What are the hypermile "sleepers"

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by trollbait

It's city rating is 1 higher, and the combined is the same. It's possible it has different gearing, but it could just be normal variation in test results. As expected the double clutch six speed in the Ford does better than the classic 4 speed auto. I wonder amenable it is to advanced hypermiling.

I don't get how the SFE Fiesta can have the same combined fuel economy while getting 2 mpg more highway.

I once had a Mirage rental for a day. Liked what I saw of it during that time, but I'd don't remember being in anything so stripped. New base Kia's have more luxurious interiors.

Uh, they're different cars?? Did you happen to miss the part about the Mazda has a 1.5L while the Fiesta has a 1.6L? Transmission is different, engine is different, size is different, it's a different car! Similar styling and same platform, but they're really different cars.. This isn't a total rebadge like the Corolla/Prizm, these are substantially different cars.. I guess since they share the same platform, having similar fuel economy isn't a surprise but they're definitely different vehicles.

[02SaturnSL]

I have currently: 1995 Honda CB250 (16Kmiles)- 75mpg, sometimes more. 2007 Honda VT750C2(8k miles) - 50mpg on the nose
2002 Saturn SL (208K miles) - 40's, highest 49mpg did it twice.
2011 Dodge Challenger SE(2K miles) - new, sticker says 27 highway, can get 31.x on the highway @ 60 with cruise on.

Driver controls alot of the mpg, get a scangauge and slow down on the hwy!!

[LTBrink]

I used to get 30-32 mpg out of my 1995 Firebird Formula at 70 MPH.

[occupant]

Originally Posted by MTUboi86

I've got a 1993 Buick Century with the 3300 (3.3L) V6...the four-cylinder engines put into this car actually get WORSE gas mileage than the V6.

I came back to this thread because somehow I missed this post.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I've owned most of the various powertrain combos available in the A-body. 2.2/3T40, 2.5/3T40, 2.8/4T60, 3.1/4T60, 3.3/3T40 for sure. Let's stick to those. I haven't had the 3.3/4T60 or the 2.8/3T40 or anything 3.0/3.8 gas or 4.3 diesel powered.

The 2.2/3-speed Century I had was EPA rated 25 city 32 highway when new on the window sticker. From 224K to 270K that's what I got, then the TCC solenoid started sticking. So I had to unplug that and I got 25, no better, city or highway until I traded it in. Had I known it was such a simple, don't have to remove the transmission fix, I would have had it done and kept that car.

The 2.5/3-speed Celebrities (three of them), Century, and Ciera I owned all got low 20s in town and 30 on the highway. Not one of these cars cost me more than $300.

The 2.8/4-speed Celebrity I had suffered from severe electrical gremlins and averaged about 18mpg in mixed driving, and one highway trip when I taped some ECU wires together to make the AC work and speedo work and stay in closed loop I got 26mpg on a 600 mile round trip. That's about equal to the original EPA ratings of 20/27 when you think about it. And it was a $400 POS.

The 3.1/4-speed Ciera I have now hasn't been driven enough to test mileage. I expect it to meet the original 19/29 EPA ratings and I hope to better them by 20-40% based on my driving habits.

The 3.3/3-speed Century I owned could not meet the EPA highway ratings of 27 (I got 24 on the trip home from PA to TX) but I did manage to get 20 mixed out of it once it was here. It was a $250 beater so I didn't expect much.

I can say it is easier, FOR ME, to get the EPA ratings or better out of a 4-cylinder A-body than a V6 one. I'll be testing that theory thoroughly with this 1995 Ciera, though, and once the 3.1L is worn out I'm putting a four in it, be that a pushrod 2.2 like it could have had new (and was in my Century that did so well) or an Ecotec if I can work out the wiring and computers.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by occupant

once the 3.1L is worn out

That shouldn't take too long, in my experience. Of all the great engines GM has made, why did I end up with that awful 3.1? That was a lot of years ago and that car is long gone but I keep being reminded of it, like last year when the 3.1 in my friend's Malibu needed intake and head gaskets and the fuel injectors/fuel rail were a huge pain.

[LTBrink]

I suspect my new 420hp 5.0 Mustang has the potential to break 30 MPG or more. I will get a tuner and start tweaking the map.

[91CavGT]

Originally Posted by theholycow

That shouldn't take too long, in my experience. Of all the great engines GM has made, why did I end up with that awful 3.1? That was a lot of years ago and that car is long gone but I keep being reminded of it, like last year when the 3.1 in my friend's Malibu needed intake and head gaskets and the fuel injectors/fuel rail were a huge pain.

The 60 degree GM V6 did have some faults to it, but once adressed then it was a pretty good engine. GREAT low end torque, which as long as you kept your foot out of the gas, would yield pretty good fuel economy.

[Dogconker]

Used to have a 2.2D 2012 civic, used to get 70+mpg on a tank pretty regular, though every other tank had to drive a bit heavier to clear DPF. borrowed a 1.6D 2013 civic to see what that would do (at request of Honda dealer) averaged 78mpg on a tank and 101.2 over a 190mile run.

Currently have a Subaru XV 2.0D manual, on good runs regularly getting high 60s mpg, averaging around 58mpg per tank. peak so far was 76mpg, not bad for a permanent 4x4 weighing 1.4t

[Draigflag]

I saw an XV the other day, quite a nice looking car. Those MPG's you're getting in yours are better than the official figures, that doesn't happen often!

[sobhall]

Originally Posted by LTBrink

I suspect my new 420hp 5.0 Mustang has the potential to break 30 MPG or more. I will get a tuner and start tweaking the map.

So, how's your Mustang doing?