Filed under: Government/Legal, Green, GM
How low will your car go? EPA offers 2008 mileage comparison tool for older vehicles
We're all pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency has begun using a new method to estimate fuel economy for 2008 model year vehicles and beyond. The new method is more accurate than the old one because it finally takes into account some real world factors like driving with the A/C on, higher highway speeds and accelerating harder. Accuracy is achieved, however, at the cost of high MPG ratings for pretty much every vehicle across the board. So your 2008 Dodge Charger will be estimated at a few miles per gallon less in the city and on the highway than a 2007 model. Nothing has physically changed about the car, just the EPA's method for estimating the fuel economy numbers.
Well, what about all of us dolts who bought vehicles before 2008? What's our true MPG? Only good record keeping at fuel stops and a calculator can answer that, but the EPA has set up a MPG comparison tool at its website so that pre-2008 owners can at least get an estimate of how their vehicle would've handled the new method of testing. My 1999 Olds Alero four-cylinder, for instance, dropped from 22 city/30 highway and a combined average of 25 mpg to 19 city/28 highway and combined average of 23 mpg. How low did your car go?
Just for fun, we decided to run all 23 vehicles from General Motors that are continually touted as achieving over 30 mpg on the highway to see how many would have potentially failed to reach 30 mpg highway using new method. 14 out of 23 failed, including the Saturn VUE Hybrid(!), Saturn Sky, Saturn Aura, Pontiac Solstice, Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse, Chevy Impala, Chevy Malibu Maxx, Chevy HHR, Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan, Saab 9-3 Convertible, Saab 9-3 SportCombi, Saab 9-5 Sport Sedan, and Saab 9-5 Sport Combi. Hmm... not much of a marketing tag line now, is it? Follow the jump to see the complete list of 2007 GM vehicles that achieve 30 mpg or more on the highway. It likely won't look the same next year.
[Source: EPA via Automotive News]
2007 Models
Chevrolet Aveo 5 *
34 mpg
Chevrolet Aveo
34 mpg
Pontiac G6
34 mpg
Pontiac Vibe
34 mpg
Pontiac G5 *
32 mpg
Saturn Vue Hybrid *
32 mpg
Saturn Ion
32 mpg
Chevrolet Cobalt
32 mpg
Chevrolet Malibu
32 mpg
Saturn Sky *
31 mpg
Pontiac Solstice *
31 mpg
Chevrolet Monte Carlo
31 mpg
Chevrolet Impala
31 mpg
Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan
30 mpg
Saab 9-3 Convertible *
30 mpg
Saab 9-3 Sport Combi
30 mpg
Saab 9-5 Sport Sedan *
30 mpg
Saab 9-5 SportCombi *
30 mpg
Pontiac Grand Prix
30 mpg
Buick LaCrosse
30 mpg
Saturn Aura *
30 mpg
Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
30 mpg
Chevrolet HHR
30 mpg
* New to list for 2007
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
THOMAS 7:10PM (2/23/2007)
how come you didn't pick on toyota as well?
Reply
ruggels 7:20PM (2/23/2007)
so what about those of us who are actually seeing the old epa figures in our 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007 model year cars? BONUS? whatever.
Reply
akintz 7:23PM (2/23/2007)
I don't remember where I picked it up from, but for the last 15k miles or so (maybe more), I've been tracking my mileage at a website setup for a fuel economy survey: www.brianbauer.org
I track my own spending separately per month, but this gives a good average and is broken out by vehicle and trim and such.
Reply
iknow 7:24PM (2/23/2007)
Good job Autoblog. Pick on GM, they don't tout themselves as the leader in fuel economy like Toyota does! Wow, i am currently deleting your podcast and unsubscribing from it. Thanks for the bias!
Reply
Howard Kerr 7:26PM (2/23/2007)
Not to diss GM, but even tho the Impala comes with a V6, only a moron and/ or feather-foot should have expected to get OVER 30 mpg. I am surprized the Saturn Vue HYBRID does so poorly, it really should make the idea of having a fuel miser and an SUV in one package the dream it is...and not the reality Saturn would want us to think it is.
Reply
Big jim 7:26PM (2/23/2007)
go to link and click Toyota, the Prius went from a combined 55 mpg down to 45 mpg, look who is laughing now you tree huggin son of a bitchies, no more 50+ mpg for an expenive toy looking car. (pun intened)
Reply
chuck goolsbee 7:30PM (2/23/2007)
I checked out a car that I drive, and noted how the bizarre treatment of oil-burners from the EPA continues.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=17649
They say the tests are now "more realistic"... but they've lowered this car's already low average to even lower. The whole reason I have this car is due to fuel economy, period. I'm a compulsive mileage watcher. I check it on every single fill-up. I've NEVER, EVER seen my '02 TDI turn less than 43 MPG. In fact I rarely ever see less than 50 MPG. The one time I saw 43 was on a trip to California and I was doing 80 MPH into a 45 MPH headwind all morning. In day to day mixed city/highway/stop-and-go (I am in Seattle after all... spiritual home to stop & go traffic) I average 49-51 MPG on damn near every tank.
Then note the user-generated data:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=17649&details=on
Seems a bit closer to my reality as well.
So how the hell did the EPA come up with that ridiculously low 38 MPG number?
--chuck
Reply
chuck goolsbee 7:30PM (2/23/2007)
I checked out a car that I drive, and noted how the bizarre treatment of oil-burners from the EPA continues.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=17649
They say the tests are now "more realistic"... but they've lowered this car's already low average to even lower. The whole reason I have this car is due to fuel economy, period. I'm a compulsive mileage watcher. I check it on every single fill-up. I've NEVER, EVER seen my '02 TDI turn less than 43 MPG. In fact I rarely ever see less than 50 MPG. The one time I saw 43 was on a trip to California and I was doing 80 MPH into a 45 MPH headwind all morning. In day to day mixed city/highway/stop-and-go (I am in Seattle after all... spiritual home to stop & go traffic) I average 49-51 MPG on damn near every tank.
Then note the user-generated data:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=17649&details=on
Seems a bit closer to my reality as well.
So how the hell did the EPA come up with that ridiculously low 38 MPG number?
--chuck
Reply
Tim UF 7:31PM (2/23/2007)
iknow: GM does have a commercial that says "GM HAS MORE CARS ON THE ROAD THAT GET #) OR MORE HIGHWAY MILES PER GALLON THAN ANY OTHER CAR MAKER"
and its likely they still might, just because their portfolio is so rediculously large. And i'm sure this goes without saying, but this STILL wont change any realworld mileage of cars already on the roads or on the assembly lines. We might see a rebound in the numbers as the automakers retune their shift points and engines to cater to the new EPA exam, er EPA test.
the more impt thing to look as is weight of CO2 emmissions per your favorite denomination anyway.
Reply
bgdc 7:31PM (2/23/2007)
"Not to diss GM, but even tho the Impala comes with a V6, only a moron and/ or feather-foot should have expected to get OVER 30 mpg."
Howard, some of us with German cars get 30 mpg on the freeway. Running 75-80 with an inline 6 and a manual I'd often get 31 mpg with my 03 330i. My 06 330i easily gets 30 mpg running 75-80 too. Hell that same car on the autobahn was netting 27-28 running over 100 mph for hours. Even with a long stint at 140 I got in the mid 20s with it last April.
Reply
Michael Karesh 7:34PM (2/23/2007)
My site has a real-world fuel economy survey that includes more variables than the governments. When I have enough responses I'll be analyzing the data to separate out the variables.
Raw results so far:
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
Reply
chuck goolsbee 7:48PM (2/23/2007)
I have no idea how my comment ended up being posted twice. =\
--chuck
Reply
spaceweasel 7:50PM (2/23/2007)
Good god, the defensive types come of the trees in a hurry. GM touts it's lineup as having more vehicles over 30 mpg than anyone else. Now they won't be able to say that. Toyota claims to be the leader in mpg. That hasn't changed.
Autoblog was perfectly within its editorial mandate to post the "just for fun" GM numbers, as it is a reflection on their ad campaign. I'm sure they didn't do it to attack one manufacturer. There are plenty of posts on this site that have negative commentary about ALL brands. Everybody needs to stop getting their panties in a wad. Zealots of any stripe aren't good for the industry. Those who are stridently pro _____ can't be sold any other nameplate, regardless of product performance and quality. Those who are firmly anti _____ will never purchase it, regardless of marketing. If you want manufacturers to build a car that suits YOU, then let them know you will open your wallet to the brand that comes closest. That means not shutting your mind to everything else.
And #6 Big Jim, I'm sure you "intened" a pun, but unless it has something to do with your spelling, I'm not getting it.
Reply
chewy 8:01PM (2/23/2007)
Wait, are these actual measurements of all of the vehicle in the data base or just some number crunching? I will still wait for the 2008 model year ratings for 2008 model year vehicles to see how good this new system is.
Reply
John 8:08PM (2/23/2007)
IMO, if the 4-banger manual civic can't crack 30mpg... we're doomed in the USA. Where are the diesels?
I also agree at the random bashing towards GM. I think the Autoblog "writers" like to intentionally create conflict among readers. But then they really aren't doing anything but compiling a news brief so others can click on it, so I guess they have to mix thigns up so they don't get bored.
Reply
paul34 8:10PM (2/23/2007)
>> 4. Good job Autoblog. Pick on GM, they don't tout themselves as the leader in fuel economy like Toyota does! Wow, i am currently deleting your podcast and unsubscribing from it. Thanks for the bias!
iknow, huh? How about changing your name to "idontknow"?
Since when did Toyota claim they are the leaders in fuel economy? I mean, I did see some commercials from some small, silly company... I think their name was Honda or something? Yea, they initimated they were the leaders in fuel efficiency?
Oh, and maybe I'm wrong, but Honda isn't spelled like, nor pronounced like, Toyota.
I think the mere fact that whenever a post like this is made and how these certain folks feel the need to stick Toyota's name in EVERY single post having to do with any domestic maker. Why so defensive? If your companies are really as good as you want everyone to believe, there's no need to personally defend everything with comments bordering on fanboyism and trolling.
This is seriously why Autoblog has a poor reputation among the more intellectual gearhead crowd. Go to The Truth About Cars and compare their comment sections to the comment sections here. There isn't even a comparison - the difference is MORE than night and day.
Reply
huis 8:39PM (2/23/2007)
I drive an '01 Focus hatch with a 5-speed. The new EPA numbers say 22/30 mpg. That's absurd. In the 86000 miles I've put on the car, the lowest I've ever gotten on a tank of gas was 23 mpg, and that was during a stretch of near 0 degree Michigan winter when my daily trip to school consisted of a 3 mile drive on 25 mph streets with multiple stop lights. My car almost never fully warmed up by the time I turned it off. In other words, if there was ever a time when I'd get horrible mileage, that would be it, and I still did better than their new estimate.
I routinely get about 30-32 mpg in mixed driving, and I've gotten as high as 37 and 39 on two different long highway trips. I don't understand what they're doing to get these numbers. Redlining at ever stop light? Driving on the highway in 4th gear? With all the windows rolled down? And the AC on full blast? It just doesn't add up.
Reply
Mike 8:40PM (2/23/2007)
I certainly must be the odd one out here. I always meet or exceed the posted mileage, especially on the highway.
-2006 Dodge Ram 1500 2WD pickup w/Hemi, 30,200 miles, highway average (empty), 20.2 MPG, towing (5000 pound flatbed trailer) 17-18 MPG.
-2003 Cadillac deVille, (4.6L Northstar V-8) 127,200 miles, 27.4 MPG.
-2006 Buick Rendezvous, (3500 V-6) 21,400 miles, 26.2 MPG.
-1990 Buick Reatta, (3800 V-6) 202,000 miles, 30.7 MPG.
I check every tank, and the amounts listed are the weighted averages.
Reply
plugh 8:45PM (2/23/2007)
2 years ago Autoblog was the place to be, good discussion and smart back-and-forth. Nowadays I'd rather read a car thread on Fark.com, they're funnier & smarter with pictures. Original Autoblogger DT continues on cars.com, where's Walt Keegan?
Hybrid car estimates now line up with real world numbers. And 30 will be the new 30.
Reply
THOMAS 8:56PM (2/23/2007)
Just to clarify, Toyota claims to be the FULL LINE (full size truck included) manufacturer with the highest MPG, while Honda, at least previously, claimed to be the highest-MPG manufacturer overall. No need to be hatin', Paul34.
I think it is important to remember that just because autoblog only posted GM as having MPG losses, it doesn't mean that Toyota won't have significant losses, too--notably the Prius which I think lost 10 mpg.
I'm sure that each manufacturer's combined MPG will decrease by n%, be it Toyota, GM, or otherwise.
Reply