Top 10 Most Fuel-Efficient Cars for 2006 [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

johnnymk

01-05-2006, 01:16 AM

By Edmunds.com Editors

With gas prices steep as a Himalayan slope, fuel-efficiency is a prime consideration for an ever increasing number of car buyers. For all you smart souls with an eye on the pump, we've compiled a list of the 10 most fuel-efficient cars currently sold in the U.S.

Rankings are based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) miles-per-gallon ratings for city and highway travel. More specifically, we used the EPA's combined fuel economy formula: 55 percent of city mpg rating plus 45 percent of highway mpg rating. The rating for each vehicle below is expressed in mpg as a city/highway ratio. All ratings apply to base models equipped with a manual transmission, except where indicated otherwise with an asterisk.

Each model was allowed only one appearance on the list. The sole exception is the Honda Civic, which appears twice as a result of being available in both gas-electric hybrid and regular gasoline versions.

Honda Insight — 60/66
Toyota Prius — 60/51*
Honda Civic Hybrid — 49/51*
Volkswagen Golf TDI — 37/44
Volkswagen New Beetle TDI — 37/44
Volkswagen Jetta TDI — 36/41
Toyota Corolla — 32/41
Scion xA — 32/37
Hyundai Accent — 32/35
Kia Rio — 32/35
Honda Civic — 30/40*
Pontiac Vibe — 30/36
Toyota Matrix — 30/36

Daedalus

01-05-2006, 08:41 AM

I'm not convinced that driving a hybrid makes economic sense just yet. Don't they cost around $3k more than non-hybrid models? Say you get 25mpg now, and that gas costs $3/gallon. It would take almost 4 years just to see any savings in the gasoline, plus I'm worried about higher long-term costs...battery replacement and motor replacement in addition to the normal costs of the gasoline engine.

Thoughts?

Bires

01-05-2006, 08:49 AM

Thoughts?

Hybrids get you a tax break. (could be upwards of $3k) I am a little concerned about the long-term battery costs though. If I had to replace my civic now, I would get the hybrid.

Cubsfan

01-05-2006, 09:00 AM

And in some states (like Colorado), you get another 2-3k from the state in tax incentives.

DarkFury

01-05-2006, 09:17 AM

Dayuuuum....

Yet again... the HEMI didn't make the list. :heh: :cry: :heh: :hihi:

hapoo

01-05-2006, 10:13 AM

not to mention in cali you can go in the car pool lane if you have a hybrid. saves time and money.

nhbilly

01-05-2006, 10:15 AM

Dayuuuum....

Yet again... the HEMI didn't make the list. :heh: :cry: :heh: :hihi:

LOL :bow:

guiseppewv

01-05-2006, 11:12 AM

I personally think that with the reformulation of diesel fuel, coming up this year, that we will begin to see some diesel vehicles that will give you better bang for your buck. Possibly even a diesel hybrid. Just my 2 cents.

bachviet

01-05-2006, 11:40 AM

not to mention in cali you can go in the car pool lane if you have a hybrid. saves time and money.
Not on the Interstates because they belong to the FED and the FED has not approved that yet. Also only certain models qualify (over 50 mpg).

I would rather get the regular Civic and use the $3K on something else (like a 50" HDTV plasma). :D

ribitch

01-05-2006, 01:37 PM

a prius battery runs about 3k for the parts. Then add in the battery disposal fees that will more than likely become mandatory, and the mechanics labor, and you will probably be paying about $5k. The batteries are guaranteed for 100k miles, except in california, where they have a 150k mile warranty.

A honda insight has a battery cost thats almost double that of the prius. Toyota supposedly puts a heavy discount on their batteries due to concerns of replacement costs. I don't think these discounts will last forever, and batteries will always be expensive, especially proprietary batteries, such as those found in hybrids.

InfiniteNothing

01-05-2006, 01:52 PM

not to mention in cali you can go in the car pool lane if you have a hybrid. saves time and money.

Yes but you have to put like 15 of those ugly yellow stickers on your car. :puke:

I personally think that with the reformulation of diesel fuel, coming up this year, that we will begin to see some diesel vehicles that will give you better bang for your buck. Possibly even a diesel hybrid. Just my 2 cents.

Yeah but it's not as "green"

I'm not convinced that driving a hybrid makes economic sense just yet. Don't they cost around $3k more than non-hybrid models? Say you get 25mpg now, and that gas costs $3/gallon. It would take almost 4 years just to see any savings in the gasoline, plus I'm worried about higher long-term costs...battery replacement and motor replacement in addition to the normal costs of the gasoline engine.

Thoughts?

Yep, that's what pretty much every reputable analysis shows.

guiseppewv

01-05-2006, 02:37 PM

You say it isn't "green" but Europe considers them "green". :shrug:

blueindian

01-05-2006, 02:56 PM

my buddy who works for honda says they are introducing a 4 door sedan in '06 that gets better gas mileage than the prius but is non-hybrid.

guiseppewv

01-05-2006, 03:19 PM

my buddy who works for honda says they are introducing a 4 door sedan in '06 that gets better gas mileage than the prius but is non-hybrid.

That would be sweet. I am not a huge fan (although I do like them) of the hybrids just b/c of the future environmental effect from the batteries.

Grimm

01-05-2006, 03:29 PM

my buddy who works for honda says they are introducing a 4 door sedan in '06 that gets better gas mileage than the prius but is non-hybrid.
Any word on how much these will cost? I might have to depart from my buy American stance if it conserves so much fuel.

InfiniteNothing

01-05-2006, 04:05 PM

You say it isn't "green" but Europe considers them "green". :shrug:

Way to much NOx and PM to be considered "green" IMHO.

thresher

01-05-2006, 04:55 PM

I must really be behind in the times. I consider myself a car guy, but I wouldn't know half these cars if they rear-ended me. :( And you know? My F150 didn't make it on the list either? :)

blueindian

01-05-2006, 07:08 PM

Any word on how much these will cost? I might have to depart from my buy American stance if it conserves so much fuel.

nah, i don't know anything else about it. he mentioned it the other night when i told him i was thinking of getting a prius later this year.

blueindian

01-05-2006, 07:17 PM

Way to much NOx and PM to be considered "green" IMHO.

i tend to agree, but biodiesel is interesting.

ribitch

01-05-2006, 07:26 PM

I must really be behind in the times. I consider myself a car guy, but I wouldn't know half these cars if they rear-ended me. :( And you know? My F150 didn't make it on the list either? :)

neither did my mustang

the prius looks like one of those things you slide under the door. the insight looks like a deathtrap

Houdini

01-05-2006, 10:15 PM

brainsmile

01-05-2006, 11:08 PM

I've thought about a prius. But it's a bit small for my preferences.

blueindian

01-06-2006, 03:32 AM

My e46 didn't make the list either, and I get 30+ mpg highway cruising at legal or slightly extra legal speeds (75-80).

I like the idea of hybrids in theory, but I'd like to see them have more power from the electric engines. To get anything approaching the EPA's numbers, you have to drive like there's an eggshell under your accelerator.

I also don't like the idea of long-term storage of worn-out batteries. They're heavy as hell and will not be very bio-friendly. Until the system advances, possibly to the point of INCREASING horsies using the electric motor, I'm going to steer clear. At this point, buying one would only be a feel-good measure. :shrug:

couple of things:

1. you don't really have to drive like there is an egg-shell under the accelerator. While that was true with the 1st gen prius, the 2nd gen prius can be driven "normally" as can the honda civic and accord hybrid.

2. Toyota already has the the technology to increase horsepower with SynergyDrive, but to do so would be counter productive at this point given that they are trying to get the mpg as high as possible.

3. Totally agree on the battery thing, though i imagine there are numerous recycling options. I wouldn't be suprised if there were a total recovery program, but i'd have to research it further. which i will do at some point since i'm considering purchasing a hybrid later this year.

edit: some info on Toyota's batteries (they should last the life of the car and do have 100% recovery programs)

How long does the Prius battery last and what is the replacement cost?

The Prius battery (and the battery-power management system) has been designed to maximize battery life. In part this is done by keeping the battery at an optimum charge level - never fully draining it and never fully recharging it. As a result, the Prius battery leads a pretty easy life. We have lab data showing the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no deterioration and expect it to last the life of the vehicle. We also expect battery technology to continue to improve: the second-generation model battery is 15% smaller, 25% lighter, and has 35% more specific power than the first. This is true of price as well. Between the 2003 and 2004 models, service battery costs came down 36% and we expect them to continue to drop so that by the time replacements may be needed it won't be a much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.

Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?

Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling

Houdini

01-06-2006, 09:45 AM

couple of things:

1. you don't really have to drive like there is an egg-shell under the accelerator. While that was true with the 1st gen prius, the 2nd gen prius can be driven "normally" as can the honda civic and accord hybrid.

Not according to this month's Car&Driver. They had a hell of a time trying to hit the claimed mpg.

2. Toyota already has the the technology to increase horsepower with SynergyDrive, but to do so would be counter productive at this point given that they are trying to get the mpg as high as possible.

That's cool. Once they figure out how to get great and consistent mpg, it should be easy to increase electric motor power to compensate for the loss of HP. More people would probably buy a car that can hit 60 in <10 seconds and still get 50 mpg. :)

3. Totally agree on the battery thing, though i imagine there are numerous recycling options. I wouldn't be suprised if there were a total recovery program, but i'd have to research it further. which i will do at some point since i'm considering purchasing a hybrid later this year.

edit: some info on Toyota's batteries (they should last the life of the car and do have 100% recovery programs)
[/quote]

Good to know. I guess we'll have to wait until some batteries start to crap out to make sure that they do what they say is possible re:recycling, etc.

blueindian

01-06-2006, 10:02 AM

Not according to this month's Car&Driver. They had a hell of a time trying to hit the claimed mpg.

but is that not the case for all cars? the EPA standards are a joke really. My truck is suppposed to get 19 in the city, really gets about 14. same deal with the car, supposed to get like 37 on the highway, really gets about 30.

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 10:16 AM

but is that not the case for all cars? the EPA standards are a joke really. My truck is suppposed to get 19 in the city, really gets about 14. same deal with the car, supposed to get like 37 on the highway, really gets about 30.
I totally :agree: with this opinion...

Someone is LYING about the true gas mileage on those dayuuum stickers... :angry:

The HEMI sticker says 13 City 16 Hwy... in reality.. 10.5 City 15 Hwy. Thank goodness I don't really have very far to go to get where I usually like to go :)

InfiniteNothing

01-06-2006, 10:27 AM

but is that not the case for all cars? the EPA standards are a joke really.

No. Some cars do better than the EPA, most do worse. My highway EPA MPG is very close, my city milage does a bit better. The problem comes when some manufactures are tuning thier cars "for the test" and not for real experiences. It's the EPA's fault too, though, for not making their tests more IRL. I just go with the CR milage estimates.

I totally :agree: with this opinion...

Someone is LYING about the true gas mileage on those dayuuum stickers... :angry:

The HEMI sticker says 13 City 16 Hwy... in reality.. 10.5 City 15 Hwy. Thank goodness I don't really have very far to go to get where I usually like to go :)

Big rims are going to hurt your milage as well as short trips.

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 10:30 AM

Big rims are going to hurt your milage as well as short trips.
nah mang.... with the stock 20s on it, the mileage was just as bad.

The circumference around the 22" tire is the same as the original stock 20" tires, so I'm not buying this justification.

As a matter of fact... I now have my WINTER wheels on... which are 17" wheels with big AT tires (for the snow) on. These tires still have the same outer diameter as the original tires... and gas mileage hasn't changed.

InfiniteNothing

01-06-2006, 10:47 AM

It's more the weight than the size (rim weighs more than tire), also cold weather hurts your city big time because of the engine heating load.

guiseppewv

01-06-2006, 11:09 AM

No. Some cars do better than the EPA, most do worse. My highway EPA MPG is very close, my city milage does a bit better. The problem comes when some manufactures are tuning thier cars "for the test" and not for real experiences. It's the EPA's fault too, though, for not making their tests more IRL. I just go with the CR milage estimates.

I have noticed that the hondas usually are right on with the EPA. But I do hold the EPA responsible for not making their standards stricter. I think we would cut pollution down signficantly if the EPA would be a little stricter in this area.

nah mang.... with the stock 20s on it, the mileage was just as bad.

The circumference around the 22" tire is the same as the original stock 20" tires, so I'm not buying this justification.

As a matter of fact... I now have my WINTER wheels on... which are 17" wheels with big AT tires (for the snow) on. These tires still have the same outer diameter as the original tires... and gas mileage hasn't changed.

As a general rule of thumb IN is right. It has to do with unsprung mass. In your case the rims that you have might be lighter than the stock rims which would offset any siaze difference.

edit: some info on Toyota's batteries (they should last the life of the car and do have 100% recovery programs)

Thanks for the info!!!!! :thumb:

cheapie

01-06-2006, 11:18 AM

I totally :agree: with this opinion...

Someone is LYING about the true gas mileage on those dayuuum stickers... :angry:

The HEMI sticker says 13 City 16 Hwy... in reality.. 10.5 City 15 Hwy. Thank goodness I don't really have very far to go to get where I usually like to go :)

:thud: 10.5? that's only about 3 mpg above what a semi gets.

InfiniteNothing

01-06-2006, 11:44 AM

As a general rule of thumb IN is right. It has to do with unsprung mass. In your case the rims that you have might be lighter than the stock rims which would offset any siaze difference.

Even if they are the same weight, the big ones are going to have a higher angular momentum too.

ribitch

01-06-2006, 11:55 AM

my stang is rated at 17/23 and I have been able to get 23 with pure highway driving, as much as 25 when driving east on one expressway (part of the expressway is about 20 ft below the main surface roads for several miles), and I average about 19mpg. If i get on it, I can drop down below 15mpg.

guiseppewv

01-06-2006, 11:59 AM

Even if they are the same weight, the big ones are going to have a higher angular momentum too.

Sorry I forgot to mention that too. :) When the diameter of the wheel/tire increases so does the amount of energy needed to get the wheel to accelerate and it also robs the vehicle of some of its stopping "power".

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 12:22 PM

:thud: 10.5? that's only about 3 mpg above what a semi gets.
Yeah.. but I don't go a far as Semis go in a year. Plus... during the summer I drive the Nas-T Bird exclusively which gets considerably better gas mileage.

However as Winter is approaching... I'm safer in the HEMI than in the Bird... so I'll take my lumps with the 4x4 for the next 4 months. :D

However... you must realize... Semis use DIESEL fuel. The Diesel version of the Ram 1500 gets about 18 MPG city 24 MPG Hwy... but they cost about $10K more off the lot. I wasn't trying to pay $45K for a pickup truck when I was in the market to buy. :D

As a general rule of thumb IN is right. It has to do with unsprung mass. In your case the rims that you have might be lighter than the stock rims which would offset any siaze difference.

To counter this... if this REALLY were the case, then I should be getting SUPERB gas mileage from the HEMI now that I have 17" wheels on the truck versus the 22"s ... but yet, the gas mileage hasn't really changed.

You can theorize all you want... I have real world facts to back me up. :D

The weight difference between the wheels is honestly negligible... they all weigh about the same (heavy). Therefore unsprung weight has NOTHING to do with this. The weight on each axle is approximately the same. My 22s are alloy... my 17s are alloy, the original 20s were steel with a plastic chrome cover.

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 12:33 PM

Even if they are the same weight, the big ones are going to have a higher angular momentum too.
what about the 17s man...

C'mon... give me your justification :)

I am just waiting for my MPGs to jump up to 13 MPG.... just waiting, and waiting... and waiting. :heh:

InfiniteNothing

01-06-2006, 01:26 PM

Winter tires are less fuel efficient. Also when it's colder you have to burn more gas to heat up the engine to proper running temp.

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 01:39 PM

Winter tires are less fuel efficient. Also when it's colder you have to burn more gas to heat up the engine to proper running temp.
Graspin at any straw you can... aren't cha?

STILL NOT BUYING IT.... :nono: :2far:

My BFGoodrich AT KOs are "all season" rated... not just "snow tires". But they sure work better in snow than my Falkens. I bet I can run these tires in the summer and still not get better gas performance.

Temps lately have been quite warm... no snow on the ground. I put the tires on in preparation for the snow.... therefore you get "no sale" there either.

InfiniteNothing

01-06-2006, 01:43 PM

Heh, fair enough. EPA dropped the ball I guess ;). I guess I just sorta assumed everything but SO call was under like 4 feet of snow or something

guiseppewv

01-06-2006, 01:46 PM

Winter tires are less fuel efficient. Also when it's colder you have to burn more gas to heat up the engine to proper running temp.

:stupid:

DF - We have science on our side. There are many factors - unsprung mass (i.e. weight of tire, wheel, braking system (e.g. rotor, pads, caliper, etc..), etc..), distance from the axis of rotation, coefficient of friction of the tire, etc....

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 02:08 PM

:stupid:

DF - We have science on our side. There are many factors - unsprung mass (i.e. weight of tire, wheel, braking system (e.g. rotor, pads, caliper, etc..), etc..), distance from the axis of rotation, coefficient of friction of the tire, etc....
Your science isn't exact in this particular example...

To use "unsprung weight" as your defense, the weight has to be significantly different. In my case.. it isn't. The next time I switch out my tires... I'll be sure to weigh them again to see the difference... but I'm tellin' ya.. it isn't much.

The factory wheels were quite heavy.. being that they were steel wheels covered in plastic chrome. The 22's are probably slightly lighter than the 20s were, but not by much. Therefore the unsprung weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight) (weight not supported by the suspension of the vehicle) hasn't changed much. Regardless of DIAMETER... if the weights are equal, then the unsprung weight is equal. It doesn't matter if that weight is steel, rubber, or alloy. This is what I have been trying to get across to you.

Now... had my 22s been vastly heavier than the 20s... then maybe I'd concede the point, but they weren't.

The axis of rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_rotation) didn't change because the overall circumference of the tire didnt change. I made sure to keep the diameter of the tires used on these wheels to within .5 mm of the original 20" tire size. I didn't want to buy a reprogrammer to recalibrate my speedometer... so I made the +2 and -3 adjustment accordingly when selecting the tires.

Like I told Infinite... you ain't gonna be able to justify your THEORY based on my real world environment. :D

BTW... in case I didn't tell ya before (which I didn't in this thread), I ran the HEMI with the stock 20s for about 6 months before I put the 22s on it. In that time, it NEVER hit the stated 13 MPG mark that the EPA stated I should be getting. The best that I could muster over a period without making the RPMs go over 2500 was about 11.5 MPG for a week of driving between fill ups... now don't get me wrong, I didn't buy the HEMI to "save gas". Cause honestly, most big trucks in this category get sh@tty mileage. I bought it for functionality and I do accept what it does. I just wish that the EPA would have been a little more HONEST in their rating of the MPG of the sticker when I bought it... cause I'm hard pressed to ever see the 13 MPG City that they saw (they must've been driving it at 45 mph with the RPMs really really low to come up with a number like that). That is my gripe... not the actual performance.

InfiniteNothing

01-06-2006, 02:22 PM

johnnymk

01-06-2006, 03:37 PM

Since the diameter of your tires are the same for both setups, the unsprung weight is going to affect diddlysquat in terms of gas mileage.

Lighter wheels could slightly affect 1/4 mile elapsed times, but with that heavy a truck, I doubt it.

But IN is correct about winter driving, especially short trips.

DarkFury

01-06-2006, 08:49 PM

Alrighty.. I'm tired of discussing it now.

Believe what you want... I've given you my "real world findings" and you can make whatever assessments that will make you happy. Either way, my MPG doesn't look to be gettin' any better regardless.

Thank you for your feedback :) Now back to your "regularly scheduled" thread posting. :D

Houdini

01-07-2006, 12:25 AM

nah mang.... with the stock 20s on it, the mileage was just as bad.

The circumference around the 22" tire is the same as the original stock 20" tires, so I'm not buying this justification.

As a matter of fact... I now have my WINTER wheels on... which are 17" wheels with big AT tires (for the snow) on. These tires still have the same outer diameter as the original tires... and gas mileage hasn't changed.

Weird. Bigger wheels and tires usually resist motion, thereby decreasing accelleration and subsequently mileage. :shrug:

johnnymk

01-07-2006, 07:07 AM

Weird. Bigger wheels and tires usually resist motion, thereby decreasing accelleration and subsequently mileage. :shrug:

They are the same diameter.

Plus, if they were larger in diameter, gas mileage would generally increase, to a point. Larger diameter tires is like decreasing the numerical ratio of your rear end. A 3.0 rear axle ratio compared to a 4.0 ratio means the engine must turn at a lower RPM to go an equivalent MPH. There is a point of diminishing returns in selecting too tall a tire or too low a ratio where the engine could "lug", especially around town.

Houdini

01-07-2006, 07:26 AM

Just for funzies:

Your car would be higher up with the larger rims and that would cause more drag.

Also the moment of inertia is bigger (I = 0.5mr^2),meaning that your tires resistance to rotating is higher, even if you assume equal mass. Or in other words: mass on the outwards counts more than mass on the inside (like how if you have a teeter/totter and two kids of equal weight, the one sitting closer to the center will rise)

That's how I was thinking about it as well.

They are the same diameter.

Plus, if they were larger in diameter, gas mileage would generally increase, to a point. Larger diameter tires is like decreasing the numerical ratio of your rear end. A 3.0 rear axle ratio compared to a 4.0 ratio means the engine must turn at a lower RPM to go an equivalent MPH. There is a point of diminishing returns in selecting too tall a tire or too low a ratio where the engine could "lug", especially around town.

Of course in an environment without resistance (like on a dyno or something, or just jacking the back end of the car up) bigger wheels would make for better mileage. A 6-foot tire would get great mileage with a big engine and no resistance. But it's harder to get a bigger wheel to start moving and to stop moving. This extra effort on the part of the engine to get the heavier/wider wheel to move, coupled with likely weight increases, would decrease mileage.

johnnymk

01-07-2006, 07:54 AM

That's how I was thinking about it as well.

Of course in an environment without resistance (like on a dyno or something, or just jacking the back end of the car up) bigger wheels would make for better mileage. A 6-foot tire would get great mileage with a big engine and no resistance. But it's harder to get a bigger wheel to start moving and to stop moving. This extra effort on the part of the engine to get the heavier/wider wheel to move, coupled with likely weight increases, would decrease mileage.

You are theorizing. Real world data proves otherwise. Please re-read my statements.

However, if you are spending a lot of time driving stop and go at 15 to 25 MPH and not at typical highway speeds, your theories may turn out to be correct.

Houdini

01-07-2006, 09:57 PM

You are theorizing. Real world data proves otherwise. Please re-read my statements.

However, if you are spending a lot of time driving stop and go at 15 to 25 MPH and not at typical highway speeds, your theories may turn out to be correct.

Wish I could take credit for them, but hey, they're not my theories. They're Newton's. :)

CynJon

01-07-2006, 11:03 PM

InfiniteNothing

01-07-2006, 11:39 PM

Assuming the tire is fairly light, the 22" rim will have to weigh almost half as much as the 17" to get the same moment of inertia.

DarkFury

01-08-2006, 11:09 AM

DF, Just for grins when you go to put the 22"s back on the Hemi, weigh the 22's and the 17's and see what the weight difference is...How does the O.D. of the 17's compare to the O.D. of the 22's? I know the 22's and the stock 20's were comparable, but I suspect the 17's are smaller...

I know wheel/tire combinations vary A LOT in weight, and it's very possible to DECREASE overall weight (and rotational inertia) going to a bigger rim/tire combination of the same O.D.

From my previous post:
http://forums.gotapex.com/showpost.php?p=965032&postcount=41

The next time I switch out my tires... I'll be sure to weigh them again to see the difference... but I'm tellin' ya.. it isn't much.

.
.
.

I made sure to keep the diameter of the tires used on these wheels to within .5 mm of the original 20" tire size. I didn't want to buy a reprogrammer to recalibrate my speedometer... so I made the +2 and -3 adjustment accordingly when selecting the tires.