Yes, imperial gallon and manual transmission. I’m not a slow driver but I am quite efficient, still, I didn’t have to struggle for those figures.
The VW petrol engines are pretty damn good as well. I had a 1.5 petrol Golf in Iceland for a week last year and on twisty, rough roads and studded tyres with an auto box I was averaging 45 mpg. (and it was a pretty rapid car as well)
Regular Prius here. Around 45 in both the city and reasonable highway speeds. 40 or a bit less when I hit 80 or over. 50 or higher on a low-speed-limit surface road with few stops.
2009 Toyota Corolla. I also calculate MPG when I fill up - this morning I got 35.2 mpg. My commute is 16 mi one-way, and more than 14 of that is freeway.
I make a game out of coasting up to stop lights in hopes they will change before I get there and drafting off trucks and so on. I have made my commute so often I know pretty well what speed I need to go to make all the lights.
I definitely respect the performance potential of a properly set up electric car (built purely for performance, as the electric motor has vast potential), but two factors I would miss are;
1; shifting gears, it’s an integral part of the driving experience, and makes you one with the car, a good manual transmission gives an unmatched sense of really “connecting” with the car, it’s a very engaging experience, and the “one speed” of the electric just takes away some of the “soul” or “life” of the experience
Given a choice between a Tesla with Ludicrous Mode, and a Porsche 911 with conventional manual, I’d take the Porsche every time, yes the Tesla is technically faster and more efficient, the 911 has “soul”, history and other intangibles
2; the SOUND of the internal combustion engine, it just sounds right, you’re basically being propelled by a metal box of explosions, powered by liquid dinosaurs, there’s just something visceral about the sound and feel!
Which would sound better to you? The whine of high voltage current, or the thundering rumble of a metal box of explosions made from liquid dinosaurs?
Yes, yes, the electric is more efficient and potentially environmentally friendly, but the ICE just sounds right.
I’d pick a regular-sounding engine sound, but any knocking or irregularity reminds me of the loud-pipe motorcycle troll brigade, so I prefer electric to a rumbling engine.
2004 Expedition 4x4 5.4, gauge is indicating approximately 19.something last time I drove it. I use it primarily for camping, and it gets good highway mileage (relatively speaking, of course!). Michigan is mostly flat, as far as roads are concerned. Although now that I have the 2019, I don’t use it as much.
2019 Expedition 4x4 3.5 turbo, the gauge is sitting at 16.1 this morning. It’s a daily driver with primarily urban traffic, and it’s kind of fun in “Sport” mode. If I put it in “Econo” mode and stick to the highways, I can coax about 23 mpg out of it.
Drive a 2017 VW Tiguan 2L petrol auto.
Best result was 5.6L/100km = 51 mpg (imperial) = 42 mpg (us). Fully laden with my three teenage kids and a weeks luggage.
Travelled 950km (590 miles) in 8:30 hours. Still had 150 km range when we got home.
My daily driver is a 2006 Honda Ridgeline, 3.5 V-6, I get about 14 mpg in town, 22 on the highway. I also have a 2009 Cadillac CTS*, 3.6 V-6. I have only driven it about 1000 miles since replacing the transmission and it is showing 17.1 mpg. Taking it on a 2000 mile trip starting next week, that will show what I can really get for mileage.
Bought the car about 2 months ago for $700, the seller said he blew the engine. It was making a terrible racket when running. Got it home and found the problem was in the transmission, something broke where the torque converter mates with the transmission. Bought a used trans for $1800 and paid $400 to have it installed. Car drives like a dream and only has 54,000 miles on it. Not bad for a car that cost total about $3000.
The Big Old Fords get 8 mpg, empty or towing the Pyramid of Giza. The German fleet are all around low 20’s. Don’t know about the rest. I’ve got some motorcycles that do maybe 50?
Yeah, that SKYAVTIV technology or whatever they call it works a treat. I had a 2004 Mazda 3 (without SKYACTIV) that officially was EPA rated at something like 24/32, but I squeezed more like 25/34 out of it. Once I even got around 34.5 on all highway miles. The 2014 (with SKYACTIV) is officially 29/39, but I can eke out around 42-43 if I do all highway.
I get a little frustrated with my wife’s 2016 Kia, as I’m so used to these sorts of numbers. While highway it’s perfectly fine (in the mid-to-high-30s), in the city, I can barely get 21 MPG. (It’s rated as up to 26 mpg city, but I’ve never gotten numbers anywhere near that here in Chicago.) Compared to a lot of the numbers here, it’s an ecocar, but it’s just a little surprising for its size, engine, and weight how much lower my city mileage is compared with even the older Mazda. The Mazdas are manuals, and the Kia is auto, but that shouldn’t matter in this day and age (my understanding is that autos perform as well or better than humans in terms of fuel efficient driving today. And, yes, I do have the Kia set on “Eco” mode.)
And that reminds me of the worst mileage vehicle I ever drove.
When I was in high school, in the early 1980s, my parents owned a 1969 Jeep Wagoneer, and it wound up being the car that I drove frequently. In 2WD mode, the thing got about 10mpg on the highway, 8 or so in town. If you locked the front hubs (which, of course, you had to get out of the car to do manually), and went into 4WD mode, the MPG dropped to about 5. :eek: