17 comments Add a comment
With the recent rise (again) of gas prices, now at $3.23 per gallon in the Sacramento(CA) area, I decided to look into new cars in particular their MPG (miles per gallon). Not that I can afford to replace my current car with a new car. I was just curious curious about the fuel consumption of the new models.
I love cars and stay current on all the different types of vehicles out there, so naturally I had my own assumptions about what kind of MPG they achieve. I went to the manufacturer websites to find out exactly what there exact MPG are listed at and basically drew up a table. I did not look up hybrid cars as most of my driving is highway and not city driving. Plus on average hybrids take 20 years or so to break even with a non hybrid version due to the increased cost and cost of replacing their battery packs.
I looked up 7 compact and sub compact models that were all manufactured in 2007. They were the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Hyundai Accent, Toyota Corolla, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and finally a VW golf.
Now these are basically really small cars so I was shocked to say the least that regardless of transmissions, they could not break 35 MPG!! Needless to say in mixed driving they would not even reach that.
Are you telling me that in 2007 with all the problems of global warming, pollution and carbon quotas etc., that this is the best the car manufacturers can do? Give me a break. We have simply got to make cars much more efficient than we are at the moment.
I know that cars made 10 years ago were getting better than this. For example, the 1995 VW golf TDI, or mid 90's Honda Civic HF. What is going on here? Obviously, it is not technology or the fact that we can't build fuel efficient cars.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but some evil collusion must be at play to have such a low MPG on new cars. It's as if the oil companies do not want us to have greener transportation!
By: Loren
Leave a comment
Why aren't there any new small LPG cars being produced by manufacturers? LPG has been around for 10 years now yet still we get 1 litre petrol/diesel engines only! Retro fitting existing cars is a daft way of doing it right after they've been manufactured.
07/12/09 GimmieLPGplease
-10
Cars are getting heavier because nonsensical legislation dictates design and safety features which cars must have. All the extra(and unneccessary) safety and electronic equipment adds weight and bulk to a car. The Corsa for instance. Once, this was a small, light, well proportioned car that had a 1.2 engine. Now, after roughly 10 years, it still has a 1.2 motor, but it has to work hard now just to shift it's bloated, tall, ugly body around. And that's another thing. Modern cars are butt-ugly. All of them. And they all look the same as well. Massive fat-arsed things with high rooflines and rounded fronts that supposedly reduce injuries to pedestrians if they get hit. Why? I'd rather they went under the wheels than be hurled over the bonnet to smash through the windscreen to have 18 stone of jay-walking thicko to land in my lap and injure me! Money should be spent on educating road safety, not making cars look like inflatables.
09/05/09 Land Rover with steel bumpers
-1
I read that that BMW are testing Hydrogen cars seriously and that there are other examples of working Hydrogen cars about, quote 'BMW predict that all this may be ready 20 yrs from now, if the world is ready for it' - well if it is the right solution (?) I'm ready for it now - I'm looking for a new car, give me a Hydrogen car salesroom in the SW of England and a fairly reasonable gameplan on how I can get charged up with Hydrogen and I'll buy one.
03/01/09 Walter
-10
Oh come on, everyone knows that we can progress fuel from one of the most abundant elements on the planet - let's go fer Hydrogen and let's go for efficiency from the start fwith this venture, as efficiency equals longevity, less need to work hard on supply etc and large travel capacities !?!
03/01/09 Walter
-6
I am less and less convinced that we do NOT need out-of-town shopping malls. They are not that pleasant so neither am I advocating an open invitation to any business people thinking, great we'll plonk them wherever we like.
The fact is that many town centres are very busy with traffic and in the rush hour congestion builds up to a standstill several miles away from town centres in all directions. This is hardly fuel efficient either and quite possibly less fuel efficient than if we had out-of-town shopping malls?
London Congestion charging has broadly failed as journey times are only a few seconds different to what they were. Meaning Government has found a new way to tax people, yet the reason for it does not work anymore! Only half the congestion charge money can be spent on public transport (the other half spent on collecting it) and where is the new public transport? Nowhere!
23/01/08 Mind Boggling
The fact is that many town centres are very busy with traffic and in the rush hour congestion builds up to a standstill several miles away from town centres in all directions. This is hardly fuel efficient either and quite possibly less fuel efficient than if we had out-of-town shopping malls?
London Congestion charging has broadly failed as journey times are only a few seconds different to what they were. Meaning Government has found a new way to tax people, yet the reason for it does not work anymore! Only half the congestion charge money can be spent on public transport (the other half spent on collecting it) and where is the new public transport? Nowhere!
2
I know where I am going,
Why the insults? I was only asking for clarification of the point you were making? I travel to the USA every year, and I've always be treated with courtesy and politeness. I take it that you are an "angry" American?
I see your point. The long distances that Americans can and do travel is all the more reason for vastly improved fuel efficiency in their vehicles. I notice that in today's New York Times, Congress has agreed legislation that will require vehicle manufacturers to improve efficiency to 35mpg on average by 2020. This target is lacking in ambition considering that most European cars already greatly exceed this target. I am not saying that this would be an excuse to greatly increase the cost of fuel to European levels (with the UK particularly expensive!). In the UK, the cost of petrol at the pumps is massively increased with government tax to the point that it has become crazy and unacceptable.
At the end of the day, all countries need to take concerted action to tackle global warming, and 'joined-up' legislation is needed that will, for example, greatly restrict out of town shopping malls that will require people to drive long distances in their cars. Also, public transport is vitally necessary and needs to be provided with incentives and subsidies that will making it considerably cheaper than using cars. Here in the UK, public transport is also very poor, particularly the railway system which is becoming prohibitively expensive - our stupid, crazy, disgusting government doesn't realise that it is a 'service' and shouldn't be expected to make a 'profit'.
01/12/07 alaneroberts
Why the insults? I was only asking for clarification of the point you were making? I travel to the USA every year, and I've always be treated with courtesy and politeness. I take it that you are an "angry" American?
I see your point. The long distances that Americans can and do travel is all the more reason for vastly improved fuel efficiency in their vehicles. I notice that in today's New York Times, Congress has agreed legislation that will require vehicle manufacturers to improve efficiency to 35mpg on average by 2020. This target is lacking in ambition considering that most European cars already greatly exceed this target. I am not saying that this would be an excuse to greatly increase the cost of fuel to European levels (with the UK particularly expensive!). In the UK, the cost of petrol at the pumps is massively increased with government tax to the point that it has become crazy and unacceptable.
At the end of the day, all countries need to take concerted action to tackle global warming, and 'joined-up' legislation is needed that will, for example, greatly restrict out of town shopping malls that will require people to drive long distances in their cars. Also, public transport is vitally necessary and needs to be provided with incentives and subsidies that will making it considerably cheaper than using cars. Here in the UK, public transport is also very poor, particularly the railway system which is becoming prohibitively expensive - our stupid, crazy, disgusting government doesn't realise that it is a 'service' and shouldn't be expected to make a 'profit'.
-9
Alanereoberts is totally braindead, deaf to reason, He/she does not understand what petrol is, how it gets used in vehicles; that if you drive twice as far, twice the volume of fuel is consumed.
If you travel twice the distance as a European, are you willing to pay twice as much per month for fuel? I don't think so!
Will US citizens pay more for cars? Or will they willingly pay more for petrol? All this given the distances they have to travel on the poor quality roads and highways that the US has.
24/11/07 I know where I am going
If you travel twice the distance as a European, are you willing to pay twice as much per month for fuel? I don't think so!
Will US citizens pay more for cars? Or will they willingly pay more for petrol? All this given the distances they have to travel on the poor quality roads and highways that the US has.
-7
I know where I am going
What is the point you are trying to make?
24/11/07 alaneroberts
What is the point you are trying to make?
-7
Eurpoeans simply don't understand that in the USA the average journeys are twice as far as in Europe, The US homesteads and shopping malls are just more spread out everywhere. The European may travel 400 miles per month in their car. The US citizen does an average of 800 miles or more per month.
In the adequate US public transport execpt in very big cities simply doesn't exist.
23/11/07 I know where I am going
In the adequate US public transport execpt in very big cities simply doesn't exist.
-10
Loren,
As is indicated by the previous post, the problem is with the American government and its lax attitudes over fuel efficiency. I've driven in America a number of times in large and small(ish) cars, and in all cases I have been on the one hand pleasantly surprised at the cost of petrol (gasoline) at the pumps, but on the other hand dismayed at the mpg achieved. UK and European standards are far higher than in America but then again they have to be with the way that petrol is taxed. There would be riots in the UK if cars were being produced to extremely inefficient American standards whilst at the same time being taxed at the levels they presently are. We simply would not be able to afford to drive.
The pressure is now upon your President, George Bush (my oh my! what a choice he was!) to improve car efficiency through legislation, but not because of environmental reasons. But because of the increasing cost of petrol and the potential knock-on effects it will have on the ability of Americans to be able to afford to drive. The previous post by MC$ is entirely appropriate.
12/11/07 alaneroberts
As is indicated by the previous post, the problem is with the American government and its lax attitudes over fuel efficiency. I've driven in America a number of times in large and small(ish) cars, and in all cases I have been on the one hand pleasantly surprised at the cost of petrol (gasoline) at the pumps, but on the other hand dismayed at the mpg achieved. UK and European standards are far higher than in America but then again they have to be with the way that petrol is taxed. There would be riots in the UK if cars were being produced to extremely inefficient American standards whilst at the same time being taxed at the levels they presently are. We simply would not be able to afford to drive.
The pressure is now upon your President, George Bush (my oh my! what a choice he was!) to improve car efficiency through legislation, but not because of environmental reasons. But because of the increasing cost of petrol and the potential knock-on effects it will have on the ability of Americans to be able to afford to drive. The previous post by MC$ is entirely appropriate.
3
Hello America, wake up and smell the coffee. You're country has been burning fossel fuels in V8 wagons for ages and now you're paying nearly ....wait for it..... a whole 40p a litre because the price has gone up again, and you're thinking your hard done by.
And its because of your American attitudes, Bush won't join the global warming problem due to fear of voting retribution if he added even half the tax of european fuel.
You should visit Texas some time to see the empty oil fields that you've already emptied into OUR atmosphere, yet you'll be the first to have a go at China and India when they really start to trash the planet some more.
...imagine one day when your 13 gallon tank cost $115.56 of instead $41.99...that day is now...welcome to the UK!
09/11/07 Mc$
And its because of your American attitudes, Bush won't join the global warming problem due to fear of voting retribution if he added even half the tax of european fuel.
You should visit Texas some time to see the empty oil fields that you've already emptied into OUR atmosphere, yet you'll be the first to have a go at China and India when they really start to trash the planet some more.
...imagine one day when your 13 gallon tank cost $115.56 of instead $41.99...that day is now...welcome to the UK!
4
My next car is going to be a Toyota Aygo, or the equivalent from Citroen or Peugeot. Returns? 83mpg on extra urban cycle, not sure what the combined figures are. The G Wizz is the best example thus far as I can see but it has serious limitations outside the M25 London, so that will rule it out for most people.
It returns running costs of about 10 to 20% of a regular cheap car. Look it up.
So the technology does exist, we the consumers ought to be more aggressive in demanding more efficiency.
04/11/07 Peter
It returns running costs of about 10 to 20% of a regular cheap car. Look it up.
So the technology does exist, we the consumers ought to be more aggressive in demanding more efficiency.
-7
If you want better miles per gallon your ONLY serious alternative today is Diesel. It should also be Turbodiesel, ideally.
Hybrid as a way forward is doubtful. Normal routine use for commuting and other travel purposes only delivers 35 miles per gallon with these cars. So what's the point if you can achieve this without batteries?
In terms of evil collusion, apparently in 2003 the US government sponsored research into Hydrogen fuel cell technology and Infrastructure. The infrastructure would be oil company competition. It will be interesting to see the lengths the oil companies go to, to either block or obtain ownership of this infrastructure. But it seems that the practical applications of this technology are a long way off.
Leadership is essential, but so is recognising that everyone, (rich included) have a stake in the future of the planet. Measures that we take to change things MUST include everyone, (i.e including the rich.) We've all got to live here, so everyone should be involved in helping.
If the net effect is, that we don't have an inhabitable planet, why would profits and consumption continue to be important?
04/11/07 Chris
Hybrid as a way forward is doubtful. Normal routine use for commuting and other travel purposes only delivers 35 miles per gallon with these cars. So what's the point if you can achieve this without batteries?
In terms of evil collusion, apparently in 2003 the US government sponsored research into Hydrogen fuel cell technology and Infrastructure. The infrastructure would be oil company competition. It will be interesting to see the lengths the oil companies go to, to either block or obtain ownership of this infrastructure. But it seems that the practical applications of this technology are a long way off.
Leadership is essential, but so is recognising that everyone, (rich included) have a stake in the future of the planet. Measures that we take to change things MUST include everyone, (i.e including the rich.) We've all got to live here, so everyone should be involved in helping.
If the net effect is, that we don't have an inhabitable planet, why would profits and consumption continue to be important?
3
Messiah
we HAVE the technology, we also have cheaper fuel to run cars, LPG, which is 0.42p per litre.But can you see the government giving up 75% TAX.
they could reduce the cost of petrol tomorrow, by reducing the the tax on petrol, but that would be TO easy.
Also, why arn't car manufactors producing ALL cars "dual fuel"
02/11/07 Josh
we HAVE the technology, we also have cheaper fuel to run cars, LPG, which is 0.42p per litre.But can you see the government giving up 75% TAX.
they could reduce the cost of petrol tomorrow, by reducing the the tax on petrol, but that would be TO easy.
Also, why arn't car manufactors producing ALL cars "dual fuel"
-3
Alf Red