The 40-MPG Challenge

[skyking]

Sorry I can not provide a link ... my sources are industry insiders.

However, you may be able to confirm it yourself ... if you contact a major Sprinter dealer's fleet specialist and ask specifically about the 2.143L twin turbo diesel AT Sprinter 2500 average fuel economy in mixed driving expected in the US for 2013. The number were presented at a (sales?) conference within the last 10 months.

alrighty then.

 

[NetWareHead]

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.

I'm not aware of any TDI engine for either Passat or Jetta that uses urea or any kind of diesel exhaust fluid. As far as I know, both models are using the same 4 cylinder engine.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

I'm not aware of any TDI engine for either Passat or Jetta that uses urea or any kind of diesel exhaust fluid. As far as I know, both models are using the same 4 cylinder engine.

Just got off the phone with a large regional VW dealer's service department ... they said ALL 2012 VW diesels use urea.

Are they wrong?

 

[NetWareHead]

Just got off the phone with a large regional VW dealer's service department ... they said ALL 2012 VW diesels use urea.

Are they wrong?

My 2009 does not need any urea additives like large trucks/buses do. I'm reading that this is a new feature added to 2012 models. Seems like TDIs across the board have this. I'm seeing that this diesel exhaust fluid is costly too...glad I bought mine when I did.

 

[vi edit]

The Passats don't have a closed filter system like the Jetta/Golf's. Replacing the urea is done around every 15,000 miles. Everything I've read said that the engine in the Passat is more updated/advanced than what is in the Jetta/Golf.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39992
"The 2012 Passat is the first VW passenger car in North America to incorporate an SCR CAT that converts NOx to harmless N2 and water via an onboard Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) storage tank and chemical injection vs. consuming an inordinate amount of diesel fuel to regenerate a lean NOx trap or specialty CAT and without overly aggressive amount of EGR."

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Thanks for the additional details ...

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

An update from Edmunds

Well folks ... the question was what did Edmunds really see with the Sonic on the Interstate run where fuel was correctly measured ... right?

Well, I asked them. And here is the reply.

To: Edmunds

Subject: Correlation Sonic mpg calculated versus vehicle trip mpg indicator for Interstate leg?

INQUIRY DETAILS
URGENT! What are the calculated gallons/miles and the on-board MPG indicator values for the Sonic during the return 70 mph Interstate leg of the test? gallons and miles indicator reading values would be appreciated. I am in a very heated debate with a VERY ANGRY GM loyalist that currently HATES ... Edmunds! A quick response would be appreciated!

Thanks for your question. I apologize for the delay -- here's the info you've requested:

Miles: 215.3
Gallons: 6.25
Edmunds calculation 34.2
Sonic calculation: 38.4


Kind regards,

Warren
Automotive Content Editor | Edmunds.com

​

My results for 215.3 miles/6.25 gallons = 34.448 mpg (0.2 mpg difference compared to Edmunds calculation ... not significant in my opinion).

However, this is significantly below the 38.4 mpg recorded by the onboard fuel economy gauge for the Interstate return trip ... averaging 70 mph.

This 10% discrepancy between measured miles/gallons and the on-board MPG indicator during the Interstate leg does raise questions about conclusions for the Sonic on the other legs of the test since the onboard fuel economy gauge was used to determine relative placement with the other 5 vehicles in the absence of verifiable gallons and miles data.

I asked ... there is the data ... draw your own conclusions.​

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=yourMpgVehicle&id=32035

Back at you...

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

I have no problem with user experienced 36.9 mpg @ 43% highway.

Keep in mind that Edmunds' 34 mpg (38 mpg fuel economy guage) Interstate leg was run at an average 70 mph.

Collectively, all of these numbers seem reasonably consistent to me for the technology.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have no problem with user experienced 36.9 mpg @ 43% highway.

Keep in mind that Edmunds' 34 mpg (38 mpg fuel economy guage) Interstate leg was run at an average 70 mph.

Collectively, all of these numbers seem reasonably consistent to me for the technology.

What if the user used the mpg readout?

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

That is just another variable within the statistics ... just like different drivers ... or terrain.

Some folks are meticulous and accurate about fuel economy measurements while others are sloppy.

As long as the input data passes My Garage pre-screen before placement in the www.fueleconomy.gov National Fuel Eonomy KNOWLEDGEBASE ...
Shared MPG Estimates

... that is the best I can hope for.

 

[rumpleforeskin]

When i was recently in california i noticed alot of hybrid cars, which is something that has not realy taken off here in the UK.

Every hire car i have had in the US has had a large engine (by european standards) been an automatic and run on petrol, I seen next to zero diesel cars, and when filling up a car in the states i hardly ever seen a diesel pump on the forecourt.

I think becuase petrol is so cheap in the USA there is far less concern about fuel economy. I was only paying about $4.5 for a US gallon.

Currently in the UK hybrid cars cost alot more than diesel alternatives, have lower MPG, and far less choice of cars, prius is the only one commonly seen, where as almost every car maker has a couple of diesel versions of there cars. Infact i think the biggest reason people currently buy hybrids is to be Greener.

We now have a few electic cars being sold here, though it may be a while before the running ost per mile is proven.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

rumple,

Your assessment of the US is very valid in my opinion.

Gasoline at a station near me here in North Carolina has dropped to USD $3.139 compared to diesel at $3.679 per US gallon today.

Folks here in the US are not good at planning ahead for the next several cycles of fuel price increases.

A little planning an a machine with significantly above average fuel economy has serve me well in the past. Several of my vehicles have almost paid for themselve with fuel cost savings ... I usually keep a machine about 6 years or more if it serves our family well.

And I am not an aggressive driver ... so 100 to 140 hp is probably more than enough as long as the torque is there.

 

[ultimatebob]

What if the user used the mpg readout?

Heh... If I were to believe the trip computer in my Cruze, I'd think that I'm getting 40 MPG all the time. When I divide the the total miles driven on the odometer by total gallons pumped into my car at the gas station to get the Real MPG, it's a solid 2 or 3 MPG less.

That doesn't seem to be a Chevy thing, though. The trip computer in my Mini also overestimated my MPG by about 2 MPG.

 

[riffdex]

I saw this "smart" car in the city a few weeks ago. Guy was pretty stoked about his 40 MPG apparently (I wonder if he even gets 40 MPG or if that's just the EPA estimate?). I guess he doesn't know my dad used to get 40 MPG back in the early 80s with his Honda CRX. Or that he currently gets 40 MPG in his '95 Ford Escort. And if my dad get's in a head-on collision, he's a lot less likely to have life-threatening injuries.

 

[foghorn67]

Heh... If I were to believe the trip computer in my Cruze, I'd think that I'm getting 40 MPG all the time. When I divide the the total miles driven on the odometer by total gallons pumped into my car at the gas station to get the Real MPG, it's a solid 2 or 3 MPG less.

That doesn't seem to be a Chevy thing, though. The trip computer in my Mini also overestimated my MPG by about 2 MPG.

I think I beat my trip computer instant and average mpg by 2. Finally got it on the highway and was able to keep in cruise for hours. It reported 31, and I got almost 33 doing about 70-73(used the plus/minus button to slowly pass trucks). Tons of variables make that instant readout flutter. Not just inclines, but road surfaces and wind who knows what the heck else.

 

[foghorn67]

rumple,

Your assessment of the US is very valid in my opinion.

Gasoline at a station near me here in North Carolina has dropped to USD $3.139 compared to diesel at $3.679 per US gallon today.

Folks here in the US are not good at planning ahead for the next several cycles of fuel price increases.

A little planning an a machine with significantly above average fuel economy has serve me well in the past. Several of my vehicles have almost paid for themselve with fuel cost savings ... I usually keep a machine about 6 years or more if it serves our family well.

And I am not an aggressive driver ... so 100 to 140 hp is probably more than enough as long as the torque is there.

Most people honestly don't care. Vehicles purchases are decision based on many needs. I never judge what anybody else drives.

 

[LTC8K6]

I saw this "smart" car in the city a few weeks ago. Guy was pretty stoked about his 40 MPG apparently (I wonder if he even gets 40 MPG or if that's just the EPA estimate?). I guess he doesn't know my dad used to get 40 MPG back in the early 80s with his Honda CRX. Or that he currently gets 40 MPG in his '95 Ford Escort. And if my dad get's in a head-on collision, he's a lot less likely to have life-threatening injuries.

Your dad is probably a lot more likely to have life threatening injuries in the Escort.

The 2012 Smart is rated 34/38 and requires premium fuel.
The 2010 Smart is rated 33/41 and requires premium fuel.

 

[desy]

Thats what i was thinking no way a 20 yr old Escort is better in a crash than a current Smart. I used to get 40+ in my 95 Civy hatch

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Configuration

2011 smart fortwo coupe 3 cyl, 1.0 L, Auto(AM5), Premium Gasoline
User Average MPG(US) 43.5
EPA 36 mpg(US) combined

2010 smart fortwo coupe3 cyl, 1.0 L, Auto(AM5), Premium Gasoline
User Average MPG(US) 35.6
EPA 36 mpg(US) combined

2009 smart fortwo coupe3 cyl, 1.0 L, Automatic (AM5), Premium Gasoline, SIL 2MODE CLKUP
User Average MPG(US) 39.3
EPA 36 mpg(US) combined

2008 smart fortwo coupe3 cyl, 1.0 L, Automatic (S5), Premium Gasoline, SIL 2MODE CLKUP
User Average MPG(US) 38.2
EPA 36 mpg(US) combined
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=smart&model=fortwo coupe

And

2010 smart fortwo cabriolet3 cyl, 1.0 L, Auto(AM5), Premium Gasoline
User Average MPG(US) 45.9
EPA 36 mpg(US) combined
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=smart&model=fortwo cabriolet

Interesting isn't it?

Hope this helps ...