7,000 MPG car wins eco-marathon

[Iapetus]

Hmm, and it requires 91 octane and only delivers 33/41 mpg by 2008 standards (40/45 by 2007 standards).  Okay, at this point, I'm now saying, "Why?"  What's the point of a (relatively) pricy minibox-for-2 that doesn't look all that cool and STILL doesn't get phenomenal mileage?

Easier to park and to maneuver in tight spaces?

[Firethorn]

They were an option on a friends company car list recently, but they did have an impact on fuel economy (and thus company car tax).

Good or bad?

[Iain]

2.0 Highline TDI CR DPF 5d - 47 mpg - 156 g/km
2.0 Highline TDI CR DPF 5d DSG - 44 mpg - 165 g/km

That's two Volkswagen Passat Estate (diesels). It's not a lot, about $25 a month extra tax.

Not sure how they arrive at the 44mpg figure for the DSG equipped version though - manual/auto or both.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

7,000 mpg?  That's nothing.  I've been commuting to work on my bike or months and I still haven't had to put any gas in the tank.

[Scout26]

Does the car meet all Federal regs - DOT, NHTSA, EPA, etc?

One reason why we don't have great fuel economy cars.  Anyone remember why they discontiued selling the original VW Beetle in the US.  (HINT: It wasn't because of bad fuel economy...)

I've got a 2000 Saab 9-3 with a 5-Speed, I get 31-33 MPG, I can get 36+ if keep my foot out of the carb.  Mrs Scout has a 2001 9-5 Kidhauler (Wagon) with an automatic, first car she's owned that wasn't a stick, only thing she doesn't like about it.  Mine was in the shop for an oil change and new brakes (at 114K miles).  They gave me a loaner with that stupid "semi-automatic" transmission.  Hated it.  The car would go into what ever gear it felt like, no matter what gear I wanted.  I like to down shift rather then use just brakes, one reason why mine lasted 114K miles.  Plus not having a clutch pedal was weird, and taking your foot off the gas caused it to decelerate/drop RPM's.  Allows people who have never learned to drive a stick to "pretend" they know how to drive a stick.  Stupid, moronic idea.

Yeah, and your not "driving" if you have an automatic transmission, you're just "steering".  

[MechAg94]

Plus not having a clutch pedal was weird, and taking your foot off the gas caused it to decelerate/drop RPM's. 

You do realize how that sounds right? 

I am at 108K on my GMC Sierra half ton on the original brake pads.  I don't down shift.  Personally, I don't see how running higher RPM on the engine by down shifting would help with fuel economy. 

[Firethorn]

I am at 108K on my GMC Sierra half ton on the original brake pads.  I don't down shift.  Personally, I don't see how running higher RPM on the engine by down shifting would help with fuel economy. 

At least to me it implies that he's doing the gradual deceleration thing, which is good for fuel economy.  Most of the time better than 'gradual acceleration', which they also advocate.

Keep your foot off the gas when you're decelerating and most engines won't be feeding the cylinders much gas, if any, until you're below the idle RPM.

[Brad Johnson]

Most of the time better than 'gradual acceleration', which they also advocate.

I know it goes agains popular thinking, but it's actually more efficient to go full throttle for acceleration.

It takes a specific amount of energy to get a vehicle to a particular speed.  Whether accelerating gradually or putting the pedal, that energy requirement remains constant.  What you can change is other parasitic power robbers like pumping loss.  You minimize pumping loses by opening the throttle all the way to the stops.

By the way, this only works with manual trannies.

Brad

[Firethorn]

Most of the time better than 'gradual acceleration', which they also advocate.

By the way, this only works with manual trannies.

And for bonus milage you can shift early, keeping your RPMs relatively low - you'll just do the gradual acceleration thing while being at the fuel efficient full throttle.

I do it all the time.

[Brad Johnson]

Actually, using full throttle and taking care to keep your RPM as close as possible to the torque peak should yield the most efficient acceleration.

Brad