bad2000z

iTrader: (4)

I've been preaching this for a while now. Smaller displacement turbocharged engines will get better fuel economy assuming you NEVER get into the boost. As soon as you do, that small displacement turbocharged engine turns into a gas guzzling mf'er. Not to mention many FI engines require premium fuel, which negates the fuel economy gains. For an economical daily driver, I'll take NA all day erry day.

Rawr256

Uncle has a turbo sprint and has noticed the same thing. If he takes back roads, careful with shifts and not rough with the throttle he consistently gets 55 - 60 mpg, granted this is at 45 - 50 mph also.

Having the power available and how it is available is a big part of it imo. The other big factor I feel is the gearing. My G8 gets kind of meh mileage. I blame a lot of it on the small cam for the DoD mode so now it's lacking in the bottom end grunt for the v8 mode to keep it along. Than at 80 mph with the car the revs hang around 2k while in my wife's ws6 they are 1700. The only car I have really seen anything about is the cruze eco actually has the longer gears to make it work better on the fwy for the mileage.

MI-Z/28

So 2-3mpg worse then technology from the late 1990's. I like the new Camaro especially the 1LE, but I feel like GM can do better. Ford is getting 24mpg highway with a 660hp GT500. That's impressive.

Johnnystock

iTrader: (6)

Yeah its worst, but the car weights a ton more. So that aint too bad IMO. Not enough to justify not to buy it cause of gas mileage.

Then again, this brings the damn problem of the weight of the 5th gen. The 6th gen will be the real deal.

Fbody were really ahead of its time for performance/price/mpg for sure..But they didnt sell much and stopped production. On the other hand, the 5th gen sells...go figure.

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

Lots of good posts in this thread and everybody seems to get what's going on. It's all about getting the right paper numbers to satsify government and nothing to do with real world mileage. Let's face it: there are efficiencies to be found, but it takes the same amount of energy to propel any given mass at a specific rate of accleration, no matter how many cylinders it's sliced up into.

The more things change, the more they remain the same ... some of us are old enough to remember the introduction of the 3rd gens, with standard 4cyl and optional 6cyl and V8's. We're back to the same "fuel crisis" mentality of the early 80's as our government ideologues dictate to us ... with little impact on actual fuel consumption - real world economics being the determining factor.

justin455

This right here. It used to be a lot worse (like my old DSM that couldn't move out of it's own way under 3000rpm) but now you see small turbo 4's that make peak torque from 2000-5000rpm on a flat line. However, that's at full throttle in 3rd/4th/or 5th gear even. When you go to slowly pass someone at part throttle, doing 30 mph, I'll take the response of an NA 6 or 8 over a turbo 4.

It's a vague saying, but it has it's merit.

My old supercharged 3800, fatass, Bonneville got better gas mileage than my tiny DSM ever did. That fact was solely because you could do everyday driving, keeping up with traffic (actually leave them behind) without ever going over 2000rpms. The DSM you had to wring out pretty well just to get anywhere.

It seems most 4s (especially NA) have a very short first gear so they feel "peppy" on the sales test drive, but after that they fall flat on their face. Car companies know what they are doing. They get to say that their car puts out the same power as a V6, goes just as fast, but gets better mileage. What they fail to say is that if you actually use the car to get anywhere faster than their grandparents drive, the fuel mileage won't be any better than if you got a comparable 6.



I'm all for turbo 4's. I love the sound of a turbo spooling up, but for a DD (no modding) I'll always pick a larger 6 with taller gears than a turbo 4. Even if they always get the same MPG, if you drive them at the same pace the 6 won't have to work as hard and will have a less stressful life, especially considering boost pressure on the internals.

TriShield

And greenwashing to the masses with Eco-this, Eco-that and unrealstic fuel consumption numbers.

deft

iTrader: (7)

Not sure if you're aware, but the Hyundai was actually a mistake on their part. The story they tell revolves around their mpg tool being uncalibrated. They also did the right thing by paying every one of their customers who bought a car during this period. My girlfriend has a new elantra gt, and receives a prepaid card, and will do so for the duration of her ownership of the vehicle.

94 White T/A

My moms dually averages low 20's with a best of 31 on a long trip. Trucks aren't all bad

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

^^^ If you are talking about a 3/4 or 1 ton dually crew cab truck I'm going to call BS on you all day unless you are going downhill for 50 miles with the engine off.

My duramax will hit 22 MPG at 70 MPH and thats about as high as they go.

Back to the OP... my brother has a Focus ST... he states he's getting low 30's but he mainly does short drives around town, not too bad for a 250+ hp econobox. And that car is fine to put around in, seems to have plenty of power without getting into boost a lot.

94 White T/A

3500 crew cab dually Cummins cruising at 55 flat road with a 30mph tail wind

01 ss vert

iTrader: (1)

We just got my wife a Kia Optima EX, NA 2.4L. It's got plenty of power - no need for the 2.0T which is like 274HP. Honestly, Kia did a fantastic job tuning this car for part throttle - just 35-55% throttle input gets me up to speed pretty quick. It's suprisingly 'peppy' even under part throttle conditions. I think I've only floored it twice. We like the mileage - which is much better than the turbo edition.

The other reason we went NA - we plan to keep this car 15 years, and having to replace a turbo in 8+ years doesn't sound thrilling, or cheap.

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

That doesn't count, unrealistic conditions and speed on the highway. Cummins get about the worst fuel economy compared to the duramax and the powerstroke.

94 White T/A

Never heard anyone else say that.

And 55, flat road, & wind are unrealistic? I know its the high end of what anyone would see, but it's plenty realistic if you are in the right area... Mid 20's highway are the norm for it

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

Need to visit some diesel sites then, the newer cummins are the worst in fuel economy until you tune and remove the DPF and Urea injection on the newer models.

And i've not seen one person my dieseplace claim they get mid or high 20's ever with a diesel anything whether cummins/powerstroke or duramax because it doesn't happen.

The highest i've seen was 24 or so highway doing the same thing. It's one thing if it will do it once in a great while... but to claim over a long period of time that's what it averages is wrong.

I'll edit this, had one guy say he got 28 or so MPG on a 500 mile trip with his duramax however he has propane injection and was only counting how much diesel he was using.

94 White T/A

2005 cummins. I never said all the time. its normally in the 22-24 range

1994Z28Lt1

iTrader: (1)

Yeah we're all really impressed Heck I can watch my instant fuel economy read 99 mpg going down a nice long hill, and 50 mpg with a nice tailwind at 55 mph and of course its real world because it happens everyday! (on a very small piece of highway...)

Trying to pass off arguments like that as real world is idiotic. I've had the chance to spend an immense amount of time behind the wheel of the new duramax's, 6.7 powerstrokes and 6.7 cummins in a 1 ton dually configuration running all types of highways and all types of speeds and the best averages are coming from duramax's and powerstrokes with a slight edge to the duramax, the cummins is in a whole different realm of pathetic.

Most of the time we're talking 17-18 keeping up with the way most people drive around here.. that is until it decides to go into regen mode because you've been ***** footing it for far too long. With a 2005 you dont have that problem but I can guarantee getting 22-24 mpg out of a 2005 cummins dually is impeding the flow of traffic in most places.

Most of the time these trucks are doing what they are meant to be doing which is pulling 15,000 lb goose-necks in which case keeping up with traffic gets you about 7.5-10 mpg no matter what truck your pulling it with

94 White T/A

I notice you haven't had the 5.9. We average 22 mixed no problem driving 75-80 on the highway.
12-14 loaded with 12,000lbs.

http://www.duramaxforum.com/forum/ge...mileage-2.html

LS1vazquez

I always take Consumer Reports with a grain of salt. They have consistently proven to be anti-American and pro-Foreign in car reviews. All the time. WITHOUT FAIL. I have absolutely no idea why they are still taken seriously are a rating agency when they prove over and over again that they have an agenda.

For the record, they state in this report that most of these turbo 4's return only mid-high 20's MPG. This flies right in the face of this Motortrend report, found here, http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

This report, by Motortrend, reports that Turbo 4 cars consistently return near hybrid like numbers.

Even more interestingly is that appears the CR went out of their way to source vehicles that are usually not used in the standard litmus tests for the turbo 4 applications. It appears that they took regular full sized sedans that come with bigger motors, and reported the comparison on that.

The big suspect anomaly is that the one vehicle that does share in common with the Motor Trend report was the Chevy Cruze, and the Consumer reports test vehicle returned abysmal gas figures in comparison to the Motor Trend results. The MT Cruze consistently returned 40+ MPG, with the only anomaly being one lead foot tester who managed to get it down to 35 MPG, but still WELL over the CR published figure. Even more tragic is that they have the gall to publish that the 1.4 Turbo got the same MPG as the 1.8 N/A version despite the engine architectures being different and the car being the same model.

That's not shoddy reporting or a mistake. That's just CR appealing to a base and telling them what they want to hear. That's bad journalism. I know Motor Trend has it's fault, what with the whole "M3, ZO6, Porsche; which one is faster?" debacle where the Corvette out-braked, out-ran, and out handled the competition but the BMW still won because it had 4-doors and a back seat, but this is just ridiculous. (BTW Motor Trend, nobody alive who actually read that article is going to forget that one.)

For what it's worth, I just recently bought a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze and made a 2200 mile road-trip on less then 200 dollars worth of fuel. It averaged 38 MPG through the whole trip. That's uphill, downhill, highway, stop and go, through the desert and over the mountains. That's not a report, that's real world.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

^Exactly. I don't know what they do to get their average MPG figures, but they should state them like they are. "We averaged 30mpg with our foot to the floor 75% of the time, driving like we stole it", not "During a mixture of city and highway driving we were only able to average 30mpg".