Yes, it's amazing to think that someone could actually get more than 19 mpg out of a car that had an EPA estimated rating of 18 mpg city. Never mind the fact that the same car was rated at 27 (estimated) and 35 (unadjusted) mpg highway, and the driver never did any city driving at all, and was very conscious about vehicle maintenance and economic driving. It's impossible I tell you, and anyone who dare disagree is a liar. It seems as though certain posters have no agenda other than to try to start flame wars.

I've been observing how people drive for more years than I'd like to admit. It seems almost genetic. Some drivers think they always have to depress a pedal -- accelerator/brake/repeat. One time I asked a friend why she didn't just coast up to the stop sign. She looked at me like I was from Mars. I learned NOT to comment on other people's driving habits, since most do take it personally.

Instantaneous MPG readouts present some low-hanging fruit for improved driving. It's better to have a computer telling someone they have a lead foot instead of their know-it-all friend. :-)

Yes, it's amazing to think that someone could actually get more than 19 mpg out of a car that had an EPA estimated rating of 18 mpg city. Never mind the fact that the same car was rated at 27 (estimated) and 35 (unadjusted) mpg highway, and the driver never did any city driving at all, and was very conscious about vehicle maintenance and economic driving. It's impossible I tell you, and anyone who dare disagree is a liar. It seems as though certain posters have no agenda other than to try to start flame wars.

You're full of crap, so you claim I want to start a flame war? Nice try, Bastard.

Please calculate the probability that a car rated at 19 mpg will achieve 30 mpg on average.

The '87 Delta 88 is rated at 25 mpg highway, btw, not 27 mpg. As for no city driving, did your Dad ride with his cruise control on in his driveway? Never encountered a stop sign? More fairy tales from you.

well said dwf:
"When did we decide that our 4-door sedans, minivans, SUVs and pickups need to have sports car performance."

This is the crux of much of what is wrong with motoring in the "west" and the USA in particular - who decided that more or less all car types need high performance ?

If people backed off on performance, most of which is just numbers for boys in magazines, we could have considerably more economical cars, and still reach our destinations in the time it takes now.

I guess it is the genius of Detroit marketing that has everyone driving cars about 1.5 - 2x more powerful than they need.

If I put in the effort my 99 Mitsubishi Mirage LS coupe 5spd can manage 42-43mpg with 99% highway driving (avg speed - 65mph). This is of course after significant modifications which cost more than what the car is worth today. With 60-70% city driving I manage 35-36mpg.

Originally the vehicle was rated at somewhere near 27mpg city and 35mpg highway.

Just to make this easier for you, Bastard, here's the basic math.

30/19-1= 57.9%

So, start by going to Greenhybrid and looking at their fuel economy data. Compare the average number with the high outliers. Tell me how many vehicles and tanks in their database exceed the average number by 57.9% or more. Right now I've found 5 vehicles and 14 tanks out of 5,594 vehicles and 65,937 tanks. So, that comes to a 0.02-0.09% probability, depending on whether you want to count tanks or vehicles. Keep in mind, too, that this dataset includes hypermilers who are doing completely whacked things to get high mileage. Note that the low ratio of tanks to vehicles also indicates that no vehicle data that's been frequently updated meets the criteria.

Like I said, you're full of it.

Jack, stop being a DICK.

Here's what was originally said:

"Kevin, my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88."

Let's examine this for a second, using maybe 3 or 4 neurons to do so:

He used the word "REGULARLY".

That is as subjective a term as you can get. So yes, if he regularly drove it on the highway, and regularly kept it below 65 or 55, and was regularly steady on the throttle, 30MPG on that meter is not at all unreasonable.

He in no way said that this was the average his dad was getting.

My parents had a 1984 Crown Vic station wagon for 18 years. Had an LED computer with real-time and average MPG. They were always so glad when it was getting a consistent 25mpg and bragged about it all the time. Even then I pointed out that it was only that way on the long stretches of interstate where my mom stayed in the right lane doing 50.

So Jack, stop being a DICK.

When your argument fails, whip out a sockpuppet troll. Yawn.

Hey douchebag, I'm on my own here.

So take that at face value and manup to making a fool of yourself for reading more into that original post than was actually there.

Jack, stop being a DICK.

Jack, I got my numbers from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/87guide.txt
The numbers for the delta 88 are:
Estimated: 18 City, 27 Hwy, 21 combined.
Unadjusted: 20 City, 35 Hwy, 25 combined.
This means that whoever tested the car for the EPA achieved 35 mpg on their highway test cycle, which is 5 miles per gallon better than what I'm claiming my father used to often achieve driving at 45-55 mph on open roads during his commute to work. If you don't like it, take it up with the federal government. I'm not going to get sucked into another one of your infantile flame wars. Go ahead and have the last word boy.

The numbers for the delta 88 are

No, under the current EPA methodology, it is 16/25/19.

This means that whoever tested the car for the EPA achieved 35 mpg on their highway test cycle, which is 5 miles per gallon better than what I'm claiming my father used to often achieve driving at 45-55 mph on open roads during his commute to work.

You realize they do this in a lab, right? That there's a reason that unadjusted numbers aren't used in final figures?

All of this is neither here nor there. While it is remotely possible that somehow your father achieved miraculous fuel economy, it is HIGHLY improbable. I've already shown that exceeding the average by 58% happens 2/10,000 of the time -- and that's with outlier data that is highly suspect (either because of the small number of tanks) or because it's someone intentionally using hypermile techniques. So, in reality, in real driving, I am confident that it is functionally impossible to average 58% more than the rated average.

I'm not going to get sucked into another one of your infantile flame wars. Go ahead and have the last word boy.

No problem, boy. Thanks for losing.

dwf, I don't find it hard to believe that your dad was able to achieve those MPG figures. When looking at individual cases, it has less to do with probability/statistics, and more to do with driver intent & skill, and the vehicle in question.

As you have said, your dad did most of his (intentionally economically minded) driving in a well maintained vehicle on the open road at lower average speeds which likely happen to be very close to the vehicle's maximum fuel economy potential at cruise.

As a point of reference, using a ScanGauge I plotted my own car's fuel consumption in top gear on cruise in 5 km/h increments, and at the equivalent of 47 mph, it returns fuel economy that is 33% above the car's EPA "highway" rating. At 40 mph it's 49% over EPA (using "old" EPA figures).

Sorry, my reply should have been addressed to Bob Bastard.

I'd like to see some kind of controlled study that shows the effect over time, if any, on fuel consumption by giving drivers fuel economy instrumentation.

I suspect that the difference is small but real, and worth pursuing (as does Nissan, obviously).

GCC has now reported on 2 automakers taking this approach - Nissan & Toyota (which has added an "Eco Drive Indicator" in all its JDM automatic-equipped cars). Both claim "trials" or studies that back their decisions, and it would be very interesting to know the details of the research.

Along similar lines, I'm aware of a controlled Ontario study that showed around a 5% decrease in energy consumption where homeowners simply had consumption meters/feedback installed inside their homes (with no other incentives to reduce energy use). I don't know the length of the study though (ie. if the change in behaviour was permanent).

Not to fan the flames any more, but in answer to the question, it was a 2001 Olds Aurora, 3.5L. And according to edmunds.com, it's rated at 19/28, probably under the old system.

And since some people drive ~50 miles to work at ~65mph with only a single acceleration up to speed, it is certainly within reach to get 30+mpg.

My new car is an '07 nissan sentra which is rated at 28/34 and also has a mileage computer. On one tank of fuel driving completely secondary highways (~45-55mph) with stop lights and towns along the way, I reached 37mpg. On the other end, I have also burned through a whole tank at 25mpg.
The point is, it comes down to driving style and conditions, I have average 32.5mpg now for the past 3 months of mixed driving.

Now Jack, pull out some bogus statistics and tell me I'm wrong. I love to watch idiots jam their feet in their mouths.

Now Jack, pull out some bogus statistics and tell me I'm wrong. I love to watch idiots jam their feet in their mouths.

Having a hissy?

Please indicate which of the statistics I've presented to this point are "bogus."

Kevin, my Dad used to regularly get 30 mpg out of his 3.8L V6 powered full sized 1987 Delta 88. I'm not sure what the EPA numbers were. Contrast this with, for example, the new Accords which are smaller weight wise, with smaller displacement engines, yet are rated at only low 20's mpg.

1987 Olds Delta 88 v 2007 Honda Accord (4cyl/auto)

Weight: Olds - 3,121, Honda - 3,191
HP: Olds - 150, Honda - 166
EPA Hwy: Olds - 25, Honda - 31
EPA Cmb: Olds - 19, Honda -25

Jack, stop being a DICK.

As they say, "when something's too good to be true, it's usually is."
EPA's old testing standard gived consistently better-than-average mpg rating than real-life, due to the fact that the cars are new and in good condition, no AC used, lower hwy speed used by the EPA than real-life hwy speed, and no short trips which waste energy warming up the engine. That's why EPA recently changed to a new testing standard reflecting real-life conditions, with lower mpg ratings for all cars.

When you kept getting better mpg than old EPA rating, check your odometer's accuracy. It may be optimistic by as much as 10% in some cars. A simple GPS device will do. I've found many optimistic speedometers and odometers that way.

Roger, that's a good point about odometer accuracy. That's something that no one mentioned. Another thing that we should remember is that the speed limit was 55 mph back in 1987. The higher average highway speeds are no doubt one of the reasons for the revision of the EPA numbers. Seeing someone barreling down the interstate at 95 mph in a Ford SuperDuty or Nissan Armada is something I don't recall seeing commonly back then.

That's something that no one mentioned. Another thing that we should remember is that the speed limit was 55 mph back in 1987. The higher average highway speeds are no doubt one of the reasons for the revision of the EPA numbers. Seeing someone barreling down the interstate at 95 mph in a Ford SuperDuty or Nissan Armada is something I don't recall seeing commonly back then.

They revised city numbers down a large amount as well.

People had big cars and sped in 1987, just like they do today. I recall seeing it commonly back then.

The reason the numbers have gotten revised downwards is more likely due to more congestion, including on highways, which means more stop-and-go driving, or at least more speed-changing.

2007 Camry Hybrid v 1987 Olds Delta 88

18% more weight
25% more power
79% higher fuel economy
5% higher price

Ah... the good old days.

2007 Camry Hybrid v 1987 base Camry (4 cyl 5spd):
EPA City: 2007 - 28, 1987 - 27
EPA Hwy: 2007 - 35, 1987 - 34

Ain't progress beautiful?

Hey Bob - here's an apple and an orange for you. Just like you like it.

2007 Camry Hybrid v 1987 base Camry (4 cyl 5spd):
EPA City: 2007 - 28, 1987 - 27
EPA Hwy: 2007 - 35, 1987 - 34

Ain't progress beautiful?

Bob, do you intentionally lie about numbers, or are you just incapable of going to the fueleconomy website of the EPA and getting the actual numbers?

Here in reality:

Camry Hybrid - 33/34/34
'87 Camry (manual) - 23/31/26
'87 Camry (auto) - 22/28/24

Since the Camry Hybrid doesn't come with a manual version, one properly compares the automatic to it.

31% more weight
63% more power
42% better fuel economy
3.0 inches higher
6.1 inches longer
6.9 inches longer wheelbase
4.4 inches wider
7% higher price

Much bigger, much stronger, and much higher fuel economy -- all at around the same price. All with super low emissions and excellent safety and quality.

Yes, progress is beautiful. Keep looking in your distorted rearview, Bob.