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
For example, both time that I borrowed my uncle's Corolla, I didn't start off with a full tank. I drove it with whatever it had, but then topped it off for him, as a thanks for letting me borrow his car. For instance, on Mother's Day, the round trip was about 110 miles, which at even 35 mpg would only be about 3 gallons, or maybe $9.50. But it took $15.50 to fill it back up. Similarly, when I took his car to Carlisle, if I started with a full tank, it would've only taken about $17.00 worth of gas to fill up, rather than $32
That trip to PA and back is about 230 miles total, and that's what my buddy put on his Xterra. He didn't start off with a full tank though, so when I paid to fill him back up, I was paying for more than just the miles he drove. I figured his fuel economy on that tank was about 19.5 mpg, which isn't bad because a lot of it was spent doing 80 mph following my NYer back home...at least before I realized just how far off the speedometer really was! So while I paid about $54 to fill him back up, I figure that about $36 of that was spent driving up and back.
As for the New Yorker, it had a little over a half tank when I bought it. Between test-driving it up there, bringing it home, and driving it around here a bit, I put about 180 miles on it, according to the odometer, before filling it back up. The odometer is a bit off like the speedo though, so that 180 recorded might be more like 195
As for the pickup truck, its portion of that fuel bill was only about $96.00, which might represent about 425 miles of driving. And that's what I did the bulk of my driving in. I figure I put about 30-40 miles on my New Yorker since I brought it back from PA. Then you figure going up to PA twice (once in the Corolla, once in the Xterra) that was about 230 miles each time. Plus the 110 for Mother's Day. So in all, it looks like I did about 1,000 miles that month.
As for the Intrepid, I use my card to fill it up, because I get a 3% rebate, but then my roommate gives me cash.
If gas went up to $4.00 per gallon, I dunno what I'd really do different. I've already started bumming my uncle's Corolla whenever I'm going on a trip (as long as he doesn't need it). Last time I drove to PA in it though, the trip back was hell. My legs and butt started hurting, and I drove faster than I otherwise would have because I just wanted to get HOME! So needless to say, I don't think I achieved my 40 mpg goal on that trip!
The mileage on the pickup truck did include two trips to Baltimore, at about 60 miles each.
I had to put the New Yorker in the shop tonite, because it pissed me off. Wouldn't start up this afternoon when I hopped in it to leave work, so I started walking home. One of my roommates was at the gym, but he was just leaving, so I got him on the cell and had him come get me. I was actually a bit more than halfway home when he met me, and I'd only been walking for about 22 minutes. So I figure if I really had to save some money, hey, I could walk to work in about 40-45 minutes!
We went back a few hours later to see if the car would start. Some thunderstorms had come through and it cooled down considerably. This time, the damn thing fired right up! Once I get it back from the mechanic, I think I'm going to see which gets better economy in my type of driving...the truck or the New Yorker, and probably just drive that one predominantly.
I'm going back to Pennsylvania in about a week and a half, but this time I'm taking my '76 LeMans for the GM show. And then one of the New Yorkers is going up for the Mopar show, and then a few weeks after that, one of the New Yorkers is going up for another show. So in these cases, I won't be able to get by with bumming my uncle's car.
Once you factor out car show trips and other occasional trips, I'm usually only doing about 400-500 miles per month, which is only costing around $100-120. I don't see what else I can really do here, except buy something ultra-economical, which would then get me into a car payment, and higher insurance premiums. Even if I got into something that got 35 mpg in my type of driving, my fuel bill would get cut to maybe $35-45 per month, saving me $65-75 per month. But I'd probably have to spend $15-16K or more to save that $65-75 per month. Although I guess I could always get a used economy car, but with something like a Honda or Toyota, aren't you almost better off getting a new one, since depreciation is so low?
NOTE: that credit is iffy on the Toyota Prius, because congress limits the number of credits it allows per year, and Toyota sells way more Priuses than the congressional credit limit. Honda doesn't, so all Civic Hybrid buyers get their tax credits.
You can also lose your tax credit to the AMT. However, if you and your wife are making a mid-six-figure income, you're probably not too worried about a $2,100 write-off.
Anyway, I bought a Civic Hybrid last month. Here are the real-world numbers to determine whether a hybrid makes sense for you:
Sales price was $21,400 ($1,200 below msrp) + taxes/fees.
$0 down, 2.9% financing through Honda for 3 years, payment $650/month.
Average fuel economy is 47.1 mpg. I could get better, but I set the cruise at 66 mph on the highway, and use brisk acceleration from stops. Other owners who drive like grandmas around town and keep highway speeds under 60 get 50+ mpg.
I also get a $2,100 tax credit this year.
So, if 47 real-world mpg justifies those financial numbers, then buy a hybrid. With gas at $3/gal., hybrids are still a tough sell. But if you think gas is going to $4/gal., then you should buy one while you still can. If prices go that high, you won't be able to find a hybrid anywhere.
So your tax credit will be $750-800. You are better off buying a less expensive high mileage car. Case in point I can buy a well equipped Hyundai Accent and drive it for well over 50K miles on what you will pay for the Prius less tax credit. At $4/gallon you would have to drive 135K miles to break even and thats not including sales tax and the time value of money.
If your looking to save money a Prius is not the wise choice.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I would think there would be a lot of variance in this number.
Would not the physics of each individual car play a role
1. Coef of Drag
2. Engine efficiency/tuning
3. Gear Ratio especially 5th or 6th
Or is there something about 60 mph that makes my
chrysler srt8
and chevy cobalt
get their best mpg ??
But your right it will be different with different cars.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think back in the day, when most cars were carbureted, once you got much above 60 mph, that's when the secondaries on a 4-bbl carb would start to kick in, even at steady cruising.
I don't think the overdrive gears of today's transmissions really play too much of a role, though. Back before overdrive, top gear was always 1.00:1. But in the 60's, some makers did start offering tall axle ratios, as high as around 2.06:1 So effectively, your overall top gear ratio (OTGR) was 2.06:1. Back then though, something that tall was very rare. V-8 Chryslers usually had around a 2.76:1 unless it was a performance car or set up for towing, while the slant six usually had a 2.94:1 (2.76:1 became standard in 1968 in an attempt to improve fuel economy). GM had to stick a taller ratio with their 2-speed autoamtic, but the 3-speeds usually had around a 2.56:1, 2.73:1, or so. Usually the bigger engines got away with taller ratios.
In the 70's, ratios around 2.4X-2.5 became popular. And once overdrive transmissions started popping up in the 80's, with an overdrive gear of about 0.67:1, that would make the OTGR on, say, a Chevy with a 2.56:1 axle roughly a 1.71:1. Or, say, an Olds 307 with a 2.73:1, roughly a 1.82:1.
Even with today's overdrive transmissions with their tall top gears, the axle/differential is shorter (higher number), so the OTGR is still going to be around the 2.00-2.50:1 range. I don't know if you'd really WANT some of these smaller engines that like to rev loafing along on the highway at 1.71:1 or 1.82:1!
I've heard that too, that best economy usually comes in right around where you go into top gear. However, in some of my older cars, if I take off slow enough, they'll go into top gear at around 25 mph! And I know they can't be at their peak efficiency there!
I think one problem with the rationale of the vehicle getting its peak efficiency right after the point that it shifts into its highest gear is that, in many cases, it won't stay in that highest gear at that speed. The slightest little incline, or need to speed up, will often cause it to downshift. If you can maintain that speed in that top gear, such as on level ground, then you probably will hit peak efficiency.
As for the most fuel-efficient speed, it certainly varies from car to car. But it's almost universally the speed that uses the lowest rpm in the tallest gear. The higher the rpm, the more fuel-per-mile the engine burns.
Coefficient of drag has a lot to do with that speed determination, too. Every time speed doubles, wind resistance quadruples. So the drag at 60 mph is 4x that of the drag at 30 mph. The more aerodynamic the car, the faster it can go with a given engine at a given rpm.
The Prius has a CD of 0.26, which is pretty low. I suspect that the Civic Hybrid's number is even lower, but I've never seen Honda publish it.
Regarding the price comparison between a Toyota Prius and a Hyundai Accent; that's classic apples to oranges. Hyundais aren't Toyotas. Toyotas aren't BMWs. BMWs aren't Ferraris.
You can certainly buy an Accent for much less than a Prius. You can also buy a used Accent for much less than a new Accent. And you'd probably have to drive 135,000 miles in the new one to "break even" vs. the used one.
If you want to compare a hybrid car to a standard one, compare the Civic Hybrid to the standard Civic EX. They're the same cars in every way except the propulsion systems -- same bodies, same interiors, same options. Apples to apples.
I know there was a pretty big jump in fuel efficiency, at least among larger vehicles, when they went from 3-speed to 4-speed automatics. Maybe not as great in smaller cars though. But has the jump from the 4-speed to the 5-speed autmoatic really helped much? I thought I read somewhere that with the Toyota Camry, for example, going from a 4-speed auto to a 5-speed auto didn't do anything at all for fuel efficiency.
In the case of the Altima though, when the 4-cyl went from a 4-speed automatic to the CVT, the EPA estimates went from 23/29 to 26/34, which I thought was a pretty nice jump. Nissan's 2.5 4-cyl is a bit gutsier than the Accord or Camry 2.4, so I'd imagine that, if all engines were perfectly matched in the transmission category, it would guzzle a bit more.
The Civic has a 0.3 coefficient of drag. I'm assuming the Civic hybrid has the same. The Honda Insight had a cd of 0.25, which is about the lowest I've ever seen.
The Honda Civic Hybrid has a CD of .28. The Toyota Camry Hybrid is .27 and the Accord Hybrid is .29
CD ratings
In addition, the Hybrid's wheels are lighter and more aerodynamic. The hybrid has a smooth panel covering the underside of the engine compartment to reduce drag. It has a standard spoiler on the trunk that the regular Civic doesn't. I've even heard that Honda makes the roof of the hybrid lighter.
And, of course, the hybrid uses a 1.3 L engine + electric motor w/CVT instead of the 1.8 L engine w/auto trans.
All these things contribute to higher mileage, and help keep the hybrid only 200 lbs. heavier than the standard Civic (2,700 vs. 2,900 lbs.). So the hybrid system itself is definitely not the only reason for the HCH's high mpg.
But it still gets 40% better mileage than a regular Civic.
Hmmm, doesn't seem that tall.
1st: 2.53, 2nd: 1.53, 3rd: 1.00, 4th: 0.705, 3.6 final drive.
At 70 mph, my Intrepid would pull around 2333 rpm (it's ~2000@60, ~2500@75). My New Yorker would pull a little less than that (taller ratio, plus bigger tires), but I'm sure still nowhere near 1600 rpm @ 70, I'm sure.
Is something else going on here, concerning Gagrice's Lexus? Maybe they offered a taller axle ratio? Or maybe it has bigger-than-stock tires on it?
To maintain that speed up Interstate 8 on the long grades, it will shift into 3rd gear sometimes. Which shows the big highway advantage of diesel. The Passat TDI would stay in 5th gear at 80 MPH all the way to the 4000+ ft summit on Interstate 8 out of San Diego. The only time it would downshift is if I pushed it to pass someone.
Hey if you like 'em then have a good time. I'm old school & there's a better chance of hell freezing over before I'd agree with you but to each his/her own.
Well built, lol..some are built better than others these days just like years ago, but seriously, they could do more..instead what do they do..concentrate on adding more chrome, chips & other crap that does sqaut other than make 'em even more cash, add to labor costs, insurance rates, more to go wrong with 'em etc.
A cars main function is & always was to get you from point point a to b with as little problems as possible..how complex is that, they've known how to make the internal combustion engine for a very long time.
Let's see what is really needed to do that..body, drivetrain, suspension, engine, steering, brakes, wheels, tires, axles & the other well known parts that made up a simple not hard to repair auto like they used to..(not to include the lemons that came along just like they still do).
But you must enjoy opening your hood for example to see the crap under it these days & that doesn't include the other junk in other areas.
Best of times..there's never been a best of times..maybe some better than others.
Edit...I better make myself as clear as I can...I know there isn't a lot I personally can do if I want to buy a new vehicle these days..they all come with varying degrees of "modern tech"..funny though since as we all know that what's the latest tech today is in a few months replaced with the latest greatest.
But as I was saying, not a lot one can do if buying new these days, but most vehicles are sold with not just that but power everything..& each one of these is tied into more & more tech.
Examples, power window..been around ages but how lazy are people?
Power door locks.
Power rear view mirror.
Power side mirrors.
Power trunk.
Remote start.
Remote door openers.
Power seats.
Dual climate control.
Tire pressure monitoring systems.
Heads up display.
GPS systems.
DVD systems.
Sterio controls on the wheel.
Interior cabin filters.
Just a few things that are costly to repair, some very expensive.
I know there are many many more options to list but these are enough to show my point.
The majority are expensive to repair when the warranty is up..5 years isn't a long time..and although no one wants to admit it, many people are way over their heads in debt just a few paycheques from being on the street.
Rant over.
Happy trails!
But does this prove anything, how many thirty year old hondas are still driven today? lol
There's many more 30/40 year old cars still being driven that don't have the complex equipment on them. Imagine in 30 to 40 years or more..looking for a piece of "tech" for a 2007 in 2047. It's hard enough to find parts for a computer in your office or home that's five or more years old now.
Too much waste.
Here is an example of what you are saying. My wife's rear view mirror has auto dim. Quit working in the night time mode. Lexus wants $1200 to replace. We live with it broken. Gas gauge sending unit went bad. Lexus wanted $1200 to repair. We got it done at an indy shop for under $400 with labor. I could go on and on with the high cost of keeping a modern car in good condition past the warranty.
May be car repairs are going the same way - pretty soon we will not be able to afford the repair costs. So we buy extended warranties. The car makers give it to us free for 3 or 5 years. May be some financial wizard is studying the repair cost statistics. Soon we'll have to buy those (as another item in the insurance package), we will no longer be able to eat the risk with our own wallet. It is no longer a peace of mind.
The older the car gets, the costlier the warranty. Good news for the Auto mfr. - when the estimated repair (insurance) cost is more than financing a new car, we will get a new car. No more driving your old clunker for 18 years - you cannot afford it.
Do you think the auto makers can claim intellectual property rights and make repairs possible only at their preferred shops where they can bully (convince) you to dump your old car and get a new one?
I think they probably make too much money, or save a lot of money from their suppliers, by sharing the intellectual property rights with their suppliers to do that (as far as parts reproduction goes).
As far as the repair itself, one can lay claim that is already the case. Let's say you take your car to a local ASE cert. mechanic for a repair, and the car is still covered by a warranty, try and get the mfr. to cover the cost. Even if it is not under warranty, have your local mechanic fix it, and find out there is a TSB and the mfr. would have covered it after the fact, and see if they'll do anything. Probably not.
I know someone with a Hyundai that had their local mechanic fix a problem that she later found that there was a TSB on. She contacted Hyundai about it and they reimbursed her for it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, driving in that gave me loads of time to try that watching the tach at a dead stop and seeing if there's a difference between leaving it in drive of dropping it into neutral. Despite my earlier report of it holding steady it did actually go up a little if slipped into neutral. Settles that one for me.
I was actually surprised that getting out of the city didn't burn more than it did. There's probably more people in a couple of blocks of Philly than in my whole town.
The only proof on that site is it's a handful of honda owners who are fortuante to be in the 1% or less of honda drivers..lol I don't see too many 20 year old hondas on the road never mind older..that's the real fact..what I see with my own eyes.
On the other hand I DO see many 20-30 or more year old Ford, GM & Chrysler vehicles still on the roads with many miles & still going every day.
I'm sure if I wanted to, I could do a google search & find an obscure site devoted to a handful of 1980s Hyundai Pony cars, even though they were bio-degradable.
Anyway, I'm glad you have had good luck with yours.
I'm actually looking around (going to take my time) for a car made without all the tech etc. Something from the 60's or even up to the early 70s preferably that I can do all or most of the work to restore it in my own garage. Simple mechanics, easy to fix on my own.
I know a lot of people are impulse buyers, walk into car lots..see a shiny new 2007 model with all the toys, rarely do the majority even look under the hood on a new car. lol Or ask the service department how much it costs to replace various parts after the warranty expires.
As long as their new whatever looks great in the driveway & is the newest on the block (for a few days) they're in a trance...happy...blissful ignorance...that is until they begin to see the same rig being driven on every street that is. Then they actually begin to see how common & really un-interesting their vehicle is & begin to think about trading to another latest greatest rig that promises the same old crap the manufacturers have been spewing for years.
Like they say, history has a habit of repeating itself.
Personally, I drive cars about 10 years, so I care about that stuff and I would never consider leasing a car and not owning it.
Personally, I drive cars about 10 years, so I care about that stuff and I would never consider leasing a car and not owning it.
So what cars do you think will last 10 years? I think Subaru and Honda will last 10 years but that's about it after that he rust in the snowbelt will have killed them.
Well, the Dodge Intrepid generally isn't held in the highest regard, but my 2000 base model is going on 8 years. So far the largest failures it's had are the transmission cooling lines, a bearing hub, and a thermostat housing.
I think if you take reasonable care of it, any car should be able to last at least 10 years.
It's not worth doing anything in terms of changing vehicles over gas when you've got essentially a free car. It's the same thing as lemko's in that respect. I like the car, it's not costing me anything and it's been paid for for three years.