Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
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
Hybrids always did well on the EPA tests and were WAY over what folks get in the real world. If they wanted to (and there is evidence that some car makers wanted to) they could not post the real world worse numbers, they have to stick with the EPA numbers.
EVERYONE has known for years that the EPA numbers are wrong, yet YOU and YOU alone did not know this? You must have never purchased a car before if you thought the numbers were right. The new numbers for 08 are quite a bit lower, but still probably not real world. Cars that COULD do their EPA numbers or better before had their numbers dropped too - which makes no sense. So they just did what all car buyers (except you, I guess) have been doing for years - just look at the sticker and take 20-30% off the numbers.
My last tank in the xB returned 27.8 mpg for my commute (about 60% stop and go and 40% freeway), this is better than the 24-25 mpg I get in the S2000 and the 13-15 mpg (ouch) I get in the RX-8. I think as the xB gets more miles on it it will get better. Do I wish it were higher? Yes. Did I expect to get what the EPA numbers are? Heck no. EVERYONE by now should know that only a very small percentage of cars on the road can get the EPA numbers when driven "normally".
Consumer Reports reported last year that:
Our study found that only 10 percent of vehicles achieved fuel economies as good as or better than EPA estimates, including the 2003 Infiniti FX35, the 2004 Chrysler Crossfire, and the 2000 Honda S2000 convertible
Sounds like you were the one person who did not know this. I guess now you do? Of course, the single biggest factory in economy is how you drive. I am a more aggressive driver and like to get up to speed quickly, my penalty is worse mileage that someone who pokes along gets. If the mileage bothered me more, I would poke along and get better.
Dennis
The disclaimer printed under the estimates even informs of that. For a car that may get 31 and 35, the disclaimer reports that "actual mileage may vary", and those estimates might be 21 and 38. I mean it can't be much clearer than that.
I am gettting 29-31 mpg for my 05 XB auto. In the warmer weather I get 31-33 on a 112 mile daily commute at speeds from stop and go up to 80. 70% highway 30% city. I bought the car not intending to actually get the EPA numbers, but I'm close.
If you drive 55--65, I think your actual mileage will be closer to the 34.7 number over the course of many miles.
And if I was so wrong/ignorant about my car, the fellas at the dealership would have mentioned the argument you made but not one person went there.
It is true that the EPA dictates the numbers on the sticker and it is true that their testing methods do not really approximate the real-world. Some may find their driving methods give them similar numbers to the EPA estimates and others may find they get dramatically different results.
In any case, it is not the vehicle manufacturer who is directly responsible for the numbers - estimates - that appear on the sticker.
Let's all take a couple deep breaths and remember that we're all here because we want to learn about our cars - and then get back to doing just that.
4 Jun 06 to 16 Sep 06
Daily driving for 3,404 miles on 97.3 gallons = 35.0 mpg.
16 Sep 06 to 22 Sep 06
Trip of 2,246 miles on 63.89 gallons = 35.2 mpg.
35 MPG: That's good! You must have a fairly light foot or flat terrain? Or you just got a really good one!
So either your a closet case and acualy got a garage full of Scions or you are in desperate need of a life.
Also gas has one additive that dont burn "water" so what your pumping is not all gas. Watch the car in front of you and see the water dripping from the exhaust pipe.
29,30,31 still damn good in my eyes when Fuel economy EPA is listed as highway (mpg): 35 and EPA city (mpg): 31
My last tank I got a little over 27 mpg commuting. I had less idling this tank and with each tank it is getting a little more "broken in". Still not a world beater, in the S2000 doing the same commute I get 23-24 mpg and get 14-15 mpg in the RX-8. The ScoobyDo Legacy wagon I traded for the box (with 100k+ on the clock) would only get 23mpg on the same drive. With four snow tires, the box did just fine on snow days this winter.
Dennis
I am very pleased with the mileage I am getting. I get my best results in my typical day-to-day driving. The worst gas mileage for my xB has been on long road trips where I am driving for extended periods at 75 mph. But even then, the worst mileage I have had is 29 mpg. The best I have had is just shy of 39 mpg.
I did have a question for those more knowledgable. I have been putting my vehicle in neutral and coasting when I am coming out of the local canyon and I have been coasting in neutral when I come off of some of the longer off ramps on my way home from work. I have found that the drag of the transmission slows me down too much coming down out of the canyon and I have to apply a bit of throttle to keep the vehcile moving at freeway speed ... whereas if I put the vehicle in neutral and coast, the aerodynamic drap on the box keeps the vehicle right at the speed I want to go and I don't need to use the throttle at all (maybe a little braking here and there). I have heard that when you are coasting "in-gear" you are not using any fuel at all whereas you are using fuel when you are idling in neutral so therefore, you should be using less fuel when you coast in gear. Is there any truth to that? It has been recently that I started using the neutral coasting in my xB and I have noticed a slight increase in mpg (about 1.5-2 mpg).
On the window sticker of the tc I used to have, the city and hwy mpg are 23 and 29 respectively. I was surprised to average 34 mpg in both city and hwy driving. Probably because I had done a lot of driving coasting in neutral. What I notice then, was driving off-throttle in gear has a higher rpm than coasting in neutral. The higher the rpm, the more is the gas consumption.
Driving at a higher speed with the least rpm gets the very best mpg.
At 660 RPM idle, the engine uses the same amount of fuel whether stopped at a light or coasting at 50 mph in neutral.
At 50 mph, coasting in neutral at 660 RPM saves fuel compared to coasting in 5th gear at 2500 RPM. That is because when coasting at 50 mph in 5th, the engine will brake the car until the RPMs fall to idle speed. When coasting at 50 mph in neutral, the only thing braking the car is air and rolling resistance.
That water did not come from the pump. It is condensation made in the muffler. Vehicles with large mufflers used in the winter for short trips will accumulate the most condensation. Water dripping from the exhaust pipe is rarely seen in the summer.
The very best mpg is obtained by driving with the least throttle, the least rpm, and the slowest and steadiest speed that conditions allow.
I my 5-speed xB I have gotten 42 mpg on two Interstate tanks by doing that. Each trip was 250 miles at a steady 60 mph with no stops.
On two other trips of the same length using the same rules, I got 37 mpg. But those trips were on 2-lane roads with hills and curves, and passing through many small towns. Cruising speed was held around 55 mph, and of course there were gear changes and stops.
It is the combination of a light foot, good driving conditions, and using the least rpms and speed that conditions allow. I shift around 2000 rpm, and do not have to drive in either heavy stop and go traffic or on Interstate commutes. I match my speed to the slower part of the traffic around me.
Fast driving, aggressive driving, showing off what the car can do -- the few times I have done that the mpg has gone below 30.
The faster you can move the car with the least rpm(foot off the gas pedal, gear in neutral) squeezes the most mpg.
Dennis
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
The 2006 guide shows:
tC ................................................. A-4 ..... 2.4/4 ....23/31 ...$1,530
..................................................... M-5 ..... 2.4/4 ....23/30 ...$1,530
There would be a "P" to the right of the figures if the car in question required Premium fuel - and there is not.
The xA got:
xA................................................ A-4..... 1.5/4 .. 31/38 ..... $970
.................................................... M-5..... 1.5/4 .. 32/37 ..... $970
And the xB:
xB................................................ A-4..... 1.5/4 .. 30/34 .. $1,066
.................................................... M-5..... 1.5/4 .. 30/33 .. $1,066
There is also a spot on the web page for other to share their real world numbers:
at this link
this should give you a better idea of what to expect (just over 20 city, it appears).
If you are tired of paying a lot for gas, I would suggest finding an xA or xB - not as sporty as the tC but returns better real-world numbers. Gas prices may continue to climb and regular may soon exceed $3.69 per gallon.
You should also check with your insurance agent before deciding what to buy - I would bet the tC will carry a high price to insure. It is a couple and the target market is one that has a lot of accidents :sick: .
Dennis
I know the new box will have more power and more stuff, but I have not seen any pricing so I wonder if they can deliver more for the same money (another thing attractive about the old box) ? Also, with gas going over $3 per gallon I wonder if the new box will get as good in the mileage department? I would doubt that.
To each his/her own, though
Dennis
About $1,500 more and 5 mpg less.
So why are you on the Scion forum?
I believe the HP is 156. EPA estimate is 23/28 mpg. Body edges are more rounded and much softer looking. Sides. top and hood all blend together with no visible trim dividers.
Seems the price was in the neighborhood of $18k.
Because of the rounded edges the car does not seem as "UP RIGHT". There seems to be a bit more rake on the windshield.
Instrument cluster is long horizontally and short vertically and resides in front of the driver.
I was on the right side of the car and it all happened quick, Sorry I don't have better info.
Kip
Does it get better? Does anyone remember the milage they got when their tc was brand new?
Kip
I get 27-27.5 commuting in my 06.5 box (about 4,600 miles on the clock) so I would expect if I had the new 08 xB I would get 23 mpg or so.
Your mileage may pick up a little as you break the car in, but I don't see you getting anything close to the first gen mileage numbers.
You have the power, us first gen xB owners have the style and the fuel economy
Dennis
I'm trading my Camry Hybrid for the '08 xb with delivery scheduled for next week. Probably the only person in the nation to trade a Camry Hybrid for an 08 XB. The Camry Hybrid got 34 city and 34 highway. (EPA 40/ highway and 38 city)It never did get to the 40 city. The mileage was disappointing to me but the Camry Hybrid is a spectacular car in all other ways however...gadgetry, ride, power, looks.
Hope the XB can get close to 30 all highway..even though the EPA in 08 revised numbers is 28.
Why on earth would you expect a car that EPA's at 28mpg to top 30?
Sure, if you change your driving style you may be able to get to or even exceed EPA numbers - but 99.9% of the folks on the road are not going to enjoy driving like that, which is why I said "as normal".
If mileage were my #1 concern, I would keep the Camry or get a Prius. If you got to have an xB, get a first gen example used. The 08 xB just does not make sense for someone who is coming out of a car that gets 34/34 real world - you are are going to be at the pump a lot more.
Dennis
Why would I expect Epa mileage 28 from the 08 XB you ask? Well..My previous 3 Toyota's (before the Hybrid purchase) all V6's, met or exceeded Epa Highway mileage. There is no reason for me not to have expected epa 40/38 from the Hybrid. I need more room ... the main reason to trade the Hybrid for the XB. Batteries take up more room and present a barrier when rear seats are folded down.
Until the Hybrid's become plug-in's, there are gas cars that meet (Yaris to name one) or beat Hybrid mileage.
And...by the way My test drive on the 08 XB computer showed 38 (Thirty Eight) highway with a strong tail wind. Very strong tail wind. Indeed I expect 28mpg from the XB highway.
Bing
We exceed the EPA with our two vehicles. Well....I do.
My wife is at or slightly below. We have different driving styles.
Kip
I also drive my Honda S2000 the same way and still manage to consistently get 25 mpg with that vehicle. (How Honda managed to make such an extremely high-performance vehicle so fuel-efficient is truly incredible.)
I feel Scion made a mess of the xB with its redesign for the 2008 model year. The vehicle appears to have become "PT Cruiserish" and in doing so has lost most of its appeal. If I had the garage space, I probably buy another 2006 xB and just put it in storage.
While the first-generation (2004 - 2006) xB and the Honda S2000 are about as different as two vehicles can get, they are both classics that put a smile on my face every time I drive them. Caviar for the general...
I got my for a my "snow day car" based mainly on the style - and the cheap price, good MPGs, Toyota reliability, and strong resale value. The final thing was the fact that the xB version 1 is no more, but to replaced later this year by a redesigned 08. I am glad I got mine when I could, the new car (to me) loses all the charm of the original and it truly ugly . They have made it larger and are using the running gear from the Tercel/tC rather than the punier Echo drivetrain of the first gen boxes. That is big plus, but probably will result and lower MPGs and likely will come and a good bit higher price than gen 1 sold for.
My last tank I got a little over 27 mpg commuting. I had less idling this tank and with each tank it is getting a little more "broken in". Still not a world beater, in the S2000 doing the same commute I get 23-24 mpg and get 14-15 mpg in the RX-8. The ScoobyDo Legacy wagon I traded for the box (with 100k+ on the clock) would only get 23mpg on the same drive. With four snow tires, the box did just fine on snow days this winter..
The Camry uses the same engine, and weighs about 300 lbs more. The gearing could be different, but Scion does not provide much of that information.
Camry's 24/33 numbers should go down to 23/31 for 2008. The aerodynamics of the Scion are nowhere near the .28 of the Camry, doh. That might account for the hwy difference.
DrFill
I had a used Subaru for a "snow day" car and in the past had tried to talk both my wife and my daughter into getting an xB (I failed - they chose an Accord and a Civic). When I learned that the first gen xB was going way I waited until I could get a great deal on an 06 and traded my ScoobyDo in for one.
I drive it pretty hard, but it IS an automatic - I needed something others could drive if they needed to borrow it. So far around 27 mpg commuting and if I putted along I would think close to 30 might be possible. No road trips yet, but I would expect over 30 easy.
Dennis