By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
And I am VERY confused.
The first 2 I checked ( Jaguar S-Type 4.2 & S-Type R ) show EXACTLY the same ratings as the 2007s.....
- Ray
NOT expecting this....
Makes some of the big new trucks look pretty impressive by comparison. The new Acadia AWD is at 16/22 for AWD, and the Outback turbo model is only at 18/24, with over a ton less weight, less power, and a lower profile.
The FWD Acadia is at 16/24, and the '08 Scion tC is only at 20/27, with 40% less power, almost a TON less weight, and a much lower profile. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
When I look at those it shows them dropping by 1-2 mpg.
For example: 16 mpg vs. 18 means 12% higher fuel cost, while 28 vs. 30 means 7% higher fuel cost.
(( of the 2007s )) :
“MPG ratings for 1985-2007 model year vehicles have been revised . . .
[ if you hover the mouse over this it adds: ]
. . . for easy comparison with 2008 models.”
So – apparently now they don’t ‘publish’ the old \ original MPG numbers for 2007 & earlier models of the same car.
Odd.
- Ray
Thinking this strange indeed . . .
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Maybe it is because the LR2 didn't exist as a 2007 MY vehicle.
I just thought they would put what the 2007 Ratings would have been under it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
David Cole interview
Water Seeps Into Vault Holding Buried Car
The fuel economy measure was added to a broad energy bill without a roll call vote even as senators were holding a news conference announcing the compromise.
Republicans earlier blocked Democratic efforts to raise oil taxes by $29 billion and use the money to promote renewable fuels and other clean energy programs.
Democratic leaders hoped to complete the energy bill Thursday night, but senators close to the auto industry began an effort to derail the entire bill.
"We will be continuing to oppose it," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., "This is not over by any stretch."
The legislation for the first time would establish a single fuel economy standard applicable to not only cars, but also SUVs and pickups which currently have to meet less stringent requirement. more...
What do you think of teh 35mpg for cars, trucks and SUVs? Will this pass or be tossed negotiated out of the energy bill?
There will probably be a lot of Americans cheering that the government has finally forced the automakers to provide the fuel efficient vehicles that they have been depriving us of for all these years. Well, that's American ignorance at it's purest. The repurcussions will be that these full sized SUVs/trucks that we are so enamored with will not magically become more fuel efficient. They will suddenly become more expensive. That's fine with me but I doubt it's what the mindless masses anticipated when they so strongly supported these, "magic wand", higher efficiency standards.
You absolutely will see more hybrids. But this legislation is not going to make incorporating hybrid technology cheaper. Who's going to pay for that? The car buyer.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the auto manufacturers have been sitting on this secret 100 mpg carburator because they're in cahoots with the oil industry. It's possible, I've been wrong before.
So now the Detroit Three only have 12 years to make their cars as efficient as Hondas and Toyotas have been for the past 20 years. Boo hoo!
I suppose they'll lay off another 40,000 workers and move the rest of their factories to Mexico. That worked so well in the past.
Well, I heard on the radio that the Senate shot down ten or twelve billion in subsidies to the coal industry to make diesel from coal. Emission objections was given as the reason to shoot it down.
Toyota strongly objected to higher CAFE. Today's Japanese imports have lower fuel efficiency than they did in 1980.
You can villify the Big 3 all you want, and some of it is justified. The reality is that their vehicles are not much different than their Japanese counterparts in terms of fuel efficiency. The problem is that the Big 3's most popular vehicles are at the low end of the efficiency spectrum. I mean really, Is a Tundra or Land Cruiser more efficient than an F-150 or Expedition?
Here you go.
Sonata best MPG for Large Car, Midsized was Versa, and a Toyota(forgot which one).
Prius was in there.
Fit,and the Ford Focus was also mentioned.
I did hear that overseas, diesels get in the 40-50 MPG range for cars such as the upcoming 07 Ford Mondeo, and VW has some diesels getting 40-50 MPG.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2007/bw20070619_837460.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Mondeo: says 2 engines, one gets 47.9 and the other, 2 more MPG(49.9?).
Look up VW diesel sportswagen(coming to the USA, in Jan 08, iirc)... said 60hwy, 40 city, under 20K msrp to start).
Honda Accord diesel gets over 52+ MPG...
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/06/new-accord-diesel-to-hit-60-mpg/2G...coming to USA
VW Sportwagen:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=120684?imw=Y#
take care/ not offense.
And like someone else said, it wasn't just the american brands, this is going to wreak havoc across all makes lineups I suspect. They're having to bow to government demands instead of consumer demands. And it'll be the consumer who loses on the sticker prices.
boohoo indeed. Government intervention sucks.
And for what it's worth, I'm entirely sick of hearing diesel this and diesel that lately. No way is that going to become the main focus anytime soon. I couldn't even tell you but one or two places in my area that even sells diesel. The infastructure isn't there, and a rapid switch would kill us here.
Around 50% of the passenger cars sold in Europe today are Diesel-powered, this didn't happen overnight but the demand was created over years by very high fuel prices, Euros had no trouble creating the infrastructure to fuel these cars. It's a lot simpler to transport Diesel than ethanol which can't be piped and it's relatively to convert gasoline tanks and pumps to Diesel.
It's easier to refine Diesel too as it is a less refined product than gasoline IIRC. I'm pretty well convinced that
Diesel will be a major contributor to our transportation future but there won't be any single solution for all.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I remember reading in Motor Trend a few weeks ago that Toyota was sweating the 35 MPG number and had pushed back development of the next Camry to figure out ways to meet the number.
That is the purpose of DOD. If you cruise, you use 4 cyl. You accelerate, you use 8.
Now, I wonder if the computers that manage DOD are fast enough to allow the 4 cyl to be cut at idle, below 5 mph. I wonder what this would do to city mpg, as you would be using half the fuel at idle, at a red light, or in bumber to bumper, crawling.
I hate to hear the word "can't" come out of these companies' mouths. They can, they just don't like to be told what to do. If the cost of a Suburban goes up by $5K to pay CAFE fines because it can't meet the new standards, well maybe less people will buy Suburbans and we won't put quite so much oil money in the pockets of the folks in the middle east. And we will stop dumping quite so much CO2 into the air as well. Look at that, it made us better global neighbors in two different ways!
OTOH, maybe they could develop a diesel hybrid Suburban that adds $4K to the price of what is already a very expensive vehicle, and it could make 35 mpg combined. "Can't" is not how America attained its international prominence in the 20th century.
And if I were one of the execs at Toyota and Honda, I would be thinking about shifting the mix even further away from the trucks, even as I readied those diesels and plug-in hybrids, and developing new models with lots of interior space that run on car chassis so that they are more fuel efficient.
And gee whiz, all of these carmakers could gain 5-10 mpg points if they just focused their efforts on sucking 1000 pounds of fat out of today's cars and trucks over the next decade. 2000 pounds, in the case of models like the Navigator and most Land Rovers. Not only would removing the pork allow for better fuel efficiency, it would also allow for the use of smaller less powerful engines which would then double the gas savings.
I will be so disappointed if they drop this from the energy bill. I only wish it could go further - most of the places in the world where large-scale auto sales go on today have a higher standard than 35 mpg. And of course it will only go up until 2020 and then stop for another two decades probably.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The automobiles in the rest of the world are made by the same companies that make our automobiles. So obviously they are capable and willing to produce and sell these fuel efficient vehicles where there is a market for them. The problem is that with relatively cheap gas in this country that market doesn't exist. That's simply a statement of fact.
Anyone who wants a 35+ mpg vehicle can go out and find one. If I choose to buy a 6 cylinder Camry as opposed to a Corolla is that really Toyota's fault? If so, why? Toyota is providing me around a $10k incentive to go with the Corolla. Sure Toyota could make the Camry more efficient by reducing it's size and power. However it's no longer a Camry. They've simply pulled the Camry nameplate and stuck it on the Corolla.
Question - do these countries have the same emission standards that we do? I'm assuming that they are similar to the strictest states in the US? e.g. California.
I agree, it would be a big disappointment if this Energy Bill doesn't pass or is somehow watered down.
Reducing mass is going to make the biggest difference. Lower weight cars combined with other tech will make a huge difference in the next 5-10 years.
You mentioned Rover and as I said before the next gen Rovers are supposed to be mostly aluminum. The next gen Range Rover should way over 1,000 lbs less. The reports I have seen is a 700 kilo decrease.
I did the calculation for Land Rovers avg fuel economy in the US using the old EPA numbers
For 2002 it was 14/17.7.
For 2007 it is 15/20.75.
That is a good percentage increase, especially for highway mileage, and is even more impressive when you consider that ever Rover gained at least 400 lbs and some gained over 1,000 lbs. The next generation should reverse that trend and get them all below their 2002 mass. I would expect that the reduction in mass combined with other technologies should raise that 15/20.75 average to something like 20/26 or 21/28 in five to seven years.
Fraud? DOD works on the premise of delivering full power when necessary (as during acceleration). Did you expect "4-cylinder acceleration"?
DOD benefit seem to be "only" ~10% improvement in fuel economy and seen only in situations when the technology can be used (acceleration and uphill climbs won't be those).
I would have been a lot more impressed if Rover had held the weight gain in check and applied all the technological advancement to fuel economy improvement. HOWEVER, I am aware of the environment in which Rover is operating, and for many years a common complaint among its upper-crust clientele was lack of power/speed.
If they can get to 21/28 in the larger Rovers by 2012, I think that will be a good start. But they obviously need to do more. While I am very encouraged by your report that individual next-gen models will be as much as 1000 pounds lighter, why does the skeptic in me think that by the time they actually roll off the production line the weight loss will have vanished into the mist?
And of course, Rover should not be singled out here. Look at the larger SUVs from ALL the luxury carmakers. Look at many luxury SEDANS, now at or exceeding 2 TONS in weight. Look at the latest car-based crossovers currently being lauded in the press, the Lambdas from GM. They are well over the 2-ton threshold, with some trims with AWD over 4500 pounds! What about all the minivans on the market? All are car-based, none of the most popular retail models are under 2 tons.
But we should also consider powertrains. Most of Toyota's V-6 models now use DI, which is good for substantial improvement in both emissions and fuel economy. Indeed, it is as a result of this that its V-6 sedans have all but caught up with its 4-cylinder models in fuel economy. What a shame! If Toyota would just apply its best technology down the line, who knows how much it could achieve. Maybe a power reduction would not even be necessary to get the 35 mpg out of the 4-cylinder Camry. Just give it DI and lop 400-500 pounds off its porky butt.
And what about diesel powertrains? In all the large vehicles - full-size sedans, most crossovers, and certainly large pick-ups and truck-based SUVs - a diesel should be at least an option, and standard in some cases. 50-state diesel can't get here sooon enough IMO. Some of these vehicles with large gas engines that approach 300 hp or more could save a substantial amount of fuel.
As could the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid technology, which is just now beginning to show up. Heck, in a few years they could be selling 100 mpg cars that do all their around-town running on electricity they charged overnight. Yes, the price of these cars initially would be a little higher than current hybrid models, but mainly what needs working on is the battery technlogy, and I am glad GM for one is plowing a huge investment into making better batteries happen.
Point is, the time is not now. It was 10 years ago, maybe 20. All this legislation does is bring us current, and by 2020 it will leave us behind the rest of the world once again.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You are exactly right IMO. All this legislation does is keep Detroit from committing assisted suicide (assisted by the Congess' continuing failure to enact a real gasoline tax).
The European Auto fleet already averages 35 mpg and the Japanese do even better.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
And they did not accomplish this through a CAFE type mechanism. In fact if there even exists a government mandated fuel efficiency standard in Japan or Europe it is a recent development.
Some have taken to the late Raymond Loewy's saying - "Weight is the enemy" - to heart. But two reasons vehicles have gotten heavier is because of increased safety gear and improved rigidity, which brings about better handling and much better control of noise, vibration and harshness.
And it isn't just lazy Detroit auto makers bolstering this trend - Hondas have gotten heavier and more powerful, too. Of course, as they have gotten heavier, plusher and more powerful, they have also progressed from a supplement to the family car (as they were when I started driving) to THE family car (as our Accord sedan is now).
Which can save gas in the long run, as we have no desire to trade up to anything bigger than our Accord EX four cylinder sedan. So perhaps, in the long run, Honda prevented the sale of another SUV by making its Accord bigger and plusher (not to mention safer and more comfortable on long trips).
As someone who remembers the dreadful, downsized vehicles of the late 1970s and early 1980s, I have no desire to "back to the future." I don't like excessive noise, and I'm not buying a vehicle that forces me to toddle along at 65 mph (let alone 55 mph) because the engine sounds as though it is about to grenade at 80+ mph.
Plenty of savings would be reaped if people downsized from Explorers to Fusions, or even to Freestyles (to be reintroduced as the improved TaurusX).
Higher gasoline prices would encourage this, without CAFE.
I remember those full-size, rear-wheel-drive Buick Electras and Cadillac DeVilles with V-6s, GM intermediates with fixed rear windows (to save both weight and costs), Corvettes that couldn't out-accelerate a 10-year-old Impala, and Escorts with barely enough power to mow a lawn, all of which were built to meet CAFE requirements.
Who wants to go back to the "bad old days?"
For those of us who experienced them, the vehicles of the late 1970s and early 1980s were bad enough the first time around... :P
Everytime I hear of a big CAFE increase, those old memories start coming back.
I'll pay the higher gas prices and cope as I can, so that at least when I do drive, it's still an enjoyable experience.
Nope they got it by way of huge gasoline taxes, (and lower taxes in Diesel) something our feckless pols don't have the guts to impose.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
What I will search for once the compromise Senate/House bill is finalized is what the loopholes will be. Automakers spend far more of their time and energy trying to find the loopholes than they do complying with the legislation.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Raising taxes -- ANY taxes -- has been the "third rail" of politics for a generation. You know the old saw, "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!"
I think it's even the First Commandment of the Republican Party: Thou shalt not raise taxes. ("Read my lips" and all of that.)
We had a governor elected a few years back in VA on the premise of removing the annual car property tax. Well, it was cut back but never fully repealed, and guess what? The budget started to go into the tank, and now the tax is inching back up. (Our state can't run sky-high deficits like the US government.)
Ahh good old Gov. Gilmore. What a moron. He got elected solely on the Car Tax repeal initiative. I told people that would never work and people just gave me this dumbstruck look. They would say things like, "but it is good he is lowering taxes that car tax is horrible."
And I would reply with, "if you get rid of one tax then you have to raise taxes some where else or cut services he isn't planning either."
Which would be replied with, "but our booming economy will more then pay for the shortfall in taxes..."
And how long do you think that will last? At that point they gave me the deer in headlights look. :surprise:
Complete morons.
When my German relatives visit, they used to invariably complain, "Why is everything so far away from your house?" Well, because we have more space, and a different sense of what constitutes a long distance.
As someone once said, "In America, 100 years is a long time, in Great Britain, 100 miles is a long trip."
Our sense of distance has always been different from that possessed by Europeans, because our country has more land area, we are one country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and Europe does not have a continuous flat area that approaches the scale of the Great Plains.
"So what do we do? Bite the bullet or hope the problem magically goes away? The magic solution is always the easier sell for politicians."
- was his point, and there's no arguing with it. There is a problem, and it won't just go away, and like it or not it will likely eventually involve a change in the American lifestyle. Politicians will never be so bold as to say this out loud, but they do know it to be true. They just don't want to be the one we point at when someone asks "who is responsible for this decline in the American lifestyle??". They have no courage. We should be taking a longer view.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And what really is the "problem?" The price of gas is rising, because worldwide demand for oil is increasing, and new supplies aren't keeping pace with growing demand.
Sounds like the free market is working. We aren't going to wake up one day and discover that we only have one barrel of oil left. Rising prices will make it feasible to extract difficult-to-access sources oil, increase the viability of alternative energy sources and encourage people to use less.
This may involve changes in lifestyle, but that's not the end of the world.
And "changes in lifestyle" are not necessarily synonomous with "declines in lifestyle."
It's gasoline for $5 a gallon, not Armageddon. There is a lot of fat that can be cut from the way gasoline is used in this country, without new legislation (which will probably end up attempting to INSULATE people, i.e., voters, from rising costs, and thus be counterproductive in the long run - see CAFE).
If other people aren't prepared, or can't handle it, that is their problem.
Let's see, since my teen years, I've survived:
-the global cooling that was supposed to happen by the end of this century;
-two gas crunches in the 1970s (caused by government meddling in the oil market, not by any actual shortage of gasoline);
-the supposed Famine of 1980 that was predicted by professional doomster Paul Ehrlich;
-the nuclear winter that was guaranteed because of President Reagan's defense spending;
-the automotive bloodbath that was supposed to follow the repeal of the 55 mph and 65 mph national speed limits;
-the economic depression that was supposed to occur in (take your pick) 1979, 1989 or 1999;
-and no less than two revivals of the Monkees.
Somehow, I think I'll make it through $5-a-gallon for unleaded.
Oh, the humanity!