40 MPG Plateau?

Bobzilla wrote:

Zomby woof wrote:

Travis_K wrote: I think a real 50mpg is really pushing it for a gas engine. Has there ever been a mass produced car that (assuming it was in like new condition) could be daily driven today that would regularly get over 40 mpg?

My Swift GT can, and does get low to mid 40's (53 MPG imperial), with cams, header, big TB, and me driving it. It is possible. The really early, 86-88 3 cylinder cars are even better.

I don't think I ever got over 35 in mine. Weekends that I auto-x'd would be like 28 for the tank. One weekend when I did two, it was 23.

Megasquirt.

I bet yours had the stock, or stock chipped computer.

My numbers were over a weekend as well, but a weekend that I worked, and did my 90 km commute. I wouldn't say it was ideal conditions, but they were good, and I didn't drive like a complete retard. I got over 600 km to that tank.

Merc wrote: Driving technique helps. Learn to drive slow and you could reach those numbers. Check out hypermiling.

exactly. The infamous Top Gear Prius test demonstrated that anything will get worse mileage than advertised if you drive it at high speed....

Vigo wrote: I could increase the MPG of my Insight in a variety of ways, but the appeal is pretty weak. Im honestly more interested in improving the MPG of my cars that only get ~25.

Couple of things. One, this is some interesting info. More confusing than it seems. But the other thing- you hit on it here. Looking at 40 vs. 50 MPG makes it look like there's no point in doing anything at all. But we're not getting 40 MPG. Shoot, I live in Colorado. My wife has a 4Runner. I can't tell you how many times we've walked up to the wrong one in a parking lot. Can't swing a dead cat witout hitting a 4Runner in Colorado. They're like the unoffical state vehicle. We get around 18 MPG (another point about that in a minute). Get that up to 25 or 30 and we're making a difference. Get rid of the 4Runner and get an Insight and we're making a big difference.

*I don't feel too bad about her driving the 4Runner. We've made some decisions that mitigate the impact of the low MPG. We live in the city. She drives about two miles to work. Maybe three. She uses less gas than a guy in a Prius who drives in from the boonies. Still, given my druthers, we'd get rid of it.

Vigo wrote:

This is pretty much the best argument for changing our fuel economy metric to a fuel consumption metric. It's easy to see at a glance that a car that uses 7 L/100km uses twice as much fuel as one that uses 3.5 L/100km. You have to go through the above contortions to see that a jump from 40-50mpg is only the same as from 14-15 mpg.

This is the main reason why i have always said that the most significant hybrids are the ones that get the least MPG.. The 2-mode truck hybrids. Instead of getting 14mpg you get 20. Thats HUUUUUUUGE.

Yep. Hybrid technology is really great when properly applied. It's only stupid when applied to a small car, and more stupid yet when applied to a small car that will see a mostly highway cruising.

I see hybrids cruising the highways where I live where there's no city driving to speak of (since there are no cities) and I just shake my head.

Does it make me an a$$ that when I pull up next to a Prius in my Tahoe that I smile?

keethrax wrote:

Vigo wrote:

This is pretty much the best argument for changing our fuel economy metric to a fuel consumption metric. It's easy to see at a glance that a car that uses 7 L/100km uses twice as much fuel as one that uses 3.5 L/100km. You have to go through the above contortions to see that a jump from 40-50mpg is only the same as from 14-15 mpg.

This is the main reason why i have always said that the most significant hybrids are the ones that get the least MPG.. The 2-mode truck hybrids. Instead of getting 14mpg you get 20. Thats HUUUUUUUGE.

Yep. Hybrid technology is really great when properly applied. It's only stupid when applied to a small car, and more stupid yet when applied to a small car that will see a mostly highway cruising. I see hybrids cruising the highways where I live where there's no city driving to speak of (since there are no cities) and I just shake my head.

Ditto. I see the PRii cruising between lafayette and Indianapolis everyday. Most are running upwards of 80mph, tailgaiting (brakelights flashing on as they are trying to push the pickup in front of them to go 85) and weaving through traffic. Now that is a great use of a hybrid.

miatame wrote: Does it make me an a$$ that when I pull up next to a Prius in my Tahoe that I smile?

Depends. Do you complain about the price of fuel at the gas station?

keethrax wrote: Yep. Hybrid technology is really great when properly applied. It's only stupid when applied to a small car, and more stupid yet when applied to a small car that will see a mostly highway cruising.

I dunno. I wouldn't say "stupid". I would say that there doesn't seem to be a market for a car that applies the technology in a way that I'd like. Wasn't so long ago that cars with 50 or 60 HP were getting along just fine. Seems like we use the technology to make them get the same mileage, but have twice as much power. If someone used the technology to make a small car that got, say 90 MPG but wasn't so fast I would like it a lot more.

That would be cool and make a big difference. Use half as much gas as a Prius, and a third of a hybrid crossover SUV and you're doing pretty well.

Again, I won't say "stupid", but one that makes me chuckle- I have a friend with a Hybrid Toyota Highlander. Got bumper stickers all over it to tell everyone how much better she is than the rest of us. "So many miles, so little gas" and crap like that. But I get better mileage in my 20 year old MR2.

I'm going to make a bumper sticker that cuts through all the passive-aggressiveness and says what all those liberals are thinking:

"Hybrid - I'm better than you and I know it"

I've always thought it was funny that my 12 year old "sports car" (E36 M3) gets 25+ mpg average in mixed driving, but mostly spirted, and almost 30mpg on the highway but these new FWD "green" cars like 4-cyl Accords can't do much better.

^ Are you kidding? My 23 year old Corvette sits around 28 on the highway at 75mph. That's about as old tech as you can get that doesn't involve a carb....

EvanR wrote: When buyers would accept a 14+ second 0-60 time, cars could be (and were) more economical.

NEVER!!!!!

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: And that was with an evil carburetor.

Yup. I think EFI became kind of default more due to emissions requirements than fuel economy.

that and the whole drivability, durabilty, startability thing.

miatame wrote: I've always thought it was funny that my 12 year old "sports car" (E36 M3) gets 25+ mpg average in mixed driving, but mostly spirted, and almost 30mpg on the highway but these new FWD "green" cars like 4-cyl Accords can't do much better.

How is a new accord green? OR are you just trying to put some of your political views into this?

the 4cylinder accord is not advertised as green at all.. Ohh wait I get it.. You think you're better than those trying to save the environment.. No problem.. The market will soon price you out of your "efficient car".

plus your M3 numbers are plain incorrect.. Where you hypermiling it.. Selective memory?

http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3

Data wins best an m3 will do based on that data is 25 mpg..

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

A 1991 MR2 is rated at 19/26. A new Highlander is rated at 28/28 (the old ones were a tad less). Plus a Highlander can seat seven. So, if she is hauling around six people, she is getting the equivalent of 196 MPG versus everyone driving their own car. With a passenger, you are getting the equivalent of 45 MPG. Yes, this is kind of tongue in cheek. I realize nobody drives around with their car at capacity all the time.

In any case, I suspect your driving enjoyment is far higher.

Javelin wrote: The carburetor is actually the most efficient air/fuel mixing device ever invented. \

Incorrect the venturi is the most efficient air/fuel mixing device ever created. Carbs just have them.. Carbs are also open loop and therefore give you an imperfect ammount of fuel at almost any given load.

Sure steady state on a road with no altitude changes and no changes in atmospheric conditions or temp they work fine. In the real world they're crap.

In reply to huge-O-chavez:

The 1999 M3 is rated at 17/24. I guess you are giving him the benefit of the doubt, but even 25 in mixed driving would be a big stretch.

In reply to Bobzilla:

And finally the Corvette - rated by the EPA at 15/22.

Since everyone can get 25-50% better mpg than the EPA estimates on their old cars, presumably everyone can do the same driving a new car with the same driving skills. So, these new 40 mpg cars become 50-60 mpg cars in the hands of the commenters here.

As for me, I seem to get in the EPA range in my cars whether they be new or 25 years old.

^ Those are also the "new" numbers, correct?

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: In reply to huge-O-chavez: The 1999 M3 is rated at 17/24. 25 would be a big stretch.

I usually go by fuelly data. I find that its a community of people who are trying to brag about how well their cars do in mileage with a bunch of regualr folks just sprinkled in.. The data is about as close to real world as you'll get. 25 mpg is doable according to the data on fuelly. 30mpg.. Not so much.

Iron Balls McGinty wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: And finally the Corvette - rated by the EPA at 15/22.

Bobzilla also has a chevy truck that gets 25-26mpg on the highway.. I don't take his mileage numbers seriously.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/corvette Bobzilla is seriously on drugs.

huge-O-chavez wrote:

Javelin wrote: The carburetor is actually the most efficient air/fuel mixing device ever invented. \

Incorrect the venturi is the most efficient air/fuel mixing device ever created. Carbs just have them.. Carbs are also open loop and therefore give you an imperfect ammount of fuel at almost any given load. Sure steady state on a road with no altitude changes and no changes in atmospheric conditions or temp they work fine. In the real world they're crap.

Oh yeah? Fuel injectors still deliver an imperfect amount of fuel at almost any given load too. Perfect? Tall order.

Bobzilla wrote: ^ Those are also the "new" numbers, correct?

Yeah, trying to be apples to apples.

tuna55 wrote: \ Oh yeah? Fuel injectors still deliver an imperfect amount of fuel at almost any given load too. Perfect? Tall order.

You're correct they're not perfect but are miles better. A carb cannot adjust for changing atmospheric conditions or bad loads of gas, just two examples.