# What is good MPG?



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

I keep seeing posts where people recommend this or that vehicle and say it gets "good mpg" when you would be lucky to get in the mid-twenty highway mpg with that particular vehicle.

I don't consider acceptable mpg to start until you get at least 30 mpg highway and its not "good" until you hit the high 30's or low 40's mpg? We have one vehicle that gets mid-twenties highway mpg and I consider it a pig reserved for short hauls or when there is a need to transport cargo. The 42 mph highway vehicle gets the most use.

What is your take on what constitutes "good mpg?"


----------



## G-VegasMTBiker (Apr 15, 2006)

I get a Combined average of 30 during the entire week. When I drive more highway I get closer to 35. Granted its all relative for some people, my buddy get 20 highway in is 5.0 explorer and he's pretty happy with that.


----------



## Crack Monkey (Sep 25, 2006)

Depends on the vehicle.

Anything near 20mpg combined is good for a full-size truck.
But, for a sub-compact, I'd want 30mph+ combined, preferably closer to 35mpg.


----------



## slowride (Jan 13, 2004)

I used to drive a Civic that got ~29-32 mpg in my daily commute, which includes both city and highway driving. I considered that good, higher than that would be awesome.

Unfortunately I am now driving a Buick Regal that seems to be averaging about 23 in the same commute cycle. But, considering that I paid $3500 for the Regal with 14,000 miles on it, from a financial standpoint, I would need a vehicle with much higher than 30 mpg average to make it worthwhile. Obviously that number goes down as gas prices go up.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

Good fuel economy is 12 MPT. That is 12 miles of bike riding work per taco. Bike commute and burn no oil, spair the air, save money, and get in racin' shape.

If you really have to burn that foreign oil, then anything over 60 MPG is good in my book, but 100 MPGe (equal energy should be the goal, like the Automotive X-Prize. Electric Cars can do 100 MPGe without much difficulty.


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

I agree with Crack Monkey, "good" depends on the vehicle. 

"Good" in my old S10 was 30 mpg, bad was 25. 
"Good" in my Jeep is 17 mpg, bad is 14. 
"Good" in my Malibu is 33 mpg, bad is 28. 
"Good" on my CB650SC was 48 mpg, bad was 40. 

As for biking to work, I wish I could. Depending which customer location I am going to my commute is 86-102 miles one-way, each and every day. I hate it. I long for a few years ago when I lived a massive 0.6 miles from work. In the time it would take to melt the previous night's ice-storm remnents off the windshield I could just walk to work.

12 MPT? I'm lucky to get 1.2 MPT before needing a restroom. I prefer sandwiches or salads.


----------



## WorldWind (Oct 31, 2006)

Asking ‘what is good mileage’ is like asking how long is a short ride.

Do you mean ‘What is the average MPG of all the cars on the road + 1 MPG?’

Or do you mean ‘What MPG should I expect from a vehicle that can carry 6 bikes and riders and keep up with traffic over the Cajon Pass.’

Or do you mean ‘What is the best MPG possible for a subcompact hybrid that can carry one bike and still have room for a helmet and off road shoes?’


----------



## paranoid56 (Jul 26, 2007)

subaru wagon wrx, 
good =30mpg
bad =15mpg (usually what i get in down, i do love that go pedal)


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

BAD: Honda Insight burning rubber smoking Prii -- 53 MPG


----------



## PCC (Sep 5, 2005)

It's all relative. I like getting 33 MPG on the highway while having 200 HP at my disposal. I like the huge trunk space or the four passenger seating (plus the driver). I really like my '06 Jetta GLI.

My previous car was a '98 Jetta TDI. By comparison, it was quite spartan compared to my GLI but it handled well, was comfortable to drive long distances, was just a little smaller in all dimensions than my GLI is but it got 40 MPG despite me driving with a heavy right foot. Had I driven it easier I could have easily have averaged 45 or more MPG. It was an excellent car that carried three passengers around rather frugally and it did it reliably until I wrecked it.


----------



## GetDirty (Jul 12, 2006)

In general I think 35mpg is great, 30 would be good.

In my Jeep, 15mpg is good, 17mpg is great.


----------



## f2f4 (Aug 10, 2007)

My PT gets ~26 MPG combined, which some would consider good, but to me anything under 30 is bad.
I bought it because I was able to get a very good price for it with next to no miles (used of course), and because I wanted something that could haul a lot of stuff (bikes, gear, people, whatever) without the mileage cons of an SUV and still have something that's fun to drive when not hauling stuff.

My next car will be 35 minimum (although it will be awhile before I get my next one [hopefully], so hopefully it will be higher).

Self-righteous note: I ride to work and to eat.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

>30mpg before I discovered turbo cars.

Now I'm hitting boost as often as I can and am happy if I break 20mpg. I'm sorry, it's just too much fun to drive really really fast.


----------



## Nocturnus (Mar 28, 2005)

My Malibu gets ~30ish or so mixed driving. My Firebird got around 13-14mpg.


----------



## bmateo (Jan 13, 2004)

Like others said, it's all meaningless unless you have context:

What kind of car?
What kind of driver?
What kind of roads?
What location (L.A. vs Rural)?


For me, I think 35+ is acceptable on my next car, and I'd like to realistically achieve 40 on a regular basis. I live in a very rural setting, my commute is about 75 miles round trip, and is mostly country roads (60mph average) with about 15% in a city environment, at off-rush-hour times.

I currently have a 93 Integra with 210k on it, and I get 28-29 regularly, 30-32 if I really focus on conserving. The car needs to go because it's in pathetic shape, but I'm looking at a Fit or Matrix/Vibe or Civic for my next car, and I expect to get "near 40" or better in the same conditions.


It's all relative, but for me "good" MPG is 35+ on a car that can haul bikes and passengers, and 40+ would be even better.


----------



## Crack Monkey (Sep 25, 2006)

Killroy said:


> ... 12 MPT... spair the air


If I fueled my bike commute with tacos, my coworkers would disagree with your assertion.


----------



## kristian (Jan 20, 2004)

Good for a car: 59.0mpg--my best tank average in the Civic Hybrid. 
Good for a small SUV: 34.6mpg--my best tank average in the Mariner Hybrid. 

I hope to beat both of these tanks this summer though once temps get warm again and now that the cars are both broken in a little more. The lifetime on the Civic is 49.7mpg and the Mariner is only 27.0. The Mariner has had a "hard" life though since my wife only makes short trips in it (tele-commuter). 

Good mileage (or better mileage at least) is possible in any car. Inflate your tires up to the maximum, drive without your brakes (meaning anticipate traffic and conserve momentum), avoid sudden acceleration, and slow down by 10mph and you will see a 20% plus improvement. At $2.00 a gallon it might not be "worth the trouble" for the average person, but at $3.50/g the numbers start to add up. A 20% improvement on a 20mpg car would equal about $350 in annual savings...


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

kristian said:


> Good mileage (or better mileage at least) is possible in any car. Inflate your tires up to the maximum, ...


This is one thing I don't agree with, from a safety standpoint. Tire pressure should be based on total weight of the vehicle and load. Just airing up to the max reduces contact patch and can affect safety (stopping and cornering). Now, this probably isn't an issue with 90% of the vehicles out there that run P series tires (compared to LT's), so it mostly applies to trucks/SUVs.

I've had the frieghtening first hand experience of a tire shop mounting up some big tires on my old Toyota (stripped down truck, very light). Off course they filled them to the max 65 psi. I figured no biggy, I'll deal with it when I got home. Had to make a fairly fast stop in the conga-line of cars on the way home. Locked up the tires with no effort and almost slid into the car in front of me. After finding that the "ideal" pressure was more around 15 psi (big load range D tires on a very light truck, they didn't even look low until 6-7 psi) I felt like I could pull a stoppie on the same road.

My dad had a simular expeience with his old truck. Tire shop figured if the sidewall says 85 psi then that's what should be in em. The tires had a semi-crowned tread as well, so most bicycles probably have more contact patch. I think 35 psi was his compromise between rolling resistance and stopping ability when unloaded. Add more air when adding weight

Not trying to bash or anything, just throwing my opinion out there.


----------



## medieval (Oct 7, 2007)

"Good" for 2000 Honda Insight - 72 MPG (great is 80.2 so far)
Perfect for commuting, but I can't fit my FS bike in the back. 

"Good" for 2007 Honda Odyssey - 21 MPG
Used only for family excursions, hauling stuff.

I would say that good for the average car is somewhere in the high 30's right now. The Prius is about the only efficient "bike friendly" car that I've seen out there. I sure wish Honda would get to work on a hybrid hatchback to challenge Toyota's monopoly. The HCH wagon is way overdue.


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)

Good in my '84 Mustang is somewhere around the 10-12mpg range. Bad is 5-7mpg. Gotta love gool ole poorly tuned carburated V8's. Can't wait to take this thing off the road. Daily driving the car is killing me financially (usually fill it up with $34 of premium every 4-5 days depending on mileage).


My goal is to get into a small SUV or large hatchback/wagon that gets low 20's city and high 20's highway on 87 octane. I'd consider that good...particularly compared to what I drive everyday.


----------



## mercury89 (Jul 16, 2007)

Good for me is over 14, bad is 9. But bad only happens when towing fast in the mountains.
1994 Full Size Chevy, 5.7, lifted on 33's.
This is my daily driver, I only drive about 200 miles a week tho.

Never had a car that got consistently over 20. 
Had a 1989 Jeep Cherokee but that wasnt much better.


----------



## tomk96 (Nov 10, 2004)

mercury89 said:


> This is my daily driver, I only drive about 200 miles a week tho.


that's 10k miles a year and pretty close to avg for everybody


----------



## spazzy (Aug 15, 2004)

it all depends on what you drive, ive gotten up to 29 in my 8 year old chevy blazer (hwy speed with a big nice old tailwind  and i think thats pretty dam good (average around 23-24 hwy) and i dont even wanna know the city lol granted i think everyone wants more mpg but i like the extra room and the fact that its a 4x4 so ill pay alittle more at the pump to be able to drive in 3 feet of snow and throw a buncha stuff in


----------



## sithlord3 (Aug 12, 2007)

*.*

My 2005 Grand Cherokee has never seen better than 19 on the highway.....its usually more like 18.4.....I havent even bothered to look at city lately, but im sure its in the high 16 low 17 area...oh yea..Im currently driving about 50 miles round trip a day for work:thumbsup:


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

I'm surprised people are being so honest about there less that spectacular fuel economy.

I can't even imagine less than 20 mpg anymore. I preform my money in my pocket not in the pocket of a someone in the big sand box.


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

Killroy said:


> I'm suprised people are being so honest about there less that spectarular fuel economy.


Why should we not be honest about ou fuel economy? Are we to be embarassed about it?


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

adam728 said:


> Why should we not be honest about our fuel economy? Are we to be embarrassed about it?


When the dollar was stronger and oil was more affordable, it was not such a big deal to have a 13 mpg. But not it is not such a good Idea financially, environmentally, and for the energy security of the US.

Mr. Firebird said that he was getting 13-14 mpg, well if he lives 15 miles from work and his gas cost $2.85/gal, his monthly cost to JUST fuel his car is ~$183.

If you use AAA's $.53/mile total vehicle cost, that is a ~$307 / month. Most people don't know this.


----------



## GetDirty (Jul 12, 2006)

I got a new high of 16mpg out of my last tank in my 1992 4.0 Cherokee. All interstate driving at 80mph.

If I had to drive to work, it may bother me, but because I work at an underground mine that is pretty secluded, we have to ride a coach bus to the site (good neighbor policy).


----------



## WolverineGator (Feb 26, 2004)

*"Good" is relative...*

but everyone can do better. Common sense things like don't carry extra weight around (empty the trunk), don't race to every stop light, avoid unnecessary idling, etc. Mild hypermiling techniques can produce good results. I coast in neutral, try to time the lights, inflate my tires to sidewall max (no uneven wear after 25k), and try to keep my top speed down.

In my Mazda3 hatch, my personal best is 40mpg and lifetime average is about 34mpg compared to the EPAs estimates of 25city/32hwy. Given my "good" results I think anything less than 35mpg is bad.


----------



## TrikeKid (Sep 1, 2006)

IMo 17-18 for a full size truck or 4x4 mini truck (my lifted toyota pickup gets about 17). For a 2wd mid/small truck I say 25-26 is plenty good, same for a station wagon of any size. Small, non performance cars 30 plus is reasonable. If I could find someone to trade my 4x4 yota for a 2wd I would do it in a heart beat.


----------



## urinal mint (Mar 31, 2008)

Good mpg. Just under over 1mpg better than a few weeks before when the temps were about 20 degrees higher.

Good mpg especially because it was some spectacularly fun driving.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

*What Vehicle Type?*

Many types of vehicles are made for many purposes and needs. You can't expect them all to use the same amount of gas.

Highway MPG used here for reference.Most vehicles of each type don't yet do as well as I guestimate is good.

Motorcyle: 60 MPG
Hybrid: 50 MPG
Small Car: 40 MPG
Family Sedan: 30 MPG
Large Minivan/Crossover: 25 MPG
Large SUV: 20 MPG
Semi Truck: 6 MPG
City Bus: 5 MPG
M-1 Tank: 0.3 MPG


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

BigLarry said:


> Many types of vehicles are made for many purposes and needs. You can't expect them all to use the same amount of gas.
> 
> Highway MPG used here for reference.Most vehicles of each type don't yet do as well as I guestimate is good.
> 
> ...


Only a hybrid bus could get 15 MPG and that is till high. A regular bus is ~4 MPG. The M-1 tank uses more like 4 GALLONS per Mile (GPM).


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Killroy said:


> Only a hybrid bus could get 15 MPG and that is till high. A regular bus is ~4 MPG. The M-1 tank uses more like 4 GALLONS per Mile (GPM).


I fixed it to be more reasonable, and also lowered the semi-tractor MPG. Those were wild guesses on my part - I just made sure to over-estimate since the question was "what is good MPG".


----------



## BKnight (Mar 27, 2005)

And then you look at merchant ships, fuel consumption is measured in tons per day


----------



## tls36 (Dec 10, 2005)

We have been scammed on MPG. My 1988 Honda CRX HF routinely cranked out 60 mpg highway - no electric motor, normally aspirated engine. Years later in 1994 they made a Civic VX that got 62 mpg highway. Now the manufacturers purposefully make the gas powered engines less efficient and have us believing 40 mpg is good. The reality is they can sell "hybrid" cars that make the greenies happy and supposedly make us feel warm and fuzzy inside so we feel better about ourselves???? The bottom line is they know suckers will spend roughly double for a "hybrid" and the manufacturers are getting rich. The Prius still doesn't match my old CRX or the Civic VX for MPG, BTW these vehicles were roughly half the price to buy new than the new Prius. That is not to say the Prius is not a nice car, but no mileage champ.


----------



## keylay (Nov 14, 2006)

I think if I had if my Tacoma got 25 MPG it would be good. I get 20 MPG now, so a good statement would be:
Gas mileage > previous gas milegage = good


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

tls36 said:


> We have been scammed on MPG. My 1988 Honda CRX HF routinely cranked out 60 mpg highway - no electric motor, normally aspirated engine. Years later in 1994 they made a Civic VX that got 62 mpg highway. *Now the manufacturers purposefully make the gas powered engines less efficient and have us believing 40 mpg is good.* The reality is they can sell "hybrid" cars that make the greenies happy and supposedly make us feel warm and fuzzy inside so we feel better about ourselves???? The bottom line is they know suckers will spend roughly double for a "hybrid" and the manufacturers are getting rich. The Prius still doesn't match my old CRX or the Civic VX for MPG, BTW these vehicles were roughly half the price to buy new than the new Prius. That is not to say the Prius is not a nice car, but no mileage champ.


Although I have my doubts about the 60+ mpg you are claiming, you also have to look at things this way.


People now think they "need" 200+ hp, interior space galore, and every electro-gizmo and do-dad that can be stuffed into a car. 
There are lots of older small cars that can pull good mileage numbers (well into the 40's). The problem is that no one today is willing to accept driving something with 55 hp, no power accessories, and not enough interior space to fit a half dozen 300 pound people in comfortably. 
The majority of people want to do zero-to-sixty in 7 seconds and have passing power to spare at 80 mph on the freeway.
Everything just seems to be getting bigger and bigger, but people and magazinw reviews all seem to praise it. Look at the Tacoma, and how it's grown up. And the S-10 that became the larger Canyon. Or the Jetta & Passat, and the list goes on. Everything seems to be getting bigger, heavier, more powerful. All things that go against mileage. 
 I don't agree with it, but it's what the general public thinks they need (and what automakers build/push).

It's not that they manufacturers have a secret engine that gets double the mileage, it's just that all the cars on the road, even the "small" cars, are much larger than before!

I put your one statement in *bold*. I've heard this one 100 times before. Now tell me, what do the manufacturers have to gain from this? If they made very effiecient cars they would stand to sell even more and make more money. The problem is they can't build them because of all the reasons I listed above.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

tls36 said:


> We have been scammed on MPG. My 1988 Honda CRX HF routinely cranked out 60 mpg highway - no electric motor, normally aspirated engine. Years later in 1994 they made a Civic VX that got 62 mpg highway. Now the manufacturers purposefully make the gas powered engines less efficient and have us believing 40 mpg is good. The reality is they can sell "hybrid" cars that make the greenies happy and supposedly make us feel warm and fuzzy inside so we feel better about ourselves???? The bottom line is they know suckers will spend roughly double for a "hybrid" and the manufacturers are getting rich. The Prius still doesn't match my old CRX or the Civic VX for MPG, BTW these vehicles were roughly half the price to buy new than the new Prius. That is not to say the Prius is not a nice car, but no mileage champ.


Good points. By down sizing the car capacity and engine power, one can save money on the vehicle and fuel costs without a hybrid. But people some often need bigger cars, like me with a family of 5 large people.

The worst is that Americans have become addicted to way more power than they really need. I think it's because gas is so cheap compared to other contries. I remember when most small cars had less than 90 HP, now it's 140 HP or more. In 1988, a 0-60 time of 12 seconds was considered speedy. Now auto reviewers complain that a family car is too slow because it only gets a 0-60 time of 8 seconds. We're our own worst enemy with our greed for speed.

For example, a four door 2008 Ford Focus has 140 HP and gets 35 MPG highway on the new fuel economy standards. By comparison, the Honda CRX HF gets 47 MPG on the same new standard. (Many can exceed the new standard in practice, with very careful driving at lower speeds.)

There's been a lot of improvement in engine efficiency over the years, but it's gone into driving larger cars and excessive power.

EDIT: Funny - I see that adam728 said pretty much exactly the same thing as me, at the same time.


----------



## BKnight (Mar 27, 2005)

My buddy just got a Mercedes E320 diesel that gets around 35 mpg, plenty of room, comfortable, great power. so decent mpg is ascertainable with out being a 'little' car.

Either way, I'm sticking to my jeep that get 12 mpg on a good day


----------



## GetDirty (Jul 12, 2006)

adam728 said:


> Although I have my doubts about the 60+ mpg you are claiming,


60mpg is an everyday thing with a HF CRX. My parents got 50mpg city with theirs. Combined it ended up being around 62mpg.
With a tiny engine, no power steering, no power brakes, no accesories (am/fm being only option), it didn't weigh much more than a go-cart. BTW- HF stands for high fuel economy.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

GetDirty said:


> 60mpg is an everyday thing with a HF CRX. My parents got 50mpg city with theirs. Combined it ended up being around 62mpg.
> With a tiny engine, no power steering, no power brakes, no accesories (am/fm being only option), it didn't weigh much more than a go-cart. BTW- HF stands for high fuel economy.


Almost a motorcycle with four wheels. BTW, what's the HP and 0 to 60 acceleration on that thing? I couldn't find that anywhere.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

BigLarry said:


> I fixed it to be more reasonable, and also lowered the semi-tractor MPG. Those were wild guesses on my part - I just made sure to over-estimate since the question was "what is good MPG".


I was off also. The M1 Abrams Tank gets 1/3 MPG or 3 gallons per mile with its powerful turbine engine. http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm

According to the link, the turbine is very powerful, but it consumes 3 times as much fuel as a regular diesel engine and has other drawbacks.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

tls36 said:


> We have been scammed on MPG. My 1988 Honda CRX HF routinely cranked out 60 mpg highway - no electric motor, normally aspirated engine. Years later in 1994 they made a Civic VX that got 62 mpg highway. Now the manufacturers purposefully make the gas powered engines less efficient and have us believing 40 mpg is good. The reality is they can sell "hybrid" cars that make the greenies happy and supposedly make us feel warm and fuzzy inside so we feel better about ourselves???? The bottom line is they know suckers will spend roughly double for a "hybrid" and the manufacturers are getting rich. The Prius still doesn't match my old CRX or the Civic VX for MPG, BTW these vehicles were roughly half the price to buy new than the new Prius. That is not to say the Prius is not a nice car, but no mileage champ.


tls36, your MPG numbers are a little on the high side, you must be a good hypermiler. :thumbsup:


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

adam728 said:


> The problem is that no one today is willing to accept driving something with 55 hp, no power accessories, and not enough interior space to fit a half dozen 300 pound people in comfortably.
> [*]Everything just seems to be getting bigger and bigger, but people and magazinw reviews all seem to praise it. Look at the Tacoma, and how it's grown up. And the S-10 that became the larger Canyon. Or the Jetta & Passat, and the list goes on. Everything seems to be getting bigger, heavier, more powerful. All things that go against mileage.
> [*] I don't agree with it, but it's what the general public thinks they need (and what automakers build/push).
> [/list]
> ...


You nailed it on the head. The size of cars -- and thereby the weight, and other fuel economy sucking features have crept over time. If you look at the physics of power consumption, weight is the most important variable. Make the car light and it will get good MPG. This happened because in the trade study of all the qualities of a vehicle, MPG was put at a low priority, while features, safety, size, seats, image where given high priority and consumers bought right into the car companies marketing. "This is what YOU NEED". I have noticed that a lot of people still think the need these things.

I also disagree with some of your post. The Honda Insight, which I own, gets ~55-73 MPG depending on how you drive it, is faster than the Jetta TDI Diesel, is 2 seconds faster than the Prius at 10 seconds 0-60 MPH , top speed 110-120 MPH, is roomy with lots of head room for the 2 seats that it has, and it has enough room to fit a bike insight the hatch, safe and secure. It also has all of the regular power accessories including AC, CARB SULEV II emissions rating, two air bags and a good safety rating.

I don't thin the CRX -Ancient and the CIVIC - OLD! have these states, but they get you from point A to point B


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

my brother just got a 65 mini cooper from britain(right side drive) that only weighs 980lbs. i cant wait to see its MPG.


----------



## bgredjeep (Dec 25, 2006)

I've seen a best tank of just over 21mpg in my 05 Ram 2500 CTD. Regular city driving is around 16mpg. Pretty good for an 8000 lb truck that can roll 75mph in cruise control w/ 7000 lbs of Jeep and trailer in tow w/o breaking a sweat. Once I get a little closer to the end of the warranty its getting the full Banks treatment which should turn out some better fuel economy numbers, if I can keep my foot out of the 450hp 900ft/lb motor that is..


----------



## BKnight (Mar 27, 2005)

Our f350 turbo deisel got around 24 on its best tank. pulling our 24' boat it gets around 12-14 which isn't bad

lets see some pics of the ram and the jeep


----------



## nagatahawk (Jun 20, 2007)

Seem as though mpg is the hot topic now that gas prices are at $4 per gallon.
I moved from a BMW 3 series 5m to a Matrix XRS 6m. Bmw go combined 21mpg. 30 highway. I drive normal, floor it once and a while and jet thru traffic. the Matrix gets 24/25 city only using 1 thru 4 gears only. I drove frwy on day last week to get to the trail head and got a combined 27 mph. it probably would be in the 30 if I drove freeways more.

I also scanned a couple of auto forums to see what real world mpg owners were getting. for the View Green line Hybred, they were averaging around 21/22 combinded. high around 30 mpg. they were driving like a nurds. no air, coasting no idle etc. the Honda fit was low 20 for the automatic car. a couple of manual drivers were in the 30 combined.

although my Matrix gets equal or better than most mpg, the difference is the manual tranny. the automatice suck up the gas.

check out edmunds.com forums under the real world mileage threads for you fav car.


----------



## bgredjeep (Dec 25, 2006)

BKnight said:


> Our f350 turbo deisel got around 24 on its best tank. pulling our 24' boat it gets around 12-14 which isn't bad
> 
> lets see some pics of the ram and the jeep


I don't have any pics of the truck online. Just a plan old silver 2wd quad cab. Only changes have been tint and a bike rack in the bed.

Most of the driving on this one is slow paced so it may be closer to GPM based on actual distances I travel. It makes up for it with the great milage on the way to the trail


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

nagatahawk said:


> Seem as though mpg is the hot topic now that gas prices are at $4 per gallon.... ....the difference is the manual tranny. the automatice suck up the gas.


AAA says in there operation cost report that operating the average small sedan for 15,000 miles cost $4,100 more that a mid-sized 4X4 SUV. I bet most SUV owners do realize where the money is going.

Automakers are improvement automatic transmission efficiency by increasing the numbers of gears from 3 to 4 all the way up to 7 and 8. The dual clutch transmission is the most efficient because they are in the manual layout, but automatic. The best think you could do is get rid of the transmission and the drive lines entirely. You can do this with a electric wheel motor, but the technology is still immature.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

For those people longing for the small, light cars of the past, remember that *generally speaking* the lightest cars have the highest death rates:

"Vehicle body style, size, and fatality risk: Important characteristics of vehicles that influence their driver death rates are type, body style, size, and weight. Within virtually every group of vehicles, the smaller and lighter models have the higher rates (see table). Among cars, for example, *the smallest two door models had the highest death rate at 190 per million vehicle years. This rate is more than twice as high as the average for all vehicles included in the study*."

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/03/15/sr4003.pdf


----------



## PCC (Sep 5, 2005)

BigLarry said:


> Almost a motorcycle with four wheels. BTW, what's the HP and 0 to 60 acceleration on that thing? I couldn't find that anywhere.


Just a guess, here:
HP = adequate
0 to 60 = eventually


----------



## Padre (Jan 6, 2004)

WorldWind said:


> Asking 'what is good mileage' is like asking how long is a short ride.
> 
> Do you mean 'What is the average MPG of all the cars on the road + 1 MPG?'
> 
> ...


3 excellent questions...


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

canuckjgc said:


> For those people longing for the small, light cars of the past, remember that *generally speaking* the lightest cars have the highest death rates:
> 
> "Vehicle body style, size, and fatality risk: Important characteristics of vehicles that influence their driver death rates are type, body style, size, and weight. Within virtually every group of vehicles, the smaller and lighter models have the higher rates (see table). Among cars, for example, *the smallest two door models had the highest death rate at 190 per million vehicle years. This rate is more than twice as high as the average for all vehicles included in the study*."
> 
> http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/03/15/sr4003.pdf


True, but there is a misconseption that SUVs are safer because of there size and weight. The fact is that you are more likely to die in a SUV because they are hard to manuver, larger and prone to roll over. PLUS- many SUVs kill there occupants because they do not have crush zones for impact absorption---there truck frames are so stiff that the vehicle does not crush, but the occupants do.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Killroy said:


> True, but there is a misconseption that SUVs are safer because of there size and weight. The fact is that you are more likely to die in a SUV because they are hard to manuver, larger and prone to roll over. PLUS- many SUVs kill there occupants because they do not have crush zones for impact absorption---there truck frames are so stiff that the vehicle does not crush, but the occupants do.


These days, 30% of fatalities are in SUV roll overs.

Worse, SUV drivers think the 4-wheel drive makes them safer in bad weather or poor traction. But the four wheel drive only helps them accelerate into trouble faster. SUVs are no better than any other car for turning or braking traction, and maybe even worse. Good tires are what really matters, the only reason SUVs have better traction. But you can get better mud&snow tires on any car.


----------



## urinal mint (Mar 31, 2008)

BigLarry said:


> SUVs are no better than _any_ other car for turning or braking traction, and maybe even worse.


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

In a relatively low friction environment, like in the snow, in the rain, at high speeds, etc. in other words when you are at, or near, the adhesion limits of the tires, many SUV's *with AWD* are indeed better in terms of "turning traction" than many other cars.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

urinal mint said:


> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
> 
> In a relatively low friction environment, like in the snow, in the rain, at high speeds, etc. in other words when you are at, or near, the adhesion limits of the tires, many SUV's *with AWD* are indeed better in terms of "turning traction" than many other cars.


...provided you are on the throttle. Are you on the throttle when you're sliding off the road?

Regarding good mpg... i get ~28 mpg combined in my 4wd 1990 subaru legacy. I would hope that in 20 years i could get something about the same size and price with awd that got better economy. I can't.


----------



## urinal mint (Mar 31, 2008)

scottzg said:


> ...provided you are on the throttle. Are you on the throttle when you're sliding off the road?


Key phrase:

"are at, or near, the adhesion limits of the tires"

Staying on the throttle can keep keep you from sliding off the road, especially if you can exploit the traction of both the front and rear tires. Heck, staying on the road can keep you from sliding off the road even on 2WD vehicles.

Drop-throttle oversteer sends many vehicles sliding off the road...


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

Killroy said:



> True, but there is a misconseption that SUVs are safer because of there size and weight. The fact is that you are more likely to die in a SUV because they are hard to manuver, larger and prone to roll over. PLUS- many SUVs kill there occupants because they do not have crush zones for impact absorption---there truck frames are so stiff that the vehicle does not crush, but the occupants do.


Your information is outdated -- most new SUV's can be had with electronic stability control (it is standard on even the most basic Ford Escape) and variable assist braking, which prevents the vast majority of rollovers. SUV's have had crumple zones for many years -- the frame is designed to fail in the crumple zones. This is reflected in crash tests that measure the force on the body -- SUV's do very well in crash tests.

In any case, I wasn't referring to SUV's specifically -- a full-size, heavy sedan works as well.


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

canuckjgc said:


> SUV's have had crumple zones for many years -- the frame is designed to fail in the crumple zones. This is reflected in crash tests that measure the force on the body -- SUV's do very well in crash tests.


Yea, even truck frames have had crumble zones for many years now. Anyone remember the F-150 commercial where they put a dozer in front of and behind the truck, crush it 2-3 feet, then all the doors open and a team of engineers get out? The box and front clip are designed to do all the deforming while the passenger compartment remains intact. It's probably on You Tube, but I am banished from that at work.


----------



## nagatahawk (Jun 20, 2007)

adam728 said:


> . Anyone remember the F-150 commercial where they put a dozer in front of and behind the truck, crush it 2-3 feet, then all the doors open and a team of engineers get out? .


 found on the road dead?


----------



## bgredjeep (Dec 25, 2006)

BKnight said:


> lets see some pics of the ram and the jeep


Here we go. About 14-15mpg w/ the 20' trailer in tow.


----------



## Winans (Jul 27, 2005)

VW Jetta TDI Wagon - ~50 mpg average and good for hauling 4 people, and/or a variety of stuff. Still get 45 with bikes on top and driving over the Rockies. I like my little diesel


----------



## NashvilleBlur (Nov 9, 2005)

I get about 14-15 around town. Towing my boat about 10 freeway and 12 city. I'd like to see one of the Prius guys tow my 5100# boat. I wonder if the electic motor will catch fire? Needless to say better gas mileage is nice, but can't enjoy the boat owning a compact car. In the study above it was nice to see my 4Runner won't kill me and the ladies always prefer the guys in the 4Runner over the hybrid. YEAH BABY!


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

NashvilleBlur said:


> I get about 14-15 around town. Towing my boat about 10 freeway and 12 city. I'd like to see one of the Prius guys tow my 5100# boat. I wonder if the electic motor will catch fire? Needless to say better gas mileage is nice, but can't enjoy the boat owning a compact car. In the study above it was nice to see my 4Runner won't kill me and the ladies always prefer the guys in the 4Runner over the hybrid. YEAH BABY!


Your animosity toward efficient compact cars and hybrids is laughable because you can't enjoy your inefficient _hobby_ of towing a perfectly mobile vehicle in the water, your 5100 lb boat, by land with a small car. Did you ever think about leaving the fish in the water. Whatever, your dollars.

Sorry for flaming, but the other funny thing is that electric motors are ideal for high load towing applications because they produce maximum torque at 0 rpm. Hybrid buses are hugely successfully on the hills of San Francisco, especially the public that has to breath the black air from all Diesel buses. A even better example of electric towing is the Freight Locomotive Engine, which is actually a series hybrid, where the diesel ICE engine is not even connected to the wheels mechanically.


----------



## bgredjeep (Dec 25, 2006)

Killroy said:


> Sorry for flaming, but the other funny thing is that electric motors are ideal for high load towing applications because they produce maximum torque at 0 rpm. Hybrid buses are hugely successfully on the hills of San Francisco, especially the public that has to breath the black air from all Diesel buses. A even better example of electric towing is the Freight Locomotive Engine, which is actually a series hybrid, where the diesel ICE engine is not even connected to the wheels mechanically.


Those are indeed examples of electric motors under high torque loads.. The trouble is, last time I checked I can't load my Jeep on a train to take it to the mountains. And a city bus may do the job but I'm not really in the market for a mass transit vehicle. I would be interested to see if that city bus mentioned was actually more efficient that a similar size diesel bus or if its just for the 'clean air' effect. I can almost certainly say that the hybrid is more expensive than a diesel bus, but since neither vehicle cost, nor its perceived environment friendliness has to do with this topic it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

bgredjeep said:


> Those are indeed examples of electric motors under high torque loads.. The trouble is, last time I checked I can't load my Jeep on a train to take it to the mountains. And a city bus may do the job but I'm not really in the market for a mass transit vehicle. I would be interested to see if that city bus mentioned was actually more efficient that a similar size diesel bus or if its just for the 'clean air' effect. I can almost certainly say that the hybrid is more expensive than a diesel bus, but since neither vehicle cost, nor its perceived environment friendliness has to do with this topic it doesn't really matter.


I hear ya, but I was commenting to NashvilleBlur that electric motors dont 'blow up and catch fire' under high loads. Hybrids would be well suited for towing loads if designed that way. I never look at the hybrid trucks or SUV so I dont know.

Buy my recollection form a presentation on electric drives Hybrid buses are about 35% more fuel efficient, but the big plus is the lack of black smoke at SF apartment level. Buses are highly utilized so they pay for them selfs in a mater of years, not decades.

I was reading a Road and Track and there was a article about how Plug in Hybrids are going to be the next hot rods.


----------



## bgredjeep (Dec 25, 2006)

Its already started..

http://www.teslamotors.com/


----------



## Carbon Ken (Mar 31, 2005)

I get 31mpg in my Corvette hardtop. It's a pain removing the front and rear wheels each time I ride but it gets better fuel economy than my Subaru. :thumbsup:


----------



## jivarie (Jan 30, 2008)

bgredjeep said:


> Those are indeed examples of electric motors under high torque loads.. The trouble is, last time I checked I can't load my Jeep on a train to take it to the mountains. And a city bus may do the job but I'm not really in the market for a mass transit vehicle. I would be interested to see if that city bus mentioned was actually more efficient that a similar size diesel bus or if its just for the 'clean air' effect. I can almost certainly say that the hybrid is more expensive than a diesel bus, but since neither vehicle cost, nor its perceived environment friendliness has to do with this topic it doesn't really matter.


This was my rationale prior to selling my 02 K1500. Now, I own Geo Metro for all driving that doesn't require anything but just that, driving. 50MPG and low emissions. It paid for itself in less than one year on gas/insurance savings alone. It's actually risen in market value as well. Yeah, I've sacrificed a bit of pride, but it's worth to ya anyhow? I sold my truck for 12,500 and have 10,900 left to invest in a play vehicle. I'm not sure what I'm going to get yet. Subarus are high up there though. Then again, so is a Jeep CJ or 65 chevy fleetside. Depending on how much you're towing vehicles, you can rent a vehicle for cheaper than it costs to own and operate said vehicle.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

Carbon Ken said:


> I get 31mpg in my Corvette hardtop. It's a pain removing the front and rear wheels each time I ride but it gets better fuel economy than my Subaru. :thumbsup:


Light weight, small crossectional area, and two wheel drive are the major contributing factors behind good fuel economy.

I'm selling a 2000 Mazda Miata because I have the more fuel effieient Insight that I can fit a bike and 4 car tires in the back in the hatch (really, tried this yestreday)

The Miata gets 32 mpg at best, typically 25 mpg. Its not that large, so its aero should not be bad. It weighs 2500 lb. WHY? The Insight weights 1800 lb, and I can haul a lot more stuff in it.


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

Killroy said:


> Good fuel economy is 12 MPT. That is 12 miles of bike riding work per taco. Bike commute and burn no oil, spair the air, save money, and get in racin' shape.
> 
> If you really have to burn that foreign oil, then anything over 60 MPG is good in my book, but 100 MPGe (equal energy should be the goal, like the Automotive X-Prize. Electric Cars can do 100 MPGe without much difficulty.


What world do you live in? Where I live we use natural resources to grow food, LOTS of them. THIS would be a good starting point for you.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

ChromedToast said:


> What world do you live in? Where I live we use natural resources to grow food, LOTS of them. THIS would be a good starting point for you.


OT
Your talking about Food Carbon Footprint. I'm no food snob, but I can walk to my local farmers market in Campbell, CA, so I buy there. I also get as local as possible fruit delivered by Planet Organics. Bananas are always long distance from South America, usually. I also grow tomatoes and sweet peppers on my deck of my town house. Once you go homegrown tomatoes you dont go back, baby. Yeah!


----------



## TACORICAN (Jan 24, 2006)

*01 Accord 4Cyl Sedan*

I usually get 23 MPG doing my normal drive to work. I step on the gas a lot.

Last week I filled up and decided to drive slow, did not pass 65MPH, kept shifting at the 2500RPM mark and turned off engine at stop lights where it takes forever to get a green. I ended up getting 27.6MPG. I think that is reasonable for a mid-sized car. :thumbsup:


----------



## BontyRaceOR (Feb 25, 2004)

Winans said:


> VW Jetta TDI Wagon - ~50 mpg average and good for hauling 4 people, and/or a variety of stuff. Still get 45 with bikes on top and driving over the Rockies. I like my little diesel


~50 mpg is a very good result! i get in my VW Passat "BlueMotion" 48-50 average mpg.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

I would not want to buy diesel now. $4.51/ gallon. That is 20% more than gas in my area. Too bad the Jetta is not getting fuel economy better than the Prius of the Insight.

Check this out. This blows all our cars out of the water in terms of fuel economy and performance. 0-60 mph in 3 seconds.


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

Killroy said:


> I would not want to buy diesel now. $4.51/ gallon. That is 20% more than gas in my area. Too bad the Jetta is not getting fuel economy better than the Prius of the Insight.
> 
> Check this out. This blows all our cars out of the water in terms of fuel economy and performance. 0-60 mph in 3 seconds.


 Can we get a link please?


----------



## G-VegasMTBiker (Apr 15, 2006)

If I'm not mistaken its called the Atom. Its essentially a bit of scaffolding with an engine and wheels. Because its so light it goes like stink and corners like nothing else apparently.

Ariel company site
http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/

Top Gear review:


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

G-VegasMTBiker said:


> If I'm not mistaken its called the Atom. Its essentially a bit of scaffolding with an engine and wheels. Because its so light it goes like stink and corners like nothing else apparently.
> 
> Ariel company site
> https://www.arielmotor.co.uk/
> ...


Close but no cigar.

Its the Wrightspeed X1 Prototype 
https://www.wrightspeed.com/x1.html









Notice the lack of muffler, headers, radiator intake plug wires, coils ...

It is physically impossible for the inefficient internal combustion engine to get over 80 mpg in that form. That's electric. That's how it gets 170 MPG equivalent energy (170 MPGe).

The X1 is a Battery Electric Vehicle. It is faster electric version of the Ariel Atom 1.

If you want to see it come to MOTORFEST


----------



## jivarie (Jan 30, 2008)

Killroy said:


> I would not want to buy diesel now. $4.51/ gallon. That is 20% more than gas in my area. Too bad the Jetta is not getting fuel economy better than the Prius of the Insight.
> 
> Check this out. This blows all our cars out of the water in terms of fuel economy and performance. 0-60 mph in 3 seconds.


You know, I'm not sure I would buy a Prius or Insight just yet. Nobody is really sure how long these cars are going to last. What does it cost to replace that electric motor and those batteries outside of the warranty? However, I do know that diesels tend to run on into infinity. At this point, I'd probably take a used diesel over a used Prius or Insight that is out of warranty. In the used vehicle market, reliability plays a BIG part of the cost.


----------



## nagatahawk (Jun 20, 2007)

jivarie said:


> You know, I'm not sure I would buy a Prius or Insight just yet. Nobody is really sure how long these cars are going to last. What does it cost to replace that electric motor and those batteries outside of the warranty? However, I do know that diesels tend to run on into infinity. At this point, I'd probably take a used diesel over a used Prius or Insight that is out of warranty. In the used vehicle market, reliability plays a BIG part of the cost.


I don't think that hybreds are the answer either. you still have to buy gas and change the oil. I checked the Edmunds.com forums to see what mileage some of the smaller hibred suv's are getting. They were getting the same mileage i get with my matrix and I don't, turn off the A/C, the motor, draft, coast downhills, low rpm etc.

I wonder what happens to the electronics on a hybred if you get a short, or get flooded. I used to live in Torrance, CA (dry) and my car was flooded up to the top of the fenders in a freak down pour.

There are a lot of energy stored in those batteries. if one cooks off, you have a problem. I have seen the small radio control car batteries cook of. it gets super hot and the fumes are toxic. I wonder how they hold up in a collision? Will the impact fry the cpu? I'm sure the manufacurers have thought out all the scenerios.

Remember the Pinto with the exploding gas tanks?


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

Actually out of the thousands of Pinto's sold, only 37 confirmed cases of the exploding gas tank were ever attributed to that problem.

Far more people fell victim to the bad quality control of Firestone tires on Fords.


----------



## 1hardrush (Feb 13, 2008)

i average about 20,000 miles per year on my 2006 frontier 4x4 v6. average is 17mpg, good for me is 20mpgs.


----------



## Padre (Jan 6, 2004)

jivarie said:


> You know, I'm not sure I would buy a Prius or Insight just yet. Nobody is really sure how long these cars are going to last. What does it cost to replace that electric motor and those batteries outside of the warranty? However, I do know that diesels tend to run on into infinity. At this point, I'd probably take a used diesel over a used Prius or Insight that is out of warranty. In the used vehicle market, reliability plays a BIG part of the cost.


Many people have put close to 200k on them.

But more importantly, what % of drivers keep their cars to infinity? Exactly. Not many.

Diesel by my house is $4.77 per gallon. Yikes.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

1hardrush said:


> i average about 20,000 miles per year on my 2006 frontier 4x4 v6. average is 17mpg, good for me is 20mpgs.


That is about $10,000 a year by AAA average vehicle operation expense.

And that is about $4700 a year in fuel at today's ~$4/gallon. At least half of that oil is coming from the middle east and lining the pokets of the reach over there.

Can you ride to work/ arrens/ recreational ?


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

nagatahawk said:


> I don't think that hybreds are the answer either. you still have to buy gas and change the oil.


Yes that is a negative with Hybrids. They took a complicated system, the internal combusion engine, and made it more complicated by adding a electric drive train. The problem with the ICE is that it requires a lot of maintenance to stay reliable. The electric drivetrain is a Reliability Engineers wet dream even with old lead-acid battery technology. Most hybrid batteries are warentied for 10 year and 150K miles. And that is for tehcnology that is 10 years old. Batteries will only get better because the demand for electric cars is going up and the battery is the only thing from stopping it from talking off in BEVs and REEVs



nagatahawk said:


> I checked the Edmunds.com forums to see what mileage some of the smaller hibred suv's are getting. They were getting the same mileage i get with my matrix and I don't, turn off the A/C, the motor, draft, coast downhills, low rpm etc.?


Classic mistake of comparing a apple to an orange.



nagatahawk said:


> I wonder what happens to the electronics on a hybred if you get a short, or get flooded. I used to live in Torrance, CA (dry) and my car was flooded up to the top of the fenders in a freak down pour.
> 
> Remember the Pinto with the exploding gas tanks?


There is 100 times the energy stored in your gas tank. The funny thing about the Pinto is that the engineers knew there was a problem and proposed a fuel cell that would be safer than any other design of the time, but the Program Managers of the Pinto nixed it because it would put the car a couple dollars over the $3000 goal


----------



## TLL (Apr 28, 2008)

Nat said:


> >30mpg before I discovered turbo cars.
> 
> Now I'm hitting boost as often as I can and am happy if I break 20mpg. I'm sorry, it's just too much fun to drive really really fast.


Agree. My GTI gets 32 on the freeway if I take it easy. Sadly, it is just waaay too much fun flooring it as I jump on the freeway, so I only average 24MPG. With a roof rack and bike, of course.


----------



## Diamondhead (Nov 2, 2007)

My Ford Escape Hybrid AWD gets an average of 33 mpg summer, 26 mpg winter, last tank I got 34.5 mpg, my best mileage was 36 mpg, worst was 24 mpg towing my 15 ft boat at 75 mph.


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

5.9 litres/100 km... or something like 40 mpg (I think...)

Fuel: Diesel, 120 hp; 310 Nm; +/- 200/210 Km/h.
Great familly car... confy... ecnomic... and that`s it! eheheh


----------

