Does fuel economy matter to you at all?
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
Well, let's see? My personal rides are an F-150 4x4 and full sized Bronco and a Bike (or two ...). They both pull the boat around with 2-stroke outboard (sold the Honda outboard, gutless ...). So I guess it don't care ...
But I do care about cost of ownership. And since both are paid for I can buy a lot of gas for a monthly payment.
Sold the Saab 9-5 2.3t as I don't commute anymore. If I did I'd get something that could get reasonable mileage. The Saab would get 30 on the highway at 55 with the cruise on and windows rolled up. But that ain't me - I like the houd pedal too much
So it was usually around 26 MPG.
I'd have an electric (Tesla P100D) and prolly keep the thing in "insane" mode all the time. Wouldn't get far, but would be smiling
Take the gas car if I had to go anywhere like LA ...
It's about whether vehicles are appliances or toys?
I'm the latter, been that way since I was 10 and my folks got me my first car to learn on
But I do care about cost of ownership. And since both are paid for I can buy a lot of gas for a monthly payment.
Sold the Saab 9-5 2.3t as I don't commute anymore. If I did I'd get something that could get reasonable mileage. The Saab would get 30 on the highway at 55 with the cruise on and windows rolled up. But that ain't me - I like the houd pedal too much
So it was usually around 26 MPG.
I'd have an electric (Tesla P100D) and prolly keep the thing in "insane" mode all the time. Wouldn't get far, but would be smiling
Take the gas car if I had to go anywhere like LA ...
It's about whether vehicles are appliances or toys?
I'm the latter, been that way since I was 10 and my folks got me my first car to learn on
YES!
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Fuel economy is a funny thing and it makes people do and say funny things.
Like when people who bought a Hummer H2 complained about the fuel economy
Here's another fun one. The next time someone goes on a rant about auto-stop on new cars, ask them if they'd willingly pay $2.64/gallon for fuel at a gas station when the station across the street has it for $2.40/gallon, but you have to make some annoying left turns to get there?
When you tell people that auto-stop will net them 10% better fuel economy, they say, "I don't care! It's annoying and I hate it and I will never buy a car with one!"
When you ask people if they'd rather pay $2.64/gallon or $2.40/gallon, they say $2.40 every single time (even if they have to do annoying things like left turns). It's the same 10% difference, people just respond to dollars differently than an abstract number like MPG.
Most of this is because humans as a whole value time and calculate it into the equation.
Paying .24 cents more a gallon might just be worth getting home to the family 10 minutes earlier because you didn't wait 5 minutes to make that horrible left turn and then 5 more minutes trying to merge back out into traffic.
Fuel economy is a funny thing and it makes people do and say funny things.
Like when people who bought a Hummer H2 complained about the fuel economy
Here's another fun one. The next time someone goes on a rant about auto-stop on new cars, ask them if they'd willingly pay $2.64/gallon for fuel at a gas station when the station across the street has it for $2.40/gallon, but you have to make some annoying left turns to get there?
When you tell people that auto-stop will net them 10% better fuel economy, they say, "I don't care! It's annoying and I hate it and I will never buy a car with one!"
When you ask people if they'd rather pay $2.64/gallon or $2.40/gallon, they say $2.40 every single time (even if they have to do annoying things like left turns). It's the same 10% difference, people just respond to dollars differently than an abstract number like MPG.
Most of this is because humans as a whole value time and calculate it into the equation.
Paying .24 cents more a gallon might just be worth getting home to the family 10 minutes earlier because you didn't wait 5 minutes to make that horrible left turn and then 5 more minutes trying to merge back out into traffic.
Sure I care about it, but it can't be the only factor. I drive 50 miles a day, 5 days a week. probably cost me 8 bucks a day to go to work. So if I drove a prius it would cost about 3 bucks.
40 dollars-15=25 dollars saved, or 100 a month if I had a prius.
My truck can do more than the prius, it has been paid for 8 years now, more comfortable, safer to me, and I like it. For 100 a month, or 1200 a year, not worth it to drive an econobox in my situation.
40 dollars-15=25 dollars saved, or 100 a month if I had a prius.
My truck can do more than the prius, it has been paid for 8 years now, more comfortable, safer to me, and I like it. For 100 a month, or 1200 a year, not worth it to drive an econobox in my situation.
Originally Posted By: Blkstanger
Yes, I get 18-19mpg in my Jeep. Would I like to get more? Yes. Would I like to drive an Little Economy Box that I have to squeeze into? No thank you.
Exactly my way of thinking too. No econobox for me. I have a truck because its what I like to drive.
Yes, I get 18-19mpg in my Jeep. Would I like to get more? Yes. Would I like to drive an Little Economy Box that I have to squeeze into? No thank you.
Exactly my way of thinking too. No econobox for me. I have a truck because its what I like to drive.
I logged 36k miles last year for business, add a bit more for personal use. Fuel economy matters a great deal and I don’t think I suffer a bit in my Mazda6. Over 23k miles since July I’m averaging 37.2mpg...6.3l/100k...2.7g/100mi. Less fuel means more profit for my business. The cabin is a pleasant place to spend time, and it handles well.
I don’t need a new car as the M6 has 23k on it since July, but the new M6GTR is on my test-drive list. I’m curious to see the difference from 185# torque to 310#. There’s a modest weight gain of 200lbs to go turbo. Projected fuel economy is 4 mpg less than my ‘17
Now, my E450 with 16’ box gets a meager 8.7mpg so that hurt a lot when gas nudged $4/gal.
I don’t need a new car as the M6 has 23k on it since July, but the new M6GTR is on my test-drive list. I’m curious to see the difference from 185# torque to 310#. There’s a modest weight gain of 200lbs to go turbo. Projected fuel economy is 4 mpg less than my ‘17
Now, my E450 with 16’ box gets a meager 8.7mpg so that hurt a lot when gas nudged $4/gal.
MPG matters to me - I'm in the single, city phase of my life. If $$$ and housing wasn't an object, I'd buy the right vehicle for the job. My future car plan is an hybrid or electric car as an DD, and a small-to-mid-size SUV(Forester/Outback/4Runner/Lexus GX)/smallish truck(think Tacoma/Ranger/Colorado) for hauling things, trips to the mountains and to take the bikes with me via hitch rack.
Originally Posted By: Alex_V
Yes, but I'm not jaded to the actual math. Selling my '85 GMC that guzzles 2.13 oz. per second going down the highway on a good day (that's 12 MPG for you lazy-butts
) to start paying $500/mo. for something of equal towing capability (10,000 lb.) that gets any better mileage doesn't make sense because I drive it
I maintain my Cruze to a T because it stands to get 35+ MPG for the next 200K, and after I pay it off in 2 years even the increased maintenance of a 175K-mile car will be pennies on the dollar to trading it in on another payment and I'm not sure any models that get more than 10% better fuel economy would be nearly as appealing to me.
2.13oz/sec seems way off. (1gallon consumption in 1 minute)
that would be covering 12miles in 1 minute or going 720miles per hour
12mpg at 60mph would be 5gallons per hour or 640oz or about .17oz/sec
Yes, but I'm not jaded to the actual math. Selling my '85 GMC that guzzles 2.13 oz. per second going down the highway on a good day (that's 12 MPG for you lazy-butts
) to start paying $500/mo. for something of equal towing capability (10,000 lb.) that gets any better mileage doesn't make sense because I drive it I maintain my Cruze to a T because it stands to get 35+ MPG for the next 200K, and after I pay it off in 2 years even the increased maintenance of a 175K-mile car will be pennies on the dollar to trading it in on another payment and I'm not sure any models that get more than 10% better fuel economy would be nearly as appealing to me.
2.13oz/sec seems way off. (1gallon consumption in 1 minute)
that would be covering 12miles in 1 minute or going 720miles per hour
12mpg at 60mph would be 5gallons per hour or 640oz or about .17oz/sec
NO. I have driven big trucks and high performance cars most of my life. The worst fuel economy I ever got was with a 1979 Chevy 1 Ton 4x4 with a 400 cu V8. 8 MPG all the time no matter what. Loved that truck. I drove a 2001 Ram 2500 4x4 with 360 V-8 for 14 years that got 13 MPG overall. Was my favorite vehicle of all I have ever owned. The vehicles in my current fleet get better mileage than their predecessors but if they didn't I would not care.
Last edited:
Not concerned much at all. Quite content with a large roomy V8 with huge front/rear crumple zones getting 18-22 mpg.
While I might lose some on mpg's, I save plenty during ownership on depreciation, taxes, insurance, etc. by going for low mileage, older cars. MPG's are the last item of importance. Avoiding major repairs in your vehicle can be far more important than a few mpg's.
While I might lose some on mpg's, I save plenty during ownership on depreciation, taxes, insurance, etc. by going for low mileage, older cars. MPG's are the last item of importance. Avoiding major repairs in your vehicle can be far more important than a few mpg's.
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: Blkstanger
Yes, I get 18-19mpg in my Jeep. Would I like to get more? Yes. Would I like to drive an Little Economy Box that I have to squeeze into? No thank you.
Exactly my way of thinking too. No econobox for me. I have a truck because its what I like to drive.
Yeah, that's why I drive a Mercedes. Takes super. I'm not even sure how much I put in. Usually about $20-$30, but sometimes when it's low, over $50. Worse gas mileage is 16 mpg, but normally it's like 18-20, maybe 25 if it's all pure highway driving. Like others said, paying an extra $1k or so a year in fuel is nothing, rather be comfortable and safer than being in an econobox.
Originally Posted By: Blkstanger
Yes, I get 18-19mpg in my Jeep. Would I like to get more? Yes. Would I like to drive an Little Economy Box that I have to squeeze into? No thank you.
Exactly my way of thinking too. No econobox for me. I have a truck because its what I like to drive.
Yeah, that's why I drive a Mercedes. Takes super. I'm not even sure how much I put in. Usually about $20-$30, but sometimes when it's low, over $50. Worse gas mileage is 16 mpg, but normally it's like 18-20, maybe 25 if it's all pure highway driving. Like others said, paying an extra $1k or so a year in fuel is nothing, rather be comfortable and safer than being in an econobox.
Not really but I've would calculate MPG at every fillup to determine the "health" of the vehicle. The MPG in my 02 Silverado is suffering due to a bad alignment. Dropping the steering rack and new lower control arms totally screwed up the alignment.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
Alfred_B said:
Originally Posted By: Claud
Cars in Europe are getting BIGGER. A new VW golf weighs about the same as a Mustang. Simply to fit in all the equipmend required in a modern car makes it inevitable. In the 1950's most British cars had engines between 1-1.5 liters and got between 25-35 mpg (Imperial gallons - about 5 US quarts). A sustained 70mph drive down a USA freeway would have wrecked most of them.
Now 2 liters is about normal, in larger, heavier cars, but you might expect 30+ mpg from a gas powered car, 45 mpg from a diesel.
We aren't being squeezed into smaller car, but it sure looks like North America is. Where are the V8 behemoths that used to dominate the USA Highways?.
Claud.
Partly because people are buying SUVs and trucks in America - and the automakers see them as more profitable than a regular car, even a pony car like a Camaro/Mustang/Charger-Challenger. Even though to get a V8 in those, you need to buy a full body-on-frame SUV like a Tahoe/Suburban/Escalade/Sequoia/Armada or a luxury brand. Ford downsized the Expedition/Navigator to a twin-turbo V6. And even so, small to mid-sized SUVs are getting the TGDI treatment.
The other part is no one was buying those old land yachts anymore either - economics. GM killed off their full-size RWD platform in the 1990s and even before than Cadillac got downsized to FWD V8 platforms. Ford stopped selling the Panther cars to civilians in the early 2000s, the Crown Vic and Town Car was exclusively for government and livery fleets. Only FCA is selling RWD sedans but the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger/Challenger isn't moving as many units as it did when it was introduced in the mid-2000s. GM doesn't have a RWD sedan anymore since the Holden Commodore is no longer made in Australia - Cadillac does count somewhat but still. GM tried to sell the Holden Commodore as a Pontiac or Chevy in the US only to modest success.
Cars in Europe are getting BIGGER. A new VW golf weighs about the same as a Mustang. Simply to fit in all the equipmend required in a modern car makes it inevitable. In the 1950's most British cars had engines between 1-1.5 liters and got between 25-35 mpg (Imperial gallons - about 5 US quarts). A sustained 70mph drive down a USA freeway would have wrecked most of them.
Now 2 liters is about normal, in larger, heavier cars, but you might expect 30+ mpg from a gas powered car, 45 mpg from a diesel.
We aren't being squeezed into smaller car, but it sure looks like North America is. Where are the V8 behemoths that used to dominate the USA Highways?.
Claud.
Partly because people are buying SUVs and trucks in America - and the automakers see them as more profitable than a regular car, even a pony car like a Camaro/Mustang/Charger-Challenger. Even though to get a V8 in those, you need to buy a full body-on-frame SUV like a Tahoe/Suburban/Escalade/Sequoia/Armada or a luxury brand. Ford downsized the Expedition/Navigator to a twin-turbo V6. And even so, small to mid-sized SUVs are getting the TGDI treatment.
The other part is no one was buying those old land yachts anymore either - economics. GM killed off their full-size RWD platform in the 1990s and even before than Cadillac got downsized to FWD V8 platforms. Ford stopped selling the Panther cars to civilians in the early 2000s, the Crown Vic and Town Car was exclusively for government and livery fleets. Only FCA is selling RWD sedans but the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger/Challenger isn't moving as many units as it did when it was introduced in the mid-2000s. GM doesn't have a RWD sedan anymore since the Holden Commodore is no longer made in Australia - Cadillac does count somewhat but still. GM tried to sell the Holden Commodore as a Pontiac or Chevy in the US only to modest success.
I guess the big SUV's and trucks have replaced the traditional full size sedans, certainly they seem to be priced like luxury cars.
Claud.
Claud.
No, I just drive and fill up tank when empty.
- Status
