ConiglioRampante said:In reply to Feedyurhed :
Wow, Hyundai really under sells its published mpg efficiency. That's simultaneously good and bad to know!
As if Temptation wasn't already a constant companion.
I think the BRZ is rated at 26-27 on the highway. A recent trip to Tulsa, the trip meter was showing around 30mpg with the cruise set at 85.
When I filled up the next day, I think calculated mileage was 29 with 95% highway driving, for that particular tank.
The Mustang gets 29-30. That's pretty amazing to me. I'd call that efficient at 3600# and 300 hp.
The Touareg will return 25. I don't really consider that to be very good. My father's 3/4 ton Dodge truck will manage very close to that.
Interesting fact, the Mustang and the Touareg get 19-20 around town.
However, the Touareg will return 14-15 towing my boat. That's pretty good. I'd call it efficient.
My last motorhome averaged a touch over 6 mph for the time I owned it. Not efficient in my book.
The new motorhome, which weighs literally twice as much, will return 7.8. I'd call that fairly efficient.
I guess you could say, it depends.
My 2010 Mazda6 with the 3.7ltr V6 gets 18mpg combined. For a 4 door sedan, I say that's terrible. My 2007 Silverado was pretty close to that.
For the record, my '63 Imperial Le Baron gets about 12 mpg's on the highway. I don't consider that too bad considering the era it's from and it's about as big and aerodynamic as your average living room.
20 combined is efficient to me.
Only vehicle I've ever had that's broken that was my P71. Neither miata ever broke 20 even driving like an old grandpa.
The Rangers 15 was absolutely efficient compared to the excursions current 8.2 though.
Everyone's going to have different answers, and the answers will keep changing over time.
Colin, the following isn't aimed at you per se, but sponsored forums in general:
I get it, GRM - like other business-backed forums - create provocative articles to pump up web traffic, but it seems like there's been an increase lately in "social opinion pieces", question-based threads that don't convey actual information. I mean, has anyone learned anything in this thread - other than what annoys me?
I hope that this forum doesn't degrade into what some others have turned into, where 97% of the posts are jokes, puzzles, "what did you do today", and birthday threads, all having nothing to do with why the forum was started in the first place.
kb58 said:I get it, GRM - like other business-backed forums - feel compelled to generate provocative articles to keep web traffic flowing, but lately it seems like there's been an increase in "social opinion pieces", threads ending with question marks, instead of providing actual information. I mean, after reading this thread, does anyone feel like they learned anything - other than what annoys me?
No, but we all knew going in that we were participating a click-bait discussion thread
Toyman! said:
My father's 3/4 ton Dodge truck will manage very close to that.
This really caught my eye. What year? What engine?
My son's truck is a 2006 1500 with the 4.7 and the 6-speed Getrag manual. He and I both can manage no better than about 16-17 highway no matter how hard we try.
Edit: It's a 4x4 quad cab that weighs 5560 pounds empty according to the scales at the recycling place, so 16 sounds reasonable to me. But near 25 would be magical!
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
2004, Dodge 2500, 5.9L 24 valve Cummins with very few frills. Keep in mind, he's 84 and drives it like he's 84. Empty on the highway he routinely gets 22-24 mpg out of it and it will get 12-14 towing his 35' 5th wheel camper.
No, it's not for sale. He gets asked that just about every time he drives it. It's apparently one of the best years due to fuel economy, simplicity, available HP, and torque.
In reply to kb58 :
It's also been an economic debate for decades with cars. The VW became popular because of that, and not a core interest to save the world.
In reply to Toyman! :
Ah! Diesels.
1988RedT2 said:In reply to Toyman! :
Ah! Diesels.
Yeah, add to that it's 2wd, on street tires, and not lifted. Pretty much box stock and as delivered.
kb58 said:Everyone's going to have different answers, and the answers will keep changing over time.
Colin, the following isn't aimed at you per se, but sponsored forums in general:
I get it, GRM - like other business-backed forums - create provocative articles to pump up web traffic, but it seems like there's been an increase lately in "social opinion pieces", question-based threads that don't convey actual information. I mean, has anyone learned anything in this thread - other than what annoys me?
I hope that this forum doesn't degrade into what some others have turned into, where 97% of the posts are jokes, puzzles, "what did you do today", and birthday threads, all having nothing to do with why the forum was started in the first place.
You have a point.
And when I read Tim's column in the current June issue titled "Are we being influenced," I understand the need for "clicks" in the current market that GRM/CM operates while still trying to provide credible/valuable information.
To paraphrase a common saying, it's kind of like "damned if you do/go out of business if you don't."
Anyway, just a thought.
All my track cars are very efficient at burning fuel. Most get about 4-6 MPG. My CLS 550 is also extremely efficient at burning fuel especially when I keep the twin turbos spooled up. The H2 gets 12 MPG no matter what I do with it. I bet it would burn fuel I it was shut off and rolling downhill. So while it is not as efficient at burning fuel as the CLS under boost (I have seen 2 MPG under full boost) it is still very good at it.
:-)
It is VERY dependent.
My current Volvo can knock down 32mpg highway, 25mpg mixed. It weighs 4000lb and has over 300hp and all wheel drive. That is amazingly good economy, considering its heft and ability to change direction in two different axes. (Faster and slower, good, left and right, even better, up and down, not so much)
My previous Volvo weighed less, had half the power from a smaller, higher compression engine, and was front wheel drive. It could do 40+mpg. It also took 18 seconds to get to 80mph unless it was raining, in which case it would be spinning the tires up to 70mph or so because front wheel drive. If I had to put up with that level of performance for 25mpg mixed, 32mpg highway, I'd be disappointed.
dean1484 said:All my track cars are very efficient at burning fuel. Most get about 4-6 MPG. My CLS 550 is also extremely efficient at burning fuel especially when I keep the twin turbos spooled up. The H2 gets 12 MPG no matter what I do with it. I bet it would burn fuel I it was shut off and rolling downhill. So while it is not as efficient at burning fuel as the CLS under boost (I have seen 2 MPG under full boost) it is still very good at it.
:-)
I know someone who road races various cars, and IIRC he said the RX-7 gets better on track fuel economy than the Integra. The Integra made up for it by generally only running for the first 20-22 hours of a 25 hours race, saving fuel by being broken and in the pits 
dean1484 said:The H2 gets 12 MPG no matter what I do with it. I bet it would burn fuel I it was shut off and rolling downhill.
Our old E450 was like that. Unloaded going 55mph we got 8mpg. Fully loaded towing the racecar at 85mph we got 8mpg. We got 8mpg on the highway. We got 8mpg in the city.
buzzboy said:dean1484 said:The H2 gets 12 MPG no matter what I do with it. I bet it would burn fuel I it was shut off and rolling downhill.
Our old E450 was like that. Unloaded going 55mph we got 8mpg. Fully loaded towing the racecar at 85mph we got 8mpg. We got 8mpg on the highway. We got 8mpg in the city.
My F350 was like that. I did manage to get it down to 6 for one tank while towing a 35' 5th wheel camper entirely too fast.
Our Tahoe gets 15-20 depending on speed and towing. My Civic Si and s average 40-41 mpg over 30k miles now in daily driver duties. It is size and mission dependent for sure.
Also keep in mind using a vehicle as it was intended. My Rio is a small city car geared for city car type stuff. Speed, wind etc affect fuel economy dramatically. 70mph it'll sit there at 38mpg all day long. 75 it drops to 33-34, add in a cross wind or head wind and we are down into the low 30's.
Our Crosstrek has a lifetime average of 33. I got that up to 33.2 on a trip doing 10-20 over for 16 hours. I think that's pretty damn good.
Passing over a dashed yellow at 5k feet requires planning. More than I would like.
My Boxster gets 22-26 mixed on premium and that's not so good. Better than my mazdaspeed3 that got 22. At least the Boxster gets better mileage as the speed goes up. The Mazda would hit boost around 70mph and mileage went from 30ish (slow highway trip) right back to 22. Meh.
I can get 31 mpg with my R53 MINI and I'm not impressed by that. The car is 20 years old , so not the latest tech. My GMC Canyon will routinely get 24 mpg. The cost per mile for both is about the same, given the price difference between 93 octane and 87. I'm thinking I'll get a hybrid to replace the MINI if I can't find a low mileage replacement R53.
I just bought a Mark VIII that gets 22 on the highway because it's better than the 16 I get from the Express Van. Baby steps.
Anything better than the 19mpg I get out of my 4Runner.
Defimitely dependent on size & capabilities. My 2008 honda odyssey gets 22 mpg highway...not efficient. I rented a new chrystler pacifica & got 32 mpg over 1k miles loaded to the gills...that's efficient.
Cars? 30 mpg is pretty much expected for your average car these days. I'd say over hitting 38 or 40 mpg is efficient.
You'll need to log in to post.
