What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

texases · May 2008

Speaking of Tire Rack, they got their start selling those Phoenix Stahlflexes out of a garage.

nippononly · May 2008

Reported at Auto Observer:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/05/seismic-shift-to-smaller-segments-rocks-us-m- - - - arket-edmunds-analysis-shows.html#more

In the second two months of this year, consideration of subcompacts by prospective buyers was up 28% from the first two months of this year! (last chart at the bottom of the page)

And two of the three domestics have no car to field in this segment, despite having been caught out in exactly the same way in the 70s. At least GM has the Aveo, but they really ought to work on its fuel economy, as they have done for the Cobalt. Aveo is close to 1/2 a ton lighter than Cobalt, as well as being slower, yet it only matches the larger car for EPA ratings? Something wrong there...

Oh, and for anyone who disagreed with me that manufacturers like Toyota are missing a golden opportunity by not offering better/more standard optional equipment on their smallest models (and perhaps raising their prices to reflect the increased content):

"At the same time, during March and April U.S. consumers also displayed their quickly growing interest in ensuring that they take amenities with them as they shift to smaller and more fuel-efficient segments. Consumers were paying more for typically equipped small and midsize cars"

boaz47 · May 2008

"At the same time, during March and April U.S. consumers also displayed their quickly growing interest in ensuring that they take amenities with them as they shift to smaller and more fuel-efficient segments. Consumers were paying more for typically equipped small and midsize cars"

Isn't the real point that the people are moving for fuel mileage not for size? If they are offered two vehicles and both have similar fuel savings will they still option out for the Sub Compact? They want their goodies more than they want a stripped down car and goodies weigh and that makes the sub compact heavier and uses more fuel. So if the sub compact gets compact fuel mileage the compact seems like a better deal. We are right back to where we started with people being forced into sub compacts because of outside forces not preference. If that is the case then todays sub compacts still don't offer much over what we already have been driving for over 20 years. Better for you who happens to be pulling for small cars but nothing much for the consumer.

As far as manual steering? There is a reason it has been almost dropped from most cars and it has nothing to do with increased road feel. It was a pain at slow speeds. About the only road feel advantage it had was to force you to keep the car in proper alignment so it didn't fight you in a straight line. If there were a real advantage they would remove it from racing sedans in the things like the Rolex series where they would do anything to get an advantage over the other cars.

nippononly · May 2008

Oh boaz, you're a tough nut to crack! ;-)

nortsr1 · May 2008

Good post boaz...I'm with you on this 100%.

andre1969 · May 2008

If that is the case then todays sub compacts still don't offer much over what we already have been driving for over 20 years. Better for you who happens to be pulling for small cars but nothing much for the consumer.

I'm anything BUT a small car hugger, but even I would say they've improved in leaps and bounds from what was being offered 20 years ago. Just as one example, I had a 1991 Civic rental car once. I forget which engine it had, but for some reason I'm thinking it was an upgraded engine. Although it was just a 4-door sedan. According to www.fueleconomy.gov, there was a 1.5, which was rated at 28/33 with the automatic and a 1.6, which was rated at 24/29.

That car was dog-slow in acceleration, and if you just let the automatic transmission do its own thing, it would top out around 75-80 on level ground. You could pick up speed on a downhill slope, but it couldn't maintain that on an upgrade. However, I did discover that if I manually held third gear, keeping it out of overdrive, it would get past that 75-80 sticking point, and if I threw it back into overdrive around 85 or so, it would go faster. And given a long enough downhill slope, it would hit 115. But that's kinda like saying if you dropped this Civic and a Corvette out of a cargo plane, they'd both hit the ground at the same time...doesn't mean the Civic has Corvette performance! :P

That car wasn't without its merits though. It was roomy and comfortable up front for such a little car. For someone like me to say that about it, that's considerable praise. Handling was decent. And it was quiet and rattle-free.

I'm sure any subcompact built today would walk that Civic like a dog, while returning better fuel economy. I'm sure they're better built and more reliable these days, too. Not saying that Civic was a piece of junk, but it's just that cars have advanced over the decades.

Now seating position, I'm not sure about. I'm horribly cramped and uncomfortable in modern cars like the Yaris and Fit, and the Corolla and Versa aren't much better for my tastes. The Sentra and Civic are tolerable. It's really hard to say how the modern cars would compare to the comfort of that 1991 Civic, because it's been over 16 years since I sat in it. It might not be as comfy as I remember. And while that Civic was comfy for a small car, it couldn't hold a candle to a bigger car. After that vacation and 1700 miles of seat time in that Civic, I swear my Dart never felt so good! :shades:

Keep in mind too, that in 1991 and throughout the 80's, the Civic was probably the benchmark of subcompacts. So if much of today's crop has improved over a 1991 Civic, I'm sure they'd make a lot of those other little cars from back then really look like crap.

Now in some extreme cases, like the CR-X, and other ultra-economy-minded cars of the 80's, today's cars are nowhere near as close in terms of fuel economy. But if you were to take the average Civic or Corolla from 1985 or even 1990, and compare it to the average Civic or Corolla of 2008, fuel economy would be improved in the newer cars...even though the newer models are heavier, larger, and more powerful.

oregonboy · May 2008

Here is a link to the Miata.net tire size calculator:
tire calc

I used it to determine that my "oversize" tires were less than 2% larger than the originals. As it turned out, the change actually made my speedometer read MORE accurately, as determined by a stopwatch over 15 miles. This was later confirmed by my Garmin GPS.

james

ateixeira · May 2008

Modern electric power steering pumps probably cannibalize a lot less power than the old hydraulic ones.

NA Miatas were available with manual steering and those were sought after by enthusiasts. Mostly for the increased feedback, though.

nippononly · May 2008

"Modern electric power steering pumps probably cannibalize a lot less power than the old hydraulic ones."

But they decrease road feel by the same proportion that they decrease power cannibalization.

explorerx4 · May 2008

sorry, but i think that calculator is useless. tirerack has rpms per mile.
also, i measure the odometer not the speedometer.
you happened to hit something that fit that calculator.
we replaced the conti's on the escape with the same size goodyear tripletread. they are huge compared to the original tires. you can see the physical difference in size. the gas mileage has been down some since then, but i am not sure if it is due to rolling resistance or tire circumference, or both.
i also experienced a big drop in gas mileage when i changed tires on my focus.
i got most of it back when i switched back to the original tire model.
the smaller the car, the more the weight difference in tires plays into the gas mileage, too.

lilengineerboy · May 2008

sorry, but i think that calculator is useless. tirerack has rpms per mile.

Just for clarity, what did you think the revs/mi was on the Miata.net chart?

also, i measure the odometer not the speedometer.

So you can back-average the speed so you know what to tell the kind gentleman with the badge?

i also experienced a big drop in gas mileage when i changed tires on my focus.
i got most of it back when i switched back to the original tire model

Hmm your experience is someone opposite of mine. When I replaced the 195/60HR15 MXV4 Energy tires with 195/60VR15 Khumo ASX tires, I got both a dramatic improvement in handling, consistent fuel economy, and 4 Khumos were $12 more than 1 MVX4.

plekto · May 2008

Almost all factory odometers are set up to be 2-3% faster than you are actually going in order to not have people sue them for getting tickets and so on.

So you have to adjust a bit to compensate - unless you have a digital one that is - those are pretty close to exact with stock tires.

stever · May 2008

This link may be of interest:

Odometer Accuracy Not Regulated By Federal Law

Investigation Reveals Inaccuracy Of Many Cars Odometers

lilengineerboy · May 2008

Almost all factory odometers are set up to be 2-3% faster than you are actually going in order to not have people sue them for getting tickets and so on

Well, that and if it reads a higher speed, its more miles which helps the car companies a lot. It provides for shorter warranty periods (2-3% of 36,60, or 100k miles adds up), higher lease fees (people are going over mileage when they aren't), and people think they are getting better mileage than they are. They also service vehicles more frequently.

I am not saying its a huge conspiracy, just food for thought. I think Honda got called out for making their speedos read too fast at one point. Alternatively, fines in European countries are levied by photo-radar starting at 3kph over the limit, which is not so much.

explorerx4 · May 2008

the revs per mile on a generic calculator don't matter. the actual revolutions per mile do matter. like i said, the tire you have can match it or not.
if you want to measure mileage travelled by the speedo, it's ok with me,
i just don't do it that way. i use a 30 to 40 mile run on the highway using the mile markers.

boaz47 · May 2008

"Now in some extreme cases, like the CR-X, and other ultra-economy-minded cars of the 80's, today's cars are nowhere near as close in terms of fuel economy."

Isn't the whole point of an economy car economy? The very term, considering, if you look at the average, or better than expected, when used for a sub compact just proves the point. Sub compacts today may be better than some of their old sub compact relatives but no better than their bigger brothers in the mid sized and compacts are compared to their grand parents. But if you remember the old Camry and look at the new one you can see it is not only more comfortable but gets much better fuel mileage and is safer than the old Camry. That is pretty much the case across the board in that size car. But looking at your own quote you realize that sub compacts are not as good at their prime focus, economy, as they should be. But you can excuse that in the case of the CR-x, VW rabbit diesel and Metro twins with the simple words, considering the new standards.

oregonboy · May 2008

Good post - excellent points.

While it may not be a huge conspiracy, you have to believe that the car companies are aware of the implications of their cars odometers reading high. 2-3% savings in warranty claims on millions of vehicles must be significant. :mad:

james

kyfdx · May 2008

Higher indicated speeds on the speedometer don't always correlate with incorrect odometer readings..

BMWs are famous for the "optimistic" speedometers.. I'd estimate that my wife's reads at least 4 miles over at 75mph.. But, her odometer is right on the money (checking over long distances by mile markers).

When speedometer/odometers had a mechanical connection, that would be true, but now that they are electronic, the odometer doesn't necessarily get it's information from the speedometer, or vice versa..

regards,
kyfdx

oregonboy · May 2008

It is true that the tire calculator assumes that all tires of a given specification have the same rolling circumference. Obviously this is not totally accurate; tires vary by manufacturer and style. If fact two identical tires will differ with different tire pressures.

Still, I think you are wrong to call the calculator useless. It give a fair indication of relative rolling circumference, which is quite useful. After I purchased my tires, I did confirm the accuracy of my speedometer in much the same way as you do: by measuring the transit time at a constant speed against the roadside mile markers. It's all good. :shades:

james

oregonboy · May 2008

That would be an interesting study: speedometer vs odometer accuracy It does seem that the manufacturers would be at risk of a class action lawsuit if it could be shown that their odometers read consistently high.

Actually, I think that even with mechanical speedo/odometers, they could be easily set to read independently high and/or low.

james

lemmer · May 2008

A lawsuit. They have to feel darned if they do, darned if they don't. If the speedos weren't slightly optimistic people would complain that they weren't protected from speeding tickets.

kyfdx · May 2008

I vaguely remember something about Honda settling such a lawsuit over odometer discrepancies...

I'm not really into the mechanical side of things, but when I used to drive an Econoline for a living, there was a plastic piece in the speedometer/odometer bits that was sort of like a screw... If you were reading too fast, you changed from a 16 groove screw to a 17 groove screw (in this case, you = our mechanic). And, both speedometer and odometer were directly tied into the same system..

I complained once about the reading, and the mechanic went the wrong direction with it.. I was running an indicated 60 mph, but the mile markers had me doing 74mph!! That's my story, and I'm sticking to it

thegraduate · May 2008

I vaguely remember something about Honda settling such a lawsuit over odometer discrepancies...

Yep. And because of it, my car's 3/36k warranty (2006 Accord) has been extended to 38,200, I believe.

Whatever; I'm sure this suit was another kind of case where the lawyers got millions, and each claimant got 30 cents in the mail.

podred · May 2008

Wasn't dealer-installed a/c a common thing with Japanese cars in general, and Honda in particular, until fairly recently?

Here is the honest, if somewhat hard to believe answer. I know because I worked for Toyota Motor Sales at the time. They are in Torrance CA, and the distributor of all Toyotas to each dealer in the US.

As much as we (the US distributor) asked for factory installed A/C, the Japanese arm of Toyota just didn't get it. They simply could not believe it was that important. Even when we were purchasing over thousands of AC kits from them through the parts depot for the dealers to install in the cars. Interesting.......

explorerx4 · May 2008

ok, i get it. i am referring to the odometer and you are comparing to the effect on the speedometer. i only care about the effect on the odometer. nobody asks about the average speed when you sell a car, but they do care about how far it has travelled.

nippononly · June 2008

"Yaris reported all-time best-ever sales of 14,397 units (in May), up 26.6 percent over the year-ago month."

WOW! It's hot. That's almost half as many sales as Accord and Ford's F-series. Subcompact sales are ballooning so rapidly it's hard to keep track. :-)

Get this: Camry, Corolla, Accord, and Civic ALL beat the F-series truck to be the top 4 selling vehicles in May. And were the midsizers on top of the list? NO! The two top sellers were Civic (#1) and Corolla (#2)! The market is finally downsizing, or as I like to say, appropriate-sizing. ;-)

With regard to Yaris specifically, it is now selling at the same rate as the RAV4 and the Sienna van, and selling at a ratio of almost 3:1 vs the Avalon. That puts it at the same sales rate as most of the best-selling compact and midsize cars from other automakers, and well above some.

thegraduate · June 2008

I read that the Accord had 43,728, so technically, the Yaris had just under 1/3rd of the Accord's record-breaking sales.

But, i AM just nitpicking.

If I were not 6'5", I'd be driving a Civic right now. As it is, I drive a 30+ MPG Accord. I figure that's not too bad for a guy my size, right?

I really wanted the room of a full-size truck, and could've gotten a nicely equipped Silverado for less than my Accord EX, but I went the green-way and got the Honda.

oregonboy · June 2008

It's funny how prices and availability of USED vehicles have been affected by fuel prices. I was out driving yesterday and within just a few miles of home, I saw five full-sized 4x4 pickups and/or SUVs parked on private sites with for sale signs on them.

How many small cars did I see for sale... ZERO. (Yes I know, small sample size, statistically insignificant.) But I would wager that one would find similar results with a larger sample

british_rover · June 2008

I started looking for a used Focus hatchback stick a while ago for a run around car and there are NONE around. The few that you can find have a ton of miles on them.

nippononly · June 2008

if you tour the NEW CAR dealers, you will find the same thing.

My local Toyota dealer has exactly two Corollas and two Yarises as of yesterday. Contrast this with about two dozen each of Tundra, Sienna, RAV4, and Camry. The Tundras all have huge red discount ads hanging from the rear view mirrors - $5000 off, $7000 off, 0% for 60 months, etc etc. With Tundra, I think they only just finished clearing out their '07s.

andre1969 · June 2008

The Tundras all have huge red discount ads hanging from the rear view mirrors - $5000 off, $7000 off, 0% for 60 months, etc etc. With Tundra, I think they only just finished clearing out their '07s.

Wow, I hope my coworker doesn't get wind of this. Earlier this year, when he was feeling the pain of gas prices, he made a rash decision and traded a 2004 Tundra 4.7 in on a 2009 Corolla S. After about 3 weeks, he decided that car didn't really suit his needs and he really wanted a truck, so he traded it on an '08 Tundra with the 5.7!

I wonder what kind of deal he got at the time. I think that was about 2 months ago. Now in his defense, he has a fairly big boat that he tows around pretty regularly. So he does do truck-type things. However, his wife drives a Sequoia! Seems to me they could've just used the Sequoia to do the towing.

Sometimes I think about getting a newer truck to replace my aging '85 Silverado. In my case, just about any truck I bought would represent an improvement in fuel economy. Unless they're still making 'em where they get 10-12 around town, 15-16 on the highway, and 18 if you REALLY old-lady it. I think the new Silverados, even with the 5.3, were rated 16/22 before the dumbed-down ratings took effect.

I guess as little as I drive though, it would be foolish to blow $300 or more per month on a truck, just to save a few bucks in gas. I checked my truck's mileage log recently. It had 109,055 miles on it when I got it from my Mom in late 2002. It now has around 127,000, almost 6 years later. Kinda dumb to get into a payment over something that's only been averaging about 3,000 miles per year.

thegreatoz · June 2008

I hate to throw cold water on this hot topic of small cars and fuel economy, but here in suburban Philadelphia, I filled my '07 Suburban Z71 with E85 for $2.89/gal yesterday and with the V8-V4 computer controlled engine, got 20.2 mph driving to Youngstown, Ohio on I-80 today. XM, NAV and AC running.

I drive a hydrocarbon Civic around town, but Reverend Al Gore you'll have to pry my big GM SUV out of my cold dead hands.

andre1969 · June 2008

yesterday and with the V8-V4 computer controlled engine, got 20.2 mph driving to Youngstown, Ohio on I-80 today

20.2 MPH?! What happened? Did that V-8-6-4-0 break down and go into limp mode? :surprise: Just kidding, I knew ya meant mpg. :P

Actually, 20.2 mpg on the highway doesn't sound bad for something that size. Plus, aren't they supposed to get worse economy with E85? Just as a reference point, last year I went to Cedar Point in Ohio with some friends in a 2006 Xterra, and it was only averaging around 20 mpg on the highway.

nippononly · June 2008

Seriously? Doing the math, that means you would have averaged 29ish mpg if you had been running gasoline, which is HECKA impressive for a Suburban, even in all-highway driving. Not a repeatable feat by many here, I fear...

If you had put gas in it instead, what would your price have been per gallon?

lemmer · June 2008

The thing is, if this guy can get 50% better mileage than he expected with a Suburban, logic dictates he can do this with any other car. So, if he was driving a Civic he would be getting 50 mpg on the highway. I don't see why the relative difference would change between SUVs and subcompacts.

andre1969 · June 2008

So, if he was driving a Civic he would be getting 50 mpg on the highway. I don't see why the relative difference would change between SUVs and subcompacts.

A lot of it could depend on things like gearing, how much of a load he's carrying, terrain, etc. For instance, my uncle's '03 Corolla is a great flat surface car, but it doesn't like the mountains. The few times I've driven it up to PA, I'd have to really floor it on the upgrades if I didn't want to lose speed. And on the downgrades it just wasn't a good coaster. Take your foot off the gas and you'd lose speed and become a traffic hazard.

My Intrepid does better in those hilly areas. It still needs a little kick in the rear on the upgrades, but not as bad as the Corolla does. And it coasts downhill better. But then the older vehicles I've taken on that run, like my '79 New Yorker, '76 LeMans, or '85 Silverado, they practically coast up the hills with little strain, and then you almost have to ride the brakes coming down.

So in a situation like this, the terrain has a minimal effect on the bigger cars, but makes itself more noticeable on the smaller ones.

As for cargo, well I could throw a ton of firewood in the back of my Silverado and hardly notice. With just 4 people in my Intrepid I can feel the strain, and with my uncle's Corolla, I can tell the difference with just one passenger.

Sometimes, those bigger, torquier vehicles can handle being driven overly gently, because they're still strong enough to loaf along in a high gear. But when you try that with a smaller car that's used to revving, it just doesn't have the power. So you're either going to lose speed or probably shift down to a lower gear, which will use more fuel.

I'd imagine the air conditioning in a smaller car will sap more fuel as well, but could be wrong here. I imagine they use smaller compressors for smaller cars, but in some cases they may not.

Still, 29 mpg with a Suburban, using E85, sounds awfully optimistic.

lemmer · June 2008

Ultimately, as flawed as it may be, I think the only way you can compare fuel mileage is through the EPA ratings on the EPA website.

andre1969 · June 2008

Ultimately, as flawed as it may be, I think the only way you can compare fuel mileage is through the EPA ratings on the EPA website.

Yeah, for the most part, the cars I've had would get close to what the EPA published. Well, the 1985-2007 style figures, at least. Any leadfoot should be able to achieve the dumbed-down figures they use now.

The only car I ever had that was a pleasant surprise with fuel economy was a 1989 Gran Fury ex police car. It would guzzle to the tune of 11-13 mpg around town, but I was shocked to manage lower 20's out of it on the highway. It was only EPA-rated at 13/15! I'd be afraid to look at the new ratings. Probably more like 11/13, at best.

It just didn't add up, though. I mean, that thing had a 318-4bbl, 2.94 gearing, an antiquated 3-speed automatic with no overdrive, a lot of heavy duty components, and the aerodynamics of a brick! But, maybe the 4-bbl let it breathe better, and the quicker axle might've made it less likely to require downshifting. It also called for premium fuel, so if it was tuned that way, maybe that helped with the economy?

lemmer · June 2008

Just noticed that my '98 BMW 323 with its 170 hp engine gets the same combined mileage as a '98 BMW M3 with 240 hp. That just ain't fair.

nippononly · June 2008

All I was pointing out was that for the Suburban driver to make 20.2 mpg on E85, which makes 70% of the mileage of gasoline, he would have been making 10/7 x 20.2 = 28.8 mpg on gas. Which makes it sound like the computation may have been based on a very short tank, or the vehicle's own notoriously optimistic trip computer.

Either way, a Suburban has little place in the subcompact discussion, eh?! :-P

And I can make 50 mpg on all-highway trips in my sub, so there is still a fairly wide gap in fuel economy between the two classes, even in all-highway situations which are the forte of the large cars and trucks.

thegreatoz · June 2008

My point was that mileage does not necessarily equal more $$ economy.

I drive an '05 Beetle which takes Premium. It costs me more money despite the good (27) mpg. I can get 25 mpg in my '01 Vette but, again, paying $4.85 for Sunoco 94.

Yes, I'm relying on the Suburban dashboard telling me when it's in V4 and V8 mode and driving accordingly (just like my erstwhile Civic Hybrid) and doing the math in comparison with the trip computer. E85 is not 70% of hydrocarbon unless you fill it on empty. It's recommended you keep 1/4 tank of hydrocarbon fuel at each E85 fill up. It's still much cheaper to drive that either the Vette or the Beetle.

If you want to get back to small car talk, what about the equivalent of $2.50/gallon of gas to drive the Civic GX NGV? And NO...they're not ONLY available in California. They're in NY state now too. With a slow fill (3,000 psi), I could -just- make it back to Philadelphia on a test run.

andre1969 · June 2008

Well, the title of this forum is "What's WRONG with these new subcompacts", so IMO that doesn't limit it to subcompact-only talk. By its very nature, shortcomings, comparisons to other cars, etc, are going to come up.

Just out of curiosity, how accurate is its trip computer? If you compare what it says to the old pencil & paper method of diving miles driven by gallons used, are they close?

ateixeira · June 2008

You either have a very optimistic trip computer or you drove downhill from Pikes Peak to Death Valley.

thegreatoz · June 2008

They're closer to paper-&-pencil than their bad reputation deserves, but their easily fooled. Plus, there are two computer readings..."Instant" and "Average" fuel economy.

For example, I sold my '04 Civic Hybrid because the best "Average" mpg was 32.5 for the entire two years I owned it. I bought an '06 Civic Normal. Same gas mileage, lower initial coast.

However, in the Hybrid, I could get gas at the Cumberland Farms at the top of my neighborhood hill and coast home, park it, and have a reading of 47 mpg. That would fool (increase) the "Average" reading for the next 8 or 10 miles. Then it would fade back down to 38...36...33...30...as I drove around. BTW, hybrids get their best mileage around town. You actually get -worse- mileage on trips.

My dealership told me they wished Honda never put the MPG Computer in the hybrids, because it showed how way off the EPA numbers were (in 2004), along with exposing the hyped hybrid sales pitches to what they actually were.

Back briefly to the GM on-board MPG computer. Coasting (flat or downhill) will kick you into V4 mode and you'll get -instant economy- readings of "99 mpg." If you do this long and far enough, you'll fool (increase) the Average reading for the next dozen or so miles. Just like the Civic Hybrid.

To answer an earlier post, yes, it was just me, no cargo, no trailer, going to Youngstown on I-80. The big SUVs can really keep their rolling momentum going along flat Interstates.

Now, compared to pencil-&-paper...

I never did the math with the Civic Hybrid...naively thinking it was 100% accurate.

However, I always do the math with the Civic Hydrocarbon and the Suburban...and GM's computer has only been about 4 mpg higher than paper-&-pencil, on the saved "Average" readings, at the most. But it varies with driving conditions.

What -is- interesting is the "Range" readings when you first fill up. If I get gas in the middle of a long trip, the Range can be anywhere from 510 miles (16 mpg) to 620 miles (20 mpg). However, if I've been driving around town and then fill up, the Range can read as low as 375 miles (12 mpg). The computer uses the "Average" mpg last recorded.

Personally, plug-in electric is the only realistic possibility in a subcompact for excellent mileage. You'll not want to be a hydrogen or natural gas bomb on wheels...and you'll not want to get a piddling 40-50 miles-per-whatever-unit of fuel.

thegreatoz · June 2008

Ah, Cedar Point...my new favorite place, now that Conneaut Lake Park is history. :shades:

I don't want to sound like The Reverend Al Gore, but E85 on a long trip doesn't deserve the reputation it has acquired from its lousy mileage in stop-and-go driving.

However, from an aesthetic point of view..."Live Green Go Yellow" is a crock of crap because of what's happened to food prices.

Just my opinion.

thegreatoz · June 2008

Still, 29 mpg with a Suburban, using E85, sounds awfully optimistic.

Actually, that fellow was extrapolating 29 mpg for GAS, since I got 20.2 mpg on E85.

Sad thing, however, because I patronized the E85 station, I'll be paying 25-cents a slice more for pizza because of the corn shortage for food.

british_rover · June 2008

on this forum yet but probably not. A client of mine last week on memorial day got a flat tire in New Jersey with his LR3. He drove from Jersey to CT at 55 mph because he has a compact spare and didn't want to push his luck. By going 55 mph he got 25 mpg actual mpg as he hand calculated it in a 300 hp, nearly 6,000 lbs, permanent 4WD SUV.Using the 2007 and under ratings that LR3 got 14/19. I know we had the lower speed does not necessarily translate to better mpg before but on his car it did.

qbrozen · June 2008

A compact spare in an AWD vehicle??
That could NOT have been good for the AWD system!

stever · June 2008

Think of the mpg he'd get with four hard skinny little compact spare tires installed. :shades:

Of course, most of the manufacturers say you shouldn't go over, what, ~50 miles? on them so the tire expense would eat up your savings.

Isn't it the diameter of the tire that the 4WD/AWD systems care about?

kyfdx · June 2008

Most compact spares for AWD vehicles are full diameter... They are just skinny... They aren't like the mini-compact spares you see for regular cars...

So, no issues with the AWD...

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles