Wait, do they not sell cowboy cadillacs anymore? It used to be you could get a quad-cab truck with a true 8ft bed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to DD one but I suppose I might feel differently if I referred to my primary residence as "the ranch." **edit** Nevermind, the world is right again. I just optioned myself a F-250 quad/8 with Powerstroke for a very reasonable (**cough**) $47, 465.
They must be 240"-20 freakin feet long 2 feet LONGER than a SUBURBAN- a very long "car" Speaking of "cowboy cadilacs" I ride my bicycle everyday down a fairly NARROW STREET- for about .5 miles each way. When I hear the rumble/clatter of a diesel(SOBs are a LOT quieter now-not helpful) coming up behind me I get as far right as possible-and prepare to dive right off the street Hoping it is "just a 3/4 ton/1 ton" and not a Dually -which is a REAL cowboy caddy. I prefer the older TD's with the clatter-more warning! Some aren't much on rules of the road- but I was hit by a normal car-6 weeks ago-Whappppppped by the thank god spring loaded mirror-I was 3 feet onto the shoulder-he was texting-8:30 am broad daylight on a sunday-no rush-just TEXTING Wide trucks spook me-but never been hit by one
I was hit by a van in 2010. Silly me , I expected him to stop at a 4-way stop in a residential area. It was a fairly busy intersection . so lots of witnesses.
Edwin- Maybe texting-or cell phoning I am COMPLETELY in favor of some sort of BIG GOV intruding fix- Car motor on-cell phone off. Usually I want the GOV to butt out (20 ounces cokes vapor cigarettes-who cares) But cell phone use while driving-probably approaches murders with a firearm(the best way to do it) in deaths per year. No 2nd amendment for cell phones-toxic little devices-
Hi All: As suspected and even with the large positive offset, the Volt is under performing in charge sustaining mode on its gas engine with just a 64 mph highway crossover. With these results - no SoC to match and the large positive offset, the 2016 Volt should have been EPA highway rated most along the lines of 40 mpg, not 42. In charge sustaining mode, it is simply to hard to maintain the same efficiency as most hybrid vehicles we have tested in the past. Every PHEV is a great BEV depending on its traction battery capacity. Not all PHEVs are great HEVs however. The Volt falls into that category. Wayne
Greetings. I'm new to cleanmpg, but can think of no better way to start than this thread. I offer my highest compliments and appreciation for the work done to publish this. Its an intelligent design, developed with true intellectual rigor and honesty, and offers a wealth of robust information. Beyond the quality of information, I also compliment the many long nights interrupted to pursue this obvious labor of love. This too a tribute to a strong desire for the elusive Truth. In the modern world of auto propulsion design where fuel economy increasingly will vary according to driver and conditions, this information offers better designed and more thoughtful information than the EPA or Consumer Reports or any other reviewers I've seen. Again, my compliments and thanks.
Hi Kbergene: Welcome to CleanMPG and thanks for the reply. I hope you find the results noteworthy. Wayne
I like to see it as relative %. In that case the improvement is 16%. I find that huge given how efficient Prius already was. HR-V is 10% so not big in terms of money nowadays with cheap gas. But it also gives you better range.
Hi All: The actual miles traveled was 111.3 miles vs 108.4 miles indicated so we know the odometer offset. A little high at 2.67 percent under report of actual. The aFCD offset however was FUBAR with this capless refueling system thwarting any effort of measurement. I left the Speed vs FE calibration offset at 1.000 and it is probably really close to actual given the large negative odometer offset. If I had 900 to 1,000 mile to run through a whole tank, we could get that error and resulting offset down to an insignificant result but not over a 100 miles with the capless system in place. Wait until you see the video of what happened at the Shell in South San Diego. For the tests, temps ranged from 57 to 59 degrees F with winds out of the East at 2 to 3 mph on the NB/SB repeated runs. 50, 55 and 60 mph actual was 50, 55, and 60 mph indicated. At 65 and 70 mph actual, CC set at an indicated 65 and 70 mph, the speedometer was indicating 64 and 69 mph. RPM at 60 mph was indicating 1,600 RPM vs. 1,541 calculated. The EPA highway (42 mpgUS) speed crossover occurred at 69.5 mph which is right in line with what it is supposed to be. Wayne
Whoa, 55 mpg at 55 mph At 65 mph it has roughly a 500 mile range. (12.39 gallon fuel tank) 600 mile range at 55 mph Specs http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/specifications.aspx
2016 Audi e-tron Ultra Speed vs Fuel Economy Hi All: For the calibration drive of the 2016 Audi e-tron Ultra – 17–miles AER and a 35/39 mpgUS city/Highway rating, I ran EV mode until it was depleted which occurred at the 35.0 mile mark. I reset Trip2 at that point and ran another 69.1 actual miles (67.2 miles indicated) out to the 104.1 mile (101.7 miles indicated) - LAX Shell to the Del Mar Shell - while traversing that witch of a drive 405/5 on a Friday afternoon of a Holiday weekend. 2016 Audi A3 e-tron Ultra The final came in at 63.7 mpgUS indicated and 69.1 actual miles on 1.060 gal for a 65.2 mpgUS actual result. All-in, a 1.023 positive offset. If we used the short odometer of 101.7 mils on 1.060 gallons, the actual would have been 63.6 mpgUS vs. the 63.7 indicated. Those Audi Engineers were dead on with this one if not consider the odometer offset. For the tests, temps ranged from 55 to 56 degrees F with winds out of the East at 2 to 3 mph on the NB/SB repeated runs. 50, 55, 60, 65 and 70 mph actual speed was 51, 56, 61, 66, and 71 mph indicated per both the CC setting and OEM speedometer. RPM at 60 mph was indicating 2,000 RPM vs. 1,955 calculated. Far too high for a super highway cruiser. The EPA highway (41 mpgUS) EPA highway crossover occurred at 62.66 mph indicating the Ultra's 41 mpg highway rating may be inflated. This Ultra however did not have the low RRc 16's but the 35/39 mpg rated 17 Pirelli performance tires. Using the 35/39 mpgUS city/highway result due to the optional performance tires, the EPA highway crossover occurred at 66.0 mph which while is on the low side of a 39 mpgUS rated highway car, still meets our honesty criteria of 65 to 69 mph crossover. 2016 Audi A3 e-tron Ultra Monroney 2016 Audi A3 e-tron Ultra Wayne
2016 Chevrolet Colorado Z1 AWD with the 2.8L Duramax Turbo Diesel Hi All: For the calibration drive of the 20/29 mpgUS city/highway rated 2016 Chevrolet Colorado 4WD Z71 with the 2.8L Duramax performed ok. A 45+ minute stop and crawl on the 5 from Oceanside all the way to Encinitas, dragged her aFCD down from 41.8 to 40.2 mpg after 93.2 miles indicated at the final top off Shell. 95.0 actual miles on 2.459 gallons, resulted in a fair 38.6 mpg actual. The negative offset is a rather steep 3.98 percent. What hurts is the Z71 is that it is shod with Goodyear Wrangler All-Terrains that are as low rolling resistance as swimming in mud. The 6-speed AT will not shift into 6th until 53+ mph at which point you can relax to no less than 52 mph actual or she will downshift. There is no reason I can think of to keep a diesel above 1,300 at low loads yet this is configured to keep R's above 1,500 to 1,750 far too often. For the steady state Speed vs Fuel Economy tests, temps ranged from 57 to 59 degrees F with calm winds on the NB/SB repeated runs. 50, 55, 60, 65 and 70 mph actual speed was 49, 54, 59, 64, and 69 mph indicated per both the CC setting and OEM speedometer. RPM at 60 mph was indicating a rather high 1,550 RPM vs. 1,535 calculated. A bit high for a modern turbo diesel imho. The EPA highway (29 mpgUS) EPA highway crossover occurred at 67.96 mph which fits smack dab in the middle of our honesty criteria of 65 to 69 mph. Wayne
Hi All: 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4X4 EcoDiesel From the Jeep GCs Calibration drive, the 43.4 mpg indicated calculated to 41.2 mpg actual leading to 0.949 times the aFCD indicated result = actual mpg. Temps from 58 to 59 degrees F with calm winds. Indicated speeds at 50 through 70 mph were dead on with the GPS. RPM@60 mph = 1,560 RPM vs the 1,528 RPM calculated. 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4X4 EcoDiesel Speed vs Fuel Economy The 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4X4 with the EcoDiesel’s EPA of 28 mpg highway was achieved at 69.1 mph which is right where it should be. The efficiency fall off from 50 to 60 mph look steep however. Wayne
Any chance you'll be testing one of the non eco models? The three has me interested, because it comes better equipped and has a donut spare. Drove one last weekend, although it was under carefully scripted conditions from the dealer.
Hi Nathan: Hopefully this summer when I am in Southern California. The earlier results were from a prototype so it I am also looking for ward to driving the production versions for steady state results. e90diese, I never had the opportunity to complete them on it. I picked up the 1500 with the EcoDiesel from LA and only had it a night before heading straight out out to Denver. Wayne
Here's an EcoDiesel report to keep you going for now. http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-economy-review-24-mpg-full-size-pickup-truck
Hi All: Today's ride is arguably the best 7-passenger SUV available by anyone anywhere. That being the 18/25 mpgUS city/highway rated 2017 Audi Q7 quattro. $54,800 to start not incl. the $950 D&H charge. It arrived as a Prestige trim meaning it includes everything but the kitchen sink for an as driven price of $73,425. The underlying 2017 Q7 is ~ 250 lbs lighter than the 2015 predecessor at 4,938 lbs in base trim thanks to copious amounts of aluminum and smarter chassis and structure engineering. It is equipped with just one drivetrain. That being the 333 HP and 325 lb-ft if torque 3.0L TSI mated to a very smooth shifting 8-speed AT. It is also equipped with start/stop. 2017 Audi Q7 3.0L TSI LAX Shell and displays reset. The Monroney states it is an 18/25/21 mpgUS city/highway/combined rated SUV. That seems a bit low for the results after running the LAX to San Diego, CA 405/5 gauntlet. Some may remember the static exterior/interior overview I posted on YouTube at the beginning of the year from the San Diego Auto Show. A lot of creature comforts and the std. outstanding Audi design details. What was missing was a few miles behind the wheel. And why do I think it is better than the NACOTY award winning Volvo XC 90? The calibration drive ended up in excellent fashion given this is the first 7-passenger anything we have driven to break the magic 40. My short drive of the XC90 did not even come close. 2017 Audi Q7 3.0L TSI Calibration 104.0 Miles on 2.579 Gal = 40.33 mpg actual. With the offset coming in at a positive 1.010 (40.3/39.9) x aFCD = actual mpg, we can run the steady states. A new day and week which means I had better complete the steady states before having to turn in the #Audi #Q7 SUV. Acceleration, braking, ride and handling are Audi perfection in motion. Even efficiency for a 333 HP and 325 lb-ft of torque 3.0L TSI is pretty darn good. If only it had the fantastic and award winning 3.0L TDI in it... While it is 7-passenger capable, it is not 7-passenger usable. Just not enough room. Access to the third row is hampered by overly complicated seat fold ups and no third row under seat foot wells. OK, time to spend a few hours behind the wheel collecting data before calling it a night in the early morning light... Just about to head out. Temps from 62 to 64 degrees F with calm winds. Indicated speeds at 50 through 70 mph were dead on with the GPS. RPM@60 mph = 1,480 RPM 2017 Audi Q7 3.0L TSI Speed vs Fuel Economy The 2017 Audi Q7 TSI quattro’s EPA of 25 mpg highway was achieved at 71.8 mph which is actually high meaning the Q7 should be highway rated at 29 to 30 mpg which in turn benefits the consumer. Wayne
