Why isn't the fuel economy better?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Okay, fair enough. So tell me which cars have lower mpgs in comparison.

thats not my point and i dont care enough to look it up. im just saying that it isnt that the car doesnt get bad gas mileage for what it is.

im surprised nobody is mentioning tires. thats kind of a big deal when talking about mpg

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats not my point and i dont care enough to look it up. im just saying that it isnt that the car doesnt get bad gas mileage for what it is.

im surprised nobody is mentioning tires. thats kind of a big deal when talking about mpg

Okay, I give up then. You told me there were tons of them, so I didn't think you'd have to look them up. I thought you'd be able to mention some of them off the top of your head. No big deal though, it doesn't really matter.

As for tires, I'd say that the OEM tires on these cars are basically fuel economy champs. I mean, they are Prius tires, right? Small contact patch, low rolling resistance, etc...

[jesperswe]

Why bother with mpg even? Buy a prius then

Your pumpgas is almost half the price compared to here in Sweden anyway!!

[Ingen]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

I think you missed my point. I'm not interesting in buying/driving/owning an econobox or a hybrid. Fuel economy isn't my primary concern. What I was saying is that for the size/weight/power output of these cars, I expected better fuel economy ratings. That's why I mentioned that there are cars that are larger/heavier/more powerful that have higher fuel economy ratings. In other words, I don't need to buy an economy car like a Prius/Yaris/IQ to get better fuel economy. Hell, right now I own an Audi A5 quattro and it has the same fuel economy ratings as the FR-S.

The frs has an immense compression ratio, and this causes it to run hot and make a few bad chemicals which have to be catalyzed out. The cats lead to a restriction in the exhaust and lowered economy as a result. Additionally, the car is well balanced and can rev to almost 8000 and make pretty sounds, which comes at somewhat of a premium.

Finally, if you geared the car like an econo box it would definitely get econobox mpgs. It would also just be an econobox with a stiff ride and good body control. The Torsen limited slip adds resistance in the drive line, as do the more performance spaced gears. The accord doesn't do 3000 rpm at 70mph. also the driveshaft for rwd adds resistance, the seals on the output shafts from transmission and differential... It adds up

I think the frs presents an excellent compromise and does a great job of its objectives with no particular drawbacks.

[K2]

MPG? Don't care. Didn't buy the FR-S for mpg.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by K2

MPG? Don't care. Didn't buy the FR-S for mpg.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread

Still though, you're in the minority. Most people do care about their fuel economy. It may not be the most important aspect of their car, but they still care to some extent.

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by jesperswe

Why bother with mpg even? Buy a prius then

Your pumpgas is almost half the price compared to here in Sweden anyway!!

geez! if that's true,you should be walkin' (w.t.f!)

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread

he owns shares in mobile!

Still though, you're in the minority. Most people do care about their fuel economy. It may not be the most important aspect of their car, but they still care to some extent.

at $4.00 a gallon,bet your a** c'mon "romney style"

[FRiSson]

If you look at Fuelly, the web's largest collection of user-generated real-world MPG statistics, you will find the following:

1. The FR-S gets roughly 10% better MPG than competitors running non-turbocharged 4-cylinder engines of roughly the same size. E.G.: GTI, C30.
2. It gets MPG that is only about 10% worse than its most fuel-efficient competitors running engines of the same size. E.G.: Focus, Elantra, Rio, Cruze, Mazda3. But these engines offer less power.
3. It gets roughly the same MPG as the historically most fuel-efficient hot-hatch, the Civic SI as well as the smaller, lighter MX-5 Miata.

That makes the FR-S fuel-efficient by almost any standard.



If the car were geared like a high-mpg car, such as the Elantra or Cruze, it would probably rival the highest MPG cars of its class.



Note: there are certain limitation to Fuelly statistics, including the fact that they aggregate MT and AT results into one number. However, it appears from the data, and that of Truedelta and other sources that the real-world mpg of the AT and MT equipped FR-S are essentially the same.

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Still though, you're in the minority. Most people do care about their fuel economy. It may not be the most important aspect of their car, but they still care to some extent.

What works for me is to keep the revs as low as possible in every day driving and to not worry about fuel economy at the track/autox/twisties. And here in CA we would be very happy if gas cost a mere $4/gal these days

EPA 40mpg hwy is the current marketing sweet spot and when that is the goal, the engineers do everything possible to exploit the particulars of the EPA rating system to reach it. Clearly this was not the case for the twins. The tire choice probably was in fact made with improved fuel economy (and CAFE goals) in mind, but possibly they also aimed to keep loss of traction gradual and controllable to make the car better for learning vs sticky tires which grip like mad but let go suddenly and without warning.

Finally, do read @Ingen's post carefully; lots of good info there on why the twins use more fuel than, say, a FWD hot hatch with similar curb weight and making similar power.

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by FRiSson

If you look at Fuelly, the web's largest collection of user-generated real-world MPG statistics, you will find the following:

1. The FR-S gets roughly 10% better MPG than competitors running non-turbocharged 4-cylinder engines of roughly the same size. E.G.: GTI, C30.
2. It gets MPG that is only about 10% worse than its most fuel-efficient competitors running engines of the same size. E.G.: Focus, Elantra, Rio, Cruze, Mazda3. But these engines offer less power.
3. It gets roughly the same MPG as the historically most fuel-efficient hot-hatch, the Civic SI as well as the smaller, lighter MX-5 Miata.

That makes the FR-S fuel-efficient by almost any standard.

Thanks for compiling this information! There's a difference between EPA ratings, which are obtained systematically through a set of well-defined tests, and actual real-world experience. Anyone care to dig up the EPA numbers for the above cars? It would be interesting to compare.

[JohnS_Rosamond]

One of the things that I remember reading in one of the recent car magazines was that some of the cars that had high EPA ratings did not actually get those high numbers in real world driving. The article was specifically looking at the cars that stated 40mpg (Elantra, Focus, Cruze?) So, EPA numbers may - in themselves - be a little misleading. Also, EPA regulations changed some years ago so you cannot cross shop "old" EPA ratings and newer ones.

Those who mentioned the Miata. My '03 was rated 22 city/ 28 hwy. My mixed mileage is usually between 26-28mpg. I can get 30 on the highway if I'm not going to fast and I'm not going against a headwind.

I think in the gas wars, gearing is probably the king when it comes down to what your car will actually get while going down the road.

[Craig]

I drive a mixture of city/highway and get around 34-36 miles to the gallon. I could get better too if I didn't spend so much time racing mustangs around turns and watching them back off the throttle cause they're scared of ending up in a ditch.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Okay, I give up then. You told me there were tons of them, so I didn't think you'd have to look them up. I thought you'd be able to mention some of them off the top of your head. No big deal though, it doesn't really matter.

As for tires, I'd say that the OEM tires on these cars are basically fuel economy champs. I mean, they are Prius tires, right? Small contact patch, low rolling resistance, etc...

i suggest you look at what i have written. i never said anything about there being tons of them.

having prius tires doesnt change the size of the contact patch.

[RaceR]

Some info for you US gas guzzling guys and girls! :P

GT86 188g CO2 (combined). That gives it a rating of F. Which basically sucks. This is EU-standard rating system.


The average CO2 emissions of new cars in Norway September 2012 is 125g CO2.
Yeah, I know. The Norwegian population is a drop in the ocean, but tought Id share some numbers either way to put things into perspective.

Here is the Norwegian average CO2 emissions for all car manufacturerers on new cars sold between January-September 2012. Only Porsche and Jeep have an average that is worse than the GT86 (if you look away from a couple of car manufacturers who only sold 1-4 cars).


Here is the average CO2 consumption from low output cars:


I know the stripped out version of the BRZ without LSD "only" have 159g CO2. Which is not bad for a 2l NA car. But with the final ratio of the LSD (big increase in consumption?), and the resistanse of the LSD (a little increase) , and a little extra weight (minimal increase) it goes up to 188g CO2. And by looking at that number, it is not impressive.

Need to see a lightweight 1,6l turbo or smaller displacement engine in this car to improve fuel efficiency.