Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1259260262264265721

Comments

  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I don't understand what all this arguing over old EPA vs new EPA estimates is for. :confuse: The estimates are only really meant to be for comparison between cars. New, or old estimates, either way it will not change the actual mileage you get driving your way. It's not like your own mileage went down, when the EPA changed the estimates.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    You drive like the old EPA tests here in Los Angeles and you'll get run into in almost no time at all.(or shot at).

    5mph per second is a bare minimum - and 0-30 is closer to 6-10mph per second in traffic. 3.7 would be 0-30 in 8 seconds. That's elderly myopic duffer speed. I can do better than that on a bicycle in fact.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    That's elderly myopic duffer speed.

    Do you have a translation for this? What's a duffer?
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    http://golf.about.com/cs/golfterms/g/bldef_duffer.htm

    It's a bad, slow player. The kind of guy who clogs up the course and you're having to play through all the time.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Note though that 3.2 mph/s is the maximum acceleration for those cycles. That means they go for even slower acceleration in the same cycle.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    And while there is a truth to the disclaimer, I don't find any in new EPA ratings. That said, unless you're driving 300-350 miles (or almost a tankful) a day, you can't reliably measure your daily mileage.

    What car do you drive?
  • OK then I'll share my current/recent experiences.
    We own two cars: A.) 2006 Honda Civic EX sedan 5 speed automatic with about 12K miles. The car had the "old" EPA sticker showing 30 city/40 highway. This car is mainly driven by my wife who has a short (approx.3mi one way) drive to work. Additionally she drives about 15 miles round trip Monday-Wednesday-Friday to a fitness center. She also goes to local stores on a random basis involving some traffic and traffic signals. We live in a smallish city that does have quite a few traffic signals and at certain times of the day stop-go traffic. Additionally, U.S. Rt 30 runs through the town and the business district is built around it. We/she gets between 22 and 24 mpg under these circumstances. Speed probably maxes out at 50 +/- during her normal day with varying stops and time idling for traffic. It is by no means "big city" traffic but it can be slow and go. I have driven on the trips we took with it and they involved interstate driving. I drive relatively conservatively with cruise locked @ 70-72 mph. The terrain is rolling hills merging into the mountains of western Pa. I tend to use the Pa. Turnpike which by design smooths out the biggest mountain climbs (using Rt 30 instead for instance) into long but more moderate ones. So, there was some mountainous driving as well. I have a regular 260 mile(weekly) trip to make into western Pa (we live in s. central Pa) so in the interest in keeping miles off the Honda I use my second car mostly. Anyhow, using AC and cruise I get about 36-37 mpg on those longer drives. The whole new-old EPA debacle got started by my statement that the new EPA numbers more closely match what me..Joe average, actually gets. I guess I could have matched the 40 highway number but not the 30 city. It is just that with normal care and using normal basic fuel economy precautions it was the "new" numbers that were readily met. Based on those observations I simply said they seem more accurate for the average person and I stand by that.
    Car #2 a 1995 Dodge Stratus ES sedan with a Mitsubishi 2.5 liter V-6 and 4 speed automatic transmission. It has 197,788 miles. I use this car for work and those weekly trips. The original EPA (old..old numbers) sticker states: 20 city and 29 highway. I have had ample opportunity to explore fuel economy numbers. My "commute" involves a short drive on a rural 2 lane...a short stint on US Rt30...then a longer drive on another rural 2 lane. Total miles 12 (one way) speed (depends on if I am running late) probably varies between 35 mph and 55 mph with little traffic and 2 traffic lights. At the first I can usually make a right turn on red or there is a moderate wait until it turns green the second light is new but I have been making it green since it is timed for thru traffic. So, at 5:30 AM I worry more about deer than traffic. Driving to-from work plus we generally use this car to go shopping, going out to eat etc after work places it in the same stop-go situations as the Civic. I have been getting between 22 and 23 routinely. Now we come to those weekly trips. Using the PA turnpike and driving 70-74 mph using cruise (plus sometimes a faster burst to 80 mph or so for misc. reasons) I get between 26.4 to 28.xx all depending on season...traffic...weather...and other normal variables. I have attained 30 mpg a few times but 27-28-even 29 is doable without much drama. So, there you have it. I drive in what I consider a moderate fashion with no (ok few) irrational bursts of speed (road rage) and I am content to motor along if nobody "bothers" me. I have been known to travel at triple digit speeds for irrational reasons for short periods but then there are those deer.
    As usual there are those who get fantasic numbers (which I have come to find as suspect) and those who get dismal numbers. In the end there are as many reported variances in fuel economy as people who report them.
  • "used for comparison between cars"....not any more bucko. In case you haven't noticed the fuel economy numbers are now part of automobile advertising both print and TV and God help the manufacturer ( and the dealer that sold the clearly inferior product) that doesn't provide the consumer "those ADVERTISED mileage numbers". It is far more now than originally intended...a basis for comparison.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,689
    And while there is a truth to the disclaimer, I don't find any in new EPA ratings. That said, unless you're driving 300-350 miles (or almost a tankful) a day, you can't reliably measure your daily mileage.

    What car do you drive?


    A 2006 Fusion V6, not that it matters.

    The disclaimer is on every new vehicle window sticker.

    The onboard mpg calculator (at least on Ford vehicles) has been repeatedly compared to actual MPG calculated the old fashioned way and it is typically off by less than 0.5 mpg (worst case 1 mpg). The computer knows your exact mileage and it knows how many times the fuel injectors have fired and exactly how much fuel they deliver each time. There's no reason for it not to be accurate.

    Of course automakers advertise EPA fuel mileage. What else are they supposed to use - their own estimates? You know that won't work. The whole point of lowering the EPA estimates with more realistic tests is precisely so that people are more likely to get the advertised fuel mileage on their vehicles. And for comparison purposes it doesn't matter whether you use the old or new ratings - the differences are the same.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    As usual there are those who get fantasic numbers (which I have come to find as suspect)

    If you don't believe them, why argue about it? I, for one, as one of those 'suspect people,' will be happy to report my mileage and move on.

    You should be aware, however, when I have gotten 40mpg (twice, so far, usually is around 38) on my runs to the beach, I fill up along I-65, and fill up again along U.S.highway 59 where it meets I-10. The car is never restarted, stopped more than 4 or 5 times, exceeds 80MPH, and likely, other than the initial acceleration to highway speed on I-65 and on US 59, never stays in a gear other than top (5th). Conditions are PURE highway.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    And for comparison purposes it doesn't matter whether you use the old or new ratings - the differences are the same.

    The old EPA rating for our 2007 SEL AWD Fusion, 3.0-liter, 221-horsepower, Duratec V6 with 6-speed automatic tranny was 19 city/26 highway while the revised estimate is 17 mpg city and 24 highway.

    We have taken only two 340-mile trips with it. The first, with about 1,500 miles on the odometer, resulted in 24 mpg going and 26 mpg returning. The second, this past Thanksgiving, we averaged 24.4 for the round trip. I drove 70-75 mpg most of the time and achieved an overage average speed of 58 mph. This included the time spent idling for a doughnut shop stop and the slow downs for seven tolls.

    That the car will deliver the EPA estimate is somewhat reassuring, as in "there is nothing 'wrong' with the car." Would I like for the mileage to be higher? Absolutely.

    In-city experiences are a different ball game. For the first 1,500-2,000 miles the car would do no better than 13 mpg (an unlucky number?) and gradually improved to 14.8 mpg. The fuel efficiency has improved ever so slightly as the mileage has increased. The best has been 16.4 mpg.

    The Ford on-board computer compares favorably with the old-fashioned divide the number of gallons used into the number of miles traveled. There is usually a .5 to 1 mpg difference, on the optimistic side.

    Our terrain is as flat as a pool table. We are 50 feet above sea level. The tires are slightly over-inflated. My wife and I are gentle drivers. I have tried different brands of 87-octane gas (the recommended fuel). My wife's "commute" is about four miles and the in-city driving is 90 percent short hops, not bumper-to-bumper but definitely stop-n-go.

    It makes me feel happier with the car knowing that it is only "supposed" to get 17 mpg in city driving as opposed to 19. Naturally I would be a lot happier if it delivered 20 mpg in city driving but it just ain't gonna happen.

    It is good, I suppose, that we have only put about 6,000 miles on the Fusion during the first year of ownership.

    Our next car, if there ever is one, will be a high gasoline mileage sedan of some sort. In retrospect, we should have ordered an SEL FWD Fusion with the 2.3-liter I4 160-horsepower engine with a 5-speed manual or 5-speed automatic. That would have lowered the MSRP considerably and been a big plus at the gas pump.

    I no longer crave "Zoom-Zoom" cars and while driving a stick shift can be fun at times it is also an inconvenience. There is very little mileage difference these days between a stick and a slush box.

    We really do like our Fusion, everything about it (mostly) except for the in-city gas mileage. Slight negatives include a rather large turning radius, poor rear visibility and very expensive Michelin 225-50R-17 tires. I am already dreading the day when it comes time to replace those puppies. I am definitely not going to spend $1,000.

    To summarize, I believe the revised EPA fuel economy estimates are a good thing because they are more realistic, closer to what the average driver might expect to achieve. I don't buy into conspiracy theories involving the EPA, the manufacturers, etc.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,991
    One of my big pet peeves is getting behind the person who is slowly coasting up to a line of cars at a stop light and I'm trying to get around them to get into the left turn lane. Now because of their attempt to save a thimble of gas, I have missed the left turn arrow. They saved a thimble but I lost two thimbles waiting for the next arrow. :cry: It doesn't matter that I'm right behind them with my blinker on. I guess they must have just paid their taxes and feel they own the road. :D
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    Unfortunately some people are just plain rude and inconsiderate. If you are going to coast up to a stop (I do that all the time myself, in my mid-sized car--YESSSS, something that is ON TOPIC!!!!), at least be aware enough and considerate enough to make sure no one is behind you. :mad:
  • I do not argue I simply do not believe some of the more fantastic reports and being who I am I may (yeah sure...may) make a "yeah, sure" type comment which probably comes off as an argument. Good for all who exceed any past and all future EPA estimates. You are helping to minimize the use of foreign oil. This is me moving on >>>>>
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Too bad. You probably were not going to make that turn arrow anyway and were also probably following too close behind me. :P ;)

    I'm not generally coasting all that slowly. I do still use the brakes. But it seems like many drive with a foot on the gas or the brakes at all times.

    On my normal route there are few left arrows and all of them allow you to turn left on the regular green too. Traffic is light enough that if you miss the arrow, you will generally get through on the green that follows immediately after.

    In any case, this balances out by me being annoyed by all those in front of me who take 1/2 mile to get up to 60 mph, those who pull out in front of me and still refuse to accelerate... forcing me to brake or change lanes. And, of course the ever present tailgaters...

    I will often get passed by cars when coming to a stop, but assuming traffic allows, they are then very soon far behind me after the light turns green.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    by your description of your short commutes etc. it strikes me that you would be a natural for a decent hybrid - the Camry or Altima come to mind. You may have a hard time recovering the cost premium (most do) but at least you'll feel 'green' and you won't be taking out loans with Exxon.
  • I second that, it seems like short trip stop and go driving are conditions where a Prius/Camry Hybrid would excel. You can also look at the Aura/Malibu mild hybrids, although their FE numbers are less impressive.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    "used for comparison between cars"....not any more bucko. In case you haven't noticed the fuel economy numbers are now part of automobile advertising both print and TV and God help the manufacturer ( and the dealer that sold the clearly inferior product) that doesn't provide the consumer "those ADVERTISED mileage numbers". It is far more now than originally intended...a basis for comparison.

    Which is why so many people complained about the old estimates. :cry: They were actually expecting to achieve those numbers. With the new estimates more people will achieve mileage over the window sticker numbers, but who's going to complain about that. I don't think the new estimates are any closer to "real world" than the old estimates were. But there will be a lot less complaining. So all the complainers should be happy now, even though they aren't getting any better mileage than they were before. :confuse:
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,991
    Well I might have be following close in that instance simply because I'm trying to get somebodys attention. HELLOOOH. Anyway, most of the lights in the Chicago area are now "Turn left on green arrow only". Believe me, when trying to get onto a main road from a secondary road in a case like this, it can be an awful long time inbetween light changes. So, it is aggravating seeing an entire left turn lane empty with the green arrow and somebody is just coasting along while people with their signals on can't get into the lane. Not road rage qualifying but like I said, a pet peeve. :)
  • Let's get back on topic, shall we?

    I finally had a chance to sit and ride inside my co-workers '08 Accord EX-L V6. This is his third Accord, and he bought the car as soon as the local dealers started offering them.

    Pros: The leather seats are comfortable, it's quiet, and the dashboard gauges and controls are clear and legible, as every Accord has been for years. The power is nice, and the automatic is almost seamless in operation.

    Cons: For it being a revised Accord, I'm disappointed, especially with the interior. For the EX-L, I expected better-quality materials for the dash and center console. The plastic looks cheap, and not as nice as the '03 Accord he previously owned. The center console is wide, with acres of ugly-looking black plastic. In terms of ingress/egress, I found it more difficult than the '03 to get in and out. It's definitely bigger, and it feels it, especially compared to my Mazda6, my sisters Aura, and the last-gen Accord.

    Again, this is all my opinion, but I was surprised and disappointed, and IMO it's lost a little bit from the previous-gen Accord.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    So all the complainers should be happy now, even though they aren't getting any better mileage than they were before.

    In a way, you're right Elroy. The old EPA rating for our 2007 SEL AWD Ford Fusion was 19 mpg city and 26 mpg highway. The new rating is 17 city, 24 highway. I feel as though that is more realistic and certainly a lot closer to what we actually get.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Here is how it goes (posted yesterday by someone in another board)...

    "Here's what I don't understand. According to the article, the car weighs 2800 lbs, has a 138 hp, 1.8 liter engine, and get 24 mpg city, 32 hwy. Why is that mileage so poor?

    My 1997 Olds Aurora weighs 4000 lbs, has a 4.0 liter engine putting out 250 hp and in my experience gets 19-20 mpg city, and 26-28 mpg hwy at 70-80 mph. The hwy mileage is 1-2 mpg better if you drive the speed limit. It's a much bigger and more comfortable car than the Astra, but by comparison it's pretty darned efficient."


    What he didn't consider was that Aurora would now be rated 15/24. The comparison he drew was new EPA (on an economy car) against his observed mileage on a premium midsize. And he is not alone. The new ratings have come out as a shock to many. It shouldn't have, if most weren't getting old ratings (much less exceeding it).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The onboard mpg calculator (at least on Ford vehicles) has been repeatedly compared to actual MPG calculated the old fashioned way and it is typically off by less than 0.5 mpg (worst case 1 mpg). The computer knows your exact mileage and it knows how many times the fuel injectors have fired and exactly how much fuel they deliver each time. There's no reason for it not to be accurate.

    It usually is, but not over short distances. Try it. I have. Trip computer in my car is precise enough for me to forget using a calculator (I do it nonetheless), but after a reasonable number of miles but unreliable over short distances. And since you have trip computer, do you also take note of your average speed? I have figured out that mileage is directly tied to average speed.

    The whole point of lowering the EPA estimates with more realistic tests is precisely so that people are more likely to complain get the advertised fuel mileage on their vehicles.

    Corrected for you. :)

    EPA, like any other government agency has done just that... figured out a way to address an issue without actually giving much thought to it. Looks like they don't have to, after all. Drop mileage somehow by 10-12% and people are happier! At least those that somehow couldn't meet the old numbers.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    In a way, you're right Elroy. The old EPA rating for our 2007 SEL AWD Ford Fusion was 19 mpg city and 26 mpg highway. The new rating is 17 city, 24 highway. I feel as though that is more realistic and certainly a lot closer to what we actually get.

    I would also say that people who are getting over the new rating are wondering why they were lowered. But the most important thing to the EPA and the manufacturers is, these people will not be complaining. They will take the bonus mileage, and be happy. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak. Who's going to show up at the dealership saying "My car gets 5mpg over the EPA estimate, and I want something done about it!"
  • It seems to be more or less same as the 2007,but the EX no longer has a casette player.Almost all of the specs are the same.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    It usually is, but not over short distances. Try it. I have

    Are you talking about resetting the mpg calculator before each short trip starts? It usually takes several miles before the calc gets back up to speed after a reset so yes, it would be very unreliable for short trips. I think the one in our Explorer starts us at something crazy like 30+ mpg when we reset it. It goes down fast from there.

    I know the info system in my Mustang gives me average speed along with gallons used (both can be reset) but my Explorer does not give both of those. Do these mid-sizers not give that info either? Seems odd a V8 powered car would have such extra info but cars in which people actually care about gas mileage do not. :confuse:
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    So, no change in options packages, e.g. you still need to buy the "appearance pacakge" to get ABS and ESC on the LX? Bummer. I wish Kia would get with the program and offer both features standard, or at the least easily-available options. :(
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    That was a really good try to get back on topic, I appreciate it. :)

    It seems your impression of the 2008 Accord mirrors what professional reviewers have said--nice car, but some quibbles with the interior. I was not impressed with the interior materials either, except on an EX-L I saw on a dealer's showfloor that had an optional interior package with very tasteful rosewood-look trim. Many reviews have noted (in a negative sense) the sea of small dark buttons on the dash. I'm not a fan of that layout either--too many similar-shaped buttons, clustered too closely together for my taste.

    Honda added more power when the car already had plenty of it. They added more interior room, but at the expense of making the car longer than some full-sized cars. They did add more standard safety features, which is a big plus for the 2008 over earlier generations. And the smoother ride is a good change, IMO. But I think the interior and the front styling still needs some work--maybe for 2011?
  • That was a really good try to get back on topic, I appreciate it.

    I'm glad somebody does. :shades:

    It seems your impression of the 2008 Accord mirrors what professional reviewers have said--nice car, but some quibbles with the interior.

    I thought the reviewers were being overly critical since it was a Honda, but after some observations, they were right. To me, one of the most appealing things about the Accord was the interior, both with materials and fit-and-finish. Notice how I said was. Instead of raising the bar, they nearly miss it altogether. The Altima and the Aura are nicer IMO, blending style, ergonomics, and materials nicely.

    Honda added more power when the car already had plenty of it.

    I'll be the last person to complain about too much power, but you're right, the power wasn't lacking. The "ECO" light that comes on the dash is a nice touch to an excellent (and seamless) cylinder-cutout program, and the resulting increase in fuel economy doesn't hurt either.

    They added more interior room, but at the expense of making the car longer than some full-sized cars

    This is something else that may hurt more than help. It's too big for me, that's for sure...

    I have yet to see the Malibu up close, but I might this weekend with my Accord observations fresh in my mind.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The comparison he drew was new EPA (on an economy car) against his observed mileage on a premium midsize.

    That is an excellent point, I bet that'll happen a lot. I get 32 mpg hwy in my 2007 Mazda6, I would not buy a 2008 as they only get 28 now ;) .
Sign In or Register to comment.