Last post on Jul 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Buick Lucerne, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Charger, Ford Taurus, Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G8, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#6371 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [brucelinc]
Jun 03, 2008 (6:19 am)
Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style.
no reason to get irritated at all - it is not this statement I question - heck it was even possible to better the old EPA ratings never mind those lower 'new' ones. The disbelief comes from your mileage claims at 75-80mph specifically- given that there is a significant hit (FE wise) any car will take at those speeds. Would be interested to know for sure what that engine speed actually is at 75 or 80 - one poster reports 2000 at 75, the other 2000 at 80 - even that is a significant difference, never mind that is also less than even the Toyota engine/6 speed which does have that greater flexibility allowed by that extra sophistication in the valvetrain, as you note.
And yes, if I drive my Avalon at a constant 60 or even 65 I will see FE in the low or even mid 30s - just not at 75 or 80 - and down here in Texas - I'd be getting run over if I tried to poke along at a mere 60 mph on most of our highways
#6372 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (6:47 am)
No, I am not really irritated. I keep coming back for more!
Specifically, the Taurus with the standard 17 inch wheels goes 37.1 MPH per 1000 RPM. That would be 74.2 MPH at 2000 RPM and 2,156 RPM at 80 - a difference of a tach needle width. I agree that those speeds take a toll versus 60. Even 80 takes quite a toll over 75. I didn't pay attention to our average speed for the trip but I usually can avoid speeding tickets on this route if I run around 76 -78 - give or take a couple of MPH. The posted limit is 70.
#6373 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (7:09 am)
Running at 75, I routinely beat the OLD EPA numbers for my vehicle by 2-3 mpg, the new estimates by 6-7. I drive an off topic sedan, but I say this to say that it really IS possible as long as you aren't gunning it regularly to pass a truck or something.
#6374 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (7:10 am)
Claim could easily be true. I am currently getting 25.8 mpg on my Azera for the last about 3500 miles (just turned over 30,000 total). This is 70/30 hwy/city and mostly between 65 and 75 MPH on the highway. I have checked (the old method) not the computer and have gotten easily between 29mpg and 31 mpg on 200 plus mile drives at 75-80 mph several times.
When my wife used the car consistently, she was more like 60/40 city/hwy, the average dropped to about 23.6 mpg, as an average.
I tend to drive fast, but not jack rabbit starts to get to speed.
#6375 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [thegraduate]
Jun 03, 2008 (7:21 am)
I routinely beat the OLD EPA numbers for my vehicle by 2-3 mpg, the new estimates by 6-7
since I know you are one of our younger posters here - I would suggest that you might also be the only '20 something' that can make this claim.
#6376 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [jaymagic]
Jun 03, 2008 (7:39 am)
I have checked (the old method) not the computer
which in itself can lead to inaccurate results
These new high speed vapor recovery gas pumps will almost always shutoff well before your fuel tank is full - in the case of my Avalon 2 gallons or more - out of 18.5. So therefore if I start with a truly full tank and then 'fill up' with some quantity of fuel 2 gallons less, my calculated FE will necessarily be way high (approx. 10%) . The only way anymore to get an accurate FE calculation is to make sure that the tank is 'topped off' everytime - something that they (and the pumps) don't want us to do for obvious reasons. I really think that the trip computers in our cars may be more accurate on a tank-by-tank basis.
#6377 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (7:51 am)
I would suggest that you might also be the only '20 something' that can make this claim.
Captain, were you trying to fish me out?
Last time I took my IS350 on a trip I set the cruise at 85 mph and I got around 28 to 29 mpg. I have no doubt that if I slow down for just another 10 mph (75) I would have no problem brreaking the 30 mpg barrier. That's not too shabby for a 300+ hp car if you ask me...
For your info, the new EPA estimate for my car is 19/26/21 and old estimate was 21/28/24.
#6378 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [louiswei]
Jun 03, 2008 (8:48 am)
just so brucelinc doesn't feel alone - I find this hard to believe as well - 28mpg at 85mph????. The IS not a particularly light car that is further 'burdened' (from a FE perspective) by the RWD? And I think you know what I think about the FSE version of the 2GR - even more of the best! Apologies, of course, to the VQ!
#6379 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (9:00 am)
The whole trip averaged out to be 27.8 mpg and keep in mind that's including going through I-10 in LA and bunch of traffics before I can set my cruise at 85 mph. According to the mpg meter when I was at the cruising speed it was constantly hovering around 27 to 32 mpg.
The 2GR is phenomenal on highway both in terms of FE and performance. I don't know about the regular 2GR but the only time that my 2GR-FSE doesn't return good FE is in the city with my lead foot. I average about 19.5 mpg for my everyday driving and that's about 85% city and 15% highway.
#6380 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [louiswei]
Jun 03, 2008 (9:10 am)
always thought that the direct injection on the FSE was for the extra 30 hp and if anything would hurt FE slightly - much like the latest variants of the GM 3.6 primarily in the CTS. The Avalon really doesn't need the 300 hp IMO, unlike the IS which certainly puts it to good use