What are the hypermile "sleepers"

[jcp123]

Anything with the Ford 2.0l SOHC ('97-up Escorts, some '00-'04 Foci) will net you pretty good mileage. Maybe an older Mazda 323 or Ford Aspire? Other than that, it's the usual suspects...SOHC Saturns, 2.2l Cavaliers/Sunfires, etc.

[GasSavers_JoeBob]

Originally Posted by SL8Brick

Its pretty evident that many here simply recommend what they're already driving, so I shall be no exception.
If you can find one in drivable condition...how `bout a 1983-84 Volvo 240 Diesel?
The spaciousness and cargo capacity of a mid-sized SUV and 35+mpgs to boot.
Or better yet, convert a later model 200 series: http://www.thegreencarco.com/product...rsion_faqs.php

All I need is a time machine to go and get back my '77 Volvo wagon (junked a few years ago, but still looked nice from outside), and probably about 12 grand.

[ShadowWorks]

My friend has a Vauxhall Corsa Breeze, 996 cc engine 3 cylinder petrol effort, he must get 60+ mpg he never looks at the fuel gauge or tries to understand FE, he says he just puts in ?5 a week and that's all he knows, after a few months his 35 litre tank gets filled up, he drives around 6 miles a day.

I was thinking about getting a Suzuki Swift which is a quick car yet its suppose to be great on FE.

[Soobeeroo]

I had to add my car: '96 Subaru Impreza, 1.8L H4 engine, 5spd trans. It's equivalent to other compacts in terms of FE, though only rated at 26mpg highway, and it has AWD.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

chevy, don't laugh, prizm. less expensive than its corolla twin!

old EPA, which can be achieved/beaten, is 32/41(5 speed).

i'm getting 40+ combined w/ more mods to come.

What the hell are you talking about? The OLD epa rating for the Geo prizm/Corolla for 1995 is 28/34 and slightly worse the newer you get. Maybe those are your fuel economy numbers..

[thornburg]

Originally Posted by *************

What the hell are you talking about? The OLD epa rating for the Geo prizm/Corolla for 1995 is 28/34 and slightly worse the newer you get. Maybe those are your fuel economy numbers..

Those numbers would be approx. correct for imperial gallons. Was the poster from outside the US?

[bowtieguy]

didn't get my numbers from www.fueleconomy.gov. but even considering their (old)figures (31/38), it seems that the difference is QUITE significant.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

didn't get my numbers from www.fueleconomy.gov. but even considering their (old)figures (31/38), it seems that the difference is QUITE significant.

Where did you get 31/38? Are you manually converting the US gallon to imperial gallons or something?

[thornburg]

Clearly there's a wire crossed here somewhere.

Ah, found it:

************* said a '95 Prizm (which is a Geo). The old EPA ratings were 28/34, which translates to roughly 32/41 in imperial gallons (my calculation).

However, the original poster, bowtieguy, is from Florida, not known for its use of imperial gallons. Then I realized he said a Chevy Prizm, not a Geo Prizm. The old EPA numbers for 2002 Chevy Prizm are 32/41, just as he posted.

The 31/38 numbers are the old EPA rating of 2000 Chevy Prizm.

What a difference a few years can make...

[trautotuning]

I LOOOVE MY MAZDA6! (4cyl auto)

And where did I get the idea of getting it?? ... FROM THIS THREAD!

Somebody had mentioned it here and I said hey, good idea! As big as an accord with the price of a civic is the way I see it.

It also has an awesome tiptronic transmission that lets you shift WAY earlier than D mode, and you can shift all the way up to 5th gear even going 30mph.

Epa ratings (old ones) are 24/31mpg .... and it looks great in my opinion!