Nothing like a well-run long-distance fuel economy comparison to cut through the hype and exaggerations. Edmunds took the 2010 Prius, 2010 Insight, 2009 Jetta TDI, 2010 Fusion Hybrid, and a 2009 Mini Cooper on a carefully-controlled outing from L.A. to Las Vegas and back, including back roads with steep grades through Death Valley one way; 200 miles of tedious city driving in Sin City; and I-15 back to L.A. The results shouldn’t be very controversial, since they’re reasonably close to EPA numbers. But TDI fanatics swear the EPA tests undercount diesels. Not according to this test. Here’s the skinny:
Back Roads
First
2010 Toyota Prius
47.2 mpg
Second
Honda Insight
44.1 mpg
Third
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
41.2 mpg
Fourth
Ford Fusion Hybrid
39.6 mpg
Fifth
Mini Cooper
38.5 mpg
City
First
Toyota Prius
48.7 mpg
Second
Honda Insight
43.4
Third
Ford Fusion Hybrid
35.1
Fourth
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
31.6
Fifth
Mini Cooper
30.1
Highway
First
Toyota Prius
47.4 mpg
Second
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
40.6
Third
Honda Insight
38.6
Fourth
Ford Fusion Hybrid
36
Fifth
Mini Cooper
33.3
Combined
First
Toyota Prius
47.6 mpg
Second
Honda Insight
42.3
Third
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
38.1
Fourth
Ford Fusion Hybrid
37.3
Fifth
Mini Cooper
34.5
CO2 Impact
First
Toyota Prius
.55 lb/mi
Second
Honda Insight
.62 lb/mi
Third
Ford Fusion Hybrid
.70 lb/mi
Fourth
Volkswagen Jetta TDI
.74 lb/mi
Fifth
Mini Cooper
.75 lb/mi
UPDATE: Here is an elevation change graph. The left point is Edmunds’ offices in Santa Monica, CA, and the right point is Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas, and the elev. change is calculated from a route that is all freeway. This is intended to provide a general guide to the grades the test drivers might have faced; we do not know their exact route.
Diesel pimps who point out the ‘hybrid premium’, will conveniently leave out of debates any mention diesel premium – more expensive engine taking more expensive fuel.
The Prius has been around for a decade now, and their design department doesn’t seem quite as constrained as other car companies’ (as in, they’re free to make it as aerodynamic as they please without worrying too much about aesthetic, to the point where their functional design is now a social indicator). Their engineers meanwhile have had plenty of opportunity to fine-tune the underlying drivetrain, so it’s no wonder that it does so well. It’s a difficult car to compete against.
That said, only the Prius and Insight are really in the same class — the others target different buyers, albeit those with a few similar fuel economy goals.
Was the TDI a manual or auto? In real world you need the stick to get good numbers with a TDI.
When I ran mine o D2 or BD made from pure canola I used to get 50+ all the time. The crappy economy has my WVO sources using cheaper veg-oils so my numbers are way down this year, but they still look way better than what is shown above.
Then again mine is a 2002 which is pre-2009 emissions. The latest TDIs seem to have taken a big hit on that.
It’s a shame the MINI-D isn’t available here in the US.
Wow…where did Ford pull the Fusion Hybrid numbers from? They are not even close to the EPA mileage (someone probably got paid…)
What should also be factored in is price. The Fusion Hybrid, for instance, cost an outrageous $28K starting…or a base Fusion costs $19,270
$9,000 will buy a lot of options or a lot of gasoline. And at that price point, the Fusion Hybrid will sell as well as dirty socks. Especially when non-hybrid cars are clearly more efficient.
What bodily orfice did they pull those Mini Cooper numbers from? I’m averaging 32 MPG on my mixed-cycle commute, and can pull 40 MPG on long highway runs with nothing more than cruise control. I’m not hyper-miling by any means, but I’m besting their numbers without even trying.
My friend’s 03 Jetta TDI gets a real 50 mpg. Maybe the newer, more powerful engine in today’s TDI just isn’t as efficient – trading some economy for more quiet and driveability.
The Mini made a pretty good showing for a conventional car.
What of prices, 0-60 times, ride & handling, useable volume?
[Edit: seeing the base prices posted by P71_CrownVic, I’d say the Fusion isn’t a contender unless you really want the larger passenger volume.]
Declaring the Prius the ‘greenest’ car doesn’t account for total life cycle costs, but it does impress within the boundaries of this test.
The TDI still gets great gas mileage and is the best “green” choice for car guys. The 2.0t wolfsburg and the TDI make the GLI irrelevant in my opinion.
P71_CrownVic you don’t get to lie with numbers excluding destination charges from all the vehicles except the Fusion Hybrid which is $27,270. The Prius is 22,750 with destination.
The Fusion costs more because its bigger (18 inches longer), faster (Fusion 8sec 0-60, Prius 9.8sec 0-60) , more refined and WAY more loaded then a base Prius II. Four wheel disc brakes, Bluetooth, heated power mirrors, front power seats, rear parking sensors, 6-CD Changer, iPod/USB integration, Sync and Satellite radio, Dual zone auto climate control, auto headlights, auto dimming rear view mirror are all standard on the Fusion and non-existent on a Prius II.
Hard not to be impressed by the balance of the Prius design. Talk about consistency in different environments! Just enough battery and electrics to bring slow/fast and stop/go mileage in line with gasoline engine highway efficiency, while being just big enough, and just cheap enough, for most people most of the time. Doesn’t hurt that it doesn’t break down, either, or in any other way gives its owners much to complain about.
chuck: VW with a stick. For what it’s worth, the newest automatics are so efficient, that some of them actually test higher than sticks on the EPA test.
Yes, as I’ve written before, the latest “clean” diesels lost about 1/4 of their efficiency advantage over gas engines. But with the current price parity of diesel with gas, the economics of diesels certainly are better than a year ago. To each their own.
The Fusion Hybrid is consistently underperforming its city rating in every real-world test I’ve seen. I suspect that Ford tweaked it to get a high number on the test, but in real driving its no better than the similar, but lower EPA rated Camry hybrid. They both get about 34-36 mpg.
Fusion is rated 41 city/36 highway, so it matches the EPA highway # but significantly misses the city #.
Insight is rated at 40 city/43 highway, so it beats the EPA city # but significantly misses the highway number.
There are many variables in calculating city economy; apparently this test doesn’t match up terribly well with EPA methodology. The gap on the Insight’s highway number is more peculiar, since a steady-speed test should be very consistent.
Just for comparison, I pulled up the EPA test cycle numbers from fueleconomy.gov. All automatic tranny.
Vehicle, City, Highway, Combined
Prius, 51,48,50
Insight, 40,43,41
Fusion Hybrid, 41,36,39
Jetta TDI (sedan), 30,42,34
Mini Cooper, 25,34,29
The significant amount of mountain driving in the Edmunds test is probably quite different from the EPA cycle. The LA to Vegas route includes some serious climbing. Such driving is common in the Western US, but impossible to find in the Eastern US (home to both the auto industry and the EPA).
Interestingly, the Edmunds testing resulted in a much smaller gap between the Prius and the Insight than the EPA test cycle. That is the standout thing I notice in these results. The Insight was only 11% more fuel thirsty in Edmunds’ overall result than the Prius was while in EPA cycles the Prius has an overall 18% advantage, most of which comes from its supposed 22% advantage in a city cycle.
BTW, Consumer Reports also does their own fuel economy testing with their own city and highway test cycles. Considering CR’s location in Connecticut I would guess that these do not include significant mountain driving.
How does the Mini get 38.5 on the Back Roads portion, but only 33.3 on the Highway? A small vehicle with a conventional gas engine should get better mileage on the highway than on a route with steep grades, shouldn’t it?
@Paul Niedermeyer :
For what it’s worth, the newest automatics are so efficient, that some of them actually test higher than sticks on the EPA test.
Yes. On the EPA test. Now go to a fuel economy monitoring website and search for any kind of car, same model year, and do a search for average economy with automatics and manuals.
Average BMW 118d manual: 6.14 l/100km (38.3 mpg)
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/0-Alle_Modelle.html?esearch=1&fueltype=1&vehicletype=1&constyear_s=2008&constyear_e=2009&gearing=1&exactmodel=118d
Average BMW 118d automatic: 6.84 l/100km (34.4 mpg)
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/0-Alle_Modelle.html?esearch=1&fueltype=1&vehicletype=1&constyear_s=2008&constyear_e=2009&gearing=2&exactmodel=118d
That’s a modern 6-speed automatic at work.
Or let’s look at the average last-gen Golf with the 1.9 TDI – that’s when the super-efficient 7-speed DSG became available.
I am concerned that some writers use the words, “fuel economy” and “efficiency” interchangeably. I think there is a difference between the two based on what the whole vehicle provides and how it achieves it’s goals. For example, a truck may be more efficient than a run-about, yet still get worse fuel economy.
Generally (and I use that word loosly with the VW) the diesel will last longer (in terms of milage). Should’t that be considered in the “Life Cycle Costs”?
Diesels usually require less maintenance than traditional ICE as well (though you pay for that in the initial premium and in the eventual maintenance as well, I suppose).
I’m not arguing the validity of the test – just thowing questions to it.
The EPA numbers are crock because the EPA allows the automatic to decide when to shift and yet forces the manual to shift at certain points, whether or not this is the best for economy.
I’ve driven MT, DCT and AT models of modern turbodiesels back-to-back, and the MT still gives the best economy. Always. Despite the fact that diesels have enough torque to overcome the inertial inefficiency of the torque converter. The only automatics that can compete with manuals in terms of efficiency are CVTs… and only the smaller ones, at that (the cute little rubber bands Honda uses… errh… used… for their overseas Fit. Larger, more mechanical CVTs, aren’t much better than regular automatics.
–
Not particularly surprised by the test. It’s all in how you drive, and if you’re driving on the highway at a speed where the engine is out of its comfortable range… for example, driving a turbocharged 1.6 with low gearing at high speeds… it’s not going to be as efficient as it could be otherwise. That’s why the Cooper’s highway numbers suck.
–
As for the Jetta… I’d have wagered 47-50 would be possible with the pre-2009… but I’ve heard that new emissions regulations force them to use an extra injection event to clean the catalyst, so maybe that’s bringing the numbers down, somewhat.
Another issue here (and everywhere in any diesel/full hybrid matchup):
A full hybrid forces you to hyper mile. It won’t drive any other way…either by being so boring that you give up trying to goose it or by not letting you goose it.
If you drive a diesel consciously like that the mileage are the same…or maybe even better.
With a full hybrid, Big Brother is determining the driving style.
1. Diesels usually require less maintenance than traditional ICE as well
2. Generally (and I use that word loosly with the VW) the diesel will last longer
Turbodiesel vs NA gasoline engine – turbocharged cars have more additional parts that are prone to failure in the long run, turbocharger itself, various valves that control the turbocharging process and electronic sensors that are related to boost pressure , rubber piping that are part of the intercooler system etc. Turbochargers are very sensitive to oil quality and with irregular maintanence or long oil change intervals or misuse (immediately shutting down the engine in the gas station for example after highway driving) lot of problems usually occur after 100.000+ miles of car usage, or even earlier.
Here is a nice list of things that can and probably will go wrong with the famous VAG 1.9TDI engine:
http://www.tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-8.html
I was a owner of 1999 Passat Variant with 85kW 1,9TDI 5-speed manual for 3 years. Bought it with 110.000 miles on the odo, sold it with 140.000 miles on the odo. I regulary maintained my car, but most of those things in that list happened to my car.
With a full hybrid, Big Brother is determining the driving style.
Not sure what you mean by that? Have you driven a Prius, Camry Hybrid or GS450h? You put your foot down and it accelerates forwards. Seemed fairly linear to me in all of those cars; amazingly so actually, especially the GS.
I’d say the Camry Hybrid brakes felt “different”, but nothing that lingered, or I couldn’t adapt to in much the same way as jumping from one car to another.
Why the Mini (as opposed to, say, the Fit or Yaris) as the standard-bearer for gas-only cars? It’s not really all that fuel efficient for it’s class and interior space.
“Not particularly surprised by the test. It’s all in how you drive, and if you’re driving on the highway at a speed where the engine is out of its comfortable range… for example, driving a turbocharged 1.6 with low gearing at high speeds… it’s not going to be as efficient as it could be otherwise. That’s why the Cooper’s highway numbers suck.”
—
Mini Coopers are naturally aspirated, only the Cooper S and JCW’s are turbocharged.
As per the low gearing – I can only speak for the Cooper S, with a top speed of 150, I can’t really call that geared low.
Sounds great. Of those cars, the only ones I might want to make a similar road trip in would be the Fusion or the Jetta. A road trip in a Prius or MINI does not sound appealing.
Now, which one of those cars appeals to the folks who are truly ambivalent about cars, don’t want to make an eco-weenie statement and just want to go somewhere, such as “work” or “church” or “the grocery store?” That’s the Fusion.
Just another data point. I have 2003 Golf TDI, manual. After 275000km (171000mi and all of them mine) I am still averaging 42.7mpg. On a good tank (i.e. my wife driving), we can get up to 47mpg.
I’ve heard that, post-north america fuel upgrade (2007), the new VW TDIs have gone down in mileage. When they go from 1.9L to 2.0L and 90hp to 140hp, it’s hard not to expect some sort of fuel economy hit…. :)
I have a nearly 10 year old Accord with 4cyl vtec that routinely gets 33mpg highway and 23-25 city. (And the 33mpg highway was recently acheived driving through Montana mountains.)
My Accord has long ago been paid for, so even if gasoline were at $4.00/gallon it would take a lot of driving to make any of these vehicles worth the cost.
That said, my real world numbers on the Accord are better than what the EPA rated it back when new, and I’m sure with sensible driving I could make any of the tested cars do better, but porportionally to what Edmunds recorded, i.e. the Prius would top the mpg’s and the Mini would take up the rear.
In that highway test the cars look pretty close together. Would slipstream/drag not affect numbers at that distance? Would the first car suffer? Should they have been 50 feet apart?
I’d take a Honda Fit over any of these if I wanted a 4 door and good fuel economy – and have a car that is fun to drive. For a $6k-$8k difference in price from a Prius or Insight it would take well over a decade to make up that price difference in gasoline.
Also not sure why they call the Insight a “mild” hybrid. That was the GM belt driven hybrids that did nothing more than shut the engine off at stoplights. Which in and of itself is easy to implement and we should have it on normal ICE cars.
I think lot of people are missing the point here (I think Edmunds did to):
Here are 5 great cars that can provide terrific mileage no matter what kind of car you want to drive. Why isn’t the fact that we even have these options the top story here?
Want conspicuous non-consumption? Prius
Want a normal family sedan? Fusion
Want a sporty hauler? Jetta
Want a go kart? Mini
The only one really lost in the mix is the Insight, because it’s just a Prius clone that isn’t as good as the Prius.
phhff, the honda fit is an overrated, overpriced econo box. Engine has no go, seats are thin, plastic looks well, cheap, and is used everywhere. Doors are thin, engine is whiny. Handling? phhff, artfically light, better then some but not great.
Sigh. Even in an article this clear-cut, the FUD still survives.
That said, only the Prius and Insight are really in the same class — the others target different buyers, albeit those with a few similar fuel economy goals.
Want conspicuous non-consumption? Prius
How many times do you have to hear on this very site the clear and objective reasons many people bought the Prius before it sinks in? My guess is ‘never’, because some folks have some kind of belief in a vested interest in not doing so.
The ‘normal’ Fusion Hybrid’s rear seat doesn’t fold down. If you want a family-sized car with very good mileage that can hold a lot of stuff when you want to go to Home Depot, and this is the kicker, like I and many others have said we did, which one are you going to pick?
None of this should be considered a slam on the Fusion Hybrid, which is actually a very good piece of engineering. They did a real good job competing with the Camry Hybrid, which has the same problem for me (as did the Civic Hybrid, the more relevant example of ‘normal’ that got its ass whooped for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with looks and everything to do with utility).
@jaje :
Also not sure why they call the Insight a “mild” hybrid. That was the GM belt driven hybrids that did nothing more than shut the engine off at stoplights. Which in and of itself is easy to implement and we should have it on normal ICE cars.
We do have it on normal ICE cars. All manual transmission 4-cylinder BMWs like my 118d have it. All minis have it. Many 4-cylinder Audis have it. Volkswagen has introduced it in some models. Mercedes too. Smart has it (they call it “MHD”). Kia and Hyundai have it as an option in some models. The Porsche Panamera has it. Some new Toyotas have it, and Im sure a lot of the others have it too.
I like it. Silence at a red light feels good, and it restarts so quickly that you don’t have to “learn” the system.
@M1EK :
The ‘normal’ Fusion Hybrid’s rear seat doesn’t fold down. If you want a family-sized car with very good mileage that can hold a lot of stuff when you want to go to Home Depot, and this is the kicker, like I and many others have said we did, which one are you going to pick?
People who care about practicality buy a station wagon or a hatchback, not a sedan.
The big story nobody is commenting on is that the cars’ trip computers are LYING.
The Prius is the worst offender. Plenty of Prius drivers state that they get mpg in the high 50s. Sure, if the car is overstating your actual mileage by 8mpg and you believe the car.
Edmunds’ results would mean more if they were expressed as gallons used instead of miles/gallon. The length of the test was about 785 miles. Therefore, gallons used were
Prius 16.5
Insight 18.6
Jetta 20.6
Fusion 21.0
Mini 22.8
The difference between Prius and Mini is 6.3 gallons. That’s big as a percentage, but small in absolute terms especially when compared to a truck or SUV that can’t break 20 mpg. For six gallons, I’d rather drive a Mini than a Prius.
Having recently bought a Fusion Hybrid to appease my environment loving boyfriend, I can attest the Fusions figures in this test are on the money. However, if the trip computer is to be believed (I haven’t had it long enough to calculate based on how much fuel I actually put in it), it performs best in extra-urban driving. I usually get 43-46 mpg during my commute on Northern Virginia’s 35 – 55 mph roads, which beats the pants off what it achieves in DC stop & go traffic (anywhere from 20 – 40 mpg depending on red lights).
Based on Combined mileage figures, at $4 gas the worst case MINI cost $3.20 more per 100 miles than the Prius. Factor in using the recommended (not required) Premium for the MINI vs Regular for the Prius and you are at something like $3.50/100 miles. At 15,000 per year that’s $525/year more.
Forget about how long it would take for the more expensive Prius to pay for itself, since I don’t believe I have ever seen a smiling Prius driver, I’d probably take the MINI (or if I needed the extra room the Fusion).
I’d still buy the TDI as its cheaper than the Fusion Hybrid, has more room than the Mini and is way more fun to drive than the Insight and Prius. It drives like a normal car will need no battery maintenance, does not come with narrow no-grip tires and is decently quick in traffic.
Also not sure why they call the Insight a “mild” hybrid.
Because it is. Honda’s IMA system is effectively the same as GM’s BAS. To be fair, BAS and IMA don’t just do idle-stop, they also use the electric motor to assist the engine in turning the crankshaft.
Actually, I don’t believe C&D are relying on the trip meters… they’d be incredibly foolish to do so. Though, in my experience, some filler necks (the Prius’s, included) make accurate refilling so difficult that you need to drive a hell of a lot of miles to get an even halfway decent tank-to-tank reading.
rehposolihp :
August 13th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Mini Coopers are naturally aspirated, only the Cooper S and JCW’s are turbocharged.
As per the low gearing – I can only speak for the Cooper S, with a top speed of 150, I can’t really call that geared low.
Eep. That sucks, then. My 2 liter car, which weighs over four hundred pounds more, can get similar economy… and I hit 140 mph at redline.
michal1980 :
August 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am
phhff, the honda fit is an overrated, overpriced econo box. Engine has no go, seats are thin, plastic looks well, cheap, and is used everywhere. Doors are thin, engine is whiny. Handling? phhff, artfically light, better then some but not great.
The steering is, admittedly, complete shite, but it’s what you can do with it (first gen… not the watered down second gen) regardless of the steering that makes it great. It is tinny. It is whiny… yet, like a ten year old Miata, you can feel every bump and dip in the road through the seat of your pants… you can fling the little thing down a mountain road like there’s no tomorrow… and… if you’re lucky enough to live in a place where they sell the smaller engined ones, you can wring 50 mpg out of it on the highway… though I’ve occassionaly seen 35-45 mpg out of the 15.
The only current supermini better at being an old fashioned warm-hatch is the Suzuki Swift. But you don’t get it there.
And it still has electric steering. Everything does, nowadays. It’s a pandemic.
Being a Mazda owner (as Mazda is one of the few companies which has figured out how to do electric power steering right, with the 6 and MX-5), I’m not really fond of the little Honda’s helm… and Honda seems to have forgotten how to make comfortable seats, but I dearly love the Fit, and it’s on my short-list of “gotta have it” cars.
My point wasn’t to compair the possibly unreliable VW to the totally reliable Prius. My point was that diesels “generally” last longer than an equivellent ICE.
I also pointed out that when you purchase a diesel powered vehicle, it costs more that the equivellent ICE, thus MAYBE it all equals out in the end.
An economist might call this TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP.
There might have been another point being made by Edmunds which everybody has lost sight of. These are all good cars, with each having some strong selling points to the American public, and they are all proof that you don’t need large v8 powered BOF SUVs to haul your ass through strenuous terrain. All 5 of these cars do that, and manage to use plenty less fuel than a Tahoe or Expedition.
Yes, yes, I know if you’re towing a trailer, or you have 5 kids and an entire litter of dogs, you need the power and space of a ginormous SUV. But let’s be realistic here, how many super large vehicles do you see on the highways or suburban transit corridors towing trailers? Certainly less than half if my weekend on the highways of my home province are anything to go by. Within a 50 kilometer distance on the way to the cabin, we counted only three crewcab trucks out of almost one hundred towing anything. And to be honest, I could have towed a small trailer with one ATV on it behind my Focus.
I think this Edmund’s test is proof that we would be better off driving something small and thrifty.
Paul Niedermeyer :
chuck: VW with a stick. For what it’s worth, the newest automatics are so efficient, that some of them actually test higher than sticks on the EPA test.
Thanks for the data. It’s a shame what has been done to the TDI to meet current CARB regs. 31.6 MPG city? That’s awful. My 2002 TDI has never done worse than low-40s, ever. Even in serious stop-n-go Seattle traffic with A/C running full blast, such as our recent triple-digit heat wave here in the PNW.
The other shame is that there is only really ONE Diesel option on the US economy car market, and really only two others in the luxury market (335d & E-class.) The wide range of Diesel options in Europe represent a cornucopia of 40-70 MPG machines that we can’t touch.
I don’t have any pictures of it, but parked next to a colleagues Fusion SEL it looks identical (save for the Hybrid badging).
As it was a “we” purchase, looks like a normal car, drives like a normal car, doesn’t kill my back on my 50 mile RT commute (I traded in my Miata), and has a ton of cool gadgets, I don’t really mind the appeasement so much. He’s worth it anyway though…
Wait until the weather improves and it’ll get better mileage in DC. I was there last week, so I know you need full-time A/C this time of year, which means little/no engine shutoff at the red lights. Come fall, the in-town driving will give at least as good of mileage as the commute.
I’ve only got a few tanks in, but in my experience with the Escape the computer is 1.5-2 mpg optimistic. I’m averaging 35 in mixed, hilly driving, so I was a bit surprised to see Edmunds do not much better in the supposedly-more-efficient Fusion. They must’ve had the A/C blasting in Vegas as well.
The Fusion’s backseat not folding down was a deal-breaker for me. I’d lived with that before and knew I didn’t want to again. I’m glad I went with the same powertrain in a more-useful body.
Thanks for the data. It’s a shame what has been done to the TDI to meet current CARB regs. 31.6 MPG city? That’s awful. My 2002 TDI has never done worse than low-40s, ever. Even in serious stop-n-go Seattle traffic with A/C running full blast, such as our recent triple-digit heat wave here in the PNW.
Yeah. It’s a crying shame that diesel engines have to be almost as clean as the dirtiest legal gas engines these days. That’s just awful.
Thanks for the data. It’s a shame what has been done to the TDI to meet current CARB regs.
The car has to meet emissions targets that make the air safer to breathe. Diesel (even biodiesel) is a dirtier-burning fuel and North America has more problems with smog than Europe. There’s nothing shameful about trying to address that.
Having been in major German, French and Italian cities during rush hour, I can vouch that diesel, without decent filtration, is awful. In Los Angeles it would be a serious problem. For the same reason, VW/Audi can’t sell their lean-burn gas engines here, either.
VW could choose to sell the Euro-spec car outside CARB zones only, but darn it, if those states aren’t also a) the same that buy more cars and b) demographically inclined towards VW.
Thanks Sacramento! =P
The people of California could vote in a more environmentally-hostile platform. The people of New York and the like that adopt CARB could vote in regimes who don’t want to follow California.
at psarhjinian
You are very right. diesel exaust is auful. There is a problem in europe with it. Evryone has diesel and the exhaust produce cancer.
Most European countries are governated by morons (especially Belgium )
Italy already has a solution. Something like cash for clunglers for people that give back theyr old dieselcars and buy cars on Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)
People who drive diesel will be penalized with more tax.
This type of test leave me always puzzled.
I own a 2000 Golf TDI manual, 160K miles
With some attention but not using hyper miler techniques, my tank yields 53 to 59 MPG.
I often travel for business in Europe and I always rent diesel cars. My week worth of travel is usually around 1200 km, most with significant city traffic and elevation change.
Here are the latest three car I rented:
Fiat Bravo TD manual: 4.7 l/100 km (50 MPG)
Ford Focus 1.8 TD manual: 4.2 l/100 km (56 MPG)
Bmw 118Td Auto: 5.0 l/100km (47.6 MPG)
So my question, how in the world do these tests achieve such low numbers? Should we talk of hypo-milers instead of hypermilers?
The Fusion hybrid is as American as they come (US design, North American manufacturing). Maybe you should brush up on geography before you get back to saving the world.
BTW . . . “again?” Maybe you should bone up on history as well.
But can you anser me why North America in the years 2006-2008 builted bigger and bigger cars until they got overweighted and oversized?
I was visiting family in New York and in the (2008)streets I saw mostly smart japanese cars like the Camry Hibrid and the beautiful
Infinity. GM instead was building cars (ugly boxy SUV) no one wanted, why?
Also note… besides the theoretical heavy right feet of the testers, there’s also a fuel economy penalty when you take into account the smaller American gallon versus the Imperial gallon.
Fiat Bravo TD manual: 4.7 l/100 km (50 MPG)
Ford Focus 1.8 TD manual: 4.2 l/100 km (56 MPG)
Bmw 118Td Auto: 5.0 l/100km (47.6 MPG)
Which one did you like best?
I have to say I enjoyed the Bmw a lot. I drove about 200km up and down winding roads on the Italian mountains and it was a blast. I wish I could have tested the same car with the other 3 engine settings.
The automatic transmission had two position, economy and sport. However I sometime I did not agree with the automatic behavior, but I guess that is the price to pay.
@niky
besides the theoretical heavy right feet of the testers, there’s also a fuel economy penalty when you take into account the smaller American gallon versus the Imperial gallon.
1. Nobody uses Imperial gallons but the British
2. I would guess that most TTAC readers own a calculator and/or a computer and are able to convert between Imperial MPG, American MPG and l/100km, because that’s stuff you learn in school…
3. Whenever I post fuel Economy figures in MPG, it’s American MPG because TTAC is mostly populated by American readers.
@svik
I have to say I enjoyed the Bmw a lot. I drove about 200km up and down winding roads on the Italian mountains and it was a blast. I wish I could have tested the same car with the other 3 engine settings.
The automatic transmission had two position, economy and sport. However I sometime I did not agree with the automatic behavior, but I guess that is the price to pay.
The obvious solution is the 118d with the manual transmission. I own one and love it. The 120d only feels quicker on the Autobahn, but i don’t like the shorter gearing in it. The 123d is a beast.
Ah. Just making sure. We always have an awful ruckus when discussing MPG on another site… since half the members are Brit and half are American.
Too bad we don’t get the other 1-series diesels where I live… but I’ve sampled the 120d and it’s an absolute joy to drive. I only regret not being able to try the newer ones with the lighter engine blocks… as you can really feel the weight difference between the older diesels and the gasoline units when driving hard.
Oh geez, here we go again….
Diesel pimps who point out the ‘hybrid premium’, will conveniently leave out of debates any mention diesel premium – more expensive engine taking more expensive fuel.
The Prius has been around for a decade now, and their design department doesn’t seem quite as constrained as other car companies’ (as in, they’re free to make it as aerodynamic as they please without worrying too much about aesthetic, to the point where their functional design is now a social indicator). Their engineers meanwhile have had plenty of opportunity to fine-tune the underlying drivetrain, so it’s no wonder that it does so well. It’s a difficult car to compete against.
That said, only the Prius and Insight are really in the same class — the others target different buyers, albeit those with a few similar fuel economy goals.
did the mini breakdown in the city?
Was the TDI a manual or auto? In real world you need the stick to get good numbers with a TDI.
When I ran mine o D2 or BD made from pure canola I used to get 50+ all the time. The crappy economy has my WVO sources using cheaper veg-oils so my numbers are way down this year, but they still look way better than what is shown above.
Then again mine is a 2002 which is pre-2009 emissions. The latest TDIs seem to have taken a big hit on that.
It’s a shame the MINI-D isn’t available here in the US.
–chuck
Wow…where did Ford pull the Fusion Hybrid numbers from? They are not even close to the EPA mileage (someone probably got paid…)
What should also be factored in is price. The Fusion Hybrid, for instance, cost an outrageous $28K starting…or a base Fusion costs $19,270
$9,000 will buy a lot of options or a lot of gasoline. And at that price point, the Fusion Hybrid will sell as well as dirty socks. Especially when non-hybrid cars are clearly more efficient.
Here is the starting price for each:
Mini: $18,550
Insight: $19,800
Prius: $22,000
TDI: $22,270
Fusion Hybrid: $27,995
What bodily orfice did they pull those Mini Cooper numbers from? I’m averaging 32 MPG on my mixed-cycle commute, and can pull 40 MPG on long highway runs with nothing more than cruise control. I’m not hyper-miling by any means, but I’m besting their numbers without even trying.
Interesting report.
My friend’s 03 Jetta TDI gets a real 50 mpg. Maybe the newer, more powerful engine in today’s TDI just isn’t as efficient – trading some economy for more quiet and driveability.
The Mini made a pretty good showing for a conventional car.
What of prices, 0-60 times, ride & handling, useable volume?
[Edit: seeing the base prices posted by P71_CrownVic, I’d say the Fusion isn’t a contender unless you really want the larger passenger volume.]
Declaring the Prius the ‘greenest’ car doesn’t account for total life cycle costs, but it does impress within the boundaries of this test.
The TDI still gets great gas mileage and is the best “green” choice for car guys. The 2.0t wolfsburg and the TDI make the GLI irrelevant in my opinion.
P71_CrownVic you don’t get to lie with numbers excluding destination charges from all the vehicles except the Fusion Hybrid which is $27,270. The Prius is 22,750 with destination.
The Fusion costs more because its bigger (18 inches longer), faster (Fusion 8sec 0-60, Prius 9.8sec 0-60) , more refined and WAY more loaded then a base Prius II. Four wheel disc brakes, Bluetooth, heated power mirrors, front power seats, rear parking sensors, 6-CD Changer, iPod/USB integration, Sync and Satellite radio, Dual zone auto climate control, auto headlights, auto dimming rear view mirror are all standard on the Fusion and non-existent on a Prius II.
Hard not to be impressed by the balance of the Prius design. Talk about consistency in different environments! Just enough battery and electrics to bring slow/fast and stop/go mileage in line with gasoline engine highway efficiency, while being just big enough, and just cheap enough, for most people most of the time. Doesn’t hurt that it doesn’t break down, either, or in any other way gives its owners much to complain about.
malcolmmacauley, Mini city: 30.1 mpg
chuck: VW with a stick. For what it’s worth, the newest automatics are so efficient, that some of them actually test higher than sticks on the EPA test.
Yes, as I’ve written before, the latest “clean” diesels lost about 1/4 of their efficiency advantage over gas engines. But with the current price parity of diesel with gas, the economics of diesels certainly are better than a year ago. To each their own.
The Fusion Hybrid is consistently underperforming its city rating in every real-world test I’ve seen. I suspect that Ford tweaked it to get a high number on the test, but in real driving its no better than the similar, but lower EPA rated Camry hybrid. They both get about 34-36 mpg.
Fusion is rated 41 city/36 highway, so it matches the EPA highway # but significantly misses the city #.
Insight is rated at 40 city/43 highway, so it beats the EPA city # but significantly misses the highway number.
There are many variables in calculating city economy; apparently this test doesn’t match up terribly well with EPA methodology. The gap on the Insight’s highway number is more peculiar, since a steady-speed test should be very consistent.
Just for comparison, I pulled up the EPA test cycle numbers from fueleconomy.gov. All automatic tranny.
Vehicle, City, Highway, Combined
Prius, 51,48,50
Insight, 40,43,41
Fusion Hybrid, 41,36,39
Jetta TDI (sedan), 30,42,34
Mini Cooper, 25,34,29
The significant amount of mountain driving in the Edmunds test is probably quite different from the EPA cycle. The LA to Vegas route includes some serious climbing. Such driving is common in the Western US, but impossible to find in the Eastern US (home to both the auto industry and the EPA).
Interestingly, the Edmunds testing resulted in a much smaller gap between the Prius and the Insight than the EPA test cycle. That is the standout thing I notice in these results. The Insight was only 11% more fuel thirsty in Edmunds’ overall result than the Prius was while in EPA cycles the Prius has an overall 18% advantage, most of which comes from its supposed 22% advantage in a city cycle.
BTW, Consumer Reports also does their own fuel economy testing with their own city and highway test cycles. Considering CR’s location in Connecticut I would guess that these do not include significant mountain driving.
How does the Mini get 38.5 on the Back Roads portion, but only 33.3 on the Highway? A small vehicle with a conventional gas engine should get better mileage on the highway than on a route with steep grades, shouldn’t it?
quote: Declaring the Prius the ‘greenest’ car doesn’t account for total life cycle costs, but it does impress within the boundaries of this test.
Total life cycle costs… Are you referring to those absurd carbon footprint analysis, that have been debunked 1000 times?
@Paul Niedermeyer :
For what it’s worth, the newest automatics are so efficient, that some of them actually test higher than sticks on the EPA test.
Yes. On the EPA test. Now go to a fuel economy monitoring website and search for any kind of car, same model year, and do a search for average economy with automatics and manuals.
Average BMW 118d manual: 6.14 l/100km (38.3 mpg)
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/0-Alle_Modelle.html?esearch=1&fueltype=1&vehicletype=1&constyear_s=2008&constyear_e=2009&gearing=1&exactmodel=118d
Average BMW 118d automatic: 6.84 l/100km (34.4 mpg)
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/6-BMW/0-Alle_Modelle.html?esearch=1&fueltype=1&vehicletype=1&constyear_s=2008&constyear_e=2009&gearing=2&exactmodel=118d
That’s a modern 6-speed automatic at work.
Or let’s look at the average last-gen Golf with the 1.9 TDI – that’s when the super-efficient 7-speed DSG became available.
2008 Golf 1.9 TDI manual: 5,59 l/100km (42 mpg)
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?esearch=1&fueltype=1&vehicletype=1&constyear_s=2008&constyear_e=2008&power_s=70&power_e=80&gearing=1
2008 Golf 1.9 TDI 7-speed DSG: 5.77 l/100km (40.7 mpg)
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?esearch=1&fueltype=1&vehicletype=1&constyear_s=2008&constyear_e=2008&power_s=70&power_e=80&gearing=4
That’s for average drivers. In the hands of somebody who cares, a manual gives you a higher influence on fuel economy than any autobox ever will.
I am concerned that some writers use the words, “fuel economy” and “efficiency” interchangeably. I think there is a difference between the two based on what the whole vehicle provides and how it achieves it’s goals. For example, a truck may be more efficient than a run-about, yet still get worse fuel economy.
@ Brett Woods
Yes you’re right. The fuel efficiency of a particular vehicle will determine the economy figure.
Generally (and I use that word loosly with the VW) the diesel will last longer (in terms of milage). Should’t that be considered in the “Life Cycle Costs”?
Diesels usually require less maintenance than traditional ICE as well (though you pay for that in the initial premium and in the eventual maintenance as well, I suppose).
I’m not arguing the validity of the test – just thowing questions to it.
The EPA numbers are crock because the EPA allows the automatic to decide when to shift and yet forces the manual to shift at certain points, whether or not this is the best for economy.
I’ve driven MT, DCT and AT models of modern turbodiesels back-to-back, and the MT still gives the best economy. Always. Despite the fact that diesels have enough torque to overcome the inertial inefficiency of the torque converter. The only automatics that can compete with manuals in terms of efficiency are CVTs… and only the smaller ones, at that (the cute little rubber bands Honda uses… errh… used… for their overseas Fit. Larger, more mechanical CVTs, aren’t much better than regular automatics.
–
Not particularly surprised by the test. It’s all in how you drive, and if you’re driving on the highway at a speed where the engine is out of its comfortable range… for example, driving a turbocharged 1.6 with low gearing at high speeds… it’s not going to be as efficient as it could be otherwise. That’s why the Cooper’s highway numbers suck.
–
As for the Jetta… I’d have wagered 47-50 would be possible with the pre-2009… but I’ve heard that new emissions regulations force them to use an extra injection event to clean the catalyst, so maybe that’s bringing the numbers down, somewhat.
Another issue here (and everywhere in any diesel/full hybrid matchup):
A full hybrid forces you to hyper mile. It won’t drive any other way…either by being so boring that you give up trying to goose it or by not letting you goose it.
If you drive a diesel consciously like that the mileage are the same…or maybe even better.
With a full hybrid, Big Brother is determining the driving style.
Thanks Paul for “nothing but the facts” post on MPF for automatics vs. stick.
Kurt –
1. Diesels usually require less maintenance than traditional ICE as well
2. Generally (and I use that word loosly with the VW) the diesel will last longer
Turbodiesel vs NA gasoline engine – turbocharged cars have more additional parts that are prone to failure in the long run, turbocharger itself, various valves that control the turbocharging process and electronic sensors that are related to boost pressure , rubber piping that are part of the intercooler system etc. Turbochargers are very sensitive to oil quality and with irregular maintanence or long oil change intervals or misuse (immediately shutting down the engine in the gas station for example after highway driving) lot of problems usually occur after 100.000+ miles of car usage, or even earlier.
Here is a nice list of things that can and probably will go wrong with the famous VAG 1.9TDI engine:
http://www.tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-8.html
I was a owner of 1999 Passat Variant with 85kW 1,9TDI 5-speed manual for 3 years. Bought it with 110.000 miles on the odo, sold it with 140.000 miles on the odo. I regulary maintained my car, but most of those things in that list happened to my car.
@ Stewart Dean
With a full hybrid, Big Brother is determining the driving style.
Not sure what you mean by that? Have you driven a Prius, Camry Hybrid or GS450h? You put your foot down and it accelerates forwards. Seemed fairly linear to me in all of those cars; amazingly so actually, especially the GS.
I’d say the Camry Hybrid brakes felt “different”, but nothing that lingered, or I couldn’t adapt to in much the same way as jumping from one car to another.
Why the Mini (as opposed to, say, the Fit or Yaris) as the standard-bearer for gas-only cars? It’s not really all that fuel efficient for it’s class and interior space.
With a full hybrid, Big Brother is determining the driving style.
Or to put it another way:
“With TDI, you drive the car. With Hybrid, the car drives you…”
“Not particularly surprised by the test. It’s all in how you drive, and if you’re driving on the highway at a speed where the engine is out of its comfortable range… for example, driving a turbocharged 1.6 with low gearing at high speeds… it’s not going to be as efficient as it could be otherwise. That’s why the Cooper’s highway numbers suck.”
—
Mini Coopers are naturally aspirated, only the Cooper S and JCW’s are turbocharged.
As per the low gearing – I can only speak for the Cooper S, with a top speed of 150, I can’t really call that geared low.
Sounds great. Of those cars, the only ones I might want to make a similar road trip in would be the Fusion or the Jetta. A road trip in a Prius or MINI does not sound appealing.
Now, which one of those cars appeals to the folks who are truly ambivalent about cars, don’t want to make an eco-weenie statement and just want to go somewhere, such as “work” or “church” or “the grocery store?” That’s the Fusion.
Diesels usually require less maintenance than traditional ICE
This is offset by the fact VWs usually require more maintenance than Toyota.
Just another data point. I have 2003 Golf TDI, manual. After 275000km (171000mi and all of them mine) I am still averaging 42.7mpg. On a good tank (i.e. my wife driving), we can get up to 47mpg.
I’ve heard that, post-north america fuel upgrade (2007), the new VW TDIs have gone down in mileage. When they go from 1.9L to 2.0L and 90hp to 140hp, it’s hard not to expect some sort of fuel economy hit…. :)
I have a nearly 10 year old Accord with 4cyl vtec that routinely gets 33mpg highway and 23-25 city. (And the 33mpg highway was recently acheived driving through Montana mountains.)
My Accord has long ago been paid for, so even if gasoline were at $4.00/gallon it would take a lot of driving to make any of these vehicles worth the cost.
That said, my real world numbers on the Accord are better than what the EPA rated it back when new, and I’m sure with sensible driving I could make any of the tested cars do better, but porportionally to what Edmunds recorded, i.e. the Prius would top the mpg’s and the Mini would take up the rear.
@ vento97
….With Hybrid, the car drives you
No doubt about it, those Fusions are so smart it just knows when to overtake. There’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Ford should consider using that fact in advertising, but as you point out, maybe not mention “Big Brother”.
In that highway test the cars look pretty close together. Would slipstream/drag not affect numbers at that distance? Would the first car suffer? Should they have been 50 feet apart?
I’d take a Honda Fit over any of these if I wanted a 4 door and good fuel economy – and have a car that is fun to drive. For a $6k-$8k difference in price from a Prius or Insight it would take well over a decade to make up that price difference in gasoline.
Also not sure why they call the Insight a “mild” hybrid. That was the GM belt driven hybrids that did nothing more than shut the engine off at stoplights. Which in and of itself is easy to implement and we should have it on normal ICE cars.
I think lot of people are missing the point here (I think Edmunds did to):
Here are 5 great cars that can provide terrific mileage no matter what kind of car you want to drive. Why isn’t the fact that we even have these options the top story here?
Want conspicuous non-consumption? Prius
Want a normal family sedan? Fusion
Want a sporty hauler? Jetta
Want a go kart? Mini
The only one really lost in the mix is the Insight, because it’s just a Prius clone that isn’t as good as the Prius.
Otherwise, this is all good news to me…
phhff, the honda fit is an overrated, overpriced econo box. Engine has no go, seats are thin, plastic looks well, cheap, and is used everywhere. Doors are thin, engine is whiny. Handling? phhff, artfically light, better then some but not great.
Sigh. Even in an article this clear-cut, the FUD still survives.
That said, only the Prius and Insight are really in the same class — the others target different buyers, albeit those with a few similar fuel economy goals.
Want conspicuous non-consumption? Prius
How many times do you have to hear on this very site the clear and objective reasons many people bought the Prius before it sinks in? My guess is ‘never’, because some folks have some kind of belief in a vested interest in not doing so.
The ‘normal’ Fusion Hybrid’s rear seat doesn’t fold down. If you want a family-sized car with very good mileage that can hold a lot of stuff when you want to go to Home Depot, and this is the kicker, like I and many others have said we did, which one are you going to pick?
None of this should be considered a slam on the Fusion Hybrid, which is actually a very good piece of engineering. They did a real good job competing with the Camry Hybrid, which has the same problem for me (as did the Civic Hybrid, the more relevant example of ‘normal’ that got its ass whooped for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with looks and everything to do with utility).
@jaje :
Also not sure why they call the Insight a “mild” hybrid. That was the GM belt driven hybrids that did nothing more than shut the engine off at stoplights. Which in and of itself is easy to implement and we should have it on normal ICE cars.
We do have it on normal ICE cars. All manual transmission 4-cylinder BMWs like my 118d have it. All minis have it. Many 4-cylinder Audis have it. Volkswagen has introduced it in some models. Mercedes too. Smart has it (they call it “MHD”). Kia and Hyundai have it as an option in some models. The Porsche Panamera has it. Some new Toyotas have it, and Im sure a lot of the others have it too.
I like it. Silence at a red light feels good, and it restarts so quickly that you don’t have to “learn” the system.
@M1EK :
The ‘normal’ Fusion Hybrid’s rear seat doesn’t fold down. If you want a family-sized car with very good mileage that can hold a lot of stuff when you want to go to Home Depot, and this is the kicker, like I and many others have said we did, which one are you going to pick?
People who care about practicality buy a station wagon or a hatchback, not a sedan.
The big story nobody is commenting on is that the cars’ trip computers are LYING.
The Prius is the worst offender. Plenty of Prius drivers state that they get mpg in the high 50s. Sure, if the car is overstating your actual mileage by 8mpg and you believe the car.
That’s a scam if I’ve ever seen one.
Edmunds’ results would mean more if they were expressed as gallons used instead of miles/gallon. The length of the test was about 785 miles. Therefore, gallons used were
Prius 16.5
Insight 18.6
Jetta 20.6
Fusion 21.0
Mini 22.8
The difference between Prius and Mini is 6.3 gallons. That’s big as a percentage, but small in absolute terms especially when compared to a truck or SUV that can’t break 20 mpg. For six gallons, I’d rather drive a Mini than a Prius.
Having recently bought a Fusion Hybrid to appease my environment loving boyfriend, I can attest the Fusions figures in this test are on the money. However, if the trip computer is to be believed (I haven’t had it long enough to calculate based on how much fuel I actually put in it), it performs best in extra-urban driving. I usually get 43-46 mpg during my commute on Northern Virginia’s 35 – 55 mph roads, which beats the pants off what it achieves in DC stop & go traffic (anywhere from 20 – 40 mpg depending on red lights).
Based on Combined mileage figures, at $4 gas the worst case MINI cost $3.20 more per 100 miles than the Prius. Factor in using the recommended (not required) Premium for the MINI vs Regular for the Prius and you are at something like $3.50/100 miles. At 15,000 per year that’s $525/year more.
Forget about how long it would take for the more expensive Prius to pay for itself, since I don’t believe I have ever seen a smiling Prius driver, I’d probably take the MINI (or if I needed the extra room the Fusion).
I’d still buy the TDI as its cheaper than the Fusion Hybrid, has more room than the Mini and is way more fun to drive than the Insight and Prius. It drives like a normal car will need no battery maintenance, does not come with narrow no-grip tires and is decently quick in traffic.
Also not sure why they call the Insight a “mild” hybrid.
Because it is. Honda’s IMA system is effectively the same as GM’s BAS. To be fair, BAS and IMA don’t just do idle-stop, they also use the electric motor to assist the engine in turning the crankshaft.
gntlben: Do you have photos of the Fusion Hybrid somewhere? I’d like to see how they look in the real world.
And that’s a very expensive appeasement for someone you’re not married to. He must really be worth it!
Actually, I don’t believe C&D are relying on the trip meters… they’d be incredibly foolish to do so. Though, in my experience, some filler necks (the Prius’s, included) make accurate refilling so difficult that you need to drive a hell of a lot of miles to get an even halfway decent tank-to-tank reading.
rehposolihp :
August 13th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Mini Coopers are naturally aspirated, only the Cooper S and JCW’s are turbocharged.
As per the low gearing – I can only speak for the Cooper S, with a top speed of 150, I can’t really call that geared low.
Eep. That sucks, then. My 2 liter car, which weighs over four hundred pounds more, can get similar economy… and I hit 140 mph at redline.
michal1980 :
August 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am
phhff, the honda fit is an overrated, overpriced econo box. Engine has no go, seats are thin, plastic looks well, cheap, and is used everywhere. Doors are thin, engine is whiny. Handling? phhff, artfically light, better then some but not great.
The steering is, admittedly, complete shite, but it’s what you can do with it (first gen… not the watered down second gen) regardless of the steering that makes it great. It is tinny. It is whiny… yet, like a ten year old Miata, you can feel every bump and dip in the road through the seat of your pants… you can fling the little thing down a mountain road like there’s no tomorrow… and… if you’re lucky enough to live in a place where they sell the smaller engined ones, you can wring 50 mpg out of it on the highway… though I’ve occassionaly seen 35-45 mpg out of the 15.
The only current supermini better at being an old fashioned warm-hatch is the Suzuki Swift. But you don’t get it there.
And it still has electric steering. Everything does, nowadays. It’s a pandemic.
Being a Mazda owner (as Mazda is one of the few companies which has figured out how to do electric power steering right, with the 6 and MX-5), I’m not really fond of the little Honda’s helm… and Honda seems to have forgotten how to make comfortable seats, but I dearly love the Fit, and it’s on my short-list of “gotta have it” cars.
@Brock et al:
My point wasn’t to compair the possibly unreliable VW to the totally reliable Prius. My point was that diesels “generally” last longer than an equivellent ICE.
I also pointed out that when you purchase a diesel powered vehicle, it costs more that the equivellent ICE, thus MAYBE it all equals out in the end.
An economist might call this TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP.
The american dinosaurs cars will die out and dissapear.
All of this cars are japanese or european. whoo haa
We ll save the world once again
There might have been another point being made by Edmunds which everybody has lost sight of. These are all good cars, with each having some strong selling points to the American public, and they are all proof that you don’t need large v8 powered BOF SUVs to haul your ass through strenuous terrain. All 5 of these cars do that, and manage to use plenty less fuel than a Tahoe or Expedition.
Yes, yes, I know if you’re towing a trailer, or you have 5 kids and an entire litter of dogs, you need the power and space of a ginormous SUV. But let’s be realistic here, how many super large vehicles do you see on the highways or suburban transit corridors towing trailers? Certainly less than half if my weekend on the highways of my home province are anything to go by. Within a 50 kilometer distance on the way to the cabin, we counted only three crewcab trucks out of almost one hundred towing anything. And to be honest, I could have towed a small trailer with one ATV on it behind my Focus.
I think this Edmund’s test is proof that we would be better off driving something small and thrifty.
Paul Niedermeyer :
chuck: VW with a stick. For what it’s worth, the newest automatics are so efficient, that some of them actually test higher than sticks on the EPA test.
Thanks for the data. It’s a shame what has been done to the TDI to meet current CARB regs. 31.6 MPG city? That’s awful. My 2002 TDI has never done worse than low-40s, ever. Even in serious stop-n-go Seattle traffic with A/C running full blast, such as our recent triple-digit heat wave here in the PNW.
The other shame is that there is only really ONE Diesel option on the US economy car market, and really only two others in the luxury market (335d & E-class.) The wide range of Diesel options in Europe represent a cornucopia of 40-70 MPG machines that we can’t touch.
Thanks Sacramento! =P
–chuck
Buick61:
I don’t have any pictures of it, but parked next to a colleagues Fusion SEL it looks identical (save for the Hybrid badging).
As it was a “we” purchase, looks like a normal car, drives like a normal car, doesn’t kill my back on my 50 mile RT commute (I traded in my Miata), and has a ton of cool gadgets, I don’t really mind the appeasement so much. He’s worth it anyway though…
gntlben:
Wait until the weather improves and it’ll get better mileage in DC. I was there last week, so I know you need full-time A/C this time of year, which means little/no engine shutoff at the red lights. Come fall, the in-town driving will give at least as good of mileage as the commute.
I’ve only got a few tanks in, but in my experience with the Escape the computer is 1.5-2 mpg optimistic. I’m averaging 35 in mixed, hilly driving, so I was a bit surprised to see Edmunds do not much better in the supposedly-more-efficient Fusion. They must’ve had the A/C blasting in Vegas as well.
The Fusion’s backseat not folding down was a deal-breaker for me. I’d lived with that before and knew I didn’t want to again. I’m glad I went with the same powertrain in a more-useful body.
Thanks for the data. It’s a shame what has been done to the TDI to meet current CARB regs. 31.6 MPG city? That’s awful. My 2002 TDI has never done worse than low-40s, ever. Even in serious stop-n-go Seattle traffic with A/C running full blast, such as our recent triple-digit heat wave here in the PNW.
Yeah. It’s a crying shame that diesel engines have to be almost as clean as the dirtiest legal gas engines these days. That’s just awful.
Thanks for the data. It’s a shame what has been done to the TDI to meet current CARB regs.
The car has to meet emissions targets that make the air safer to breathe. Diesel (even biodiesel) is a dirtier-burning fuel and North America has more problems with smog than Europe. There’s nothing shameful about trying to address that.
Having been in major German, French and Italian cities during rush hour, I can vouch that diesel, without decent filtration, is awful. In Los Angeles it would be a serious problem. For the same reason, VW/Audi can’t sell their lean-burn gas engines here, either.
VW could choose to sell the Euro-spec car outside CARB zones only, but darn it, if those states aren’t also a) the same that buy more cars and b) demographically inclined towards VW.
Thanks Sacramento! =P
The people of California could vote in a more environmentally-hostile platform. The people of New York and the like that adopt CARB could vote in regimes who don’t want to follow California.
That they haven’t is democracy in action.
Gosh darnit, if people don’t value air quality!
at psarhjinian
You are very right. diesel exaust is auful. There is a problem in europe with it. Evryone has diesel and the exhaust produce cancer.
Most European countries are governated by morons (especially Belgium )
Italy already has a solution. Something like cash for clunglers for people that give back theyr old dieselcars and buy cars on Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)
People who drive diesel will be penalized with more tax.
This type of test leave me always puzzled.
I own a 2000 Golf TDI manual, 160K miles
With some attention but not using hyper miler techniques, my tank yields 53 to 59 MPG.
I often travel for business in Europe and I always rent diesel cars. My week worth of travel is usually around 1200 km, most with significant city traffic and elevation change.
Here are the latest three car I rented:
Fiat Bravo TD manual: 4.7 l/100 km (50 MPG)
Ford Focus 1.8 TD manual: 4.2 l/100 km (56 MPG)
Bmw 118Td Auto: 5.0 l/100km (47.6 MPG)
So my question, how in the world do these tests achieve such low numbers? Should we talk of hypo-milers instead of hypermilers?
@svik
You have a light foot. Magazine testers often don’t.
Auto Motor und Sport’s fuel economy numbers are consistently 20% worse than my own, while other magazines report numbers much too good to be true.
-> it’s how you drive, not only what you drive.
Fiat Bravo TD manual: 4.7 l/100 km (50 MPG)
Ford Focus 1.8 TD manual: 4.2 l/100 km (56 MPG)
Bmw 118Td Auto: 5.0 l/100km (47.6 MPG)
Which one did you like best?
@alessio215
The Fusion hybrid is as American as they come (US design, North American manufacturing). Maybe you should brush up on geography before you get back to saving the world.
BTW . . . “again?” Maybe you should bone up on history as well.
@dkulmacz
Yes you ‘re right
But can you anser me why North America in the years 2006-2008 builted bigger and bigger cars until they got overweighted and oversized?
I was visiting family in New York and in the (2008)streets I saw mostly smart japanese cars like the Camry Hibrid and the beautiful
Infinity. GM instead was building cars (ugly boxy SUV) no one wanted, why?
greetings
Also note… besides the theoretical heavy right feet of the testers, there’s also a fuel economy penalty when you take into account the smaller American gallon versus the Imperial gallon.
Mirko Reinhardt :
August 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
-> it’s how you drive, not only what you drive.
Fiat Bravo TD manual: 4.7 l/100 km (50 MPG)
Ford Focus 1.8 TD manual: 4.2 l/100 km (56 MPG)
Bmw 118Td Auto: 5.0 l/100km (47.6 MPG)
Which one did you like best?
I have to say I enjoyed the Bmw a lot. I drove about 200km up and down winding roads on the Italian mountains and it was a blast. I wish I could have tested the same car with the other 3 engine settings.
The automatic transmission had two position, economy and sport. However I sometime I did not agree with the automatic behavior, but I guess that is the price to pay.
@niky
besides the theoretical heavy right feet of the testers, there’s also a fuel economy penalty when you take into account the smaller American gallon versus the Imperial gallon.
1. Nobody uses Imperial gallons but the British
2. I would guess that most TTAC readers own a calculator and/or a computer and are able to convert between Imperial MPG, American MPG and l/100km, because that’s stuff you learn in school…
3. Whenever I post fuel Economy figures in MPG, it’s American MPG because TTAC is mostly populated by American readers.
@svik
I have to say I enjoyed the Bmw a lot. I drove about 200km up and down winding roads on the Italian mountains and it was a blast. I wish I could have tested the same car with the other 3 engine settings.
The automatic transmission had two position, economy and sport. However I sometime I did not agree with the automatic behavior, but I guess that is the price to pay.
The obvious solution is the 118d with the manual transmission. I own one and love it. The 120d only feels quicker on the Autobahn, but i don’t like the shorter gearing in it. The 123d is a beast.
Ah. Just making sure. We always have an awful ruckus when discussing MPG on another site… since half the members are Brit and half are American.
Too bad we don’t get the other 1-series diesels where I live… but I’ve sampled the 120d and it’s an absolute joy to drive. I only regret not being able to try the newer ones with the lighter engine blocks… as you can really feel the weight difference between the older diesels and the gasoline units when driving hard.