average, I get 46-49 mpg, depending upon how tuned up the car is, and how well-inflated the tires are. The Fit gets about 35.
I guess one of my own "i don't gets" which I maybe should put on my "I Don't Get It" thread is why high MPG isn't a higher draw for people shopping for cars. I've had gas guzzlers in my day, and it simply is not fun shelling over all that money for gas, IMHO.
I guess one of my own "i don't gets" which I maybe should put on my "I Don't Get It" thread is why high MPG isn't a higher draw for people shopping for cars. I've had gas guzzlers in my day, and it simply is not fun shelling over all that money for gas, IMHO.
It's because gasoline is cheaper here than it is in almost any other highly-developed country. At $4 a gallon, gasoline/diesel is only barely more expensive than it was 30 years ago (adjusted for inflation). So why should behaviors change? I notice it took a sustained gas price of over $4 a gallon here before people started adding the price of their commutes into the price of those McMansions in far-flung "suburbs" -- and then housing there took a dive unrelated to the bubble. In Europe, they pay up to twice what we pay per gallon. Granted, a significant chunk of that is general taxation that funds mass transit and those evil safety-net programs. But you can bet if gasoline suddenly cost $7-8 a gallon here, people would be abandoning SUVs by the sides of roads, leaving the keys in the ignition.
And, unfortunately, most Americans have bought into the fictions that 1) you can't drive anything smaller than an SUV to be safe on American roads; and 2) any vehicle that can't go from a dead stop to 60 mph in six seconds or less is a rolling highway death trap. Fuel mileage would be much higher if people didn't buy in to that nonsense.
I know the feeling of pride in mpg also--I bought my Prius in 2007, and I just take low gas bills in stride. I fill my tank maybe twice a month, and our gas bill for both my Prius and my DH's Honda Fit is about $80 a month. On average, I get 46-49 mpg, depending upon how tuned up the car is, and how well-inflated the tires are. The Fit gets about 35.
I guess one of my own "i don't gets" which I maybe should put on my "I Don't Get It" thread is why high MPG isn't a higher draw for people shopping for cars. I've had gas guzzlers in my day, and it simply is not fun shelling over all that money for gas, IMHO.
We did buy a hybrid the last time we bought a new car. But we did get a good deal. The premium you pay for a hybrid can buy a lot of gas at $3.00 a gal. It really depends on how many miles you drive and what you plan to use the car for.
I have the truck because I use to pull a travel trailer with it. I probably should sell it, but it is handy and it will probably last me for years to come. The Porsche is just a fun car. I don't drive it much anymore. And the plane cruises at 180-190mph, its fun and gets me there fast.
My 12 year old Tacoma is not the gas miser of some cars, but I do pride myself on driving sensibly and getting better mileage. I drive a little under the speed limit on the highway while most people seem to think the correct speed is 5 or 10 mph faster than the limit. I am guessing I get 10 or 15 percent better mileage that way. I was actually pretty happy when Jimmy Carter reduced highway speeds to 55 mph during his energy crisis.
I think the whole family drives under 6000 miles a year total, so pure gas mileage isn't much of a deciding factor for us.
Reliability, functionality, safety, ability of our local mechanic to service the vehicle are much more important. We tend to keep vehicles 10-20 years before replacing something in their ecological niche.
IshbelRobertson
10-7-13, 7:17am
Here's a report for Sep 2013 prices in the UK and other mainland countries
http://www.theaa.com/resources/Documents/pdf/motoring-advice/fuel-reports/september2013.pdf
Read 'em and weep :doh:
PS we use litres, not gallons.
Just to make the difference really clear in my mind, I had to convert the cost to US$.
630.1 pence per gallon(Imperial I believe) = $10.13
Litres that we use in Canada: 137.6 average per litre in UK = US$2.21 for unleaded. Our current cost locally per litre right now is listed on Gasbuddy for C$1.23 so not quite half the price.
Keep in mind that Imperial gallons are about 20% bigger than "North American" gallons. But still....
simplelife4me
10-8-13, 12:00am
“Vehicle size and weight matter. Smaller, lighter vehicles generally offer less protection than larger, heavier ones. There is less structure to absorb crash energy, so deaths and injuries are more likely. People in lighter vehicles also experience higher crash forces when struck by heavier vehicles. If safety is a major consideration, pass up very small, light vehicles.”
http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf
And, unfortunately, most Americans have bought into the fictions that 1) you can't drive anything smaller than an SUV to be safe on American roads; and 2) any vehicle that can't go from a dead stop to 60 mph in six seconds or less is a rolling highway death trap. Fuel mileage would be much higher if people didn't buy in to that nonsense.
SteveinMN
10-8-13, 10:45am
“Vehicle size and weight matter. Smaller, lighter vehicles generally offer less protection than larger, heavier ones. There is less structure to absorb crash energy, so deaths and injuries are more likely. People in lighter vehicles also experience higher crash forces when struck by heavier vehicles. If safety is a major consideration, pass up very small, light vehicles.”
But how small is "very small, light"? smart (http://www.smart.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/smart-content-Site/-/-/-/Default-Start) car? Toyota IQ (http://www.scion.com/cars/iQ/)? Original BL mini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Mini)? How big is the difference in injury/death rates in a collision between, say, a semi and a Chevy Sonic or a much larger Chevy Caprice? Or even a Silverado, for that matter?
And how does one escape the arms race that evolves as people buy bigger and bigger vehicles to "protect" themselves? And what about passive safety, which has to do with avoiding the accident in the first place? Larger, heavier vehicles generally take longer to stop and turn than smaller, lighter vehicles. The most survivable accident is the one you don't have.
But how small is "very small, light"?
I was perfectly happy buying my Mini Cooper, it has great crash test results, and is reasonably nimble and quick - qualities which help *avoid* accidents.
I've been going through technical rescue training this year, a great deal of which involves learning how to disassemble automobiles to get to the passengers after a crash. Modern autos, even small ones, are full of incredible safety features, and I'd be much happier crashing in a current-vintage small car than an older large vehicle. (Some of these safety mechanisms are quite dangerous to rescuers, however...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Qj75pbl8o
Modern autos, even small ones, are full of incredible safety features, and I'd be much happier crashing in a current-vintage small car than an older large vehicle.
Even small modern cars are safer than the old tanks. Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs) of a Renault Modus crashing (on purpose) into a Volvo 940 wagon, a car from a company with a long-standing reputation for safety. The Volvo dates back to the early-to-mid 90s and weighs 3300 pounds and is 191 inches long. The Modus, not especially known for its safety, is about 10-15 years newer. It weighs 2500 pounds and is more than three feet shorter than the Volvo. Spoiler alert: it wins.
bae, has your team had to extricate people from an electric or hybrid vehicle yet?
bae, has your team had to extricate people from an electric or hybrid vehicle yet?
Yes. These are very problematic, as you might imagine. There are places there you simply don't want to cut or pierce, or you risk killing yourself. And there is no standardization from model-to-model. We are developing a book noting the problem models, but some models don't even appear to be hybrid/electric on first inspection these days.
The standard "quick fix" for an engine fire, for instance, is to take the spike on your Halligan tool, drive it through the hood, and place the nozzle of an extinguisher in the hole to put out the fire rapidly. If you do this move on several hybrid models now, the spike goes right into a high-energy capacitor, and you can fry yourself.
It is pretty clear to me that the automotive designers do not consult much with the rescue industry during the design phase.
It is pretty clear to me that the automotive designers do not consult much with the rescue industry during the design phase.
Many times I'm convinced automotive designers do not consult much with anyone. :~)
And, unfortunately, most Americans have bought into the fictions that... 2) any vehicle that can't go from a dead stop to 60 mph in six seconds or less is a rolling highway death trap. Fuel mileage would be much higher if people didn't buy in to that nonsense.
It's amazing to notice how much more powerful cars are today. When I was in high school I drove an aging VW Rabbit that had a top speed of about 80. (and believe me, I tried to go faster, it just wouldn't...) Fast forward to 8 or 9 years ago. I'd been in LA for work, rented a car and was driving down to San Diego to spend the weekend with my sister. At one point the highway goes through Camp Pendleton military base. A bunch of miles with no exits, no lane shifts or anything to disrupt traffic flow. I kept even with traffic. Somewhere in the middle of it I realized I seemed to be moving pretty quick. When I looked at the speedometer I was doing 98. As was every other car on the road. And I was just driving a base model Chevy Cavalier. Far different from the early 80's.
Tanglefoot
12-17-13, 10:37pm
It's true--I think cars are way too powerful these days. In previous decades, 0-60 in 12 seconds was blistering. Now just about any grocery getter can do sub-10s. It's ridiculous.
In case anyone's interested, eco-modder has compiled a list of hypermiling (driving techniques to maximize fuel economy) and fuel-saving techniques:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/EM-hypermiling-driving-tips-ecodriving.php
I do a little hypermiling with a gen-2 Prius hatch for a little over 60 mpg in the summer and 52-55 mpg in the winter.
Does anyone use a hydroxy, "Brown's gas" chamber? I built the "Smack's booster" version for the 1985 Toyota 4runner. It's a fun project to tinker with. I think the biggest benefit is cleaner emissions but I think it can help squeeze out some extra MPGs when the oxygen-sensor signal is properly adjusted (via an EFIE circuit). I think it helped obtain the 22 mpg with the truck camper on the back on my last trip to a Bluegrass festival. It normally doesn't do better than 20 mpg without the camper on it.
I pay $90 a month for an unlimited bus & rail pass! Love it.
pinkytoe
12-18-13, 11:49am
Interesting video, Steve, as I drive a 19 yo 940. I am wondering though what the results would have been had it been truly head on rather than hitting only one side of Volvo front. Also, I wouldn't bet the small car wouldn't come out so well if rear-ended. My 940only gets 20 mpg avg but then I only drive to work and back...so $55 a month in gas. I would imagine tiny cars are more nimble though in situations that require quick action.
SteveinMN
12-18-13, 8:41pm
pinkytoe, I think the outcome would have been better for both cars had the collision been head-on. You may have seen on the news a few months ago footage of cars the IIHS tested for corner impacts. Even some "top safety picks" did quite poorly on that test. That is partially because manufacturers have learned to ace the full-front test (easier when the test is always the same question!) and partially because loading corners stresses a new set of body and chassis components.
I don't know about rear-end collisions. From one perspective, manufacturers are using more high-strength steel throughout bodies -- because it saves weight -- and have learned much more about distributing the effects of a collision. But there typically is less crush space in the back and little that can absorb any of the energy (as the engine/transmission can). So maybe that's the next big frontier in car safety.
My long-term plan is to keep my car another 10-15 years (unless some idiot in a Neon with bald tires takes it out someday). But I do think about the improvements in safety in even the 11 years I've had my car and wonder if it will feel scary to drive in 2023 because it's so far "behind the times" as far as safety design goes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.