bad mpg
 

i'm shocked by the poor mpg figures on this site.
i'm not a slow driver and i would say most of my everyday journey's are in traffic but i still average over 50 mpg for my car (colt cz2) but others get less.
does this mean everyone drives like lewis hamilton everywhere ! or are they in traffic as soon as they start there journey ?
also, if you look at the fuel figures for north america, well no wonder we have global enviromental crisis !
dont think i'm a mother earth tree hugger. i've had jag's and merc's and love a big engine too but its the cost of fuel and average 25k a year mileage (and being a pauper) that i currently have a small engined car.
i was wondering what other people think

I too was quite shocked checking the US cars, ive seen some as low as 14 MPG, and even some hybrids getting 30 MPG. But we have to understand that fuel is dirt cheap in the US, always has been and always will be, so it hasn't forced the car market to change like it has in the UK unfortunatley. What worries me more is the C02 emissions, I think the US now contributes about 25 to 30% of the World's C02 even though they only make up 5% of the World's population. Its not hard to see why, an average Cherokee for example has emissions 400% higher than my car.

thanks for replying i thought i was going mad !
i believe the US wont sign up to a lot of treaty's regarding climate control as well
they send people to the moon but their auto technology for everyday cars is crap.

Don't forget that a US Gallon is a bit smaller than an Imperail Gallon as well.

So a US car doing 20 MPG (US) is actually 24.02 MPG (Imperail) so you can add 20% to the US figures.

Having said that, I agree with both of you, I have a 2002 Peugeot 206 1.4 HDI Diesel, and I have never had less than 65 mpg from a tank (official combined figure is 66). But some of the poeple on here are only getting 50 - 55 mpg which is a big difference. Although I'm now trying to squeeze every last drop out of her, that would not have been the case before when I got the 65mpg.

Maybe everyone is doing lots of very short trips in traffic?

Oliver.

i think with the cost of fuel now that mpg is the new mph

Oliver, the figures you see on here are UK MPG, if you have your settings set to UK, you will see all cars, even those in the US as UK MPG.

Steevyg, I agree. In my last car I used to drive like a nutter, but then I realised I was just throwing money away so I started driving econmically. Then I thought whats the point having a quick car and driving it slowly, so I swapped it for a Clio Diesel. Not as exciting but goes 100% further on the same fuel than my last car!

Yep, have to agree, you only need to do some simple maths.

In ireland

15,000 thousand miles a year would cost the following:

(1.50 per litre)

At 50mpg 2045 euro
At 60mpg 1704 euro

Which is roughly 30 euro a month.

Which buys a lot of Ice Creams :)

Draigflag,

Thanks for the clarification, that makes things much worse than I thought.

I'm with you on the having a fast car and driving slowly, although finances mean I'm coming from the other end, why try and dirve a slow car fast!

I have a Land Cruiser Amazon as well as the Peugeot, which is a big, slow old bus, there would be no point trying to drive it fast, so I just drive it slowly. Same with the Peugeot, it's not going to win any drag races, so why try.

Now, if I had a nice M5, I'd gladly pay for the petrol and drive around with a stupid grin on my face.

Oliver.

Well yea its easy to say that, but trust me, I was putting £200 a month worth of fuel in the Fiat 500, and that's only a 1.4, hardly Supercar sized!

There are laws in the US that the automakers have to get their "fleet average" to 50 MPG by 2020 and 60 MPG by 2025.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...r.2C_2011-2025

This means more small cars which is going to be very important in getting some families to downsize from the big SUVs to something more reasonable. Many people have the mindset that they don't want a small car which could get crushed in a wreck to carry their kids. This was the case in the 1980s when trucks were much safter then small passenger vehicles. With advances in technology trucks are now less safe in wrecks and passenger cars are safer. It's going to take time for folks to embrace this new paradigm. Also to note, truck sales have surged in the USA and fall under different regulations. They probably need to fix that loophole and define small trucks as passenger cars and big box trucks as commercial.

I've found generaly Americans hate change, but like the rest of us, they will have to. To be honest, ive been to America lots of times, and even the large cars have no more room or comfort that the best europe has, and with advances in safety and technology now, small cars are, like you say just as safe if not safer than big ones. Even performance wise, a big engine is not needed, some large cars now have engines less that 1 litre, that's about 7 times smaller than a Corvette for example. Way too over the top.

I'm right there with you. If the numbers were for the general population, I might not be shocked. But I thought the type of person who is likely to be interested in the MPG and therefore sign up for a site like this would put some effort into pushing their MPG up a bit. The combined numbers on the current generation of Mazda 3 that I've been looking at seem okay, but I don't think most of the people driving them have tapped their potential.

I get the impression that while people want to save some money on fuel they're not ready to change their driving habits. I've been trying to re-learn from the ground up how to drive my Mazda 3 from a fuel efficiency angle. I have the advantage of using my car almost exclusively for my commute loop which is almost all freeway. Nine months in and I'm still playing with a few variables but I think I'm near the maximum since the weather won't get any better.

I suppose fuel prices would have to rise substantially in the US before people seriously look at how to get more out of what they drive. More likely they'll just go out and buy a car with a higher MPG rating, then wonder why they don't get the rated MPG while still driving like lunatics.

I think you've nailed it there, it's the cost. Yes we all have a slight environmentel concern, we all like to feel like we can save the planet, reduce emissions etc etc, but we like doing this if it saves money even more, and like you say, fuel is still dirt cheap in the states.

Hit the people hard where it hurts and you'll see a big change. I loved my old car, but spending £200 a month of fuel was breaking me. Easiest way is to change cars, now I have a diesel I go at least twice, if not 3 times the distance for the same cost in my old car. No brainer.

A lot of it has to do with driving conditions also.

I have a 2015 Fiat 500 Sport (it says 2014 here because Fuelly hasn't updated yet), and only manage 33 mpg with a lot of highway driving. However, in Texas, highway driving means the SPEED LIMIT is 75mph in many places. At 75MPH gas mileage drops precipitously. If I could drive at 55mph all day long my gas mileage would be significantly better. If I did that though, the rednecks in jacked up trucks would roll over me.

The 33mpg US I get converts to 39.6mpg UK.

EDIT 1:
Keep in mind we also:
Typically do not have the option of a Diesel (people hate them, don't know why)
Typically have automatic transmissions (though my Fiat is a 5 speed)
Typically do not have the choice of smaller engines available elsewhere.

So even on the "same" car, averages will be lower for these reasons. Fiat 500, for example, is only available with 1.4 litre multiair and 1.4 litre turbo. The Twinair version is not available.

EDIT 2:
Oh one more thing. The USA has this stupid thing called the "CORN LOBBY"... which is essentially a bunch of midwest farmers who got tanked up on Moonshine, and decided to get Washington to subsidize their giant factory farms. So we are REQUIRED to have at least 10% ethanol in our gasoline for the last 5 or 10 years (I forget how many). That has two net effects: It reduces gas mileage by around 10% (seriously) and on top of that, it has caused world food prices to increase. Go USA?

Ha I enjoyed your post. Interesting as I used to have the tuned version of the Fiat 500, the Abarth. Great car. I think I averaged only 34 MPG for the 60,000 miles I did in it, which is probably high 20's US MPG. But the Abarth is one of those cars you just have to drive with attitude! On saying that, I could easily average over 50 MPG on a steady trip. I think with the new CAFE standards I keep hearing about, you will start to see more diesels in the US, whether people like them or not. Google Aston Martin Cygnet, do you think Aston wanted to sell them? No, but to get their "average" emissions down for all their cars combined, they had to do it.

It's due to long term memory and obliviousness around them. GM and VW thought they could cut corners on diesels in the early '80s by using the lower end of a gasoline engine in VW's case, and the entire gas engine block in GM's. This of course lead to bad reliability.

People remember that, and that per ULSD was smelly and diesels had poor emissions. When they see a commercial truck or bus that entered service over a decade ago puff some smoke, they believe that this is still true. Then the heavy duty pick ups with illegally modified emission systems actually lower this opinion.

Meanwhile the public doesn't notice the new, clean diesel cars around simply because they are clean.

I wouldn't call the people running huge corporations farmers.
Ethanol does have some pros, and Europe uses it to some extent too. It does lead to discrepancies because it isn't the test fuel for mpg ratings.

The US's bigger crime in regards to world food prices is buying grain from the same corporations for foreign. Feeding the starving is good, but simply giving them the money directly so that could buy grain and food from their own local farmers would keep those farms running, and eventually, get their economy to a place where they won't need all the foreign aid. Instead we flood the market there with, locally, free food that drives the farmer out of business, keeping the poor there stuck on our welfare. But it's corporate welfare, so that's all right.

Fuel prices in Europe are artificially high because EU governments arbitrarily impose very high taxes on fuels, AND because Europe (unwisely, IMHO) does not produce their own fuels, choosing to rely on (often unreliable) foreign sources. So you mostly drive tiny little cars with very "buzzy" engines.

And you don't drive very far (in comparison to the US.)

In the US, we have bigger, more comfortable vehicles because we drive a lot further than EU drivers. Fuel prices are generally much cheaper (than the EU), but still artificially high because of (misguided, IMHO) government policies. While we are still importing oil from foreign sources, we could be totally self sufficient were it not for out idiot government constantly imposing roadblocks to drilling.

As far as CO2 emissions causing global temperatures to rise -- that is liberal tommyrot -- none of it is true. If you want to get to the truth on the myths of "global warming," try a real scientific site: www.nipccreport.org

Not sure I want to "get the truth" on global warming, but I would be interested to know how a Texan is dropping "tommyrot" into his post. With regard to CO2, globally I think we're on the "suck it and see" path.

C02 being harmful or not is not really important. The fact that oil is a non renewable fossil fuel with limited sources is, any oppurtunity to save it should be prioritised. Americans have always bought into this idea that they need a big engined heavy car for travelling large distances. In Europe, most people need 1 car to do everything, its too expensive to have 2 cars. They need it to be efficient butalso have good performance, and still be capable of transporting the whole family and luggage on big road trips. Now after decades of building to this criteria, we've nailed it, our small cars are just as quick, just as comfy, just as safe (in some cases safer) and much more efficient than the big cars in the US.

The US car manufacturers failed to develop cars, the engines are big, slow and inefficient, outdated in every aspect. Pre recesion, Europe was making twice as many cars as the US, its clear to see why they went broke. But its refreshing to see some Americans now finaly understanding the concept of small turbocharged technology, and the fact that a 5.0 litre to drive 1 guy 6 miles to work is probably excessive!

Texas is just where I ultimately landed, having lived worked and traveled extensively in the Middle East, Africa, Far East, and, yes even Europe -- with your "buzzy" little cars.

Oil is renewable, but the renewal cycle is very long, perhaps measured in eons. But we are far from running out. We have more proven reserves today than fifty years ago, and new technology allows us to economically extract oil from tar sands and oil shale. The point here is that dire predictions of running out of oil have proved false.

Yes your European vehicles are mechanically efficient, but they are not cost efficient for the American market. And I wouldn't call most of them comfortable, though you do have extremely expensive luxury models for the very rich and the very few.

I would agree with you on American car brands as being below par. For the most part they only last 50,000 miles before they are junk. Most of the really good, cost effective "American" cars are not made in America, but in Japan for the American market.

I personally like a big low reving engine. I tool along at 70 mph at only 2000 rpm. With a red line at 6000 rpm, there is plenty of reserve power for hauling passengers, freight and towing a big boat - all at the same time. You can't do that with a "buzzy" little super efficient car -- it has no reserve power.

That's just a difference in life style -- dictated largely by fuel costs. Europe is far more expensive than the US (like double) -- mostly due to excessive taxation and regulation. I like Europe to visit, but not to live there. You probably feel just the opposite. Neither of us our wrong -- just different styles. :)

Its true, Americans think European cars are jokes, Europeans think American cars are jokes. But you have to appreciate good engineering too. A 1.0 litre sized engine might be what you refer to as a "buzzy little engine" but Nissan have recently developed an engine this size with 400 BHP. My first car aged 17 had an 850 cc engine, I bet you have motorcycles bigger than that, and yeg it still did over 100 MPH (even though the speedo only went up to 100, the needle would keep going)

These little engines win awards for thier clever designs, Ford's Ecoboost, Renault's 0.9 TCE and Fiats Twinair again 0.9 litre are all good examples of small yet adequate engines.

@Draigflag
I'm an engineer, so I appreciate all kinds of technical advancements. Not a lot of that is offered her in the US, though.

By the way, my 27-year-old motorcycle (Honda) is "only" 700cc, which is not considered a large bike here. So you had a bigger engine in your first car -- plus you didn't have to get rained on, or frozen in the winter. At 77,000 miles, and never been a shop for repairs, the bike isn't what it used to be, but it is still a good town-bike. And it gets 50 miles per gallon in town, never quite getting up to top gear.

My neighbor, two houses down from mine, has a new Harley Davidson -- that only get 37 miles per gallon. Even I admit that is unbelievably bad mileage for a motorcycle. Not anything I would buy.

But that's America -- fat bodies, fat motorcycles, and fat cars. Love it or leave it, I guess. Kind of disappointing when you look at it that way.

one thing no one has touched on is repairs, idk about the rest of you but i cannot afford to own, maintain a newer, forign economical car. couldnt afford repairs or insurance for that matter. what i spend more of on my american truck, i make up for in being able to fix it from bumper to bumper without needing to pay someone. mind you i have a small engine and a 5spd in my truck so dont take me for the redneck kind of person. iv also gone from 14mpg average tank to 20 mpg average tank.

Thats the annoying thing, when you look at some Indian/Asian countries, they all drive motocycles (weve all seen the videos of an entire family of 6 on one bike!) Bikes are small, light and quick, a formula that should be applied to cars too. If a 50cc is enough power to propel 1 person and get 70 MPG, the you only have to double or tripple the power if you want to carry more people or more stuff. One of my cars which was getting on a bit now, 26 years old had a 700cc engine and just 26 HP and yet it still shifted 4 people and did 72 MPH. Now somewhere along the line, this small light economical formula got lost when the US started making cars, and they instead made these monsters that were pretty low on power for the size, pretty slow because they were so big and heavy, and far from fuel efficient. Unfotunately this formula kind of stuck.

Im not sure I understand you? Surely a newer car will be more cost effective as it will require less repairs and be more reliable? Newer modern cars, especialy diesels are stupidly cheap to run and low maintainance. The oil change intervals on mine are 24,000 miles and I get almost 800 miles from an 11 gallon tank.

You're getting into the total cost of ownership. Maintenance, repairs, and insurance factor into a vehicle's cost along with fuel and oil. A vehicle that gets worse fuel economy might be more economical than one that gets great fuel economy.

Here in the US, an older, well maintained, reliable full size pickup truck that gets about 18 MPG highway can be had easily for under $5,000. Maintenance, insurance, registration, taxes, and parts are relatively inexpensive. Compare that to a VW Jetta. The Jetta costs more, is more to insure, parts cost more... You have to drive an awful lot to make the Jetta balance out.

I guess as with most debates, it comes down to fuel costs. A diesel car has far more pro's than cons in Europe, road tax is lower, insurance is lower, servicing/maintainance intervals are further spread apart (generaly 2 years instead of once a year now) and diesel is $10.33 a gallon as oppose to $9.87 for gas so it pays for itself here. I estimate my current car to save me £2000 a year which is $3300, not a huge amount, but over time it can add up.

Here in the US, diesel fuel is heavily taxed because it is viewed by the Gov't as a fuel primarily used by big trucks and commercial vehicles.

But still not as heavily taxed as ours, about 7 of those $10 every gallon goes straight to the Government!

Yeah, that's highway robbery!

FYI - This is on the roadmap for Fuelly. Basically we want people to be able to track all the expenses of your vehicle from fuel, insurance, maintenance, depreciation, financing charges, etc. The end result is your actual cost/mile.

I have a 2009 Toyota Prius and a 2010 Honda Odyssey. My Prius is worth less then the Odyssey but the insurance is 30% more expensive. This is because the small accidents that occur most often are more costly to fix due to the more complex nature of the hybrid systems. Both cars have been retaining their value fairly well but the Odyssey is doing better because these "family wagons" are hard to find used, the typical family buys one and runs it to the ground in 10-15 years so they hold their value on the used market quite well.

These two factors mean that the fuel savings from the Prius do not offset the other expenses and it's not really ending up being a money saver over other vehicles. I like the car a lot and am glad I bought the Prius but the fuel savings alone don't make it more economical to drive for me.

One thing to note in my situation is that I work from home so we put lower mileage on our vehicles then most people. Someone who drives A LOT would see more benefits from the fuel savings on the Prius.

I think most people would be horrified if Fuelly calculates the cost of everything. I kept track with my last car of every cost, like you said, tax, fuel, repairs, insurance, depreciation and it set me back £25,000 in total, that's around $42,000! Seems a lot as I only did 58,000 from new over a 5 year period, but cars are my main interest/hobby so as scary as it seems, im not too fussed.

That's why I like to buy used. The depreciation is typically less and registration and insurance or almost squat. Over here registration is based on a vehicles cost when new. Figure my 02 sierra was probably around $15-20k when new. Compare to the same "new" truck, I make out better there. Insurance for it is almost nothing too. Iv owned for 3 years, paid 3k for it and have just liability. Which is around 600 a year (my plan also includes two motorhomes). The way I see it is if I get in an accident the truck is pretty much throw away obviously depending on the amount of repairs. Either the other persons insurance will cover the cost or I'll repair what needs repairing to keep it on the road.

It's horses for courses as they say, in the UK it's often cheaper to buy and run a newer car, modern cars are more efficient which means lower fuel costs and lower pollution tax (your GMC would cost about $1600 a year just to tax) and a newer car is more likely to pass the annual MOT test, the government test to make sure your car is clean and safe for using on the roads. Insurance doesn't really differ much, a car that's worth more isn't more to insure, my insurance is £270 a year, which isn't bad as i'm 27 with 3 speeding points and 2 accidents last year! ;)

sounds like the pollution tax is just a way to keep people in new cars ;)

Feels that way sometimes, but cars registered before 1973 are free too. It is a factor some people consider when buying a car, but not everyone cares, its just an extra expense.

Just to "correct" you on this - tax on older cars has nothing to do with registration date ... it is when the car was manufactured. Date used to be pre 1973 (for free tax) , but I think you will find it is pre 1974 now ... and the govt "plan" is to move it a year , every year ... don't hold your breath.

Well yea, but most cars are registered when they are made, unless they sit in a showroom or museum etc. Yes they should have done that years ago with the date moving forward every year, a bit of common sense would be most welcome.

Wow, $9.87 per gallon. If you get 62 mpg in your vehicle, that is only 6.28 miles per dollar (62mpg/9.87$pg=6.28mp$). That is just a smidge better than the 6 miles per dollar (21mpg/3.50$pg=6mp$) I get in the US.

I don't know what Europe was like 20 years ago, but 20 years ago in the US my then pickup (same make and predecessor model to my present one) got 19 mpg, and gas was only $1 per gallon. So I got 19 miles to the dollar.

That was 1994 dollars, of course. If I translate that into 2014 dollars (inflation is about 36% over those 20 years), then gasoline back then would be $1.36 in 2014 dollars. So my fuel economy would be 14 miles to the 2014 dollar (19mpg/1.36$pg=14mp$)

So, all in 2014 dollars, my fuel economy of 20 years ago of 14mp$ is more than double my fuel economy now of only 6mp$, in fact by a factor of 2.3.

So. although my new vehicle is much better (technologically) than its predecessor 20 year ago, my fuel economy (in miles per dollar) is much, much worse.

I am not better off than 20 years ago (regarding fuel economy.)

I chalk that failure in fuel economy (in miles per dollar of fuel) totally up to government policy -- a rabid and illogical hatred by environmentalist in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against drilling for oil.

I think in Europe, there isn't much, if any drilling for oil in your own backyards, even if it is naturally oozing out of the ground. Here in the US we are near drowning in proven oil reserves, yet drilling for it is impeded by our government at every turn. I don't have any doubt that left to the market place, we could have $1 per gallon gasoline again.

Yes, when you compare the cost, 1 hours minimum wage in the US will buy you 2 gallons roughly yes? In the UK, minimum wage buys just under a gallon, big difference. I don't know about 20 years ago, I was only 7 years old, but even 10 years ago when I first started driving, fuel was only 88p per litre. Not sure how that translates with inflation/exchange rate etc, but it's gone up by about 70 or 80% in the last decade. It was supposed to be going up again this Month I think, but the government changed their minds I think.