Karl on Cars

I love this sandcountry guy's style. And he's right. Plenty of family sedans come with ~270 hp V6's. They represent much more than 10% of a market that's 3-4 million cars per year. Most come with 6 speeds, but the tallest gear in most 5 speeds is a similar ratio. This was an interesting article, and I have no problem with the results.
 
Tehnium, I think you're in the minority of new car buyers if you think every Camaordtima comes with a 4 banger. You're certainly in the minority of people reading on this site!

The vast majority of their sales are I4, not V6, just as most are equipped with slushers and not sticks, though, bepperb.

Just my 2cents - There's a break-in factor at work; every one of my last 5 cars bought new got better mpg as the miles went by - maximum improvement came anywhere from 5,000 miles [a '96 Galant 4] to 16,000 [an '04 unsupercharged Regal 3.8]. Obviously, most of the cars tested by Edmunds are a] not driven to maximize mpg and b] not kept long enough to truly break in.

" I'm always skeptical that they're rigging the tests somehow, in an effort to raise that critical "Excitement Factor". "
 
There was no "excitement Factor" in that episode. It seemed thurough to me. They came to the conclusion that anything they did to increase mileage was basically insignificant. All their results were within a couple tenths of a percent.
 
"Also, I notice when driving down the highway that empty dump-trucks and open-top haulers leave the back-door unlatched, so that it pushes back a little bit when they're up at speed. Maybe they do this for mileage? Or maybe better mileage is a positive side benefit of forgetting to latch it?"
 
They drive with the back door unlatched because they are to lazy to get out and shut it. They unlatch the back to drop their load and then take off without getting back out of the truck. When they get back to the job site they pray someone will do it for them. If they think there getting better mileage it's because someone told them so. You could put a sail on a dump truck and not get better mileage.

My smart has been consistently above 40MPG since the third fill-up (last tank was 43.88) and I'm no hyper-miler.
  
The smart is not for everyone and we have other vehicles for other needs but besides the mileage, the smiles-per-mile factor is off the charts.

"I love this sandcountry guy's style."
 
That makes one of you....too many capital's and exclamation marks for me :P

A couple of relevant experiences I've had:
 
I have on a few occasions (when young and dumb) driven in the close draft of a semi or tour bus. I never did a test where I checked my mileage but I can say without a doubt I had to back off on the throttle quite a bit in the draft - so it had to have resulted in better mileage. I also agree that the most significant benefits are going to be realized in a non-aerodynamic vehicle. I did the above with two trucks that I owned, a E-150 van and a full size Bronco. Back then, one of the main reasons I would try to get in the slipstream (besides fun) was for the reduction in wind noise - both trucks had quite a bit of it. At a certain distance behind the truck or bus there would be increased (or altered) wind noise. Then at the base of the imaginary "V" in the air there would be maximum noise, turbulence and buffeting. And then finally when inside the "V" or draft it was very calm, quiet and it required less throttle to maintain speed.
 
The next four vehicles I have owned have been pickups and I have fooled around off and on trying different things with the tailgates and covers on the bed. My current truck ('06 King Cab Frontier 4X4) is the one with which I really tried to measure one thing against another - similar controls as the Edmunds test.
 
A couple of things I am fairly certain of.....
 
With an open bed and the tailgate up on my truck I got better mileage with the cruise set at 70 than 60/65. I was very surprised by this and my theory is similar to the Mythbuster theory.....with the steep rake of the Frontier's windshield and the higher speed the air was more apt to ride over the bubble in the truck bed and mostly skip over the tailgate.
 
What prompted me to try and test it further was that I did the same exact drive 2 weekends in a row with nearly identical conditions. First weekend at 70-75 with the gate up and next at a steady (cruise) 65 with the gate down. I figured the second week would be the one where I would find out what the max highway MPG of the truck would be. But what I saw was noticeably better mileage with the gate up and at a higher speed - very surprising. So then a couple of weeks later I did two identical back to back "flat" highway 30 mile loops on the same day to see and it confirmed what happened on the weekend trips.
 
A few months later I purchased a rigid soft tonneau cover for the bed. On the day of installation, but prior to installation, I went out and did the same 30 mile loop again. Then after installation I once again drove the same loop, the truck picked up 1 to 1.5 MPG at 65 and more logically the mileage dropped down as the speed increased and I saw better mileage at 60 than 65 etc.

Kudos to Edmunds for that article. Having owned a couple of cars with fuel economy computers built in, I've personally seen results comparable to those findings. When I become King of America I will require that all cars have both average and instantaneous mpg displays to help drivers max out their mileage.
  
The only thing in the article that runs slightly counter to my own experience is that the pickup and SUV didn't show a steeper fuel economy gradient with speed compared to the car. I used to have a six-speed manual 2000 Corvette that got incredible highway fuel economy. I typically got 31 to 32 mpg when driving calmly with the cruise at 65 to 70 mph and about 30 mpg when the cruise was set to 77 to 79 mph. (I fancy myself to be a smooth driver, so I never tried the aggressive mode for an entire road trip.)
  
When I replaced my beloved Corvette with my now-beloved 2004 Avalanche with 2WD and 5.3 liter engine, I was rather surprised to see how much more sensitive its economy is to speed. My fuel consumption in the Avy is virtually the same as the Tundra in Edmunds' test. So, my Corvette only had about a 6.6% consumption increase between 77 and 65 while my truck has more than a 20% increase.
  
I had always assumed that this difference was due to the truck's greatly increased frontal area and drag when compared to the low-slung Corvette. However, I don't see a similar trend when the relatively low ES350 is compared to the other two, so there goes that hypothesis.
  
Could the manual transmission have something to do with it? Since modern automatics have locking torque converters, I wouldn't have thought so.

"When I become King of America I will require that all cars have both average and instantaneous mpg displays to help drivers max out their mileage."
 
I thought Mr. Sparkle was a Japanese citizen and resident.
 
Thanks for the great article by everyone over there! As previously stated, a table or tables organizing the results would have been nice.
 
I'm a little surprised the Tundra wasn't tested with and without a tonneau cover.

The "mythbusters" tested a domestic (I believe a Ford F-150) pickup, and I would be willing to bet that the Tundra is a less-refined truck aerodynamically. Ford put aerodynamically engineered full-sized pickups into production in the 1980's, so they have 25 years of design experience upon which they can draw. The Tundra is Toyota's first try at a pickup on this scale, and they spent most of their engineering effort on developing the chassis/drive line (we all know that they sure as hell didn't put much effort into the interior). I would be interested to see how some of your european testers fuel milage compares to the domestics/asians at various speeds. I know that a BMW 320d has a sweet spot at around 135-145 kph, but drop down to 80 or 100 (when one enters Switzerland) and your milage drops (low gear cancels out the fact that you have less drag).
If you have to put you luggage on top of an Enclave, then you need to pack much less since that damn thing is massive. If you have all eight seats filled with you and your six kids, maybe you ought to look into a vasectomy or just stop having sex. The only thing that should ever go on the roof rack is athletic equipment which would not fit in with the people (skis, bikes, canoes, fishing rods, and if you hurt yourself some crutches). If you really apply yourself, you can fit an amazing amount of people and their luggage in a car.

"I know that a BMW 320d has a sweet spot at around 135-145 kph, but drop down to 80 or 100 (when one enters Switzerland) and your milage drops (low gear cancels out the fact that you have less drag)."
Ahh...the beauty of being Autobahn bred. That goes along with the thread a short while ago with SoCal freeway 3 series drivers claiming they can still get about 30 mpg despite cruising at ~85 mph. I want a BMW so bad... Is the 320d really geared that tall that you have to downshift for 60 mph travel? Are the highways rather hilly in Switzerland?
 
"If you have to put you luggage on top of an Enclave, then you need to pack much less since that damn thing is massive. If you have all eight seats filled with you and your six kids, maybe you ought to look into a vasectomy or just stop having sex. The only thing that should ever go on the roof rack is athletic equipment which would not fit in with the people (skis, bikes, canoes, fishing rods, and if you hurt yourself some crutches). If you really apply yourself, you can fit an amazing amount of people and their luggage in a car."
LOL It's funny 'cause it's true.

"If you are currently an aggressive driver (cruising speeds from 75-85 mph, constantly accelerating and changing lanes and braking sharply) and you decided to calm down (driving with the cruise control set to 65 mph), your fuel economy would improve an average of 35 percent."
 
That seems to match perfectly to an article I read the other day. This company (still trying to find the link) has a product that uses GPS and a database along with a speed limiter on the car to limit every car to the speed limit on the road they are traveling. The company claims it will save 35 to 40% on fuel consumption nationwide as well as save thousands of lives.
 
They are pushing the government to make it mandatory on all cars. I can't see it ever being passed by the government (at least not yet) but if it did, tests like this will really help their cause. :(

Interesting.
 
In a related story, apparently widespread data exists to show that people who attend church regularly have fewer medical complications. Time for a "Go to church every Sunday" law. Think of all the medical costs it will save, not to mention improved quality of life.
 
Yikes!

Karl, thank you for running fuel economy tests at normal highway speeds. I enjoy Mythbusters, but they ran the windows down vs. windows up with A/C test at 45 mph. Traffic here moves about 50 mph on city streets, 80 mph on rural interstate. Another big potential flaw in their experiment is they used two separate vehicles which made for better television, but introduced unit-to-unit variation into the test results.
 
Blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com had some interesting observations on how fuel economy meter on his Highlander hybrid depends on driving style. http://instapundit.com/archives/026534.php I think he later suggested that requiring a meter showing instantaneous fuel economy would be a more effective and less intrusive regulation than CAFE regulations or pushing people toward hybrids. If people got feedback on how fuel economy varies with driving style, they'd probably drive differently.

George: I think you're quite right about instant fuel meters being more effective than CAFE standards. When the gauge is right in front of you, showing what it is costing you, it's hard to drive like a maniac.

Or it encourages it depending on your immediate mood lol. "Sweet we're getting 6 mpg right now!"

Thanks for the story.
 
As car enthusiasts, the last thing we want to hear is that slow,steady driving saves gas. Anyone who lived through the 55 mph national speed limit knows exactly how that feels day in and day out. The results shouldn't surprise anyone, but the 35% spread was amazing as was the 21% improvement without roof top luggage. Effective drafting requires unsafe driving practices and should be avoided at any cost. Likewise, running with 25% deflated tires is also unsafe.
 
Yes, I'd like Edmunds to test the exact cars I'm thinking of selecting from to buy in the next few months. And of course I'm an average guy, so I'm not interested in any of the vehicles tested. I would appreciate that Edmunds report mileage in all their reviews and the conditions underwhich they were tested. Not to be reported as a highly scientific fact, but as a real world gauge.

firstwagon,
I doubt that type of mandatory vehicle control would pass. Government revenue would be reduced too much. There would be no speeding ticket revenue, and fuel tax revenue would be reduced by 35-40%.

This article is a fresh breeze & a very needed one. I have noticed that the Edmund long term test cars listed mileage is usually significantly below EPA numbers. I assume this is because the drivers are more interested in get up & go than mileage & slow. I would love to see every long term test vehicle have test session after break in (say 10K) in which they are specifically driven "hyper miler" style (legal speeds, but with an egg between the foot & the pedals) to show what kind of fuel economy they are capable of when driven with fuel economy as a goal. That woud be a great service to many of your readers!