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?
8691 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 1:39 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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) |
|
|
Replying to: texases (Nov 06, 2008 7:47 am) If fuel economy was such a concern, it seems to me that would be the way to go. Any minivan worth a darn should be able to get at least mid 20's on the highway, I'd imagine.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 1:40 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 12:42 pm)
|
|
|
I've had my ;09 fit sport manual for a couple weeks and have 2 tanks of gas behind me. i've decided to track my fuel economy for the life of the car, so i can see if it actually improves as the engine wears in. anyway, my 1`st tank mileage was 34mpg with a 25% highway 75% city split. my 2nd tank turned in 36mpg with a 40% highway 60% city split. any any case, i'm very please with these numbers and i believe they'll only improve. i'd like to get 40+ no matter what type of driving i'm doing. only time will tell if that's possible. dg
|
|
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
