Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Scion MPG-Real World Numbers

18911131417

Comments

  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    Your whole argument is just wrong. By federal law, the car makers can only report the mileage estimates that they get from EPA designed tests. EPA sets the test procedures and makes the rules. If they post other numbers for the car, higher or lower, they get in trouble.

    Hybrids always did well on the EPA tests and were WAY over what folks get in the real world. If they wanted to (and there is evidence that some car makers wanted to) they could not post the real world worse numbers, they have to stick with the EPA numbers.

    EVERYONE has known for years that the EPA numbers are wrong, yet YOU and YOU alone did not know this? You must have never purchased a car before if you thought the numbers were right. The new numbers for 08 are quite a bit lower, but still probably not real world. Cars that COULD do their EPA numbers or better before had their numbers dropped too - which makes no sense. So they just did what all car buyers (except you, I guess) have been doing for years - just look at the sticker and take 20-30% off the numbers.

    My last tank in the xB returned 27.8 mpg for my commute (about 60% stop and go and 40% freeway), this is better than the 24-25 mpg I get in the S2000 and the 13-15 mpg (ouch) I get in the RX-8. I think as the xB gets more miles on it it will get better. Do I wish it were higher? Yes. Did I expect to get what the EPA numbers are? Heck no. EVERYONE by now should know that only a very small percentage of cars on the road can get the EPA numbers when driven "normally".

    Consumer Reports reported last year that:

    Our study found that only 10 percent of vehicles achieved fuel economies as good as or better than EPA estimates, including the 2003 Infiniti FX35, the 2004 Chrysler Crossfire, and the 2000 Honda S2000 convertible

    Sounds like you were the one person who did not know this. I guess now you do? Of course, the single biggest factory in economy is how you drive. I am a more aggressive driver and like to get up to speed quickly, my penalty is worse mileage that someone who pokes along gets. If the mileage bothered me more, I would poke along and get better.

    Dennis
  • I agree. Consumers have had over 25 years of EPA mileage charts on cars. People that claim that they didn't know the charts are not accurate irritate me. A car is the second biggest purchase most consumers make next to their home. It's up to each of us to research a large purchase before they buy.

    The disclaimer printed under the estimates even informs of that. For a car that may get 31 and 35, the disclaimer reports that "actual mileage may vary", and those estimates might be 21 and 38. I mean it can't be much clearer than that.

    I am gettting 29-31 mpg for my 05 XB auto. In the warmer weather I get 31-33 on a 112 mile daily commute at speeds from stop and go up to 80. 70% highway 30% city. I bought the car not intending to actually get the EPA numbers, but I'm close.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,582
    What I did when I bought mine was average out EPA high and low (31 + 38 = 69 divided by 2 = 34.5) and then deducted 5% because I knew I'd be driving well over 55 mph (you get killed in California if you drive at 55). That gave me 32.7 mpg, which turned out to be remarkably accurate for the average over 20,000 miles.

    If you drive 55--65, I think your actual mileage will be closer to the 34.7 number over the course of many miles.

    MODERATOR

  • Well sorry fellas- I guess I've always gotten within a mile or two of what the EPA had on the sticker for whatever type of car I've owned. So my real world numbers have always matched up. Try being alittle less of a know it all [non-permissible content removed] for people on these forums. We're just trying to figure out more about our cars.

    And if I was so wrong/ignorant about my car, the fellas at the dealership would have mentioned the argument you made but not one person went there.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Well, we're all kinda moving into the realm of making this personal when that's not necessary.

    It is true that the EPA dictates the numbers on the sticker and it is true that their testing methods do not really approximate the real-world. Some may find their driving methods give them similar numbers to the EPA estimates and others may find they get dramatically different results.

    In any case, it is not the vehicle manufacturer who is directly responsible for the numbers - estimates - that appear on the sticker.

    Let's all take a couple deep breaths and remember that we're all here because we want to learn about our cars - and then get back to doing just that. ;)
  • I think that the ScionXb is the ugliest car ever made, designed, etc.It looks like a mini milk truck.I wouldn't buy that car for a dollar, I wouldn,t own that car if you paid me.
  • aathertonaatherton Posts: 617
    I have an 06 manual xB and get better than the EPA mpg. After every fillup I print the ticket, write the odometer and tripmeter miles, and enter the info into a spreadsheet that figures the mpg.
    4 Jun 06 to 16 Sep 06
    Daily driving for 3,404 miles on 97.3 gallons = 35.0 mpg.
    16 Sep 06 to 22 Sep 06
    Trip of 2,246 miles on 63.89 gallons = 35.2 mpg.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,582
    I'm with you, but the world is mostly against us. It's a pretty popular vehicle.

    35 MPG: That's good! You must have a fairly light foot or flat terrain? Or you just got a really good one!

    MODERATOR

  • lenzailenzai Posts: 7
    I second that! My 05 xA actually hit 40.1 mpg at one time, believe it or not, but that was when I was crusing at 55-60mph on the back roads on a nice sunny calm day (without any wind and no AC/radio on). However, I have also gotten only about 30 mpg on one very cold winter day driving at 65mph with head-on winds gust up to 35mph. This actually produced a relative 100mph drag force and that reduced the mileage tremendously. (Parabolic relationship between speed and drag.) But either way, I have never gotten below 30mpg, except for getting stuck in NYC traffic for 3 hrs, but that's a different story. So I think the weather and the way you drive really play a big difference on this. I dont think its Scion's fault that some people do not get 30mpg.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,582
    Well if you're stuck in traffic you're getting 0 mpg! That'll kill an average.

    MODERATOR

  • ackerjackerj Posts: 3
    Gee if you have that big of a problem why bother going on a msg board all about scion.
    So either your a closet case and acualy got a garage full of Scions or you are in desperate need of a life. :D
  • ackerjackerj Posts: 3
    I find it kind of funny arguing over 3 to 4 mpg at least your not driving a SUV (TANK) with half that.
    Also gas has one additive that dont burn "water" so what your pumping is not all gas. Watch the car in front of you and see the water dripping from the exhaust pipe.
    29,30,31 still damn good in my eyes when Fuel economy EPA is listed as highway (mpg): 35 and EPA city (mpg): 31
  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    I got my for a my "snow day car" based mainly on the style - and the cheap price, good MPGs, Toyota reliability, and strong resale value. The final thing was the fact that the xB version 1 is no more, but to replaced later this year by a redesigned 08. I am glad I got mine when I could, the new car (to me) loses all the charm of the original and it truly ugly :D . They have made it larger and are using the running gear from the Tercel/tC rather than the punier Echo drivetrain of the first gen boxes. That is big plus, but probably will result and lower MPGs and likely will come and a good bit higher price than gen 1 sold for.

    My last tank I got a little over 27 mpg commuting. I had less idling this tank and with each tank it is getting a little more "broken in". Still not a world beater, in the S2000 doing the same commute I get 23-24 mpg and get 14-15 mpg in the RX-8. The ScoobyDo Legacy wagon I traded for the box (with 100k+ on the clock) would only get 23mpg on the same drive. With four snow tires, the box did just fine on snow days this winter.

    Dennis
  • big_guybig_guy Posts: 372
    I have had an '05 xB, manual transmission, since October of 2006. I have kept track of every fill-up since I bought the vehicle and with mixed driving (including some spirited sprints around town, lengthy road trips, and gentle footed cruising), I have averaged 32.7 mpg. I have kept an online log at brianbauer.org where anyone can post data for their own vehicles and compare it to other vehicles.

    I am very pleased with the mileage I am getting. I get my best results in my typical day-to-day driving. The worst gas mileage for my xB has been on long road trips where I am driving for extended periods at 75 mph. But even then, the worst mileage I have had is 29 mpg. The best I have had is just shy of 39 mpg.

    I did have a question for those more knowledgable. I have been putting my vehicle in neutral and coasting when I am coming out of the local canyon and I have been coasting in neutral when I come off of some of the longer off ramps on my way home from work. I have found that the drag of the transmission slows me down too much coming down out of the canyon and I have to apply a bit of throttle to keep the vehcile moving at freeway speed ... whereas if I put the vehicle in neutral and coast, the aerodynamic drap on the box keeps the vehicle right at the speed I want to go and I don't need to use the throttle at all (maybe a little braking here and there). I have heard that when you are coasting "in-gear" you are not using any fuel at all whereas you are using fuel when you are idling in neutral so therefore, you should be using less fuel when you coast in gear. Is there any truth to that? It has been recently that I started using the neutral coasting in my xB and I have noticed a slight increase in mpg (about 1.5-2 mpg).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,582
    I think when coasting in neutral you are just going further on the same amount of fuel as you would use while off-throttle in gear.

    MODERATOR

  • big_guybig_guy Posts: 372
    Thanks. That is what I figured.
  • exzur2071exzur2071 Posts: 43
    I traded in my 2005 Scion tc 5 spd for a 2007 VW Rabbit 6 spd in October last year.

    On the window sticker of the tc I used to have, the city and hwy mpg are 23 and 29 respectively. I was surprised to average 34 mpg in both city and hwy driving. Probably because I had done a lot of driving coasting in neutral. What I notice then, was driving off-throttle in gear has a higher rpm than coasting in neutral. The higher the rpm, the more is the gas consumption.
  • exzur2071exzur2071 Posts: 43
    Downhill, while driving off-throttle in gear, the mph goes higher and rpm gets lower if I switch the gear to neutral.

    Driving at a higher speed with the least rpm gets the very best mpg.
  • aathertonaatherton Posts: 617
    "... when coasting in neutral you are just going further on the same amount of fuel as you would use while off-throttle in gear."

    At 660 RPM idle, the engine uses the same amount of fuel whether stopped at a light or coasting at 50 mph in neutral.

    At 50 mph, coasting in neutral at 660 RPM saves fuel compared to coasting in 5th gear at 2500 RPM. That is because when coasting at 50 mph in 5th, the engine will brake the car until the RPMs fall to idle speed. When coasting at 50 mph in neutral, the only thing braking the car is air and rolling resistance.
  • aathertonaatherton Posts: 617
    "... gas has one additive that dont burn: "water". So what your pumping is not all gas. Watch the car in front of you and see the water dripping from the exhaust pipe."

    That water did not come from the pump. It is condensation made in the muffler. Vehicles with large mufflers used in the winter for short trips will accumulate the most condensation. Water dripping from the exhaust pipe is rarely seen in the summer.
  • aathertonaatherton Posts: 617
    "... Driving at a higher speed with the least rpm gets the very best mpg."

    The very best mpg is obtained by driving with the least throttle, the least rpm, and the slowest and steadiest speed that conditions allow.

    I my 5-speed xB I have gotten 42 mpg on two Interstate tanks by doing that. Each trip was 250 miles at a steady 60 mph with no stops.

    On two other trips of the same length using the same rules, I got 37 mpg. But those trips were on 2-lane roads with hills and curves, and passing through many small towns. Cruising speed was held around 55 mph, and of course there were gear changes and stops.
  • aathertonaatherton Posts: 617
    "... 35 MPG: That's good! You must have a fairly light foot or flat terrain? Or you just got a really good one!"

    It is the combination of a light foot, good driving conditions, and using the least rpms and speed that conditions allow. I shift around 2000 rpm, and do not have to drive in either heavy stop and go traffic or on Interstate commutes. I match my speed to the slower part of the traffic around me.
    Fast driving, aggressive driving, showing off what the car can do -- the few times I have done that the mpg has gone below 30.
  • exzur2071exzur2071 Posts: 43
    "The very best mpg is obtained by driving with the least throttle, the least rpm, and the slowest and steadiest speed that conditions allow."

    The faster you can move the car with the least rpm(foot off the gas pedal, gear in neutral) squeezes the most mpg.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,582
    My mileage is getting better lately. Not sure if it's the gas or that the car is just "maturing". It has 22,500 miles on it now and seems to run better than ever.

    MODERATOR

  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    If you live where winter "oxygenated" gas is mandated, maybe they switched back to "normal" gas this month?

    Dennis
  • I too have noticed a difference this week and I'm relieved. I don't know if it's the "normal" gas or the warm weather in the Mid-Atlantic region, but my MPG is back to what is was last Fall. 324 miles on 9.8 gal. = 33.06 mpg for the '05 TCM auto. The "box" seems to have better response also. I think that I'll swap the winter snows off this weekend for the Falkens.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,582
    Maybe so...I'm consistently breaking 36 mpg and I'm not driving slowly either.

    MODERATOR

  • I just filled up today with 10.85 gal. and drove 348.7 miles for 32.138 mpg. Majority of the driving was highway at 60-75 mph in DC metro area driving with an '05 auto TCM XB. MPG is still holding steady with the warmer weather.
  • I hope the new XB gets similar MPG as the original. I just came back from a 347.8 mile highway jaunt at speeds mostly 70-80 mph. There were several stretches where 80 mph for several hours was the norm. I filled 10.78 gallons for an avg of 32.26 mpg with my auto '05 XB. If the new XB can get similar mpg I might trade my '05. If not, I'll hang onto it until it clicks over to 100k and give it to my daughter.
  • chitowntomchitowntom Posts: 1
    I'm thinking of buying a tC and I was wondering if it required premium gas. That is my main reason for buying a new car. $3.69 a gallon is killing me
Sign In or Register to comment.