Bigger, faster, thirstier.

[docdoowop]

How the average vehicle sold in the U.S. has changed. (I could have added "louder" and "flashier", but couldn't find stats for Flowmaster installations or tasteless 22" chrome wheels.)

2006 1987
Fuel economy (mpg) 21 22.1
Weight (lbs.) 4,142 3,220
Horsepower 219 118
0 to 60 mph (seconds) 9.7 13.1
% cars/trucks 50/50 72/28

Average 2006 vehicle fuel economy, in mpg:

Honda 24.2
Toyota 23.8
Hyundai/Kia 23.5
VW 23.5
GM 20.5
Nissan 20.5
Ford 19.7
DaimlerChrysler 19.1

Source: EPA: Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends, 1975-2006 (July 2006)

[Beau Tie]

Wow...almost double the horsepower, and pretty much the same gas mileage. And I am surprised to see GM's MPG rating so high with all their SUVs and Trucks compared to Honda's line up of fuel sippers.

[stotty]

Originally Posted by Beau Tie

Wow...almost double the horsepower, and pretty much the same gas mileage.

I agree with you, and what makes me mad is that point is not even mentioned, we only get to see the "bigger, faster, thirstier headline."

And concerning GM, in my experience even their V6 sedans get better gas mileage than many Honda and Toyota 4 cylinder models. I have spoken before about my dad's 2005 Impala that was a V6 but he got around 35-36 mpg on the highway. Pretty damned impressive.

[Akuma_supreme]

On the other hand, think about how much more fuel-efficient cars would be if autmakers had strived to maintain their model's weight and horsepower ratings, and instead directed all the advancements in technology towards saving fuel.

[justin]

blaaaargghhhh, daimler chrysler, multi displacement system, braaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 3000 mpg, LOL RETARDS, hahahahahaha lol Chrysler 300 340 hp, lol morons, blarrrgh

[LadaLover]

One of the paradoxes of increasing fuel efficiency is that it makes it more affordable to buy a bigger vehicle. And considering how many large vehicles GM does sell, I think their mileage numbers are quite impressive.

[Peddler]

Those numbers would all change if the importers didn't make big vehicles that were so butt-ugly!

I wonder if Lexus and Infiniti are separate from their parent companies. Some of the tanks built under those brand names surely aren't fuel sippers!

[CatchMeIfYouCan]

Honda sales are up in part for this reason. People know Honda makes the most fuel-efficient vehicles out there. Toyota is pretty good, pretty much as efficient as Honda is, which also explains why Toyota sells well. My surprise is Hyundia/Kia as they never made cars that were exceptionally fuel-efficient.

As for GM numbers, 20mpg it’s a pretty sad figure and no, real life testing, such as CR tests, their cars are substantially below anything made by Honda or Toyota. Just look at the numbers I just gathered from CR. See how the Accord and Camry consume less gasoline while still faster than the Impala. Not to mention that GM's powertrains are not very refined. Then, people wonder why GM is agonizing?

Family cars:
Impala: 20mpg 7.8s
Accord V6: 23mpg 7.3s
Camry V6: 23mpg 7.1s

Small cars:
Cobalt: 23mpg 8.8s
Civic: 28mpg 10.1s
Corolla: 29mpg 9.8s

[Peddler]

Originally Posted by CatchMeIfYouCan

... and no, real life testing, such as CR tests...

CR uses real life testing? Hmmmmm... and here I thought they surveyed cheerleaders for certain brands.

[CatchMeIfYouCan]

Originally Posted by Peddler

CR uses real life testing? Hmmmmm... and here I thought they surveyed cheerleaders for certain brands.

Talking about Cheerleaders, though, your www.cheerleadersandgears.com community must be very sad with GM dying. You've all been pretty quiet, uh? Cheer leaders must been crying a river other there.

[Peddler]

I think you heathens should do the right thing and trade in those thirsty Honda's and Toyota's and get real cars like the Euro's drive!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...s/IMGP1758.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...s/IMGP1751.jpg

[Beau Tie]

Originally Posted by CatchMeIfYouCan

Honda sales are up in part for this reason. People know Honda makes the most fuel-efficient vehicles out there. Toyota is pretty good, pretty much as efficient as Honda is, which also explains why Toyota sells well. My surprise is Hyundia/Kia as they never made cars that were exceptionally fuel-efficient.

As for GM numbers, 20mpg it’s a pretty sad figure and no, real life testing, such as CR tests, their cars are substantially below anything made by Honda or Toyota. Just look at the numbers I just gathered from CR. See how the Accord and Camry consume less gasoline while still faster than the Impala. Not to mention that GM's powertrains are not very refined. Then, people wonder why GM is agonizing?

Family cars:
Impala: 20mpg 7.8s
Accord V6: 23mpg 7.3s
Camry V6: 23mpg 7.1s

Small cars:
Cobalt: 23mpg 8.8s
Civic: 28mpg 10.1s
Corolla: 29mpg 9.8s

I can guarantee that the Cobalt number is inaccurate. My "average" currently is 31mpg. I drive 16 miles on the interstate each day, and 12 miles in city traffic each day (totalling 28 miles). My calculations based on what I put in my tank and the computer in the Cobalt are within a mile mpg.

31mpg average is much better than the 23mpg figure you quoted (or stated) here.

[Akuma_supreme]

Originally Posted by Beau Tie

I can guarantee that the Cobalt number is inaccurate. My "average" currently is 31mpg. I drive 16 miles on the interstate each day, and 12 miles in city traffic each day (totalling 28 miles). My calculations based on what I put in my tank and the computer in the Cobalt are within a mile mpg.

31mpg average is much better than the 23mpg figure you quoted (or stated) here.

The figure for the Civic is also skewed downwards. I average between 33-35 mpg. In my case, I can understand the disconnect. Most of the driving I do these days on my car (~75% if you measure by mileage) is freeway driving.

What about you Beau Tie?

[CatchMeIfYouCan]

Originally Posted by Beau Tie

I can guarantee that the Cobalt number is inaccurate. My "average" currently is 31mpg. I drive 16 miles on the interstate each day, and 12 miles in city traffic each day (totalling 28 miles). My calculations based on what I put in my tank and the computer in the Cobalt are within a mile mpg.

31mpg average is much better than the 23mpg figure you quoted (or stated) here.

Akuma, this is the new Civic what I'm quoting.

Beau Tie, like Akuma, I average better than what CR got. Whatever the numbers they're getting, they're all equivalent. I'm not making up these numbers, this is a quote from the review of the sedan: "While loud, the 145-hp, 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine made the Cobalt quicker than some competing models. Overall fuel economy of 23 mpg is unimpressive. "

Once again, another result from CR for you to hate.

[Beau Tie]

Originally Posted by CatchMeIfYouCan

Akuma, this is the new Civic what I'm quoting.

Beau Tie, like Akuma, I average better than what CR got. Whatever the numbers they're getting, they're all equivalent. I'm not making up these numbers, this is a quote from the review of the sedan: "While loud, the 145-hp, 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine made the Cobalt quicker than some competing models. Overall fuel economy of 23 mpg is unimpressive. "

Once again, another result from CR for you to hate.

Yup. And you know what is worse? The reviews I have read that have compared the new Civic to the new Cobalt stated that the Cobalt was QUIETER. And of course, I drove both, so I can atest to that. And of course, their gas mileage overall numbers are completely wrong.

2 more reasons I can't stand them. I have no reason to lie about this. You guys can call my house..talk to me...my wife. I have shown you guys the pics of my cars...I used you guys as references for ideas for the next purchases.

Based on my experience (and in addition to what I have read), the Cobalt is indeed quieter than the new Honda Civic, and has SUBSTANTIALLY better gas mileage than they quoted.

I mentioned that my freeway travel and city travel each day is split almost down the middle. I am like the IDEAL average economy one would need to look at.

[stotty]

Originally Posted by Beau Tie

I am like the IDEA average economy one would need to look at.

You? IDEAL? I wouldn't go as far as saying that, but maybe your wife would disagree with me.

[Beau Tie]

Originally Posted by stotty

You? IDEAL? I wouldn't go as far as saying that, but maybe your wife would disagree with me.

Ouch! I am sure I deserved that :-)

[Peddler]

Originally Posted by CatchMeIfYouCan

Once again, another result from CR for you to hate.

No... I just wonder if CR, the toaster rating king of magazines, has the sense to put the right fuel in and to shift out of low gear when doing their tests.

[Beau Tie]

Originally Posted by Peddler

No... I just wonder if CR, the toaster rating king of magazines, has the sense to put the right fuel in and to shift out of low gear when doing their tests.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)

[CatchMeIfYouCan]

Originally Posted by Beau Tie

Yup. And you know what is worse? The reviews I have read that have compared the new Civic to the new Cobalt stated that the Cobalt was QUIETER. And of course, I drove both, so I can atest to that. And of course, their gas mileage overall numbers are completely wrong.

2 more reasons I can't stand them. I have no reason to lie about this. You guys can call my house..talk to me...my wife. I have shown you guys the pics of my cars...I used you guys as references for ideas for the next purchases.

Based on my experience (and in addition to what I have read), the Cobalt is indeed quieter than the new Honda Civic, and has SUBSTANTIALLY better gas mileage than they quoted.

I mentioned that my freeway travel and city travel each day is split almost down the middle. I am like the IDEAL average economy one would need to look at.

Don't get angry, I believe you when you get that. Not everybody gets the same numbers. CR numbers tend to be low. I don't know what the 150-mile trip is, but apparently is more like what you're getting. However, CR always refers to the overall when talking about cars. Like I said, though, stay away from CR because they don't like your cars.

Cobalt fuel economy data:
CU's overall mileage, mpg 23
CU's city/highway, mpg 15/35
CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 29
Annual fuel: gal./cost 650/$1880

[docdoowop]

Fuel economy numbers depend on your driving style. I live in a second-ring, suburban community and my driving is almost entirely (70%) on 35-40 mph arterial streets. With my '05 Subaru Outback wagon (base 2.5 4 cyl engine) I average 28-29 mpg, driving smoothly and upshifting at 2,000 rpm (it's a five speed manual). EPA numbers for this car are 23 city, 28 highway. My best tank has been 29.7.

[Beau Tie]

Originally Posted by CatchMeIfYouCan

Don't get angry, I believe you when you get that. Not everybody gets the same numbers. CR numbers tend to be low. I don't know what the 150-mile trip is, but apparently is more like what you're getting. However, CR always refers to the overall when talking about cars. Like I said, though, stay away from CR because they don't like your cars.

Cobalt fuel economy data:
CU's overall mileage, mpg 23
CU's city/highway, mpg 15/35
CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 29
Annual fuel: gal./cost 650/$1880

Not angry....at least not with you. Just can't figure out why some people (I am not saying you) look at CR as the bible of automotive reliability (and facts and figures), when I think they are so far off base, it's almost disgusting.

[Hersheytx1]

Originally Posted by Akuma_supreme

On the other hand, think about how much more fuel-efficient cars would be if autmakers had strived to maintain their model's weight and horsepower ratings, and instead directed all the advancements in technology towards saving fuel.

Did you ever drive a car made in the 1980s? Try getting behind the wheel of a Delta 88 with only 170 horses. I think 0-60 in 15 secs....eeekkk.

Most of the extra weight in those studies comes from the SUV market. In 82 it did not even exist. Heck the Explorer was just coming online in 84.
Now we have 4 - bangers that can do almost 300 hp. We have come a long way. I sure do not want to go back.

[skywalk7]

Originally Posted by Beau Tie

Not angry....at least not with you. Just can't figure out why some people (I am not saying you) look at CR as the bible of automotive reliability (and facts and figures), when I think they are so far off base, it's almost disgusting.

I'm a subscriber to CR, but I don't necessarily think they are "fair and balanced" when it comes to cars and that makes we wonder about their stance on other commodities. CR is a good source for raw facts, but their editorial is very biased and they don't like domestic cars and trucks. I own a GMC Yukon and my cousin has a comparable Toyota Sequoia. We switched for a week and my cousin LOVES the Yukon and I HATED the Sequoia. CR says the Sequoia is the better vehicle by far. The objective numbers don't always mean real-world superiority.

[cracovian]

Should I even mention the Samurai or the Trooper cases, both of them lost by CR in court (though no money has ever changed hands) and where there's a movie (carmatt linked to it once) in which it took them about ten tries and multiple drivers to finally get Samurai's wheels off the ground? How come the most dangerous, flipping, one-star getting 2-door Blazer never had any issues? It makes you wonder what else they're hiding in Area 51...