Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1337338340342343721

Comments

  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    If the distance to empty is based on the last 500 miles that's pretty flippin stupid.

    None of these cars get 500 miles per tank. If one drove 400 miles on a highway trip and had top fill up,and then 80 miles stuck in a traffic jam, what good would a miles to empty reading based on the last 500 miles do?
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    If the distance to empty is based on the last 500 miles that's pretty flippin stupid.

    I don't know about the Fusion but cars I've seen with a trip computer measure the "range" based on the fuel left in the tank and the avg. mpg of that tank. That's how my 06 Accord computer works. If I reset it without filling the tank, the range readjusts to the current avg. mpg and the remaining fuel.

    None of these cars get 500 miles per tank.
    I assume that you are not including all midsize sedans in that statement. Several of us have managed over 500 miles on one tank of gas in our generation VII Accords.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If the distance to empty is based on the last 500 miles that's pretty flippin stupid.

    Why is this stupid? It calculates your MPG for the last 500 miles. As you continue to drive, or idle as it may be, your average will continue to be adjusted down (as I understand it, anyway).

    Just check the owner's manual for more details.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,991
    None of these cars get 500 miles per tank

    I've gotten over 500 miles per tank on my Mazda6 several times but of course it was about 95-100% xpressway driving on those tanks. The fill tank light was on but I'm pretty sure I could have gone another 40-50 miles or so.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    None of these cars get 500 miles per tank.

    Have you seen any of the commercials that Nissan puts on, bragging about the 600+ miles per tank? They aren't lying. I've exceeded 600 miles on a few tanks with my Altima on the highway, and I'm NOT talking about the hybrid.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Posts: 936
    How many gallons does the Altima's tank hold?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I've gotten over 500 miles per tank on my Mazda6 several times but of course it was about 95-100% xpressway driving on those tanks.

    With an 18 gallon tank and freeway mpg of ~31-32, 500 miles would be no problem with my Mazda6 on the freeway. Most of these cars have similar tanks and mpg, so 500 miles is a realistic range for freeway driving at least for the 4 cylinder models

    Since I don't drive in traffic or excessively urban areas, even my normal commute nets 27-28 mpg (at least in summer) this might get me barely to 500 miles, if I were willing to run it down to fumes.

    The Altima has a 20 gallon tank and 31 mpg hwy. Since most cars do better on the freeway than the EPA hwy number (CR got 33 in the Altima), you could even get to 650 mi in that one.
  • madpistolmadpistol Posts: 126
    the new Altima has a 20-gallon tank. If a driver can manage to get about 30 mpg average, then 600+ miles per tank is technically possible. Seeing as the 2.5L 4-cyl is rated for 31mpg highway, I can see that as being possible. You'd have to baby the throttle though.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    the new Altima has a 20-gallon tank. If a driver can manage to get about 30 mpg average, then 600+ miles per tank is technically possible. Seeing as the 2.5L 4-cyl is rated for 31mpg highway, I can see that as being possible. You'd have to baby the throttle though.

    Not as much as you think. With my wife and I with bags for a weekend trip, keeping the cruise set at 72-75 MPH on the highway, I can get about 33-34 MPG, making 600 miles per tank relatively painless.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It's that simple in a lot of these vehicle. I simply set the cruise around 72 mph in my '06 Accord. With just me in the car I got ~548 miles on 14.7 gallons (my tank holds 17.1 but I hate to run too low).
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    You need to get your odometer checked - that's 37 mpg compared to the EPA rating of 31. Not impossible, but......
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Buick Lacrosse Replacement ?

    The first 5 photos are the spy photos. The rest are concept-car photos.

    Looks awfully bland to me!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Considering the raw EPA numbers for my car were in the mid-40s, 37 isn't that abnormal. I've had 40 MPG on a couple of occasions.

    Oh yeah, to answer your inquiry, my Garmin GPS has matched my odometer on 275 mile trips (I take the same trip every few weeks) to within a couple of miles, every time. ;)

    My average in suburban commuting in off-rush-hour times is 30 MPG here in Birmingham, AL. Right now, I wouldn't trade this car for anything. :D

    I'm not alone with this type of highway mileage, either. Check out the Honda Accord MPG forum if you'd like, many people have gotten great highway mileage.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    What do you expect? It's a Buick... :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Compared to the classy-looking (to me) Lucerne and the overystyled LaCrosse, it just seems so DUUULLLLLLLL. :sick:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,688
    What do you mean by "raw EPA numbers"?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The old EPA system (the one that rated my car at 24/34 and not at 21/31) was actually dumbed down significantly from what the EPA really achieved. I remember the highway number for my car was well into the forties. I can't find the table right now but will search for it for ya. ;)

    EDIT: Found it. The EPA numbers uncorrected for my 2006 Accord 2.4L 5AT are City: 27.0145 Hwy: 43.4831

    See them yourself at the link I provide below. Click the year of vehicle you wish to see. You'll have to unzip a datafile into Excel to do it (really easy). Then just find your vehicle in the file. They are sorted by EPA class (2-seater, Subcompact, Compact, etc).

    Link to FuelEconomy.gov Raw Numbers
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The 4 cylinder Altima with manual transmission can easily get 35mpg on the highway. With 18 useable gallons, give or take, that's 600+ miles.(23/32 with the new EPA ratings, 26/35 for 2007, old system) 2007-2008 reported average is 29-31mpg.

    Why does it do so well?

    3100lbs. Less weight and bloat, pure and simple. (It appears to have gained 100lbs though, since 2005/2006... odd...)

    The V6 with automatic gets closer to 25mpg, just like the Honda/Toyota/GM/Ford/etc midsize sedans. The smart money is on the 4 though as it has 175HP(!) and is plenty easy to go quickly in given the fact that it weighs 500-800lbs less than the competition. Oh, and no premium fuel either.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Why does it do so well?

    3000lbs. Less weight and bloat, pure and simple.

    The V6 with automatic gets closer to 25mpg, just like the Honda/Toyota/GM/Ford/etc midsize sedans. The smart money is on the 4 though as it has 175HP(!) and is plenty easy to go quickly in given the fact that it weighs 500-800lbs less than the competition.


    A base Altima 6MT weighs 3,112 according to Nissan's own website. Put a CVT in it and you are a shade under 3,200 lbs (3,189).

    Altima 6MT Base: 3112
    Camry 5MT Base: 3263
    Accord 5MT LX: 3230

    All weights are from the manufacturer's respective website, and reflect the least expensive model (and therefore equipped with the fewest options to add weight) that is currently available.

    We're not talking a large difference in weight here; the difference in a small passenger. 800 lbs lighter? No way. A little research goes a long way. :blush: Where'd you get 500-800 lbs difference?
  • moocow1moocow1 Posts: 230
    You obviously drive like 80+ mph on the highway ;) Because I hit 425+ miles per tank with mostly city. Highway would definitely go over 500 without a sweat. My highway is over 30mpg for sure, which multiplied by a 17.7g tank would be over 500. Heck, I think I could probably pull off 550+ with highway only. Most midsize cars are around 3100-3500, depending on features. I think the weight difference might only count for 1-2mpg, still matters, but not a huge differentiator.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    In town, the weight difference matters a lot more than on the highway, i believe. It takes more effort (fuel) to get the extra mass moving from a stop than it does to KEEP that extra mass moving once underway.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    EPA "highway" numbers are not based on cruising on the freeway at a constant speed, so most cars should easily exceed the EPA highway rating when driven on the freeway. CR always reports much better "highway" numbers than the EPA figure because their number is based on a steady speed of (I think) 65 mph.

    I used to not be too sure about your mpg numbers, but my Mazda6i is now broken in and getting 27-28 mpg in my suburban Milwaukee commute (which is similar to Birmingham). Given the relative EPA rankings, I'd expect it to be 2-3 mpg less than an Accord and it is. I have not had an opportunity to check it on a freeway cruise, but when it was new it was getting about 32. My commuting mpg has gone up by 2-3 mpg since then...so I would not be surprised to see 34 mpg now.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Considering the difference in EPA estimates, I'd say your mix of driving and driving style probably does compare to mine, based on your 28 or so MPG in the commute. I always try and let people know I'm not a speeder, and I don't rev up much above 3k RPM regularly; only when a passing maneuver is necessary, or when a short on-ramp looms.

    I certainly understand people being skeptical of my numbers. My own dad was the first time I got 36 MPG on a trip in the Accord. Ever since, my highway mileage has leveled off to around 37-38 MPG on trips, depending on the passengers/cargo I've got (adding a person means I stop at more rest areas, as well as have more weight to pull up the hills). The 40 MPG tanks are outliers on these trips, but so are the tanks that I only get 35 MPG.

    Out of curiousity, how many MPH do you get per 1000 RPM? My 4-cyl Accord (5-speed Auto) runs at 30 MPH per 1000, meaning my typical crusing speed of 72 MPH puts me at only 2,400 RPM. Most Mazda's I've ever been in rev consistenly higher in top-gear than their competitors.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I'll agree with that about Mazda's high gearing. My 4 cyl Mazda6 is turning 3,200 rpm's at 70 mph.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    My 4 cyl Mazda6 is turning 3,200 rpm's at 70 mph.

    Is that a manual trans?
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    My 4 cyl Mazda6 is turning 3,200 rpm's at 70 mph.

    Not much different with the 6 V6 and manual. 3,300 rpm at 75 MPH. The automatic is slightly lower, but not by much.

    I've always found Mazdas to rev higher at highway speeds, but the trade-off for me is that I usually don't have to downshift out of top gear to pass on the highway. It can't be affecting gas mileage too badly, since I get 28-29 MPG on highway trips, and can break 30 if I really tried.

    I've heard the '09 6 with the V6 keeps the revs below 2500 RPM at 65 MPH, and I hope to confirm this for myself soon... :)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    No, the auto in the Mazda6 runs significantly lower rpms as of the 2006 model year, when they went to the 5 speed. The auto in top gear is about 25% lower than the manual...which would mean about 2400 at 70 mph.

    Grad - I do rev above 3K frequently and my pedal hits the floor fairly regularly. I keep meaning to try a tank where I keep rpms down and see if mpg changes, but have not done it yet. I tried that once in our windstar, mostly stayed under 2500 rpm and did not detect a difference, so went back to my leadfooted ways. I do save on the deceleration side though, often cars pass me on the way to a red light...I guess so that they can stop sooner.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I gotcha... my foot probably hits the floor twice a week. And thanks for the info about the RPMs in the auto. When accelerating, I've noticed my car shifts about every 13 MPH when on a 50 MPH road, maybe that gives you an idea of how I leave a stoplight.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    yeah, the 5-speed manual. Mine is a 2005.
  • tedebeartedebear Posts: 832
    It can be reset at any time for an effectively instant reading, or by the tank.

    Until I started reading this thread I used to only reset mine right after I filled up at the pump. The last few days I've been experimenting with the instantaneous reading where I reset it while cruising down the highway at a set speed.

    On the 6-mile stretch of hilly interstate between work and home I discovered that 70 mph shows a 1.0 mpg lower average than 65 mph. That result may not be accurate to what the difference actually is, since I've determined with a calculator that my overall mpg is 1.5-2 mpg higher than what the computer says it is. However, it is relative and I'm using the same measuring method each time.

    Various other cruising speed tests to follow.

    Cool - another toy to play with. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.