You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

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

What is this discussion about? Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, smart fortwo, MINI Cooper

#7789 of 8564 ummmm, people? by nippononly Jun 04, 2008 (7:58 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.
#7790 of 8564 No more Suburban hijacking by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (8:54 am)
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. Replies to this message: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 9:02 am) thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 10:29 am) nippononly (Jun 05, 2008 6:17 am) ateixeira (Jun 04, 2008 9:28 am)
#7791 of 8564 Re: No more Suburban hijacking [thegreatoz] by andre1969 Jun 04, 2008 (9:02 am)
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 8:54 am) Well, the title of this forum is "What's WRONG with these new subcompacts", so IMO that doesn't limit it to subcompact-only talk. By its very nature, shortcomings, comparisons to other cars, etc, are going to come up.   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? Replies to this message: thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 10:29 am) nippononly (Jun 05, 2008 6:17 am)
#7792 of 8564 Re: No more Suburban hijacking [thegreatoz] by ateixeira Jun 04, 2008 (9:28 am)
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 8:54 am) You either have a very optimistic trip computer or you drove downhill from Pikes Peak to Death Valley.
#7793 of 8564 Re: No more Suburban hijacking [andre1969] by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (10:29 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 9:02 am) They're closer to paper-&-pencil than their bad reputation deserves, but their easily fooled. Plus, there are two computer readings..."Instant" and "Average" fuel economy.   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. Replies to this message: nippononly (Jun 05, 2008 6:17 am)
#7794 of 8564 Re: An economical & green Suburban [andre1969] by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (10:42 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 03, 2008 3:26 pm) Ah, Cedar Point...my new favorite place, now that Conneaut Lake Park is history.   I don't want to sound like The Reverend Al Gore, but E85 on a long trip doesn't deserve the reputation it has acquired from its lousy mileage in stop-and-go driving.   However, from an aesthetic point of view..."Live Green Go Yellow" is a crock of crap because of what's happened to food prices.   Just my opinion.
#7795 of 8564 Re: An economical & green Suburban [andre1969] by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (10:49 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 6:39 am) Still, 29 mpg with a Suburban, using E85, sounds awfully optimistic.   Actually, that fellow was extrapolating 29 mpg for GAS, since I got 20.2 mpg on E85.   Sad thing, however, because I patronized the E85 station, I'll be paying 25-cents a slice more for pizza because of the corn shortage for food.
#7796 of 8564 Not sure if I mentioned this... by british_rover Jun 04, 2008 (1:52 pm)
on this forum yet but probably not. A client of mine last week on memorial day got a flat tire in New Jersey with his LR3. He drove from Jersey to CT at 55 mph because he has a compact spare and didn't want to push his luck. By going 55 mph he got 25 mpg actual mpg as he hand calculated it in a 300 hp, nearly 6,000 lbs, permanent 4WD SUV.Using the 2007 and under ratings that LR3 got 14/19. I know we had the lower speed does not necessarily translate to better mpg before but on his car it did. Replies to this message: qbrozen (Jun 04, 2008 2:05 pm) steve_ (Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm) kyfdx (Jun 04, 2008 6:12 pm) steve_ (Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am) qbrozen (Jun 05, 2008 6:48 am) british_rover (Jun 05, 2008 7:30 am) thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 8:26 pm)
#7797 of 8564 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [british_rover] by qbrozen Jun 04, 2008 (2:05 pm)
Replying to: british_rover (Jun 04, 2008 1:52 pm) A compact spare in an AWD vehicle?? That could NOT have been good for the AWD system! Replies to this message: steve_ (Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm) kyfdx (Jun 04, 2008 6:12 pm) steve_ (Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am) qbrozen (Jun 05, 2008 6:48 am) british_rover (Jun 05, 2008 7:30 am)
#7798 of 8564 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [qbrozen] by steve_ HOST Jun 04, 2008 (2:11 pm)
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 04, 2008 2:05 pm) Think of the mpg he'd get with four hard skinny little compact spare tires installed.   Of course, most of the manufacturers say you shouldn't go over, what, ~50 miles? on them so the tire expense would eat up your savings.   Isn't it the diameter of the tire that the 4WD/AWD systems care about?

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?