Got my car back yesterday from the body shop. The one I have been using is connected with the Toyota dealership. I got to looking at a Matrix, thinking how small it looked, and then noticed that its rating was only 21 city/29 Hwy. My big car at 3800# is rated 18/28! Then I got to looking and with the exception of a few models, almost all of the cars were rated at 21/29 or 21/31. Considering how compact they were, it just seems way low. I know the numbers don't have much meaning in real life, but really......

D-Rod can confirm this, but the method used to calculate the MPG ratings changed and I think numbers got lower across the board.
But, no those numbers are not accurate. My Impala says 31mpg highway, and it consistantly gets 33mpg at 72mph.

Oh, and the other thing you have to remember, is in order to make those little cars with low torque numbers accelerate, you have to get the rpms up, so the gearing in the cars is low. So at highway speeds, those cars you are looking at may be turning 2700rpm, where my Impala and Montana van are turning just 1800-2000. Maybe your big car's engine is just as efficient at highway revs as those little car's engines?

I'm not sure but I think the EPA estimating procedure has been altered to be more realistic, so the fuel economy ratings have dropped some, but now have some slight relevance to reality.

Just my .02

Yep, the EPA required a change to the formula a couple of years ago. The estimates now reflect more "normal" driving conditions, with passengers, air conditioning on, and so on.

The previous estimates were best-case that would not normally occur in normal conditions.

yea like accelerating from o-60 at some stupidly slow rate like 16 seconds which is when your mpg suffers the most so it was essentially padded.

First off, 16 seconds from 0-60 is NOT a slow pace, it's a very brisk pace. I believe all the car models are dyno tested each time something major happens to them.

Here's all of the EPA information: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/fe_test_schedules.shtml

Something these tests are not good at showing is how reliable these numbers are achievable. Cars that get good fuel economy on level land at 70mph for their size, generally "fall off quick" when one variable is changed, such as hilly terrain or headwinds. Example: Bill's Impala might get 31 in average conditions, but if you drive it through any "hilly" area, it will quickly fall to 27 or so. Likewise, get his car in lots of city traffic, it's quickly falls off. Whereas, my car is lighter and has a smaller engine, but averages only about 31, maybe 32 on the highway. However, I can drive through hilly terrain or a 25mph headwind and STILL get 30mpg. Likewise, my city milage is better.

I like to look at the AVERAGE fuel economy of a vehicle. If you compare the average of the Matrix to that of the Taurus, it's going to be 2-3+mpg better. That will play out in real world.

D

Negative on the quick drop off D-Rod. Reread my post in double nickle. I55 in MO is hilly, and even with the AC blasting on a 95 degree day at 72 mph, I got 31.5. And even driving in city traffic (like there is any in Peoria) it get 24. I have never gotten below 20mpg in an Impala except for the day I got stuck in a snow drift on a -5 F day and it idled for 12 hours. I got 19mpg. Plain and simple CAFE rating don't mean that much, tall gearing helps, and an antiquated, outdated, 3.4L pushrod V6 can be very powerful and efficient.

Maybe in Kansas . I doubt very many people here take more then 10 or 12 secinds to accelerate up to 60. I know I don't. I consider under 10 a brisk pace, hard acceleration for most modern cars. You try an merge that slow in some places and you'll be losing bumpers.

Oh, and the one time I went through the mountains of West Virginia and PA with the AC on, it did dip to 28.5. Again, 75mph, and I didn't slow down for anything.

Of course, I am aware of the changes to the CAFE estimates. My thinking is that if even the small cars with small engines are not that different in fuel numbers, how are we going to realistically see the improvements that the government is demanding? I surveyed four cars as to mileage and size. The Honda Fit got the best mileage rating with a small engine and over 1000# less weight than my car. The Mazda 3 and the Toyota Matrix were about tied, but the Matrix weighed almost 3300# vs 3000# for the Mazda 3. My car was at 3650#, but it was longer and wider by a good margin.

And when you think about it, how efficient is a small car, loaded down, in comparison to a regular full size sedan? For us to achieve the reduction of oil consumption, it seems that we are putting too much emphasis on these numbers. What would be a real good setup would be if dealers had a decent computer program. You input your requirements and the type of usage you have, and it kicks out a list of what is on the market and suits your needs. As an incentive, if you buy one of those vehicles, you get an $X tax break. If you buy something off the list that gets worse rated mileage, no tax break. Something that gets as good as or better mileage would still qualify for the tax break.

And we have to look at where our fuel is going. Town driving is where most people spend in their cars. Can we find an alternative that will fit our lifestyle and get away from using gasoline? Can we pare an additional 25% of the weight from cars?

PUBLIC & MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS!

Unfortunately, public transit isn't a reality for most of small town america.

But where it exists, its a real alternative.

If I had the option, I'd likely take public transportation to work.

Local newspaper reporter just did a story on living without his car for a week. It took him 1hr and 15mins to get to work by riding the bus. He rode his bike there in 15mins, and he walked it one day in 25. Kinda seems like the bus was not a viable alternative to me.
But seadog, to answer your original question again, no CAFE numbers don't really mean a whole lot.

That's a crappy bus system then. Did that include wait time or was that actual transit time?

On second thought, if's a 25 minute walk, it's about 1.2 miles. That can be difficult for the standard PT system in my brief experience.

He must not ride his bike very fast if he could walk it in 25!!

There is one hill in Peoria, and his office is halfway down it. He can walk up the hill faster than he could pedal his bike. And he also rode his bike on all back streets instead of directly, due to traffic. I think he pared the bike ride to 10 minutes by riding on the main road the next day.

D-Rod, it was just the transit time. It was due to the bus actually took him the opposite direction from his office to the downtown transfer station where he had to change buses. One of which broke down one day. With wait time at the stops, he was spending almost an extra 3 hours each day getting to work.

HEY NOW!!!!




Yea, we have a few of those people here who like to get on the highway at 25 mph, take well over a HALF MINUITE to get to 55, or drive to the end of the MERGE lane, and sit, while highway traffic blows past them in 3 lanes, at 70 to 75mph (saw this exact one Friday, AGAIN )

At least I was one going past him, not sitting behind him.

I think the problem has gotten worse due to the price of gas. I seem to find MORE idiots doing (legally mind you), 50 or 55 on the 70MPH highway on my commute to and from work than I used to a few years ago.
Add to it the (again) idiots of the "hyper-mileage" variety who WILL NOT drive over 35mph, shut the car off and coast any time they get on a downhill, shut off at ALL stoplights, as little braking as absolutely possible (kinetic energy conservation), drafting simi-trailers, etc, etc.
Hyper-miling

Taught my kids (and steps) the reason it is called an "acceleration lane", it is used to ACCELERATE to highway speed, to merge into traffic, AT HIGHWWAY SPEED, so as to not jack up the traffic flow and cause accidents.

One of my pet peeves. LOL


BTW, I believe it has been tested and shown, that AC on the highway, HELPS gas mileage over running with the windows down (drag increase).
Roasting with the windows up, different story.

Press on.

Mass transit is not the solution to our problems. It can be a partial solution for some areas, but most times, the only thing they help is eliminating gridlock in some high density zones. The real losers with mass transit are the women, children and elderly. That is because anytime they are waiting at a stop, they are a potential victim. Any time you have high density occupation, you have a higher chance of being a crime victim. What is needed, is a mass transit system that can do door-to-door service.

Like some of those "beam-me-up-Scotty" things.

Several cities with populations in excess of 50,000 have been extremely successful with the PT bus systems. We're talking 4+million rides per year.

How many people live on the west coast wish they had the MT system NYC has?

You are missing the point. Mass transit's failure is that when you cater to the masses, you disenfranchise the weaker members of society. The wolves travel with the masses, looking for the stragglers. That is all right in the wilderness, but not acceptable in our society. The only way to protect them, requires that additional resources be spent on security. The need varies from community to community, but always remember that it a risk factor.

Until we find a solution(s) that takes care of everyone, we have to explore options. This situation is going to make a lot of changes to our lives. Less suburbs and more cluster communities. The ideal concept would use some type of personal transit to commute within the cluster, and mass transit between clusters. There is no real need for taking a bus or other similar transport for going a mile or two, but no solution will be ideal for those cases. Walking is weather restrictive, and affected by personal risk, not to mention health. Bicycles suffer from the same restrictions, plus a need for dedicated travel lanes. Changes will happen, but only after a lot of investments from various sources.