Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010
You are right. The economics of moving from 30 mpg to 35 mpg highway is absolutely NOT significant.
However, how does moving from 30 mpg OR 35 mpg highway up to over 42 mpg combined average sound? How about to over 52 mpg combined average?
Do these fuel economies become economically justifiable?
Look up the GM/Vauxhhall products rated 42/51 mpg(US/Imperial ) combined cycle and above on the site noted below. Don't forget to check the above 61 mpg(Imperial) combined cycle range [that is above 50 mpg(US)]. I think you will find over 40 vehicles from GM/Vauxhall within these ranges.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp
By the way, Ford has about 20 vehicles within this range. Interestly, Chrysler has none that I have found.
Please let us know what you think after you have reviewed the info and thought about it. |
Need to be careful with comparing Euro MPG ratings with EPA
Per Opel website
Astra 1.8L 5-Speed Urban 9.7-9.8L (24 MPG) Extra-Urban 5.6-5.7L (41-42 MPG) Combined 7.1-7.2L (33 MPG) vs EPA 24 City 27 Combined 32 Highway
Similar on 1.8L 4-Sp Auto Euro 22/30/37-38 vs EPA 24/27/30
The Euro Urban and EPA City are same 24 and 24 on 5M and a close 22 to 24 on 4A, as are the Combined and Hwy 33 to 32 (5M) and an identical 30 (4A)
So you have for Astra 1.8L
5M 24/33 Euro
5M 24/32 EPA
4A 22/30 Euro
4A 24/30 EPA
I was surprised when I did the math on these numbers and previously thought the Extra-Urban numbers should mimic the EPA highway but they don't.
So I now use the Euro Urban and Combined numbers to compare to US EPA Cityand Highway, not saying that this is 100% accurate as many of the Urban numbers are lower but think the Combined number will approximate U.S. EPA Highway fairly well.
Of course as it is with EPA numbers many drivers of GM products get better than the rating in real world driving, so as with any number from standardized test "your mileage may vary".