Why isn't the fuel economy better?

[smallfun]

Originally Posted by #87

As hard as it may be, drive a tank at 60 mph and dont go over 3k rpm. You will be amazed what a light foot can achieve.

Originally Posted by jarviz

hit the treadmill and you can easily get your mpg up!



I'm more gentlemanly than you because I'm getting 34-37mpg when driving sane

Someday, I hope to be able to reach those numbers.

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by SkitterSkotter

Until my last road trip I averaged 36 combined miles to the gallon for 4,000 miles. Change your driving habits and the car will reward you.

Originally Posted by RaceR

Change down two gears and step on the gas guzzling pedal and the car will reward you....

Well see? That's just one more thing to like about this car - you have a choice between fuel economy and driving fun, and you can switch back and forth at will. By contrast, much as I love my M Roadster, it's a guzzler no matter how gently I drive it

[Tim_Asphalt_FRS]

I just got back from SEMA and got 35 mpg driving from San Diego. That's pretty good in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by tnt

Who's bitching ?

Nobody's bitching. As usual, our little friend frosty86 is butthurt by some of the comments.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by getbent

Fuelly shows the 2012 BMW 328i at 25mpg average, whereas the FR-S and BRZ are at 28mpg average. Just because they are rated for 34mpg in the EPA test doesn't mean they actually acheive it in the real world.

There isn't anything magic about Turbo engines, they take just as much gas as a bigger engine to make (big) power, its just that they don't use so much when low output is needed.

It's actually only the manual transmission 328i that is rated for 34 mpg highway. The automatic version is rated slightly lower. And looking at fuelly.com, 11 of the 12 cars are automatics.

BTW, you're right...turbo engines are not magic. But it is a great way to get more power out of a smaller engine while still being able to achieve better fuel economy. That's why everyone is jumping on the turbo bandwagon these days. Just look at home many different cars are available today with a 2.0 turbo engine.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

nope, you missed the point that some of the mpg fuel mileage estimates, like the v6 mustang, are set at 31mpg highway but the number is unobtainable period...
whereas the FRS/BRZ can easily surpass its mpg estimates...

I'm just saying the estimates aren't always as good as they seem, if ford were more honest their v6 mustang should be advertised as 13 city/25 highway and not 19 city/31 highway because not a single person on the mustang forums has actually gotten those number whereas everyone on here or 90% of us here are getting the estimated mpgs posted by toyota/subaru even with spirited driving...

Any car can have better (or worse) than their EPA fuel economy numbers. It's mostly in the way that it is driven. My car has a highway rating of 31 mpg and I can easily get 34 with it on any give tank of fuel, and that's without really even trying. I can also average far less than 31 if I drive it with a heavy foot.

BTW, a quick peek at fuelly.com shows a few 2012 V6 Mustang owners who are averaging 30-31 mpg with mixed driving, so I wouldn't say that it's unattainable.

[whaap]

It almost makes me laugh. I've been around long enough that I remember when a car owner had bragging rights if his car got better than 10 mpg. I guess it's fair to say if you haven't been around long enough to have accumulated some of life's experiences you don't know how good you've got it.

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by einzlr

Well see? That's just one more thing to like about this car - you have a choice between fuel economy and driving fun, and you can switch back and forth at will. By contrast, much as I love my M Roadster, it's a guzzler no matter how gently I drive it

Lol.. I get what you say einzlr.
But isn't that more of the nature of that engine? I mean M Roadster uses a great amount of fuel when driving normal and when having to "stretch its legs" it will drink gasoline like a fat kid would eat cake.
Its how all (older) large displacement high reving NA engines are by nature.

Compare modern day BMWs and you have a different story. Then you could have both fun and economy (with a little/some worse throttle response that is).

Out of all the cars out there I can think of. (Im not from the US) The FR-S is the one modern car where you actually have to gear down two gears to have an rewarding driving experience. Or else the car will not move much at all. Its a high reeving torque less NA engine put inside the drivers car of the century. (maybe a slight exaggeration there) But its basically the last car in the world where you would "reward" yourself by aiming at 36mpg instead of say, 30.
FR-S is just not the car to do "fuel economy racing" in.
Where I'm from it would be the worst car on sale I can think of to "reward" your self in such a way. Both the engine and chassis is fundamentally made to be driven in a non fuel efficiency manner.

If going from 30mpg to 36mpg in the FR-S is rewarding. Than the person would jizz its pants going into a 50++mpg car and make it do 65mpg.

For the record. I would like a 1.6 turbo in the twins for efficiency and torque reasons. Not impressed be the FA20 combination of fuel efficiency, torque and soundtrack.

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by whaap

It almost makes me laugh. I've been around long enough that I remember when a car owner had bragging rights if his car got better than 10 mpg. I guess it's fair to say if you haven't been around long enough to have accumulated some of life's experiences you don't know how good you've got it.

Well based on the stats in the Old Timers Club, there are only a very few forum members who are in your league for life experience Say, can you tell us when exactly fuel economy even became an issue? I was a kid in the '60s and '70s and I don't remember my parents (or other adults) even talking about either that or gas prices until the early '70s oil embargo.

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by RaceR

For the record. I would like a 1.6 turbo in the twins for efficiency and torque reasons. Not impressed be the FA20 combination of fuel efficiency, torque and soundtrack.

Which 1.6l engine were you thinking of? 4A-GE (20-Valve) "Black Top"?

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by RaceR

Lol.. I get what you say einzlr.
But isn't that more of the nature of that engine? I mean M Roadster uses a great amount of fuel when driving normal and when having to "stretch its legs" it will drink gasoline like a fat kid would eat cake.
Its how all (older) large displacement high reving NA engines are by nature.

Compare modern day BMWs and you have a different story. Then you could have both fun and economy (with a little/some worse throttle response that is).

Out of all the cars out there I can think of. (Im not from the US) The FR-S is the one modern car where you actually have to gear down two gears to have an rewarding driving experience. Or else the car will not move much at all. Its a high reeving torque less NA engine put inside the drivers car of the century. (maybe a slight exaggeration there) But its basically the last car in the world where you would "reward" yourself by aiming at 36mpg instead of say, 30.
FR-S is just not the car to do "fuel economy racing" in.
Where I'm from it would be the worst car on sale I can think of to "reward" your self in such a way. Both the engine and chassis is fundamentally made to be driven in a non fuel efficiency manner.

If going from 30mpg to 36mpg in the FR-S is rewarding. Than the person would jizz its pants going into a 50++mpg car and make it do 65mpg.

For the record. I would like a 1.6 turbo in the twins for efficiency and torque reasons. Not impressed be the FA20 combination of fuel efficiency, torque and soundtrack.

Hahaha maybe I should have used a smiley. My post was a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but also I was trying to make the point that, as you said, with earlier cars you had one or the other, not both in the same car.

I see you know your BMW's and yes, the S54 engine in the M Roadster makes a lot of heat and gulps a lot of fuel - even if you keep the revs down. And in the case of my particular car, it's even worse on fuel economy and better on throttle response because it has a shorter final gear.

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by Wes B.

Which 1.6l engine were you thinking of? 4A-GE (20-Valve) "Black Top"?

1.6 turbo? And people thinkg an NA 2.0 has no torque down low? It would be pretty gutless with no top end. Can't have both.

Hell, my WRX's 2.0 turbo has shit torque under 3000 RPM.

EDIT: I failed at quoting, it was ment for the other guy lol

[whaap]

Originally Posted by einzlr

Say, can you tell us when exactly fuel economy even became an issue?

That's an interesting question. My grandfather owned a gas station and I worked there every summer up to and including 1951 and I can honestly say the number of times I heard the topic being discussed I could have counted on the fingers of one hand.

I'll never forget a good laugh I had. My grand dad asked a friendly customer what kind of mileage he got and the guy responded: "I don't know, I've never run it out of gas"!!

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

1.6 turbo? And people thinkg an NA 2.0 has no torque down low? It would be pretty gutless with no top end. Can't have both.

Hell, my WRX's 2.0 turbo has shit torque under 3000 RPM.

All depends how it's set up. A small twin-scroll turbo on the 2.0 or even a 1.6 could provide lots of low-end torque. The idea is to have nice low-rpm torque and still a decent amount of higher-rpm pull.