These threads make me sad. My 1995 Ford Aspire, which just went into the junkyard about a month ago, hit 50 MPG a few times and was still getting in the 40s despite its rattletrap ride.
I ordered a 2012 Chevrolet Sonic sedan to replace it (in Inferno Orange Metallic, thankyewverymuch). I goofed and did not get the higher-MPG 1.4-L turbo engine, but I hope I’ll be happy with 35 combined, and maybe I can squeeze a few more MPG out of it, as the only extra I got was the satellite radio – no power stuff to increase weight.
Still counting down; it’ll be here in about 3½ weeks. All the reviews I read, both user and pro, were excellent (with the usual odd outliers).
My Fit averages about 38 mpg in mixed driving. I do a bit of hypermiling though. If you drive like a normal person you might not get that. They are easy to find used, and are reasonable new. I have driven (german and japanese) subcompacts my whole life and this is the best one I’ve ever had.
If you are buying new, the extra cost of getting a diesel car like the Jetta TDI largely ends up canceling out any fuel economy advantage it has over a gas car. You would have a hard time finding new, base model Jetta TDI for less than $22,500, while you can get a nice Civic / Focus / Elantra / SkyActiv Mazda 3 for $18,500 or so, or $4,000 less. If the gas cars get ~32 mpg combined, and the Jetta gets ~44 mpg combined, at current average US fuel prices the (according to AAA, per gallon, $3.86 for gasoline, $4.12 for diesel), the Jetta will cost 9.36 cents per mile, while the gas cars will cost 12.06 cents per mile, or 2.7 cents more a mile. So to make up that initial $4,000 price difference, you would have to drive the Jetta TDI just shy of 150,000 miles. Then you can start saving money.
Of course, this is a bit of simplification; it ignores depreciation (Jetta TDI tend to have a good resale value later on, because people see the high MPG figures, without doing the math like I did above), and maintenance costs, which given VW’s record in the last decade in the US, will likely be quite a bit higher than a Civic or Focus.
Remember those are imperial gallons, which are 1.2 times larger than American gallons; also the European fuel economy test is a lot more optimistic than the American fuel economy tests; for example, the Euro test rates the Prius at 60 mpg combined, vs 50 mpg combined (both US gallons) on the American test. And a lot of those small diesels would need modifications to pass US emissions laws (which, especially in the CARB states, are a lot stricter on NOX output), which would increase their cost, and reduce their fuel economy.
Yup. That the Imperial gallon is a different volume than the US gallon and that the EU and UK milage cycle is very different than the EPA one. The same car of their line up that gets 30/40 in the US cycle gets 56 combined in the UK one.
That 88 mpg Kia Rio is the manual diesel 74 bhp and, pertinent to the point above, costs 2400 pounds ($3866) more than than the petrol version. The taxes on fuel there however probably shorten the payback time considerably.
I am confused, how is 30/42 worse than 28/40? Is that remnants of new math? :(:dubious:
Although you would actually get better mileage out of a manual instead of an automatic, but it is damned near impossible to get a manual in the US any longer. Hell, you pretty much can’t even special order them any longer.
[my dream would be for a german package ford kuga, which i pretty much guarantee is impossible to get in the US …]
Well, I don;t know what diesel fuel prices are like out there, but here in CA, it’s quite a bit more even than Premium, at least a dime more (which means 40 cents more than regular). So, yes, with diesel you get more MPG, but since the “G” costs 10% more, you lose quite a bit of that, value-wise. Not only that, but as RandomLetters sez the base car costs more too. Overall, it’s not a good trade-off. Now, if you are going to drive it for 10+ years, it can be a good way to go.
The Honda FIT is the gold standard here. Yes, a few cars get better mpg, but the FIT is somehow bigger on the inside than the outside, Honda reliabilty, etc. Mind you, if you fall in love with the new Fiat (very sexy little car), the Versa, etc, then that’s fine too.
Don’t get a “Smart” car. Other than cuteness, they have almost nothing going for them, they consistently rate at the bottom of Consumer Reports lists.
I think he’s just saying that the Golf TDI isn’t much better than a comparable gas car. Considering that diesel costs quite a lot more in the states right now, the diesel would have to have a pretty large mileage advantage to be justified on savings alone.
Also, Ford is bringing the Kuga here as the new Escape. Wouldn’t hold out much hope for us getting the turbodiesel V6 with the 6-speed manual, though. Supposedly one of the gas engine options gets in the low-30’s though, which is pretty good for a relatively large crossover.
The VW Golf is really nice. I drove a family member’s 2011 Golf and it’s a fun car to drive, they come in stick shift and for a smaller car the 5-cylinder engine gives it a little more oomph than you’d expect.
I don’t believe it’s technically a subcompact though, I think VW considers it a “small family car” (and considers vehicles like the Polo which is not sold in America to be a compact.) By EPA definitions the Golf’s combined interior/cargo volume of 109 cu. ft. put it at the very top of the compact size range (110 cu. ft. is considered mid-size.)
It’s similar to the Honda Fit in that on the outside you sort of think it’s going to be an uncomfortable and cramped ride, but inside it’s a comfortable ride.
I’m 6’5" and didn’t have problems driving it, and the rear seat passengers actually have decent legroom for a vehicle this size.
In 2011 the Golf got a nice interior upgrade and the 2011/2012 both are a lot nicer inside than you’d expect for a car in this price range, but you can find a lot of them used in the 2007-2011 range and the newer used will be available as certified used. I think if you go back more than 3 years the name becomes “Rabbit” as VW stopped calling this car the Golf for about 10 years in the States.
VW called it the Rabbit when it was introduced in the US in the mid-70’s and then switched to Golf sometime in the 80’s. They went back to Rabbit in 2006 in hopes of capitalizing on some misplaced nostalgia, but apparently people actually remembered the old Rabbits and so they went back to Golf in 2009.
My neighbor has a natural gas Honda and loves it. I know that in some parts of the country natural gas stations are few and far between, but here in southern California there are enough of them that he says its not a problem at all. I think he said he pays about 1/3 the price of today’s gasoline.
There’s so much natural gas in the US that they don’t know what to do with it all.
If I was buying a new car, I’d go with natural gas. Its a more expensive car up front, but if you maintain it and keep it for several years, you’d come out ahead.
You can actually buy a natural gas filling station in your home, if you live somewhere that doesn’t have very many (or any) natural gas stations. They cost around $4500 and you have to of course factor in the cost of the electricity to run them. It was discussed in another thread, and given the upfront cost it can make sense, depending on how long you expect to be using a natural gas vehicle. If the filling station lasts the rest of your life and you buy 5-6 natural gas vehicles form here on out it would probably easily be a great return on investment.
Especially because at least for now you can avoid any road taxation. As alternative fuel vehicles get more and more popular I imagine the government will come up with a technique to get theirs, though.
Actually, a recent TV motoring show in the U.K. (maybe 5th Gear, but I’m not sure) demonstrated that the figures were pretty much spot on. And Top Gear did a test where all three cars actually exceeded their rated mpg.
Nobody said the US numbers are more accurate, just that they’re different than the UK ones and so you can’t make a direct comparison between the two figures. Unless you’re driving like a total maniac, it’s pretty easy to exceed the current US EPA ratings.
I wasn’t disputing that; I was disputing RandomLetters saying that the European tests were more optimistic when I had seen programs on TV which contradicted him.
No, what you saw on TV showed that the European tests are not overly optimistic relative to real world results. What RandomLetters said was that the European tests are optimistic relative to the US tests.