Stretching your fuel dollars

With gasoline hovering near $4 a gallon, many buyers are looking at more fuel-efficient vehicles. The good news is that you don't have to give up a lot of passenger or cargo room to find a versatile vehicle that can save you a lot of money at the pump.

The most sensible approach to getting good fuel economy is to consider vehicles that get the best gas mileage in their class. The savings between the best car in the class and the worst can be significant. For example, the hybrid Toyota Highlander, at 24 mpg, can save you about $1,700 a year in fuel over the conventional Dodge Durango V8 at 13 mpg if you drive a typical 12,000 miles in a year, and pay $4 a gallon for gas. And while that may be an extreme case, even a Nissan Altima 2.5S, which gets 25 mpg overall, will save you about $480 in fuel in a year over a 20 mpg Saturn Aura.

Another important factor to keep in mind is weight, which can vary a lot between cars and trucks of roughly the same size. Extra weight can really penalize you in stop and go driving, where the extra weight costs you money every time you start off from a stop-light. One way to put the weight penalty in context is to compare two vehicles with identical powertrains but different weight, and look at city mileage, where aerodynamics is not a factor. It happens that the Cadillac CTS and Saturn Outlook share the same V6 powertrain, but the Outlook weighs 1,075 pounds more. In city traffic the Outlook gets 10 mpg while the CTS gets 13, according to our tests. That’s a difference of 30 percent.

If you do a lot of stop and go driving, look at the spread between city and highway miles. For instance, the Subaru Legacy GT Limited turbo, which uses premium, gets 27 mpg on the highway but just 11 mpg in the city. But the Toyota Camry XLE V6 gets 16 mpg in the city and 32 on the highway. If city driving amounted to 10,000 miles per year, then the Camry would save you about $1,300 annually on city driving alone versus the Subaru.

STRATEGIES THAT WORK

It might pay to do a little soul-searching to determine how much car you really need:

Consider a small wagon or hatchback rather than an SUV. The Mazda5 minivan, for instance, carries the same 39 cubic feet of cargo as the V8 Jeep Commander, but for 12,000 miles on $4 gasoline, the Mazda would save nearly $1,600 annually.

Do you really need a full-sized pickup rather than a compact? Choosing a Honda Ridgeline or Nissan Frontier over a V8-powered Ford F-150 or Dodge Ram 1500 would save almost $500 a year.

Is four- or all-wheel drive a necessity? If not, then two-wheel-drive versions of the same vehicle will yield an extra 1 or 2 mpg.

Can you stand a manual transmission? Among the small cars we've tested, manual shift generally adds 2 mpg overall versus an automatic transmission. The manual-shift Scion xD we tested averaged 34 mpg overall. That’s the same as the larger but much pricier Toyota Camry Hybrid.

For a people mover, consider a minivan instead of an SUV. Large three-row SUVs, such as Chevrolet's Suburban, can carry seven passengers, but average only 14 mpg. Minivans such as the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey can carry seven people in greater comfort and average 19 mpg. That's worth about $900 per year in fuel savings.

For more information on fuel economy and alternative fuels, see our Guide to driving green.

Comments

[Jeff]

The comparison of the Nissan Altima gas mileage equipped with the 2.5 litre I4 to the Saturn Aura's 3.5 V6 is like comparing apples to oranges. A much more valid comparison is to compare the Aura's 2.4 I4 engine to the Altima. Since CR has not tested an Aura equipped with this configuration, CR should have compared it to the Malibu. The I4, 4 speed automatic transmission equipped Malibu achieved overall 23 mpg.

That said and since this is the New Car Preview, the blog should mention that Saturn will not offer the 3.5 V6 with the 2009 Auras. The 2.4 I4 with a 6 speed automatic transmission replaces that engine. And considering the 6 speed will achieve most likely better gas mileage than the GM configured 2.4 I4 with the 4 speed automatic in their epsilon based mid-size cars (they certainly do by the EPA mpg figures) that comparison would not be entirely accurate as it relates to the Aura and the Malibu LTZ equipped with this powertrain. So in reality, the Aura may achieve equal or better gas mpg figure than the Altima.

A little more accuracy would be appreciated.

[Ed]

Your splitting hairs and missing the point. CR was just pointing out that not all cars within a given segment achieve similar MPG. Realistically, a V6 saturn and a 4 banger Nissan are in the same group because of their overall dimensions more so than their powertrains. CR could have been a bit more clear on that point, but thats ok. I think your main concern is that this shows that CR is biased against American automakers and have again slanted their results to prove this. Though I have absolutely no love for the American auto industry, or respect for that matter, you are right to point this out!

[Eric]

"For instance, the Subaru Legacy GT Limited turbo, which uses premium, gets 27 mpg on the highway but just 11 mpg in the city."

I just got 30 mpg on the highway, and I have never averaged anything less than 16 mpg in the city, stop and go, and not exactly drivin' like Grandpa. So either CR is doing brake-launches at all stop-lights, or that's one weird GT Legacy. :)

[Therese]

The first comparison should have been with the Subaru standard engine and not the Turbo. Turbo's use more fuel especially in city driving. I have a Subaru non-turbo engine and I get great around town mileage -- about 20 to 23 mpg depending on congestion

[Cal]

The first comment is right on, and it is NOT splitting hairs. If CR's point was to show how different cars in the same segment can get different mileage, then they could have compared the 2.5 Altima to the 3.5 Altima!

I think most of the criticism of CR is unfounded, and yet I can think of no valid reason why they would state that a 4 cyl Altima gets better mileage than the "Aura" -- without pointing out that they were using a V6 Aura for comparison, OR that a 4 cyl Aura is available (and standard for 2008 & beyond).

For 2009, the 4 cyl Aura will get the highest EPA mileage in the segment (tied with the Malibu).

[Robert]

Or we could just sum it all up and say most US cars are garbage.

[Tom]

"Most US cars are garbage"? That's a useless generalization, more suitable for a political blog than one about car buying. Do you mean the Toyotas that are made in Torrance, CA, for example? The Mercedes-Benz SUVs made in Alabama? The Ford Fusion is made in Mexico. Does that make it a non-US car? CR rates it highly, and so do its owners.

[Francois L]

Consumer Reports recommends 5 Japanese brands for fuel economy and ditches 4 Chrysler, Ford and GM . Remember, this is not from a scientific survey: this is just the opinion of one of their writers.

The angels: Mazda Honda Toyota
The Evils : Chrysler, GM , Ford

Comparing a Ridgeline to an F-150 ? If you do not need a pick-up, then maybe you should buy a car. The strangest comparo, :

Suburban and Odyssey or Sienna:

Why not choose something like:

Ditch your Pilot (15/20), and get a GMC Acadia (16/24)

I am amzed that you don't see this. You should.

[Jeff Bartlett - Consumer Reports]

For this post, we looked at popular models and reasonable alternatives that have proven to offer better fuel economy based on our real-world tests, rather than the EPA figures.

Article on the EPA figures:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/resource-center/fuel-economy/epa-mileage-figures/overview/0709_mpg_ov.htm

[Glenns]

Jeff Bartlett writes: "For this post, we looked at popular models and reasonable alternatives that have proven to offer better fuel economy based on our real-world tests, rather than the EPA figures."

Actually, Jeff, the EPA agrees with your organization's sentiment that the I4 Altima gets better mileage than the V6 Aura, so how can you say the EPA is misleading us?

But we're all hoping you can address the first poster's concern, and that was this: why is Consumer Reports comparing apples to oranges in this blog? Why compare an I4 Altima with a V6 midsize sedan? ED said that the comparison is still valid (despite a littany of complaints following his post), because, in effect, "We weren't comparing an I4 Japanese sedan to a V6 domestic sedan just to demonize the domestic automakers; we were just comparing family sedan against family sedan that have the same dimensions, drivetrains be damned."
Do you know how absurd this makes Consumer Reports out to look? Do you understand how unprofessional and certainly biased Consumer Reports looks when they claim that a car's "overall dimensions" contributes more to fuel economy than the car's powertrain as they are in this blog?
I usually read Consumer Reports, but after spending a little time on these blogs and reading the handwriting of teh very people who do the testing for Consumer Reports, I'm beginning to ask some of the same questions that other people are asking here.

Also, is there a reason why you posted a CR link showing us information about the EPA (the EPA changing their testing method) thats over two years old?

We're hoping you can answer this persistent problem that has so far went unanswered: Why is CR comparing apples to oranges in this blog? Saying that a car's powertrain doesn't make a significant difference in fuel economy is not an adequate answer. Thanks in advance for your prompt response.

[Tom Mutchler]

Glenns, I'm a bit confused by your statement that we claim that overall dimensions matter more than drivetrain. The blog's illustration of the Outlook vs the CTS shows that when the drivetrain is (pretty much) equal, added weight (and AWD) can have an effect on fuel economy.

The Aura XE with the 3.5-liter V6 vs. the Altima 2.5 with its four-cylinder engine winds up being a surprisingly close comparsion. Dimensions are nearly identical. Both have decent rear seat space, with the Altima having a bigger trunk. Performance-wise, they post nearly identical acceleration times. Both are at 8.1 seconds to 60, and 45-65 mph passing times and the quarter mile times are within 0.3 seconds of each other, some in favor of the Altima, some in favor of the Aura.

Fuel economy is the big difference. The Aura gets 20 mpg overall in our tests, while the Altima gets 25.

It's true that the Aura 3.5-liter is discontinued for 2009. You can still buy an Aura 3.5-liter though (it's still on Saturn's website) so those test results remain valid.

Would a 2008 Aura XE four-cylinder be a better comparsion? We haven't tested one, but we did test its drivetrain in a Malibu four-cylinder with the four-speed auto. 0-60 for that Malibu was 9.5 seconds, with 23 mpg overall. Both of those test results fall below that of the Altima 2.5.

As mentioned, the XE four-cylinder gets a six-speed automatic for 2009. We would expect that to improve fuel economy and acceleration - but it has to be noted that there is a lot of ground to make up between the current Malibu/Aura 4cyl/4spd auto drivetrain and the Altima.

Finally, it was suggested that we use the Altima V6 for comparsion rather than the four-cylinder. At 23 mpg in our tests, the 3.5-liter V6 gives up 2 mpg in comparsion to the 2.5-liter 4. That 23 is still quite a bit better than the 20 mpg for the Aura XE.

Of course, the 3.5-liter Altima compares most closely to the DOHC 3.6-liter/6speed automatic Aura XR, which gets 20 mpg in our test. 0-60 times for the Altima 3.5SE are comparable to that of the XR: 6.4 for the Altima, 6.6 for the XR.

[Jeffery Beal]

Tom,

It still is not a valid comparison between the Aura and the Altima. The EPA figures, which are just as valid as CR's "real world" test and certainly more repeatable has the following figures:

Aura: 3.6 V6 17 city 26 highway 20 overall
Altima: 3.5 V6 19 city 26 highway 22 overall.

Using this comparison, the V6 Altima gets 2 mpg better than the V6 Aura. However, the Aura uses Regular fuel, while the Altima uses Premium. According to fueleconomy.gov site and based on 15,000 miles of driving, the Altima would save you $97 in a year. However, that advantage dissappears when you consider that a similarly equipped Aura can be had for less than a Altima.

As for the 4 cylinders here are the figures.

Aura with a 6 speed automatic: 22 city 33 highway 26 overall
Altima: 23 city 31 highway 26 overall.

Going by the EPA figures, it appears it is a wash when comparing the I4 equipped Aura and Altima.

CR's comparison of the Altima and Aura was simply bad no matter how you look at it. You failed to mention that in your original blog that you were comparing a 4 cylinder Altima to a 6 cylinder Aura. Further, you failed to mention that the 3.5 V6 equipped Aura has been discontinued for the 2009 MY (afterall this is the 2009 New Car Preview). The fact that the 3.5 V6 Aura can still be found on lots does not wash. Those who are looking at the 4 cylinder Altima and comparing it to the Aura will most likely be considering the 4 cylinder version and not the 6.

You also failed in the follow up where you compare the V6 Altima to the V6 Aura fuel economy to mention that the Aura uses regular fuel while the Altima uses premium.

Again, it is as others have also mentioned, a blog that was not well thought out.