Fuel Economy

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

sure they did. I remember reading that on all the car ads, oh wait, no I don't. every single one made sure you knew it was always 93.

starting in 2004, the EPA started using indolene across the board, a standardized test gasoline free of additives. it has a MON of 87 and RON of 96.5, thus yielding a pump octane of 91.5. before 2004 they used a variety of octanes, depending on what a given car was designed to run on.

using an ethanol free/additive free test gasoline give the best possible mpg numbers. the higher octane itself does squat for mpg numbers.

if I fill up with an ethanol free gasoline I will immediately realize a 7%-10& increase in fuel economy for that tank. my records over the last 15 years also tell me filling up with a higher octane fuel that has ethanol gains me absolutely no measurable fuel efficiency gain over 87 octane.

[why?]

Originally Posted by roxy1

starting in 2004, the EPA started using indolene across the board, a standardized test gasoline free of additives. it has a MON of 87 and RON of 96.5, thus yielding a pump octane of 91.5. before 2004 they used a variety of octanes, depending on what a given car was designed to run on.

using an ethanol free/additive free test gasoline give the best possible mpg numbers. the higher octane itself does squat for mpg numbers.

if I fill up with an ethanol free gasoline I will immediately realize a 7%-10& increase in fuel economy for that tank. my records over the last 15 years also tell me filling up with a higher octane fuel that has ethanol gains me absolutely no measurable fuel efficiency gain over 87 octane.

of course using an ethanol free gas is better. Try finding a station that has that though. I never argued using higher octane would give anyone any gains. I actually know how cars work. Modern cars do not have the ability to adjust enough stock for any higher octane.

Look, the EPA itself doesn't actually do any testing, the manufacturers do. The EPA just writes how the testing has to be done. And we all know the test itself is total bs. IF this was not the case we would not have a rash of automakers being sued over gas mileage figures, we would have a rash of lawsuits involving the EPA, because the test is totally bogus and does not apply to the real world in any way.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

of course using an ethanol free gas is better. Try finding a station that has that though. I never argued using higher octane would give anyone any gains. I actually know how cars work. Modern cars do not have the ability to adjust enough stock for any higher octane.

Look, the EPA itself doesn't actually do any testing, the manufacturers do. The EPA just writes how the testing has to be done. And we all know the test itself is total bs. IF this was not the case we would not have a rash of automakers being sued over gas mileage figures, we would have a rash of lawsuits involving the EPA, because the test is totally bogus and does not apply to the real world in any way.

I understand all of this. I would say that since they revised the testing criteria in 2008 the numbers are closer to reality.

the 2nd gen yaris that had been rated at 34/40 got changed to 29/36 under the new criteria. personally, I had always beaten the old highway numbers without that much effort in all my Toyotas. the post 2008 highway numbers are very easy top beat now, imo.

there are definitely some cars out where hitting the epa numbers is harder, but even in my 2012 veloster and accent I could beat the numbers without too much hassle. it is much easier to do so in the yaris, as was the case with my fiat 500.

I suppose the epa tests could be better designed to reflect drivers who keep their foot on the gas until they are 50 feet from stop signs/lights, accelerate hard out of every stop, exceed the speed limit by 10+ mph all day, don't maintain their vehicles, etc, etc...However, i don't think the current numbers are too unrealistic for drivers who don't do those things.

[why?]

Originally Posted by roxy1

I understand all of this. I would say that since they revised the testing criteria in 2008 the numbers are closer to reality.

the 2nd gen yaris that had been rated at 34/40 got changed to 29/36 under the new criteria. personally, I had always beaten the old highway numbers without that much effort in all my Toyotas. the post 2008 highway numbers are very easy top beat now, imo.

there are definitely some cars out where hitting the epa numbers is harder, but even in my 2012 veloster and accent I could beat the numbers without too much hassle. it is much easier to do so in the yaris, as was the case with my fiat 500.

I suppose the epa tests could be better designed to reflect drivers who keep their foot on the gas until they are 50 feet from stop signs/lights, accelerate hard out of every stop, exceed the speed limit by 10+ mph all day, don't maintain their vehicles, etc, etc...However, i don't think the current numbers are too unrealistic for drivers who don't do those things.

Have you missed all the lawsuits? Hyundai had to change the rating on almost every single one of its cars after it was sued, Honda and Ford overrated their hybrids by as much as 10 mpg, and it seems like almost every manufacturer besides Toyota has been sued.

If the tests were done in the real world and not a lab they might actually mean something. The fact the numbers are beatable doesn't mean they are accurate.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by why?

Have you missed all the lawsuits? Hyundai had to change the rating on almost every single one of its cars after it was sued, Honda and Ford overrated their hybrids by as much as 10 mpg, and it seems like almost every manufacturer besides Toyota has been sued.

If the tests were done in the real world and not a lab they might actually mean something. The fact the numbers are beatable doesn't mean they are accurate.

the Hyundai numbers got adjusted down, but as a member of those forums when I had the veloster and accent, I can say beating the initial numbers wasn't a big deal, except for those who wanted to drive however they felt like and still expect to get decent mpg figures.

it is a litigation happy society, to be sure. too many folks want protection from self inflicted irresponsibility. there may be some cases where cars have been grossly overrated, but in the vast majority of general internet forum complaints about poor mileage, the drivers are the main culprit.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by roxy1

I understand all of this. I would say that since they revised the testing criteria in 2008 the numbers are closer to reality.

the 2nd gen yaris that had been rated at 34/40 got changed to 29/36 under the new criteria. personally, I had always beaten the old highway numbers without that much effort in all my Toyotas. the post 2008 highway numbers are very easy top beat now, imo.

there are definitely some cars out where hitting the epa numbers is harder, but even in my 2012 veloster and accent I could beat the numbers without too much hassle. it is much easier to do so in the yaris, as was the case with my fiat 500.

I suppose the epa tests could be better designed to reflect drivers who keep their foot on the gas until they are 50 feet from stop signs/lights, accelerate hard out of every stop, exceed the speed limit by 10+ mph all day, don't maintain their vehicles, etc, etc...However, i don't think the current numbers are too unrealistic for drivers who don't do those things.

How did you feel about the Veloster? Likes? Dislikes?

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

How did you feel about the Veloster? Likes? Dislikes?

for $18k, it was (mostly) the nicest car by far ive ever driven anywhere near that price range. awesome seats/seating position and silky smooth manual shifter, nicely appointed interior. I could get 40 mpg's highway without too much work, though in the 500 and yaris it is much easier. it stayed very flat through hard cornering, which was fun. the downsides were the ride was just too firm for my tastes for an everyday driver and the low rear glass was not the best choice for transporting dogs, which I do often.

some complained that the veloster promised much more on looks than it delivered in driving performance. essentially, it is an economy car (same 1.6 direct injection engine as the accent) underneath that looks very cool (depending on ones taste) and has an interior nicer than most econoboxes.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by roxy1

for $18k, it was (mostly) the nicest car by far ive ever driven anywhere near that price range. awesome seats/seating position and silky smooth manual shifter, nicely appointed interior. I could get 40 mpg's highway without too much work, though in the 500 and yaris it is much easier. it stayed very flat through hard cornering, which was fun. the downsides were the ride was just too firm for my tastes for an everyday driver and the low rear glass was not the best choice for transporting dogs, which I do often.

some complained that the veloster promised much more on looks than it delivered in driving performance. essentially, it is an economy car (same 1.6 direct injection engine as the accent) underneath that looks very cool (depending on ones taste) and has an interior nicer than most econoboxes.

Thanks for the info. I like the styling. One of my neighbors has had one for about 6 months (they also have an Accent SE, and a full sized pickup). My neighbor's Veloster is Yellow (an ugh Yellow, IMO), and I've been hoping I'd see a white one. A few days ago I finally saw a white one, and liked what I saw. Any problems with clearance/scraping when you had yours (speed bumps, and transitions from roads into parking lots) ?

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

Any problems with clearance/scraping when you had yours (speed bumps, and transitions from roads into parking lots) ?

not that I can recall. I only had it at the tail end of that years winter, so can say much about driving in snow. I doubt the ground clearance is much different then the yaris.