soul strife

That was a great comparo. I like that it showed three different energy types with three different cars to be efficient.

routesixtysixer

What was really interesting were their city mileage numbers: Civic Hybrid (in Eco mode) achieved 37.6 mpg. Cruze Eco? 42.7 mpg!

Bob Cosby

From the article....

I was ROFLOL when I read that...just had to quote it here.

Kudo's to GM for the Cruze! My only concern would be the highway mileage issue the article mentioned...need more data on that one.

soul strife

I will say that I always liked the TDI's but, now I question the payoff with higher priced diesel fuel.

90 Z28SS

Not to be-little the Cruze Eco with the 1.4...but a lighter(than the Jetta)Cruze Eco, with VW's TDI engine paired with GM's manual trans would be a killler daily driver. Would gladly except the extra price of diesel fuel for the extra torque.

scott9050

You can see by the June numbers compared to the 6 month YTD below how the disaster has affected the Japanese.

1 Camry 147,469
2 Corolla 136,747
3 Altima 131,842
4 Fusion 131,686
5 Civic 127,571
6 Accord 127,105
7 Cruze 122,972
8 Malibu 122,783
9 Sonata 115,014
10 Impala 103,644

93TA

in and around tampa fl people drive 80+ all the time... good roads, no hills, 70mph speed limits and almost all trips requiring a drive on i75, i275 or i4, i hit 80+ almost everytime day i drive. now where i was from in pa, yes you would seldom if ever hit 80mph on normal daily driving, but around here 80 is really common.. if i drive 75 i'm getting passed more than i'm passing, if i drive 80, i'm still getting passed by several cars and passing several cars, if i drive 70, everyone passes me.

HAZ-Matt

2009 Aura XR stock has wheel diameter of 26.31", 6th is 0.75 and final is 2.89. At 80mph it is 2215RPM.

I don't know what year 335i but I'll use 2010 for a 6 speed auto, has something like a 24.97" wheel diameter, .69 top gear and 3.46 final drive.
At 80mph that works out to 2571RPM.

That is an estimate based on the data from searches and more importantly the dynamic wheel diameter will be somewhat different. But yes the Aura probably is at lower RPM at 80mph.

The rating is not at 80mph. 80mph has very little to do with the EPA highway rating. That was a key point from my post. Both the Highway cycle and High Speed cycle average 48mph. The High Speed is at 80mph barely any of the time.

Yes vast difference in engine configuration... higher displacement, turbocharged motor with more aggressive gearing versus an NA lower displacement motor... downshifting is reducing the economy, smaller efficiency window of the NA versus turbo motor is also hurting you. If you drove a 350mi test track that was perfectly smooth you might find the Aura pull ahead. The fuel economy numbers are also pretty sensitive to variations in throttle input which is why the window sticker has such a large range listed for the fuel economy. It isn't because the cars are not repeatable, it is the testers that have a difficult time performing the same test.

If they would have had an even more economical turbo car like a Solstice GXP or Sky Redline they would have bested the 335i's numbers though.

Maybe they don't complain as much. Survey a statistically significant number of them for actual fuel economy and then we will have some real data.

That is in fact what it is supposed to represent. A commute in moderate highway traffic.

There are too many factors to consider especially considering that the cars you have listed all vary a good deal in configuration. Most cars designed for economy are underpowered and are optimized to perform on the test cycles and legal speeds.

I basically tend to agree. The answer to ignorance is education, not changing reality to suit someone's incorrect assumption about what a number means.

godofdragons

Lol so that's why the taxis around here(mostly camrys) all have the hubcaps ziptied on

teal98

That's a good point. Threxx is extrapolating mpg at 80 mph from mpg on the highway test, which averages 48 mph.

Your post points out why those extrapolations can fail. On the other hand, there are probably quite a few consumers out there who would do the same thing. EPA would need to add a high speed "long trip" test in order to provide that info in a repeatable way.

Call it the Texas I-10 test
Of course, then those who live in hilly areas would complain that their results don't track flat land results (or vice versa, as West Texas is hilly), etc. You can't test every possible drive cycle.

Threxx

Hujass,
This is very simply how the typical consumer thinks, and personally I don't think they're an idiot for thinking this:
"My last few cars have met or exceeded their EPA highway rating at 75-80 mph, but this new Chevy Cruze is well under its rating at the same speeds. What a POS"

Completely reasonable logic IMO for somebody who doesn't realize that the EPA highway test represents a rush hour highway commute, which I would estimate is approximately 99.9% of the US population.

I think the EPA needs to either eliminate the highway rating as it is now and replace it with a "70 mph rolling ground road trip" highway rating (yeah I'd like to see 80 but since 70 is the highest normal limit I'm aware of, that's probably what they'd do), or else add a third rating.

City / Highway Commute / Highway (or Interstate?) Cruise

or just

City / Highway Cruise

Z28x

The new MY 2013 EPA labels will stress the combined mileage and not the city or hwy.

HAZ-Matt

I understand what point you and Threxx are getting at. I think it would be interesting to see some actually mileage data and find out what sort of driving the average consumer does in any given vehicle. Probably the majority would fall into the city or highway cycle just because of average daily commutes.

Maybe a "high speed cruise" cycle would do what you guys are looking for, but I don't know that it would make a huge difference to consumers. I know the board membership here knows more about cars and the EPA tests than average consumers, but I wonder how much we are underestimating their understanding of the numbers. Specifically how many actually assume they can get the published numbers at 80mph even if they don't know about the test specifics. I bet that most assume that the numbers represent more "pedestrian" speeds somewhere along the 60-70mph range.

teal98

I agree. And there is such a thing as too much info. If you have an 80mph test, do you also need a 70mph test and a 60mph test?

People who care about such things should know that mileage will be worse at 80mph than at 60mph. And that you can't precisely extrapolate from mpg at 60 to mpg at 80.

guionM

First, anyone looking at the mileage they are getting at 80 mph thinking it should relate to what the EPA is putting on the window sticker has no real understanding of the purpose of the numbers.

The EPA numbers you see on the window are for comparison purposes only!!!

Any mileage number any of us claim you get (yes, that includes you) means very little since there's literally dozens of things that will affect mileage from the way you drive, the pressure in your tires, the terrain you're driving, the fuel you have (winter fuel tends to have more oxidizers mixed in lowering mileage), tempreature, and many other things.

The EPA tests is the great equalizer. It tests all vehicles under the same standardized methods, conditions, tempreatures, manufacturer's specs, etc.

The other thing the EPA does (since 2005) is to make it's estimates on the conservative side. So that 1995 Camaro that seems to get just as good mileage as a modern V8 actually gets notably worse (especially when you look at the power output). EPA tests don't require 80 mph runs, and car manufacturers program and gear vehicles for EPA testing. Therefore, the mileage you get running above 80 mph has no bearing on anything related to the EPA rating.

Final item, the MPG numbers you see on the window and the MPG number for the car that's used to determine the vehicle's CAFE are very different numbers.

CAFE's numbers are higher.