Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are you under 40 and think that you might not be able to afford a brand new vehicle when you purchase your next car? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/16 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

1172173175177178473

Comments

  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Bethel fuel mix-up strands 2 dozen vehicles (adn.com)

    We're in this burg visiting an old friend for a couple of days so I'll try to get a pic of pump prices soon.

    Word on the street is that the fuel mix-up is typical for this particular station.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    Notice the driver was taking a different job. Could have been sabotage. Nothing would surprise me about Bethel. It is with good cause the ARM PIT of Alaska. Though many villages could challenge Bethel. Though in 25 years in the Arctic, I don't ever recall such a mixup in our 9 villages or Barrow. We did have a tech pump gas in one of our diesel PU Trucks. The station guy caught it before he started the truck.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited April 2013
    Like any place, it's the people, and it's great visiting our friend. And we swung by the branch of the college to check out the bulletin board and, obviously looking like tourists, were immediately offered a tour of the "campus". Bethel is a hoot.

    This is a "painted" sign and I didn't pull up to the pump to double check:

    image
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    Wow, a covered station. Nothing like that in the Arctic villages. You pull up to the storage tank above ground and pump your gas. That is about what we were paying when I retired in 06.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Checked another station and it was $7.11 for regular and $7.13 for diesel.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    Kinda makes me glad we live in the" lower 48"! Here we are B & M ing about 3.95 per gal D2. :sick: :shades:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    edited April 2013
    General Motors Co. said Thursday its all-new 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel achieves an Environmental Protection Agency-rated 46 miles per gallon on the highway, which is the best highway fuel economy of any non-hybrid car in the United States.


    That beats the Volt on the highway by a long shot after 40 miles when the battery is depleted.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130418/AUTO0103/304180390/1121/auto01/New-C- - hevy-Cruze-diesel-gets-46-mpg-on-highway
  • alltorquealltorque Posts: 535
    Kinda makes me glad we live in the" lower 48"! Here we are B & M ing about 3.95 per gal D2.

    Meanwhile, her in England our local price for ULSD is now down to an almost bargain basement equivalent of $8.29 per US Gall. Mostly TAX + VAT, (i.e. tax on tax), of course.

    :sick:
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,179
    Kinda makes me glad we live in the" lower 48"! Here we are B & M ing about 3.95 per gal D2.

    Try $3.54/g here in Phoenix. D2 has fallen in price the last couple of months, this is less then premium unleaded and slightly higher than regular unleaded.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    ..."Try $3.54/g here in Phoenix. D2 has fallen in price the last couple of months, this is less then premium unleaded and slightly higher than regular unleaded."...

    Time for a GC, AZ road trip! Got to get "charged up) @ Sedona ;) !!Well, don't forget: have to do a dual detour to LOST Wages. ;)

    On the SOS DD topic, 09 TDI still boring @ 42 mpg in 5 day sloughing commute traffic. 03 TDI still posting 50 mpg (48-52 mpg, of late 51 to 52 mpg). Had a very unfortunate thing happen to the 09 TDI. The drivers side head lamp gave up the ghost. (We had to R/R to avoid a FIT) I am firmly convinced the DRL mandatory (no good deed goes unpunished) has a lot to do with the 4 year (55,000 miles) operating life.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    46 mpg is very nice for the Cruze - 4 mpg better than the gas Cruze. 9.5% improvement.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    Indeed, each of those VW diesel models has its' gasser variants.

    Probably more correctly each of those VW models has its' DIESEL variant. Given the fact the 09 is 4 MY's diesel has a 39% advantage (in arrears).

    While the 2013 Cruze posts 32.1 mpg ([email protected] 33.1) gasser, the diesel version (mpg (real world) is not even listed (fueleconomy.gov).
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    The Cruze automatic is only 39 MPG which gives the diesel auto a 15% advantage. I would imagine 50 MPG will be easily attainable with the Cruze.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,255
    edited April 2013
    You're in-state, Steve?! Any plans on going through Fairbanks? I owe you and your wife dinner, sir. ;)
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited April 2013
    Not unless the jet diverts in a couple of days returning to Anchorage from Bethel. Never know though - another volcano could blow. Or maybe someone will put diesel in the plane instead of jet fuel. :shades:

    This is just a quick trip to use up the last of our air miles. Maybe we'll be able to do a drive up in another year or three and we can meet at the Pump House or somewhere.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    JetA is number one diesel or kerosene. Just a little better filtration. Unleaded gas would likely blow up. Or did you fly out in a piston prop plane?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Not sure of all the possibilities, but the three morning flights out here are all 737 jets. We didn't even wind up on one of those combined cargo/passenger jobs.

    Pretty amazing to have any jets, much less several, serving a town of maybe six thousand people.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,255
    edited April 2013
    Yeah, AK Airlines does a good job of serving the rural hub communities. But.... boy, oh boy, do you pay for it! :sick:

    I'm sorry you're missing the Interior, but we'll hold out for a next time. At least you weren't sick! ;)
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,187
    gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.
    on pure highway driving it gets 36 at real highway speeds.
    1.8L motor, manual transmission.
    (for comparison, my 3 VW TDIs always got 45 to 48 mpg, tank after tank, except for the passat tdi which got 37 mpg, all with leadfoot-driving).
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    Which indicates to me that real world and EPA world mileage is miles apart. Sadly I don't see Chevy offering the Cruze diesel with a manual transmission. I just wonder if our automotive engineers will ever be able to design a decent small diesel that can pass CARB regulations?

    It all starts with a 2.0L turbocharged clean diesel engine designed in Italy, built in Germany and installed in the Cruze at our factory in Lordstown, Ohio.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    ..."gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.
    on pure highway driving it gets 36 at real highway speeds.
    1.8L motor, manual transmission.
    (for comparison, my 3 VW TDIs always got 45 to 48 mpg, tank after tank, except for the passat tdi which got 37 mpg, all with leadfoot-driving)."...

    I am glad you posted this !! The real world really has a way of being well... real.

    We (4 adults and app 600#'s) decided to take the SOS DD trip (210 miles one way, after 8 pm). The projected "good" news: I was looking forward to just another SOS/DD. (posted in a few past posts, aka SMOOTH and no traffic sailing). This trip takes normally 3 to 3.25 hours (point a to point b). The real world? I surely KNEW we took the WRONG way this time as I stared at easily 1 to 1.5 miles of back up 4/5 lanes in EACH direction. Turns out the same trip took, between 4.25 to 4.5 hours. Seems there were massive choke points due to night road work, huge flows of night traffic and a accident site saw fit to post an accident, injuries and one fatality. (RIP I heard two helo's and numerous ambulances and other emergency vehicles). What added to the "mess" was Friday night tractor trailer work night (elephant races). Shifties SAC race ways didn't disappoint @ a 85/90 mph pace. Long story short, computer on a 3.0 L TDI posted 29.7 mpg on the (same) UPGRADE portion.

    This time on the mountain UPGRADE, I did happen to catch a 4 ship of seemingly faster moving traffic. I inadvertently (defacto) took the lead, as no one took time to pass me at numerous turn out areas and 2 lane per way passing lanes. @ higher altitude, I did make it a point to SLOW down to let (all three) 3 pass (one at a time it turns out) and take the 4th and last position just for the point of view. I was halfway expecting at least one to probably ALL to leave me in their long since cold RUG/PUG vapor trails. That projection never happened. I have gotten to know the twists and turns during the day, so normally do little to no braking. Again longer story short, I got to see massive and frequent braking and had to adjust downward a faster pace. Since I "lit" and "led" the way, they all could follow FASTER. I thought maybe I was the geezer in the lead. :blush: It was funny to see the reality from the 4th and last position, not even close. Will see what the downgrade posts. ;)
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,179
    Why do people drive their cars like an Indy race car driver? I don't get the magazine when they do the comparison test, just drive the cars like normal people so people can see what the typical drive would get. I had a 2010 Ford Fusion (company car) for a short time, I averaged 29 city/freeway but would get 35 on the open road.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    For me, it is a good question that I do not have the collective answer for. Perhaps that is one reason why I like driving in the LA metro area. :blush: Let me also say I do not live there. :confuse: However one drives, I think it is easy to say the central issue is the diesels' mpg range is better. This is purely my .02 cents, but the secondary issue is diesels' SEEM better adapted over all for OUR highway systems. They surely are for critical transportation linchpins, i.e. tractor trailers et al. I say this having still driven the majority of both percentage & lifetime mileage in GASSERS. Diesel miles are close now to 265,000 miles.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 399
    I don't believe the 1.8 is supposed to get 42 highway, that is only for the Eco version with the 1.4, the 1.4 non Eco is supposed to be somewhere around 38 I belive and the 1.8 lower still ( all with the manual not sure what the autos get). In any case I have a feeling you are actually doing quite well with the 1.8 I thought it was supposed to be around 34 or so, so it looks like GM may be actually reporting valid EPA numbers for its cars.
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 2,412
    edited April 2013
    "gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.
    on pure highway driving it gets 36 at real highway speeds.
    1.8L motor, manual transmission.


    Cruze 1.8 MT - EPA is 25/36. Sounds like you are hitting the ratings. 33 mixed with a leadfoot sounds pretty good.

    Tesla X Performance / Tesla 3 Performance

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I found this post particularly interesting and useful. Rarely does anyone post (and elaborate) their level of lead-footedness. When I see "floor it all the time" that really says a LOT. What I am absolutely amazed with is the 1.8, rugged all the time, gets 33 mixed/lifetime mpg. I guess what I am curious about now is about what percentage accounts for the highway figure in order for the average to end up being 33? It simply sounds way too good to be true...actually..even if that was ALL highway with sustained higher than speed-limit speeds and rugged lane passing...(my interpretation so far). . That said, I am not saying I don't believe you...just incredible is all..

    FWIW, I believe the numbers mentioned before for the Cruze, is usually the turbo 1.4, which is known to use less fuel than the 1.8. And of course, especially when comparing max potential with other vehicles, it's not only the 1.4, it's also the Eco, which has the lower rolling resistant tires and the grill shutter, among other lesser influential mpg increasing touches. (slightly less weight).

    That said, I suspect that if the 1.4 was rugged all the time, it has not only the ability to draw a lot of tickets, but I'm pretty sure like any gas/turbo (unlike a diesel turbo...or certainly not anywhere near the same league of) if you are heavy footed all the time, they have the ability to burn a lot of fuel. So in your case, I'll bet your 1.8 would get considerably higher mpg driven your usual style. The fact that it gets such impressive mileage rugged all the time..considering the Cruze weight too, the engine ssounds like it has a very pro-active self-regulating output, even when pressed. Probably why many say that engine with the auto feels lethargic. (not me, but then I credited its urge (or lack of...and it wasn't that bad at all) considering all the factors. Yes, the turbo would be my pick I think, but maybe not if I start hearing of longevity issues and we don't know that yet. Same with all those Ford Ecoboost engines..
    Is the 1.8 a good engine? In terms of...let's say...being the absolute polar opposite of GM's 2.4 which they use in even as new as 2010 Equinox's? What a disaster THOSE poor excuses for an ICE are.

    What year is your Passat? A stick?

    The new ones must be geared perfectly, cuz they actually claim higher mpg in top cog (stick) than in a Golf, which is a far narrower, lighter car. From what I hear, they're getting it too. The majority new Passat owners I've seen have the stick. And surprisingly (to me anyway) about a full half of them are women. I think one was a Real Estate Agent. I'll bet the only thing she longs for in that car in this area is an AWD option. But this is VW we're talking about, and getting an AWD turbo diesel in a car on this side of the ocean, is akin to pulling teeth..
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited April 2013
    Great minds...I saw your post here after I posted mine...about the 42 probably being the 1.4..

    I agree. If he had a 1.4 rugged all the time, I don't think it would post anything nearly as impressive has his 33 lifetime avg so far. Just amazing.

    The Cruze is one car that doesn't penalize you too much with auto vs stick. The auto gets almost as much as the stick on the hwy. This suggests to me that the regular stick (not the Eco which has noted higher final drive gearing still) has a similar final drive as the auto. Something which has been rare in the past.

    edit - does anyone know what makes a low rolling resistant tire what it is? I assumed it was a more flexible sidewall and used usual PSI figures. But I have read a comment in past that suggested the LRR tires use 50 psi and up. Is that true? And it probably still must have a more flexible sidewall. If not, what a challenge to tune the suspension so that it's not choppy on stutter surfaces or expansion joints.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    Good catch. Looking at the UK carpages. The Cruze sold there is a 1.6L and gets a combined 32 MPG UK. The diesel offered there is a 1.7L and gets 62 MPG UK combined. The gasser takes 12.3 seconds getting to 62 MPH and the diesel only 9.8 seconds. My guess is the 1.4L eco model sold here probably takes about 15 seconds.
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 2,412
    edited April 2013
    The gasser takes 12.3 seconds getting to 62 MPH and the diesel only 9.8 seconds. My guess is the 1.4L eco model sold here probably takes about 15 seconds.

    Car and Driver test on the US 1.4 Eco: 0-60 in 8.4 sec.

    Tesla X Performance / Tesla 3 Performance

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited April 2013
    The Eco 1.4 is also turbo'd. Hence the numbers posted above.

    The engine has VERY useable torque, from about 1600 revs and up. I think peak is around 148 lbft at 1850 or something. Pretty useable and does not at all feel like a slouch.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I'm still not convinced that turbo is the way to go if it's in a gas job..not if long-term longevity/$ spent is part of the equation. Every weakness a turbo has in a diesel, is compounded in a gas job due to heat and the need to control heat (both coolant and oil line plumbing, and the turbo bearings themselves)..so probably $ issues to keep those parts working once north of 100000 miles or so.

    Even in the diesel, the earlier VW turbos..say 86 to early 90's Jetta TD, had issues with the turbo pulling oil once north of only 125000 miles. Not all owners idle down for a minute to cool and lube the turbo just prior to shut down. Living on a hill and driving aggressively up that hill and pulling into your drive and shutting down right away would be perfect recipe for premature issues related to turbos both in gas or diesel, but especially in gas. I looked at the Cruze, and while I might have missed it, I didn't see a gravity feed reservoir to supply cooling/lubing oil to the bearings after the engine's pump system was shut down. Maybe it is done with an electric motor somewhere? If so...complexity that could be avoided with gravity feed.
    So what I am getting at, is turbos becoming more common-place in the general public's hands may have a bigger challenge to do the higher miles that people have been accustomed to getting with their NA engines of the past. FE is great, sure, but only as long as someone isn't paying for it in other ways down the road. That would be my caution if choosing any new gas turbo vehicle.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    I can't wait to buy one! :shades:

    -Rocky
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    II will be interesting to hear about the first 100,000 mies, and of course beyond.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    Should be in the showrooms by June. Work lots of OT and you can buy it cash. :blush:
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    ..."Will see what the downgrade posts. "...

    The downgrade posted 32 mpg (actually 32.35 mpg- round down)
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,187
    edited April 2013
    flightnurse, are you talkin to ME? why? (flooring the manual-transmission chevy cruze does not result in race-like performance, just barely adequate acceleration to reach normal highway speeds.. once up to normal highway speeds it has barely-OK acceleration available.)
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,187
    passat was an 05 TDI, only available with automatic.

    my driving mix is about 60% highway, 30% 'suburban', 10% downtown/city.
    I floor my low-power cars like Cruze constantly in order to get to the traffic speed... This style of driving is actually quite efficient.

    It is a falsehood that "jackrabbit starts" always lower mpg. When used properly, the jackrabbit-start to get up to traffic speed, then shift to maximum gear, is the way to maximize mpg for typical traffic.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    ..."It is a falsehood that "jackrabbit starts" always lower mpg. When used properly, the jackrabbit-start to get up to traffic speed, then shift to maximum gear, is the way to maximize mpg for typical traffic."...

    If I might be permitted to interject an "off topic" response to elias' response on the gasser side. I find that (sentiment/response) VERY true within the operating parameters of a 04 Honda Civic gasser (any vehicle really). I regularly get 38-42 mpg (diesel counterpart being 48-52 mpg) . ( one can google for the old/new EPA figures and ones favorite mpg reporting web sites) This is over 120,000 miles PLUS, so it is really not a fluke or outlier (for ours anyway), AND using up to 4 drivers. I realize from following Civic boards that those results are considered outlier to outright lies by many Civic drivers. :sick: (SOS DD) In addition, I bought that model without a tach. :P But then after a while it is a tad like riding a bike. ;) You just instinctively know the drill/s. So more to the DIESEL point, the drills are different for the diesel ("marbles in a can," low and SLOW) vs whiny Honda Civic engine, albeit point A to point B being EXACTLY the same.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,179
    gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.

    This is what you wrote, and since I have driven a cruze, but not with a 6 spd manual, it wasn't slug nor was it fast like a Porsche GT3, but your comment that you FLOOR IT ALL THE TIME, says a lot. So yes, I was talking to you. The cruze I drive, had no problem keeping up with traffic, no one was honking at me to move faster, so again, not too sure why people have to drive so fast. Now, maybe, JUST maybe if you didn't FLOOR IT ALL THE TIME, you might get better MPG...
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    not too sure why people have to drive so fast.

    I think this says a lot about you and where you drive. In So CA if you are piddling along in the left lane at 75 MPH you can get a ticket. Slower traffic must move to the right by law. It also has a lot to do with your terrain. Around here we have a lot of long up hill stretches. Driving a gutless 4 banger gas car can be frustrating as well as noisy. You may like to hear those little pistons going up and down at speeds that will get them up the long grades. I do not and will not subject myself to such a vehicle. Where any 4 or 5 cylinder diesel I have driven on those same highways had no problem keeping up with traffic in high gear and low RPMs.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Of course passing the guy who is going 75 will get you a bigger ticket, and the guy going 75 will be ignored.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,443
    You would think so. It rarely happens around here. I stay in the right lane and maintain 75 until I have to pass a slow poke or truck going up hill. The in city freeways maintain a 70 MPH flow until there is a problem. Maintaining 70 MPH on San Diego Freeways, I get passed a lot. No one goes the speed limit which is 65 until you reach the suburbs where it goes to 70 MPH.
  • Steve EliasSteve Elias Posts: 2,187
    ok, flightnurse, i guess i ought to rephrase that i floor it *often*, especially to get up to highway speeds.
    else it would be a case of nonstop unintended acceleration.
    avoiding "flooring it" it in those highway situations will not affect my mpg much.
    driving 45 or 55 on the highway would improve my mpg, but that's not going to happen when traffic is moving at 75 or 80+. the slowest i'll go in that situation is about 65 in the right lane...
    any slower than 65 on the interstate highway seems absurd, but 50 or 60 can be very nice on a state highway.
    i think this all started as a comparison of cruze diesel mpg with the cruze gasser mpg (and price too maybe). if the cruze diesel were available wiith manual transmission or a wagon formfactor, i'd probably trade my 2011 M6 for one.

    happy motoring!
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    I think your response really plugs into a wider issue of more and arguably "better choice". Don't like a CVT Prius? ..... Don't like a (VW)diesel? (heretofore and STILL, not much diesel choice outside of VW) More on point: don't like a diesel? etc.

    Again not to be a cheerleader for VW, but it would seem they endeavor to offer more choice per model than other oems in each's model line, diesel now being ONLY ONE of those choices. A bread and butter example would be the Jetta.

    It offers several transmission choices (for those bemoaning the lost of M/T or still like slush box ):

    1. DSG 6 speed A/M
    2. A/T
    3. M/T 6 speed.
    4. M/T 5 speed

    Engine choices (include several gassers )

    1. 4 cylinder
    2. 5 cylinder
    3. turbo diesel
    4. turbo gasser/hybrid

    For me, engine choices literally approaches TMI and some of the lines really start to blur. So for another example, Jetta offers a turbo gasser/hybrid that sports 45 mpg. To some, that would be competitve to say a CVT Prius.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,179
    Interesting comment, gagrice, I grew up in SoCal, and know all about how they drive and the laws. In regards to driving too slow and getting a ticket, that wouldn't happen, and if you like to discuses this in detail I don't mind.

    I do not drive like a granny, but for people to come on a public forum and say, "my XXXX get horrible gas mileage, BTW, I floor it where ever I go" doesn't lead to a creditable posting. Since most people do not "floor it" all the time. That data point isn't worth much. I'm sure a lot of people on this forum at times do not baby their cars, will still get 85% of the best mileage. This says a lot about a diesel. Granted diesels are not for everybody, my partner hated them, but now, he see's the advantages of having them, this is why we are waiting for the new BMW diesels to arrive so we can take a look.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    While I understand why you would response like this, even the CVT Prius does not meet THAT smell test. So yes, I would agree with your and in effect finally your partners' conclusion. To get the "BEST " mpg on a Prius one has to "drive like a granny". However I am sure that when I see those Prius' passing me (geezer here) INXS of 90 mph, those drivers are just fine with the so called "DECREASE" in MPG !? ;) On the other hand, the "Taylor's" (aka GRANNY EST?) posted INXS of 84 mpg @ 5 under the speed limit. (stick Passat TDI with epa of 43 mpg) Despite being out since 2003, that I know of Toyota has not seen fit to do a similar (PR) gig with the Prius. However a cadre of dis affected (2004) Prius owners were able to get the EPA test SLANTED/bias in favor of hybrids, in effect skewing (downward) the epa ratings for gassers and diesels and plug ins. ;)

    But then on the other hand, both on downgrade/upgrade/s, I have had Prius' @ my six UNWILLING to pass despite using turn outs AND( extreme) right lanes.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I do not drive like a granny, but for people to come on a public forum and say, "my XXXX get horrible gas mileage, BTW, I floor it where ever I go" doesn't lead to a creditable posting.

    I've looked and can't find where elias said that. He did suggest that the Cruze does not get EPA, but he was forthright in indicating his driving style.

    Since most people do not "floor it" all the time. That data point isn't worth much.

    On the contrary, his findings given his driving style, is quite useful. It tells readers that this is about as poor mpg as you're going to get with a stick 1.8 Cruze. When you factor in the elaboration later, I found that info more useful and detailed than many many other posts in fuel mileage threads where the grey areas of how they drive is open to vast interpretation.

    In the past I've read a poster claim they have gentle non-aggressive or perceive their driving style should be conducive to getting way better FE than they are complaining about, but then when you read further, and/or continue to see other posts where they elaborated further, you can only shake your head in disbelief, cuz they are living in a world of fantasy. In many cases it is amazing that they are getting as good a mpg as they do, given their real world habits.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited April 2013
    ...In the past I've read a poster claim they have gentle non-aggressive or perceive their driving style should be conducive to getting way better FE than they are complaining about, but then when you read further, and/or continue to see other posts where they elaborated further, you can only shake your head in disbelief, cuz they are living in a world of fantasy. In many cases it is amazing that they are getting as good a mpg as they do, given their real world habits."...

    Indeed that is one thing that still amazes about the TDI's (3 total now), albeit a 3.0 L (BIG) one. So for example, if I were not "happy" with the TDI's R/T of 32/42/50 mpgs, I would need to decide on changes to the driving style, given where I did my point a to b driving destinations.

    On the other hand, I know that 20 mpg (even @ real world) would be almost DREAMING (more like 18/19 mpg) if I were in a gasser/s Touareg and/or A MDX, BMW X5, etc. :shades: :lemon: In terms of percentage, the gasser/s consumes 60% more fuel. If I drive the gasser like I do the diesel/s, consumption would likely be more like 78% MORE.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    On the other hand, I know that 20 mpg (even real world) would be almost DREAMING (more like 18/19 mpg) if I were in a gasser/s Touareg and/or A MDX, BMW X5, etc. In terms of percentage, the gasser/s consumes 60% more fuel. If I drive the gasser like I do the diesel/s, consumption would likely be more like 78% MORE.

    So true. A few pages back you wrote what your family member..bros? I forget, but what he gets with the MDX on the same trip you always do. Actually I was amazed he got as good as he did...to the point I even wonder if he wasn't embellishing a little so his gasser would not be paled even worse by the VW TD.

    Btw, what does SOS DD mean?
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Actually the Taylors are not the only ones that get great mpg. Wayne Gerdes used to post here a lot before he started cleanmpg.

    He did an 85 mpg highway jaunt in a Prius C. His was a round trip, and while certainly shorter than the Taylors drive he could not take advantage of prevailing winds.

    Yes the Prius does better in the city as he can get over 100 mpg.

    As another point of reference he averaged 59 mpg in an automatic Accord that is rated 31 mpg highway.

    http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=338555
This discussion has been closed.