View Full Version : Gas Mileage


gt1948
05-04-2007, 06:25 PM
Just read a review on the xB this morning and the following quote caught my eye.

"Gas mileage falls, though, mainly due to the changes in how the EPA calculates fuel economy."

Anyone know anything about this? Does this mean that the mileage will actually be better for those of us who have a "tin foot" vs a "lead foot" on the accelerator pedal?

What would have the mileage figures been under the old standards?

22 city 28 hwy
These figure didnt impress me when I first heard them but they are better than the 16-18 I am getting now.

bkirby
05-04-2007, 07:09 PM
Just read a review on the xB this morning and the following quote caught my eye.

"Gas mileage falls, though, mainly due to the changes in how the EPA calculates fuel economy."

Anyone know anything about this? Does this mean that the mileage will actually be better for those of us who have a "tin foot" vs a "lead foot" on the accelerator pedal?

What would have the mileage figures been under the old standards?

22 city 28 hwy
These figure didnt impress me when I first heard them but they are better than the 16-18 I am getting now.

Under old standards 25 city, 31highway

gt1948
05-04-2007, 09:12 PM
Thats more like it. I have found that I usuall get what they posted in the past on new cars. With gas approaching $3/gal here in Memphis that makes me feel much better.

Elvis is alive and well at Graceland :doh: :doh:

superboxcarxb
05-05-2007, 04:10 AM
i can only get about 26-28 mpg, no matter how i drive.

OldYeller
05-05-2007, 05:11 AM
Gas is $3.39 in LA. I will stick with the 33 I get in the xB1 driving at 70-80 MPH. The gas mileage quoted by the EPA fell for all cars last year as they started computing using more realistic driving conditions.

hotbox05
05-07-2007, 07:10 PM
the reason mileage went down is a less efficient motor as well as a higher curb weight. even comparing it to a tc should yield the same or slightly worse results because it weight more than the tc with identical powerplant.

ciscob
05-08-2007, 02:59 AM
with my manual xB. I never got the best fuel mpg. Thats living in Iowa. LOL. I am hoping to get same with the new xb.

Bigfieroman
05-08-2007, 03:12 AM
the reason mileage went down is a less efficient motor as well as a higher curb weight. even comparing it to a tc should yield the same or slightly worse results because it weight more than the tc with identical powerplant.

Umm, no.

The new xB's mileage, converter to the 2007 scale we are used to seeing, is 25/31.

On the same scale, the 2007 Scion tC gets 23/31.

The xB gets better mileage because of a few factors, including electric power steering and different engine tuning.

In the 2008 scale, the tC gets 20/28 and the xB gets 22/28.

For reference, a manual transmission 2006 xB gets 26/30 on the new 2008 scale, so expect about 3 mpg less in mixed driving or 2 mpg less on the highway.

hotbox05
05-08-2007, 08:32 AM
just wait for actual numbers.

ask tc drivers what they get............

and this old scale versus the 08 scale isn't right. it's using a calculated formula. not actual dyno runs at the correct speeds , just set in stone formula's across the board. (for the carryover models at least)

and not that I believe any of them but there are a good 20 or so first gen owners stating average mpg of over 43 mpg. now to be honest I don't believe a word of it but they certainly think so .


have you heard of ANY tc owners posting anything like that? heck no. maybe on average the 1.5 is worse (with it's gearing in the xb) but it sure as heck has a higher mpg potential than the 2.4

Bigfieroman
05-08-2007, 02:19 PM
just wait for actual numbers.

ask tc drivers what they get............

and this old scale versus the 08 scale isn't right. it's using a calculated formula. not actual dyno runs at the correct speeds , just set in stone formula's across the board. (for the carryover models at least)

and not that I believe any of them but there are a good 20 or so first gen owners stating average mpg of over 43 mpg. now to be honest I don't believe a word of it but they certainly think so .


have you heard of ANY tc owners posting anything like that? heck no. maybe on average the 1.5 is worse (with it's gearing in the xb) but it sure as heck has a higher mpg potential than the 2.4

The 2006 vs 2008 scale conversion IS right.

If you do a little research, you will find out that the 2007 ratings are the standard city and highway tests with a downward percentage adjustment tacked on at the end to try to make them more accurate.

The 2008 ratings are actually calculated from the results of 5 tests that they have always run (city, highway, and three others including faster accel, AC use, etc), so in other words they didn't actually change the tests. The 2008 numbers are calculated, and I am sure they can calculate 2008 numbers from 2007 pretty reliably, considering they are a government agency and the ratings are scientifically determined; they aren't just -2/-2 or anything, they are variable formulas with SEVERAL components. Even if the formulas were made by some half-drunk/half-hungover intern at the EPA, the real car in the real test should be within 1 mpg of the calculated numbers, though I feel the vast majority will be right on.

I did not say the ratings correspond to actual numbers (the only somewhat reliable application of fuel mileage rating numbers is to predict the difference between cars), though with the 2008 numbers for the tC (20/28), I can believe 24 mpg in mixed driving, and reviewing this thread:
http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=123554&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gas+milage+mileage&&start=0
It seems that, with a few exceptions, people who drive like responsible adults were reporting about 24-26 in mixed driving, with some reporting much higher.

With the changes Scion made to the motor/accessories, expect 1-2 mpg better than the tC, especially around town. That would peg it at about 26+ in mixed driving, once again driving like a responsible adult and barring any kind of engine problem.

Now, most of what I have heard from old xB owners is like 28-32 in mixed driving, and as I said the new xB should trail the old by about 3-4 mpg in mixed driving.

Ohh, and I also consider the first-genners getting 43 to be full of ____. Unless they live in the rockies and idle to work while rolling down a mountain and have the car airlifted home at night, 43 ain't happening.

Well...theoretically, in excellent conditions, with some mileage-improving mods, in a dead-flat sea-level state like Kansas, it is possible. They would have to accelerate at about 1/8th throttle and run at no more than ~40 mph and not have any stop signs or stop lights, etc, etc...it is possible, they would just have to be really dedicated. You could roll an H2 down the rockies with the engine idling and probably get 70, it all depends on conditions.

hotbox05
05-08-2007, 09:58 PM
what i'm saying is that calculated tests results are not accurate. it's a general guide by no means that much more accurate.

but hey we are in agreement about some things. now stop hating me just cause i like gen 1 more than gen 2. i "keep it real" about all cars ones I like and ones I don;t good and bad points to be shared by both.

Bigfieroman
05-08-2007, 10:25 PM
I don't hate you, you have the right to your opinion.

I am just pointing out inaccuracies in things that you present as fact:

"even comparing it to a tc should yield the same or slightly worse results because it weight more than the tc with identical powerplant."

"what i'm saying is that calculated tests results are not accurate. it's a general guide by no means that much more accurate."

"and this old scale versus the 08 scale isn't right. it's using a calculated formula. not actual dyno runs at the correct speeds , just set in stone formula's across the board. (for the carryover models at least)"

I am making 2 points we seem to disagree on:

1. The mileage numbers are not exact, as in, the new xB will not always get 22 around town, it might get 25, maybe 21, maybe 28. Mileage numbers are only good for comparing cars, as in, whatever that xB gets around town, it will be 1-3 mpg better than the tC.

2. The calculator on fueleconomy.org is accurate, regardless of anyone who just arbitrarily decides it to be inaccurate. It is not calculating to .0001 mpg, because then it would not be accurate, but the numbers it gives versus what the cars would actually get in the tests are within less than 1 mpg.

I don't dislike you or the gen 1. I always kinda liked the styling, but when I test drove one, it was just WAAAAAAAAAAY too slow. It was an auto RS 4.0 with my fat ___, the salesman, and steep, twisty hills; I had it floored for much of the test drive. That was when I decided to wait for a second gen.

rsw1124
05-14-2007, 05:34 PM
Fuel Economy Information
34
MPG Hwy 30
MPG City



Standard Features Of this Vehicle
Mechanical
2.4L DOHC 16-valve VVT-i 4-cyl 158 HP - 4-Spd Sequential Automatic Transmission - Electronic Power Steering (EPS) - Front/Rear Disc Brakes - P205/55R16 All-Season Tires - Sport-Tuned Ind MacPherson Strut Front, Torsion Beam Rear Suspension


This is from the scion ordering sheet. Can anyome vouch for this??