Most Fuel Efficient Automakers

[BUTCH1]

GM still utilizes some pushrod engines, not as much HP per displacement vs.
OHC engines, but very fuel efficient. My '05 Malibu 3.5 V6 gets 22.5/26/32
MPG, outstanding for a 200/228 engine and a 3000+ car.

 

[desy]

Not true just the opposite most people will pick a company over the car many times.

Born and bred Ford Trucks guys don't change and people who got laid in a Dodge in high school buy them forever and people who had a Civic econobox that just wouldn't die apply that same metric to all the cars in the brand no matter how crappy some of them can be.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: desy
Not true just the opposite most people will pick a company over the car many times.

Born and bred Ford Trucks guys don't change and people who got laid in a Dodge in high school buy them forever and people who had a Civic econobox that just wouldn't die apply that same metric to all the cars in the brand no matter how crappy some of them can be.

Some, not most, are Brand loyal. Those who are won't be swayed by this type of data either.

 

[desy]

Sigh wrong more than half the time cars are purchased on brand loyalty

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/0...postversion=2007120717

Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. 68.9%
General Motors Corp. 64.7%
American Honda Motor Co. 63.3%
BMW of North America 56.9%
Ford Motor Co. 54.4%
Subaru of America, Inc. 51.2%
Hyundai Motor America 50.9%
DaimlerChrysler 50.2%
Nissan North America 47.6%

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
If only MINIs were as reliable as Corollas...

CR actually quotes the R56 (2007+) hardtop MINI's reliability as "well above average." I know Toyotas will probably be more reliable (my Tundra has 82k+ miles, without 1 problem so far), but Toyotas quality control is going down (my dad's Camry has misfitting panel pieces, and there's a sense of cheapness in the new interiors), whereas MINI's quality is going up (more refined interior, better engine, etc.). Also, the new Toyotas look a bit ridiculous.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
GM still utilizes some pushrod engines, not as much HP per displacement vs.
OHC engines, but very fuel efficient. My '05 Malibu 3.5 V6 gets 22.5/26/32
MPG, outstanding for a 200/228 engine and a 3000+ car.

I don't think it is that outstanding for where we are. There were heavier cars from the '50-'70s that were able to achieve higher mpg with alot more weight.

I hate to admit it but I was reading Hemmings this morning, and they had a pushrod all alum 4cyl Hond from the early 60's getting 35mpg. There was also a Packard from the '50s in the 23 or 25mpg with power windows even.



I am a brand loyalist though, MPG isn't that big of a deal. I want to enjoy what I have to spend a lot of time in. But I only have one vehicle that is only 12 yrs old. The rest are over 20yrs.

 

[Pariah]

I think it unlikely those cars from the 50's and 60's were tested driving up to 80mph with the air conditioning on like today's cars are. Combined with the difference in emissions controls and the two ratings are completely uncomparable.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I think it unlikely those cars from the 50's and 60's were tested driving up to 80mph with the air conditioning on like today's cars are. Combined with the difference in emissions controls and the two ratings are completely uncomparable.

Yeh, and the cars that people like to bring up from the 50's and 60's with that sort of milage also had like 50HP along with that weight and a 0-60 time in the 20 second range.

 

[desy]

And road noise, zero safety equipment, one speaker AM sound system, manual everything
I'm 43 and have spent many days in a 60's and 70's cars, I'd much rather spend long hrs in today's cars thanks

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
GM still utilizes some pushrod engines, not as much HP per displacement vs.
OHC engines, but very fuel efficient. My '05 Malibu 3.5 V6 gets 22.5/26/32
MPG, outstanding for a 200/228 engine and a 3000+ car.

I don't think it is that outstanding for where we are. There were heavier cars from the '50-'70s that were able to achieve higher mpg with alot more weight.

I hate to admit it but I was reading Hemmings this morning, and they had a pushrod all alum 4cyl Hond from the early 60's getting 35mpg. There was also a Packard from the '50s in the 23 or 25mpg with power windows even.



I am a brand loyalist though, MPG isn't that big of a deal. I want to enjoy what I have to spend a lot of time in. But I only have one vehicle that is only 12 yrs old. The rest are over 20yrs.

I owned a few of those '70 cars, they did not have the aerodynamics or drivetrain
(3 speed auto typical) to come close to what I'm getting now. The 60's Honda and the Packard
probably did achieve those numbers but were most likely woefully underpowered. I can't imagine
the lumbering Packard getting 23 in city driving although those cars were built like a tank, friend
of mines dad had one, outstanding build quality and very sturdy..

 

[Auric]

There are still a surprising number of mooncalves fixated upon brands. I suppose it demonstrates, somewhat depressingly, both the continued success of marketing and the sentimental tendencies of the swinish masses.

 

[Dari]

Very misleading list. Honda should be #1 since Mini is owned by BMW. And Chevy should be bunched with GM.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Dari
Very misleading list. Honda should be #1 since Mini is owned by BMW. And Chevy should be bunched with GM.

It's based on branding. The badge on the front of the car and the sign in front of the dealer says "Mini" or it says "GMC" or it says "Chevrolet". It doesn't say "Mini...which is owned by BMW" or "GMC which is really just the same thing as a Chevy".

The only thing misleading about the list is the way they calculate up "total # of cars".

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I think it unlikely those cars from the 50's and 60's were tested driving up to 80mph with the air conditioning on like today's cars are. Combined with the difference in emissions controls and the two ratings are completely uncomparable.

Why do we need to do 80mph? Why can't people just do the recommended speed limit imposed ?

I don't want or need A/C in my car, uneccesary weight and reduction in power.

Originally posted by: desy
And road noise, zero safety equipment, one speaker AM sound system, manual everything
I'm 43 and have spent many days in a 60's and 70's cars, I'd much rather spend long hrs in today's cars thanks

I guess I am alone in enjoying everything manual, alot less weight to the car and less crap to go wrong. I don't care for airbags, so the safety equipment that is important to me of a full frame (there is a reason state cops have stuck with a crown vic), seatbelts, headlights and horn.


and for the rest that complain about power there is no reason for todays cars to need so much, let alone the diesel pickups. All the power does is get us in trouble, like trucks towing larger loads then they can safely, cars just getting in more accidents for people over driving their skills, etc.

Granted I love tq, but how much more fuel efficent could we be if we knocked our vehicles engines down? Maybe aut makers would get the idea if we didn't keep begging for faster cars?

And I will continue to very much enjoy my driving in a '64 Stude, '56 IHC, 79 firebird, and every other older vehicle I can drive.

 

[clok1966]

Cars are like religion and your politics, nobody is going to agree with facts becuase it goes against BELIEFS. American cars where pretty horrible in the 70-80's, results from being king of the hill to long and not seeing the writing on the wall. Nowdays most American cars rate pretty much on par with foregin counterparts. Buick has been a top 5 relibility car for several years. And if you want facts a BUICK is only a rebadged Chevy/pontiac.. they use the same frame/drivetrain.. one may have more padding under the carpet to change how quiet it is, but that buick motor that is rated so good is the EXACT same one in that chevy or Pontiac (or even some caddies in some years).

The really sad thing is most peopel base car buying on a few magazines (Counsers Reprts for one) who have rated rebadged cars differently when in fact they are the exact same car (who says a name tag doesnt invoke different "feelings" for a car? All the big 3 american car companies use rebadged japanese cars.. GM used Izuzu for several years, then Toyotas (the Prizm was just a rebadged Toyota), Ford uses Mazda, the Escort/Tracers where just rebadged Mazda 323's (park one side by side, they didnt even change the dash), and Chrysler is almost 75% Mitubishie (sorry for horrible spelling). On the flip side, Toyota sells some rebadged GM stuff in Japan (and while I'm not to sure, I would guess Mazda and Mitus does too).

A car is a car is a car.. some get better milage, some last longer and so on.. I have owned about 50 different ones, all brands, and all i can say is Japanese cars can be total crap just like american cars, even those Accords and Camerys..

I buy cars to get me from point a to b with the least amount of hassle and cash spent. Currently drive a 94 Olds Alero, got 130,000 on it and it works fine, got about $400 into it in the last 4 years besides purchase price. But I also have a 89 Vette for fun.. sure its rough riding, poor on gas, but its FUN!

If your buying a car, read up, and then read some more, and dont decide one brand is better then another.

Clok

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Pariah
I think it unlikely those cars from the 50's and 60's were tested driving up to 80mph with the air conditioning on like today's cars are. Combined with the difference in emissions controls and the two ratings are completely uncomparable.

Why do we need to do 80mph? Why can't people just do the recommended speed limit imposed ?

I don't want or need A/C in my car, uneccesary weight and reduction in power.

Originally posted by: desy
And road noise, zero safety equipment, one speaker AM sound system, manual everything
I'm 43 and have spent many days in a 60's and 70's cars, I'd much rather spend long hrs in today's cars thanks

I guess I am alone in enjoying everything manual, alot less weight to the car and less crap to go wrong. I don't care for airbags, so the safety equipment that is important to me of a full frame (there is a reason state cops have stuck with a crown vic), seatbelts, headlights and horn.


and for the rest that complain about power there is no reason for todays cars to need so much, let alone the diesel pickups. All the power does is get us in trouble, like trucks towing larger loads then they can safely, cars just getting in more accidents for people over driving their skills, etc.

Granted I love tq, but how much more fuel efficent could we be if we knocked our vehicles engines down? Maybe aut makers would get the idea if we didn't keep begging for faster cars?
And I will continue to very much enjoy my driving in a '64 Stude, '56 IHC, 79 firebird, and every other older vehicle I can drive.

I really hate the whole horsepower war it feels like. But then again my ES350 (272hp?) does slightly better mileage than our I30 did (227hp).

Even the small car market went from 110hp to average of 130-140hp in the past 4 years, but then they introduced subcompacts like the yaris and fit to fill in that spot..

 

[Auric]

How credible are such so-called reliability ratings when based upon consumer questionnaires though? As said, they tend to be oddly brand loyal and apparently respond differently if two otherwise identical cars can be rated differently. So, different demographics may notice, report, or even contribute to problems differently.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: Pariah
I think it unlikely those cars from the 50's and 60's were tested driving up to 80mph with the air conditioning on like today's cars are. Combined with the difference in emissions controls and the two ratings are completely uncomparable.

Why do we need to do 80mph? Why can't people just do the recommended speed limit imposed ?

I don't want or need A/C in my car, uneccesary weight and reduction in power.

Because that's how the EPA comes up with the new mileage ratings for cars today. If you don't do those two, then you will get better mileage than is on the Monroney sticker. Comparing the mileage of cars from the 50's and 60's which probably couldn't even reach 80mph to complete the current EPA testing is meaningless.

 

[marincounty]

Like I said, the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) numbers are a lot more important,

Text
"Each year, the Environmental Protection Agency calculates CAFE based on gas mileage estimates for each car in an automaker's lineup and the number of those cars produced that year. The lineups split into three groups: Domestic passenger cars, which includes cars built using mostly domestically sourced parts, from either an American or foreign nameplate; imported passenger cars, built mostly with parts from abroad; and light trucks, which includes everything from pickups and minivans to crossover SUVs, no matter where their parts come from.

Gas mileage figures come from automakers and go to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and then to the EPA for verification, so it can take until well into the following year for final CAFE numbers to be published. Based on NHTSA's preliminary data, here's where automakers stood for 2007:

Domestic Passenger Cars
Rank Make CAFE Rating
1. Honda 33.7
2. Nissan 33.4
3. Toyota 31.7
4. GM 29.6
5. Ford 28.8
6. DaimlerChrysler 28.6


Imported Passenger Cars
Rank Make CAFE Rating
1. Honda 39.9
2. Toyota 38.5
3. GM 32.0
4. Kia 31.9
5. Hyundai 31.8
6. Lotus 30.6
7. Suzuki 30.5
8. Ford 29.7
9. (tie) Subaru 28.6
9. (tie) Volkswagen 28.6

Light Trucks
Rank Make CAFE Rating
1. Subaru 27.2
2. Hyundai 25.2
3. Mitsubishi 24.9
4. Honda 24.8
5. Suzuki 23.9
6. Kia 23.8
7. BMW 23.4
8. Toyota 23.1
9. DaimlerChrysler 22.8
10. Nissan 22.7
11. GM 22.5
12. Ford 22.2
13. Volkswagen 19.8

Nonetheless, the program has enormous implications. Since the 1990s, Congress has imposed serious financial penalties on high-volume automakers that fall short of federally imposed standards ? 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks. In December 2007, Congress passed a bill that will increase the standards to 35 mpg for both cars and trucks by 2020.

As you can see, the average Honda or Toyota sold gets better mileage than the average GM or Ford sold.

 

[BUTCH1]

Good point Marion county but remember, the Honda lineup includes
the Civic/Accord which is probably a much better seller than say the
Cobalt/Impala so it will skew the average result towards Honda.
Likewise with the trucks, Ford sell the F-250 and F-350 series, they
are popular for heavy towers and burn a LOT of fuel hence the lower
average MPG for the segment..

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Like I said, the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) numbers are a lot more important,

To who? Congress or the Consumer? When a person goes to buy a car do you honestly think they are worried about about the overall mileage that an automaker gets BASED ON SALES!?!? They want to know what mileage that particular model that they are looking at will get. You only prefer Cafe because it keeps the domestics down. But what if they raised sales of those models that are MORE fuel efficient than the imports while at the same time lowering those that are less gas friendly? Guess what? it's Cafe goes up. GM either matches or exceeds it's foreign competition with lots of it's models and that makes a huge difference to the CONSUMER.

I can't really EVER picture seeing this happen.....

customer:"hello, my wife is looking for something fuel efficient but inexpensive"
salesman:"certainly, our '09 Cobalt gets 37 hwy"
customer:"............"
salesman:"😀"
customer:"What's your CAFE?"
salesman:"What?"
customer:"You heard me.."
salesman:"Are you serious? This gets better mileage than on '09 Corolla!"
customer:"Yes, but does GM get better CAFE than Toyota!?!??!!??!?!?"
salesman:"🙁"

 

[Pariah]

As you can see, the average Honda or Toyota sold gets better mileage than the average GM or Ford sold.

Correction, the average Honda or Toyota sold (officially produced, but no one was making hordes of cars that weren't going to be sold) in 2007 gets better mileage. Those rankings don't break it down to seperate makes either. The average Chevrolet sold in 2007 may well have better mileage than Toyota, but we can't tell.

A rather important caveat you left out:

"The numbers on the window sticker and the ones reported to the government are "entirely separate," NHTSA spokesman Eric Bolton said. City and highway mpg figures come from the EPA's lab tests, with adjustments to replicate real-world conditions. CAFE figures, meanwhile, are derived using different testing procedures and have various incentives built in.
Models that can run on ethanol-based E85, for instance, are allowed mileage calculations based on the small fraction ? 15 percent ? of regular gas that's used when running on E85. That means E85-compatible SUVs like the Chevrolet Suburban or Dodge Durango could register gas mileage similar to an economy car."

So basically, there's no point in us trying to figure out how the current CAFE rankings look for 2008 as we have no way of knowing what mileage is being reported to the government.

35MPG for light trucks by 2020 is a ridiculous mandate. There is no way that is ever going to happen. 2007 #1 Subaru, who doesn't sell any pickup trucks or large SUV's, has to improve 29%. The highest maker who sells a full size pickup is Toyota down at #8, and they have to improve 52%. That's not going to happen just dropping a hybrid engine in. There is going to have to be some fundamental technology shift for any maker with pickup trucks to make 35mpg by 2020. Or I guess they could figure out how to get every truck/SUV to run on ethanol which would be a horrible waste of money for everyone, since no one is actually going to run them on ethanol. Rather stupid loophole that benefits no one including the environment or lower dependence on oil.

 

[alimoalem]

I don't see why you people actually think this means anything. Brand loyalty doesn't come from saying "Oh look, on average _______ company has more fuel efficiency cars than ______ company," even if the person is some tree hugger. Do you honestly think someone that gets butt hurt over gas mileage is going to go for a mini? NO.

I'm not too caught up with my hybrid news so I'm just gonna use the Civic and Prius hybrids for sake of argument. Someone that honestly cares about fuel efficiency and is all of a sudden going to become brand-loyal will look at Toyota or Honda because they have the most fuel efficient car that is being produced (we're just assuming this...I have no idea if it's true) and for the rest of their life they might buy a Toyota or Honda. But for all they care, a Tundra can do 1MPG and it won't mean much for the butt-hurt hyper-miler because Toyota/Honda still has a car getting the best MPG.

Someone that loves BMW's/Mini's will just have an extra thing to be happy about. That's all this article means. To those of you interested in performance cars, if someone posts an article with average 0-60 times/quarter-mile times/HP/torque/etc. among the different car manufacturers, are you honestly going to only buy cars Porsche makes, for example, because they have the lowest average 0-60 time? No, you'll look at the different models. And if you are brand-loyal, you'll look at the brand you're loyal to. You're not going to all of a sudden jump ship just because Ford's have 50HP more ON AVERAGE than whatever auto maker you're loyal to.

If you're a brand-loyal individual, this article either gives or doesn't give you another thing to throw at the other auto makers. If you aren't, and you are sane, you aren't going to become a MINI-lover cause of this article. I'm not brand loyal. All I thought when I read the OP was, "good for these guys." An article like this shouldn't sway anyone's opinion.