:) Pretty sure none of my friends have any need to lie about their fuel
mileage, certainly in the 7 cars in my close family we average ~30ish,
held up by my brother in his 330d and my missus in her 1.6 renault. That
said, some of my mates are so car-unfriendly I'd be less than convinced
by their calculations, but by rough "i get Xmiles per tank" quotes they
seem right enough. I really cant understand why anyone would WANT to lie
about MPG - unlike the second point lol.
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
Two questions you never believe the answers to:
1.) What gas mileage do you get?
2.) How often do you have sex?
Some of my mates are so car-unfriendly I'd be less than convinced
by their calculations, but by their rough "X miles per tank" quotes
they seem right enough. I cant understand why anyone would
WANT to lie about MPG.
I once had a motorhome that got about 7-8 mpg. Whenever I fueled
up someone nearby with a small car would invariably ask, "What kind
of mileage does that thing get?" To avoid the somber headshaking
and eye-rolling I would say, "I get 19 miles per gallon, but only if I go
easy on the gas going uphill!" It was delightful to see their facial
expressions as their brains tried to cope with the unexpected answer.
Rodan. < - - - - Showing an uncharacteristic mean streak.
Miles per imperial gallon, presumably.
I am also in the UK. I get 26 mpg in my 3.2 l motor. It's an older car now
(2001) with 6
cylinders. As I do less than 5000 miles pa I don't care too much about
prices. Biggest cost anyway is depreciation, followed by insurance.
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
I prefer using L/100KM, keeping in canadian style, but nobody knows what
the hell you're talking about.
7.8L/100KM = 30mpg
my ranger 3.0L gets 13l/100km ... 16.8mpg
I'm talking US MPG
1L/100km = ~235 (i use that for rough math in the truck)
It certainly has improved for the larger cars and engines.
I do agree that for smaller cars and engines there has been little
improvement in fuel mileage, but small engine power has increased
So what you're saying is we're really going the wrong way?
Why would we want to decrease fuel economy, for a only slightly better
Thats probably only one car though, i don't have time to do others :)
I would guess pickups have hovered somewhat the same... maybe only
slighly better with smaller efi engines doing the same job and making
But is this really the same car? The name may still be the same, but the
Civic today is closer in size to the Accord of some years ago. We keep
asking for (and getting) larger cars. I'm not sure how many cars you can
directly compare having the same name and being interior size over a 15 year
span. Crown Vic? LeSabre?
I'm basing my comments on the history of my own total fuel mileage of
similar driving with:
-1948 Austin A40
-1949 Pontiac 6 cyl flat head.
-1956 VW 1.1L
-1961 VW 1.3L 1,600 lb.
-1963 Chev II 6cyl
-1970 Datsun 1.6L 510 1,900 lb.
-1986 Chrysler 2.5L LeBaron
-1995 Chrysler 3.3L Concorde
-2001 Chrysler 2.7L V6 Sebring
The improvement in mileage of my last 3 cars over the 1949 Pontiac,
which was in first class running condition, is just amazing. The
Pontiac was typical of that ERA. Over a 50% improvement on the highway
and 60 to 90% improvement in city driving. The biggest city
improvement is in winter time. The 1963 Chev II was in the middle of
the my larger cars for mileage.
The last three mid sized cars give similar mileage to the older small
engined ones, but much more consistent on the highway in the winter. The
Concorde is still the best I've had on the highway, yes better than the
Sebring at 110kmph/70mph.
I keep track of all my fuel used and mileage. That sure is easier now
that I carry a Palm.
Most of us want higher fuel economy. If you build it, it will be sold.
Sure, lots of soccer moms ply the highways and byways of the country in
Suburbans and the like, but they would LIKE to have a Suburban that gets
better fuel economy. If they have to give up the Suburban to get the
economy, they'll pass on the economy. give them the form-factor of a
Suburban and better fuel economy, and they will beat the doors down at the
dealership to get one.
There is no "forcing" required. All you have to do is build the damn thing
and people will buy it. Maybe not everyone, but enough.
on Thursday 04 October 2007 04:23 pm, someone posing as Jeff Strickland took
a rock and etched into the cave:
If I have to choose between being cramped up in a subcompact Prius or Accord
or Volt vs. being able to not have my heat touch the roof of the truck in a
Suburban I'll take the Suburban/Silverado/Yukon/F150/Ram 2500...
...until they make a car/truck that gets the kind of mileage of a Prius but
is not a matchbox in size, then I'll keep driving the large cars.
I recently got my dad's '99 Sebring. It is a fun subcompact car, but my
goodness it is small! And it only gets about 5 MPG better on the highway
than my Avalanche.
I already knew that the current (NHW20) Prius was classified as a mid-size
but I had to look up the other 3. The Accord and Sebring are both also
mid-size and I am not sure about the Volt but if you call mid-size cars
subcompacts then what do you consider a true subcompact like a Yaris or
Aveo? It would seem that you would probably rank them right up there with a
key slot. Along the same lines a full size would be a compact car to you.
Assuming all of this is true what would you consider to be a full size car?
Perhaps a stretch limo version of either a Crown Victoria or a Delta 88? I
am just trying to understand your post better.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.