350 MPG cars

a_unique_person said:
People should just not expect a car to take off fast. It really gains nothing in the scheme of things, but wastes a hell of a lot of energy. The Honda gets you to work just as quick as a big V8.
Click to expand...

It does gain something. I enjoy it. Acceleration and speed is VERY enjoyable to me. It actually gets me high. I'm not kidding.
 
Manual vs. automatic for economy isn't as large a gap as it once was. Five percent or less for most compacts. Although I have no proof I have heard that automatics can sometimes get better city mileage, in real world driving, because they upshift quickly. A manual can always outperform an automatic if the driver knows what they are doing. Unfortunately most drivers don't.

I hate to say it but I am a little skeptical of a 55 mpg claim. If that is per U.S. gallon that is 4.3 l / 100k which is an outstanding figure that few cars can achieve. If it is Imperial gal it would be 5.2 l / 100k which is a more reasonable but still outstanding figure. Either figure would be possible if you drove at about 80kmh or 50mph all the time. My Toyota Echo averages 6.0 l / 100k (39 mpg U.S.) being driven at about 125kmh (78mph) with the AC on and full of passengers and luggage.

The best fuel economy tips are - proper tire pressure and slow down.

Isn't she cute. Oh yeah, automatic transmission because it is way more fun to drive.

echo.jpg
 
Bikewer said:
I was under the impression that there was little difference between contemporary automatic transmissions and manuals in regards to efficiency.

Havn't really looked at any figures lately though.
Click to expand...

The difference in the Honda Insight can be huge. My CVT (automatic, continuously variable transmission) has extremely low emissions, and gets about 60-65mpg, depending on the weather.
If I had a 5 speed, I could be doing 75-85mpg, with the possiblility of higher with some after market mods. (see my earlier post)
The 5 speed has Lean Burn, which lets you get higher mileage. Also, with a 5 speed, you can take the car out of gear and coast more.

I would have gotten a manual, if I could have found one!!

edited to add: I can peel out from a stop sign and dust people, but it does make a hit in your mileage. I definately do it if the people in the car next to me are being Aholes.:D
 
bug_girl said:
The difference in the Honda Insight can be huge. My CVT (automatic, continuously variable transmission) has extremely low emissions, and gets about 60-65mpg, depending on the weather.
If I had a 5 speed, I could be doing 75-85mpg, with the possiblility of higher with some after market mods. (see my earlier post)
The 5 speed has Lean Burn, which lets you get higher mileage. Also, with a 5 speed, you can take the car out of gear and coast more.

I would have gotten a manual, if I could have found one!!

edited to add: I can peel out from a stop sign and dust people, but it does make a hit in your mileage. I definately do it if the people in the car next to me are being Aholes.:D
Click to expand...

Wanna put some money on that? :D

(Just kidding. ;))
 
[Originally posted by jimlintott[/i]
I hate to say it but I am a little skeptical of a 55 mpg claim. If that is per U.S. gallon that is 4.3 l / 100k which is an outstanding figure that few cars can achieve.
Click to expand...
It is a mileage that few cars can achieve but it was one of the highest mileage cars ever. I am sure it was over 50. I think it was 55 but it could have 53 or something. The US mileage rating have always been a little inflated which might explain some of the difference.


Oh yeah, automatic transmission because it is way more fun to drive.
Click to expand...
Did you mistype? Unless you are in bumper to bumper traffic, automatic is the way to go.

CBL
 
A lot depends on driving style as well. The stir-your-own fan that runs it up to the redline for each shift is going to get lousy mileage compared to an automatic driven "with an egg between your foot and the pedal".

Hehe- A few years ago I saw an article on a guy who had a vintage Ford Model "A". Thing had some 300,000 miles on the original engine, never rebuilt. Other than tires and brakes and such, the thing was original, and still got 25 mpg.
 
Honda 2005 Insight
- CVT Mileage: 57/56
- 5 speed Mileage: 61/66
http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_full_specs.asp?ModelName=Insight&Category=3

Bug_girl says she gets 60-65 mpg with CVT and hypothesizes 70-75 mpg with a 5 speed.

The fact that she beats the EPA estimated mileage is consistent with my experience. My Prelude is rated at 27mpg highway I believe and I routinely get over 30 mpg.

Bug_girl's estimates suggest about a 15% mileage improvement with a manual transmission. The Honda specification suggests about half that. So maybe there is room to be skeptical here, however Bug_girl's estimates were probably based on cars earlier than 2005.
 
Did you mistype? Unless you are in bumper to bumper traffic, automatic is the way to go.
Click to expand...

You may have mistyped.:D Seriously, I think that manual being more fun to drive is a myth. In my thirty-five years of driving I have driven mostly manuals and think they are a PITA. I also think that with both hands on the wheel and well practiced left foot braking you can more than make up for the slight performance edge a manual has in spirited driving.

I used to work as a service writer at a Ford dealership and my experience with fuel economy is that most people lie about it. Few people actually collect data and do the math. Even fewer people can match the fuel economy ratings on their cars because they are simply unwilling to drive that slow and careful. The average speed for the EPA highway cycle is 48mph. I don't see people driving that slow on the highway, around here anyway. I can match my cars rating if I slow down.

I'm not calling anyone a liar, I've just grown skeptical of fuel economy claims.
 
jimlintott said:
I've just grown skeptical of fuel economy claims.
Click to expand...
and that makes good sense.

Since purchase in May, our 5 speed Insight has averaged between 60-65 MPG. That's running with the air conditioning about 50% of the time, a big MPG killer. It's also with mostly my daughter driving who could relate to Freakshow's need for speed.

In other words, you would have to work to get less MPG in this car and no doubt could easily get more if you tried.

My wife drives the Civic hybrid (automatic) and she gets between 40-45 MPG. It gets a bit better w/o the air.
 
jimlintott said:
I hate to say it but I am a little skeptical of a 55 mpg claim. If that is per U.S. gallon that is 4.3 l / 100k which is an outstanding figure that few cars can achieve. If it is Imperial gal it would be 5.2 l / 100k which is a more reasonable but still outstanding figure.
Click to expand...
Considering that the U.S. is the only country that still uses miles and gallons (at least officially), it's a safe assumption that "miles per gallon" always means statute miles per U.S. liquid gallon.
 
You may have mistyped. Seriously, I think that manual being more fun to drive is a myth. In my thirty-five years of driving I have driven mostly manuals and think they are a PITA.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree but I will admit it depends on the transmission. The manual Hondas and Mazdas I have driven are nice. I especially loved my Miata. The few American cars I have driven are pretty bad in comparison. My current Subaru Outback is in between but I think it was much better when it was new.

I also know some people who destroy clutches and then complain about manual transmissions.

CBL
 
WildCat said:
Err, I was joking! You inadvertantly typed mph (miles per hour) instead of mpg.

I'd love to have a hybrid, but I'm in the construction business and need to haul tools and the occasional odd pieces of lumber and other material when the truck is unavailable. So I'm stuck w/ a 14 mpg SUV. :(
Click to expand...

Have you considered switching to one of those small engined, lighter weight mini-vans that are getting popular with people in the repair business? (Like a Dodge mini-Ram van or an Astrovan, or something?) One of these should net you better gas mileage. You can put racks on the roof to carry ladders, or pipe or 2 x's or plywood/sheetrock.

I'm a housing repair man and I have one of these and they are so much handier than my pickup ever was. I can reach over 1/2 the stuff in the back from my front bucket seat, and what I can't reach I have a sliding door on one side and a hatchback at the rear. No more climbing over tool cases and supplies to get at stuff!

I get about 18+ mpg, but when it was newer it would have got much better.
 
davefoc said:
As to the diesel car discussed above I believe it is well known that diesel cars get better mileage than gas powered cars. In a similar thread previously somebody said that there were disadvantages to the diesel engine that countered some of the fuel economy advantages. I think polution was one of the things mentioned but it seems like the poster had another point that I've forgotten.
Click to expand...

I can't think of anything other than pollution that would be a disadvantage to diesels. And a large part of that is the generally poor quality of American diesel fuel when compared to European (much higher in sulfur, if memory serves).

There's also the tendency of diesel to gel at low temperatures; but that's easily fixed with antifreeze additives (ethanol?).

Of course the pollution emissions are greatly reduced, if not actually eliminated, by switching to biodiesel fuels; with no loss of power or efficiency. They do have a higher gel temp; but again, antifreeze agents fix this.
 
About 25 years ago or so, the Volkswagen diesel Rabbit was like fuel mileage champ at over 50 mpg, if my memory serves me right.
 
one of the big ways to up the mileage on the insight is to run your tire pressure at 40psi. That made a 4mpg difference for me.

A lot of the hard core insighters (see my earlier post about www.insightcentral.net) run their tires at 50psi. I'm too nervous to do that.

Speed and temperature definately makes a big difference. If I lead foot it, or run the airconditioning, I get about 55mpg.

There are pages and pages of ways to get the most from your insight at that website, if you guys want tips.
 
Considering that the U.S. is the only country that still uses miles and gallons (at least officially), it's a safe assumption that "miles per gallon" always means statute miles per U.S. liquid gallon.
Click to expand...

You would think so but as a Canadian I can assure you it isn't. People ask me what kind of economy I get and when I say 6 I get totally blank stares. They buy little charts to convert. When a Canadian says miles per gallon they most certainly mean Imperial gallons. (I'm too lazy and stupid to deal with imperial measure and will stick to metric, thanks.;) )

I also know some people who destroy clutches and then complain about manual transmissions.
Click to expand...

As someone who has worked in auto service I noticed that too many transmission repairs were on manuals considereing they made up the minority of vehicles in service. Granted I would blame most of the problems on the driver. Just about every manual pickup I dealt with had no synchros left on second gear.

I learned to drive in a standard and am extremely adept at them with flawless heel and toe technique. I just find that mash the gas, mash the brakes, let the ABS sort out any wheel lockup and steer with both hands to be a whole lot more fun than the fuss that driving a standard entails.

Fuel efficiency is the only good reason to buy a manual.

CVTs are really neat to drive.

My next car will probably be a hybrid.
 
A lot of the hard core insighters (see my earlier post about www.insightcentral.net) run their tires at 50psi. I'm too nervous to do that.
Click to expand...

While high inflation will help economy the trade offs can be harsher ride and more importantly premature tire wear. While the former is a nuisance the latter may eat up more than any potential fuel savings in dollars.

I had a VW Rabbit about twenty years ago that I used to run at really high tire pressure. It would slide better:D . I got poor fuel economy and went through tires and brakes like crazy.

Wonder why??
 
Iamme said:
Have you considered switching to one of those small engined, lighter weight mini-vans that are getting popular with people in the repair business? (Like a Dodge mini-Ram van or an Astrovan, or something?) One of these should net you better gas mileage. You can put racks on the roof to carry ladders, or pipe or 2 x's or plywood/sheetrock.

I'm a housing repair man and I have one of these and they are so much handier than my pickup ever was. I can reach over 1/2 the stuff in the back from my front bucket seat, and what I can't reach I have a sliding door on one side and a hatchback at the rear. No more climbing over tool cases and supplies to get at stuff!

I get about 18+ mpg, but when it was newer it would have got much better.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be much of an improvement. I get 14 mpg, but that's because most of my driving is in the city. On road trips I get 22 mpg on the highway, still bad but tolerable. It's a Jeep Grand Cherokee, not some behemoth SUV. And the 4wd comes in handy after heavy snows, I have to do a lot of driving in unplowed alleys! Plus, it doesn't look like a typical work vehicle, so doesn't attract the interest of tool thieves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom