Better mileage, lower gas cost

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

Gary Jacobsen
Published: June 10, 2008

How would you like to reduce your gasoline expense by more than $250 monthly? If you are a typical motorist who drives 13,000 miles annually, half in the city and half on the open road, you can do this easily. Simply trade in your gas-guzzling, 8-cylinder sport-and-utility vehicle (SUV) on a small 4-cylinder sedan.

For example, if you are driving a 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV, you are getting between 11 and 14 miles per gallon, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This mileage
translates into an annual fuel cost of $4,355 at current prices. A 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid, in contrast, has an annual fuel cost of only $1,146. The savings to you would be $3,209, or $267 per month.

Of course, if you are not driving an SUV, your overall savings may be less if you switched to a smaller car. The EPA has a Web site with mileage rates for all cars currently sold in the United States. You
need only look up data on the car you now have and compare it with any of a number of high-gas-mileage vehicles.

According to the EPA, the following five models of 2008 cars are among the best performers when it comes to gas mileage (numbers refer to mileage in city and on open road):

• Honda Civic Hybrid, 1.3 liter engine, 40/45.

• Toyota Yaris, 1.5 liter engine, 29/35.

• Mini Cooper,1.6 liter engine, 28/37.

• Toyota Corolla, 1.8 liter engine, 28/37.

• Honda Fit, 1.5 liter engine, 28/34.

The manufacturers’ suggested list prices (MSRP’s) for these high gas mileage cars vary from $14,810 to $21,100. Thus, a cost-conscious purchaser must consider the purchase price of the car in
addition to its fuel economy to determine true overall cost.

Some readers may note that the mileage rates are lower than those published in prior years. That is because the EPA is now adjusting its estimated mileage rates to account for faster speeds, harder
acceleration, air conditioning and colder outside temperatures. Still, the mileage rates are a good way to compare competing brands.

The EPA also lists gas hogs. Not surprisingly, most SUV models fall into this category.  Some of the worst:

• Jeep Grand Cherokee AWD, 8 cyl., 11/14.

• Chevrolet Trailblazer AWD, 8 cyl., 12/16.

• Chevrolet Suburban 4WD, 8 cyl., 12/17.

• Nissan Armada 4WD, 8 cyl., 12/17.

• Ford Expedition, 8 cyl., 12/18.

In the category of “large sedans,” the Dodge Charger (13/18), Chrysler 300 (13/18) and the Buick Lucerne (15/22) were also listed among the gas hogs. The Dodge Charger, incidentally, is the muscle
car “of choice” for the Virginia State Police.

I drive a late-model Mercury sedan that gets about 18 miles around town, but my wife drives a Toyota that gets twice as much mileage. So I guess we are typical of most middle-class families. But I can
still remember my very first new car: a 1964 VW Beetle that always got over 30 miles to the gallon and which cost as little as $5 for an oil change (1964 prices). Sadly, the Beetles, after a total production
run of 21,529,464 from 1938 to 2003, are no longer manufactured. Volkswagen’s New Beetle is available for about $17,475, but it doesn’t seem to have the same appeal as the original. Still, the New
Beetle gets good mileage: 20 mpg in the city, 29 mpg on the highway.

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov.

Gary Jacobsen lives in Woodbridge.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( 360rr ) on June 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I’ve never understood the lack of diesel automobiles available here in the US. Tehy are very reliable, muche cleaner and quieter than they used to be. I understand Subaru is soon launching a diesel version of their boxer engine in some upcoming models with 50 mpg anticipated, 2 yrs out for US though. Does anyone know what Hondas hydrogen car will run on, I think its going to production for the 09 or 10 model yr.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Thanks for your comments. I still remember my brand-new 1964 Bettle fondly. I think the total cost of the car was about $1,800. Later I went to the Basic School for Marine 2nd lieutenants, and I foolishly traded the Beetle in on a muscle car!

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 12, 2008 at 10:45 pm

360, the ford fusion sold in the uk is the same car as here except for the deisel engine. they could have had them on the lots last summer if they chose to. for many years the diesel engines were built here in the US but not installed in US cars. the engines were shipped to the UK for their cars. GM sells cars in brazil that are specifically designed for flex fuel. they have built and sold them down there for many years.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( 360rr ) on June 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm

No doubt we are getting raped, by our legislators for not building local rail systems,by the oil companies for obvious reasons, the automakers, and our government once again for not allowing diesel automobile imports.One thing I can’t understand is the big three,they can and should develop high mileage models right now. It seems to me if there was ever a time to recapture the market from the competition now is the time! The technology is there and we need these vehicles now,not in ten years,if they continue losing money and eventually go down the drain they will have their own greed, arrogance, and lack of innovation to blame, it’s time we stop blaming the consumer since we are left with very limited choices, let our legislators too realize our cars are no longer a luxury, they put food on our table and pay our mortgages among other things,stop taxing us death on our automobiles!

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 11, 2008 at 10:14 pm

grant, take some time and research some of the cars i mentioned as well as others sold in the uk. most americans have no idea how much the auto industry has raped us here in the states. there is a deisel version of the new smart car too but again not sold in the US. This has gone on for 20 yrs. in 1983, honda sold a civic here in the US that was gasoline, 3 barrel carb and got 55 mpg.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 11, 2008 at 10:07 pm

i think 360 meant the mpg reduction was in part of the ethanol blend. it is in fact just a new law that makes the auto industry report more accurately. the ethonal rant just started from there. Glad to see you writing on this subject though.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( 360rr ) on June 11, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Ethanol is a factor in this new fuel scenario Gary. We the consumer have been getting ripped for years, first with MTBE blends and now with ethanol. No one seems to want to mention the fact that we get alot less gas mileage due to these ridiculous “boutique blends” all in the name of cleaner air and prevention of global warming which is still unproven. All I’m trying to say Gary is we would be getting about another 5 mpg or so without the ethanol blend, our cars are supposed to be high tech, why the dumb fuel thats costing us billions for no reason?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 11, 2008 at 3:11 pm

I don’t remember boosting ethanol. How did all that come up? My info about mileage came from the EPA, by the way.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm

People also do not realize how much electricity is lost during transmission. We need to build more smaller powerplants around the country. a series of small nuclear plants would work well. These could be built on the same concepts that run our giant ships.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 10, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Ethanol does nothing for global warming and has it’s own emmisions issues. also ethanol takes approximately 1.2 gallons of gasoline to put 1 gallon of ethanol in the local pumps so it only adds to global warming, oil addiction, the rising cost of gasoline, the rising cost of food. Ethanol is a bad idea that has been implemented poorly. we have millions of acres of unused farmland that has been “banked” thru farmaid programs. This land should have been used for ethanol, not our food source.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

(Requires free registration)

Click here to post a comment.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement