Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison



  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    MPG claims are not a whole lot different than 'price paid' claims for many autos. An automotive equivalent of a fish story. You should see the one that got away! ;)

    Seriously, folks, it is amazing to me and just a bit irritating that many of you think I am stretching the truth about the fuel economy on our recent weekend trip. Here are a few other points that you can accuse me of lying about:

    The Taurus has a 3.16 axle ratio and a .74 OD for a final drive of 2.34. At 75 MPH, it is turning around 2000 RPM. The Ford 3.5 has VVT on the intake only but overall cam timing and head design is calibrated for a sweet spot in the 1500 - 2500 RPM range. They could have gone to more expensive VVT on both intake and exhaust or recalibrated the cam and head design for more HP and more refinement at high RPM but chose not to. The point is that the Taurus gets very good fuel economy in its sweet spot - better than Ford's own 3.0 and likely better than many competitors. The Ford 3.0 will get these enhancements soon and will have HP bump to 240 and better MPG.

    The good highway mileage is nothing more exotic than a very high final drive and an engine tuned for good mileage in its sweet spot, and near perfect conditions. Keep in mind that the EPA highway mileage estimate now includes segments with speeds up to 80 MPH, AC usage, and maximum acceleration. The Taurus and Avalon are both rated at 28 highway on this cycle.

    On my weekend drive, it was 55-60 degrees so AC was not used. Traffic was light and there are no hills to speak of. Under similar conditions, for business trips to Des Moines, I have gotten 31 MPG with a rental Impala and 34.5 with a 4 Cylinder Camry. My wife's old 3.0 Duratec Taurus would get about 28.5. My Lincoln LS V8 will get 26. I repeat: Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style.

    One last thing: I make no claim that the Taurus fuel economy is stellar under all conditions. It is geared pretty deep in the first 3 gears and can suck up fuel if you put your foot in it. Stop and go traffic could easily be in the teens although I have never checked it.

    OK, sock it to me again!
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Not to mention the extra 750 for Southeastern Toyota and the 700 "ToyoGuard" fabric and exterior protection

    I am so glad I am not in a SET area. My Yota dealer adds nothing to the price that you don't want and I leased mine ('06 Av XLS) about $500 over invoice. Not stellar but they did have to get the car from 300 miles away.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'm still with ya bruce.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Thanks, Grad! This is not rocket science but old perceptions are sometimes hard for people to abandon.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style.
    no reason to get irritated at all - it is not this statement I question - heck it was even possible to better the old EPA ratings never mind those lower 'new' ones. The disbelief comes from your mileage claims at 75-80mph specifically- given that there is a significant hit (FE wise) any car will take at those speeds. Would be interested to know for sure what that engine speed actually is at 75 or 80 - one poster reports 2000 at 75, the other 2000 at 80 - even that is a significant difference, never mind that is also less than even the Toyota engine/6 speed which does have that greater flexibility allowed by that extra sophistication in the valvetrain, as you note.
    And yes, if I drive my Avalon at a constant 60 or even 65 I will see FE in the low or even mid 30s - just not at 75 or 80 - and down here in Texas - I'd be getting run over if I tried to poke along at a mere 60 mph on most of our highways ;)
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    No, I am not really irritated. I keep coming back for more!

    Specifically, the Taurus with the standard 17 inch wheels goes 37.1 MPH per 1000 RPM. That would be 74.2 MPH at 2000 RPM and 2,156 RPM at 80 - a difference of a tach needle width. I agree that those speeds take a toll versus 60. Even 80 takes quite a toll over 75. I didn't pay attention to our average speed for the trip but I usually can avoid speeding tickets on this route if I run around 76 -78 - give or take a couple of MPH. The posted limit is 70.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Running at 75, I routinely beat the OLD EPA numbers for my vehicle by 2-3 mpg, the new estimates by 6-7. I drive an off topic sedan, but I say this to say that it really IS possible as long as you aren't gunning it regularly to pass a truck or something.
  • jaymagicjaymagic Posts: 309
    Claim could easily be true. I am currently getting 25.8 mpg on my Azera for the last about 3500 miles (just turned over 30,000 total). This is 70/30 hwy/city and mostly between 65 and 75 MPH on the highway. I have checked (the old method) not the computer and have gotten easily between 29mpg and 31 mpg on 200 plus mile drives at 75-80 mph several times.

    When my wife used the car consistently, she was more like 60/40 city/hwy, the average dropped to about 23.6 mpg, as an average.

    I tend to drive fast, but not jack rabbit starts to get to speed.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I routinely beat the OLD EPA numbers for my vehicle by 2-3 mpg, the new estimates by 6-7
    since I know you are one of our younger posters here - I would suggest that you might also be the only '20 something' that can make this claim. ;)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I have checked (the old method) not the computer
    which in itself can lead to inaccurate results
    These new high speed vapor recovery gas pumps will almost always shutoff well before your fuel tank is full - in the case of my Avalon 2 gallons or more - out of 18.5. So therefore if I start with a truly full tank and then 'fill up' with some quantity of fuel 2 gallons less, my calculated FE will necessarily be way high (approx. 10%) . The only way anymore to get an accurate FE calculation is to make sure that the tank is 'topped off' everytime - something that they (and the pumps) don't want us to do for obvious reasons. I really think that the trip computers in our cars may be more accurate :confuse: on a tank-by-tank basis.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    I would suggest that you might also be the only '20 something' that can make this claim.

    Captain, were you trying to fish me out? ;)

    Last time I took my IS350 on a trip I set the cruise at 85 mph and I got around 28 to 29 mpg. I have no doubt that if I slow down for just another 10 mph (75) I would have no problem brreaking the 30 mpg barrier. That's not too shabby for a 300+ hp car if you ask me...

    For your info, the new EPA estimate for my car is 19/26/21 and old estimate was 21/28/24.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    just so brucelinc doesn't feel alone - I find this hard to believe as well - 28mpg at 85mph????. The IS not a particularly light car that is further 'burdened' (from a FE perspective) by the RWD? And I think you know what I think about the FSE version of the 2GR - even more of the best! Apologies, of course, to the VQ!
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    The whole trip averaged out to be 27.8 mpg and keep in mind that's including going through I-10 in LA and bunch of traffics before I can set my cruise at 85 mph. According to the mpg meter when I was at the cruising speed it was constantly hovering around 27 to 32 mpg.

    The 2GR is phenomenal on highway both in terms of FE and performance. I don't know about the regular 2GR but the only time that my 2GR-FSE doesn't return good FE is in the city with my lead foot. I average about 19.5 mpg for my everyday driving and that's about 85% city and 15% highway.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    always thought that the direct injection on the FSE was for the extra 30 hp and if anything would hurt FE slightly - much like the latest variants of the GM 3.6 primarily in the CTS. The Avalon really doesn't need the 300 hp IMO, unlike the IS which certainly puts it to good use
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Posts: 495
    I agree. I checked my mileage using the computer and the old fill it till it almost overflows method. Used same station and same pump. Computer under estimated MPG by about a mile.
    Also, travelling I-40 in eastern Tennessee with cruise on 65-70, got 32 MPG per computer.
    My understanding is that EPA highway estimate is for mixture of roads with stops included, not straight interstate.
    Regardless, I have a Ford Ranger piece of junk and had a Ford Taurus. Traded the Taurus for a Camry when the tranny fell out just over 100,000 miles. Used trany would cost more than a car in very good condition was valued.
    I'll keep my Azera over any Ford product out there now, but will look at MKS - not expecting much though.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Well Captain, the 2GR is a much better engine than the Hyundai 3.8 and I can assure you that I've seen between 27-28 mpg cruising at 75. Mind you...that's resetting the FE calculator once I've reached speed. If I reset it before I start and check it when I come to a stop, overall...the FE is at about 24-25 mpg.

    Personally, I've NEVER heard of a Ford vehicle bettering a Honda or Toyota vehicle in terms of FE...NEVER.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    always thought that the direct injection on the FSE was for the extra 30 hp and if anything would hurt FE slightly

    No Captain, The FSE has dual inject, meaning it combines gasoline direct injection with traditional port injection. Using direct injection and port injection simultaneously facilitates more precise mixing of air and fuel under low and medium load conditions for greater efficiency, while high load conditions dictate the use of direct injection alone for maximum power.

    Source: Toyota GR Engine

    As far as I know currently the 2GR-FSE is the only engine to incorporate this technology, that really shows Toyota's dedication for both performance and FE.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ha, this is likely true. But, as a twenty-something, I'm not rolling in cash, so it makes a difference.

    And yes, most of my friends say I drive like "paw-paw," but they always line up to ride with me instead of going with someone else. I guess there's something to be said for safe driving.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I average about 19.5 mpg for my everyday driving

    I don't feel that bad about my 21 - 22 in my Avalon. FWIW I tend to have a lead foot too. The 2GR is just so sweet above 3500 RPM I just can't resist when I have an open lane!

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • lightfootfllightfootfl Posts: 442
    Re Toyota prices, etc
    Yeah, it seems that the Southeastern Toyota conglomorate or whatever it is insists on ripping off the public by establishing those REQUIRED EXTRAS and they don't like being forced to admit it. As long as they insist on stealing that money from the public, I for one will never consider another Toyota, regardless of their offerings. Also I have found out local Pensacola dealer to not be the most gracious of service departments either. At one time our family had 4 Toyotas, now NONE.
Sign In or Register to comment.