New car mileage

-
pishta

pishta

I know I'm right....
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
23,821
Reaction score
13,677
Location
Tustin, CA
Why do newer (relative) cars get shitty gas mileage, Ie. 2010 PT Cruiser 19/24 mpg? Really, that's good slant 6 territory. Remember the Plymouth Champ, that sucker was 50mpg with an old fashioned carb! Browsing cheap used cars and just shaking my head at the posted mpg. 19 mpg for a Toyota 22R truck? 28/38 for a VW TDI is more like it but I remember the 'ol Diesel rabbit got 50+. F the creature comforts, dont need 'em.
 
20 mpg when Diesel is $5.50 here. So $16.50 an hour to drive this in the city. I get it but an old pickup can be fixed with a 1/2 x 9/16 box end combo wrench and some alligator clips. I thought we would be farther along in MPG by now, but we are regressing in most markets.
 
Some of us just need basic transportation to school and back on a part time fast food job income. No hauling....
 
Newest vehicle i own is my wifes 2015 charger 17 mpg on average
 
This thread can go political really fast. Lots of stuff in the ground making lots of people lots of money. I don’t know why they even put a throttle on those Rabbits. Lol.
 
pishta said:
Why do newer (relative) cars get shitty gas mileage, Ie. 2010 PT Cruiser 19/24 mpg? Really, that's good slant 6 territory. Remember the Plymouth Champ, that sucker was 50mpg with an old fashioned carb! Browsing cheap used cars and just shaking my head at the posted mpg. 19 mpg for a Toyota 22R truck? 28/38 for a VW TDI is more like it but I remember the 'ol Diesel rabbit got 50+. F the creature comforts, dont need 'em.
Click to expand...
The auto industry doesn't want the vehicle's to get good mileage
 
Correction, the people don't want gas mileage. They're all obsessed with gas hogging SUV's, trucks, and high performance cars, with all the options. Cheap econboxes that get 50 mpg's aren't wanted by the majority.
 
IIRC, there was a stink about MPG ratings around the very early 2000's when toyota claimed 41 for the camry.
I believe everyone started revising theirs down around then.
50 IMO would be very difficult prior to a decade or so ago and even then was in a super small car with a tiny engine- IE honda fit.
My guess was those astonomical clams were at least partially embellished.

My manual 2003 PT got 27 average. Was rated 26 highway.
At the same time, my wife's hyunday elantra got about the same.
She wanted better but after doing extensive research, you had to get a MUCH smaller car at the time to do much better IE 30, which incedentally was the fit.

You're probably tired of hearing it but I'm super happy with my 2015 Renegade 1.4t manual, currently at 33.9 for the past three tanks.
Been very reliable and has a slightly better power to weight ratio then a 318 Duster.
The 8/9 speed automatic only gets 34 highway. about 28 mixed.
My manual got 38.3 on the last highway trip, and I never reset the trip computer from commuting driving before I left.
Wife currently has a hyundai kona. She's averaging 34, and I can make it get almost 40 if I try (using cruise and a light foot).
 
Last edited:
Our 2016 Chrysler 200 got 37+ on trips. PT Cruisers are probably under powered since are really rebodied Dodge Neons.
 
Yunick13 said:
Correction, the people don't want gas mileage. They're all obsessed with gas hogging SUV's, trucks, and high performance cars, with all the options. Cheap econboxes that get 50 mpg's aren't wanted by the majority.
Click to expand...
Not all of us want SUV 's, truck's, high performance cars. My 2019 Colorado is harder on gas than the 2010 that I had. The newer Malibu's get worse mileage then the older ones. They are going backwards in mileage period
 
Dan the man said:
Not all of us want SUV 's, truck's, high performance cars. My 2019 Colorado is harder on gas than the 2010 that I had. The newer Malibu's get worse mileage then the older ones. They are going backwards in mileage period
Click to expand...
Technically they can’t go backwards. EPA. Demands increases in fuel mileage every year but it kind of a shell game.
 
YY1 said:
IIRC, there was a stink about MPG ratings around the very early 2000's when toyota claimed 41 for the camry.
I believe everyone started revising theirs down around then.
50 IMO would be very difficult prior to a decade or so ago and even then was in a super small car with a tiny engine- IE honda fit.
My guess was those astonomical clams were at least partially embellished.

My manual 2003 PT got 27 average. Was rated 36 highway.
At the same time, my wife's hyunday elantra got about the same.
She wanted better but after doing extensive research, you had to get a MUCH smaller car at the time to do much better IE 30, which incedentally was the fit.

You're probably tired of hearing it but I'm super happy with my 2015 Renegade 1.4t manual, currently at 33.9 for the past three tanks.
Been very reliable and has a slightly better power to weight ratio then a 318 Duster.
The 8/9 speed automatic only gets 34 highway. about 28 mixed.
Wife currently has a hyundai kona. She's averaging 34, and I can make it get almost 40 if I try (using cruise and a light foot).
Click to expand...
A friend of mine, his sister had a pacer with the 258 6 cylinder and it got 50mpg on the highway. My parents had a 1985 5th Avenue that got 31 mph highway. With V/8's getting this kind of mileage, what's up with the 4 bangers. Our 2005 marquis got 25 highway
 
2012 and 2018 Charger R/T's got around 30 mpg highway. Neon got around 40 mpg. 2001 Jeep Cherokee gets a tick over 20 mpg
 
Bodyperson said:
Technically they can’t go backwards. EPA. Demands increases in fuel mileage every year but it kind of a shell game.
Click to expand...
But they do. Our 2001 Malibu with a 3.1 got 36 highway and our sister I law had a 2010 Malibu with a 4 cylinder and it got 31 that's going backwards
 
We rented a new Chevy Malibu a couple weeks ago on vacation. We averaged 31.2mpg over the 450 miles we put on it. I'd say 60% of that was highway, which 1/2 of was stop and go rush hour highway traffic.

The Malibu is definately not as nice as they used to be, cheaper overall feel, radio didn't sound very good, controls not that intuitive, somewhat underpowered when trying to merge onto the highway....
 
Dan the man said:
But they do. Our 2001 Malibu with a 3.1 got 36 highway and our sister I law had a 2010 Malibu with a 4 cylinder and it got 31 that's going backwards
Click to expand...
That’s what I mean by the shell game. That one got worse and a different one got better. It’s an average.
 
The only cars that I ever had that got good highway mileage were a Mazda3 (wife's) and VW Golf TDI (bought new and drove it for a year). Both are small cars with 150hp or less and are not exciting cars to drive.
 
Every single modern 4 banger i have driven has felt anemic

And im not talking about struggling to hit 80 on the on ramp, im talking struggling to keep up with moderate traffic
 
mcodecuda said:
Our 2016 Chrysler 200 got 37+ on trips. PT Cruisers are probably under powered since are really rebodied Dodge Neons.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. But anyway, out 06' Buick Lucerne with the good ol' 3800 get's 32 on the interstate. Our new 4 cylinder Envision is lucky to get 25.
 
diymirage said:
Every single modern 4 banger i have driven has felt anemic

And im not talking about struggling to hit 80 on the on ramp, im talking struggling to keep up with moderate traffic
Click to expand...
The 2 liter turbo in the wife's Envision scats! Mileage sucks though.
 
72Duster440 said:
We rented a new Chevy Malibu a couple weeks ago on vacation. We averaged 31.2mpg over the 450 miles we put on it. I'd say 60% of that was highway, which 1/2 of was stop and go rush hour highway traffic.

The Malibu is definately not as nice as they used to be, cheaper overall feel, radio didn't sound very good, controls not that intuitive, somewhat underpowered when trying to merge onto the highway....
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the 4 cylinder engine that's in the newer Malibu's is to small for the size of the car, this making it under powered and poor fuel mileage. The 2023 Colorado's are all going to have a 2.7 4 banger, that power plant is way to small for the Colorado. GM is making the truck bigger and putting a toy motor in it. The inline 5 was a good engine, was good on gas had plenty of power and would run forever, this is why gm quit building it and the 3.1 V/6 as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top