The Saturn Vue Greenline was left off of the report, is this due to the generation changeover?

When are the ULSD-compatible vehicles going to start hitting the market?

Am I the only one confused by the title of this post?

@ DRD T-bone -

I'm guessing the fueleconomy.gov database is out of date. Only the regular VUE is listed, not the Green Line option.

@ Jack -

the only diesel sedan on the fueleconomy.gov list is the M-B E320 Bluetec, which comes in at 23/32 MPG under the new procedures. I'm not 100% sure but I believe the numbers refer to gasoline equivalent rather than actual diesel fuel consumption.

The new T2B5 TDi's from VW are not yet listed.

@ stormy -

yes, it should read "highest fuel economy".

That title is stunningly wrong...........

Title is way wrong here....

The Vue would probably be #11 or so. It's fuel consumption is still a little more than the Escape/Tribute/Mariner hybrids, which placed 10th.

Per the article that just posted, the Vue Green Line will rate 25 city, 32 highway in the 2008 rating system, so it wouldn't make this list. The new article touts that it gets the highest highway economy of any SUV, but it's not even close to the economy of the Escape/Tribute/Mariner in the city.

Sorry, one afterthought after another. The Vue's combined economy (28) could tie it for 10th.

*** Yes, please, fix the title of this article! ***

The Prius remains head and shoulders above the rest, even with the revised EPA rating system. I love mine. 46 MPG is about right, I would guess, from watching my wife drive our Prius. (I average a little over 50 MPG, myself.)

What I was most surprised to see is the relatively lackluster performance of the Yaris, Corolla, and Fit. These are the #6 though #9 cars in today's market?

Back in 1989 I bought a Mercury Tracer hatchback, manual transmission, no air conditioner. The Mazda 323 was a similar car. I was told to expect 38 MPG highway, 32 city. In real-world driving, I got 37 MPG for almost the entire life of the car.

Admittedly, I'm a mileage-conscious driver, and the old EPA ratings can't be compared to the new ones. But is there really no small car for sale today, even one with a conventional drive train, which outperforms the Altima and Camry hybrids?

I could buy one eighteen years ago.

It does make one wonder how the list would change with plug-in hybrids and/or composite shell vehicles, eh?

The commentary is worthwhile from a perspective of what might be for now might provide a more economical choice, yet the contention comes from the old ICE paradigm.

Under current conditions, I doubt whether the EPA would examine such, yet it certainly could be worthwhile to measure km per mJ-gCO2-{euro symbol} rather than gallons of fossil fuels.

John,

Go buy a Corolla, remove the entire a/c system (as your Mercury Tracer hatchback had none), remove the excess airbags that the Tracer lacks, remove excess sound deadening material that the Corolla has over the Tracer, remove all those electronic goodies and features which your Tracer did not have (power windows, power locks, power mirrors, remote keyless entry, -if available: video/navigation displays, power seating) and associated wiring, and remove the forward catalytic convertor (your Tracer did NOT meet LEV emissions and had one simple catalytic convertor while the Corolla likely uses a forward cat in addition to a more conventionally located cat). Go change the Corolla wheels and tires to match the width and diameter of the Tracer's.

Then run a side by side test and let us know which one gets better gas mileage.

These mpg are way off. I own a 2004 manual Corolla with 78000 miles that gets 38 to 41 mpg. My wife and I have never gotten below 35 mpg. I also own a 2007 Camry Hybrid with 28000 miles that gets 39 to 40 mpg. The worst mpg was around 36 for the Camry. I think the new EPA test methods are far worse than the old methods. I laughed when I saw the EPA mpg ratings on the 2008 Camry of 33/34 at a dealer lot. If my car ever dropped that much I would be looking for a problem.

I guess it makes people feel good when they get better mpg than whats on the EPA sticker.

I don't have a problem with the top 10, and the more realistic mileage estimates are welcome, but I do with the bottom 10. They should put the low-production garage queens in a (dis?)honorable mention category of their own. And have the list include trucks used as cars.

These mpg are way off. -- neptune

That's why it says "YMMV" on the sticker. Mine is rated under the old EPA as 41 highway, and I'd have to be doing over 85 mph to get that low.

It's not just the headline that's wrong. The last paragraph also refers to "lowest fuel economy." Whoever wrote this either doesn't have a solid mastery of the English language or they simply aren't very smart. And what about the editor? This is really an embarrassment.

Take it easy people ....

Thanks to all involved with GGC it is an excellent resource

What about the 2008 VW diesels? I thought they come out in early 2008, but they are not listed on that site. New Jetta TDI is supposed to get above 50MPG.

New Jetta TDI is supposed to get above 50MPG.

Link?

The new EPA test method is tough for the small vehicle like the Yaris and Fit. These numbers could encourage peoples to buy small hybrid SUV instead of small car which is not a good thing unless these numbers happen to be true. Anyway if these numbers are true then for a given size of car the hybrid provide more than 50% fuel economy, that's huge.

The sad thing is that if you want a car that offer better than 40MPG your choice is fairly limited, only 2 cars pass that MPG. That's sad and shows that american free market system failed to offer the choice the consumer

Here is where I saw it:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=120684

The average between highway and city is 50mpg.

Perhaps the new method of calculating fuel economy is more accurate for some cars, but it definitely isn't for mine. My '05 Golf TDI gets about 40 city / 46 highway, and I'm a leadfoot. That's close to what was on the original sticker, and close to what others I've talked to get. The new numbers are 32 city / 41 hwy. Maybe they recalculated the ratings for 20 below zero.

Maybe they recalculated the ratings for 20 below zero.

Or maybe "your mileage may vary."

Yes we all understand that "your mileage may vary." But the new EPA methods are (designed to better account for actual driving conditions that can lower fuel economy, such as higher speed driving, use of air conditioning and cold weather operation.) All I am saying is that the EPA methods went a little to far with their estimates. At least everyone can safely assume they will now get much better mpg than whats posted on the sticker.

At least everyone can safely assume they will now get much better mpg than whats posted on the sticker.

Looking at real-world numbers on fueleconomy.gov, they seem to be pretty close to the new estimates now, by and large.

Seems that nobody here knows what is going on with the new VW TDI? I hope it actually lives up to their claims. 40 city and 60 highway for a station wagon with a sport-style performace package could be a big deal, especially at the price point VW is talking about.