![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25301-100x100.png\")
just another reason to key a lamborghini if you see one. yeah, that's right Jalopolinkers, I said it.
just another reason to key a lamborghini if you see one. yeah, that's right Jalopolinkers, I said it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
wait a sec, I thought for sure that the VW Jetta TDI's would have been on this list. Am I missing something?
How correct is this list? My mazda 3 is rated at 34mpg highway and like 28 or 29 city... which - by the way is way cooler than #10 on the list...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83385-100x100.png\")
@FLConsumer: Just wait for VW to start making TDI Passats again. I got the last model they made (2005) and I average 37 mpg for a tank (42+mpg on the highway ride to work).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160819-100x100.png\")
I miss my 03 VW Golf TDI, but jeeze it had so many electrical problems and fuel pump issues I finally ditched it for a Honda Element which is an absolute gas hog compared to it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-113511-100x100.png\")
The TDIs are being updated and will be released next year as a 2009 model.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-194215-100x100.png\")
I really wish I was wise enough to make a smarter decision a couple of years ago. I made the mistake of buying a Ford Ranger, I still get about 18 mpg or so, but 30-35 in the city would be a relief.
Jeep Grand Cherokee at 11/14? One would think that Jeep could do more than 3 mpg better than the wicked Veyron.
Buy a used Ford Escort from the last decade. My '98 sedan gets 30/40.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-12747-100x100.png\")
Keep in mind that these are all updated 2008 style EPA ratings, so 2007 and earlier cars were rated by different standards and procedures (hence the Mazda3 isn't close to this list anymore).
Also hilarious that the worst car in the \"Subcompact class\" is the Bentley Contenental GTC, which has a 5456 pound curb weight. That's probably about twice the weight of most cars we'd think of as subcompact.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-137308-100x100.png\")
The spelling is atrocious.
Bugati? Rousch? Bently?
The VW diesels have not been tested for mileage and approval by the EPA.
@FLConsumer - Unfortunately, VW is still up in the air about importing a 2009 Passat TDI. The Jetta SportWagen TDI is coming in 2008. Are you a member of the forums over at www.tdiclub.com?
i bought a MINI Cooper this year. it's manual, but not a convertible. gets great MPG. on the list, it's 32/40.
i also own a 1974 AMC Javelin. i put in a 4-barrel carbuerator + duel exhaust. it gets about 7/8 MPG.
Now just hold on there. A Bentley Azure is a \"compact\" car?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1692-100x100.png\")
My 2003 Jetta GLS TDi get around 45 on the highway on sweet, sweet B100. Suck it, Prius. (Except in the city, where I will be sucking it, just lightly.)
my 2004 hyundai elantra gt wavers between 28 and 38(as per the little reading in the dashboard)
You know, I'd like to see a list like this that excludes the hybrid models. I love the idea of hybrids. They're great! They're just expensive. So for those of us who don't want to fork out the cash for a hybrid, what are our best choices for fuel efficiency?
Personally I love my Saturn Ion 2. It drives great and 33 mpg on the highway is nothing to sneeze at. Plus, it's an American car. They may not have the reputation of foreign models, but it's always good to support our own economy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104937-100x100.png\")
On first read I didn't notice the S4 Avant on the list for \"Worst Mileage\"... F*ck! Now I need to debadge my damn car to avoid scorn from my hippie friends and vandalism from ecoterrorists.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-91598-100x100.png\")
@Cassifras: While you're out peeing on the tires of sports cars, why not burn down your neighbor's swimming pool as well. Cause, you know, precious resources are being wasted on fun and we'll have none of that in this country.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-99169-100x100.png\")
Huh? Since when is the Accord a large car??
how about some nice formatted tables?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-109419-100x100.png\")
Seems like a good opportunity to take a shot at Saab. My Aero 93 has an average of 19 MPG. The front air damn sits so low that if I hit a chipmunk I'd bust it. Worst decision I ever made on a car.
As a 2004 Prius owner, I've gotten anywhere from 55 to 38 miles to the gallon. The difference is DRIVING STYLE. Leave early and drive calmly and your mileage will improve, regardless of the car you drive. It is just much more noticeable with a Prius.
@topgun: Sounds like something is wrong with your car (unless the engine design really IS that bad). I drive a Crown Vic and average better than that.
@JayP71:
Although the new Accords seem massive compared to my old (2001) model, which is now about the size of a Civic. Go figure.
Wow you guys have some bad cars over there if the Prius can make it into the top 10. It wouldn't get into a top 20 in Europe.
Interesting. My Mazda Protegé 5 consistently gets about 30 MPG, with about a 30/70 city/highway mix of driving. Then again, it is not a tower of power nor does it feel terribly solid on the highway. It is also true that I drive like a grandmother, at least when traffic is heavy. But it makes me feel less bad about not driving a Prius.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68744-100x100.png\")
2004 Kia Rio (manual)- 35 mpg, 22 mile commute, 22 stoplights. Slightly higher than the sticker calculations.
Also, had a 1983 Buick Skyhawk in 1996, which got 36 mpg with 130,000+ miles. Was still getting that mileage when the transmission went out. I miss you, Skyhawk.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87038-100x100.png\")
@miran: \"calmly\" is perhaps not the right word, since I'm quite calm on open roads in the mid 90s, but I'm not getting good mileage at that pace....
@topgun: Depending on the year of your 93 Aero, it may be that thirsty turbo V6. I've looked hard at the Sportkombi and wondered if the extra oomph would be worth the crappy mileage of the V6 or if it would be better to save money on the initial purchase as well as the fuel by getting the 4.
@d4005:
Just about all of the Europeon diesels wouldn't pass US emissions standards.
It's not the fault of the diesels though - American emissions standards are built around gasoline engines, and no matter how much less CO2 your diesel emits it's still \"dirty\" when it comes to NOx and particulate emissions.
What we need is a bit of common sense (and appreciation for basic chemistry and thermodynamics) and maybe then diesels won't be hamstrung in the States.
Isn't it wonderful that the US doesn't get those Diesels. The standard Jetta with the 1.9 TDI has this for England:
Fuel Consumption
Urban 42.8mpg - 6.6l/100km
Extra-urban 62.8mpg - 4.5l/100km
Combined 54.3mpg - 5.2l/100km
Engine emissions 143g/km
That's not a hybrid.
We have a Honda Odyssey EX-L minivan with the variable cylinder management sytem. Essentially it drops out 3 cylinders if the computer determines you don't need them. I've never seen good data about this technology and whether or not it works. I know Honda is taking the same technology and applying it to the new 08 Accord V6 sedans.
Still, for a large car, the 4 cylinder Accord manual gets pretty good gas mileage.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-157487-100x100.png\")
Ok, for all of you scratching your heads or other body parts about the size categories: The EPA classes cars based on interior volume. The Accord has grown to \"large car\" status not only because it's put on many exterior inches since the trim little '78 I once drove, but because Honda's gotten smarter about how interior space is used. Something similar applies to the Bentleys and Aston Martins listed above: Large on the outside--teentsy on the inside. Thus, to the EPA they are subcompacts or smaller.
As for mileage numbers, my '99 Escort with a 5-speed does 42 in a 70-30 blend of gentle highway and city miles. It also cost only $1000, and no swaths of earth needed to be strip-mined to make a bank of batteries or large electic motors for it. So I guess what I'm saying is--suck it Prius.
I drive a 2007 Prius and absolutely love the thing. I'm averaging around 50 mpg after 5.2k miles (most of which were highway).
As Miran said, much can be determined by driving style.
The Hummer is not on the list b/c the US govt has it classified as a truck b/c of its weight. Reportedly, it gets between 8 and 12 mpg. At least a Bentley is nice to look at. For a Hummer, people are paying for a whole bunch of ugly.
\"The H2 is a tax loophole. Under the current tax laws, business owners can deduct nearly half the cost of their H2s. If you are in the highest tax bracket, that's a tax savings of nearly $10,000! The government rewards you more savings for buying an H2 than you'd get for buying an electric car.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
Because nowadays we have nanny states telling us we need 500 lbs of saftey cages/airbags/traction controls/black boxes/etc in every car.
You are an idiot. So the car gets 10 MPG. Big whoop. You think someone is going to commute or take road trips in a lambo? Meaning, if he only drive it 10 miles a day, down to the golf course, who cares?
How about keying those Ford Explorers that get 15 MPG, and soccer moms are driving them 60 miles a day to run errands?
Or how about you keep your keys in your pocket and respect other people's property @sshole?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-55488-100x100.png\")
So, everyone knows that hybrids are great on gas mileage... BUT has there ever been a real study of comparable environmental impact? That nickel in the batteries has to come from somewhere. Not to mention you'd have to drive about a million miles to make up in gas savings what you forked over in up-front capital. Are they really THAT great?
I knew I should buy a Toyota Yaris; but I fell in love with the VW Rabbit. It is a pretty economic automobile as well, my Rabbit is 28 mpg on the highway. I am not very familiar with the gas/mileage but I am happy.
According to Avis, a car of comparable size to a toyota camry is full size. Ask anyone on the street and they'll tell you it's a midsize. I think the rentacar racket is trying to call cars bigger than they actually are so that they can charge more.
For all I care, I can call a camry a compact....it fits into those compact parking spaces...
HELIOSXX said the Jetta 1.9 TDI has this for England:
Urban 42.8mpg - 6.6l/100km
Extra-urban 62.8mpg - 4.5l/100km
Combined 54.3mpg - 5.2l/100km
Those MPG number come from the England, where they have Imperial Gallons that are 20% larger than US gallons. Once you correct for that, the mileage is only 45 MPG US combined. Then you account for the tougher US test, and you're probably at 40 at best.
Also, the 1.9 Jetta emits 143g/km CO2. True.
But the hybrid Civis has only 109 and the Prius is rated at 104g/km in same test in England. That's WAY lower for the hybrids (plus they are faster).
And in case you're wondering, we're getting the 2.0 TDI version of the Jetta here next May as a 2009 model.
For all those with anecdotal evidence about those old cars that get great MPG.....cars today are heavier, safer, faster, and much cleaner. That costs you some MPGs. The MPG per weight and MPG per horse power has gone up significantly in the past 10-20 years. It's our own fault that we kept wanting bigger, faster cars over the years.
Averaging 74mpg in my '06 Smart ForTwo CDI, Prius has nothin on me :D
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83382-100x100.png\")
On the escape and the mariner, do they figure the cost in fixing ongoing problems with them?
After all saving money on gas for $90/hr repair bills is a bonus right?
/sarcasm
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-8281-100x100.png\")
@JayP71:
Have you seen one the new Accords on the road? The thing is huge compared to older models. It's as big as a Ford Taurus.
Shouldnt this be the 10 worst performing cars list? How about they put the 0-60 MPH speed next to them. I doubt any of them will be less than 11 seconds which makes them very dangerous to merge onto a highway with. And of course they are all VERY light and easily smashed when they hit something so they are deadly as well.
SKROM - that's exactly the problem (and the answer to all those whining about old high MPG cars). The cars have gotten much bigger, faster over the last 10-20 years (and cleaner and safer too).
0-60 in 10s used to be respectable, and a 2000-3000 pound cars was just fine until the big SUV safety myth came along (can you say rollover?)
Also, I bet all those top 10 cars are way safer than most 10-20 year old cars, regradless of size.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-113596-100x100.png\")
FLConsumer has a good point. The 1989 Honda CRX has a mpg of 50/41. I have nothing against hybrids, but if you're going to shell out the dough, shouldn't they be MORE fuel efficient than a car that was built almost 20 years ago?
Skrom: have you driving a Prius? They've got quite a bit of kick. Mine accelerates faster than my wife's '96 Camry.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-69858-100x100.png\")
@Saboth: Most of the cars you can buy these days aren't diesels. Why they claim diesels won't sell when VW sells every one it can make and winds up with huge waiting lists I don't know.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-181185-100x100.png\")
@FLConsumer: Don't get me wrong ... I'm a HUGE fan of the Mercedes diesels and can instantly recognize the sound of one, and you can run them off biodiesel. The 240D might have had excellent fuel economy then and now, but the fact that it had some 72hp powering 3300 lbs of car meant that 0-60 took somewhere in the area of 20 seconds. Try maneuvering onto a highway onramp with that. The ubiquitous 300D/300SD 5-cyl turbo diesels might be a bit more acceptable, and they'll easily last half a million miles as well.
Now, since the US market is so hungry for gobs of power in their cars, it makes sense that BMW will be importing their diesels from Europe. The 535d - it has 286hp and over 400 lbs of torque, which makes it very, very fast. That's perfect for the North American market, and the kicker is that it gets 35mpg - combined. And don't forget, a lot of the new-generation clean diesels actually have a lower carbon footprint compared to their gasoline counterparts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27760-100x100.png\")
Interesting, the full size GM vans are the best AND worst in their class. lol.
@FLConsumer: Because that car had 67 horsepower.
I'd like to see a fuel to weight to horsepower sort of a thing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-91282-100x100.png\")
I prefer my 2001 Honda Insight 55/65 (got 72 from Amarillo to Denver one time). Too bad they quit making it (its a two seater).
@plaincorgi: \"Averaging 74mpg in my '06 Smart ForTwo CDI, Prius has nothin on me :D\"
Except 2 or 3 extra seats and a trunk ;^) But, I'd take a diesel any day over a gas hybrid...
My Geo Prizm (manual) gets about 38-40 mpg consistently. For folks like me that drive highway miles, those Hybrids are a real joke. The only REAL way for people to get decent mpg is to buy smaller cars. The ForTwo looks great, but good like finding one in the U.S. - it makes me really suspect a conspiracy by the American auto makers. Someone in an insanely-run country like France or Germany can buy a small car and I can't. It's just wrong.
@Karkus: Take a Mercedes 240D vs. a brand new Honda Civic / Toyota Prius... which would you rather sitting in during a collision? I can already tell you which one's safer, and it ain't the newer cars.
@Eric Lai: Yep, I remember it well. I put 86,000 miles on a 240D before I sold it (sold it at ~196,000 miles); wishing I hadn't sold it now. Sure, it had no acceleration above 20mph, but get it up to speed and it'd stay there all day long. GREAT car, great handling, great brakes too. Because of the lack of power, it made you THINK about driving rather than just reacting. It was a great first car for me.
If one of the better tier of carmakers (VW,Audi,Mercedes,BMW,Saab,Volvo,Lexus,Infiniti, hell even Nissan) came out with a good full-size diesel, I'd buy it. Biodiesel's cheap & easy to make, diesel engines are bulletproof and efficient. Petrol stations carrying diesel are a bit more difficult to come by in the `states, but I'm sure this is because of the idiotic environmental regs we have.
Does anyone know what happened to Volvo's turbine-electric diesel project? That looked like it was going to have quite a bit of promise. Not to mention, a turbine engine generator would have sounded really damn cool. Does Toyota make a diesel hybrid by chance? That also could make for an interesting combination and efficiency.
@FLConsumer: Actually, the newer cars would likely be safer in an accident, even though the 240D has amazing build quality - and lots of metal. The Volvo 240DL was THE benchmark for crash testing and had the lowest death rate of any car in the U.S. for a number of years, but you still have airbags and ABS in newer cars. It's not just about the passive safety features, but also the active ones (ABS, stability control, powerful acceleration) that will keep you out of an accident in the first place.
Lots of top tier carmakers will be coming out with clean diesels in the next few years. We'll be getting the Accord Diesel in 2010 (62mpg rumored - unlikely, but hopefully it comes close), Nissan will have a diesel in their Maxima around the same time and is considering one for the Titan. You'll be able to buy VW TDIs again after a couple years on hiatus, and Mercedes has their E320 Bluetec available now. That gets around 30mpg combined - almost 10mpg over the gas version. And I'm lusting over the dual-turbo diesel 3 and 5 series that we'll get in a couple of years - we already know that the 335/535d will get around 35mpg, and if the 330/530d are sold as well, expect those to top 40mpg. That's as good as the real-world numbers of some hybrids, nearly as clean emissions-wise - but you get a ton more power and acceleration. Important to gearheads like me, anyway :)
A diesel hybrid is the next logical step and I can guarantee that automakers are working on them, but the problem for now is that even independently, they're both very expensive technologies (if you buy a diesel or hybrid, you're expecting a several thousand dollar premium). When you put the two together, that might mean phenomenal mpg, but the increased cost is something that would be very hard to recover in better fuel economy. Electric hybrids are a decent solution today, but I don't think it'll stay that way for long.
@rainmkr: Ditch the Element gas hog for the upcoming Jetta TDI - the new generation is far better than the 4th gen cars.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-62502-100x100.png\")
I've found nothing wrong with my MKIV Golf (2001) TDI. Still gets over 47mpg and has 327,500 miles on it as of tonight. No problems. Think I'll keep it until the new batch of turbodiesels come out.
the TDI Jetta is already available if you fancy a trip into Canada
the 2006 volkswagen Canada TDI (diesel) lineup also
include the Golf TDI, Beetle TDI, and Jetta TDI as well
though the mileage is rated in Liters per 100km
rather than in miles per gallon
so far on the current VW.ca site only lists a Jetta TDI though
Consider that a stock 98 geo metro--while really cheap-- gets 40 mpg city. while driving it really hard. 49 mpg cruzing from seattle to spokane. (0-60 in under 20 seconds, or at least it sounds loud enough to) take it up to 60 in third gear as fast as possible then you still have two more gears for driving down the highway. someone needs to take a 4 banger and down tune it until it makes a solid 75 horsepower or less. Hybrids take care of emissions, but mean nothing when you have an engine that still makes over 100 horsepower. Make the car weigh less, and everybody wins.
The title should read \"Top 10 Most Fuel Efficient Cars in US\", here is a link to german giude for the year 2007 to fuel consumption and CO2 emissions \"http://dat.de/leitfaden/LeitfadenCO2.pdf\". The numbers for fuel consumtion are in l/100km. Conversion fom mpg to l/100km is 1 mile per gallon = 235.214584 l/100km. As you can see there are a couple of diesel cars that beat all hybryds (except prius), and not only that, they have some real power (like 100kw, prius 57kw).
When the first Ford motorcar came off the assembly line it got 20 miles to the gallon..
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169389-100x100.png\")
WHERE'S THE DIESELS??
WE GOT EM IN OZ.....
!!!
and the new supercharged/turbocharged VW golf too....
Good list guys, one correction though:
The Jeep listed is the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT/8, 11/14 mpg for an 420hp SUV that does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds is not bad. The other JGC's have higher mileage #'s (and lower performance #'s)
@Saboth: Explorer's maybe. Suburbans, heck yeah! Hummers, OMG yes!
@sshole? Come on, that's just rude.
[dat.de]
has incorrect data for the Prius. The 57kW is for the ICE only. The combined net power is 82 kW - that's the highest of any of those cars listed in the top 10 lowest CO2 emitters.
>> How come the manufacturers could make
>> good, sturdy, full-size cars which
>> got great mileage but can't now?
Safety requirements.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-183369-100x100.png\")
I have a '83 VW Rabbit Diesel pickup that gets 45 mpg and a '02 VW Jetta TDi that also gets 45 mpg and that's highway AND city driving. I laugh in the face of people who think that 30-35 mpg is being \"fuel efficient.\" Sure maybe I pay 3-5 cents more per gallon for my fuel but I get double or triple the miles that you get out of your vehicles. And I want to to know why diesel car owners don't get a rebate or a tax break like the hybrid owners do. How is that fair?
@MYarms: They should, but there's something called politics ...
Flexfuel E85 vehicles are a horrible solution as well. At worst, it costs an automaker a couple hundred dollars to adapt existing vehicles to be E85 capable. This typically involves changing seals and some piping in the fuel system, since E85 is highly corrosive. Remember as well that E85 gets only 2/3 the mpg as gasoline, so it has to cost 2/3 as much in order for it to make sense to fuel your vehicle with it. But the reason automakers are using it is because it's kind of a shortcut to achieving higher CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) numbers, especially from big, heavy cars - that's why you will see a lot of 'Flexfuel' badges on the back of full-size SUVs. If I recall correctly, by making the new Suburban E85-capable, GM raised the 'effective' mpg rating to almost 40mpg, although it's actual fuel economy comes nowhere close to that.
Add that together with massive subsidies for corn farmers (which has resulted in skyrocketing prices for stuff like milk and meat), and the fact that other technologies that are capable of increasing fuel economy (such as hybrids and diesels) are expensive - costing an automaker thousands per car - and you begin to see the bigger implications.
In light of all this, diesels present themselves as a pretty good solution. Prior to last year or so, diesels have never had a significant market share in the U.S. because the sulfur content in diesel fuel was too high for most diesel cars that were coming out of Europe. Now that those standards are revised, many roadblocks have been removed for marketing diesel cars in the U.S. again ... but the challenge that remains is overcoming the stigma (dirty, slow, stinky, noisy) that surrounded it in the 70's and 80's, when diesels were last popular here. Like I said in a previous post, the BMW 535d (which we will be getting in the U.S.) that gets to 60 in 6.5 seconds and has 272hp and 413 lbs of torque (more than a V10 powered M5!) while returning an average of 35mpg is a pretty damn compelling argument.
Gee... the old 1970's Mercedes 240D that I used to have got ~28mpg city, ~36mpg highway and wasn't the size of a shoebox. How come the manufacturers could make good, sturdy, full-size cars which got great mileage but can't now? No fancy battery packs + computers + electric motors, just a straight, simple, damn-near-bulletproof diesel engine which was good for about 300,000-400,000 miles between rebuilds. I've been trying to find a good used one with relatively low mileage, but it seems people are holding onto theirs if they have them.