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
You are probably correct. I would never pay the premium for a hybrid. I bought it when GM was giving vehicles away in June 2005. The hybrid had what I wanted in a tow vehicle. The Hybrid was practically a gimme, as they had it on the lot a long time. The autostop and regenerative braking are a slight plus. For one thing my wheels never get that black crap from the disk brakes. I would keep it if I did not hate the door arrangement. I did use it to keep our refrigerator and freezer going during a 5 hour power outage.
I represent that. I expect (and have received for 20+ years) great mileage from my pickup truck. I guess the context here eludes me (happens frequently), but the statement just doesn't wash for the VW diesel pickup..........
..ez..
au contraire... It is you who are missing the point.
The values shown on a sticker are values attained in a controlled test under exactly the same conditions for every vehicle on the road.
The 25%+/- variance indicated is to account for you...the operator...and your particular driving situation.
The vehicle that you get 27 H / 19 C over short trips in a colder cliamte can be the vehicle that I get 29 H all day long in 45 min Highway driving never entering a city on a flat terrain in moderate conditions all year long. How is anyone selling you a vehicle going to know your personal driving methods and environment?
The only fair way to present the info is with a standardized test and state that you have the greatest effect on your Fuel Economy. Your Mileage May Vary.
Here are some factors that I'm sure you're aware of but may not know the effects. These are SOTP but I'm certain they're accurate with a few % pts.
Factors affecting your FE ( and everyone else's also, btw ) in decending order of importance...
1) Towing anything is a huge penalty possibly as much as a 50% reduction in FE
2) Lots of weight in the vehicle, passengers cargo etc. ( EPA tests are done empty ) deduct up to 20% from your 'Norm'
3) Short trips under 10 min - deduct 20% from your 'Norm'
4) Snow, Rain, sleet - deduct 15%
5) Strong head wind - deduct 10%
6) Cold weather - deduct 5 - 10%
7) High speed driving 0ver 70 mph - deduct 5 - 10%
8) Many starts from a dead stop ( going from stop sign to stop sign to stop sign ) - deduct 5 - 10%
9) Terrain - fortunately 'what goes up..' usually this balances out on a RT
10) Winter fuel - deduct 2 - 5%
11) Low tire pressure - ? How low
Now these are cumulative, so short trips with a lot of stops ( -20% )( -5% ) in winter ( -7% ) on slick pavement ( -15% ) can result in as much as a 40 - 50% loss from your personal 'Norm'.
In your EPA rated V6 sedan that 'should' get 26 mpg on average you could run into situations where you get 15 mpg and I can get 29 mpg using the very same vehicle. CR in their FE testing always reports this on every vehicle. They're 'normal driving test' often returns values which are about 50% of the EPA numbers.
wheel alignment up to 7%
aftermarket oversize tires. 5%
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
And that's O K with me.
55 because drivers will fudge 60 and on a 400 mile drive, leave an hour earlier as your time is not worth that much.
I hope that doesn't happen. That will be a real kick in the gut to the performance industry and the cars they support.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
Well, I have a personal experience that pretty much de-bunks that one, at least on the highway cycle. Two years ago, I took my 2000 Intrepid 2.7 (EPA: 20/29) on a trip down to Florida. It was hot and muggy, so we used the a/c most of the time. Between driving down, back, and all the running around we did down there, I'd imagine we put about 2500-2600 miles on the car. Now, the base weight of that car is about 3400-3500 pounds I'd guess. I'm about 190-195, so say 200 (correct me if I'm wrong, but there's probably a law against me driving around naked. :P ) Well, by the time you account for me, my two friends, and all of our luggage, we easily had that car porked up to its GVWR, which is around 4400 pounds.
Fuel economy on that trip averaged around 27-28 mpg. And I wasn't exactly going slow. I have the ticket from Emporia, VA, to prove it! (78 in a 65 :sick: )
Anyway, anybody wanna take any guesses on what kind of fuel economy I get with that Intrepid when I take it out on the highway with just me? And with the a/c running? You guessed it! About 27-28 mpg. So, basically, we put back almost all the weight that the Big Three shed from many of their cars when they took drastic downsizing measures in the late 1970's. And the hit on fuel economy was negligible, at most.
Now, that's not to say that weight doesn't have SOME impact. However, I don't think it's a linear relationship, and it's going to vary from car to car, depending on engine, transmission, gearing, aerodynamics, starting weight of the vehicle, etc.
There are 5 cars on the lot - all the same model, color, options, trim levels, and price. I want to pick the one with the best mpg. Are you suggesting there is no difference between the cars due to manufacturing variations? The answer could be either way, I dont know. Do the manufacturer provide any test data on these individual cars to prove it one way or the other? Thanks, - MS.
There is going to be some individual differances between vehicles because you can't build every car exactly the same.
http://gasprices.mapquest.com
You put in the addy/zip code and it gives out location/maps of the nearby 100 gas stations and their prices, sorted from low to high. Best wishes, - MS.
Essentially yes. The way vehicles are made now the variation in fuel usage amongst 5 vehicles on the lot using the same driver over the same course in the same weather driving in exactly the same manner might be less than 3% difference.
Most plants now produce vehicles to 6-sigma specifications so the variation are imperceptible. Errors do occur of course and these become claims or warranty issues. I'd feel confident in taking any one of 50 4c Camry's off our lot and driving them home and back ( 150 mi ) and get right at 33 mpg on every one of them. Why? I've had Camry's since 1989 and I've never failed to get exactly the EPA Highway values on each of them over a total of 500,000 miles. Ditto the Prius now. 51 Highway and 60+ City.
check out Caracas at the bottom of the list!
Less than 3% ? I have no more arguments in that case. The mpg's of all vehicles are pretty much the same. I just don't believe it, though. I think the number is much higher, but I do not have any data and I won't argue.
Most plants now produce vehicles to 6-sigma specifications so the variation are imperceptible. Errors do occur of course and these become claims or warranty issues.
Do you know which plant/mfr makes vehicles to 6-sigma specs? Any references? The 6-sigma specs calls for less than 3ppm defect rate. I don't think any mfr achieves that currently. But I may be wrong. Regards, - MS.
3% of 33MPG is 1MPG so we are talking 32-34 MPG. That sounds about right a 2 MPG spread between cars maybe with the occasional odd ball being greater.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Hmmm, I would say I will continue to buy gas at the present level I am at present because I need gas to do the various lifestyle things I'm presently doing. Amoung these lifestyle items I need to continue doing is get to work. There is no public transit in this area so I will continue to drive my car to work. I will continue to go to the grocery store because I need to buy food. If I use a taxi that will cost me more than a gallon of gas. I will still buy things at the present level at dept. stores because many of those items I need on a daily basis.
me: that was a good idea back in the 70's when cars weren't aerodynamic, had 3-speed trans. for the most part, and the roads weren't as clogged.
Many urban roads these days are fairly clogged at parts of the day. You want people to get where they're going as fast as possible, to getoff the road. If you change the speed limit from 65 to 55, you've essentially increased the number of cars on that road at any given time by 15+%. Now you add 15% more cars to many roads, and you'll get traffic-jams. And when you get traffic-jams, you get really lousy mpg, and people do 20mph, and then they have to leave even earlier. So by going from 65mph to 55mph, I could see that triggering a 30 mile and 30 minute drive, to an hour or more.
Now it WOULD increase speed differentials when the highway is moving smoothly at the speed limit, because more people will tend to speed when the limit is 55 than when it is 65 (amply proven by the evidence last time we went from 55 to 65 limit on most highways). So it is unclear how lowering the speed limit would affect traffic jams. But driving 55 instead of 65 might save a lot of gas, depending on compliance rates.
Note that all the data I have seen is in California urban areas, so I have no idea if this can be applied to rural areas or other less-densely-trafficked areas of the country.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As for hypermiling, I've mainly been trying to just go easy on the accelerator, and trying to keep it below 65 on the highway. I also swapped out the air cleaner top last week, putting a flat one on that exposes the filter all the way around, and lets it breathe better than it probably would through the snorkel attachment. I dunno if that really helps fuel economy much, though. It definitely helps acceleration, though!
Anyway, I figure that on this last tank, if I drove like I used to, back when gas was cheap, and with the regular air cleaner top on, I would've gotten more like 12 mpg. So, in this case, I'm looking at a roughly 21% improvement in mpg. And when we're dealing with figures this low, that's a pretty big fuel savings.
I went 132.8 miles on this last tank, and it took 9.058 gallons to fill up. At 12 mpg, it would've been more like 11.07 gallons, so I've saved about 2 gallons.
When you look at it from a purely financial standpoint though, that's really not a huge financial gain. I last filled that truck up 12 days ago, so over the course of 12 days, my gentler driving has basically netted me about $6.24 (2 gallons @ 3.119 per gallon). At that rate, if fuel prices remain the same (and my driving situation remains the same, as well) I'd be on track to save about $190 per year.
That's really not a huge amount, but every little bit helps.
Plus, another nice feature of it is that, in the space of about 10 minutes, my roommate and I just loaded up a full 8-foot bed load of tree limbs that I had cut over at my grandmother's place, drove back to the edge of an embankment on my property, and dumped them over into the woods. I wonder how many trips, and how much time that would've taken with a Prius/Civic/etc? :shades:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It'll be interesting to see what kind of mileage I get on this trip.
me: ok I can agree with you that the number of people on the road is not as important as the speed differential, but certainly you don't mean to say that it is not a factor? Not a 15+% change. The number of people on the road, is certainly the difference as to how fast traffic flows between rush-hours and ther times.
And I'm pretty sure it is a non-linear relationship. I mean - take a road with moderately heavy traffic, such that everyone has a "comfort-zone" number of car-lengths in front of them; but add 15% more cars and reduce those comfort zones, and you'll start a chain-reaction of people braking and lane-changing trying to find a better lane.
you: But driving 55 instead of 65 might save a lot of gas, depending on compliance rates.
me: I'd bet a lot of the new 5 and 6 speed trans. wouldn't even get (and stay) into their top gear where they'll get the best hwy. mpg. 55 might have been a good number for most cars to get high mpg in the 70's but for modern cars that number would be closer to 65 or 70mph where the engine is turning at moderate speed in top gear, and wind resistance has not become a very large factor (at least to a typical aerodynamic car).
If you improve your mileage from 37.4, which is already excellent, to 40.0 how much gas will you save on this trip? How much extra time will be spent on the road? When you start talking about high mpg vehicles the return on your time investment is not all that great. For a lot of people it won't be worth it. For instance, if you save a gallon of gas and spend an extra 1/2 hour driving it comes down to whether or not you think your time is worth more than $6/hour. Not to mention the intangible aggravation, boredom costs that many would incur.
I'm all for saving fuel but my time is also a limited resource. Saying that fuel is more important than my time is an idea that I have a difficult time embracing. Now when you start talking about low mpg vehicles or extremely expensive fuel the equation may change. In my case I drive a relatively efficient vehicle, ~28 mpg, and I don't consider fuel to be all that expensive. So for the time being my priorities are to arrive at my destination quickly, safely, and without getting a traffic ticket. Typically that means setting cruise control at about 9 mph over the posted limit.
And as long as the engine is revving enough to maintain speed in top gear at 55, it will be saving gas at that speed vs going 65 mph. In super-large-engined cars like the Corvette, it might not be saving much gas, but it will be saving gas (if the Vette can cruise without stalling in 6th at 55).
As for traffic flow, what causes the traffic to back up at rush hour, more than any other factor, is the speed differential of the cars - two cars trying to merge going disparate speeds, or one lane going much slower than the lane right next to it, is what STARTS the chain reaction that leads to traffic jams. THEN, and only then, does people's following distances (the compression of cars you mention) cause back-ups to quickly get worse.
Neither 55 nor 65 speed limits do anything to alleviate this problem. At 65 you have less speeders but more problems with old folks and trucks that don't go 65, not to mention the problems with the merge lane - despite horsepower tripling in the American fleet in the last 20 years, a majority of folks STILL will not get their cars up to 65 before the top of the onramp.
At 55, you have the opposite problem: lots of speeders that ignore the limit. From what I have seen in my time with DOT, speed limits affect very little the speeds that people, truckers included, actually drive. They settle at around 65 or 70 mph on average, with some outliers doing 80 and weaving through the cars, and many truckers doing a bit less, maybe 60. I am talking average speeds there.
So who knows, maybe a 55 limit wouldn't save a lot of gas, and I sure wouldn't like it, but I am sure it would save some. Anyway, I forget, but I don't think this was originally my proposal so I am going to stop defending it! People can slow down on their own and save lots of gas. I know, because I have done so.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There are lots of ways to influence human behavior, such as taxes, incentives, propaganda (mind-influencing) and of course laws...the last of which is often the worst way if not done in concert with the others.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I calculated the savings, and it's really a hoot. Last time I made this 228 mile round trip and got 37.4 mpg, it took about 6.09 gallons of gas. If I could get 40 mpg, it would use 5.7 gallons. Or a savings of about 0.39 gallons. At $3.119 per gallon, I'll save about $1.22.
So from a financial standpoint, it's not much. At this point it's more of a curiosity thing to see if I can break 40, and how much I'd have to alter my driving.
Also, to be honest, when I made the trip in my uncle's Corolla back in April, I DID drive it a bit more gently than I would have driven my Intrepid, since I was borrowing it and trying to be respectful of it. In the Intrepid I still would've probably averaged 65-80 on that trip, but spent more time in the upper part of that range.
Maybe an interesting test would be to take my Intrepid up sometime, driving it more gently than normal, and seeing if I can boost its mileage. Usually I'd get about 27-28 making that trip.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You're using logical thinking, a knowledge of our history, and a common-sense understanding of how the real world works. Stop that immediately...
If you want to drive 60 mph to save gas, then stay in the slow lane and mind your own business. The rest of us are finding other ways to conserve gas.
Because almost NONE the people going 75+ would ever slow down in order to conserve gas.
Too many people FALSELY think it's good and necessary to drive those speeds on a daily basis. When in reality, it's just NOT.
They just don't understand all the waste and pollution and lost money that goes into it, and they never will.
(long sigh)
Here's an approach to cut the speed limit and thus save gas - quit maintaining and improving the infrastructure.
After you bust a few shocks on the potholes going 75, you'll naturally slow down to a safer 45 mpg and save tons of gas. And since everyone will be using less gas, there will be even fewer tax dollars available to maintain the roads, insuring lousy roads and plentiful gas supplies well into the future.
It seems that many states are already implementing this idea. :P
And maybe they conserve gas in other ways. So why should they? If they choose to trade higher speeds for lower mileage, that is none of your business.
lasrb: Too many people FALSELY think it's good and necessary to drive those speeds on a daily basis. When in reality, it's just NOT.
That's your opinion.
As someone who drives on limited access highways on a regular basis, I can say - yes, it is. It makes the trip safer, more pleasurable and more efficient.
Incidentally, visit Europe some time. Speed limits are usually set at 70 mph.
lasrb: They just don't understand all the waste and pollution and lost money that goes into it, and they never will.
It's their money, and how they use it is their business.
If they decide to trade higher speeds for slightly lower fuel economy, that is their decision. "Waste" would be dumping it on the ground. Using it to achieve another objective - a more pleasant trip, a faster trip - is not waste.
Again, that is your opinion, obviously not shared by others.
And cars are capped at the same level of pollutants, regardless of whether they are traveling at 55 mph or 75 mph. That is per the Clean Air Act.
That's different from "Americans want to drive 60 mph on limited access highways."
This may come as a shock, but there are lots of ways to conserve gasoline.
bluzf1: We just need sincere leadership to be the best America we can be. The majority of Americans would cooperate with reduced speeds if were properly led. Hey, let's just make it a flat $25 for each offense!
You need to look up the word "cooperation," and then look up the word "coercion."
Ensuring compliance through fines does not meet the definition of "cooperation." That is coercion.
Left to their own devices, people around here are driving 70-75 mph on limited access highways, even though virtually every car can go much faster. And it isn't because of police patrols, because they are very sparse on most limited access highways in this area.
So most people cooperate by driving 70-75 mph. Works for me.
bluzf1: Then people can pay to speed if they want. See,I'm flexible.
I'm even more flexible.
You can drive 60 mph, if you want, and mind your own business. And those who want to drive 75 mph will keep on doing so.
My idea sounds much better, and will actually work in the real world.
bluzf1: I'm happy and your not happy......works for me.
Those of us who actually drive on limited access highways on a regular basis would all be happier if you would stick to bass fishing.
Why should they? What exactly will be accomplished by conserving fuel? Instead of running out in 20XX we will now run out in 20XX + a couple years. So what? Actually running out of fuel later will probably result in more total fuel having being burned. Anyway, if you think that this will buy us more time to develop alternatives that is based on the assumption that the government can be proactive. I've never seen this. The only thing that will encourage alternatives is high fuel prices, so again, why conserve. If anything you're just slowing down progress. As far as I can tell the sole reason to conserve is the personal financial benefit derived by spending less on gas.