SUV's are obsolete

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poverty
  • 527 comments
  • 17,664 views
What I dont understand with US mpg figures is that generally SUV's are on par with cars, if they both have similiar engines. However how can that be when SUV's are heavier and less aerodynamic and therefore should drink alot more fuel. Maybe because theyre so ugly gravity and the wind doesnt what to have to touch them :rolleyes:

Also when you look at european figures and reviews its a totally different story. Our figures say that SUV's are absolutely dreadful when it comes to econmy.
 
Poverty
What I dont understand with US mpg figures is that generally SUV's are on par with cars, if they both have similiar engines. However how can that be when SUV's are heavier and less aerodynamic and therefore should drink alot more fuel.
Click to expand...

You mean like the V8 Tahoe and the V8 E-class getting the same mileage? Every time I've hand-checked the mileage reported on the cars I own, it's almost dead on. Especially if you average out over multiple tanks. I assure you, those mileage numbers are almost certainly correct for US gasoline. Maybe you guys are using some better juice.
 
I think he meant more for a SUV v car, the E-class is equally as bad aerodynamically. If you look at the 4.7 V8 5-series BMW, and compare that to the 4.7 V8 X5 both producing around 360bhp, the 5-series get's 5-6mpg more that the X5. I haven't kept up with this debate recently though, so I don't know what the current argument is covering.
 
Poverty
What I dont understand with US mpg figures is that generally SUV's are on par with cars, if they both have similiar engines. However how can that be when SUV's are heavier and less aerodynamic and therefore should drink alot more fuel. Maybe because theyre so ugly gravity and the wind doesnt what to have to touch them :rolleyes:

Also when you look at european figures and reviews its a totally different story. Our figures say that SUV's are absolutely dreadful when it comes to econmy.
Click to expand...

Let's run with that thought:

Renault Megane (2002-2006): 1.6 - 40-41mpg (35-36 for auto)
Renault Megane Scenic (2003-): 1.6 - 39mpg (35 for auto)

Same basic car, same engine, "similar" economies, despite one being a hatchback and the other being a "mini-MPV".

Renault Laguna (2001-): 2.0T (165hp) - 34-35mpg (31 for auto)
Renault Laguna (2001-): 2.2dCi (150hp) - 43mpg (36-37 for auto)
Renault Vel Satis (2003-): 2.0T (165hp) - 30mpg (27 for auto)
Renault Vel Satis (2003-): 2.2dCi (150hp) - 39mpg (33 for auto)

Same engines but slightly different economies. Let's skip away from Renault now, and move to full-blown SUVs (Renault don't make any for European markets).

Honda Civic (2006-): 2.2 iCDTi (138hp) - 53-55mpg
Honda CR-V (2001-): 2.2 iCDTi (138hp) - 42mpg

Hmm. Now that is different... Though it has to be said that 42mpg isn't exactly "dreadful".
 
its not dreadful but I have just noticed I have been coming in at the wrong angle for my argument.

So say your thinking of getting a new vehicle. You have no specific criteria other than that it must seat 5 and has a performance figure of 0-60 under 8 secs and and a top speed of around 150mph.

So Mr.A goes to a audi garage. He looks at the Q7 4.2V8. He likes it and it fits his performance figure. The MPG is ok but he would obviously prefer that it was better. He then looks at the Audi A6 avant. There is a 4.2 V8 version, its the same engine as the Q7 and gets around the same MPG. Mr.A however is clever. He wants 0-60 under 8 secs. So he decides that the 3.2L version, which gets 10mpg better economy than the 4.2 is enough, as it puts the A6 on par with the Q7 4.2 performance wise.

Moral of the story? You can go just as fast as a big powerful suv in car with a smaller engine and alot better fuel economy hence why SUV's are not economic.
 
Accord Sedan V6 244hp: 29 mpg
S2000 4cyl 236hp: 26mpg
Odyssey V6 244hp: 25mpg (no VCM)
Pilot V6 244hp: 24mpg
Ridgeline V6 247: 21mpg

Ford 500 V6 203hp: 27 mpg
Mustang V6 210hp: 25mpg
Escape V6 200hp: 24mpg
Freestar V6 201hp: 23 mpg
Explorer V6 210hp: 21mpg
Ranger V6 207hp: 21mpg

I couldn't find numbers for the F-150

Just using these as data points, the difference between sedans and minivans/SUVs seems to be about 4mpg for the same engine. The difference between minivans and SUVs is ~1mpg, comparable to the difference between SUVs and pickups.

V8 vs. V6 vs. 4cyl makes a bigger difference than any of the above. Or at least, the difference between a V8 and a V6 in a mustang is comparable to the difference between a sedan and an SUV with the same engine.

Edit:

As I said though, there's always a counter example

Tahoe V8: 22mpg (note that that's 1mpg short of the V6 freestar, and 3mpg short of the V6 odyssey)
Corvette V8: 28mpg
 
Poverty
What I dont understand with US mpg figures is that generally SUV's are on par with cars, if they both have similiar engines. However how can that be when SUV's are heavier and less aerodynamic and therefore should drink alot more fuel. Maybe because theyre so ugly gravity and the wind doesnt what to have to touch them :rolleyes:
Also when you look at european figures and reviews its a totally different story. Our figures say that SUV's are absolutely dreadful when it comes to econmy.
Click to expand...
That's because of the ass-backwards way the EPA runs MPG figures: on a dyno, and tries to (and typically fails misirably at) substituting wind correction by putting the drag coefficient and frontal area into a formula to firgure it out. It dsates from the 70's, when coefficient of drag wasn't really an issue so SUV's and cars (and even many trucks) were basically rated the same. That is why hybrid cars like the Prius a rated so astronomically high (60 MPG? Hah!), yet in actual practice are outdone in fuel economy by diesels and small sedans (like Golfs and Neons).
​
 
Toronado

That's because of the ass-backwards way the EPA runs MPG figures: on a dyno, and tries to (and typically fails misirably at) substituting wind correction by putting the drag coefficient and frontal area into a formula to firgure it out. It dsates from the 70's, when coefficient of drag wasn't really an issue so SUV's and cars (and even many trucks) were basically rated the same. That is why hybrid cars like the Prius a rated so astronomically high (60 MPG? Hah!), yet in actual practice are outdone in fuel economy by diesels and small sedans (like Golfs and Neons).
​
Click to expand...

danoff
Every time I've hand-checked the mileage reported on the cars I own, it's almost dead on. Especially if you average out over multiple tanks.
Click to expand...

I've checked every car I've owned and they've all been correct.
 
danoff
I've checked every car I've owned and they've all been correct.
Click to expand...
I know that. I was explaining why EPA figures are often the same for directly comparable kinds of cars (like L4S said, X5 4.6 vs. 5-series 4.6).
 
The best example of MPG comparison I can give you is that of my Father's 2005 Chevrolet Avalance 4X4 equipped with the 5300 Vortec V8 to the 2006 Chevrolet Impala SS with the LS4 (same as the 5300, only aluminum, and DOD) V8...

My dads truck will average about 15-16MPG around the city and crountryside surrounding Grand Rapids, despite the fact that it is rated at 14/18 MPG respectively. On the opposite side, the Impala SS is rated at 18/28, and I have herd that you can get nearly 30MPG on the highway if you drive it right. Of course the lower weight is going to have an effect on the car, along with the fact it uses an aluminum version of the engine combined with the DOD technology... But, if they were to use the same iron setup, the big difference would come from the gearing of the truck compared to the car.
 
Most of it depends on the drivier, I can get 50mpg from my 306, and I have, I decided once to really try to conserve fuel and work out how many miles I covered on hlaf a tank. But I don't normally drive like I did to test that, I'd guess that I normally get aound 40mpg.
 
Now live4speed's got a Quality Posts badge now heh? :cheers:

The EPA test procedure was revamped in the last few months, as I remember. According to the new test procedures, the MPG rating on some cars dropped. Now that should provide some better ratings, since I dont see how anyone can go 71MPG in a Honda Insight, even though its small and slick in the wind.
 
As far as economy figures, My 2.3L I4 Ranger gets 23-27 MPG depending on its state of tune, whether or not I top off two tanks in a row, where I buy gas, and how my tire inflation is running.

My 6.0 liter V-8 Turbodiesel Excursion has averaged 17 MPG on the current tank of gas (per the computer). I imagine that will be borne out when I finally break down and fill the damn thing up (at nearly 3 bucks a gallon, half a tank will run me over $60). It has the aerodynamics of a well thrown brick, that happens to be just over 7 feet tall, and weighs in at just over 4 tons, before adding people and cargo.

Am I saying that the Excursion is more practical than the Ranger. No. But it is on par in some areas.
I prefer trying to park, un-park, and manuever the Ranger. But for carrying people and their stuff, you can only beat a big SUV with a bus. But then your fuel economy suffers.
 
Hmmm... I love randomly walking into a discussion and inserting some totally irrelevant info: Here goes.

I just finished a 500 kilometer (312 mile) trip in my 2.0 econobox. I only got 23.5 mpg (US) or 28.2 mpg (UK)... as a side note, you guys seriously have to settle on km/l, so we won't be at loggerheads as to actual mpg.

Pretty dreadful, maybe, considering it was mixed highway - rural town driving, but as I was going over 100mph for most of the trip and driving like Alessandro Zanardi, I'm not complaining. :lol:

My uncle gets about 11mpg (US) on the same trip (at 80mph) on his Triton V8-powered Ford van. But considering he can carry twice as many people as I can, maybe it evens out. :lol:

Another group did a 1000km trip at 23.5 mpg (US) with the same engine, but they drove only at night, and kept speeds to 40mph. :dopey:
 
Oh yeah? Well I once got 30mpg doing nothing but driving around town, :sly: and I typically get 25-29mpg, even though I enjoy dipping into the throttle now and then...I also tend to get about 27mpg on long trips, but I guess that's whatcha get when you're accelerating hard and speeding all of the time. :lol:

My parents' Blazer is lucky to get much more than 20mpg, and it's only a V6.
 
I can drive from London to Nottingham and back again without needing to fuel up which is a 330 mile, 6 and a half hour journey.

I cant think of many SUV's can do that but then again my car does get 46mpg.
 
My car's notoriously inefficient (hey, it's a Mazda)... on a lucky day, I can do 34 (UK) mpg, but with Asian traffic, I'm happy to get 26.

A Ford Expedition can do 650 miles between fills... if you drive like a grandma. :lol: Then again, it's got a gazillion gallon tank. :lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back