I hear you on the variances of the computers, etc... I have a 2006 Sonata LX V6, and love it. I just wish it really had better MPG. Around town, Pensacola,FL, I only get an average of about 18.9...I have been hoping for 20, but it hasn't made it that high yet for an average. My hwy driving with cruise, at 65-70 depending is only in the mid 20's. By the way, I also have a ScanGuage that I notice the "instant consumption reading", it is similar to what you are talking about with the super high mileages/and the fluctuations. I do like some of the other aspects of it though.
My best friend has an '04 BMW 330i and he has mentioned that his averages are signifiantly off from his own calculations.
As I noted above, my experience was different.
Going downhill with my foot off the gas, it shows 99.9 and on the highway at 75mph, with cruise set on level ground, it still fluctuates from 23 to 32 mpg which tells me very little.
Yes, that is the instant reading not the average. Of course coasting downhill with your foot off the gas will cause the instant reading to skyrocket. My calculated average was about equal to the vehicles calculated average.
If I checked my mileage on every tank, over a span of 10 years, it still would not tell me exactly what the mileage on my next tank will be. So what's the point? If you check the mileage on every tank, does it get better? If you don't check the mileage for 6 weeks, will it automatically get worse? You are getting the mileage your getting, whether you check it, or not. :confuse: I just don't understand the obsession, or see the need.
I agree, you will never be able to know EXACTLY what the mileage will be on the next tank, however you will have a fairly accurate guesstimate. Yes, it is possible that over a 6 week period that the mileage could get worse. If a plug malfunctions you would see a drop in the average, or if a hose (vacuum) came loose or any other minor happening occurred it would be obvious, an oxygen sensor malfunction, etc. Then you would be able to solve the problem before it became a major factor. If that is being obsessive, so be it. I don't have to pay for major problems, when I can take care of the minor ones. (usually) I can however see if I am getting more or less mpg and can figure if it seems appropriate. I don't understand ignoring a major dollar investment of any sort, but then again I am living on a fixed income and have to watch my money more closely than some others. FYI, I also check my tire pressure regularly too, and at the same time check the tires for wear, misc other signs.
on sept 7, 1991, i put in 11.6 gallons of gas after driving 206 miles in my mustang. i like all that stuff like compass, thermometer, trip odometer, etc. i drive with the average mpg displayed and drive normally, but like to see if by changing my driving style, i can get a little better mileage.
I agree with you. I almost never check my gas mileage. I know I have to fill up once a week and when I fill up I will have about 1/4 of a tank left. I have never had a plug malfunction in my life. Anything that would severly impact gas mileage would severly impact driveability. I suppose there are people who won't know their car isn't driving right unless they find out their "Prius" is getting 12 mpg, but I'm not one of them. I also know when I floor it I get worse mileage, when I feather it I get better mileage.
Yes, there are people like that. There are also people who through years of experience are able to tell when a single tire has slightly less pressure than the others, or than they (it) had before, or the brake system needs to be looked at, or some other idiosyncrasy is present, even if the oil is low, just by driving the vehicle, or sometimes just by riding in it, or even listening. I AM one of those. It is called knowing your vehicle. I don't NEED to check my mileage to find problems, I do it to have a complete vehicle record for my own personal satisfaction. Any thinking person knows that when you "floor it" you get worse mileage, and when you "feather it"you get better mileage. It isn't necessary to try demeaning someone who does things differently than you. Just recognise that it takes all kinds of individuals as is obvious by this and other forums.
Had a Kia Optima rental car for a week in WY, MT, ID. The car had 4500 miles on it when we rented it. We did not like it at all and next time I am renting, if they say "it's a Kia Optima", I'll be asking if there are any other options.
The seat cushion was a bit too short to be really comfortable for me, but this is the case with a lot of cars such as: Camry, Sebring, and Malibu (at least the previous version).
I am about 5/10' or 11" and had the seat all the way back, which has never been the case in any other vehicle. I also jacked the seat up to it's highest positon to maximize leg room. I would still have even liked the seat to go back a bit farther, but even if it did the steering wheel would have then been too far away. I do tend to like the steering wheel to telescope out a long way and only a few cars have enough telescoping to really suit me.
The plastic on the top of the dash was so shiny that I had glare from the sun reflecting off of it. In addition, the image of the shiny dash would reflect on the windshield making it difficult to see. However, I am not sure if the horrible shiny dash was a feature of the car or was due to an oily build-up of cleaning products.
I did not care for the vague steering or cornering ability, I guess it is tuned to appeal to the would-be Camry buyer rather than those like me who prefer cars like the Mazda6. It was a smooth quiet ride and it did track very straight on the roads, I could take both hands off the wheel for an extended period of time and it went straight ahead (this does not happen with my Mazda6).
Interesting, your experience with the Optima is a 180 from my test drive of an LX I4 with the 5AT. I am 5'10" also (32" inseam) and I had plenty of legroom with the seat height (manual) about 1/2 way. The front seat wasn't even close to being at the back of its rearward travel. But I don't think I had the steering column pulled out all the way. I found the driver's seat to be very comfortable, with good thigh and back support. But you drove it for longer than I did. There was no glare problem, on a sunny day. The dash was low-gloss plastic so I'm not sure why the dash in your car was glossy. And I thought the steering and cornering were quite good, sharper than Camry or Sonata (I drove a 2009 Sonata shortly after the Optima, on the same course) but less crisp than a Mazda6. The car I drove had the standard 16" wheels. What was on your rental? 17" are pretty common with the LX (any car with ABS/ESC has those) and on the EX also. Was your car a V6 or I4, and which trim?
I have the Fusion with a driver info center. The manual explains that the milage shown is based on the last 500 miles driven(less than two tanks.) It is not a long term nor an instant reading. It can be reset at any time for an effectively instant reading, or by the tank. I have verfied my computer, and am personally satisfied with it's accuracy.
The Distance to Empty is based on the last 500 miles driven. The MPG readout is calculated from when you reset it last. If you never ever reset it, it'd be a lifetime average, etc...
It was the I4 LX with 5 speed auto and, I believe, 16 inch wheels. My legs may be a bit longer, 34 inch inseam. Other than not going back quite far enough and wanting a longer seat cushion, the seat was comfortable (if that makes sense)...so for anyone for which those were not issues, it would likely be fine. I do see they list front leg room at 43.7 inches which is 1.4 inches more than my mazda6, that sure does not match what was actually available in the car I drove :confuse: .
Since it was not that way on the one you drove, perhaps the shiny dash was just from cleaning products used by the rental car company.
In answer to the other question about the model year, I had meant to check that but did not. Given that it had 4500 miles I assume it was a 2008.
If the distance to empty is based on the last 500 miles that's pretty flippin stupid.
None of these cars get 500 miles per tank. If one drove 400 miles on a highway trip and had top fill up,and then 80 miles stuck in a traffic jam, what good would a miles to empty reading based on the last 500 miles do?
If the distance to empty is based on the last 500 miles that's pretty flippin stupid.
I don't know about the Fusion but cars I've seen with a trip computer measure the "range" based on the fuel left in the tank and the avg. mpg of that tank. That's how my 06 Accord computer works. If I reset it without filling the tank, the range readjusts to the current avg. mpg and the remaining fuel.
None of these cars get 500 miles per tank. I assume that you are not including all midsize sedans in that statement. Several of us have managed over 500 miles on one tank of gas in our generation VII Accords.
If the distance to empty is based on the last 500 miles that's pretty flippin stupid.
Why is this stupid? It calculates your MPG for the last 500 miles. As you continue to drive, or idle as it may be, your average will continue to be adjusted down (as I understand it, anyway).
I've gotten over 500 miles per tank on my Mazda6 several times but of course it was about 95-100% xpressway driving on those tanks. The fill tank light was on but I'm pretty sure I could have gone another 40-50 miles or so.
Have you seen any of the commercials that Nissan puts on, bragging about the 600+ miles per tank? They aren't lying. I've exceeded 600 miles on a few tanks with my Altima on the highway, and I'm NOT talking about the hybrid.
I've gotten over 500 miles per tank on my Mazda6 several times but of course it was about 95-100% xpressway driving on those tanks.
With an 18 gallon tank and freeway mpg of ~31-32, 500 miles would be no problem with my Mazda6 on the freeway. Most of these cars have similar tanks and mpg, so 500 miles is a realistic range for freeway driving at least for the 4 cylinder models
Since I don't drive in traffic or excessively urban areas, even my normal commute nets 27-28 mpg (at least in summer) this might get me barely to 500 miles, if I were willing to run it down to fumes.
The Altima has a 20 gallon tank and 31 mpg hwy. Since most cars do better on the freeway than the EPA hwy number (CR got 33 in the Altima), you could even get to 650 mi in that one.
the new Altima has a 20-gallon tank. If a driver can manage to get about 30 mpg average, then 600+ miles per tank is technically possible. Seeing as the 2.5L 4-cyl is rated for 31mpg highway, I can see that as being possible. You'd have to baby the throttle though.
the new Altima has a 20-gallon tank. If a driver can manage to get about 30 mpg average, then 600+ miles per tank is technically possible. Seeing as the 2.5L 4-cyl is rated for 31mpg highway, I can see that as being possible. You'd have to baby the throttle though.
Not as much as you think. With my wife and I with bags for a weekend trip, keeping the cruise set at 72-75 MPH on the highway, I can get about 33-34 MPG, making 600 miles per tank relatively painless.
It's that simple in a lot of these vehicle. I simply set the cruise around 72 mph in my '06 Accord. With just me in the car I got ~548 miles on 14.7 gallons (my tank holds 17.1 but I hate to run too low).
Considering the raw EPA numbers for my car were in the mid-40s, 37 isn't that abnormal. I've had 40 MPG on a couple of occasions.
Oh yeah, to answer your inquiry, my Garmin GPS has matched my odometer on 275 mile trips (I take the same trip every few weeks) to within a couple of miles, every time.
My average in suburban commuting in off-rush-hour times is 30 MPG here in Birmingham, AL. Right now, I wouldn't trade this car for anything.
I'm not alone with this type of highway mileage, either. Check out the Honda Accord MPG forum if you'd like, many people have gotten great highway mileage.
The old EPA system (the one that rated my car at 24/34 and not at 21/31) was actually dumbed down significantly from what the EPA really achieved. I remember the highway number for my car was well into the forties. I can't find the table right now but will search for it for ya.
EDIT: Found it. The EPA numbers uncorrected for my 2006 Accord 2.4L 5AT are City: 27.0145 Hwy: 43.4831
See them yourself at the link I provide below. Click the year of vehicle you wish to see. You'll have to unzip a datafile into Excel to do it (really easy). Then just find your vehicle in the file. They are sorted by EPA class (2-seater, Subcompact, Compact, etc).
The 4 cylinder Altima with manual transmission can easily get 35mpg on the highway. With 18 useable gallons, give or take, that's 600+ miles.(23/32 with the new EPA ratings, 26/35 for 2007, old system) 2007-2008 reported average is 29-31mpg.
Why does it do so well?
3100lbs. Less weight and bloat, pure and simple. (It appears to have gained 100lbs though, since 2005/2006... odd...)
The V6 with automatic gets closer to 25mpg, just like the Honda/Toyota/GM/Ford/etc midsize sedans. The smart money is on the 4 though as it has 175HP(!) and is plenty easy to go quickly in given the fact that it weighs 500-800lbs less than the competition. Oh, and no premium fuel either.
The V6 with automatic gets closer to 25mpg, just like the Honda/Toyota/GM/Ford/etc midsize sedans. The smart money is on the 4 though as it has 175HP(!) and is plenty easy to go quickly in given the fact that it weighs 500-800lbs less than the competition.
A base Altima 6MT weighs 3,112 according to Nissan's own website. Put a CVT in it and you are a shade under 3,200 lbs (3,189).
All weights are from the manufacturer's respective website, and reflect the least expensive model (and therefore equipped with the fewest options to add weight) that is currently available.
We're not talking a large difference in weight here; the difference in a small passenger. 800 lbs lighter? No way. A little research goes a long way. Where'd you get 500-800 lbs difference?
You obviously drive like 80+ mph on the highway Because I hit 425+ miles per tank with mostly city. Highway would definitely go over 500 without a sweat. My highway is over 30mpg for sure, which multiplied by a 17.7g tank would be over 500. Heck, I think I could probably pull off 550+ with highway only. Most midsize cars are around 3100-3500, depending on features. I think the weight difference might only count for 1-2mpg, still matters, but not a huge differentiator.
In town, the weight difference matters a lot more than on the highway, i believe. It takes more effort (fuel) to get the extra mass moving from a stop than it does to KEEP that extra mass moving once underway.
EPA "highway" numbers are not based on cruising on the freeway at a constant speed, so most cars should easily exceed the EPA highway rating when driven on the freeway. CR always reports much better "highway" numbers than the EPA figure because their number is based on a steady speed of (I think) 65 mph.
I used to not be too sure about your mpg numbers, but my Mazda6i is now broken in and getting 27-28 mpg in my suburban Milwaukee commute (which is similar to Birmingham). Given the relative EPA rankings, I'd expect it to be 2-3 mpg less than an Accord and it is. I have not had an opportunity to check it on a freeway cruise, but when it was new it was getting about 32. My commuting mpg has gone up by 2-3 mpg since then...so I would not be surprised to see 34 mpg now.
Considering the difference in EPA estimates, I'd say your mix of driving and driving style probably does compare to mine, based on your 28 or so MPG in the commute. I always try and let people know I'm not a speeder, and I don't rev up much above 3k RPM regularly; only when a passing maneuver is necessary, or when a short on-ramp looms.
I certainly understand people being skeptical of my numbers. My own dad was the first time I got 36 MPG on a trip in the Accord. Ever since, my highway mileage has leveled off to around 37-38 MPG on trips, depending on the passengers/cargo I've got (adding a person means I stop at more rest areas, as well as have more weight to pull up the hills). The 40 MPG tanks are outliers on these trips, but so are the tanks that I only get 35 MPG.
Out of curiousity, how many MPH do you get per 1000 RPM? My 4-cyl Accord (5-speed Auto) runs at 30 MPH per 1000, meaning my typical crusing speed of 72 MPH puts me at only 2,400 RPM. Most Mazda's I've ever been in rev consistenly higher in top-gear than their competitors.
Not much different with the 6 V6 and manual. 3,300 rpm at 75 MPH. The automatic is slightly lower, but not by much.
I've always found Mazdas to rev higher at highway speeds, but the trade-off for me is that I usually don't have to downshift out of top gear to pass on the highway. It can't be affecting gas mileage too badly, since I get 28-29 MPG on highway trips, and can break 30 if I really tried.
I've heard the '09 6 with the V6 keeps the revs below 2500 RPM at 65 MPH, and I hope to confirm this for myself soon...
No, the auto in the Mazda6 runs significantly lower rpms as of the 2006 model year, when they went to the 5 speed. The auto in top gear is about 25% lower than the manual...which would mean about 2400 at 70 mph.
Grad - I do rev above 3K frequently and my pedal hits the floor fairly regularly. I keep meaning to try a tank where I keep rpms down and see if mpg changes, but have not done it yet. I tried that once in our windstar, mostly stayed under 2500 rpm and did not detect a difference, so went back to my leadfooted ways. I do save on the deceleration side though, often cars pass me on the way to a red light...I guess so that they can stop sooner.
I gotcha... my foot probably hits the floor twice a week. And thanks for the info about the RPMs in the auto. When accelerating, I've noticed my car shifts about every 13 MPH when on a 50 MPH road, maybe that gives you an idea of how I leave a stoplight.
It can be reset at any time for an effectively instant reading, or by the tank.
Until I started reading this thread I used to only reset mine right after I filled up at the pump. The last few days I've been experimenting with the instantaneous reading where I reset it while cruising down the highway at a set speed.
On the 6-mile stretch of hilly interstate between work and home I discovered that 70 mph shows a 1.0 mpg lower average than 65 mph. That result may not be accurate to what the difference actually is, since I've determined with a calculator that my overall mpg is 1.5-2 mpg higher than what the computer says it is. However, it is relative and I'm using the same measuring method each time.
Comments
van
As I noted above, my experience was different.
Going downhill with my foot off the gas, it shows 99.9 and on the highway at 75mph, with cruise set on level ground, it still fluctuates from 23 to 32 mpg which tells me very little.
Yes, that is the instant reading not the average. Of course coasting downhill with your foot off the gas will cause the instant reading to skyrocket. My calculated average was about equal to the vehicles calculated average.
van
i like all that stuff like compass, thermometer, trip odometer, etc.
i drive with the average mpg displayed and drive normally, but like to see if by changing my driving style, i can get a little better mileage.
Chrysler and Nissan Reportedly Exploring Momentous Midsize Car Deal
I'd change the last line from "Chrysler's best shot" to "Chrysler's only shot"
Do you mean you can tell if it is just a quart low or only if there is about one quart left?
van
The seat cushion was a bit too short to be really comfortable for me, but this is the case with a lot of cars such as: Camry, Sebring, and Malibu (at least the previous version).
I am about 5/10' or 11" and had the seat all the way back, which has never been the case in any other vehicle. I also jacked the seat up to it's highest positon to maximize leg room. I would still have even liked the seat to go back a bit farther, but even if it did the steering wheel would have then been too far away. I do tend to like the steering wheel to telescope out a long way and only a few cars have enough telescoping to really suit me.
The plastic on the top of the dash was so shiny that I had glare from the sun reflecting off of it. In addition, the image of the shiny dash would reflect on the windshield making it difficult to see. However, I am not sure if the horrible shiny dash was a feature of the car or was due to an oily build-up of cleaning products.
I did not care for the vague steering or cornering ability, I guess it is tuned to appeal to the would-be Camry buyer rather than those like me who prefer cars like the Mazda6. It was a smooth quiet ride and it did track very straight on the roads, I could take both hands off the wheel for an extended period of time and it went straight ahead (this does not happen with my Mazda6).
Since it was not that way on the one you drove, perhaps the shiny dash was just from cleaning products used by the rental car company.
In answer to the other question about the model year, I had meant to check that but did not. Given that it had 4500 miles I assume it was a 2008.
None of these cars get 500 miles per tank. If one drove 400 miles on a highway trip and had top fill up,and then 80 miles stuck in a traffic jam, what good would a miles to empty reading based on the last 500 miles do?
I don't know about the Fusion but cars I've seen with a trip computer measure the "range" based on the fuel left in the tank and the avg. mpg of that tank. That's how my 06 Accord computer works. If I reset it without filling the tank, the range readjusts to the current avg. mpg and the remaining fuel.
None of these cars get 500 miles per tank.
I assume that you are not including all midsize sedans in that statement. Several of us have managed over 500 miles on one tank of gas in our generation VII Accords.
Why is this stupid? It calculates your MPG for the last 500 miles. As you continue to drive, or idle as it may be, your average will continue to be adjusted down (as I understand it, anyway).
Just check the owner's manual for more details.
I've gotten over 500 miles per tank on my Mazda6 several times but of course it was about 95-100% xpressway driving on those tanks. The fill tank light was on but I'm pretty sure I could have gone another 40-50 miles or so.
Have you seen any of the commercials that Nissan puts on, bragging about the 600+ miles per tank? They aren't lying. I've exceeded 600 miles on a few tanks with my Altima on the highway, and I'm NOT talking about the hybrid.
With an 18 gallon tank and freeway mpg of ~31-32, 500 miles would be no problem with my Mazda6 on the freeway. Most of these cars have similar tanks and mpg, so 500 miles is a realistic range for freeway driving at least for the 4 cylinder models
Since I don't drive in traffic or excessively urban areas, even my normal commute nets 27-28 mpg (at least in summer) this might get me barely to 500 miles, if I were willing to run it down to fumes.
The Altima has a 20 gallon tank and 31 mpg hwy. Since most cars do better on the freeway than the EPA hwy number (CR got 33 in the Altima), you could even get to 650 mi in that one.
Not as much as you think. With my wife and I with bags for a weekend trip, keeping the cruise set at 72-75 MPH on the highway, I can get about 33-34 MPG, making 600 miles per tank relatively painless.
The first 5 photos are the spy photos. The rest are concept-car photos.
Looks awfully bland to me!
Oh yeah, to answer your inquiry, my Garmin GPS has matched my odometer on 275 mile trips (I take the same trip every few weeks) to within a couple of miles, every time.
My average in suburban commuting in off-rush-hour times is 30 MPG here in Birmingham, AL. Right now, I wouldn't trade this car for anything.
I'm not alone with this type of highway mileage, either. Check out the Honda Accord MPG forum if you'd like, many people have gotten great highway mileage.
EDIT: Found it. The EPA numbers uncorrected for my 2006 Accord 2.4L 5AT are City: 27.0145 Hwy: 43.4831
See them yourself at the link I provide below. Click the year of vehicle you wish to see. You'll have to unzip a datafile into Excel to do it (really easy). Then just find your vehicle in the file. They are sorted by EPA class (2-seater, Subcompact, Compact, etc).
Link to FuelEconomy.gov Raw Numbers
Why does it do so well?
3100lbs. Less weight and bloat, pure and simple. (It appears to have gained 100lbs though, since 2005/2006... odd...)
The V6 with automatic gets closer to 25mpg, just like the Honda/Toyota/GM/Ford/etc midsize sedans. The smart money is on the 4 though as it has 175HP(!) and is plenty easy to go quickly in given the fact that it weighs 500-800lbs less than the competition. Oh, and no premium fuel either.
3000lbs. Less weight and bloat, pure and simple.
The V6 with automatic gets closer to 25mpg, just like the Honda/Toyota/GM/Ford/etc midsize sedans. The smart money is on the 4 though as it has 175HP(!) and is plenty easy to go quickly in given the fact that it weighs 500-800lbs less than the competition.
A base Altima 6MT weighs 3,112 according to Nissan's own website. Put a CVT in it and you are a shade under 3,200 lbs (3,189).
Altima 6MT Base: 3112
Camry 5MT Base: 3263
Accord 5MT LX: 3230
All weights are from the manufacturer's respective website, and reflect the least expensive model (and therefore equipped with the fewest options to add weight) that is currently available.
We're not talking a large difference in weight here; the difference in a small passenger. 800 lbs lighter? No way. A little research goes a long way.
I used to not be too sure about your mpg numbers, but my Mazda6i is now broken in and getting 27-28 mpg in my suburban Milwaukee commute (which is similar to Birmingham). Given the relative EPA rankings, I'd expect it to be 2-3 mpg less than an Accord and it is. I have not had an opportunity to check it on a freeway cruise, but when it was new it was getting about 32. My commuting mpg has gone up by 2-3 mpg since then...so I would not be surprised to see 34 mpg now.
I certainly understand people being skeptical of my numbers. My own dad was the first time I got 36 MPG on a trip in the Accord. Ever since, my highway mileage has leveled off to around 37-38 MPG on trips, depending on the passengers/cargo I've got (adding a person means I stop at more rest areas, as well as have more weight to pull up the hills). The 40 MPG tanks are outliers on these trips, but so are the tanks that I only get 35 MPG.
Out of curiousity, how many MPH do you get per 1000 RPM? My 4-cyl Accord (5-speed Auto) runs at 30 MPH per 1000, meaning my typical crusing speed of 72 MPH puts me at only 2,400 RPM. Most Mazda's I've ever been in rev consistenly higher in top-gear than their competitors.
Is that a manual trans?
Not much different with the 6 V6 and manual. 3,300 rpm at 75 MPH. The automatic is slightly lower, but not by much.
I've always found Mazdas to rev higher at highway speeds, but the trade-off for me is that I usually don't have to downshift out of top gear to pass on the highway. It can't be affecting gas mileage too badly, since I get 28-29 MPG on highway trips, and can break 30 if I really tried.
I've heard the '09 6 with the V6 keeps the revs below 2500 RPM at 65 MPH, and I hope to confirm this for myself soon...
Grad - I do rev above 3K frequently and my pedal hits the floor fairly regularly. I keep meaning to try a tank where I keep rpms down and see if mpg changes, but have not done it yet. I tried that once in our windstar, mostly stayed under 2500 rpm and did not detect a difference, so went back to my leadfooted ways. I do save on the deceleration side though, often cars pass me on the way to a red light...I guess so that they can stop sooner.
Until I started reading this thread I used to only reset mine right after I filled up at the pump. The last few days I've been experimenting with the instantaneous reading where I reset it while cruising down the highway at a set speed.
On the 6-mile stretch of hilly interstate between work and home I discovered that 70 mph shows a 1.0 mpg lower average than 65 mph. That result may not be accurate to what the difference actually is, since I've determined with a calculator that my overall mpg is 1.5-2 mpg higher than what the computer says it is. However, it is relative and I'm using the same measuring method each time.
Various other cruising speed tests to follow.
Cool - another toy to play with.