Edmunds reports EPA economy; some SUVs better
Dec 22, 2007, 07:48 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds reports EPA economy; some SUVs better
Here's a recent article on Edmunds about Evo pricing and EPA economy:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123941
The pricing has been beaten to death around here. Now how about that fuel economy? 16-17 city, 22 highway. Now I'm not expecting an economy car, but larger cars in the price range with larger engines and AWD are better. For example, the G35x, Audi A4, BMW 335xi, and even the Caddy CTS AWD are all 1-4 mpg better on the highway. The STI is 17/23.
Nobody buys one of these cars for the great mileage, but I'd hope for better highway numbers out of a small car with a 2.0L engine.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123941
The pricing has been beaten to death around here. Now how about that fuel economy? 16-17 city, 22 highway. Now I'm not expecting an economy car, but larger cars in the price range with larger engines and AWD are better. For example, the G35x, Audi A4, BMW 335xi, and even the Caddy CTS AWD are all 1-4 mpg better on the highway. The STI is 17/23.
Nobody buys one of these cars for the great mileage, but I'd hope for better highway numbers out of a small car with a 2.0L engine.
Dec 22, 2007, 08:12 PM
#2
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
since they changed to a more luxurious platform, they might as well ditch the 2.0L and stick in a V-6 300+hp engine. It will be faster and should get better fuel mileage. It desperatly needs more torque at the current weight
Dec 22, 2007, 09:19 PM
#3
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 263hp FWD Eclipse only gets 16/25....throw in into the EVO with 37 more HP and AWD and it would probably get less MPG than the 2.0.
People sometimes think small 4cyl = good gas mileage, but that just isn't the case with most 4cyl performance cars.
People sometimes think small 4cyl = good gas mileage, but that just isn't the case with most 4cyl performance cars.
Dec 22, 2007, 09:26 PM
#4
Maybe im missing something here. Its all just a mathematical equation to get MPG. How can the numbers change, when the numbers being used in the formula havent changed? What are the variables that made the economy go down? For example, i know this is an average but - taking how many miles i drove on my last tank, and divided it by the number of gallons i put into the tank upon filling up and divide them, you get your last tanks average. I dont understand...
Dec 23, 2007, 07:13 PM
#5
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: El Centro, Ca
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car is heavier, so that will add to the decrease of MPG.
Be careful with that, remember the Eclipse?
Be careful with that, remember the Eclipse?
Dec 23, 2007, 08:12 PM
#6
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh,
Understand that this thing isn't gonna be doing Pyris numbers with the MPG. But the beastily Corvettes does better mileage.
Guess it's not far off from the respectable mileage that my Highlander is doing plus the extra incentive of speed?
Understand that this thing isn't gonna be doing Pyris numbers with the MPG. But the beastily Corvettes does better mileage.
Guess it's not far off from the respectable mileage that my Highlander is doing plus the extra incentive of speed?
Dec 24, 2007, 12:34 PM
#7
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, the Corvette gets amazing MPG considering the performance, but the EVOs gas mileage doesn't look so bad when you compare it to something like the S2000. The S2k is 600lbs lighter with 54 less HP and 100+ less lb-ft yet it only gets 18/25 mpg.
Trending Topics
Dec 24, 2007, 09:47 PM
#11
the one saving grace it had was the assertion that it was still faster than the IX around a track...now that that has been blown apart, the EVO X is just a big dissapointment. it's not nice enough to compete with other cars in it's price range on looks/quality alone (which is not why you'd buy an EVO anyway), and now it's slower than it's competitors.
Dec 25, 2007, 01:08 PM
#14
your sig is trash. that C&D lightning lap was bull****. those idiots can't drive for ****. explain how a cobalt SS has higher entry AND exit speeds than the Z track edition AND the EVO IX MR.... the EVO should have mopped the floor with that Z, and the GT 500.
Dec 26, 2007, 09:55 AM
#15
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep in mind these fuel economy numbers are under the new EPA fuel economy measuring system, not the old BS system.
They take into consideration higher driving speeds, AC, heater, etc. Every car from every manufacturer has lower numbers this year. I wouldn't be too suprised, since I imagine most IXs get similar gas mileage in the first place.
Every car made 2008 and after falls under the new test methods.
Read about it here: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
Just because a Cobalt SS has a higher entry and exit speed doesn't mean it's the fastest around a track. Even if it is, it doesn't mean the car is the easiest, or most fun to drive.
What do you care a Cobalt SS, 350Z or GT500 does? Just because an EVO is an EVO doesn't mean it can mop the floor.
They take into consideration higher driving speeds, AC, heater, etc. Every car from every manufacturer has lower numbers this year. I wouldn't be too suprised, since I imagine most IXs get similar gas mileage in the first place.
Every car made 2008 and after falls under the new test methods.
Read about it here: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
What do you care a Cobalt SS, 350Z or GT500 does? Just because an EVO is an EVO doesn't mean it can mop the floor.