Best mpg suv?

[14Corolla]

Should I take it that your mileage is based on E10 fuel?
On my daily driving.
36 is the best I could do with E10.
36 is the worst I could do with E0.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by cuts_off_prius

^He gets around 30-33 MPG during weeks when its mostly highway with a little bit of suburban roads (cruising speed around 80-90 mph when highway is free flowing). For weeks with only city and suburban roads, it can range from 23-28. The rated city MPG, as with many cars I believe it's a bit optimistic.

Looking back a previous page, I find it hilarious that in this instance the latest US/Canada CR-V is matching, if not, exceeding the 2007 diesel CR-V in Europe.

Regarding the discussion about European market cars getting better mileage, it's true to an extent (although it's not as big as most think). You can compare directly on fuelly's main page with European models, to see the ACTUAL difference in real world driving using the same units to measure fuel economy, not just inflated test figures. When you factor out the different testing cycles, the actual difference is probably due to different emission standards, with diesels in the US/Canada having to be as clean as petrol (having the same NOx emission limits regardless of fuel) while diesels in Europe (although I think this has changed with Euro6) get more lenience in their emissions. As such, diesels in US/Canada require more emissions equipment that robs some fuel economy and power for the sake of cleaner emissions (which is why VW cheated in NA, to satisfy their customers). Also, I've heard of European cars running higher compression ratios due to the availability of fuel with lower sulfur content. A prime example of this is when BMW switched to a higher compression direct injection motor (N53) in Europe for the 2007 model year 330i, while leaving US, Canada, Australia (and possibly Asian markets) counterparts with the older port injected version (N52) due to their fuel having higher sulfur content.

Sulfur has little affect on engine performance. Its primary impact is on the car's emissions and oil life.

Europe tends to have higher octane gas. When the octane is the same, the difference in the reported number units could be enough to allow engines to be designed better for the fuel. The US reports octane in AKI, which is an average between the fuel's MON and RON. Those numbers are the result of two different tests for octane.

Europe, and most of the world, just reports RON. That test gives a better idea of how the fuel will behave in a fuel injected engine than MON. Since it has been decades since a car had a carburetor, the US should switch to RON.

The Mazda SkyActiv-G is 13:1 compression in the US, and 14:1 in Japan. So it sounds like BMW held their DI engine in Europe because they didn't feel like building a lower compression one for the US market. Why not get more vakue out of their port injected engine R&D, and manufacturing tooling while they can? Toyota still has 4 speed automatics in the base Corolla and other cars.

[MukkyPaws1]

yup seems spammers and scammers get everywhere now

[cuts_off_prius]

Originally Posted by 14Corolla

Should I take it that your mileage is based on E10 fuel?
On my daily driving.
36 is the best I could do with E10.
36 is the worst I could do with E0.

Yeah, there's no ethanol-free gas within my metro area.

Originally Posted by trollbait

Sulfur has little affect on engine performance. Its primary impact is on the car's emissions and oil life.

Europe tends to have higher octane gas. When the octane is the same, the difference in the reported number units could be enough to allow engines to be designed better for the fuel. The US reports octane in AKI, which is an average between the fuel's MON and RON. Those numbers are the result of two different tests for octane.

Europe, and most of the world, just reports RON. That test gives a better idea of how the fuel will behave in a fuel injected engine than MON. Since it has been decades since a car had a carburetor, the US should switch to RON.

The Mazda SkyActiv-G is 13:1 compression in the US, and 14:1 in Japan. So it sounds like BMW held their DI engine in Europe because they didn't feel like building a lower compression one for the US market. Why not get more vakue out of their port injected engine R&D, and manufacturing tooling while they can? Toyota still has 4 speed automatics in the base Corolla and other cars.

True, but won't there be more carbon deposition on the valves of direct injected engines with using fuels with higher sulfur content, thereby affecting engine performance and lifespan? That's what I figured at least. It would result in higher maintenance costs and would hurt BMWs reputation more. I think they really pushed direct injection in Europe more so due to the tax brackets associated with CO2/km emissions (at least in the UK) and the higher fuel prices and yeah profitibility for the rest of the world is also another good reason. After all, it costs a ton to federalize engines for the USA.

[trollbait]

My understanding is that carbon deposits in direct injection engines is the result of course fuel metering. Early DI engines didn't have as fine of a control of the amount of fuel added to the cylinder as current ones. This lead to extra fuel in the cylinder that build up as carbon deposits.

Sulfur content in fuel effects particulate emissions; the more sulfur, the more particles coming out the tailpipe. DI, and some port injected, engines already emit enough particles that they would need an exhaust filter if they were held to the same standard as diesels.

Did some poking around, and it appears more sulfur can lead to more carbon deposits.
http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/diversi...lettDionne.pdf
The sulfur content of the gasoline tested there was 55ppm for premium, 109ppm for midgrade, and 155ppm for regular. This is from over a decade ago. The current standards for sulfur content is a 30ppm average for fuels from the refinery, with a 80ppm cap.

Since it seems lower octane tends to be higher sulfur, BMW may have been worried about owners using cheap gasoline. But this isn't one for Ford, GM, and Hyundai, who have all gone to regular octane DI engines.

[Draigflag]

Fuel in the UK is "sulphur free" or 10 PPM, it's this sulphur that leads to "engine sludge" what you guys get in the US, and one of the main reasons you have to change your oils up to 10 times more often!

Petrol powered cars now have higher particulate emissions than their diesel equivalents, and now manufactures are having to fit particulate filters to petrol engined cars too. VW have announced they are to be some of the first (desperate for redemption perhaps?) Sulphur free fuel also reduces N0X emissions, who knows, if you guys had the same fuel we had, maybe you'd see more diesels over there? Also, City diesel has been developed for overpopulated cities where the sulphur has been removed even further, combined with particulate filters that already remove 99.9% of particulate matter anyway, diesels are very clean.

[trollbait]

If people actually followed the owner's manual, and not the dealer or some out of date info, they's be changing their oil around twice as often as done in Europe.

Our diesel has had the same levels of sulfur as Europe since 2007. The low level sulfur gasoline will start to phase in next year. Raising the octane of regular would probably do more good though.

US diesel cars that do not cheat are cleaner than their European equivalent, but in addition to the higher price for the car, the diesel fuel costs more in most of the country. So there isn't the cost benefit of fueling the diesel. The fact that the only non-cheating cars available are BMWs and Mercedes doesn't help.

We are getting a new diesel Cruze for 2017, but until there are more choices, hybrids will continue to outsell diesels here.

[benlovesgoddess]

I had always been a big diesel fan, 10 of my last 12 cars were diesels. I can't speak for other hybrid manufacturers, but it is clear the Prius delivers far superior economy to an equivalent sized diesel.
Big diesels on the same rural routes would deliver between 44-46 mpg, the hybrid is giving me 64 mpg.
Only a supermini sized diesel could return similar economy, and it was a much smaller car with almost no features and poor ride comfort and handling by comparison.
The DPF regen smell and drop in economy was unpleasant too.
The hybrid is providing a faster and more fun drivetrain than the 1.1 litre diesel too.
Yeah, there is a much higher car cost but it is a completely different vehicle, so much more pleasurable.
I have been turned from a guy who only drove a manual diesel into a huge CVT hybrid fan.

[Draigflag]

In fairness Ben, the MPG gap is much tighter than that now. The REAL MPG submitted by 52 people thus far according to Honest John is 55.6 MPG for the 2016 Prius. You cant compare that to a diesel Prius as there's no such thing, but if you take the Auris as another example with both diesel and hybrid options, the real MPG for the diesel is 58.9 MPG V's 56 MPG for the hybrid.

Toyota are clever though, they can now, thanks to mass production and cost scaling, afford to sell the hybrids cheaper than the diesels, for the Auris and Yaris models so a lot of people will probably opt for the hybrid now. Most manufactures are not at this stage yet, so most people will still go for the cheaper and slightly more efficient diesel engine.

[benlovesgoddess]

I would say an Avensis is closer to a Prius than an Auris is in size. I was loaned a diesel Avensis and though i never did a brim to brim fill, the computer claimed 48 mpg. I bet we all agree any cars computer is over optimistic.
As you can see, i have 64 mpg from my Prius on my rural route. The best a large diesel could do (Rover 75) on these back roads was an average 46 mpg.
I still prefer diesel to petrol, but a petrol hybrid outperforms a diesel in power and economy where i live.