: Cars with worse fuel economy



Jinx
06-04-13, 11:57 AM
You know what's depressing? Searching fueleconomy.gov for new vehicles with worse fuel economy than the CTS-V.

Anticipating the comment people will make, "I bet it gets terrible gas mileage," I'd like to be able to say "it's not as bad as X." But solving for X is not fun. It's almost like manufacturers have taken this fuel economy thing seriously.

V8 pickups? The small V8s are all better -- only the 6L V8s are worse, and not by much.
Chevy Tahoe 4WD? 16/21 (17).
Audi RS5? 16/23 (18). (Same as the SRX AWD.)
Porsche Cayenne Turbo, surely, right? 15/22 (17).

I had to go to ritzy V12s from Bentley and Aston-Martin to find cars with worse mileage (and the Continental GT's highway mileage is still better).

For now I'm going to have to drop this exploration. If anyone can think of any not-more-ridiculous vehicles that are the same or worse than the CTS-V, please post them.


And yes, I knew full well what the fuel economy was like when I ordered the car. No, I'm not complaining about the cost, or the range, or the carbon footprint. No, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Yes, I'm fine with other people salving their empty minivan-driving souls with the thought of all the money they're saving burning smaller quantities of cheaper gas. What bugs me are when ignorant people I know make earnest comments that blow fuel consumption way out of proportion. It's nice to have something handy to quickly and gently reset them to a realistic perspective.

So for that matter if you have your own handy perspective-reset button that you like to use, please share.

Tgonyaw
06-04-13, 12:23 PM
I just say the mpg are a little better around town and a whole lot better on the interstate than the 03 2WD Avalanche it replaced:)

SARDEANIE
06-04-13, 12:32 PM
Just think of "smiles per gallon" rather than "miles per gallon". :)

thebigjimsho
06-04-13, 01:12 PM
Well, when its the fastest sedan around the Nurburgring, I don't care if its the thirstiest. Please don't give the E class loving g00b anything to whine about...

:coffee:

Xaqtly
06-04-13, 01:12 PM
The CTS-V's lower (comparative) MPG comes mostly from the gearing. My gf's C6 Vette is almost exactly as fast as my V is, and she gets low 20s, because her 6th gear is way longer than mine is. When I'm turning 2500 RPM, she's only turning 1900. The C7 Vette gets 26+ hwy because of a combination of DoD, direct injection and that super long 7th gear (manual trans.). All the cars you found have longer top gears which would explain the better highway mileage but the same city mileage (like the Cayenne Turbo)

The V is geared for performance, so while 6th is an overdrive gear it's still short enough to pull hard to the 191 MPH top speed. I think the 7-speed TR6070 manual is a good solution for that, you can keep a shorter 1-6 and have that ridiculously long 7th for mpg. Assuming the V3 CTS-V uses the Vette's new 8-speed auto and 7-speed manual as well as a variant of the new LT1 engine, combined with lighter weight and maybe better aero, I would expect at least low 20s out of it. Maybe even close to the 26+ from the C7, seeing as how MPG is now much more of a priority than it was in 2008 when the V2 first went on sale.

As far as what other people think about my 16-17 MPG average, I could not give any less of a shit. I didn't buy this car for them, I bought it for me. Drive it and be happy. :)

Jinx
06-04-13, 02:26 PM
The Corvette's mileage is much more about the fact that it's a thousand pounds lighter and much more aerodynamically efficient than it is about gearing. IIRC the older C6 Z51 gearing is the same as the CTS-V's; it still posted great highway numbers. And note that the Cayenne Turbo gets better highway and city mileage.

Not that gearing doesn't matter, but the CTS-V pretty much checks all the bad-mileage boxes :)

Interesting how much fuel economy has improved overall since the CTS-V debuted. Imagine what the V3 sedan will be able to do.

thebigjimsho
06-04-13, 03:04 PM
The old V had ultra tall 6th gears and could get 25mpg highway all day long. 27-28 if you tried...

cdog533
06-04-13, 03:32 PM
The old V had ultra tall 6th gears and could get 25mpg highway all day long. 27-28 if you tried...

Jim, those kind of 6th gears are almost unusable and self-defeating unless you are cruising through Nebraska at 85 mph. A big ratio 6th that helps fuel economy is hard to use in everyday expressway traffic.

I would prefer that 5th and 6th gear ratios are set up as part of a 6-speed, fully-usable transmission. Not a 5-speed, with a 6th gear massive overdrive designed to placate CAFE standards.

The V2 has a decent 6th gear: 0.63 with a 3.73 rear end. That's decent. V1 was 0.56 with a 3.73 rear, a little worse.

My 1994 Viper was 0.50 6th gear with a 3.07 rear final drive!!! The 6th gear was a total waste.

quikag
06-04-13, 03:33 PM
You guys are forgetting the low-compression LSA engine isn't a model for efficiency even off boost. Presuming you had gearing where you could run 2,000rpm at 95mph in the CTS-V, you'd still get worse fuel economy than any Vette or previous CTS-V due to it's low compression engine, weight, and aero.

To the OP, EPA numbers may be one thing, but I'm averaging just under 15mpg in 65% highway/35% city driving driving quite aggressively. My buddy who used to have a 2010 E63 AMG (with the seven speed auto and 6.2L NA engine) averaged 14.5mpg and he is an aggressive driver. He now owns a 2013 BMW M5 with the 7-speed dual clutch/twin turbo V8. Guess what his fuel economy average is so far with about 2,500 miles on it? Right between 15-16mpg still driving pretty aggressively. And remember, this is the new super BMW with a more efficient drivetrain.

Horsepower and weight costs money to operate. I get excited every time I fill up with 93 octane because it means I'll get another 200-240 miles of smile-inducing fun.

Random84
06-04-13, 05:12 PM
My 5 door corvette was a compromise. Fuel mileage in a 556 HP manual wagon that goes 0-60 in under four seconds is also a compromise.

I made my choices. :D

Gman1023
06-04-13, 07:01 PM
Keep in mind those are numbers for new cars only. Most people aren't driving around in brand new vehicles. If you get 14 mpg in real world driving then you're doing as well as anyone DDing an 8+ year old Suburban, Yukon/Tahoe, Explorer or JGC V8, Land Cruiser, Expedition, etc. In that light, I consider a V a success.

elevated
06-04-13, 09:13 PM
Even the ZR1 gets 20mpg highway!

Snotty Boom Body
06-04-13, 09:38 PM
I think the car's biggest disadvantage to better fuel economy is its weight.
Takes a lot of fuel to get 4000+ pounds moving in stop and go city traffic and keeping it moving on the highway.
But at least my 6,300 pound 4wd diesel powered pickup gets 20 mpg on the highway so I use that as my economy transport ;). Lol
.

neuronbob
06-04-13, 10:10 PM
22 mpg running in the mountains of Colorado yesterday. Oh yeah!

sfvagon
06-04-13, 10:25 PM
Not strictly a car... but how about this?
http://youtu.be/FzCsDVfPQqk

V locity
06-04-13, 10:39 PM
The plus side is, it don't leak...

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/SR71Bodo_Olav_C1.jpg

StoneCrab
06-04-13, 10:46 PM
I bet GM experimented with different gears to beat the gas guzzler tax, but when they realized they couldn't effectively get around it they said to heck with it and made it all for performance. I think that's why the CAGS system is all but disabled - why use it if you still have the gas guzzler tax.

Also, I understand that superchargers create more drag when not under boost than turbos. Lots or rotating mass that is at a higher rpm than the crank. Combine with low compression and you have 1970 big block equivalent mpg. Well maybe not quite that bad. Highway mpg has little to do with vehicle mass, at constant speed.

thebigjimsho
06-05-13, 08:36 AM
You guys are forgetting the low-compression LSA engine isn't a model for efficiency even off boost. Presuming you had gearing where you could run 2,000rpm at 95mph in the CTS-V, you'd still get worse fuel economy than any Vette or previous CTS-V due to it's low compression engine, weight, and aero.

To the OP, EPA numbers may be one thing, but I'm averaging just under 15mpg in 65% highway/35% city driving driving quite aggressively. My buddy who used to have a 2010 E63 AMG (with the seven speed auto and 6.2L NA engine) averaged 14.5mpg and he is an aggressive driver. He now owns a 2013 BMW M5 with the 7-speed dual clutch/twin turbo V8. Guess what his fuel economy average is so far with about 2,500 miles on it? Right between 15-16mpg still driving pretty aggressively. And remember, this is the new super BMW with a more efficient drivetrain.

Horsepower and weight costs money to operate. I get excited every time I fill up with 93 octane because it means I'll get another 200-240 miles of smile-inducing fun.

No one forgot anything. I was comparing the V1 to the Vette. The V1 was a brick and much heavier...

----------




Jim, those kind of 6th gears are almost unusable and self-defeating unless you are cruising through Nebraska at 85 mph. A big ratio 6th that helps fuel economy is hard to use in everyday expressway traffic.

I would prefer that 5th and 6th gear ratios are set up as part of a 6-speed, fully-usable transmission. Not a 5-speed, with a 6th gear massive overdrive designed to placate CAFE standards.

The V2 has a decent 6th gear: 0.63 with a 3.73 rear end. That's decent. V1 was 0.56 with a 3.73 rear, a little worse.

My 1994 Viper was 0.50 6th gear with a 3.07 rear final drive!!! The 6th gear was a total waste.

Speak for yourself. I live in the Northeast and don't need what you're saying to cruise at 80 all day long. If I was doing at least 65, I'd be in 6th. Very useable. And while I like the idea of 191, I never got the V2 higher than 164, what I topped out my V1 in. So I'll take the V1 gearing...

jsherid1
06-05-13, 08:45 AM
For my 2013 manual transmission Vagon I am averaging about 14 mpg, in similar driving my BMW M6 got 12-12.5 mpg. On the highway I get between 18-20 mpg on a run with the four of us and a labrador in the car with the AC going. I am actually pretty pleased with the mileage but wish it had a larger tank.

thebigjimsho
06-05-13, 08:54 AM
For my 2013 manual transmission Vagon I am averaging about 14 mpg, in similar driving my BMW M6 got 12-12.5 mpg. On the highway I get between 18-20 mpg on a run with the four of us and a labrador in the car with the AC going. I am actually pretty pleased with the mileage but wish it had a larger tank.

That's the consensus. Mileage we all accept, its having to stop so much that stinks. It's broken up my flow on road trips....

Jinx
06-05-13, 11:48 AM
Range doesn't bother me so much. Not a big deal in daily driving -- much bigger and the fuel pumps would just cut off early whenever the price of gas spikes anyway. On road trips, the human body needs breaks -- I can do 250 miles of Interstate hauling without a pause to stretch, but I regret it. With the CTS-V I figure I'll just need to top off when making the transition to two-lanes. I haven't found a lot of points on pavement that are more than a hundred miles from a gas station.

jsherid1
06-05-13, 11:57 AM
As I've said before complaining about the mileage of the V is like dating Kate Upton and complaining about the cost of birth control....

Chrispy
06-05-13, 12:16 PM
Who buys a 4200pd+ 556hp CTS-V for mileage?

That's like buying a prius and expecting 1G lateral acceleration and 11 second quarter mile times :)

Xaqtly
06-05-13, 12:19 PM
On road trips, the human body needs breaks -- I can do 250 miles of Interstate hauling without a pause to stretch, but I regret it.

Speak for your own human body. :D I can easily do 600 miles without taking a break, maybe more, but the relevant point here is that I have to stop at the 220-240 mark usually in the V. That pisses me off when going from Vegas to LA, because that's only about 300 miles and I can't do it on a single tank. Like Jim said it's not the MPG that bothers me though, it's the range. When I'm just doing my daily commute, I have to fill up 2-3 times a week and that's also annoying. I'd like to have to fill up less often because it's an inconvenience, even if I'm spending the same amount of money per month on gas.

That's all, it's not the end of the world or anything. It's just annoying to have to stop this often.

Jinx
06-05-13, 01:07 PM
As I've said before complaining about the mileage of the V is like dating Kate Upton and complaining about the cost of birth control....

The complaint here seems to be more about how quickly the tank gets emptied... ;)

thebigjimsho
06-05-13, 11:22 PM
I like to go 4-6 hours a stint. Sometimes longer if I'm really into the drive...

Dogbreath
06-06-13, 08:59 AM
When ours gets better than 12 - 14 around town I smile an say "That's my girl!" For the amount of miles that we drive it ('09 that just turned 10K), fuel consumption is not an issue.

smackdownCTSV
06-06-13, 09:06 AM
What's 12-14 mpg? I'm lucky to hit double digits! But then again, I drive a 6K # 500 HP brick!

RaVeNous
06-06-13, 10:02 AM
I'm not sure what you're worried about. The V gets within 1-2 mpg of all the cars you mentioned. I typically get better milage than what the V is actually rated for. 14-15mpg in town 19-21 on the hwy. It all depends on hills, weather, and how I've been driving. The same would be true for the RS5, Bimmers, and Benz that get about the same milage. In addition, many of the car you've mentioned are smaller cars, and most likely lighter weight.

The CTS-V isn't a large luxury boat; however, it is not a small sports car, or small sports sedan like a 3 series. Its bigger than a 5 series. The E class is sligtly larger, and not heavier. You can't expect a larger sporty V at 4200-4400 to get the fuel milage of something that weights 400-600lbs less like a corvette or porsche. Thats the price you pay for the room, the ride and all of the goodies. The V to my surprise only weighs 150lb or so less than my 2012 SRT8, but feels 10x more planted and agile, while at the same time keeping the smooth ride, quite inteior, limited road noise and saftey features (although truth be told the SRT8 has better windnoise reduction than my coupe - perhaps the sedan is better).

2014 E63 AWD 15-16/23-24
2014 M5 17/22
2014 M6 Grand Coup 14/20
2013 Jaguar Supersport XJ 14-15/20-21
2012 Panamera Turbo 15/23

These all are all basically the same mpg as the V? All of them are marginally better mpg than a car design released in 2008. Go back and look at other cars in 2008-2009 making 560 hp in a 4400lb platform - not only was there generally nothing close to the performance of the V, cars with much worse mpg performed worse as well.

Xaqtly
06-06-13, 01:20 PM
Just for fun here are some statistics for my V since I bought it 16 months ago.


Lifetime avg. MPG: 15.97
Max MPG per tank: 20.16
Min MPG per tank: 12.05
Total money spent on gas: $7,076.29
Total miles driven: 28,429
Total gallons pumped: 1780.27
Total fillups: 122
Total days: 479
Cost per mile: $.25
Cost per gallon: $3.97
Cost per day: $14.77
Cost per fillup: $58.00
Gallons per fillup: 14.59
Miles per fillup: 233.02
Miles per day (including weekends): 59.35
Miles per dollar: 4.02

114121

Jinx
06-06-13, 02:29 PM
"I'm not sure what you're worried about." As I said in my original post, having a handy and easily-understood-by-laymen statement that puts the fuel consumption of the CTS-V in perspective. A statement that can quickly and gently diffuse a "casual" ignorant and generally hyperbolic comment made by someone that I know and actually need to maintain a functioning amicable relationship with.

In 2005, with the C6 Corvette, this was really easy. It wasn't just better than laymen expected, it was quite likely better than what they were driving AND competitive with whatever "perfectly reasonable" new thing they would buy if they could.

I knew the CTS-V in 2013 wasn't like that, but what I didn't realize until I actually dug into the numbers was how close to the bottom it is.

Sure, the reasons for the CTS-V's fuel economy are not mysterious, but explaining why it's not better is not a mind-changing response.


As to your other comments --

The CTS-V is not bigger than a 5-series. It has less head room and shoulder room front and rear, same rear leg room, and less cargo capacity (sedan). Outside it's the same width and height but it's both narrower and shorter by two inches and has a shorter wheelbase. I think it's fair to say it's a bit smaller than a 5-series. (OTOH as fat as it may be it's still 167 pounds lighter than the 2013 M5.)

"Basically the same mpg" is not really.
1mpg more than 14mpg is 7% better.
4mpg more than 19mpg is 21% better.

And it doesn't matter that the CTS-V was designed in 2008 -- it's for sale in 2013 and I bought one in 2013, so it's not inappropriate to compare it to other new cars in 2013.

If nothing else this underlines how important it is for GM to keep platform updates significant and on schedule, now more than ever. Yesterday's "not bad" can be today's "not buying."


Anyway, I think I've found a couple of "well that's reasonable" benchmarks that still give the old argument legs. The CTS-V wagon has better overall fuel economy than the:
Durango 4WD V8 (13/20, 15)
Grand Cherokee 4WD V8 (13/20, 15)
Silverado/Sierra 4WD even with the V6 (14/18, 15)
Ram 1500 4WD V8 (13/19, 15)
Escalade/Denali AWD and Navigator 4WD (13/18, 15)
Toyota Sequoia 2WD, Tundra 2WD and 4WD (13/18, 15)
Nissan Armada 2WD (12/19, 15)

I know it's not shocking that big 4WD trucks and SUVs get slightly worse fuel economy, but it's good to see we haven't slipped that far down yet.

Alas, there isn't a single car on the list that isn't a sports car, a top-of-the-line luxury car, or a super sports sedan. Not surprising, just disappointing.

As for what's the same overall 16mpg, we get the M5 and the M6s and even the old M3, all of the 2WD V8 SUVs... and the one I'm happiest to see, the Toyota FJ Cruiser 4WD, simply because I know someone who has one (and uses it offroad for fun) and nobody thinks ill of it.

But I'll still keep looking for a clearer "chill out, judgemental non-car-person, it's not like we're killing puppies here" statement.

----------

Xactly -- cool stats. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

RaVeNous
06-06-13, 04:38 PM
If you are worried about 1-2 mpg difference, drive a Prius. Obviously the smiles per mile are not as important to you as meeting current cafe standards, or making sure that a car released in 2008 isn't on the cutting edge of fuel economy in terms of meeting these current cafe standards.

"I'm not sure what you're worried about." As I said in my original post, having a handy and easily-understood-by-laymen statement that puts the fuel consumption of the CTS-V in perspective. A statement that can quickly and gently diffuse a "casual" ignorant and generally hyperbolic comment made by someone that I know and actually need to maintain a functioning amicable relationship with.

Put away the thesaurus and quite trying to sound like a magazine article. Technically, its not even grammatically correct, but I digress. In addition, I am not one to judge as I can't write for sh#t. so just ignore my previous statement. I'm just being a D-bag for arguments sake.

I'm really not sure what answer you are seeking on your quest. I mean are there other cars in the $70,000 Range getting better mpg? I mean maybe..shrug. Personally I find it very obtuse to disregard that the fact the current V is based on a 5 year old tech when trying to compare it to the most curret competition. Are you going to gripe because its 19-20mpg hwy rather than 23-24? Splitting hairs?

I mean at that point aren't you just searching for a reason to be disappointed to justify purchasing a different car? I don't think many people will scold you for upgrading to a $100,000 supercar. I know I wouldn't. However; being disapponted in the 2009 CTS-V platform because of 1-2 mpg, is like being disappointed that your girlfriend only lasted 4.3 minutes the night before during deep throat rather than 6.4minutes. I'm just saying. As you stated you're not disappointed in your car. If someone asks about mpg, maybe you should just say "I have no idea, who cares" because as you pointed out, you didn't buy the car to reduce your carbon foot print!

In the end, I think its as good of argument as any, as far as discussing mpg with "others" to defer to "ehh its not really any worse than typical large cars on the road, but is significantly faster, more comfortable, and better looking"!!
....because its not really worse than similarly sized cars on the road that perform significantly worse.

Also, the V while its isn't at the cutting edge of MPG/HP ratios (an insignificant amount imho) of the 2014 model years, it still gets really good mpg when compared to the majority of vehicles on the road making 400hp or more, and almost all SUV/Trucks with a V8 which account for a lot of market share. The majority of vehicles on the road are not 2012-2014 model years, so I'd say its safe to conclude that the V is not yet outdated!

hulksdaddy
06-06-13, 06:23 PM
Ymmv

Jinx
06-06-13, 08:46 PM
You know, you don't HAVE to be so confrontational, RaVeNous. I used sentence fragments on purpose. And I didn't need a thesaurus. (See? Did it on purpose again. And again. I can't be stopped.) This is the way I use the language; if you can spot grammar like that I'm sure you can keep up.

I'm not disappointed in the car, I'm just bummed that my go-to polite STFU response doesn't have much bite anymore. Sure, "who cares because AWESOME" is a fine old saw.

But yeah, 23mpg is significantly better than 19mpg. That's just math. Maybe it's splitting hairs if we're comparing two individual cars in the context of the total industrial pollution of China, but just comparing two cars on the same road trip it's significant. Of course, at present, most people are pretty clueless about fuel economy and the non-linear nature of 1mpg improvements in terms of fuel consumption.

But be careful -- the CTS-V gets WORSE fuel economy than the 2WD V8 "half-ton" pickups that are the most popular vehicles sold today. It's only better than the 6+litre and 4WD models. Sure, still better than most of the pickups that are on the road but making that point just makes it sound closer to obsolescence. And maybe it is. Hell, I bought it in large part because it's probably not going to be built five years from now...

Finally, there's a benefit to the CTS-V wagon that the Corvette didn't have. Boring people don't know what it is. It's mostly invisible, or at least quickly dismissed. Only four people mentioned it at work, and three of them wished it was theirs.

hulksdaddy
06-07-13, 01:00 AM
Somebody give Ravie a hug.

CTS4 V
06-07-13, 01:17 AM
Sorry, I didn't read it all before I posted, so I don't know if this has been said. But my buddy claims around 8-10 in his ford lightning. He does have a clogged cat which probably doesn't help...

----------

Hell, my 2004 S4 only gets 12-15 mpg (95% spirited city driving).

stl_ls1gto
06-07-13, 06:43 AM
What a pointless thread this turned out to be

Jinx
06-07-13, 07:01 AM
Was the thread title misleading? Or did early posts set an expectation that later posts left unfilfilled? Remember, if you ever have a reason not to check "completely satisfied," let us know so that we can address it!

Uebele
06-07-13, 07:58 AM
Need to change the discussion to "total energy consumption" over the life of the car, and our cars might not look all that bad. Look for a report called "dust to dust comparison". The report is a few years old now, but it did show the Prius near the bottom of the list. The fancy hybrid cars require a lot of energy to make and dispose of. Simple technology like a pushrod v8's are easy to make by comparison. I look at Prius drivers in a whole new light after reading that report.

Jinx
06-07-13, 09:28 AM
I suspect the total energy consumption view would favor not buying a new car in the first place, but rather running an old one for a lot longer than is typical. In my case forever since my last ride was 50% more efficient than the CTS-V :)

RaVeNous
06-07-13, 10:50 AM
Need to change the discussion to "total energy consumption" over the life of the car, and our cars might not look all that bad. Look for a report called "dust to dust comparison". The report is a few years old now, but it did show the Prius near the bottom of the list. The fancy hybrid cars require a lot of energy to make and dispose of. Simple technology like a pushrod v8's are easy to make by comparison. I look at Prius drivers in a whole new light after reading that report.

Not just energy but environmental impact. The lithium batteries are toxic, and as you point out, a lot of energy goes into production, maintenance, and disposal. At least with hybrids they aren't ONLY using electricity produced by a powerplant....

thebigjimsho
06-07-13, 02:28 PM
I got some natural gas for ya...

Uebele
06-08-13, 08:42 AM
I just looked for that report to add a link to it here. Unfortunately it looks like the research company which created it is now selling it. I actually have an evaluation copy of it, wink, wink, but it is something like a 28 meg PDF. If anyone is interested I can try to put it in drop box or something.