Why don't we see more SUVs in the GasSavers garage?
 

According to a recent poll on www.gasbuddy.com, 20% of nearly 17,000 voters claimed that their primary vehicle was an SUV.

Clearly, SUV owners on that website are concerned about the price of gasoline, so why don't we see that same trend on this site :confused: Are people afraid of keeping a gaslog of their Suburban, Expedition, or Durango? I'd love to see someone Engine Off Coast with a Hummer.

I just think that it's odd that mostly compact car owners are drawn to this website. What do other GS members think?

I think that the problem is that they aren't really interested in saving fuel; just the cost of it?

That could possibly be part of it, however I don't think all SUV owners feel that way. I think some would feel pretty good if they got 20% or more than EPA. If the Geo got squashed by a garbage truck and I only had the Chevy truck to drive, I'd still hypermile it.

Maybe cause most people feel that only compact cars can get good fuel mileage. One of the first things people see when coming here is the Top Ten list and see the cars getting 50,60 and 70 mpg and think it only about the cars that get great fuel mileage. there's other fuel mileage sites that i have found that are mostly hybred owners.

That is a very good point. I remember discovering this site back in September thinking that I would have this place cased with my 3 cylinder Metro. I was shocked when I saw the list of the top-10-vehicles. I believe MetroMPG had MPG numbers in the high 70s back then and the lowest was just above 50 mpg.

I think the top-10-vehicles (percent EPA) is real interesting. Someone might look at my 45mpg average and think that's pretty good but it's less than the rated fuel efficiency of my car. I think it's much cooler if I saw a gaslog for a '94 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 25mpg average. That would be an impressive 47% above EPA. A Jeep would also probably be easier to hypermile than a Metro as EOCs would be more effective to MPG and there are lots of potential improvements to aerodynamics, etc.

I guess I just really want to encourage more vehicle diversity on this site.

Most people don't care about mpg. they only care about the price of gas. Trying to hypermile a big truck or suv is kind of a waste. I have tried, ya you can get a few more mpg but its pretty discouraging when you try really hard and your mpg goes from 12 to 14. Big deal, its just not worth the effort. I got a car instead it gets twice the mpg without even trying.

Thats the point i'm trying to make. you can get a geo metro or a civic vx and get twice the mileage your car gets too. It's all about getting the most you can from whatever your driving

Excellent as usual.....I could not say it better! :)

I agree! As the saying goes, "You are either green and growing or you are ripe and rotting.":)

I'd kill for a consistent 2 MPG increase :D

You seem to be doing well for such a boxy vehicle. 8% above EPA is better than what I'm at (do you have a Scangauge?).

I just noticed that on https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm that the Durango I used to own with a 5.2 V-8 is not listed as a choice even though around 80% of Durango's in that year were 5.2 V-8's.:confused:

Thanks Peakster. My SG is the handiest gizmo I have ever owned

Nice! Now I've got to ask: How many gallons per hour does your Jeep idle at? And how low of a speed can you use your highest gear in?

i plan on buying one once the 3rd kid comes along and yes it will be a honda pilot. :thumbup:

When its about 40 out, and the engine at operating temperature: 0.7 GPH
We had a recent warm spell with temps around low 70s so I'm idling around 0.6 GPH

When it was cold (40s) I could get into 5th around 30 MPH going more or less at idle throttle, now that it has warmed up abit it can do 35 MPH but its happier at 40 MPH

0.6 GPH is very surprising for me. When I drove my dad's '99 Intrepid, it idled around 0.8 GPH and it's a 2.7L engine (granted it was well below freezing when I drove it).

Looking as your gaslog, I noticed that you got a high MPG fill when you set the cruise to 70mph. What are some general MPG numbers you see at different speeds (just to give me an idea)? I usually require 1.0 GPH to stay at 50mph (50mpg), whereas I only need 0.4 GPH to stay at 30mph in 5th gear (75mpg).

70 mph requires over 2.0 GPH in my car in this weather; pretty close to the accelerator being floored.

Was the Intrepid warmed up? I wonder if engine configuration plays a part. The Intrepid has a V6 while mine is an I6. Could an inline design be easier to keep going vs a V?

For that trip most of the drive was through the foothills and up the mountains heading towards Tahoe. My guess is that I'm closer to the optimum operating range of the 4.0 doing 70 compared to 65.

Using cold weather specs (40s-50s)

25-40 MPH; 28-30 MPG

65 MPH; 19-22 MPG w/ Cruise
65 MPH; 20-24 MPG w/out Cruise

70 MPH; 18-21 MPG w/ Cruise

85 MPH; 18 MPG w/out Cruise <- Passing a trailer in 5th, it was erriely stable...

Driving like a bat outta hell usually pulls around 10-12 MPG consuming a happy 4.0+ GPH

In town with speeds varying from 0-40 MPH with fuel consumption 1.0-2.0 GPH @ cruising speed.

Highway driving is usually around 2.7-3.3 GPH covering flat and low rolling hills.

Engine load rarely goes above 15-25 while cruising.

In city cruising throttle is usually around 17 (idle is 15)
Highway, using my foot 26, using cruise 25-30

Man, that doesn't sound bad at all for a 4.0L six (I think V6s are in fact less efficient and inline 6s. More moving parts perhaps?). I've always had a soft spot for the Jeeps (test drove a '94 Grand Cherokee with the 4.0L and loved it). Oh well, the Geo isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Peakster -

This is something I would like to see on this site. As people add their (post 1995) cars, and if they have ScanGauges, they can fill out "stock car behavior forms" that have esoteric data like "idle GPH", "idle RPM at stop", "idle RPM on freeway in Neutral" (that is always higher!!!!), and so forth.

CarloSW2

I am in the process of buying a geo prizm MT right now, so I can get twice the mileage :thumbup:

My point is this... much better to park the suv and find something else to drive that gets good mpg. Then use the suv only when you need it.

That does not seem right, My 3.0 v6 Idles at 0.4 in gear and 0.3 in neutral, thats when Its really cold, when warm it will drop to 0.2 in neutral.

why??? I meen... WHY???
vehicles like 4 door TDI gulf's are 5 passenger vehicles, and they are much much easier to get in and out of (unless all 3 of your kids are way over 6 feet tall with bad knees) if you want to have more room get the TDI jetta, or passat wagon, but I grew up ridding in the back of a 4 door VW rabbit, 5 of us fit just fine, with the whole family going on weekend trips with food and camping gear, with a roof rack we were even able to haul a Wind Charger wind generator, and tower, with all 5 of us comfertably fitting in the car, fold the rear seat down, and we've fit 4 new windows for the house.
Compared to a compact car with a hatch back, SUV's are unuseable peices of junk.

Why not? The Honda Pilot is a very nice vehicle (my aunt that has 2 children all grown up owns one & she loves it) It has much more room, luxury, and power than their previous CRV. The pilot has really good crash test results, has 4x4 for Virgina winters, and the EPA is 17mpg city / 22mpg highway / 19mpg combined.

If white90crxhf bought a Dodge Caravan instead, there would be no 4x4 available as an option and even the smallest engine size (2.4L 4 cylinder) only gets EPA 20mpg city / 26mpg highway / 22mpg combined. That's only a 15.7&#37; increase for a van that will most certainly be gutless with that 4 banger. I'd say spend the extra $400 a year in gas money (assuming you drive a hefty 25,000 miles a year) and get something that will suit your taste, white90crxhf.

I'm pretty much with theclencher regarding SUVs. ;)

Unfortunately though, I'd never get 3 child seats (req'd where I live) across the back seat of a Golf, and forget about a third row. A compact minivan might work if I had 3 kids, and give better FE than a large truck.

But here's my problem: when I risk my life in a subcompact on American roads, that's a personal decision. I'm making a very different decision if I ask my family to sit in the back row of a smaller car (especially as I drive slower than the traffic). I don't like it, but I still have to draw that line. I put crashworthiness before mere mass. I also think it's just bad engineering to move a road-going vehicle's sprung weight (and its corresponding CG) up higher than it has to be. That moves most SUVs off my radar.
YMMV.

...and all that conspicuous gas consumption is just not my style. ;)

Peakster -

If you need 4x4, then don't forget to give Subaru a chance. Better Center Of Gravity and all that.

Here's the Legacy :
MPG : Automatic: 23/30 mpg

Here's the Forester :
MPG: (manual) 22 city / 29 highway
(automatic) 23 city / 28 highway

:)

CarloSW2

Besides towing a Winnabago up an icy slope, the other use for 4WD is getting yourself out of a ditch. :D

Too true! My Uncle commented when he first saw the 1964 International Harvester Scout I had just acquired: "Four wheel drive? You'll still get stuck, but will have to walk back twice as far to get help."

Wow! I had no idea that the Forester got that good of fuel economy.

I thought the forester was worst in class for FE?

you underestimate the size of (3)carseats in an accord.

I LOVE 4x4's!

Now that I've said that.

I have NEVER needed it.

I use to have a 1989 bronco 2. Stock street 205 tires with stock limited slip rear axle and 3.73 gears was enough to keep me from needing to ever put it in 4 low or high.

I used it off road a lot of times. Mud, streams gravel, snow, ice, etc and never got stuck.

So I sold it.

My stock 1992 Suzuki Sidekick is only a 2wd and besides having a lower ground clearance it hasn't gotten stuck either. However, I haven't gone through what I took the bronco into, the Sidekick has a much weaker frame and suspension than the Ford.

I'm now strickly a 2wd guy myself now. But that's just me. I believe that whatever a 2wd SUV can do a stationwagon can do.

Now, to answer the question of why more SUV guys don't post here as much is for the same reasons I don't. there is only so much gas you can save with them.

My MPG was 28. I came to this site and it went as high as 33 at one tank. Now with winter set in I have evened out at around 30.

My truck is a box. The faster I go the worse my MPG becomes.

Second because I have a 70hp motor my rear axle is 5.61:1, which means my engine is spinning at 4100 rpms at 70mph!!!!!

It sucks and there isn't much I am willing to do to it. It's my only vehicle I got (loaned out my Integra to a friend) so I can't goof around with it too much.

Maybe this is the case with other SUV owners?

That reminds me of the guy I met from MN who had an 8WD tractor. I asked him if it was good for off roading (half-joking). He said, "naw, it just means I'll be farther off the road when I finally do get stuck and darn near impossible to get me out."

Then there's the HMMWV I saw sittin' on its frame in a mud puddle on Cape Cod. It took a tank extricator to get it out. :D

I think there is something to that. I don't mind the friendly competition, but if the focus is solely on mpg then it will discourage many. There are many other ways to save gas: Driving less, carpooling, not leaving the car idling...

I don't know if it is possible, but some way of giving kudos for getting more done with each gallon of gas(consistently), or reducing your demand (consistently), would encourage a broader audience and less mpg tunnel vision.

For example, there are cases where a larger vehicle makes sense. A semi truck gets horrible mileage by itself, but it would take like 73 metros to carry the same weight and combined they would get like 1/6th the gas mileage of the truck. Semis are a good example because they HATE to run empty, it's just throwing money away.

ah yes, getting out of the ditch in the snow... the first time the roads here got a bit of snow I had to go out of town, and I saw 15 or so SUV's in the ditch, and one car... from my experince driving SUV's a small front wheel drive car gets better traction and is more stable, same thing goes for shear safty, from all the articals I've read on numbers of people killed by differnt kinds of vehicles, if I had kids I would be more likely to tell them to take candy from strangers then to ride in an SUV.

Peakster -

Here's what I read at the Subaru site :

2.5 X
Sports 2.5 X
Horsepower: 173-hp 2.5-liter
Torque (lb.-ft.) : 166 lb-ft of torque at 4,400 rpm
Manual: 22/29 mpg
Automatic: 23/28 mpg
- 87 Octane or higher

2.5 XT Limited
Sports 2.5 XT
Horsepower: 224 @ 5,600 rpm
Torque (lb.-ft.) : 226 lb-ft @ 3,600 rpm
Manual: 20/27 mpg
Automatic: 21/26 mpg
- 91 Octane Recommended for full performance :( !!!!

CarloSW2

It would be nice if they gave these vehicles a diesel and streamlined them a bit. I'm sure that demand for a 200+ HP, 25 mpg cty, 50+ mpg hwy SUV would be pretty substantial, no matter how 'ugly' it looked.

The trick is to drive properly and stay OUT of the ditch. Last Wednesday, my wife and I were late to work because I couldn't get more than 1/2 mile away from home with the Saturn until the snowplow came through. Snow up past the bumper going uphill was not going to work. There was one spot where someone had broken through but the snow between the tracks was still too deep to go through going uphill. If I still had my Durango, I would have made it through just fine. I don't buy the argument of FWD being good enough. I will say though that it's not worth the extra expense to have a Durango when you only need it 1 or 2 times a year.

Ding, ding, ding!!! Exactly! :D

The first vehicles I see in the ditch after the first snow fall every year is some kind of SUV. The only vehicle I've seen race past me in the snow, only to be later seen in a ditch upside down with the wheels still turning is an SUV. The only vehicle that gives people such a false sense of security that they think they can magically do anything is, say it with me now, an SUV. :)

If nothing else, the increased chances that an SUV is going to roll over should be reason to stay away.
I guess if you've looked at vehicles like station wagons, and mesured them to make sure that you can't get 3 child seats in there, and are defently set on haveing more kids, then get what your kids will fit in.
it just seems unreasonable to me for people to say "I'm having a kid" or "another kid, so I need a mini van, or an SUV" I'm the yongest of 3 boys, and when I was about 11 or 12 we sold the 4 door VW rabbit and bought a mini van, and then went back to a normal car because it wasn't useable space, and the cost of gas, and reparing it was so overwelming, I have sence then stuck with small cars for my personal use, and have noticed a few people comment on how they didn't exspect a "big guy" like me to drive a little car, but they couldn't argue with the fact that it's not cramped.