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?
8676 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 1:07 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 10:25 am) I am sure the new civic hybrid, or non-hybrid are a safer, better car overall now than they were 10 years ago. But, I was just surprised to see a mix city/highway real world test of a hybrid version getting only 36 mpg, within a couple mpg of what I got out of a non hybrid model 10 years ago. I luckily always got better mpg than listed for that civic. That is not the case with my wife's 02 corolla which has overall done a few mpg lower than the sticker estimate. I wonder what happened to the Honda insight? With $4.00 gas prices a couple months ago, I am surprised it did not come back into production. |
|
|
Replying to: dbarclay (Nov 06, 2008 10:13 am) They did it ealier, too. I forget when. So we can't compare EPA numbers from the 1980s to today's numbers. They've been adjusted downward at least twice. The other issue is mentioned above - the Sentra is now mid-sized, and the Accord is full-sized. Today's Sentra is more efficient than Nissan's mid-sizer from a decade ago (Altima). Just like a full-size Accord 4 cylinder easily beats any full-sizer from the 90s.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2008 12:23 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 06, 2008 12:27 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2008 12:23 pm) They did it ealier, too. I forget when. The first time they adjusted the numbers was 1985. From 1978-84 they'd publish the raw numbers, although sometimes instead of giving you city/highway AND combined, they'd just show the combined number. If you dig around on the EPA's website, there's a place where you can download data files that show you the raw, unadjusted numbers. My 2000 Intrepid, which was EPA-rated 20/29 when I bought it, and something like 18/27 by the new numbers, scored something like 24/38 in the raw, unadjusted numbers! The Impala, back when it used the 3.4 V-6, got 24/41! My uncle's 2003 Corolla, with automatic, scored 32/48 in the raw numbers. Its window sticker said 30/38, and I guess it's dumbed down to 25/36 with the 2008 numbers. Oh, and just for kicks, a Toyota Echo with the stick shift scored 39/54 in the raw numbers. Something for you to shoot for, Nippononly! 
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 12:42 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 12:42 pm) Shoot, I can match or beat those, andre. In fact, in town I do so regularly, as my running average is 42 mpg, handily topping that 39 figure. On all-highway trips, I have gotten into the low 50s on highways with an SL of 65 or less. Doing 70+ all day long with A/C running, it pulls only 46-49 mpg. More power to the subcompacts!
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 12:54 pm) I shudder to think how slow I'd have to drive my Intrepid to get its raw figures of 24 city/38 highway. Probably so slow it would be dangerous! The best I ever got was around 32.5, averaging 55-60, occasionally getting up to 65 or so, and no a/c use. I guess with a stick shift being more of a direct connection, it's easier to meet or beat the EPA estimates, even old raw numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 1:04 pm) Oh yes, absolutely, and the smaller the engine, the more true that is, so it's particularly true for most subcompacts. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Nov 06, 2008 7:47 am) |
|
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
