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
The average fuel economy based on window-sticker value of new vehicles sold in the U.S. in October was 24.1 mpg — the highest level yet, and up 4.0 mpg from October 2007, the first month of monitoring."
Survey: Fuel economy in new cars hits highest level since '07 (Detroit News)
My 2013 Accord is a CVT, and is rated by the EPA at 27 in the city and 36 on the hwy, with a combined rating of 30. This compares with my 2008 Accord which has a rating of 22 in the city and 31 on the hwy, with a combined rating of 25. That's a pretty big jump over 5 years. In percentage terms it's a 20% increase.
I was guessing that for the next generation of Accord, due out in about 5 years, Honda might be targeting a similar percentage increase. In other words, they might be aiming for a car that gets a 36 combined epa figure, although that's probably on the high side.
But I was wondering whether the EPA requirements actually require Honda and other makers of midsize cars to do that, and the answer is no.
Take a look at this chart, which gives the guidelines going forward for each "footprint" of car, from small, to midsize to large:
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/good-and-bad-news-emerges-from-cafes-fine-pr- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - int.html
It's a bit confusing because the famous "54 mpg" requirement for 2025 is based on the EPA test of 1975, and those numbers need to be cut by c.30% to match the current EPA window numbers, which are close to my real-world results. Anyway, doing that translation, you find that the EPA requirement for a midsize car in 2012 is about 23 mpg. So the current Accord is way beyond that, and in fact the 2008 Accord was beyond that.
But the requirements get strict quite rapidly, right? Not really. And they are starting from such a low base # that it doesn't start to get impressive until about 2025.
The standard for a midsize car for 2017, for instance, is about 27 mpg combined, and so the 2013 Accord is already beyond that.
The standard for a midsize car for 2021 is about 32.
The standard for a midsize car for 2025 is about 38.
In other words, if the next generation Accord for model year 2018 gets an improvement of just 10% over the current model it will easily meet the target for 2021.
I think Honda and other car makers will be more aggressive than that in improving mpg, which is a good thing imho.
Since the 2013 Accord gets 20% higher mpg than a 2008, as I've said my guess is that they are targeting maybe as much as another 20% by 2018, which would mean a combined mpg sticker that year of about 36. If they could do that (and that's probably way too optimistic) by that time they would be only 2 mpg away from the standard for 2025!
It's good in my opinion that these standards exist, but they sound much more impressive aggressive than they actually are. The 2018 Accord could achieve a 32 EPA mpg number and still be way ahead of the curve. The more I think about it, the more I realize that's probably closer to what they'll aim for. After all, the current Civic is rated 32 mpg combined (although the 2013 Civic still uses older tech engine and transmission). If the next gen Accord can get the mpg of the current Civic, that would still be impressive.
Anyway, these epa mpg numbers should be possible to hit even without hybrid technology, and the Accord of the future will probably have about the same amount of interior room as the current model. This is how I've wasted my time on this Saturday morning as I wait for the rest of my family to wake up ;-)
The real EPA number for that year would be more like 38mpg. And with the "credits" that manufacturers can claim for various real and imaginary things it actually gets taken down to about 35 mpg.
But that's still a significant improvement over where we are now....
I think Honda and other car makers will be more aggressive than that in improving mpg
Maybe it'll go like seatbelts. No one wanted to pay extra to have them as options on their cars so the feds finally mandated them. And then we got mandated airbags. At some point the lines blurred and some of the safety equipment we have is mandated while some of it is demanded by the consumer. And now lots of consumers are even willing to pay extra for stuff like rear view cameras or traction control.
Lots of people buy on mpg nowadays.
Very true. I was surprised when Toyota discontinued the V6 as an option on the Rav4. "Not enough people wanted it." I was reading a long term test on the Honda CRV, and they were bemoaning no availability for a V6. They referred to the car as a "gutless wonder" on the highway. But of course it gets wonderful mpg (for a CUV), and that is what people seem to want.
I don't drive enough miles anymore to be worried about mpg. When I was doing 33 miles (one way) to work, it mattered. These days, at 5.3 miles one way, I simply don't care.
+1
I think the demand by consumers is driving some manufacturers to go way beyond the EPA requirements for boosting mpg.
Also, the way the law is written manufacturers can "bank" credits when they go over some years to use when the standards are much stricter c. 10 years from now. And so the 2013 Accord is earning credits for Honda because it already meets the standard for about 2019.
The 2013 Accord LX CVT weighs 3254 pounds, which, iirc, is only about 75lbs less than the 2012 LX. I think Honda wanted to lose more weight than that, but the tough IIHS small offset crash requirements caused them to beef up the structure to a significant degree.
It's possible that they'll be able to take another 150 lbs off the LX in 5 years, which would take it down to c.3100 pounds. And a slightly smaller and lighter car could make do with a smaller engine, which might mean they could use a 2.2 liter engine in 2018?
The new 2014 Mazda6 and Nissan Altima already get 38 mpg hwy. I bet that Honda would like to equal those numbers by the time the current Accord gets to its major refresh for model year 2016, which comes out just a little more than two years from now. As you said, customers really want higher mpg, as long as they can do it without sacrificing safety or performance.
And so far, that's happened. My 2013 Accord accelerates significantly more quickly than a 2008 Accord and is significantly safer, all while getting c. 20% higher mpg.
It's actually a golden age of automotive engineering imho.
A 2008 Accord LX didn't have bluetooth (almost essential imho), was kind of a slug where acceleration was concerned, got only so-so mpg, was noisy, not as safe, etc., and it was still a top car for its time!
The 2013 Accord has bluetooth standard, is faster, gets higher mpg, is quieter, safer, etc.
Most other cars have similar improvements over their previous generations. Plus many people put off buying a car because of the great recession, the earthquake in Japan/flood in Thailand, etc. Car sales are still accelerating for now. At some point (maybe in 10 years?) what you say might be true, but imho we have not reached it yet.
Automotive News:
U.S. sales likely to rise 16% in July, LMC says
Strong tailwinds to start second half
Nick Bunkley Twitter RSS feed
Automotive News
July 19, 2013 - 12:21 pm ET -- UPDATED: 7/19/13 1:57 pm ET - adds details
DETROIT -- U.S. new-vehicle sales are projected to rise 16 percent this month as the industry gains strength entering the second half of the year, according to a forecast released today by LMC Automotive.
LMC estimated that the seasonally adjusted annualized selling rate for July would reach 15.9 million, nearly matching June's rate of 15.98 million, which was the highest in five and a half years. The SAAR for July 2012 was 14.1 million.
The forecasting firm also increased its full-year forecast for light-vehicle sales by 200,000 units, to 15.6 million....
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130719/RETAIL01/130719831/u- -s-sales-likely-to-rise-16-in-july-lmc-says#
I don't think you could give away a 1992 Geo Metro as a new car, even at 50 mpg.
All it'd take would be another oil shock to have people bidding up Metros on eBay. That's happened before.
With a ten gallon tank, Minneapolis was roughly 35 gallons from Detroit via Chicago & Madison. I cruised through cow country with it floored at 86 mph ... had a cop going the other direction flash his lights at me to slow down. ;~)
Loved that car almost as much as I did my first car (1969 Camaro, bought new in 1970) ... until some jerk in a Caddy hit his brakes -hard- for no good reason during a heavy rain storm and I slid right up his tailpipe. Then the Caddy took off, leaving me with a smashed hood, grill and passenger quarter panel (the cad in the Caddy was making a right turn when he simply decided to stop.
So those mileage numbers? Yawn. They've been done before.
Contrary to some of the sentiment expressed above, I'd pay good hard money for another Metro just like my first one because, yeah, I don't care about all the fancy features (insert list of juice sucking, gas burning, 'features' that break and / or invite break-ins here). I don't need electric door locks, heated mirrors, heated seats, satellite tracking of my trips, electric windows, A/C, backseat video, front seat video, surround-sound, "Fine Corinthian paper-thin leather seat, wood burl accents, prescription windshields, electric door locks, cruise control, remote starters and so on nearly as much as I need to keep my cash mine.
I've already got a living room ... I don't need to ride around in one.
I've got a 1989 Jaguar VDP sitting in front of my house in running condition with good rubber and VERY little rust that I'd trade for a Geo Metro (as described above) in similar condition. Last year I put brand new brakes all the way around (pads, rotors, disks, drums ... everything between the brake line and the wheels. Starts right up. Burns premium. Unwanted and unloved.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
It says that the Metro was rated a pretty amazing 41 mpg combined, which is pretty close to what a hybrid gets today....
A very small gas car today should be able to equal that even with more weight and safety equipment. But it hasn't happened yet.
Industry Fuel Efficiency Remains at Record Levels; Small Cars Set New High
Jul. 19, 2013John Sousanis | WardsAuto
June marked the fourth consecutive month in which the WardsAuto Fuel Economy Index remained at a record level of 24.3 mpg (9.7 L/100 km).
The month’s FEI score represented a 2.2% gain over year-ago and is 15.9% above the index base-period rating established in fourth-quarter 2007.
Cars recorded a 28 mpg (8.4 L/100 km) FEI score, a 3.4% increase over year-ago, while accounting for 49.3% of deliveries.
It was the third consecutive month light trucks outsold cars, but the expected downward effect on industry fuel economy has been offset each time by mix shifts and rising FEI scores within segments of both vehicle types.
Small cars earned a segment-best 29.9 mpg (7.9 L/100 km) rating in June, up 0.6% from like-2012, while midsize cars (28 mpg [8.4 L/100 km]) showed a 4.7% improvement over year-ago....
The Camry is rated 25/35 I think. Yet it's a lot bigger, faster, heavier, etc. I'll be curious to see what kind of fuel economy it really gets, though. My uncle said he usually averaged 32-34 mpg with his Corolla. He used to do a lot of highway driving, but it was often rush-hour driving. So, stop-and-go on the interstate probably isn't that much different from "city/local" driving.
I drove his Corolla to Carlisle PA once, out of curiosity, to see what kind of economy it got, but also to see if I could tolerate living with something that small. I think I got about 37.6 mpg on that trip. Pretty good, but my old 2000 Intrepid would get around 30 mpg on that same run (I actually did 32.4 once when I tried to "hyper mile" it a bit), so I decided that the fuel economy savings wasn't enough to offset having to put up with something that small, cramped, and uncomfortable. Of course, in local driving, the Corolla would've done a lot better.
I wonder if my uncle's Camry will really get similar mpg to that old Corolla? It almost seems too good to be true, for something that big to be that efficient. But time, and technology, march on!
Interesting that you'd mention a 2008 Accord. A couple weeks ago, before he bought the Camry, I went looking at cars with my uncle. I was a bit miffed with my 2000 Park Ave, which I had just put in the shop for brake failure, and it had three other visits to the mechanic since last October, each one running about $1,000. Well, at the local Nissan dealer, I found a 2009 Accord EX-L, 4-cyl, that looked pretty nice. I was a bit tempted...
I just looked it up, and a new Accord gets slightly better mpg than a 2003 Civic. That's especially impressive given that the 03 Civic has a 1.7 liter engine, while the new Accord is at 2.4.
Sorry you've had trouble with your Park Avenue. The 2009 Accord would be smaller, but how did it compare in terms of interior room with the PA? That generation was the height of bloat for the Accord, getting positively bulbous. And in the interior my 2008 EXL Accord even has plood! I like the looks of the plood with the blond interior, but it does seem like a sign Honda might have lost its way a little with that generation. What was the price of that 2009 EXL?
A better choice for you imho would be a new 2013 LX CVT. It has a lot previously lux features standard, like bluetooth, alloy wheels, back up camera, etc. Looking up the epa ratings of a supercharged Park Avenue from 2000, it looks like its rated 19 mpg combined on premium fuel. Compared to the 30 of an Accord the epa guesses you'd save $1300 a year on fuel, although I don't know if you drive that much. Anyway, I've read that you're lukewarm on the styling on the new Accord, but it's classic and inoffensive imho, and for c. $21000 with 1.9 financing from Honda it's a very good deal.
PS Andre, you are so good with numbers, I was wondering if you'd check my math on what's required for cars with a midsize footprint for 2012, 2017, 2021, and 2025. The numbers I came up with were 23, 27, 32, and 38. But I was just using a crude 30% discount. Earlier in this thread, I was rereading that somewhere you saw the raw numbers which, when matched with a particular car, could give a more exact rendering. For instance, I think the "raw" requirement for 2025 for midsize cars is about 54 mpg, but translated down I think you found a car that got that raw number that had a window sticker of 39. In other words, my number seems to be off by 1 mpg, which is not big but still something. I wonder if my other numbers are off by 1 mpg as well...
As for that Accord, the dealer still has it. Here's the link. They're asking around $15K, and it has about 51,000 miles on it.
As for the 2013 Accord, I don't mind its styling, but I just don't find it all that exciting. But in this class of car, there's really not much out there that DOES excite me. Based solely on styling, I think the Mazda 6 is the best of the bunch, followed by the Ford Fusion. I do think the Accord looks better than the Altima, Camry, Avenger, and 200 though. And maybe about on par with the Malibu, which I'm finally warming up to its style.
My biggest beef with the latest Accord was that the seats seemed a bit small, like they put compact car seats in a midsize to make it feel roomier. I don't know how the published specs play out, but the front seat felt like it had less legroom (but still adequate I guess) than the '08-12, while the back seat felt a bit roomier.
I don't really drive a whole lot these days, and have several cars to spread it across. The Park Ave had 56,372 miles on it when I bought it back in December 2009, and now has around 92,500. So that's panning out to around 840 miles per month, or around 10,000 per year. However, many of those miles were put on early on. So far this year, it's gone about 4200 miles, so I doubt if it'll even hit 8,000 by the time December 14 comes up, which will mark the 4-year anniversary of when I brought the Buick home.
Oh, as for those fuel economy numbers, yeah it's the raw, unadjusted average they use, and not the numbers published on the window sticker. And those numbers can be quite different. For example, my uncle's Camry was 25/35, 28 combined on the window sticker. But the raw numbers are 31.6214/49.530, 37.7663 combined, according to the Excel files that they let you download. The Camry LE hybrid is rated 43/39/41, but the raw numbers are 58.5/56.1/57.3951, so it already beats that 54.5 standard!
The Camry XLE has a 40 average on the window sticker, and the unadjusted average is 54.8331. So I'd imagine that for a car to hit that 54.5 average, its adjusted combined number would be around 39-40 mpg.
Indeed. But can a non-hybrid midsize sedan, with room and performance similar to a current model, get to 39 mpg combined by 2025? That does seem like a challenge, even with improving technology and design. But the "credit" buy downs, which are one of the big black wholes of the new regulatory regime, could seemingly allow companies to buy that down by c. 1-4 mpg. But that part is difficult to figure out.
In regard to the seats of the 2013 Accord, I think they are less bulky than the seats of the previous generation, but I think in terms of room for people they are about the same. Personally I like the 2013 seats a little better than the 08 seats. The 08 seats have slightly lower quality leather imho. The 13 seats have higher quality leather with perforations to help them breathe, and they do seem a bit better on hot days. The cloth seats in my parents 2013 LX Accord seemed fine. I actually prefer cloth seats, but to get nav. which we really like you have to get leather.
I think the answer lies as much in weight-saving and aerodynamics as it does in advanced engine design.
Given no supervision Americans would shoot every buffalo on the prairie and build Los Angeles :shades:
How little faith in one's fellow Americans. A typical elitist reponse.
Given no supervision Americans would shoot every buffalo on the prairie and build Los Angeles "
lol!+
By the way, you better start putting some money aside for your car purchases down the road because this regulation is going to noticeably impact the price of future vehicles (think back to the price impacts in the 70's of government regulations and rules imposed on the automotive industry). The government historically ignores, or vastly under estimates regulatory cost impacts.
You make some good points here.
But flawed though it is, I think it's better than nothing. We'll agree to disagree.
Engineers all over the world are working on figuring out how to make this work. And so far they are succeeding. Even if gas prices fall temporarily they'll keep working on it, which is big reason for this.
So far the costs aren't large. Adjusted for inflation a new Mazda6, Nissan Altima or Honda Accord, all of which are next gen cars that get 30 or more mpg, cost about the same as the earlier models of cars from 5 years ago when adjusted for inflation.
Yeah, it's the Nanny state and it's flawed and problematic. But sometimes imho it works.
I grew up in Orange County near LA in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The smog in LA in those days was terrible. It was as bad as smog in big cities in China today! People with asthma and allergies, like me, suffered, and some people died sooner than they had to. Cars were a big part of the problem. But the gov't Nanny state started working on this problem in the mid-1960s. By the mid 1980s, cars were producing something like 90% less smog than they had just 20 years earlier. Without gov't regs it never would have happened.
Today, with about twice the population than when I was growing up, and about three times the number of cars, the air in LA and other cities across the country is dramatically cleaner, and all because of these smog regs. I'm grateful, even though I live in KY now and only visit So. Cal once in a while.
RE: Car Safety. Most cars were death traps up until the late 1960s. Here's a video of the IIHS crashing a 1959 Bonneville (a huge car) with a smaller 2009 Malibu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g
1.2 million views of this, which is again an example of the Nanny state, with all its flaws and costs, saving lives.
The fatality rate on US highways per mile driven has fallen by c. 80% since the 1960s. Not all of this is gov't regs, but a large part of it is. Some of it is the IIHS, an insurance industry group that tries to save its clients money by saving lives and injuries so that they don't pay out as much. Capitalism at work. And it works.
Here's a non-partisan scientifically-based source, Consumer's Union, on the new CAFE. This is just first three paragraphs.
http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FuelEconomyStandards.pdf
Executive summary
New vehicle fuel efficiency and emission standards – the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for model years 2017-2025 – will save consumers thousands of dollars over the lifetime of new cars and trucks, while also cutting back on pollution, creating jobs, and reducing our dependence on oil.
As a result of CAFE standards, our analysis shows consumer can expect to save about $7,300 in fuel costs and a net savings of over $4,600 over the lifetime of new vehicles. The estimated cost increase for new light-duty vehicles to meet the 2025 standard is less than $2,000; small increases for financing, taxes, and maintenance are also factored into the net savings. Since improved efficiency will save about $700 every year at the gas pump, the increased vehicle price pays for itself in about three years. If financed with a car loan (as most purchases are), consumers begin saving the very first month of ownership as the gas savings outweigh the increased CAFE-related loan costs, and increase their savings over the life of the car.
By driving more fuel-efficient cars, Americans will save approximately 30 billion gallons of gasoline each year by 2025. The net benefits, compared to the previously enacted standards for 2016, have been estimated between $326 billion and $451 billion over the lifetime of the new vehicles. Moreover, most evaluations of the new CAFE standards have relied on conservative estimates of gas prices; the EPA/NHTSA projections assume that consumers will pay $3.87 by 2025, with only small increases in most years of the vehicle’s lifetime. At higher prices, consumers would save more money....
Union and Japan are even more aggressive than the new CAFE standards (ICCT
2012). For the U.S. car industry to remain competitive, it will have to compete on
fuel economy globally. According to Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford, “in the last few
years, fuel efficiency has become the number one reason to buy.”22 Fuel economy
improvements have been coupled with other advances in technology that have
enhanced features and improved performance. Raising fuel economy standards
provides certainty and reduces risk for automakers to increase investments in
efficient technologies and forge new partnerships that will deliver greater value to
consumers.
• Job impacts: When consumers save money on gasoline, they shift more of their
spending to more labor-intensive goods and services, including goods made in
the U.S. that would have gone towards oil, much of which is produced overseas
and employs fewer people per dollar spent than other goods and services..."
50+ mpg is a lie. You can blame that on Congress. Maybe you can also blame mind-numbing bureaucracy. Or maybe blame the car companies who want to claim and complain about 50+ mpg.
The gov't doesn't require 50+mpg as a fleet average for the EPA window stickers, and it won't happen.
The real number is more like 39.
But there are credits to "buy down" even that.
And so the real number might be as low as 36.
Cars that get 36 mpg? You can almost get there with today's tech. Spend a few hundred billion on R & D and you've got it.
Even that's a fleet average. If you want a big and powerful car, it will still be available. A 2 liter supercharged 4 cylinder today produces more power than most big 8 cylinder engines from 1990.
but there are credits to "buy down" even that.
And so the real number might be as low as 36.
Interesting. I guess this is another example of why Americans no longer trust what they hear out of Washington. I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, I just disagree that it requires more bureaucracy and regulation. If fuel economy is the number one sales driver, then I'm pretty sure it will be an industry priority, with or without more govt regulation. There is no oil shortage, just refinery limitations. If this drives gas prices down it could help the economy, but Wall Street derivatives and the like may well limit the price effect because speculation is rampant. Maybe that is where Obama and congress should be investing their effort. Oh wait, Wall Street is a huge source of campaign contributions and lobbyist payola.
But, better late than never. The new standards are pretty weak for the next 5 years. Starting in c. 2018 they become significant. Even in 2025, according to Edmunds itself, this is what it equals overall:
"The 54.5-mpg average for fuel efficiency among new vehicles that the Obama administration is proposing for 2025 will really be somewhere down around 36-38 mpg in real-world terms."
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ra- - - - tings.html
I wonder what "fleet" averages are for India, China, and Russia.
CAFE=EPA window sticker combined mpg
2012: 24.8=19
2017: 28.3=22
2021: 32.1=24
2025: 38.6=28
The 2014 Odyssey already gets a combined mpg rating of 22 mpg, and so it already meets the standard for 2017. This is a fairly massive vehicle weighing about 4,400 pounds in base LX form. The top-of-the-line Touring Elite weighs about 4,600 lbs. It has a 3.5 liter V-6 that produces 248 hp. It does have variable cylinder management and a 6 speed auto, but doesn't have direct injection.
This generation of Odyssey was introduced in model year 2010, and seems to be on a six year design cycle for a full model change-over. And so the next all-new Odyssey will likely appear in about 2 years in the fall of 2015 as a 2016 model. If the next generation shrinks just a little (an inch or so in length, width, and height?) it might lose 10% of its rather massive weight, although it would still weigh a very significant c. 4000 lbs. And then perhaps a smaller 3 liter V-6 could do the job, which would maybe give it an EPA rating of 25 or so? If so, it would already be beyond the standard for 2021.
The next generation after that, if the 6 year model cycle holds, would be due for model year 2022. That's the one where Honda might try to get the mpg up to the 2025 standard of 28 mpg, that is if it doesn't use its credits to "buy down" the standard....
You can imagine that in every major car company's design and engineering centers they are putting those CAFE mpg numbers as one of the first goals of the next generation of whatever vehicle it might be. And as we've seen with Mazda's Skyactiv program, this can involve the redesign for greater efficiency of even the a vehicle's smallest and seemingly insignificant component. But slowly a tenth of an mpg here, and a half of an mpg there, and soon you're looking at some real improvements. Longer exhaust manifold, direct injection, higher compression, reducing friction, etc. Here's one of Mazda's Skyactiv videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-EEbMxAho0
Similar things are almost certainly happening at other car companies.
A Bonneville would have been around 300-400 lb heavier most likely, although I don't know if the results would have been that much different.
Those wasp-waisted X-frame GM cars did poorly in accidents, not only from the side, but in head-on hits as well. I have a feeling a Ford or Plymouth would have held up much better, however, the occupants probably would have been just as dead from hitting the steering wheel or some other hard spot in the car. Chrysler mounted the steering box much further back from the front of the car than GM did (not sure about Ford), so at least you may not have as much steering wheel intrusion in a Plymouth. But still, by today's standards any of those cars would be death traps.
CAFE=EPA sticker combined
2012: 34.6=26
2017: 41.7=31
2021: 48.6=36
2025: 58.4=41
The 2013 Civic gets an epa rated 32 combined, and so it's already past the goal for 2017. And this Civic doesn't even have the Earth Dreams engine and transmission yet (rumors at vtec.net say they might be coming as soon as 2014). The 2014 Mazda3 Skyactiv is rated at 33 mpg, and so it's future proofed through c. 2019, by which time the next generation should be out.
Getting to the 2021 standard without hybrid tech does seem tough, but probably doable. Maybe with a 3 cylinder 1 liter turbo, like Ford has already developed?
The 41 mpg standard seems right now like it would need some kind of mild hybrid. But if they get close they can just buy down the standard with their credits of various kinds.
Before the Quest we had an '89 Voyager for ten years. It got 19 lifetime.
So I gained 2.5 mpg updating.
If I got a new Quest today, I'm really looking at staying flat on my gas usage, even though another decade has come and gone. 21 combined EPA (although with the exception of the Voyager, we typically beat EPA by a mile or three). The Odyssey comes in at 22, the Sienna at 21, the Town and Country/Grand Caravan 20, and Sedona 20.
Bigger, more bells and whistles, but pretty pitiful on the mpg front.
The star is the Mazda5 with 24 combined. Even comes available with a manual transmission. Unfortunately my wife didn't like it when I sent her to test drive one a few years ago. When we trade, I'll suggest we check out the new ones.
I owned a 2010 Mazda5 until a few months ago, when I traded it in on our 2013 Accord. I wasn't leasing, and so obviously I didn't like it that much to trade it in so soon.
It did have positives, such as the slick shifting manual and great (for a small minivan) handling.
But it has drawbacks as well. First, it's a lot smaller than other minivans. That means the third row seat seems like a joke to most people. Small kids can fit ok, but many adults would feel it was punishment. And then the cargo area behind the third row seats, which in most minivans is fairly big, has about enough room for 2 grocery bags. We fixed that problem with a Mazda-approved aftermarket luggage rack and luggage bubble, but....
Then there's the mpg. Compared to the Honda it's an improvement, but not a big one considering that it's a much smaller vehicle. Here are some comparisons:
Mazda5 Odyssey
length: 180.5 202.9
width: 68.9 79.2
height: 63.6 68.4
weight: 3417 4396
So they are really different classes of minivan. The Mazda5 is a mini-minivan, for lack of a better term. Microvan? That is reflected in the interior room:
Mazda5 Odyssey
Legroom, 3rd row 30.5 42.4
cargo w/3rd row dwn 44.4 93.1
cargo max 172.6 97.7
As you can see, the Odyssey has a whole foot more of legroom in the far back, and the Odyssey has as much cargo space while carrying 4 passengers as the Mazda5 has carrying two.
The Mazda5 can hold a max of 6 people, and that's really squeezing. The Odyssey EX and above can hold 8 people much more comfortably, plus a good amount of luggage.
Fully loaded, the Mazda5 struggles to accelerate adequately. The Odyssey with its big V-6 engine never lacks for power, even with stuff on the roof rack.
Given that, the fact that they are both rated 28 mpg on the hwy makes the Mazda5 even less impressive.
Plus the Mazda5 has big blind spots in the back, which drove me mad. The far back window behind the driver has such thick pillars that it's not really useful.
In another year or so Mazda will give the 5 the Skyactiv treatment, and then it should get impressive mpg. I'd wait at least until then if I were you. But really, I think the Quest or Odyssey might be a better option.
Hope to drive the Quest another year or two. I can buy a lot of gas for what one year of depreciation on a new car is going to cost me. :shades:
The strong resale values worked in his favor, but (of course) he still lost money on it.
But, I don't think it is driven overly much, since it still has the tires I put on it back in April of 2009 before our cross-country trip, and they look like they're probably at 50% tread life. If my prior set of those tires is any indication, they should go 70,000 miles, and I put about 20 on them, so I doubt the van has more than 230/235K miles at this point.
Fun to see my old nags still kicking! I care for them well, so that definitely gives them a leg up for the next owner.
Oh, and I guess I should note that this van, also a 1998 like Steve's Quest, pulled down 18-20 consistently around town, and approximately 24 (sometimes as high as 26 at ~60mph if I wasn't loaded down with people/things) on the highway.... and that with AWD. A good van; really a shame that they did away with the AWD option for the 2005 MY.
At the rate minivans are going, we'll be lucky to even have a Chrysler/Dodge with sliding doors in the near future. The Routan is going fleet only for 2014.
Although you're right the original sticker of your 1999 Quest said 21 mpg combined, those ratings were retroactively reduced in the 2007 EPA revision to 18 combined. And so a new 2013 Quest, which gets 21, is an increase of 3 mpg over what you've now got. Since you tend to do better than the ratings, you would probably get more like 23-24, which still isn't very impressive, but is a bit of a jump....
Next thing you know, they'll massage the numbers so that the current fleet magically meets the 2020 standards.