Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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, 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.
Get real.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
So we're all supposed to drive 55 with no A/C on
mole hillsflat 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?
Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle's condition.
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.
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.
Do you have a translation for this? What's a duffer?
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.
What car do you drive?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is why so many people complained about the old estimates. 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:
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.