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?
8684 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 9:12 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jun 03, 2008 3:27 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Jun 04, 2008 6:23 am) A lot of it could depend on things like gearing, how much of a load he's carrying, terrain, etc. For instance, my uncle's '03 Corolla is a great flat surface car, but it doesn't like the mountains. The few times I've driven it up to PA, I'd have to really floor it on the upgrades if I didn't want to lose speed. And on the downgrades it just wasn't a good coaster. Take your foot off the gas and you'd lose speed and become a traffic hazard. My Intrepid does better in those hilly areas. It still needs a little kick in the rear on the upgrades, but not as bad as the Corolla does. And it coasts downhill better. But then the older vehicles I've taken on that run, like my '79 New Yorker, '76 LeMans, or '85 Silverado, they practically coast up the hills with little strain, and then you almost have to ride the brakes coming down. So in a situation like this, the terrain has a minimal effect on the bigger cars, but makes itself more noticeable on the smaller ones. As for cargo, well I could throw a ton of firewood in the back of my Silverado and hardly notice. With just 4 people in my Intrepid I can feel the strain, and with my uncle's Corolla, I can tell the difference with just one passenger. Sometimes, those bigger, torquier vehicles can handle being driven overly gently, because they're still strong enough to loaf along in a high gear. But when you try that with a smaller car that's used to revving, it just doesn't have the power. So you're either going to lose speed or probably shift down to a lower gear, which will use more fuel. I'd imagine the air conditioning in a smaller car will sap more fuel as well, but could be wrong here. I imagine they use smaller compressors for smaller cars, but in some cases they may not. Still, 29 mpg with a Suburban, using E85, sounds awfully optimistic. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 6:39 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Jun 04, 2008 6:42 am) Yeah, for the most part, the cars I've had would get close to what the EPA published. Well, the 1985-2007 style figures, at least. Any leadfoot should be able to achieve the dumbed-down figures they use now. The only car I ever had that was a pleasant surprise with fuel economy was a 1989 Gran Fury ex police car. It would guzzle to the tune of 11-13 mpg around town, but I was shocked to manage lower 20's out of it on the highway. It was only EPA-rated at 13/15! I'd be afraid to look at the new ratings. Probably more like 11/13, at best.  It just didn't add up, though. I mean, that thing had a 318-4bbl, 2.94 gearing, an antiquated 3-speed automatic with no overdrive, a lot of heavy duty components, and the aerodynamics of a brick! But, maybe the 4-bbl let it breathe better, and the quicker axle might've made it less likely to require downshifting. It also called for premium fuel, so if it was tuned that way, maybe that helped with the economy?
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 6:52 am) |
|
|
|
|
All I was pointing out was that for the Suburban driver to make 20.2 mpg on E85, which makes 70% of the mileage of gasoline, he would have been making 10/7 x 20.2 = 28.8 mpg on gas. Which makes it sound like the computation may have been based on a very short tank, or the vehicle's own notoriously optimistic trip computer. Either way, a Suburban has little place in the subcompact discussion, eh?!  And I can make 50 mpg on all-highway trips in my sub, so there is still a fairly wide gap in fuel economy between the two classes, even in all-highway situations which are the forte of the large cars and trucks. |
|
|
|
|
My point was that mileage does not necessarily equal more $$ economy. I drive an '05 Beetle which takes Premium. It costs me more money despite the good (27) mpg. I can get 25 mpg in my '01 Vette but, again, paying $4.85 for Sunoco 94. Yes, I'm relying on the Suburban dashboard telling me when it's in V4 and V8 mode and driving accordingly (just like my erstwhile Civic Hybrid) and doing the math in comparison with the trip computer. E85 is not 70% of hydrocarbon unless you fill it on empty. It's recommended you keep 1/4 tank of hydrocarbon fuel at each E85 fill up. It's still much cheaper to drive that either the Vette or the Beetle. If you want to get back to small car talk, what about the equivalent of $2.50/gallon of gas to drive the Civic GX NGV? And NO...they're not ONLY available in California. They're in NY state now too. With a slow fill (3,000 psi), I could -just- make it back to Philadelphia on a test run. 
|
|
|
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 8:54 am) Just out of curiosity, how accurate is its trip computer? If you compare what it says to the old pencil & paper method of diving miles driven by gallons used, are they close?
|
|
|
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 8:54 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 9:02 am) For example, I sold my '04 Civic Hybrid because the best "Average" mpg was 32.5 for the entire two years I owned it. I bought an '06 Civic Normal. Same gas mileage, lower initial coast.  However, in the Hybrid, I could get gas at the Cumberland Farms at the top of my neighborhood hill and coast home, park it, and have a reading of 47 mpg. That would fool (increase) the "Average" reading for the next 8 or 10 miles. Then it would fade back down to 38...36...33...30...as I drove around. BTW, hybrids get their best mileage around town. You actually get -worse- mileage on trips. My dealership told me they wished Honda never put the MPG Computer in the hybrids, because it showed how way off the EPA numbers were (in 2004), along with exposing the hyped hybrid sales pitches to what they actually were. Back briefly to the GM on-board MPG computer. Coasting (flat or downhill) will kick you into V4 mode and you'll get -instant economy- readings of "99 mpg." If you do this long and far enough, you'll fool (increase) the Average reading for the next dozen or so miles. Just like the Civic Hybrid. To answer an earlier post, yes, it was just me, no cargo, no trailer, going to Youngstown on I-80. The big SUVs can really keep their rolling momentum going along flat Interstates. Now, compared to pencil-&-paper... I never did the math with the Civic Hybrid...naively thinking it was 100% accurate. However, I always do the math with the Civic Hydrocarbon and the Suburban...and GM's computer has only been about 4 mpg higher than paper-&-pencil, on the saved "Average" readings, at the most. But it varies with driving conditions. What -is- interesting is the "Range" readings when you first fill up. If I get gas in the middle of a long trip, the Range can be anywhere from 510 miles (16 mpg) to 620 miles (20 mpg). However, if I've been driving around town and then fill up, the Range can read as low as 375 miles (12 mpg). The computer uses the "Average" mpg last recorded. Personally, plug-in electric is the only realistic possibility in a subcompact for excellent mileage. You'll not want to be a hydrogen or natural gas bomb on wheels...and you'll not want to get a piddling 40-50 miles-per-whatever-unit of fuel.
|
|
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
