Fuel economy feedback

A number of letters and e-mails have reached my desk regarding our most recent test of compact economy cars in the July 2008 test group.

One of the more frequent comments was why we didn't test Volkswagen's diesel models. We would have loved to include a TDI Jetta or Rabbit, but there's one, slight problem: neither are currently for sale in the United States. We tested a Jetta TDI in 2006 (available to subscribers) and got 34 mpg overall. VW plans to reintroduce the Jetta TDI this August; we'll buy and test one as soon as we can. (Read "How we test fuel economy.")

Another comment burning up my in-box was from readers saying how their 3-cylinder Geo Metro got 50 mpg gallon and "Why the heck aren't modern cars as fuel efficient?" One of the reasons cars today haven't made greater strides in fuel economy is that while engines and transmissions have gotten more powerful and efficient, the cars themselves have gotten heavier. You see, over the years, we've all become accustomed to air conditioning, power windows and door locks, quiet (heavily insulated) interiors, and high-end, multi-speaker stereo systems. Plus we take comfort in having front and side air bags, side-impact door beams, and solid overall structures. Plus, larger vehicles are often fitted with all-wheel drive and third-row seats. All of these creature comforts and safety gear add weight. And the extra poundage detracts from fuel economy.

Also, the engines and transmissions in cars today have helped improve performance to levels that was unheard of 20 years ago. For example, the last Toyota RAV4 V6 we tested went from 0-60 mph in 6.7 seconds and still returned 22 mpg overall. Our model had a third-row seat, standard stability control, and could tow 3,500 pounds. Put this in historical perspective and it's impressive: A two-seat Nissan 300ZX we tested in 1992 made it to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds, but certainly didn’t have the utility, safety equipment, fuel economy, or light-duty off-road ability of a modern RAV4.

However, in some respects, while cars haven't made the fuel economy strides they could have, all the vehicles are a LOT safer. While most of this safety equipment adds weight, we think it's a fair tradeoff. And when you think about it, the 1980s micro cars were all very thrifty on fuel, but none had antilock brakes, stability control, or front-, side-, or head-protection air bags.

Ideally, we think fuel economy should not come at the expense of safety. Today's cars are safer than anything built 20-30 years ago; they’re also cleaner and more comfortable. I don't miss the "good old days" in terms of automotive safety. And the future looks exciting with all the emerging technologies (electric cars; plug-in hybrids; cleaner diesels). And yes, we'll test all that we can, once they become available.

—Mike Quincy

For information on the most fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels, see our guide to driving green. Also, see our video above on how to improve your gas mileage.

Comments

[Byron Horn]

About diesel engines; It's my understanding Europeans are producing new technology in their diesel engines whereas they're as quiet as gasoline engines and as responsive as gasoline engines with all the pluses of earlier diesel engines. Maybe we should consider building the same. Why? We have the largest coal reserves in the world and coal oil will burn in a diesel engine.
It's my information that our air force is currently burning coal oil in one engine of a jet bomber and has been testing this for months and it's doing great! Apparently our air force is looking at the unreliability of crude from the Arabian area?

[Dave LaLonde]

Many dealerships are running out of smaller, fuel efficient inventory. A local Kia dealer in Michigan is out of RIO's and Spectra5's until the 09's come out which should be much later in the year, it seems that the rush to mpg has taken a lot of the oem's by surprise?

[Happy Chandler]

The primary reason that fuel economy hasn't improved since then is because the CAFE standards were allowed to stagnate by the Republican Congresses of 1995-2006. Look for strong improvements in the next few years as the new CAFE standards go into effect and hopefully a new administration will not illegally block California's future regulations.

Up until this spring/summer, it didn't pay for automakers to produce high mileage alternatives, except for a few "halo" green cars (ie Prius). Automakers could produce a standard gas engine car with all of the necessary safety standards that got 40 mpg highway, but the economics haven't been there until now.

[GV Giant]

An excellent perspective on fuel economy. The way it was explained to me is that technological advancements are allowing constant incremental improvements in cars. But for several years now, the demands of various sub-groups have forced all such advancements to go to either performance, safety, or cleaner air.

I believe that it is time to now direct as many of those resources as possible, especially in the next several years, towards fuel economy. I'd like to think that now with the SULEV and hybrid vehicles, with even minivans generating 250 hp, and with the vast majority of vehicles testing out at least reasonably well through the IIHS and NHTSA, that today's vehicles are ready for such a changed focus.

[Ben]

I'm eagerly awaiting test results from Consumer Reports on the new Volkswagen Jetta Clean Diesel TDI. The official EPA mileage figures of 29/40 mpg sound somewhat disappointing. However, anecdotal evidence from owners suggests that these numbers are severely underrated.

Additionally, the new diesel engines are supposed to be very quiet, almost to the point where you can't tell its a diesel.

[John Vance]

I hear lots of outrage on diesel activist boards regarding the low fuel economy numbers reported by Consumer Reports for diesels. One post claimed, for instance, that CR did not account for the fuel return line when testing the Jeep Liberty CRD. Others claim that the only way to get 24 mpg out of a Jetta TDI would be to idle it for half a tank first.

Of course, these people haven't looked at your low mileage numbers for gas vehicles too. It seems that your city mileage tests are particularly harsh on all vehicles you test.

Could you please post a description of the city driving course you use? What speeds do you drive through the course, how much time is spent sitting and idling, and so forth. Does your test, as I suspect, simulate near gridlock rush hour conditions in an Eastern Seaboard city such as Boston?

Also, could you put to rest once and for all this pernicious rumor that you failed to take into account the fuel return line when testing the Liberty CRD?

Thanks,

John Vance

Subscriber since the early '90s

[TDI Dave]

I have been driving a 2002 VW Jetta TDI diesel since it was new. I have been very careful to document every speck of fuel added. I get 54-56 mpg on the road, about 48 around town, for an overall average of 50.25 mpg (that number will vary slightly depending on the ratio of highway/town miles). The Jetta TDI has been an awesome car, and one of my best purchases ever. This diesel engine will out-pull my jeep cherokee (4L-6) up any 5-6% grade climb!

[David]

I love to see more diesels on the road especially the ones equipped with manual transmissions.

This weekend, I got 34.8 mpg on a 1999 VW Passat V6 on the highway traveling at 65mph. I set the cruise to 65mph and never had to vary more than 1 +/- mph. For about an hour, I passed only one car (a pick up towing something). Any slower, I would have been a road hazard. The drive was quite relaxing thought.

[Bob]

Has anyone heard about the 2010 Subaru Outback deisel? It's supposed to get 50+ mpg.

[Frankie]

This whole thing about safety is very interesting. My father died at 86 and:

1- Drove rear wheel drive with no air-bags, no shoulder belts, no antilocks, no stability controls etc

2- Make the air-bags an option: I'll bet anything that not even 20% of the customers would pay for this. Same goes with ABS.

3- Safety items may save live but are not the selling points of the vehicle.

Our left-wing society is going too far on safety; soon, we will have to wear kevlar suits and a helmet just to go for a walk .

[TDI Dave]

50+ mpg Subaru Outback diesel??? I would be VERY skeptical. 35-40 mpg might be more realistic.

[Mark]

OK Frankie, you think you're saving money buying a vehicle that's not safe. Think again. Insurance premiums will be much higher for those vehicles. Someone is going to have to pay for the medical care for those seriously injured or killed, due to lack of safety equipment. Whether it is the family, insurance or government, in some way we all pay.
How would you like to be a parent and have your child killed or seriously injured in an accident that could have been prevented by technology or safety innovations.
It not unlike the roads. You don't want to pay much in taxes, but then you'll be paying the local mechanic for damage to you car on lousy roads.
The increase in safety is one of the most important improvement auto manufactures have made in recent years.
I do not consider myself a Liberal. Just someone with common sense. Turn off Rush, Frankie!

[Tim Mahoney]

I'm old enough (60 years old) to remember the 1974 Arab Oil Embargo. Diesels became the engine of choice because diesel fuel was a fraction of gasoline's price. Diesels were noiser and smellier, but they got better mileage and diesel was really cheap.

That was then. This is now. These days, the reverse is true because no new refineries have been build since then while demand for gasoline has increased by an order of magnitude. More gasoline is produced and less diesel. The supply/demand equation prices diesel much higher, which is silly when you consider that diesel is much easier and cheaper to refine than gasoline.

When you're evaluating European auto products, consider that pretty much all of them require either premium gasoline or diesel. Even with better mileage yields, the higher price of those fuels negates their value, don't you think? The dumbest move I've seen yet is the Nissan Titan. Who the hell wants a pickup truck that burns only premium gas? Totally nuts, if you ask me.

[Mike Belknap]

Tim,
The recommended fuels for the current Nissan Titans are regular unleaded gasoline and E85, not premium. Also note that the next-generation, Ram-based model will likely add a diesel &/or V6 engine to the lineup, in addition to Dodge's (less-expensive-to-produce-than-Nissan's-Endurance) Hemi V8.

Mike

[yanni raz]

Stimulus Package "Deja vu", Not really!

As the brains of our economy continue to brainstorm how to get us out of the mess the real estate market first got us in and now high gas prices and a declining economy over all the easy way out seems to be again, an economic stimulus package.

Not so fast, not again.

First president bush opposes it.
Second, according to the experts only 20 percent of the people who got stimulus package number one said the rebate led them to spend more and the rest, well it seems that the rest just took the money and put it into their savings account.

Economic stimulus package number one was suppose to get our slow economy going, by then president bush had not heard of a 4 dollar a gallon of gasoline.
By now that's old news and as he put it on he's own words "he's heard of it now".

Well now mr president one gallon of gas almost hits the 5 dollar mark, have you heard of it?

Anyhow, the 100 billion dollars in checks that circulated among many Americans (600.00 for singles, 1,200.00 for couples) apparently didn't help.
The money went out on time and gas prices went up just on time as well.
With gas prices, food prices also went up.
Isn't that how it usually works?
Gas prices go up everything goes up, after all business have to make up for the extra expenses and they just pass the check onto us.

Here's an idea!

How about lowering the tax on gasoline?
Do we really know how much money we pay on gas taxes in the u.s?
Aren't this taxes imposed by our government, well maybe our government can really give a stimulus to our morale and lower the taxes we pay on gas prices.
A lower tax in gasoline prices will stimulate business and consumers, it's not rocket science!

Source for this quote: Wikipedia
"Fuel taxes in the United States vary by state. For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per US gallon, plus 18.4 cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per US gallon"