Gas prices (and diesel prices) aren’t exactly great right now. There is a war on, or a few actually, and that’s doing little to help the situation. That leads me to today’s Autopian Asks—what’s the worst fuel economy you’re willing to put up with?
Of course, this applies strictly to cars that burn fossil fuels. We can argue about how many fathoms per joule you get out of your EV, but it’s just going to confuse things. We’re talkin’ liquids here, baby.
This question is one that is important car enthusiasts and normies alike. If you’re into cars, you’re probably willing to trade off some fuel economy for better performance, or for a vehicle that truly lights up your heart. If you’re a normie, you might see cars as appliances, and you just want the best efficiency possible. Alternatively, you might demand a certain level of luxury or cargo space at the cost of some extra fuel burn.
I grew up during the turmoil of the second Gulf War, albeit in the safe confines of Australia. We saw our gas prices hit new highs, and I was stuck driving a 1992 Ford Falcon. It had no working odometer, so I couldn’t accurately measure its fuel economy. Regardless, that 4.0-liter six sure loved to suck down the dino juice, and I’d estimate it was pulling down around 15 L/100 km around town, or around 15 mpg in your American money.
That formative experience routinely sent me broke. Since then, I’ve owned a wide variety of cars, and I’ve settled on a figure I find comfortable. It’s 10 L/100 km, or about 23 mpg. My 1998 Mercedes E240, 1992 Daihatsu Feroza, and 1992 Mazda Miata all hit about this mark. They were all cool in their own ways, and they justified their fuel use in turn.
I’ve had more efficient cars, of course. My BMW 320D routinely achieves 29 mpg or better. My 1989 Mazda 121 was a star at 36 mpg. That made them more attractive. By contrast, I felt strongly compelled to sell my Volvo 740 Turbo wagon when its fuel economy mysteriously slipped from 19 mpg to 15 mpg over a few months.
My question to you is thus—what’s the worst fuel economy you’re willing to put up with and why? Maybe it’s for performance, maybe it’s for seating, maybe you’re making a trade-off by running big chunky mud tires. Sound off and tell me how much pain you can take at the pump!
For me it’s less about mpg and more about how often I have to fill up. So if the car has a larger tank, I’ll forgive worse gas mileage, but generally under 20 mpg is unacceptable, but I typically only got 18-19 out of my imported crown Majesta and was fine with that because V8 and it was just too pretty. It also had a big enough tank I could get around 300 miles to the tank so it was fine. When I had an Elise, it drove me nuts because despite getting 26+, it had a tank the size of a dinosaur brain and I had to fill up every 180 miles or so and that was annoying.
My fuel economy is measured in number of happy trips per tank.
Both my 356 and my Figaro achieves a considerable bigger number than “a few” of these, so I usually don’t remember the date or the amount precisely of when I filled one of them up last. I am satisfied, but have no idea really about the MPG.
Doesn’t really answer your question. Just chimed in to tell you about another way of seeing things 🙂
(For commuting daily I just take the bicycle, I live in a big city)
My fuel economy is measured in number of happy trips per tank.
Both my 356 and my Figaro achieves a considerable bigger number than “a few” of these, so I usually don’t remember the date or the amount precisely of when I filled one of them up last. I am satisfied, but have no idea really about the MPG.
Doesn’t really answer your question. Just chimed in to tell you about another way of seeing things 🙂
(For commuting daily I just take the bicycle, I live in a big city)
It hurts me a little to see worse than 12L/100km, my truck with the 5.7L Hemi averages around there on my commute, although I’ve gotten as good as 10.5L/100km on a highway run before. My wife’s Rav4 is my main commuter and I average 6.5L-7L/100km which makes up for the truck.
Pulling an 8.5×20′ trailer I was averaging 20L/100km over the course of 500km or so on premium fuel which was pretty awful.
It hurts me a little to see worse than 12L/100km, my truck with the 5.7L Hemi averages around there on my commute, although I’ve gotten as good as 10.5L/100km on a highway run before. My wife’s Rav4 is my main commuter and I average 6.5L-7L/100km which makes up for the truck.
Pulling an 8.5×20′ trailer I was averaging 20L/100km over the course of 500km or so on premium fuel which was pretty awful.
I can’t live with less than 20 city. Whatever I drive is going to average its city rating or worse over the course of its lifetime since I live in DC and the traffic is dystopian. Also, once you hit 20 city or lower the DC government will tax your car purchase to the tune of 7.5%, and it will likely get even higher as they continue to try to force people out of ICE cars and into EVs or onto public transit.
There also just isn’t an excuse for anything that isn’t a sports car or truck to be getting under 20 MPG in this day and age. And honestly, my biggest gripe with my Kona N other than Korean car depreciation is the horrendous fuel economy. I didn’t buy it because I wanted a gas sipper and it’s designed for the most fun possible but at 14,000 miles I’m currently sitting at 20.1 lifetime MPG which is appalling for a turbo 4 cylinder. I’m not convinced that a bigger, naturally aspirated engine would be doing any worse.
I realize it is different eras but the 1994 SHO 5 speed I owned routinely returned mid 20’s economy if not run ragged. 3.0L naturally aspirated V6. My 4.6 V8 powered 1996 Thunderbird could cruise all day at 26 mpg highway at 75 mph. I realize your Kona N has more HP than either, but I’m not convinced these highly stressed turbo engines are the answer. My V6 2005 MDX gets the same fuel mileage as a bigger V8 Chevy Tahoe of the same age. Low stress, low revs.
As far as fuel economy goes they have no actual real world benefits at all. They’re designed to maximize mileage in the absolutely bogus EPA test cycle but in everything but highway driving they’re as bad as NA engines or worse.
However, smaller engines emit less. Fuel economy and emissions aren’t one and the same. A turbo 4 can be chugging gas like an NA engine, but it’s probably emitting slightly less. Whether or not that benefit is worth the compromises is up to interpretation…but I don’t personally think it is.
No argument on any point you make. The EPA tests are not the real world and automakers have learned how to maximize the results. Fuel economy and overall emissions/environmental impact don’t necessarily track.
Fuel economy and emissions are not exactly the same thing, but they almost are.
CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel burned(not necessarily the same as fuel consumed), so they’re pretty strongly correlated with MPG.
Hydrocarbon and CO emissions are directly proportional to fuel that isn’t burned. So inversely correlated with engine efficiency.
NOx has nothing to do with fuel necessarily.
When a turbo 4 is under load, under boost, and is chugging fuel like a V8, it is running very rich, doing a poor job of burning all of its fuel, and almost certainly is producing worse hydrocarbon and CO emissions than said V8 would be.
I had no idea that the Kona N was that thirsty. That’s really sad when a little turbo 4 gets noticeably worse mileage than a rip-snortin’ V8 Corvette. C4 and newer Corvettes often average even better than their EPA ratings.
Those had very long legs on the understressed V8 drivetrain. My Thunderbird cruised at around 1500 rpm at 70mph. It was barely off idle and had enough torque to not be constantly downshifting.
One data point: the naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 in my RDX has 19.1 lifetime MPG.
I can’t live with less than 20 city. Whatever I drive is going to average its city rating or worse over the course of its lifetime since I live in DC and the traffic is dystopian. Also, once you hit 20 city or lower the DC government will tax your car purchase to the tune of 7.5%, and it will likely get even higher as they continue to try to force people out of ICE cars and into EVs or onto public transit.
There also just isn’t an excuse for anything that isn’t a sports car or truck to be getting under 20 MPG in this day and age. And honestly, my biggest gripe with my Kona N other than Korean car depreciation is the horrendous fuel economy. I didn’t buy it because I wanted a gas sipper and it’s designed for the most fun possible but at 14,000 miles I’m currently sitting at 20.1 lifetime MPG which is appalling for a turbo 4 cylinder. I’m not convinced that a bigger, naturally aspirated engine would be doing any worse.
I realize it is different eras but the 1994 SHO 5 speed I owned routinely returned mid 20’s economy if not run ragged. 3.0L naturally aspirated V6. My 4.6 V8 powered 1996 Thunderbird could cruise all day at 26 mpg highway at 75 mph. I realize your Kona N has more HP than either, but I’m not convinced these highly stressed turbo engines are the answer. My V6 2005 MDX gets the same fuel mileage as a bigger V8 Chevy Tahoe of the same age. Low stress, low revs.
As far as fuel economy goes they have no actual real world benefits at all. They’re designed to maximize mileage in the absolutely bogus EPA test cycle but in everything but highway driving they’re as bad as NA engines or worse.
However, smaller engines emit less. Fuel economy and emissions aren’t one and the same. A turbo 4 can be chugging gas like an NA engine, but it’s probably emitting slightly less. Whether or not that benefit is worth the compromises is up to interpretation…but I don’t personally think it is.
No argument on any point you make. The EPA tests are not the real world and automakers have learned how to maximize the results. Fuel economy and overall emissions/environmental impact don’t necessarily track.
Fuel economy and emissions are not exactly the same thing, but they almost are.
CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel burned(not necessarily the same as fuel consumed), so they’re pretty strongly correlated with MPG.
Hydrocarbon and CO emissions are directly proportional to fuel that isn’t burned. So inversely correlated with engine efficiency.
NOx has nothing to do with fuel necessarily.
When a turbo 4 is under load, under boost, and is chugging fuel like a V8, it is running very rich, doing a poor job of burning all of its fuel, and almost certainly is producing worse hydrocarbon and CO emissions than said V8 would be.
I had no idea that the Kona N was that thirsty. That’s really sad when a little turbo 4 gets noticeably worse mileage than a rip-snortin’ V8 Corvette. C4 and newer Corvettes often average even better than their EPA ratings.
Those had very long legs on the understressed V8 drivetrain. My Thunderbird cruised at around 1500 rpm at 70mph. It was barely off idle and had enough torque to not be constantly downshifting.
One data point: the naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 in my RDX has 19.1 lifetime MPG.
I’ve always tried to pick vehicles with good MPGs. Currently I’m getting mid-20’s in an all-wheel drive compact crossover doing mostly city driving, which is less than I’d like, but I wanted better winter driving and was tired be being blinded by all the full sized trucks and SUVs with their headlights at my eye level in a regular car.
I’d really like my next vehicle to be a hybrid if I can swing it and find one that meets my list of wants.
I’ve always tried to pick vehicles with good MPGs. Currently I’m getting mid-20’s in an all-wheel drive compact crossover doing mostly city driving, which is less than I’d like, but I wanted better winter driving and was tired be being blinded by all the full sized trucks and SUVs with their headlights at my eye level in a regular car.
I’d really like my next vehicle to be a hybrid if I can swing it and find one that meets my list of wants.
I can live with fuel economy in the low 20s from my daily driver (V6 Accord) which is what I’m getting now, however that low number is a reason I’m thinking about moving on from it. However the car is excellent in all other regards as regular transportation including it’s legitimate 30ish MPG on highway drives which is why I’m not in a hurry to move on from it.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the fuel economy in my ’05 Pontiac GTO. I rarely see it below 20. Mind you, it’s not doing city driving much. I’m at the edges of the city I live in so easy access to open roads. I’ve had it as high as 25mpg in highway miles.
The V6 accord is peak normal car.
I can live with fuel economy in the low 20s from my daily driver (V6 Accord) which is what I’m getting now, however that low number is a reason I’m thinking about moving on from it. However the car is excellent in all other regards as regular transportation including it’s legitimate 30ish MPG on highway drives which is why I’m not in a hurry to move on from it.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the fuel economy in my ’05 Pontiac GTO. I rarely see it below 20. Mind you, it’s not doing city driving much. I’m at the edges of the city I live in so easy access to open roads. I’ve had it as high as 25mpg in highway miles.
The V6 accord is peak normal car.
I currently get 25 on 93, so my gas bill isn’t cheap, but I could live with something in the high teens, maybe mid-teens in a vehicle that’s fun and runs on regular. Might be nice to get a second vehicle that gets better mileage, but for now I’m happy throwing cash at the pump in exchange for flat-6 noises.
I currently get 25 on 93, so my gas bill isn’t cheap, but I could live with something in the high teens, maybe mid-teens in a vehicle that’s fun and runs on regular. Might be nice to get a second vehicle that gets better mileage, but for now I’m happy throwing cash at the pump in exchange for flat-6 noises.
When I drove my XJ to Moab, wheeled for a week, and drove back my calculated MPG was about 16 for the whole trip. So probably that.
For that journey, I’d guess the smiles per mile was pretty high, though!
In Moab yes. On the road, lets just say 4.56 gears, suspension seats and a 20+ year old drivetrain really showed their age (or mine).
When I drove my XJ to Moab, wheeled for a week, and drove back my calculated MPG was about 16 for the whole trip. So probably that.
For that journey, I’d guess the smiles per mile was pretty high, though!
In Moab yes. On the road, lets just say 4.56 gears, suspension seats and a 20+ year old drivetrain really showed their age (or mine).
I’ve made a personal commitment that every car I buy will have better fuel economy than the one we replace.
Of our two vehicles, the worst is the Pacifica hybrid, which works out to around 7l/100km (34 mpg?) over the course of a year.
So the replacement for the van will have to be better than 34mpg – and at least a PHEV if not full EV.
Other car is electric and will be replaced by electric.
I’ve made a personal commitment that every car I buy will have better fuel economy than the one we replace.
Of our two vehicles, the worst is the Pacifica hybrid, which works out to around 7l/100km (34 mpg?) over the course of a year.
So the replacement for the van will have to be better than 34mpg – and at least a PHEV if not full EV.
Other car is electric and will be replaced by electric.
I’m considering putting a bid in on my 4wd work van whenever the new one comes in. It gets 7-9 mpg. But, I don’t commute, and put 3-4k on my personal cars per year, so I don’t really care.
I feel weird having such a visible privilege—but not about to refuse it
I’m considering putting a bid in on my 4wd work van whenever the new one comes in. It gets 7-9 mpg. But, I don’t commute, and put 3-4k on my personal cars per year, so I don’t really care.
I feel weird having such a visible privilege—but not about to refuse it
I think you hit it on the head at the beginning: it depends. I love driving our Wrangler with tube doors and sans roof and 17mpg around town is fine. Getting 21mpg in our Discovery isn’t. And get 29+ in a GLA45 is smiles for miles.
Top on or off? I haven’t put the top OR doors on my 05 LJ in probably a decade, but it’s never broken 13, usually around 11.
If you are getting 11mpg in an LJ it is not running correctly. My XJs get over 20mpg highway, high teens in town. And even with the top off, an LJ is barely higher drag than an XJ.
My experience is that the Jeep straight six is a fairly efficient engine. David Tracy got 17mpg on a road trip in his j10.
I think you hit it on the head at the beginning: it depends. I love driving our Wrangler with tube doors and sans roof and 17mpg around town is fine. Getting 21mpg in our Discovery isn’t. And get 29+ in a GLA45 is smiles for miles.
Top on or off? I haven’t put the top OR doors on my 05 LJ in probably a decade, but it’s never broken 13, usually around 11.
If you are getting 11mpg in an LJ it is not running correctly. My XJs get over 20mpg highway, high teens in town. And even with the top off, an LJ is barely higher drag than an XJ.
My experience is that the Jeep straight six is a fairly efficient engine. David Tracy got 17mpg on a road trip in his j10.
When I was looking to replace my car 8 years ago, mpg was my top concern. Not that I drove a lot, but why not get the best mpg you can? Ended up with a 2014 Corolla. I’ve driven it 60k miles and averaged 32mpg in it.
However, that recently became my wife’s daily driver and I needed something that was going to maybe get 20 miles a week put on it. Budget was a big concern, so mpg was basically not on the list. Through a friend of a family member I ended up with a 95 Dodge Ram with the 5.9L. I’m probably getting 11mpg in it. But since I’m not filling it up but maybe one a month I am tolerating it.
When I was looking to replace my car 8 years ago, mpg was my top concern. Not that I drove a lot, but why not get the best mpg you can? Ended up with a 2014 Corolla. I’ve driven it 60k miles and averaged 32mpg in it.
However, that recently became my wife’s daily driver and I needed something that was going to maybe get 20 miles a week put on it. Budget was a big concern, so mpg was basically not on the list. Through a friend of a family member I ended up with a 95 Dodge Ram with the 5.9L. I’m probably getting 11mpg in it. But since I’m not filling it up but maybe one a month I am tolerating it.
I average about 15mpg between my CTS-V and Raptor because that’s what each of them gets. So I bought a Fiesta ST last week because I make all kinds of sense and totally need 3 cars in addition to 2 motorcycles and an e-scooter.
I average about 15mpg between my CTS-V and Raptor because that’s what each of them gets. So I bought a Fiesta ST last week because I make all kinds of sense and totally need 3 cars in addition to 2 motorcycles and an e-scooter.