Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to learn more!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Then, if the gearing is actually taller (i think it is) than the manual, the auto's highway mileage could easily be better.
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.143
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.235
4th: 0.949
5th: 0.727
Reverse: 3.308
Final Drive: 4.290
Compact 5-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.666
2nd: 1.534
3rd: 1.022
4th: 0.721
5th: 0.525
Reverse: 1.957
Final Drive: 4.440
The 6 speed manual Z06 which has 10% more aggressive gearing (than other 6 speed manual Corvettes) has been estimated and EPA rated)loses app 1-2 mpg.
(differences on stated gears are 1st gear 17.9% ,2nd gear 22% ,3 rd gear 21% ,4 th gear 32% ,5th gear 39%,
(over other Corvette manual transmission gearing, the stable variable being parasitic drag on 6 speed vs 6 speed is app the same)
So for example all my MPG results are with with a 4 speed auto. (5 speed manual was available) This 4 speed automatic has an interesting time deciding what gear it wants to upshift down shift to/ in. I had to overcome this situation by just letting it decide. If you press the accelerator to overcome it, you will lose 1-2 mpg , but I digress. So if you are all not totally glazed over by now:
"Transmission
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.462
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.241
4th: 0.970
5th: 0.711
Reverse: 3.231
Final Drive: 4.111
4-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.722
2nd: 1.516
3rd: 0.975
4th: 0.674
Reverse: 1.955
Final Drive: 4.067 "
One can do the math and see it takes almost MASSIVE gearing differences to over come the inherent GREATER parasitic drag of the automatic (not to mention the extra (5th) gear.
So while this may or may not matter, acceleration and so called performance might be way more sluggish with the automatic.
Good job ! :shades:
That over 10% increase in mileage probably won't make a difference in whether or not you eat, but it can bring along a great sense of satisfaction. You also kicked the crap out of the EPA estimates as well as what the "Average" driver gets!
You are above and better than average.
Also contrary to belief of many people on these forums, you didn't get rear ended by a school bus.
Interesting to see folks speak of how they achieved really excellent mileage and many keep logs of every drop of gas and how it was used. I do that.
I don't recall anyone ever asking me, "How many cars did you pass last week" or "How may times did you red line the engine", or "How close can you tail gate", or "How do you stay alive driving the posted speed limits" ?
They do ask, what kind of mileage I get. I tell them the average mileage for local driving and the mileage for road trips. Not unusual to hear, "I don't believe that" or
"But I thought they got a lot less than that"!
Then it is time to show them the "Book" .
Kip
I've proven to my car that it can do 40MPG. I know I could limit the speed to 60-65 and accelerate even slower but I don't need scanguage to show me that. Maybe real time data just drives that point home.
If I can get it up to 44 MPG without having Prius drivers flip me off as they pass using scanguage then the return on investment is about 27500 miles @ $2.549Gallon. Is it worth it?
So for example, if I were to try some to all hypermileage techniques ( trying to consistently get past 42 mpg) on the Civic gasser (and past 62 mpg on a VW Jetta TDI) it will make the game easier with a scan gauge.
Out of curiousity, are there low-end compacts out there that offer this as standard? If there are I really don't know about 'em, but would like to. I know the CR-V has this, as well as the new Accord, I just didn't know the $15k-$20k compact/subcompact market had this feature "standardized" yet.
Somewhat contrite
For example: Most of the local speed limits in our area are 45 mph. Our Pilot AT won't shift into 5th and OD until 50 mpg. So should I speed up and allow the shift for slower engine RPM with more air resistance and the engine possibly not really in a "sweet spot"? Or stay at the 45mph speed in 4th gear with less air drag and possibly a bit less stress on the engine, etc.?
Same would be true with a MT car, especially on hills. Is it better to keep it in a higher gear with the throttle closer to the floor, or drop down a gear and use less throttle although the injectors are firing more frequently but with less volume?
On the road, we have, at times, experienced about the same or better mileage at a slightly higher speed. Is it because the tranny downshifted less on the hills? Or the engine had a bit more power to deal with some other condition(s).
What we don't know is: How the road surface, elevation, prevailing wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, humidity, load, and so forth were affecting the mileage on that particular day and trip. We also don't know where the engines "Sweet Spot" is. Is it 1800 rpm, 1900 rpm, or more or less?
I fill the tank the same way every time. Put the nozzle in as far as it will go and set it on the slowest setting. When it clicks off , wait a few seconds and gently squeeze until it clicks off a second time and stop. I try to use the same pump every time, although that is not an option on the road. Problem is that the tilt of the car will dictate how much fuel the tank will take. Also, how well is the pump calibrated. 8 gallons to drive 300 miles is 37.5 mph. But 9 gallons for the same distance is 33.3 mpg.
If we were driving in a vacuum on flat smooth roads all the time, we could quickly figure the best way. But we have the real world to deal with.
We can develop our own Hypothesis, but the Scan Gauge will instantly reveal which speed and gear actually gets the better mileage, under present conditions.
Kip
I hope the scangage costs less than that.
Kip
I hope the scangage costs less than that. "
I don't personally own a Scan Gauge or other such device yet, but have seriously considered getting one. Last time I checked , a few months ago, it seems they were in the $150 range. Using your numbers, it would pay for itself in about 1 1/2 years.
To go a little farther: If we could save that $112 a year on every "Necessary" item, it could save a considerable amount of money in a years time. Consider:
Automobile fuel, automobile fuel for the 2nd car, Health insurance, Life insurance, Car insurance, Groceries, Electricity, Heating oil/ natural gas, Income tax, eating out, movies, other entertainment, cable or dish, cell phone, telephone, internet connection, automotive maintenance, yard/lawn care, miscelanious purchases, home maintenance, clothing, and drug store items.
Those are 22 items that quickly come to mind. At $112 each the savings would be $2464 yearly. Still not overwhelming, but considerable.
As Ruking pointed out, different folks enjoy beating different systems. One person may enjoy shaving as many minutes as possible off commute times, while another enjoys using as little fuel as possible for the commute.
I don't personally understand why anyone would buy an "Economy" car and not want to benefit as much economy out of it as possible. But that is me. Your mileage may vary!
Kip
The nexus is that Wayne Gerdes used to post here on www.edmunds.com. He is of the 59 mpg on a Honda Accord fame. :shades:
And using your analogy, if each of those $112 /yr savings COST you $150, would you still do it? Technically, the analogy is a bit of a stretch to those of us who do return on investment calculations on a regular basis.
As a hobby, it's great.
Trust me, I was there in the 80s. My 81 GLC consistently got over 45 hwy mpg. It was fun to see how much I could squeeze out of it.
But then I got another hobby I enjoyed more.
To answer your question, yes I will gladly spend $150 once to save $112 each and every year. In 1.5 years the money is recovered and the savings go on year after year. Savings may even increase yearly if prices rise.
I'm very interested to know how that is a "stretch".
"But if you insist it's a "investment", well, let's just say that you should keep it as an enjoyable hobby."
I have never been great at math. So need your help in understanding your logic.
Thanks,
Kip
First tank full after the above quote, 38.5 mpg (354 miles/9.2 gal) . So I (still) swag (all things being equal) a new tire set loss of app 1.5 mpg ( getting app 40 mpg before tire set swap and alignment) . The first tank came almost dead in the middle of my original projection. We shall see what another 3 tank fulls will mike out to be.
So for example in no particular order and no particular % measurements( other than the gross mpg measure)
1. yes the tires are larger aka (new) 10/32 vs (old) 3/32 or 7/32 MORE (could have run @ least 1/32 in more or 10,614 miles . :shades:
2. (the past 2) alignments had no measurable effect on mpg. May it have affected these new tires?... maybe......
3. the car on the old oem tires were run up to 90 mph
4. in contrast, break in protocols were followed for the new rubber (NTE 60 mph for 300 miles, nte 65 mpg for another 200 (for 500 miles)
5. no hard braking (we hardly use the brakes and do not brake hard normally except for emergencies- no emergencies)
6. other than a 100 mile initial "bed in", test drive (less than 60 mph) the vehicle was put into the normal plain jane 2 person daily commute.
7. I will do one deviation to get back on round numbers (aka 10,000 mile rotation intervals) and that is to rotate @ 5700 miles to get back on the 10,000 miles round numbers rotation.
8. I do have the figures when the old oem tires were new, BUT I was totally into the engine (break in oil, etc.,) and suspension, brakes, etc., break in period. But do not have any idea (again) what %'s go to each factor.
I agree new thicker tread will affect "Calculated" mileage. How much is hard to say.
The new and slightly larger diameter tire, due to new tread and sidewalls, will need to rotate fewer times to go a given distance. The odometer is reading something that is rotating.
It doesn't see as many rotations with the new tires as with the old ones. Therefore it doesn't register as many miles with the new tires, although they went just as far.
Another consideration would be the weight of the old vs new. Heavier tires/wheels are harder to turn and burn more fuel.
So, "REAL WORLD" , is the odometer more accurate with old tires or new tires?
Kip
..."So, "REAL WORLD" , is the odometer more accurate with old tires or new tires?"...
Given the last two tank fill ups, I would say the odometer is accurate with old tires and new tires! :lemon:
I am no expert with weights and measures compliance, but I am sure one's local DMV web site will have something to say about the issue/topic.
Above is a link to the gov fuel economy
04 Honda Civic (7 vehicles)
AVG: 32..4 mpg
Range: 28-37 mpg
this is not in any way, shape or form a significant enough population from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever. The variance in the range alone is >30%, that is a red flag in anyone's book that the trial population is inadequate for anything other than to determine gross anomalies.
Thanks
So as a range, new tires have crashed (mine) mpg 1.5 to 2 mpg per gal: old tires 38-40 mpg new tires 36-38.5. Again far from correlated but one anecdotal data point.
Old tires: Dunlop SP20 FE, UTOQ 320, New tires: Toyo 800 Ultra.UTOQ 700. 74,300 miles is the number to beat!
So as a range (corrected) new tires have crashed (mine) mpg 1 to 1.5 mpg: old tires 38-40 mpg, new tires 37-38.5.
Is this millage low enough to complain to the dealer? What may be the problem?