Fun and fuel efficiency?

[Jason C]

(Something that I've wanted to post here for a while but never got around to it :P )

TD had a thread here some time ago asking for help jogging his memory. His overall criteria was about finding new or used cars that were cheap, reliable, and daily-driveable but avoided fat-pig syndrome enough to have some semblance of fun-to-drive. Now with the price of gas in the news so much, let's run the same kind of thread again, only this time take gas mileage into account as one of your high priorities. What cars can you think of that get excellent gas mileage, but come stock with the kind of *feel* that carmudgeons like (or can be easily/cheaply modded to achieve said goal)?

I'm not naming any hard mileage cut-off points, but figure at least 25 city (and realistically, try to shoot for 30+ city MPG and more than 35 highway MPG).

[rumatt]

E30 318is

Or did you mean new?

[Roadstergal]

Miata. Duh. ;)

Z3 1.9 is fun with suspension mods.

What kind of mileage does the Elise get?

[Jason C]

E30 318is

Or did you mean new?

I said "same kind of thread" so used is on the table as well.

It's interesting that the Elise was brought up. After going away to do something for a while I thought back to this and recalled that the Elise had some high MPG figures IIRC.

[lemming]

acura RSX?

MCS?

(elise, of course).

[BahnBaum]

My candidates would have to have a useable back seat and rear wheel drive.

Alex

[Jason C]

acura RSX?

MCS?

(elise, of course).

From the lotususa site: 23 City - 27 Highway. I thought I recalled a highway MPG topping 30. :dunno:

I thought about both the RSX and the MCS, but unfortunately picking the higher-up engine options in both models result in a mileage penalty. :cry: Still reasonable though.

Edit: Damn, Type-S takes a 4MPG hit in the city compared to the regular model, 3 on the highway. That and a required switch from regular to premium.

[lemming]

My candidates would have to have a useable back seat and rear wheel drive.

Alex

guess we'll see when the 1 series comes. that would appear to be your ticket, especially since bmw, with the exception of M models, has a rather tall rear end on all of its models for fuel efficiency.

[dan]

lotus elise

but actually the real world MPG numbers aren't that great. even the EPA stickers were a lot lower than what people were saying before the cars started arriving.

I only seem to be getting about 20 mpg

[JST]

330i--gas mileage in the upper 20s at 80+ on the highway. Not going to win any Greenpeace awards, but not bad. Better than the WRX, actually.

MC/MCS, obviously.

Skystice

Probably the new GTI

Mazda3

Focus (SVT or the new 2.3)

I wonder how the Neon SRT does when driven off-boost

[Rob]

MINI, hands down. I got 33 mpg with mixed driving and the throttle always wide open and the car was a blast to drive. Needed more power, but it was a blast to drive.

[Optimus Prime]

The best for this type of driving aren't cars at all.

BMW R1150R: 50 mpg (as much fun as you need, and dead reliable)
BMW F650GS: 65 mpg (Rgal can speak up if it's different)
BMW K1200S: 40 mpg (0-60 in 2.8s and it'll slice and dice with the best of them)

[John V]

The best for this type of driving aren't cars at all.

BMW R1150R: 50 mpg (as much fun as you need, and dead reliable)
BMW F650GS: 65 mpg (Rgal can speak up if it's different)
BMW K1200S: 40 mpg (0-60 in 2.8s and it'll slice and dice with the best of them)

Amen. Just filled up the SV1000, and with some (ahem) speedy freeway riding on this tank I "only" managed 46MPG. Highway fuel economy is lower than city economy on this thing as with every bike I've ever owned.

The M3 never goes below 22, and I do a lot of city type driving. On the open road at 80 it gets close to 30.

Corvettes get over 30MPG on the freeway.

[nate]

There is an inverse relationship.

/thread

[Roadstergal]

BMW R1150R: 50 mpg (as much fun as you need, and dead reliable)
Weeeellll... ;) I've heard things about the brakes. They're certainly not easy to service. I'd put my old GS500E very high; 66mpg 'round town, 70 on the freeway, ridiculously reliable and easy to service, lots of fun. The RS75 might trump on this category... no, wait, my Trek Singletrack will. :)

20mpg on the Elise? Sheesh... when do we get the Smart?

[Roadstergal]

There is an inverse relationship.

/thread

Piloting a ferry is the most fun one can have?

[Optimus Prime]

BMW R1150R: 50 mpg (as much fun as you need, and dead reliable)
Weeeellll... ;) I've heard things about the brakes. They're certainly not easy to service. I'd put my old GS500E very high; 66mpg 'round town, 70 on the freeway, ridiculously reliable and easy to service, lots of fun. The RS75 might trump on this category... no, wait, my Trek Singletrack will. :)

20mpg on the Elise? Sheesh... when do we get the Smart?

Ya, gotta keep the service up on those ABS brakes, there are like 6 circuits to bleed :eeps: and a lot of people complain that if the servo assist dies the brakes are hard to use. I say rubish. Try driving a 25 year old turd that has never had a brake service and it makes the servo-assisted brakes seem like a cake-walk even with the engine not running.

With the lack of brake-dive the r1150r brakes are like running into a brick wall.

[Optimus Prime]

There is an inverse relationship.

/thread

Piloting a ferry is the most fun one can have?
:lol:

[Plaz]

There is an inverse relationship.

/thread

Piloting a ferry is the most fun one can have?

Depends on your orientation.

[Roadstergal]

Piloting a ferry is the most fun one can have?

Depends on your orientation.

Note my spelling...

My then-boyfriend was trying to hustle me onto the ferry when we were out on a trip several years ago - when I pointed out that the ferry wasn't leaving for half an hour, he said "I'm kinda anal about ferries." I give him shit about that to this day.

[Jason C]

MINI, hands down. I got 33 mpg with mixed driving and the throttle always wide open and the car was a blast to drive. Needed more power, but it was a blast to drive.

Regular or S?

[Plaz]

Piloting a ferry is the most fun one can have?

Depends on your orientation.

Note my spelling...

My then-boyfriend was trying to hustle me onto the ferry when we were out on a trip several years ago - when I pointed out that the ferry wasn't leaving for half an hour, he said "I'm kinda anal about ferries." I give him shit about that to this day.

:lol:

[lip277]

Speaking of fun and 'efficiency'-


My 2002 gets in the high 20's (26-28mpg) and has about the highest smile factor per dollar/gallon/pound (whatever) you could ever think. The only car that may compete with it (maybe not in the gallon mode though) would be my Mustang convertible. Gotta get that one restored though. That will take a TON or work. And then it will drink gas pretty heavily. But the smile factor will be REALLY high.

Yeah- I know they're not new, but what the hay.... Remember - I'm the old fogey (car-wise) amongst us..... :lol:

[FC]

I drive my car agressively and get low 20's in mixed driving. Not bad for a fast, comfortable sedan.

[Rob]

MINI, hands down. I got 33 mpg with mixed driving and the throttle always wide open and the car was a blast to drive. Needed more power, but it was a blast to drive.

Regular or S?

Regular. The gas mileage that people would get seemed to vary widely from car to car. The S's typically got a lot less iirc.

[lemming]

I drive my car agressively and get low 20's in mixed driving. Not bad for a fast, comfortable sedan.

i'm amazed that you get low 20's in your 330.

[ZBB]

Agree on the MCS -- Ours easily gets 30mpg in blended city/hwy driving. 33-34 on highway only. It does suck on short city only driving -- lately its been averaging ~24mpg.

But I'll also throw out my '03 e39 530i. I bought it at the end of Feb, just before gas prices started to go up, but am pretty happy with the mileage I'm getting. I'm averaging about 1mpg above what I average in my '01 325ci (about 27-28mpg per tank) -- not bad for a heavier car (chubby pig?) with a bigger and more powerful engine. This is on my 27-mile each way commute, 1/2 freeway and 1/3 55mph limit city streets, remainder at regular city streets. I've been getting 450 miles per tank (filling up when the light comes on and ~2 gallons left in the tank).

[lemming]

Agree on the MCS -- Ours easily gets 30mpg in blended city/hwy driving. 33-34 on highway only. It does suck on short city only driving -- lately its been averaging ~24mpg.

But I'll also throw out my '03 e39 530i. I bought it at the end of Feb, just before gas prices started to go up, but am pretty happy with the mileage I'm getting. I'm averaging about 1mpg above what I average in my '01 325ci (about 27-28mpg per tank) -- not bad for a heavier car (chubby pig?) with a bigger and more powerful engine.

because you often have to cane the 325 to get it moving, it makes sense to me (and from my 325 ownership experience) that it is suboptimal with respect to fuel economy.

geared correctly, larger displacement engines often outdo their smalle displacement counterparts. take the GM 3800 series II engines, for example. they get really excellent fuel economy.

[Jason C]

http://img213.echo.cx/img213/8947/mpgz060az.jpg

[Plaz]

http://img213.echo.cx/img213/8947/mpgz060az.jpg

And what happened after you pulled away from the pumps? :lol:

[dan]

http://img213.echo.cx/img213/8947/mpgz060az.jpg

I feel so deprived--my elise doesn't have a fancy digital readout like that. it doesn't even keep track of fuel consumption :cry:

[John V]

No, what should really make you feel deprived is that your 1.8L Elise gets poorer gas mileage than a 5.7L 'Vette. :stickpoke:

[JST]

No, what should really make you feel deprived is that your 1.8L Elise gets poorer gas mileage than a 5.7L 'Vette. :stickpoke:

But at least it's British.

Well, Malaysian.

But that's also an island, so it's sort of the same thing.

[Rob]

http://img213.echo.cx/img213/8947/mpgz060az.jpg

:lol: My version of that engine has never shown anything like that before. I got a little over 16 on my last tank b/c i was trying to get one more commute in before I stopped for gas and drove it like a pansy for the last 75 miles. That was a record and the first time I achieved more than 15 for a tank.

Mabye if I reset the meter at the top of a hill with a tail wind . . .

[John V]

http://img213.echo.cx/img213/8947/mpgz060az.jpg

:lol: My version of that engine has never shown anything like that before. I got a little over 16 on my last tank b/c i was trying to get one more commute in before I stopped for gas and drove it like a pansy for the last 75 miles. That was a record and the first time I achieved more than 15 for a tank.

Mabye if I reset the meter at the top of a hill with a tail wind . . .

A couple local guys have C5s (non Zaahsix models) with the 6-speed. One routinely gets 31-32 in his daily commute (cruise set around 72MPH) and the other who admits to driving more spiritedly gets around 29 during his highway commute.

City driving will obviously kill it ;)

[Plaz]

There's that funky 2nd-to-4th shift, or whatever thingie, too, right?

[Rob]

There's that funky 2nd-to-4th shift, or whatever thingie, too, right?

That was defeated on my car by the third day I owned it. Maybe that's the problem. :lol: Everyone that is a real driver gets rid of that function right away. You can do it with a mess (plug has to be tied off somewhere) for under $20 or in a clean straight harness for about $40.

[John V]

There's that funky 2nd-to-4th shift, or whatever thingie, too, right?
First to fourth. Second to fourth would be a trick!

Both of these guys have disabled theirs. I think it's the first mod a 'vette / Firechicken / Camarobird owner does.

[JST]

There's that funky 2nd-to-4th shift, or whatever thingie, too, right?
First to fourth. Second to fourth would be a trick!

Both of these guys have disabled theirs. I think it's the first mod a 'vette / Firechicken / Camarobird owner does.

You mean the first mod after hanging the pink fuzzy dice, right?

[Roadstergal]

I don't think anything under 30 qualifies as "excellent" fuel economy in a car.

[FC]

I don't think anything under 30 qualifies as "excellent" fuel economy in a car.

Not in the highway, but in a mixed-driving environment, it is very good.

[Roadstergal]

Not in the highway, but in a mixed-driving environment, it is very good.

It's good, not "excellent." IMO.

[John V]

Not in the highway, but in a mixed-driving environment, it is very good.

It's good, not "excellent." IMO.

For mixed driving? I'd call it excellent for a fun-to-drive car. I can't think of that many NOT fun to drive cars that will get real-world mileages in the 30's.

Marisa's Jetta 1.8T gets over 30 combined. It's reasonably quick, but I wouldn't call it fun to drive. The base MINI is probably great fun to autocross, but I can't imagine it being that much fun with so little power. "Frustrating" is the word that comes to mind.

The only car I can think of would be the Miata. Underpowered, but still very very fun.

Pretty much every car I can think of that I would want to own ('cept the RX-8) will get mid-20's combined. I consider that good enough. Gas is still cheap, even at $2.50/gal.

JV

[JST]

I don't think anything under 30 qualifies as "excellent" fuel economy in a car.

I disagree.

EDIT:

Let me elaborate.

There are clearly cars that get better than 30 mpg. There are not so many cars that get better than 30 mpg while still providing a reasonably large passenger/cargo envelope (and by that I mean one that can comfortably accomodate four people). There are very, very few cars that can do all of that AND provide anything more than glacial performance.

So, what does "excellent" mean? To me, a performance car that provides comfortable room for four while offering decent straight-line performance (i.e., better than the average vehicle on the road) and fuel efficiency readings in the high 20s--low 30s on the highway is "excellent."

[Plaz]

I don't think anything under 30 qualifies as "excellent" fuel economy in a car.

I disagree.

EDIT:

Let me elaborate.

There are clearly cars that get better than 30 mpg. There are not so many cars that get better than 30 mpg while still providing a reasonably large passenger/cargo envelope (and by that I mean one that can comfortably accomodate four people). There are very, very few cars that can do all of that AND provide anything more than glacial performance.

So, what does "excellent" mean? To me, a performance car that provides comfortable room for four while offering decent straight-line performance (i.e., better than the average vehicle on the road) and fuel efficiency readings in the high 20s--low 30s on the highway is "excellent."

330i? Or not "comfortable" or "decent" enough?

Just curious. Not that I get high 20s with my driving style.

[Jason C]

No, what should really make you feel deprived is that your 1.8L Elise gets poorer gas mileage than a 5.7L 'Vette. :stickpoke:

5.7?

http://vorlon.case.edu/~aap8/gallery/albums/c6z06media/C6_Z06_Corvette_34.sized.jpg

:speechle:

[JST]

I don't think anything under 30 qualifies as "excellent" fuel economy in a car.

I disagree.

EDIT:

Let me elaborate.

There are clearly cars that get better than 30 mpg. There are not so many cars that get better than 30 mpg while still providing a reasonably large passenger/cargo envelope (and by that I mean one that can comfortably accomodate four people). There are very, very few cars that can do all of that AND provide anything more than glacial performance.

So, what does "excellent" mean? To me, a performance car that provides comfortable room for four while offering decent straight-line performance (i.e., better than the average vehicle on the road) and fuel efficiency readings in the high 20s--low 30s on the highway is "excellent."

330i? Or not "comfortable" or "decent" enough?

Just curious. Not that I get high 20s with my driving style.

Yes, I think the 330 fits into this category well.

[FC]

I don't think anything under 30 qualifies as "excellent" fuel economy in a car.

I disagree.

EDIT:

Let me elaborate.

There are clearly cars that get better than 30 mpg. There are not so many cars that get better than 30 mpg while still providing a reasonably large passenger/cargo envelope (and by that I mean one that can comfortably accomodate four people). There are very, very few cars that can do all of that AND provide anything more than glacial performance.

So, what does "excellent" mean? To me, a performance car that provides comfortable room for four while offering decent straight-line performance (i.e., better than the average vehicle on the road) and fuel efficiency readings in the high 20s--low 30s on the highway is "excellent."

330i? Or not "comfortable" or "decent" enough?

Just curious. Not that I get high 20s with my driving style.

Yes, I think the 330 fits into this category well.

The 330i avec ZHP or (equivalent mods) is pretty darn close to the perfect fun commuter car (on non-blizzard conditions). It does everything very well, but not much superbly well. That includes fuel economy.

Invariably it makes you yearn for a softer suspension and AWD on shitty winter days, more power + handling on days when you just want to have a blast, and more room when you want to move people/stuff around.

[Roadstergal]

Everyone seems to be equating "fun to drive" with "powerful," which IMO is misleading.

I thought the intent of this thread was to disconnect the two.

What it is actually doing, IMO, is highlighting how little gains have been made in fuel economy vs. sticking more power into street cars.

[lemming]

if they ever brought the 330d over here (and our diesel was sulphur-free enough), that would be quite the ticket.

none of that added weight/complexity of the hybrid drivetrain but with serious torque plus HP.

do all you realize that even in Honda-guise, the hybrid COMPUTER is only warranty covered for 1 year? and it's about $2k. i wonder why that is....and it's a Honda.

i dunno what R'gal is thinking in terms of fun & efficient, but hybrids are not the answer, IMO. miata is okay, but let's see if the new 2.0litre engine is really efficient. one of the things that goes directly out the door with variable valve timing plus lift 4 bangers is fuel economy.

we could all agree that the Mini is NOT fun. frugal, yeah. the MCS is likely the epitome of "fun" (for some) and "efficient".

my operational version of "fun" and "efficient" is sub-6 seconds to 60mph and above 21mpg's in mixed driving. in other words, more on the "fun" than "efficient" --interestingly, efficient can come into play in highway driving. there high 20s is cool with me.

[Roadstergal]

I have no straight-line definitions of fun. I think that's the difference.

[lemming]

I have no straight-line definitions of fun. I think that's the difference.

not sure if you have: (1) commute everyday in rush hour or (2) if seattle traffic is approximate to boston traffic --but onramps around here are very short. it is NO fun to try to merge with aggressive traffic with zero straightline speed.

in fact, it can be terrifying, even for people who live here.

it's why i emphasize speed as much as handling.

[nate]

I'm averaging 16.5mpg :dunno:

[lip277]

Everyone seems to be equating "fun to drive" with "powerful," which IMO is misleading.



Speak for yourself..... :)

My ~130hp 2002 does just fine for me. :bigpimp:

[John V]

Everyone seems to be equating "fun to drive" with "powerful," which IMO is misleading.

Not misleading. Just different opinions than your own. ;)

Miatas are great fun on the autocross course, but not enough power for me to daily drive happily. Same thing, I'm sure, with the non-S MINI though I haven't driven one.

To me, "fun to drive" generally follows cars that are relatively light AND reasonably powerful, but suspension design and tuning, power delivery and other factors play a role. Doesn't matter how many doors it has or what fuel economy it gets. Gas is still cheap.

[clyde]

What it is actually doing, IMO, is highlighting how little gains have been made in fuel economy vs. sticking more power into street cars.

http://www.ceroc.com.au/forum/images/smilies/icon_bong.gif

I think that you're way off base there. Compare the engines of today with previous generations. Today's engines are making lots more power and doing it with much less fuel. Most cars (model for model as opposed to volume) are also getting much better MPG than in the past despite significant weight gains as well. For a given unit of work generated by a unit of fuel, today's engines are nothing less than stunning compared with previous generations in terms of fuel efficency.

[Rob]

we could all agree that the Mini is NOT fun.

No, we couldn't. The non-S MINI was a BLAST to drive through the canyons. I don't miss it and a good part of that reason is the lack of power (anyone see the irony of my car choices here?), but I never said it wasn't fun. It just didn't have any power. Having said that, I could take the MINI thorugh canyons faster than you would think - b/c I never had to slow down much once I got up to speed. It handled a lot like a go kart.

It just sucked on the highway. But hey, 33 mpg in mixed driving with two throttle positions (on and off). Something like 36 on flat highways, less over the mountains. It was not able to hold 80 mph over some of the mountains between here and Las Vegas. :lol:

[Optimus Prime]

I get 40+ MPG in the city and I drive like a bat outta hell. :devcool:

[lemming]

we could all agree that the Mini is NOT fun.

No, we couldn't. The non-S MINI was a BLAST to drive through the canyons. I don't miss it and a good part of that reason is the lack of power (anyone see the irony of my car choices here?), but I never said it wasn't fun. It just didn't have any power. Having said that, I could take the MINI thorugh canyons faster than you would think - b/c I never had to slow down much once I got up to speed. It handled a lot like a go kart.

It just sucked on the highway. But hey, 33 mpg in mixed driving with two throttle positions (on and off). Something like 36 on flat highways, less over the mountains. It was not able to hold 80 mph over some of the mountains between here and Las Vegas. :lol:

i've never been one to fully appreciate a car in a lineup when i catch myself realizing that i couldn't/didn't buy the most powerful iteration.

mentally, the mini would kill me. commuting or fun driving, it would kill me. i don't actually find that MCS all that fast, to be honest, so i'd be hard pressed to find a situation when i'd find the mini a compelling drive. for example, do you think that you couldn't take your CTS-V through same said canyons and have same fun? difference is, you could also do lurid power slides out of slow corners if you wanted.

[Rob]

we could all agree that the Mini is NOT fun.

No, we couldn't. The non-S MINI was a BLAST to drive through the canyons. I don't miss it and a good part of that reason is the lack of power (anyone see the irony of my car choices here?), but I never said it wasn't fun. It just didn't have any power. Having said that, I could take the MINI thorugh canyons faster than you would think - b/c I never had to slow down much once I got up to speed. It handled a lot like a go kart.

It just sucked on the highway. But hey, 33 mpg in mixed driving with two throttle positions (on and off). Something like 36 on flat highways, less over the mountains. It was not able to hold 80 mph over some of the mountains between here and Las Vegas. :lol:

i've never been one to fully appreciate a car in a lineup when i catch myself realizing that i couldn't/didn't buy the most powerful iteration.

mentally, the mini would kill me. commuting or fun driving, it would kill me. i don't actually find that MCS all that fast, to be honest, so i'd be hard pressed to find a situation when i'd find the mini a compelling drive. for example, do you think that you couldn't take your CTS-V through same said canyons and have same fun? difference is, you could also do lurid power slides out of slow corners if you wanted.

Hey, I am nothing if not a hypocrit. I think the MINI has its place and I think it's a blast to drive. I don't think it's the most fun car to drive (obviously) or I would still have it. If I still had need of a commuter car or the cost of a MINI was the extent of my budget, I would be happy with one. It's not and it's not and it doesn't come anywhere close to being as much fun, overall, as having 400 hp on tap and throttle steering.

But as an anser to the question of the op, I think the MINI is right in there.

[Roadstergal]

Most cars (model for model as opposed to volume) are also getting much better MPG than in the past despite significant weight gains as well.

My '86 325 got better mileage than E46 325s.

My '90 Miata got better mileage than the current ones. :dunno:

[Jason C]

In response to debate about straight line performance - No, I didn't intend this to be a "What goes fast in a straight line but doesn't get a gas-guzzler penalty" sort of deal.

Hell, it's doubtful whether my beater could outrun someone's former Miata. :eeps: So I'm not too picky about straight-line. Something like a MCS would be quite an improvement as it is.

But do carry on. I haven't heard as much used car selections as I thought there would be.