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!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1154155157159160540

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Just saw one today. A dark gray Malibu was driving behind me. Looked pretty nice. It is overcast today here in CT, but, it did have some nice lines. It had the bigger wheels and tries as well. Very nice. I'm not sure if I am a big fan of the front end. Very close resemblance to thew Cobalt.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,063
    Business as usual at Honda as they take first place in Edmunds' latest midsize comparo!

    Nissan sneaks in to take sucky number 2.
    Chevy Malibu has to settle for a distant third.
    Camry has to move back to 4th place.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    At least in european market anyway, it's less of the child persona surfacing in the adult saying "zoom-zoom" and more about elegance, style and emotion. As you can tell, I'm getting pretty excited about the new Mazda6! Never was a Mazda fan until I bought my 6 a couple years ago...used to be a Honda guy, then a Subie fan, and now this thing with Mazda. As my passion for cars grows, I'm more attracted to cars that strike chord that balances sophistication and an engaging focus. Or something like that....

    Anyways, check it out. It's got a dramatic sci-fi feel to it. Oh yeah, turn up the volume and your surround sound too!

    new Mazda6 marketing
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    It sounds a little big to me (and 3600lbs), but other than that I like it. I like the interior layout, the driver information system in the cluster and the lack of clutter. I like the exterior look as well (which is a lot more subjective), I think the front is just edgy enough not to be boring.

    I've been following the Mondeo for about a year now and have liked it alot. Aesthetically, I agree completely with you lilenineerboy, it's so much better than what I see being done with other Ford products. And I really like it's headlight assembly...one of my favorites of all cars in fact. The reviews in europe have been very positive noting that it's suspension is both very compliant yet firm. And the comments in the Edmunds article about steering feel leave me wishing we had a chance to have it here. Especially if they could drop a 3.5 liter in it with a 6 speed manual w/ AWD....drool!

    What I don't really understand though, with the extra capacity that Ford has now, producing these cars stateside would utilize unused factory capacity while leveraging the weak dollar. And they could make a few extra for North America and sell it as a lincoln or mercury... well that would make too much sense though.
  • Sure, they are for comparison purposes but they also place "numbers" out there in bold print stating that this particular car/SUV/truck should get "X" mpg under the following situations...city driving, highway driving and a combination of the two. Most buyers take that as gospel and God forbid that they don't get that "advertised" economy. All I am saying is that it is now easier for Joe citizen to achieve something approaching those large bold EPA numbers so prominently displayed on the side window. Less complaining more accuracy and yes I do believe they are far more accurate now.
  • Like I said, there will alway be the "robertsmx" take on all things, including fuel economy, and then there is the majority of people most of whom complained that they could never achieve the "advertised" economy. I have a small insight into how you drive based on other posts and it isn't as conservative as many but you still get exceptional fuel economy...good, no, GREAT!! for you. Most don't do that. Must be the vehicle which is a Honda, no??
    I do not think the EPA tests are perfectly designed (but they are much much better), I never said that. What I actually said is that I believe they are now more realistic...and they are. More "real world" more "hey I can get that mileage" for the masses and if it turns out that 75% of all drivers get those new improved numbers well, that make it more accurate too doesn't it?. And you?, well you will probably always exceed any EPA estimate old..current and future and once again..congratulations for your stellar achievment in the fuel economy field.
  • They also leave a bigger loophole for automakers to fiddle with. Fuel economy ratings aren't merely for comparison only. They are becoming a selling/marketing point. The rate of acceleration, non-use of AC etc, provide for easy ways to bloat numbers in some cases. And these might be the cars that folks generally complain about not being able to meet EPA ratings.

    Actually, the new tests do include faster acceleration, AC use(the old tests didn't), cold weather testing, etc. From the EPA website (www.fueleconomy.gov)...

    Starting in model year 2008, estimates will reflect the effects of

    * Faster Speeds & Acceleration
    * Air Conditioner Use
    * Colder Outside Temperatures


    If you check out this link and click on the
    "detailed comparison" tab, you will see the various parameters used for the tests.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

    Not too much wiggle room there! ;)
  • Sure, they are for comparison purposes but they also place "numbers" out there in bold print stating that this particular car/SUV/truck should get "X" mpg under the following situations...city driving, highway driving and a combination of the two. Most buyers take that as gospel and God forbid that they don't get that "advertised" economy. All I am saying is that it is now easier for Joe citizen to achieve something approaching those large bold EPA numbers so prominently displayed on the side window. Less complaining more accuracy and yes I do believe they are far more accurate now.

    Sure, just lower the target to achieve the mediocrity of the population. Just like schools. Good plan.

    I think the estimates were perfectly accurate before. If you want the mileage in the original EPA test, you had to drive accordingly. Avoid jack rabbit starts, anticipating red lights and traffic, planning routes to avoid traffic, etc. Any moron can get in their Suburban and drag race from stop light to stop light. The EPA totally blew it in my opinion. It was an opportunity to teach drivers how to conserve. Now its a feel good number to promote mediocrity.

    So that proposed 35mpg cafe standard - is that calculated the new way or the old way? Because I sure wouldn't sign up for it if I was a car company using the "new" numbers.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    So we're all supposed to drive 55 with no A/C on flat streets with no traffic?

    Get real.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I imagine new CAFE will use the older than old method. The 2007 and earler numbers on the labels were already adjusted down from what the calculations based on actual test results (which is what is used for CAFE).

    For the pre 2007 labels the city value is multiplied by 0.90 and the highway value is multiplied by 0.78.

    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/factshts/fefact01.pdf

    So a car that tests at 22/38 would have gotten a 20/30 label in 2007 and maybe a 18/27 sticker. Such a car would count as 29 mpg (the combined mpg figure for 22/38) for CAFE, but label on car would be 22 mpg combined.

    This is how the current 27 mpg standard is met, even though very few cars are rated that high on the sticker.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I saw it on Youtube.
  • So we're all supposed to drive 55 with no A/C on flat streets with no traffic?

    I have found that speed has little to do with the mileage I get (I get better than sticker and typically travel at 70-80 on the highway), and I have found my car gets better mileage (at speed) with the windows up and the AC on than with 4/70 air.
    I don't race from light to light, I coast when I know I am going to miss the light, I don't accelerate to ace people out or not let them in, I leave a little before or a little after rush hour, I don't live 100 miles from work so I spend the whole day on the freeway, etc. I have no problems beating the old estimates, and that was in 2 Accords, a Civic, a Contour a Galant and a Legacy.
  • As it happens I totally disagree with all you say. The numbers for many years prior to 2008 were derived by non-tests that ignored the way people actually drive, ignored the speeds people actually drive, ignored AC use, ignored about everything that could be called "real world" driving. The fact that the new EPA tests and by extension the new numbers are lower than before (for the exact same vehicles) does not mean that the EPA "dumbed down" anything. It means that they revised things to be more accurate. I cannot say for certainty that ALL vehicles will show actual numbers to coincide with the new estimates but in my experience they now reflect what a Honda Civic 5 speed automatic sedan will get in the hands of most actual drivers. As usual there are those who will get less, and those who get more but by and large I'll bet that the majority will now get numbers that are a hell of a lot closer than the 30/40 that was on my 2006 EPA sticker. Or to put it another way...if I haven't changed my driving habits and my Civic gets almost "spot on" the 2008 Civic EPA numbers does that mean that the EPA lowered the standards? Nope it just means that for a large number of people the inflated pre 2008 numbers were just that..inflated and now are more accurate. Why is that so hard to digest? There is no government conspiracy at work here, no X-files stuff. I'm sure if various makes and models could be monitored many,if not most, would now fall in line with the "new" numbers.
  • After reading about your driving habits you are among that "1 in a 100" that does the basics for good economy. You are also among that 1 in 100 who may meet or beat any EPA numbers (old or new) simply because of those habits. You do not represent the majority of drivers.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    After reading about your driving habits you are among that "1 in a 100" that does the basics for good economy. You are also among that 1 in 100 who may meet or beat any EPA numbers (old or new) simply because of those habits. You do not represent the majority of drivers.

    Make that a lot more of us. I know that some fellow forumees get over the old listed numbers in our Accords. Me, dudleyr, robertsmx, ezshift5, etc... all get over EPA estimates on a regular basis. I'm 20, not a 90 year old woman, and drive accordingly.

    For example, this morning, I cranked up and drove away (I don't sit and idle until my car warms up). Drove through the suburbs through 8 traffic lights and a 45 MPH speed limit for 3 miles, then hit the interstate for 8 miles, then maneuver through downtown Birmingham for a few miles, up and over Red Mountain, and here to work. I had to floor it at one point this morning to be able to change lanes and not be hit by a truck. I'm not afraid to make the car downshift to pass a problematic vehicle, and I don't park in the right lane at 55 mph.

    I get about 30 MPG in this commute in my 2.4L Accord (which under the old estimates got 24/34, now listed at 21/31 which is ludicrous for what this car is capable of.

    I do, however, coast to red lights if I can, stay within 10MPH of the legal limit usually, etc. Out of the total number of posters I read from on here, I'd say the average is much more than 1%.
  • After reading about your driving habits you are among that "1 in a 100" that does the basics for good economy. You are also among that 1 in 100 who may meet or beat any EPA numbers (old or new) simply because of those habits. You do not represent the majority of drivers.

    Amazing, I don't drive like a [non-permissible content removed] and I an courteous on the road. Hmm lets change the rules so all the people that drive like jerks can feel good about getting some arbitrary number...the dumbing of America.
  • Sure, but in the big picture outside the relatively small number of posters in this and every other owner site you ARE a minority. I too practice the basics but I see the proof every day that those who follow the basic rules for good economy are few indeed. The "1 in 100" was not strictly accurate in factual terms but supplied as loose reference for my argument/statement. So then 15 or 20 in 100.
  • What!!! How does any of this "lets change the rules" or "lets all drive like jerks"stuff relate to fuel economy. That you are not a [non-permissible content removed], are a courteous driver and get good fuel economy to boot does not change the fact that the EPA numbers were and always have been bogus prior to 2008. The fact that now the average Joe can meet those expectations when he or she buys a new car is a good thing. Less time at the dealer looking for non existent "problems" limiting fuel economy. Have you considered that if 75 of 100 Sonatas or Civics or ? (you name it) now get at or near what the EPA says it should it wasn't the car or the driver. It was the target number that was not achievable by most drivers? It is less of an arbitrary number than you let on. Dumbing down America indeed!!
  • What!!! How does any of this "lets change the rules" or "lets all drive like jerks"stuff relate to fuel economy.

    Rapid acceleration and deceleration is paramount to fuel economy. Every time someone speeds up to ace someone out, or try to run a light, that impacts their fuel economy. Every time someone makes jack rabbit start, that affects fuel economy.

    That you are not a [non-permissible content removed], are a courteous driver and get good fuel economy to boot does not change the fact that the EPA numbers were and always have been bogus prior to 2008.

    I didn't find anything bogus about them. You want the mileage on the sticker, drive more conservatively. If you have cash to burn, let your foot get heavy.

    The fact that now the average Joe can meet those expectations when he or she buys a new car is a good thing.

    Oh good, so some yahoo can meet a substandard index by continuing to drive poorly. Yes I feel much better, thanks.

    It was the target number that was not achievable by most drivers?
    Speaking as a researcher in the field, most drivers are poor drivers.

    It is less of an arbitrary number than you let on.
    Yes yes, I am sure you are correct. A number assigned by driving how people drive as opposed to how they should drive is a much better number.

    Dumbing down America indeed!!
    Good, I am glad we agree after this discussion :)
  • It seems that there are those who firmly believe that the new EPA numbers are promoting reckless driving, and dumbing down America (in some unknown manner) too. I do not advocate driving more recklessly because now (instead of driving more carefully to achieve good fuel economy numbers) since the numbers are lower you can drive like a fool and still nearly meet them. That was not the reason the EPA redesigned its tests. They were never an accurate test so I maintain that the 2008 numbers are simply more realisitic, nothing more, nothing less. No ulterior motive from me. However, many poor souls who couldn't quite meet those old EPA numbers can now relax. You can stop tying up your local service department by having them look for non existing problems on your new car, you can stop wasting your time in those customer waiting lounges drinking lousy coffee and eating stale dough-nuts, you can stop taking time off work to make those appointments. You can stop wasting time posting in forums complaining about your lack of ability to achieve "the numbers on the window sticker" You can now MEET the "advertised" fuel economy numbers for once and you can...BE HAPPY!!! America rejoice.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Referring to being a minority in how I drive...

    Oh, I don't know about that. It's not hard to get a jump on traffic, even in my 1996 Accord with only 130hp and a 4-speed Auto (it gets 26-27MPG in those conditions I listed earlier - 1996 EPA estimates = 23/31; 2008 Estimates = 20/27).

    By paying attention to the light, I'm usually a few carlengths ahead of drivers out of the gate when driving in town, and I typically stay under 3,000 RPM when I'm not in a hurry to accelerate because I need to change lanes, etc... Now, there may be someone to come screaming back by me two blocks later at 50MPH in a 35 zone, but we'll all be back together at the next light. That late starting, fast finishing driver will have gotten much worse mileage than me over the same distance.

    Usually though, in all honesty, I'm more likely to be the front-running car out of the light, at least up to 35-40 MPH.
  • Now, they may come screaming back by me two blocks later at 50MPH in a 35 zone, but we'll all be back together at the next light. The other driver will have gotten much worse mileage than me over the same distance.

    And those same drivers are more than likely the ones that complain the most about the mileage their cars get! ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    And those same drivers are more than likely the ones that complain the most about the mileage their cars get!

    And, if they're like my dad, they'll say "well, we got there at the same time, so it couldn't be my driving!" Indeed, we made it there at the same time, but its all in how you get there that matters. (He drives a Civic and 4k RPM is normal from a stoplight for him).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Usually though, in all honesty, I'm more likely to be the front-running car out of the light, at least up to 35-40 MPH.

    Same here and I don't even make any effort to stay below 3000 rpm when accelerating. I do coast to a stop or to avoid the need to stop at lights, though. I have never felt the old EPA numbers were a problem.

    I typically get right around 1/2 way between in my commute, which is what I would expect because I go 9.5 miles at average speed of around 40 mph, with 6-8 stops. This was the case in a Windstar, Contour and now Mazda6.

    On the freeway I beat the highway number by 1-2 mpg, despite driving 70-75 mph, rather than the 48 mph that the test is based on. Of course as I indicated before the actual teat results at 48 mph are much higher than what gets reported.

    Now when my wife drove the windstar about 1 mile to work and got maybe 10 mpg in the winter, I guess I should have complained about how inaccuate the 17 mpg rating was.

    I don't have a problem with the new city mpg figures...what people call "city" driving varies so much anyway and I know CR always got even lower figures than the new ones in their city test. But the highway figures are a joke...my car that gets 32 mpg at 70-75 mph is rated at 28 now.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The new EPA rating system didn't discard the old, it added three new cycles. I have done pretty good analysis of EPA's test cycles, a reason I can't help but call them ridiculous. It seems to me the target behind new rating was to deliberately reduce FE ratings instead of trying to figure out more realistic ways. Doesn't it sound strange to see their high speed cycle involves average speed that is no better than highway cycle? Is it realistic to assume people speed up to 70 to 80 mph and brake to a complete stop within a mile? On the flip side, I do believe that this test left a little hope to keep at least some of those loop holes out.

    And there is plenty of wiggle room to "fix" fuel economy ratings if the automakers wanted to play with it (and some do). Most of EPA's testing involves low speed, low load and leisurely acceleration rate. For example, take the highway cycle and note the following numbers.
    Top Speed: 60 mph
    Avg Speed: 48 mph
    Stops: 0
    Max Acceleration: 3.2 mph/s
    AC: Off

    The number that stands out the most here is 3.2 mph/s. And that means that it ain't granny style drivers that are exceeding EPA ratings. To put the number in perspective, it would take almost 19 seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph and that would be using the maximum acceleration (which tells me that most of their acceleration is even less and speeding up would take longer).

    With this in mind, it is easy to "fix" numbers. Under light throttle/load, the car's transmission can be designed to operate in higher gears, longer. And this will help bloat EPA ratings, which is unlikely to translate in reality. OTOH, if the transmission logic weren't really designed to have a "pleasing" EPA rating, it would be more realistic and might even exceed the ratings as many folks (including myself) have experienced.

    This is just a glimpse of my observations around EPA ratings. The sad fact is that EPA ratings have become a major part in marketing.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I hope you aren’t arguing for sake of arguing since my reports are from a Honda and not from a brand that you drive and like. It shouldn’t come down to that since I have rarely had trouble meeting old EPA ratings regardless of the brand.

    Where are these “majority” you speak of? Instead of worrying about “robertsmx” achievements, how about you share your experiences, from your car, including your driving style/conditions and we go from there? Then you might realize that it ain’t an achievement to do a lot better than the EPA ratings suggest.

    I have a small insight into how you drive based on other posts and it isn't as conservative as many but you still get exceptional fuel economy…

    Take a look at my previous post. And then tell me if it were possible to be even more conservative than EPA test cycles are. 3.2-3.3 mph/s being the maximum acceleration in most tests, with AC off, and low speeds is about as conservative as I can imagine. My driving style is about twice as aggressive as EPA’s.

    Exceptional fuel economy would be if I could ever come close to getting a hyper-miler's mileage. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience for it.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    You guys will argue about anything.

    Personal MPG has as much (if not more) to do with local traffic and environmental conditions as it does with driving style.

    I drive the same 11 mile route to work every day. I get anywhere from 18 to 23 mpg depending on the time of year, amount of traffic and how many lights I end up stopping for.

    Regardless of how the EPA conducts the tests someone would claim they're not realistic. There is no single rating that will apply to everyone no matter how they drive. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill and simply use the EPA estimates the way they were intended.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I didn't leave you out intentionally. Here we go...

    So we're all supposed to drive 55 with no A/C on mole hills flat streets with no traffic?

    If we all did that, EPA rating would be an even bigger joke. And if you don't want to discuss it, or issues around it, why not just stay out?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Given that my own personal fuel mileage can vary by as much as 5 mpg from one day to the next with the same driver, same route, same weather, same fuel, same vehicle based solely on the traffic flow it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a single, valid number for expected fuel economy. Furthermore the EPA numbers are NOT and never have been intended to predict an owner's fuel mileage and it says so right on the window sticker:

    Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle's condition.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The number that stands out the most here is 3.2 mph/s. And that means that it ain't granny style drivers that are exceeding EPA ratings. To put the number in perspective, it would take almost 19 seconds to go from 0 to 60 mph

    That acceleration rate is about what I see most doing, actually :mad: . Not me, I'm much faster, when they are not in my way.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I don't understand what all this arguing over old EPA vs new EPA estimates is for. :confuse: The estimates are only really meant to be for comparison between cars. New, or old estimates, either way it will not change the actual mileage you get driving your way. It's not like your own mileage went down, when the EPA changed the estimates.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    You drive like the old EPA tests here in Los Angeles and you'll get run into in almost no time at all.(or shot at).

    5mph per second is a bare minimum - and 0-30 is closer to 6-10mph per second in traffic. 3.7 would be 0-30 in 8 seconds. That's elderly myopic duffer speed. I can do better than that on a bicycle in fact.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    That's elderly myopic duffer speed.

    Do you have a translation for this? What's a duffer?
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    http://golf.about.com/cs/golfterms/g/bldef_duffer.htm

    It's a bad, slow player. The kind of guy who clogs up the course and you're having to play through all the time.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Note though that 3.2 mph/s is the maximum acceleration for those cycles. That means they go for even slower acceleration in the same cycle.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    And while there is a truth to the disclaimer, I don't find any in new EPA ratings. That said, unless you're driving 300-350 miles (or almost a tankful) a day, you can't reliably measure your daily mileage.

    What car do you drive?
  • OK then I'll share my current/recent experiences.
    We own two cars: A.) 2006 Honda Civic EX sedan 5 speed automatic with about 12K miles. The car had the "old" EPA sticker showing 30 city/40 highway. This car is mainly driven by my wife who has a short (approx.3mi one way) drive to work. Additionally she drives about 15 miles round trip Monday-Wednesday-Friday to a fitness center. She also goes to local stores on a random basis involving some traffic and traffic signals. We live in a smallish city that does have quite a few traffic signals and at certain times of the day stop-go traffic. Additionally, U.S. Rt 30 runs through the town and the business district is built around it. We/she gets between 22 and 24 mpg under these circumstances. Speed probably maxes out at 50 +/- during her normal day with varying stops and time idling for traffic. It is by no means "big city" traffic but it can be slow and go. I have driven on the trips we took with it and they involved interstate driving. I drive relatively conservatively with cruise locked @ 70-72 mph. The terrain is rolling hills merging into the mountains of western Pa. I tend to use the Pa. Turnpike which by design smooths out the biggest mountain climbs (using Rt 30 instead for instance) into long but more moderate ones. So, there was some mountainous driving as well. I have a regular 260 mile(weekly) trip to make into western Pa (we live in s. central Pa) so in the interest in keeping miles off the Honda I use my second car mostly. Anyhow, using AC and cruise I get about 36-37 mpg on those longer drives. The whole new-old EPA debacle got started by my statement that the new EPA numbers more closely match what me..Joe average, actually gets. I guess I could have matched the 40 highway number but not the 30 city. It is just that with normal care and using normal basic fuel economy precautions it was the "new" numbers that were readily met. Based on those observations I simply said they seem more accurate for the average person and I stand by that.
    Car #2 a 1995 Dodge Stratus ES sedan with a Mitsubishi 2.5 liter V-6 and 4 speed automatic transmission. It has 197,788 miles. I use this car for work and those weekly trips. The original EPA (old..old numbers) sticker states: 20 city and 29 highway. I have had ample opportunity to explore fuel economy numbers. My "commute" involves a short drive on a rural 2 lane...a short stint on US Rt30...then a longer drive on another rural 2 lane. Total miles 12 (one way) speed (depends on if I am running late) probably varies between 35 mph and 55 mph with little traffic and 2 traffic lights. At the first I can usually make a right turn on red or there is a moderate wait until it turns green the second light is new but I have been making it green since it is timed for thru traffic. So, at 5:30 AM I worry more about deer than traffic. Driving to-from work plus we generally use this car to go shopping, going out to eat etc after work places it in the same stop-go situations as the Civic. I have been getting between 22 and 23 routinely. Now we come to those weekly trips. Using the PA turnpike and driving 70-74 mph using cruise (plus sometimes a faster burst to 80 mph or so for misc. reasons) I get between 26.4 to 28.xx all depending on season...traffic...weather...and other normal variables. I have attained 30 mpg a few times but 27-28-even 29 is doable without much drama. So, there you have it. I drive in what I consider a moderate fashion with no (ok few) irrational bursts of speed (road rage) and I am content to motor along if nobody "bothers" me. I have been known to travel at triple digit speeds for irrational reasons for short periods but then there are those deer.
    As usual there are those who get fantasic numbers (which I have come to find as suspect) and those who get dismal numbers. In the end there are as many reported variances in fuel economy as people who report them.
  • "used for comparison between cars"....not any more bucko. In case you haven't noticed the fuel economy numbers are now part of automobile advertising both print and TV and God help the manufacturer ( and the dealer that sold the clearly inferior product) that doesn't provide the consumer "those ADVERTISED mileage numbers". It is far more now than originally intended...a basis for comparison.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    And while there is a truth to the disclaimer, I don't find any in new EPA ratings. That said, unless you're driving 300-350 miles (or almost a tankful) a day, you can't reliably measure your daily mileage.

    What car do you drive?


    A 2006 Fusion V6, not that it matters.

    The disclaimer is on every new vehicle window sticker.

    The onboard mpg calculator (at least on Ford vehicles) has been repeatedly compared to actual MPG calculated the old fashioned way and it is typically off by less than 0.5 mpg (worst case 1 mpg). The computer knows your exact mileage and it knows how many times the fuel injectors have fired and exactly how much fuel they deliver each time. There's no reason for it not to be accurate.

    Of course automakers advertise EPA fuel mileage. What else are they supposed to use - their own estimates? You know that won't work. The whole point of lowering the EPA estimates with more realistic tests is precisely so that people are more likely to get the advertised fuel mileage on their vehicles. And for comparison purposes it doesn't matter whether you use the old or new ratings - the differences are the same.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    As usual there are those who get fantasic numbers (which I have come to find as suspect)

    If you don't believe them, why argue about it? I, for one, as one of those 'suspect people,' will be happy to report my mileage and move on.

    You should be aware, however, when I have gotten 40mpg (twice, so far, usually is around 38) on my runs to the beach, I fill up along I-65, and fill up again along U.S.highway 59 where it meets I-10. The car is never restarted, stopped more than 4 or 5 times, exceeds 80MPH, and likely, other than the initial acceleration to highway speed on I-65 and on US 59, never stays in a gear other than top (5th). Conditions are PURE highway.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    And for comparison purposes it doesn't matter whether you use the old or new ratings - the differences are the same.

    The old EPA rating for our 2007 SEL AWD Fusion, 3.0-liter, 221-horsepower, Duratec V6 with 6-speed automatic tranny was 19 city/26 highway while the revised estimate is 17 mpg city and 24 highway.

    We have taken only two 340-mile trips with it. The first, with about 1,500 miles on the odometer, resulted in 24 mpg going and 26 mpg returning. The second, this past Thanksgiving, we averaged 24.4 for the round trip. I drove 70-75 mpg most of the time and achieved an overage average speed of 58 mph. This included the time spent idling for a doughnut shop stop and the slow downs for seven tolls.

    That the car will deliver the EPA estimate is somewhat reassuring, as in "there is nothing 'wrong' with the car." Would I like for the mileage to be higher? Absolutely.

    In-city experiences are a different ball game. For the first 1,500-2,000 miles the car would do no better than 13 mpg (an unlucky number?) and gradually improved to 14.8 mpg. The fuel efficiency has improved ever so slightly as the mileage has increased. The best has been 16.4 mpg.

    The Ford on-board computer compares favorably with the old-fashioned divide the number of gallons used into the number of miles traveled. There is usually a .5 to 1 mpg difference, on the optimistic side.

    Our terrain is as flat as a pool table. We are 50 feet above sea level. The tires are slightly over-inflated. My wife and I are gentle drivers. I have tried different brands of 87-octane gas (the recommended fuel). My wife's "commute" is about four miles and the in-city driving is 90 percent short hops, not bumper-to-bumper but definitely stop-n-go.

    It makes me feel happier with the car knowing that it is only "supposed" to get 17 mpg in city driving as opposed to 19. Naturally I would be a lot happier if it delivered 20 mpg in city driving but it just ain't gonna happen.

    It is good, I suppose, that we have only put about 6,000 miles on the Fusion during the first year of ownership.

    Our next car, if there ever is one, will be a high gasoline mileage sedan of some sort. In retrospect, we should have ordered an SEL FWD Fusion with the 2.3-liter I4 160-horsepower engine with a 5-speed manual or 5-speed automatic. That would have lowered the MSRP considerably and been a big plus at the gas pump.

    I no longer crave "Zoom-Zoom" cars and while driving a stick shift can be fun at times it is also an inconvenience. There is very little mileage difference these days between a stick and a slush box.

    We really do like our Fusion, everything about it (mostly) except for the in-city gas mileage. Slight negatives include a rather large turning radius, poor rear visibility and very expensive Michelin 225-50R-17 tires. I am already dreading the day when it comes time to replace those puppies. I am definitely not going to spend $1,000.

    To summarize, I believe the revised EPA fuel economy estimates are a good thing because they are more realistic, closer to what the average driver might expect to achieve. I don't buy into conspiracy theories involving the EPA, the manufacturers, etc.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    One of my big pet peeves is getting behind the person who is slowly coasting up to a line of cars at a stop light and I'm trying to get around them to get into the left turn lane. Now because of their attempt to save a thimble of gas, I have missed the left turn arrow. They saved a thimble but I lost two thimbles waiting for the next arrow. :cry: It doesn't matter that I'm right behind them with my blinker on. I guess they must have just paid their taxes and feel they own the road. :D
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    Unfortunately some people are just plain rude and inconsiderate. If you are going to coast up to a stop (I do that all the time myself, in my mid-sized car--YESSSS, something that is ON TOPIC!!!!), at least be aware enough and considerate enough to make sure no one is behind you. :mad:
  • I do not argue I simply do not believe some of the more fantastic reports and being who I am I may (yeah sure...may) make a "yeah, sure" type comment which probably comes off as an argument. Good for all who exceed any past and all future EPA estimates. You are helping to minimize the use of foreign oil. This is me moving on >>>>>
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Too bad. You probably were not going to make that turn arrow anyway and were also probably following too close behind me. :P ;)

    I'm not generally coasting all that slowly. I do still use the brakes. But it seems like many drive with a foot on the gas or the brakes at all times.

    On my normal route there are few left arrows and all of them allow you to turn left on the regular green too. Traffic is light enough that if you miss the arrow, you will generally get through on the green that follows immediately after.

    In any case, this balances out by me being annoyed by all those in front of me who take 1/2 mile to get up to 60 mph, those who pull out in front of me and still refuse to accelerate... forcing me to brake or change lanes. And, of course the ever present tailgaters...

    I will often get passed by cars when coming to a stop, but assuming traffic allows, they are then very soon far behind me after the light turns green.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    by your description of your short commutes etc. it strikes me that you would be a natural for a decent hybrid - the Camry or Altima come to mind. You may have a hard time recovering the cost premium (most do) but at least you'll feel 'green' and you won't be taking out loans with Exxon.
  • I second that, it seems like short trip stop and go driving are conditions where a Prius/Camry Hybrid would excel. You can also look at the Aura/Malibu mild hybrids, although their FE numbers are less impressive.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    "used for comparison between cars"....not any more bucko. In case you haven't noticed the fuel economy numbers are now part of automobile advertising both print and TV and God help the manufacturer ( and the dealer that sold the clearly inferior product) that doesn't provide the consumer "those ADVERTISED mileage numbers". It is far more now than originally intended...a basis for comparison.

    Which is why so many people complained about the old estimates. :cry: They were actually expecting to achieve those numbers. With the new estimates more people will achieve mileage over the window sticker numbers, but who's going to complain about that. I don't think the new estimates are any closer to "real world" than the old estimates were. But there will be a lot less complaining. So all the complainers should be happy now, even though they aren't getting any better mileage than they were before. :confuse:
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    Well I might have be following close in that instance simply because I'm trying to get somebodys attention. HELLOOOH. Anyway, most of the lights in the Chicago area are now "Turn left on green arrow only". Believe me, when trying to get onto a main road from a secondary road in a case like this, it can be an awful long time inbetween light changes. So, it is aggravating seeing an entire left turn lane empty with the green arrow and somebody is just coasting along while people with their signals on can't get into the lane. Not road rage qualifying but like I said, a pet peeve. :)
  • Let's get back on topic, shall we?

    I finally had a chance to sit and ride inside my co-workers '08 Accord EX-L V6. This is his third Accord, and he bought the car as soon as the local dealers started offering them.

    Pros: The leather seats are comfortable, it's quiet, and the dashboard gauges and controls are clear and legible, as every Accord has been for years. The power is nice, and the automatic is almost seamless in operation.

    Cons: For it being a revised Accord, I'm disappointed, especially with the interior. For the EX-L, I expected better-quality materials for the dash and center console. The plastic looks cheap, and not as nice as the '03 Accord he previously owned. The center console is wide, with acres of ugly-looking black plastic. In terms of ingress/egress, I found it more difficult than the '03 to get in and out. It's definitely bigger, and it feels it, especially compared to my Mazda6, my sisters Aura, and the last-gen Accord.

    Again, this is all my opinion, but I was surprised and disappointed, and IMO it's lost a little bit from the previous-gen Accord.
Sign In or Register to comment.