My 2cents about the mileage....

[evilBOXevil]

I've read alot of peeps posts and comments about how they like the idea of more power for the '08, but they moan about 'bad' mileage. anyways, here's my take on the mileage issue: If you have a car that puts out 90-95hp, and gives you an average 29-33mpg, that's great... If you have a car that puts out 155-163hp, and gives you an average 26-29mpg, that's great.... My point is that you're giving up about 4mpg, and gaining about 60hp!!! What is there to complain about?!! Put an intake on your xB, and drive it hard...you'll gain about 3hp, but lose about 4mpg!!! My old girlfriend had this crappy 6cyl oldsmobile wagon- it was big, heavy, and ugly as *****. She averaged about 26mpg. I drive an '04 xb- small, light, and some say ugly as *****. I average about 28mpg. ...sadly, her big old buttwagon will FLY if you gun it. It's got the power of two boxes, and realistically- is only 2mpg worse off at the pump. Better mileage is better mileage, sure. But if you look at a power output to fuel consumption ratio, all micro-engine cars are really inefficient that way. I'd happily lose 4-6 mpg if I can get 60 more horses pulling me along.

[MrRadi8]

I bought the car AFTER driving it. I knew the specs before I went in and what it would do. I wanted the mileage. If I'd wanted a pocket rocket I'd have bought one.

If they made it an option for a bigger engine so those who want more power can have it, great. Otherwise, give me the miles since I drive tons of them and $2.00+ a gallon sucks.

[Notacop]

158 hp does not equal pocket rocket.

Now if it came with a turbo or supercharger then you could be making those complaints.


Lets please avoid complaining about specs that are speculations. Lets wait till we see the actual mileage numbers before passing judgement.

[MrRadi8]

Originally Posted by Notacop

158 hp does not equal pocket rocket.

Now if it came with a turbo or supercharger then you could be making those complaints.


Lets please avoid complaining about specs that are speculations. Lets wait till we see the actual mileage numbers before passing judgement.

Pardon me. It was a euphemism. More hp USUALLY = less MPG. I didn't buy for zip, I bought for mileage and space.

[toyotatodd]

AMEN brother evilBOXevil



Now if they pulled the same thing (i know they won't) with the RAV4
More room + better MPG... we'd have a miricle

[excel_xb]

manual xB's get crappy milage anyways if drove over 65 mph.

[typhoonorchid]

not true. I have a manual that I set cruise control at about 73 mph, from N.C. to Wisconsin.
I averaged 33.95 mpg on that trip.

[rdclark]

Cruise can make a big difference in highway mileage. The only reason I haven't installed it on my box is because it's used almost exclusively for local driving... and I still get 28MPG routinely.

I expect the xB2 to take a big hit in city MPG; you canna change the laws o' physics; a heavier car with a bigger engine that has to stop and start a lot is going to be inefficient.

But I see no reason why it shouldn't turn in 30+ on the highway, where its additional power will actually help, along with its more aerodynamic shape.

R

[Peter_Rabbit]

right now i'm getting about 20 mpg. i guess winter has something to do with it but this is ridiculous.

[OldYeller]

I am not thinking an intake robs you of MPG. I am also not thinking that I need 50 more HP. I drive at 75 when traffic allows with little problem of acceleration. I still get over 30MPG every tank. I guess time will tell on all of this.....

[theguch123]

Ok so I live in the rockies, and most every car I have ever had here gets about 4-6 miles less then what it advertises. I think it relates to the lack of oxygen, but that could just be the cars i've had. With my xb I get about 30 city and 33 highway driving. Most all my driving is city, but I do agree that if I had a few more horsepower I would be set. True I knew what I was getting myself into when I bought the car, but who can argue that they wish there box had just a bit more power.

[excel_xb]

Originally Posted by typhoonorchid

not true. I have a manual that I set cruise control at about 73 mph, from N.C. to Wisconsin.
I averaged 33.95 mpg on that trip.

are u serious? its not that i cant keep it at a constant speed, its just that when its in the 70+ range im already hitting 4k RPM. and if u have a heavy foot like me and go like 80 + its alreadylike 4500rpms. kills alot of gas.

[evilBOXevil]

From some of the replies I see here, I just want to clarify one thing:
I love my little underpowered 1st gen box, and I have no desire to get rid of it for the new one.

I may have given the impression that I was arguing in favor of the new xB over the old one. No way. I don't think that they can even be compared as the same vehicle, except by name. I'm just saying that ANY micro-engine car stacks up this way compared to a car with a bigger engine/output. You will get better mileage with the tiny engine, but the loss in mileage compared to the power gain of a bigger engine is not so huge- that's all I'm saying. (and I'm not referring to some big stupid ford v8, either- I'm talking within a reasonable range.)

As far as people saying that you cant know the mileage specs of the new xB yet- Look at the tC. It has the same engine, and if the weight is within a similar range, it's gonna have the same mileage.

[typhoonorchid]

Originally Posted by excel_xb

are u serious? its not that i cant keep it at a constant speed, its just that when its in the 70+ range im already hitting 4k RPM. and if u have a heavy foot like me and go like 80 + its alreadylike 4500rpms. kills alot of gas.

Yeah at 73 mine too is in the 3.9-4k range (louder than I'd like for a 15+ hour drive, but still doable) That speed choice is a compromise between going fast and engine being on the edge of too loud.

So even at that high RPM for a long period mileage still is pretty good.

[rdclark]

Originally Posted by evilBOXevil

As far as people saying that you cant know the mileage specs of the new xB yet- Look at the tC. It has the same engine, and if the weight is within a similar range, it's gonna have the same mileage.

The xB2 weighs more, has a completely different shape, and we know nothing about the gear ratios or the performance vs efficiency settings of the ECU firmware. So comparisons with the tC can only hint at the xB2's potential performance. (Compare the MPG of a 2006 Mazda6 and a Mazda MPV. Same engine.)

That said, I am certain the highway rating will be 30 or better -- because that's now a "magic number" that is necessary for advertising purposes, so Toyota will tune the bejesus out of the drivetrain until it can get 30 in the new EPA test.

I'm equally certain the real-world combined mileage will drop by 4-5MPG compared to the real xB, except in all-highway applications.

R

[THE_DON]

I would rather have an increase of 30 hp and GAIN 5-6 mpg! 1.8L FTW.

-THE DON

[BiggCellus]

Originally Posted by THE_DON

I would rather have an increase of 30 hp and GAIN 5-6 mpg! 1.8L FTW.

-THE DON

true so true.

[grtwhtcube]

The new Xb will have the same gas mileage as the Honda Element

Same size engine, basically the same body style.

Classic Xb = 33 real world

New Xb = 23 real world

This is just going to be the reality. Sorry

If the new xb is really a 2.4 and the new matrix is a 2.4, then Toyota is going to experience a decline in sales.

People are lining up for the Honda Fit. I went to a dealer to buy one (for wife) it's been two weeks and they have no idea when they can fill my order (at list price). There are about 10 Elements available.

Honda is eating Scion Xb cake right now.

-d