small vs. medium sized car

[clarkfan1979]

The purpose of this post is to make the argument that it might be difficult to achieve the average mpg of small cars with small engines for a couple reasons. I drove a 2000 Hyundai Accent with a 92 hp engine. It was rated 26/34 with an average of 30 mpg. Even though I am a conservative driver I was not able to achieve the average mpg of 30. I was around 29 mpg. One, because the engine was so small it was difficult to baby the gas pedal from stops because I would hold up traffic. Two, if I had any additional weight in the car (friends), the mpg would plummet. My mpg would also decrease in windy conditions.

I just got a 2003 Pontiac Vibe about one month ago. It is an automatic and rated 22/29, with an average of 25. I got 27 mpg on the first tank. The main thing that I noticed was that I could baby the gas pedal from stops and not hold up traffic, allowing myself to get better than average mpg. I also ordered an ultragauge and got 29 mpg on the second tank. I haven't drove any friends around but I have driven in windy conditions and was pleasantly surprised.

[dcheesi]

They changed the official MPG calculation in 2008, and the new method is much closer to average driving conditions. According to the government website, the new estimate your Accent is only 26 average, so you were really doing rather well to get 29!

Meanwhile, the 22/29 for the Vibe seems to be using the new MPG estimate (probably converted from the old estimate). So I'm not surprised that you found it easier to match in real world driving.

[RyanAtTanagra]

dchessi hit it, though I did want to point out that your logic is not necessarily flawed.  I've had a couple 250cc motorcycles that would get 83-87mpg, UNLESS I did a lot of highway riding at top speeds (75-80 mph).  I'd have to have the throttle pretty much wide open which would bring the mileage down to about 60mpg if I did a full tank that way.  With a lot of highway riding I'd probably be better off with a 350-400cc just enough extra power to not have to have it wide open.  Usually all else being equal, a smaller and more efficient engine will yield better mileage, unless you try to make it do things it wasn't intended to do (accelerate hard, carry a lot of weight, etc).

In your case though that sounds like just a bad design for the Accent to only get 30mpg on 92hp.  Look at the old 3 cylinder Geo Metros, they got over 50 with even less power (55hp).  On the other end, I (personally) got an average of between 31-35mpg (31 city, 35 highway) on my 2000 Accord with 150hp.  So I think in your case you're dealing with the change in MPG calculations and also just a car w/ crappy mileage for its size/year.

[gimp]

Unlike the outspoken majority on this forum, I don't advocate for small cars. Tiny, anemic engines that can barely drive normally. "Bit my civic drives normally!" That's not what I see every time I drive through mountains. If you don't use cruise control, you drop 5 mph on hills. Even if you do, you can barely make it up steep mountains and through curves. The engine routinely hits 4.5k+ RPM on normal acceleration, and sits uncomfortably high on highways. Often, such cars vibrate when the engine is pushed to normal speeds, shaking the car, though that's better these days. Even still, RPM sits high. Besides which, they're occasionally death traps, especially from the all-too-common SUVs, vans, and trucks.

There are exceptions, such as the poster child, the nissan versa sedan, which had absolutely no problem whipping around Mt St Helens on a 110 hp engine, which cornered like a champ. But that's an exception, and I'd love to see how well it performs on actually steep mountains.

I'll go for a mid-size or even a full-size sedan, every time, for the handling and driving reliability. With a big engine. And big these days is a 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo-charged, which gets 40 mpg. Fifteen years ago when my car was built, it was a 3.8L V6 supercharged that gets 27 in the best conditions. (Well, maybe more if you purposefully use cheap gas to get the car to turn the supercharger off.)

So my car gets 25, 20 on mountains. It also doesn't lose a single mile going up the steepest hills. It takes turns at full speed. At top highway speed, it sits at 1800 RPM. The engine doesn't whine, it doesn't shout, all it does is thrums... sometimes a deeper rumble, when it's pushed. Even with the supercharger on, dropped into third gear, at 100 mph, it's only at 3500 RPM, and doesn't redline until 6K.

So it gets 25, 20 on the mountains. I've driven a boatload of small, cheap cars, and I'd never trade just to get the gas mileage. There's more to driving than how cheap you get from A to B: there's also the journey itself, and I'm all about the journey. Hell, I'll go out without a destination, just for the journey. You guys can keep your small cars; unless it's fast, small doesn't interest me.

[GuitarStv]

If you want to live out your repressed race car driver fantasies, a small car is not for you.  Revving the hell out of a small engine will not get you significantly better gas mileage than a larger car.

Driving slower is safer, it's better for the environment, and you save money.

If you take a couple deep breaths and drive less aggressively you can achieve some pretty awesome fuel savings.  The difference between doing 90 kph and 110 kph in my Corolla is significant with regards to fuel, but hardly noticeable in trip time.  (There's no need to be a dick, stay in the right hand lane if you're going slower than the flow of traffic and give people plenty of space to pass if they want to.)

For me, being in a car is about the destination . . . not the journey.  If I gave a shit about the journey I'd be biking to wherever I was driving.

[gimp]

but hardly noticeable in trip time

You and I take different trips. An extra 5mph gets me an extra hundred miles on some of the longer days.

As long as you drive slow in the right lane, as you say you do, I'm happy. Stay out of the left, so me and my "repressed race car driver fantasies" don't have an issue.

[GuitarStv]

but hardly noticeable in trip time

You and I take different trips. An extra 5mph gets me an extra hundred miles on some of the longer days.

As long as you drive slow in the right lane, as you say you do, I'm happy. Stay out of the left, so me and my "repressed race car driver fantasies" don't have an issue.

When driving for 24 hrs a day 5 mph higher speed only gets you 120 miles further along at the end.  And that's if you drive for the full 24 hrs without stopping or slowing down.

I tend to eat food, pee, and need to sleep each day (not to mention slowing down occasionally for traffic in front of me) so you're right . . . we must take very different trips.  :P

[YK-Phil]

I never had any problems driving through the mountains from Calgary to Vancouver with my Fiat 500, keeping up with traffic. Or doing 1800 km between Calgary and Yellowknife with my old Honda Civic in January when the temperature goes down to the -40s as you get closer to the NWT border. Saw mostly 4x4 pickup trucks and SUVs in the ditch last year while driving through blowing snow between Calgary and Edmonton.

[Gone Fishing]

I had a '97 5spd manual Civic (106hp) prior to my current '08 5spd manual Corolla (126hp). Never had a problem keeping up with traffic.  Even driving like a bat out of hell and running the A/C it is hard to get under 35 mpg with either car unless I make a lot of short trips where the engine can not warm up properly.  There is more road noise in the cab than the larger cars, but I attribute that to less insulation due to cost and weight not so much engine revs.   

I've noticed the newer Civics claim 39mpg on the highway with an automatic tranny and Camrys and Accords are well into the mid 30s for the same.  Not quite sure why some of the car manufacturers can not squeeze better milage out of small cars, heck, the 2014 Jeep Cherokee with an I4 is supposed to get 31 mpg on the highway.   

[Cromacster]

I tend to dislike like the "smart" cars as they are purely for commuting purposes, which in my mind is anti mustchian....and their gas mileage does not come even close to impressive for the size they are.


When buying my last it was the choice between a small hatchback and a midsize hatchback.  Fuel mileage was the same.  I chose the larger of the cars since it had more utility for the things I end up doing with my car.  Its a 4 cylinder with 174hp.  Originally rated at 37, but they later dropped it to 34 after a class action.....I regularly get 39-40 avg per tank.  The last road trip I took I average 43.5 over two tanks.  I think to get worse than 34 mpg average you have to be driving it like a race car.

[daverobev]

Manual > auto, especially with I4 engines.

Our '04 Civic... going up hills, yup, down into 4th or even 3rd in steep bits, and flick the a/c off if it was on.

Fuel efficiency much better than our Crown Vic. Love my sofa-on-wheels though..

[esperto]

I tend to dislike like the "smart" cars as they are purely for commuting purposes, which in my mind is anti mustchian....and their gas mileage does not come even close to impressive for the size they are.

I test drove a Smart.  Fun little car but I totally agree.  You get the same or better fuel economy with many other cars with more cargo room to go with it.  I think the Scion IQ handles the micro car better.  At least the back area can fit two more people if you absolutely had to and you can use the cheaper lower octane fuels.

Personally, I'm in love with my 08 Toyota Yaris hatchback.  I also loved my 98 Saturn SL1 while it lasted.  That plastic car proved you can get subcompact fuel economy in a midsized sedan.  I wish more manufacturers would build them smarter (pardon the pun).

[gimp]

When driving for 24 hrs a day 5 mph higher speed only gets you 120 miles further along at the end.  And that's if you drive for the full 24 hrs without stopping or slowing down.

I tend to eat food, pee, and need to sleep each day (not to mention slowing down occasionally for traffic in front of me) so you're right . . . we must take very different trips.  :P

Believe it or not, I'm not exaggerating. I've written about some of my travels before... I have photographic evidence, too. Apart from some excellent photographic evidence of places I've been, I'm compiling a 9000-mile timelapse from my last trip (one photo per minute). It's gotten to the point where a thousand-mile day is light, which takes 16 hours including fuel and pee, and I'm pushing 1250 in my comfort zone.

Regarding keeping up with traffic: what's much more interesting is keeping a constant speed. If traffic slows down 5 mph, and you do too - not impressive; traffic is largely the same anemic little cars. And of course, it depends on driving style; I'm sure if you drive that tiny car with a lead foot you'll make it without dropping speed; I did just fine. But it was hard, on most little cars, as it required a lot more throttle than I'm used to or prefer. I know my perspective, and it's the one where the engine barely bumps the rpm to keep the speed constant and I whiz past everyone whose... doesn't. Besides which, which mountains are you folks driving that have actual traffic? I'm much more interested in two cars a mile at 2pm sort of traffic, not twenty. Or two hundred. Mountains with traffic suck hardcore, for precisely this reason, half the cars start driving slow.