Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
8564 messages, Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 5:03 am) Have you ever shared your numbers to EPA's website? Calling those who do liars is the last thing that comes to my mind. I don't know about you, but I find the new EPA rating ridiculous. There is no way I can get 26 mpg in my TL on highway, unless (perhaps) I drive at 90 mph all day long. I get 24-26 mpg (lately, 26 mpg has been difficult perhaps due to traffic congestion and winter fuel, still got 24.9 mpg on last tank). Same with 98 Accord. 27 mpg on highway? How about 32-33 mpg at 80 mph? The worst tank ever in either car is around 23 mpg, and over 236K miles. Interestingly enough, even that is better than the suggested combined mileage by EPA. So, tell me why I should take EPA more seriously than my personal observation, and reporting by others who seem to get similar mileage as I do? Interestingly enough, the one that seems to lie outside of the norm is the EPA rating. At their website, 2007 Fit/Auto has 26 observed fuel economy. Among those, reported with 40-60% city, all but one exceeded EPA's rating. You may choose to disbelieve them all and stick with EPA, I won't.
|
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 07, 2007 7:54 am) The simple fact is that petroleum is a finite resource and while it won't run out overnight, at some point production will peak, demand will exceed supply, prices will increase dramatically (we ain't seen nothin' yet), and some areas will experience shortages. This may not happen this week, this month, or this year, but there is a very good chance that it will happen within ten years.  When it does happen, what do you want parked in your garage? What do you want parked in all of you neighbors garages across the city/state/country? Hummers?  The time to prepare is now, not after the situation becomes critical.  james |
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 07, 2007 7:54 am) My complaint with Sub Compacts is they do not provide enough additional benefits over a current compact when the Corolla gets better fuel mileage than a Fit and the price is the same. I don't assume the owner of the Fit is an Ugly American because they decided the benefits of that car were worth the extra fuel it burns over the Corolla. It simply all breaks down to personal preferences. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am) |
|
|
Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 07, 2007 8:10 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am)
|
|
|
|
| people be required? For instance, take mpg numbers from 1,000 people instead of the current 100 people and then average out all of their results. Then compare to what youv'e got now. | |
|
Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am) My driving conditions is approximately 50-50. On highway, I will drive between 60-80 mph, but mostly around 70-72 mph. This is an old car (1998, 184K miles). This is the same car that has returned 32+ mpg on long (500+ mile) road trips with speeds averaging over 75 mph (and thats average, including time spent at stop(s)). EPA tells me this car should get 27 mpg highway, 21 mpg in city. Tell me, what makes their number more credible, and why I shouldn't rely on what I observe. My numbers are consistent with numbers being quoted by others. Yet, I must believe they are liars (and so am I)? Gas/tank expansion/contraction theory is fine, but those differences are minimal enough to even worry about on this scale. And that car isn't the only one. I have another that makes me call the new EPA rating system a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
I have that is a compact car, get 32 mpg highway(like I do) and 20 mpg in town (like I do) why would I want a subcompact car? If I liked the design of a subcompact car I would buy one but so far I don't see a car design I like more than the '08 Mitsu Lancer GTS compact. And parking in my little town and even Tucson and Safford and Sierra Vista for shopping is laid-back southern Arizona, not up-tight Philadelphia, Chicago or New York City type of parking. So parking is not an issue. Mpg with subcompacts is currently not good enough. For my next car I am going to look at all the electrics available at that time (probably around the year 2012 or 2013 at the rate I'm putting mileage on my Lancer GTS) and pick one that I like. By then hopefully the range of travel with one charge-up will improve significantly, manufacturer's will increase the max.speed one can go in an all-electric vehicle, the initial cost to buy the vehicle will drop with good sound technology and mass-production, and the whole issue of re-charging these EV's will have been figured out and implemented by then. If I'm gonna buy a small ICE vehicle then the car should get a minimum of 40 mpg and hopefully 45-50 mpg, and up. Otherwise I will enjoy my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and it's better carrying capability than a subcompact and similar gas mileage to one. It's good to have a little more room to store things and seat more people comfortably for excursions, etc.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Versa
2010 Toyota Yaris
2010 Honda Fit
2009 smart fortwo
2010 MINI Cooper
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
