The 40-MPG Challenge

[50 mpg by 2012]

IF ... it will make you feel better ... I saw the results of a high bumpered (off-road?) broadside on the driver's side of a 95 Civic VX HB.

The impact bent the passenger side wheels under the car; crushed driver's side in reasonably uniformly between the bottom of the side window line and the door handle from the bottom of the windshield/front fender to the rear hatch ... but, interestingly ... the interior of the driver's door never contacted the driver's seat. In fact, there was at least a 50 mm gap between the seat and door.

1995 Honda Civic HB VX 1.5 L, 4 cyl, Manual 5-spd, Regular Gasoline

39 City 43 Combined 50 Highway 54.3 user average
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=11703

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=yourMpgVehicle&id=11703

Safety Rating
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=safety&id=11703

Draw your own conclusions ...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Safety Rating
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=safety&id=11703

Draw your own conclusions ...

Bear in mind that frontal crash test ratings are only comparable between cars that are within 250 pounds of the same weight. (NHTSA PDF explaining the crash testing system.)

If you crash a 5,000 pound vehicle with a 3-star rating into the front of a 2,000 pound vehicle with a 5-star rating, the heavier vehicle will technically be safer despite the lighter car's "better" rating.

ZV

 

[NutBucket]

3 stars under the old rating system isn't very good.....

Not that I really worry about safety ratings when buying cars; just pointing out facts.

 

[mak16]

diesel is more expensive though, right?
Mazda is the winner?

 

[LTC8K6]

No Dodge Dart?

I think it requires 93 octane for the turbo, though.

 

[power_hour]

Cool study until your on the freeway getting passed by granny in her Corolla flipping you the bird for driving so slow...

 

[_Rick_]

That's what the right to bear arms is all about. Shoot out a tire, and be done with it.
Because speed kills.

 

[Zenmervolt]

3 stars under the old rating system isn't very good.....

That's exactly the point.

If a heavier vehicle with a "not very good" frontal safety rating crashes head-on into a much lighter vehicle with an "exceptional" frontal safety rating, the heavier vehicle still wins. You cannot compare frontal crash test ratings between vehicles that are more than 250 pounds apart in weight.

ZV

 

[Throckmorton]

IF ... it will make you feel better ... I saw the results of a high bumpered (off-road?) broadside on the driver's side of a 95 Civic VX HB.

The impact bent the passenger side wheels under the car; crushed driver's side in reasonably uniformly between the bottom of the side window line and the door handle from the bottom of the windshield/front fender to the rear hatch ... but, interestingly ... the interior of the driver's door never contacted the driver's seat. In fact, there was at least a 50 mm gap between the seat and door.

1995 Honda Civic HB VX 1.5 L, 4 cyl, Manual 5-spd, Regular Gasoline

39 City 43 Combined 50 Highway 54.3 user average
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=11703

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=yourMpgVehicle&id=11703

Safety Rating
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=safety&id=11703

Draw your own conclusions ...

Of course side impacts were not tested. If they were, those cars would get zero stars. Your example is probably a lucky break

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Of course side impacts were not tested. If they were, those cars would get zero stars. Your example is probably a lucky break

You are probably right.

However, aren't the results of any accident event a RANGE of possible probabilities?

That sounds like "daily living" ... where insurance and its' premiums are based on some company's assessment of the risks and associated potential costs impacts for a specific (or range of) client(s) and potential event outcomes ... since Loyd's of London.

There ain't no absolute guarrantees!

 

[NetWareHead]

This isn't city; it would be more considered combined, which is about the numbers the cars saw.Now that is interesting. The TDI definitely surprised me with its finding. And the other cars did, too--about how bad they were. Those are terri-bad numbers from the bottom three. A lot of people with a lot of cars find that they can match EPA, sometimes beat it, even at highway speeds.

The Passat TDI is bigger/heavier car than any of the competitors. If the smaller Jetta was used, the TDI would have beaten the competition by a wider margin. AND if TDI had a manual tranny, mpg would have been yet even higher.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

The Passat TDI is bigger/heavier car than any of the competitors. If the smaller Jetta was used, the TDI would have beaten the competition by a wider margin. AND if TDI had a manual tranny, mpg would have been yet even higher.

Try http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Volkswagen

See what USER MPG Estimates are ...

 

[vi edit]

The Passat TDI is bigger/heavier car than any of the competitors. If the smaller Jetta was used, the TDI would have beaten the competition by a wider margin. AND if TDI had a manual tranny, mpg would have been yet even higher.

I think the Passat actually more efficient than the Golf/Jetta and returns better figures. The engine is slightly different using a better intercooler and a different urea filter system with frequent changing intervals.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I *really* wish the Honda Fit could go on this list. I don't see *any* reason why it couldn't with some better design from Honda. IMO the Fit is one of the most intelligently designed cars with its practicality and magic seats. But 32mpg is frankly shitty mileage for a car of its power and size.

 

[CraigRT]

Makes me really want a diesel. Too bad the difference in cost savings over an already decent MPG car is small, even on an annual basis.

I averaged one of my last tanks of gas with mostly rural highway but with some city and it was 37.6 MPG. No special care taken to achieve higher. I think I could easily get 40 on rural highways.

 

[CraigRT]

I *really* wish the Honda Fit could go on this list. I don't see *any* reason why it couldn't with some better design from Honda. IMO the Fit is one of the most intelligently designed cars with its practicality and magic seats. But 32mpg is frankly shitty mileage for a car of its power and size.

That is almost the entire reason I did not buy a Fit (went with a Civic) The fact is, I wanted a hatch, but MPG was more important as the majority of the time the car is just going to be used as a commuter mule with only me in it. The Fit's MPG is terrible, for what it is. I totally agree. I am very happy with the mileage I am getting in the Civic though.

 

[Arkaign]

Honda, long known for their brilliant motors, needs to step it up. Look at the Mazda3 2.0i SkyActiv and even the Ford and GM options for their compacts like the Focus and Cruze. It's been proven that you can actually have a nice balance of usable hp/tq along with good fuel economy in an economy car.

 

[OCGuy]

I've never even been near the EPA estimate on either one of my cars......I'm not even sure it is possible.

 

[NutBucket]

Driver error Never had a problem getting EPA numbers in any of my cars.

 

[Doppel]

Driver error Never had a problem getting EPA numbers in any of my cars.

Could depend on the car It's taken me years but I'm possibly, just maybe starting to entertain the idea that all the VW fanbois always saying EPA underrates their TDIs are possibly not entirely delusional. So it might go the other way, too.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

I've never even been near the EPA estimate on either one of my cars......I'm not even sure it is possible.

What do you drive?

 

[OCGuy]

What do you drive?

2010 F150 with the 5.4 and the car in my sig with the 5.4.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Is the the pickup?

2010 Ford F150 Pickup FFV 2WD 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Automatic 6-spd, Gasoline or E85, FFV
16.8 User average; 14 – 20 User range; 4 sample; 16 combined; 14 city; 20 highwat Show All



The Cobra is a beauty!

 

[Zenmervolt]

Is the the pickup? 2010 Ford F150 Pickup FFV 2WD

- 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Automatic 6-spd
- Gasoline or E85, FFV
- 16.8 mpg User average based on 4 samples ranging from 14 to 20 mpg
- EPA Rating: 14 city / 20 highway, 16 combined

Fixed for legibility.

ZV

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Thanks.