Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
It gets killed be strong crosswinds on the highway and is very rough over expansion joints.
One of his friends achieved 87 mpg in Canada in a diesel SMART car.
That's the concept and that should be the marketing IMO.
I think it would be a great vehicle for a document courier, for instance.
ALSO, many large cities don't want cars...Manhattan, for instance, tries to PUNISH car owners as brutally as possible.
Soooo, the second part of SMART marketing should be to make large cities a Smart conspirator, not an enemy. Prius did this by working out perks on parking, commuter lanes, etc.
Very clever move which DEFINITELY factored into the buying process. (and salespeople worked the hell out of it, too).
But if you market cars like SMART as strictly suburban commuters without perks and incentives from government, you're dead, if you ask me. Smart even failed in Europe, where most governments look like they are run by Che Guevara to American politicians.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of cars were getting 40 mpg 50 years ago? Also, that was the dawn of the interstate era, as they had just started building them in 1956, so were there really that many highways? I guess one consolation is that there were a lot more rural, open areas back then, so areas that may appear congested today might have been wide open road back then, with few traffic lights or crossroads.
FWIW, I got about 37.4 mpg out of my uncle's 2003 Corolla on a trip about a month ago, highway speeds averaging maybe 65-80. I could see how if you old-ladied it, it might break 40. But I can't imagine too many cars from 1957 even breaking 25 mpg, let alone 40.
This guy says they could. His remarks about some of the cars seem quite sober, so maybe he's right?
Anecdotal Gas Mileage, Various Cars
This guy says they could. His remarks about some of the cars seem quite sober, so maybe he's right?
Well, maybe, but then if I'm going to accept that than I'm also going to accept claims about 60's full-sized Pontiacs with 389's and 400's breaking 20 mpg on the open road, and my grandparents being able to eke 29 mpg ONCE out of their '85 LeSabre as the gospel. As for the truth about my grandparents getting that 29 mpg? It was on a desert stretch of a highway trip out west, early in the year. Flat terrain, mild weather, no a/c. And before they started letting states raise their speed limits over 55, so Granddad would've held it around 55-60 most likely.
I've also heard that the 70's Deather Duster/Dart Lite could break 36 mpg. But as Hadji once said on Jonny Quest, "I'm from Missouri!" (i.e., Show Me!) I mean, c'mon, if they could really get that kind of fuel economy out of something that big, that long ago, our fuel problems would've been over eons ago!
Amen, brother! Now when I'm trying to go gentle in my '85 Silverado or '79 New Yorker, I tend to not even notice what's trying to ride my bumper, because chances are it'll bounce harmlessly off it (or wedge under it with little damage, as evidenced a couple times with the truck). But I've tried to drive my uncle's '03 Corolla gently, and it seems like when you're in something that small, people just want to drive right over you! Unless I'm just being more self conscious about it, being in a more vulnerable car?
I can break 30 highway easily with my Elantra so I can easily see him doing 35+ Highway in an Accent.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I can break 30 highway easily with my Elantra so I can easily see him doing 35+ Highway in an Accent.
Oh, I thought y'all were talking city numbers, not highway. Hell, considering how many full-sized cars can approach (or sometimes surpass) the 30 mpg highway barrier, a SMART sure as hell better break 60! :P
Yeah, that's about what I figured, unfortunately. And heck, honestly, I could get 30's out of my '88 LeBaron, in city-type driving, if I old-ladied it like that. I actually tried it once, at night. If I had tried it during the day, I would've pissed off a lot of people and probably caused gridlock!
Also, I'm sure if you were getting 0-60 in 35-40 seconds out of a 190D fintail or Dauphine, you also weren't getting 40 mpg! In all but the rarest cases (my Intrepid is actually one) cars only get their peak 0-60 time under full throttle. But it's a safe bet that no car is going to get its peak mpg under full throttle!
Gee, even the EPA lied! In PRINT!
My brother had a few Dauphines...his wife who was French used to work for them...that's how he got the special carburetor. I'll ask him his average gas mileage if he remembers that....or if he remembers anything. He wouldn't lie to me.
WELL THE POINT IS: given 50 years, gas mileage on small cars isn't a whole lot better than it was then...not like say SPEED from 0-60, which is now 1/3 of what it was. Has gas mileage gone up 3X? Not even 2X from a lowly VW bug.
MY BROTHER: Okay I sent him an e-mail. We shall know the truth shortly :P
She could get almost 40 mpg out if it when she was driving to save money.
My grandfather used to say that you just had to drive by the gas station with that car to fill it up. Just a whif of gas was enough for that car.
Anyway, like I said before, my uncle's Corolla got 37.4 mpg on that trip I took to Carlisle and back. Typical speed was 65-80. What kind of economy would a Bug get at 65-80? Oh wait, would a Bug even DO 80? :surprise: I remember seeing some old VW print ads where they touted, tongue-in-cheek, that a VW Bug could reach its top speed quicker than many much more powerful cars. Of course, that's because they topped out at around 70-75 or so, whereas just about any bigger car of the era, except maybe a 6-cyl standard-sized car (like a 230 or 250 Bel Air) or the smaller-6 compacts (like a 170 Falcon, 198 Dart) could easily top 100.
You probably had to loaf those Bugs along at around 45 or so to get peak fuel economy. But then, I wonder what kind of mileage I could get out of my uncle's Corolla at 45?
Honestly though, a fairer comparison to something like my uncle's Corolla from back in the day would be something like a '60-65 Falcon, or maybe almost a Valiant or early Chevy II. It's closer in weight to one of them than something like a Bug, or probably a Dauphine, too.
See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
He says:
Always over 30mpg...regardless of driving conditions. However, after a few years Dad slipped me a special jet for the carburator that increased mileage to 41. I do not remember if I continued with that jet, but I remember it did not cause me any problems. I ran the car for 5 years and sold it with 55K miles on it. I remember the 41 mpg
figure, because it was a real kick to reach that number
And on the flip side of that, I had a '91 Civic rental, and I only averaged about 29 mpg out of it, with mostly highway driving. While a '91 Civic is heavier than an '84, they were still very light cars compared to what came later.
Now, it did have a 4-speed automatic, which would probably make a pretty big difference compared to a stick shift. I'd also imagine that 4-speed automatic hurt performance a bit. That car honestly had trouble going much over 75 mph when it encountered the slightest uphill grade. It didn't like to downshift. However, I found that if I manually downshifted it, wound it up to about 85, and then shifted back into overdrive, it would get it past that sticking point.
And it would do 115 mph, given a long enough stretch of downhill grade. Although going downhill, I guess almost ANY car could hit 115 eventually. :P
Yeah, I've always wondered what would happen if people would apply some of those hypermiling tricks to regular (non-hybrid) cars and trucks.
I have a friend who's a hypermiling fool, and claims to have gotten upper 30's out of a Dodge Dynasty with the 3.3 V-6/4-speed automatic (EPA-rating 19/26), a 1995 or so Maxima stick (22/27), and a 2001.5 Passat V-6/stick (20/28). I've seen the way he drives, too, so I can believe it. He drives like an old lady, is often the slowest car on the highway, sometimes shuts off the ignition when stopped at a traffic light or on a long downhill coast, etc.
A lot of his techniques are borderline dangerous, though. For instance, trying to do 55 mph on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway when flow of traffic is 70+ is not the safest thing in the world to do! And I know throwing it into neutral and shutting off the engine to coast, in addition to being illegal, can't be all that great for the power steering pump if you have to go through a curve. In fact, I wonder what that would do to the newer electric-assist type of powe steering?
But.. no A/C.. and around 2500 lbs..
Weight is the enemy.. and, the lust for power.. If you are happy with a 2500 lb. car and 0-60 times of around 12 seconds, then with todays electronic engine management, 40 mpg is a piece of cake..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Checking back with my brother, I asked him to pin down EVERYDAY MILEAGE and here's what he said:
PS: It's interesting that his everyday daily mileage in 1960 is EXACTLY the same as my 2006 Scion xA, only those same three gallons cost me $10 instead of $1. A 1:10 ratio sounds about right for cost of living 50 years ago compared to today.
"I noticed you had asked me for my best guess for average
gas mileage, a single real number....33mpg would be my best guess. The 41mpg reached with the lean jet was real too...no special driving conditions...just putting around the old neighborhood--but I checked it only once.
I remember getting $1.00 worth of gas per week on a regular basis. That would get me 3 gallons and I could get 100 miles out of that amount. That routine would take care of my local 5-day weekly farting around (no place to go in Queens). Then on the weekend I'd burn up another buck. Get another 100 miles on the odometer...200 miles a week...10,000 a year...just about right."
Anyway, about the best that thing would do on the highway was 25. Usually 20 around town. Now to be fair, it was an old car by this time, as this was 1988-89. If it was in tip-top shape it would've most likely done better. Oh, as for 0-60? Well we timed it a few times with a stopwatch. 0-60 took about 25-30 seconds, although that was with three people on board. I've seen Consumer Reports tests from around 1980 that would put an Accord 5-speed at 0-60 in about 15 seconds. Oh yeah, almost forgot to add...my buddy's Accord had air conditioning. It didn't work, but still added weight, and that extra belt still sapped a bit of power.
They improved them quickly though. I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that tested two Accord models. One had a 5-speed, one had an automatic. And one had a stronger engine (forget which, though) I think they came in at 0-60 in around 11-12 seconds.
One other thing I do remember about my buddy's Accord, was that for such a small car, it was very comfortable for the driver and front seat passenger. Now the back seat was practically non-existent, but I give Honda credit for putting an importance on the driver and allowing for a wide variety of shapes and sizes. I'd have to sit behind the wheel of one just to make sure that my memory isn't playing tricks on me, but I'd swear that sucker had more legroom up front (not the way they measure it, but how far the seat actually goes back from the firewall) than most modern small cars. And probably some bigger ones.
My Echo is 2100+ pounds, 108 hp, did 0-60 in 8.5 seconds in C&D testing, and I get a running average of 40 mpg (40.5 to be exact) in it IN NORMAL COMMUTING. Not doing anything special, just living in the 'burbs and doing my 5-mile commute in it. That average covers the last 22K miles.
The point is, the Echo is VERY LIGHT. That is the biggest single advantage of these small cars, and I predict that anyone who wants to will be able to meet or exceed the new 2008 EPA mileage estimates quite easily if they want to.
Which means that a running average well above 50 mpg in a ForTwo should be quite attainable IMO. If you choose NOT to race from light to light and hold it to 65 mph on the highway, I am sure you will see the 60 mark with just a little mindfulness of good driving habits.
Having said that, if they continue to gear the small cars to rev high for speed, then I guess we will have to wait until they get some good diesels in them before we see truly exceptional fuel economy. That is really too bad, don't the automakers hear the call for more efficient cars? And it sure would be nice to reverse the weight gain so prevalent in today's fleet.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The early Honda Insight was rated 61/70 (49/61 on the new scale) with a manual, before gas mileage was sacrificed on the altar of emissions. People have gotten them into the 70s on normal highway cruises, even though those leadfooted hotdogs at Edmunds only managed to get 50 out of theirs.
Well if nothing else, shouldn't changing a gear ratio be a pretty simple thing for the manufacturer to fix on the assembly line, if enough people cry out enough for better fuel economy? It's a shame that they don't offer you a choice of gear ratios like they did back in the day. Even by, say, 1979, for my New Yorker they offered 4 different ratios, ranging from a 2.45:1 on up to a 3.23:1. So in theory at least, you could pick the one that was right for you, although the vast majority of them were just dealer-ordered with 2.45 gears.
The Cd is only .25 for an Insight.
http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enaero.html
I can't find that data for the SMART car but I can't imagine it is any where near as good.
Does the Yaris have side curtains? Pretty soon it will, either way. 6 air bags add a lot of weight. So do soft dash surfaces, and especially chassis reinforcements to do well on NHTSA and IIHS crash tests.
Here's a loophole - 3 wheelers, or 4 wheelers that are registered as motorcycles. Get around those auto-only requirements.
You can put many different engines in an Atom, for example. What about Toyota's 1.5l fuel sipper? Or a tiny TDI diesel? I can imagine 60mpg from a hypermiler like that. And it might even be fun.
My uncle finally gave up and just bought a Corolla. Fuel economy, according to the EPA ratings at least, is close enough to be negligible. And comparing automatic-to-automatic, at least, the Corolla's peppier. And roomier. And easier to get into and out of.
The Echo might have offered a bit of savings up front and, depending on your driving habits, in fuel costs. And since it was lighter than a Corolla it might have felt more tossable, and since it was smaller it might have been easier to park in ultra-tight situations. But in the end, for the most part the mass market just didn't appreciate the advantages the Echo DID have, and just got something slightly larger like a Corolla or Civic.
I have noticed though, when I see an occasional Yaris out on the streets, that they just don't look that dainty. At a quick glance, they don't seem any smaller than a Corolla. Whereas the Echo seemed to never be able to thrive because the Corolla just did so much more for not a lot more money, I kinda thought that the Yaris might've had the reverse effect, and cut into the Corolla's sales. But the Corolla seems to still be selling like hotcakes.
Now the Yaris hatchback seems like a tiny little thing. They also seem to be a rare sight.
**Edit: I wonder too, if styling has anything to do with it? The Yaris seems pretty conventionally styled IMO. It has a family resemblance to the Corolla, although a bit more crisper in style and less egg-shaped. The Echo, in contrast, had oddball styling that may have alienated a lot of potential buyers.
The Echo drove fine, but I agree that the styling may have turned most potential buyers off. The Tercel wasn't a headturner (just a bland little sedan) but the Echo can make you go "what the heck was that?" And not in a good way. :shades:
The 3-4 shift in the Echo wasn't as satisfying as I wanted it to be but otherwise the manual had a nice snick-snick to it. My friends got a good deal on a leftover and like it fine.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
It weighs only 2300 pounds, with basically the same powertrain the Echo had, which is why it is still rated at 40 mpg highway (for now). And A/C is now standard.
And way back when (5 years ago), it wasn't TOO hard to get an Echo 4-door with only the optional power steering and A/C for around $12K sticker, a little less with bargaining. Then you would go to Best Buy, put in a better stereo than the factory unit would have been anyway, and bingo! For around $12,2 you had a heck of a car. Problem is, people do want power package (and I want cruise, the aftermarket unit is less than $500 installed) and now they also want ABS and 6 airbags. And soon that list will include stability control, well before it is NHTSA-mandated I think.
But the Echo is a 7-year-old model at this point, and the newest crop of subcompacts have all this covered (standard or optional) and many are still under 2500 pounds. Times, they have a-changed! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, according to www.aicautosite.com, they sold about 20,000 Yarises (I refuse to say Yari, Foci, etc, even if it IS grammatically correct :P ) in the Jan-Mar 2007 period. Now that's small potatoes compared to 88,000 Corollas and 68,000 Civics, or even 40,000 Priuses (Prii?)
But then, when you figure that other mainstream small cars, like the Cobalt and Focus, have only sold 42K and 40K, respectively, in that same period, I think it's definitely notable.
How well did the Echo sell back in its heyday? Maybe 30-40K per year?
**Edit: if you go to aicautosite to look at the sales stats, look under "coupes" to see Yaris sales, as it doesn't show up under "sedans".
For comparison, the Honda FIT moved 8837 units in the same period, while the Versa moved 16195 and the Sentra, 25823.
I guess when you figure that the Sentra and the Versa do kind of step on each other's toes, that's not a bad showing, IMO. I guess if people want a sedan, they buy the Sentra, and if they want a hatch, they buy the Versa (even though you can get a Versa sedan)
either NJ accounts for about 1% of that OR they are just too small for me to notice.
I really have taken notice of the ones I have spotted, though. Cause a couple of times I've gone, "what the heck is .... OH, its one of them yari."
I've seen maybe 3 or 4 total. 2 hatchbacks and 2 sedans. I could see me missing the sedans, though. But the hatchbacks stand out pretty well, regardless of size.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S