4-cyl engines with MPG of 6s, and 6s of 8

[salv]

EPA averages are just averages. Read the small numbers under the big ones on the window stickers. They will express the wide variations in city and highway fuel economy numbers. When the big number for city fuel economy says 25 mpg, the little numbers underneath may read 22-28 mpg, so if you get 22 around town, that is probably all you will see.
When you have a vehicle that says 26 city and 35 highway, and you average 28 in combined driving, that is right on.
You can't go off of the bold print EPA numbers alone. You have to read the whole sticker and understand that those numbers are not a promise or a guarantee. Those numbers are reached by trained drivers on flat even roads, in ideal weather, with non-ethanol gas, etc.
If you live in a hilly area, don't expect even the thriftiest 4 banger to return the stated fuel economy numbers. If you live in an area where 6 months out of the year it is cold, and gas stations are dispensing winter blend fuels, don't expect the best fuel economy. etc...

 

[oldmaninsc]

The EPA changed the way they did the tests.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

On my Chevy, I'd say the new numbers are pretty close to what I actually got for MPG. Joel was right - the Trailblazers that had the I6 engines had the V8 thirst for gasoline. I think due to emissions they had them tuned to run rich. Some of the people who got the PCM "tuned" reported much better MPG.

For the Mercury I can beat their old or new numbers (especially on the freeway) any day of the week.

 

[itguy08]

One thing I've found to help on a long trip is to air up the tires to sidewall max pressure or close to it. Since we pack heavy the extra center wear and possible reduced handling is negligible and you can pick up 1 or so MPG that way. Just remember to air them back down when you get back.

I know I pretty much get what the EPA says in my car.

 

[BearZDefect]

MPG of our 2009 Hyundai Sonata has gone down rather than up. The first year it used to get 33 on an easy highway cruise, and 24 in town. The last year of two we're lucky to break 30 mpg on the highway and 22 in town with same driving habits in same locale.

The EPA revisions (2005?) were supposed to measure highway mpg at higher speed, was it 80 mph? No way these newer cars will get the claimed numbers at 80 mph.

On the other hand, the old EPA tests were at much lower highway speed (was it 55 mph?), yet all the 1990s cars I've owned would easily beat their EPA figures at 70+ mph when using summer gasoline with AC on.

 

[Spazdog]

My Mazda 3.0 V6 and Chrysler 2.4 L4 are both rated at 220 HP SAE (@ 6300 rpm and 5,100 rpm respectively)

The Mazda gets better gas mileage. On 87 octane too. It beat the EPA estimate at 80mph into a fairly decent headwind, loaded up for vacation, with the A/C on.

But there is a consensus that Chrysler sandbagged that hp number by a significant margin. (Makes me wonder what we would have happened if Daimler Chrysler had used the by then defunct W202 platform with the 2.4 Turbo...that might have been an Avenger worth owning)
And the Chrysler murders the Ford/Mazda 3.0 V6 in torque production. It beats the much larger Ford Mustang 4.0 V6 in torque at 1100 rpm earlier.

 

[sciphi]

My Cruze has a turbocharged 1.4 liter 4. It beats EPA ratings nicely. Thank the transmission's tall top gearing for that.

Interestingly, the 2011 Cruze with the automatic transmission was roundly and justifiably panned for lackluster fuel economy. Those cars struggled to break EPA highway ratings. GM made the final drive taller, and the real-world fuel economy got notably better without much of a performance hit.

Keep in mind that the transmission gearing can have a noticeable impact on fuel economy. A V8 can be made to accelerate like a V6 while slurping lots of fuel thanks to awful gearing, and vice versa. Same thing applies to smaller engines and cars, too.

 

[Coprolite]

I find that all cars that I have driven get the same gas mileage relative to EPA ratings. Therefore, the ratings are good indicators for what to expect in a new car.

The safety standards in modern cars are the highest ever. There is no denying that. I would rather have my front end get destroyed and walk away over getting myself totaled and the car be repairable. Durability on the other hand, is a different issue.

 

[exranger06]

This thread is way too arbitrary. What is "4 cylinder MPG" and "6 cylinder MPG?" Is 20 mpg considered V8 mpg or V6 mpg? Is 30 mpg normal 4 cylinder mpg or is that more like V6 mpg?

My V6 Ranger gets about 17 mpg, which is on par with other V6 trucks. Some would consider that V8 mpg. V6 cars usually get much better mpg than that, but it's par for the course on trucks.

My 4 cylinder Accord gets around 25 mpg, which many would consider V6 mpg today. But it is using 20 year old speed density technology.

This thread is pretty useless without some set standards or baselines.

 

[SEMI_287]

My Grand Am routinely reaches 30 mpg, it's hit 34 a few times. Pfft 4 cylinders.

 

[Bladecutter]

Please, I've got the bulk of you beat.

My 2 cylinder Rotary engined car averages around 18 mpg.
I've only once gotten 21 mpg in it, and that was on a road trip of 100+ miles south, and then 100+ miles right back north, on I-25 a couple months back.

1.3 liters of spinning metal triangles sucks down fuel at a rate that makes a Maserati Grand Turismo look efficient.

BC.

 

[Cujet]

I rent all manner of cars regularly.

The statement above that cars actually reflect the EPA ratings could not be more inaccurate.

Recent rentals:

Cruise, 32MPG
Corolla highway 32MPG (2012)
Corolla mixed 27 mpg (2010 model)
Volvo S60 40MPG (5 cyl turbo)(really trying for good mpg)
Mustang GT auto, 16MPG
Mustang V6 auto convertible, 23mpg
Mazda 5 29mpg
Malibu 24-25 mpg (really trying)(2012)
Impala V6 27 mpg (much more pleasant than malibu and faster too)
F150 ecoboost v6 turbo, 22mpg (really trying)
Prius 45 mpg (yuck)

The list goes on and on and on

About the Mustangs: The GT's MPG indicator lies. The V6 was rated at 30HWY and that is impossible at any posted speed, no way, no how is that car ever going to achieve 30MPG.

 

[Vikas]

Was there Mustang GT with V6 engine?

 

[NJC]

My 3.3L 3MZ-FE Sienna has similar fuel mileage to the 2.4L B230FT in my Volvo. The Volvo weights 1000lbs less, but is missing the lock-up torque converter and has lower compression cylinders to accommodate the turbocharger. Not sure how to compare the aerodynamic qualities of them ... probably I'd go for the Sienna - although taller is has less frontal area and is inclined steeper to allow better air passage.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Was there Mustang GT with V6 engine?


Nope. I said: "about the mustang(S) (plural) . I've rented both a number of times.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
My wife's 20005 Legacy GT wagon fall into this category. Its 2.5L turbo flat four manages EPA of 19city/23highway. Her driving style she gets 23.5 average.

The 250HP motor is really nice with wonderful mid range punch coupled to a 5 speed manual.

My Mitsubishi is very similar except it uses a DSG 6-speed transmission and a smaller engine.

I get 18 city 25 highway, and it uses premium gas.

That in mind, what kind of family car has an NA V6 and AWD?

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

The statement above that cars actually reflect the EPA ratings could not be more inaccurate.


I disagree - I think it depends on the driver, road conditions and a lot of factors. I looked up a few of the cars you listed and on some of them you came pretty close to EPA estimates.

I've rented a lot of vehicles over the last couple of decades. For example from 2004 - 2008 I rented many Chevy Trailblazers, or their sisters Buick Rainer and GMC Envoy. I found MOST of the time they all came really close to the EPA estimates. One of the variables on those particular GM vehicles is the rear axle ratio. There were 3 possibilities. That would obviously have at least some effect on MPG.

Earlier this year I rented a 2012 Ford F150. In a 200 mile trip I hit the EPA estimate right on the nose. My Mercury will beat the updated estimate all day long regardless of around town or highway. The Camry on the other hand is doing good to even come close regardless of which of the 3 of us drive it.

In March 2011 I rented an Impala while in the Seattle area. The weather was cold and rainy (big surprise). It hit the combined EPA estimate without actually trying.

I think the thing to remember is the word "ESTIMATE". Also some cars have more than one engine option. For example the 2010 Corolla can have either the 1.8L in either stick or auto transmission or 2.4L. No surprise that the larger engine takes a 4 - 5 MPG hit.

 

[cutter]

Smartcars, with their 3cyl 1.0 liter engines, wheezes along at a pathetic 36mpg combined. It's constantly being taxed out, while an ls1 equipped car can reach 30mpg by cruising comfortably.

 

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted By: cutter
Smartcars, with their 3cyl 1.0 liter engines, wheezes along at a pathetic 36mpg combined. It's constantly being taxed out, while an ls1 equipped car can reach 30mpg by cruising comfortably.


Keep in mind, though, an fbody or Corvette is a lot more aerodynamic than a Smart car. They get decent (but not impressive) city mileage, but their highway mileage is utter [censored] (car is too short for any good aero treatment), all things considered.

 

[GearheadTool]

When the 1992 Geo Metro 1.0L (?) 3-cyl "Metro XFi" states it could achieve 46MPG highway, i didnt quite believe it. Im sure it could come close, if proper gentle driving was used. Though, I once had a BMW and I could get 28MPG *AVERAGE* by shifting straight from 1st to 2nd then 5th in the city w the manual, and it had enough torque that that was plenty. Then keeping it to 70-75MPH on the highway.. E30s werent aerodynamic either, but, .. hard to beat. I thought about a 4-cyl 3-series a few times, but could never justify it ALL the way. Anyone else not like the E36 4-cyl 318i, 1993 to ?

 

[supton]

Sometimes I wonder where the actual "limit" is. I mean, to transport 180lb (typical person plus luggage for the day) must require a fixed amount of energy. Round up to say 2,500lb (this would represent the lower end for a small car with the typical safety requirements, and maybe four doors), then throw in a typical Cd of what, 0.35 and what, 30 square feet, and what, 60mph cruising speed? In the end that requires something like 20hp on level ground. I haven't figured out what that would be in mpg's, assuming 25% efficency, but once found I doubt we'll get much past it, at least for highway.