Newsflash:

The Honda Civic was 1st imported into the US as a 1972 model with a 2 cylinder air cooled engine 50 (yes, fifty) HP engine and was 138 inches in length. By 1974, it had been upgraded to a whopping 52 HP engine

The 2007 Civic had grown to 174.8 inches and packs a 140 HP engine.

Honda must be a bunch of morons as they made the car grow by 3 feet and the engine is over 2.5 bigger! WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS!

While the 2007 is 5 star rated for safety, the 1970s models would been "0 stars" rated from what I remember, if the test had been in effect. The cars earned the "Not Recommended" due to safety concerns by Consumers Reports.

Change is not always a bad thing.

BTW, as info, the 2007 Element has reported problems with rear-end sliding out on hard turns (per Consumer Reports testing) and I sure hope that Toyota's not copied that. Otherwise, we would have already bought one of the new Elements instead of waiting for Scion to drag out the intro of their new model.

 

Its about time that the EPA Gas Mileage Estimates are more accurately stated. In the past, they have been, for the most part, a joke due to the fact they did not reflect anything other than what a car did in "ideal" lab test conditions. The last revision was in 1984 and the EPA says that the ratings were adjusted down 10% for city and 22% for highway (for details see: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/http:...v/fueleconomy/ )

When the estimates were started, its no big secret that the "Big 3" were getting better mileage by changing ratios to achieve better mileage with a hit on acceleration in addition to other methods. Toyota and, by extension, Scion are well aware of this and with the larger / more powerful engine, changing the ratios of gearing should help keep the mileage good as this is not being marketed as a "performance car."

 

Mickie3 thanks for the newsflash! very helpful

I think it should be pointed out that the Honda Civic has gone through 8 generation changes. So the "Morons" at Honda have steadily increased the size of the car and engine. They have also introduced more efficient engine technologies.

My point was that the typical civic we all know and love from the 80's and 90's was generally a 1.5 litre. The civic DX 2007 is a 1.8 litre.

The Mazda Miata was originally a 1.5 and in the second generation became a 1.8

why do we need a 2.3 in the Box??

I can't wait for the 3rd generation 4000 lb V6 Hybrid xB for $30,000, I'll take the leather option with 2 DVD screens for my fat kids

 

Here are some numbers. The Camry, tC and RAV-4 all use the same engine/tranny with different tunes and gearing. The Camry is about 300 lbs more than the new xB, the RAV-4 is also about 300 lbs more, and the tC is 100 lbs lighter than the new xB. Converted to the new, 2008 standards, here are some comparison cars:

2006 xB manual= 26/30
2007 Camry manual= 21/30
2007 tC manual= 20/28
2007 RAV-4 automatic= 21/28

REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE CONVERTED TO THE 2008 RATING USING THE EPA SITE.

Now worst case scenario, it uses the tC tune and gearing, and since it weighs more and is less aerodynamic, it could be as low as 19/27.

I am pretty sure it uses the Camry tune (check HP/tq), and because of the decreased ratings, they will do everything they can to bring the mileage up. Being lighter than the Camry/RAV4 and a little more aerodynamic than the RAV4, I see the best case as being 22/29.

This means a combined cycle drop of between 2.5 and 5 mpg compared to the 2006 manual.

Of course, its toyota, so they could pull something out of their butt and get like 26/32....but not likely.

 

how about some real world numbers

Echo 05 - 37mpg

Xb 06 - 30mpg

Camry 25mpg

TC 25mpg

Rav4 23mpg

Element 23mpg

Here we go: The Echo is light, aero, good gearing and a 1.5

The xB 06 is heavier, square, low gearing but a 1.5 so it gets -7mpg

The xB2 is even heavier, basically as square, will likely have higher gearing and is 2.4

I agree that it will be likely EPA rated at 22/29

but the real world will be 23mpg (06 is 30mpg)

so that is a 7mpg difference. or about 25% less fuel economy.

The MPG difference between the 06 and the 08 will be narrowest on the highway at 5mpg
but about 8mpg difference in the city.

 

Since it has the Camry engine I'm thinking the MPG will be close to that of the Camry.

 

keep in mind what they said in the xb brochure:

"This new powerplant not only makes the xb more powerful, but also delivers great fuel efficiency with excellent accelaration in both urban and highway conditions.

-vvt-i optimises engine efficiency and power by adjusting the intake valve timing using sensors that measure cam and crankshift position, engine rpm and the load placement on the engine

- vvt-i helps maximize engine power and fuel economy throughout the rev range"

 

It will be 26-29

 

Sure I believe the brochure. thank goodness they finally put vvti in the xB.

That should save alot of fuel!

forget comparing to the Camry. Does the 06 xB compare to the echo or the yaris?

I have to assume the people that are posting with the fantasy that the new xB will be fuel efficient have an xB on order and are not very objective and realistic about that fact that the new xB will not outperform the Honda Element or the Rav4 when it comes to fuel economy. Scion stopped manufacturing fuel efficient xB in December. Get the original or the Honda Fit.

 

Ok...you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. While I agree that epa mileage does not agree with real world mileage, EPA mileage IS accurate for comparison.

If there is a 2-5 to 5 mpg difference in the combined mpg, generally you will get 2.5 to 5 mpg less in the real world. The only time you would really see a 7mpg difference is in 100% metro driving, as in never above ~ 30 mph with lots of stops and idling. A 7 mpg difference could be overcome by driving the first gen hard and driving the gen2 like a grandma...it really isn't that big a difference.

My primary point is that a 3 mpg difference between two vehicles in the EPA cycle DOES NOT equal a 7 mpg difference between 2 vehicles in real life.

I will outperform a rav4 unless it is geared very short, it has a lower coeff of drag and has 300 less pounds to lug with the same engine/tranny.

 

600 pounds, almost 1 litre more engine = a 3mpg difference
please explain to me why the 05 Echo and the 06 xB don't have the same gas MPGs
since I don't know what I'm talking about and you are an expert.

 

With the right gearing, yes. It is already in the EPA numbers. The camry has 900 more pounds and .9 l more engine, and gets 2.5 mpg less combined. EPA tests are basically a graph of speeds the vehicle follows, with numerous accelerations and decelerations, done on a dyno that simulates the weight of the vehicle and the aerodynamic drag, amongst other factors.

The Chevy corvette gets 17/27 with a 6 liter v8...4 times the engine of the orig xb. It weighs 800 lbs more. With a bigger engine, it doesn't always consume a lot more fuel because it doesn't have to work as hard. With 103 hp in an xb, you prolly get close to full throttle pretty often, but a 400 hp vette is just above idle to get the same accel.

FYI, I am a recent grad(almost...finishing a thesis project with current employer, but done with classes) of Kettering University (formerly General Motors Institute) in mechanical engineering, specializing in automotive powertrain design. I have personally administered the EPA city cycle to a Chevy Cobalt in one of my powertrain classes. I have had co-ops/internships at Dana Corp, Air International, and PSMi, all GM suppliers.

Where did you even get your numbers? Do you own all of those vehicles?

The echo gets 30/39 converted to 2008 tests. That is a 6.5 mpg combined cycle difference. (huh...thats weird...even in your "real world numbers" you claimed a 7mpg difference...is 6.5 close to 7? I can't remember... Is it possible that differences in EPA mileage directly correspond to differences in real world mileage?) It kicks the crap out of the gen 1 xB in mileage because the xB weighs 400 lbs more and is NOWHERE NEAR as aerodynamic, but it still has the same weak engine. The fuel efficiency goes down because you have to use more throttle more often. More throttle to accel 400 extra pounds, more throttle to keep a flying brick at 70 mph.

If you put the 1.5 liter in a Tundra, it would probably get about 14 real world mpg( or less), because you would be at full throttle 80% of the time.

The only reason you would see a difference in mileage much greater than the EPA difference is because a bigger engine CAN use more fuel. In the vette, pedal to the medal at 170+, it will get like 3mpg, whereas the echo, flat out at 110 will get 10 mpg...i am just guessing, but it is to illustrate my point.

 

FYI - I'm an automotive designer in a Magna company

my real world figures are from www.fueleconomy.gov

recent grad = you still have alot to learn

do you own an xB? - yes I do

I have owned almost 20 cars in my life. Everything from a crap Jeep to an Audi TT

good luck getting 30mpg on you new xB

one last question professor - you believe the new xB will get better fuel economy than the Honda Element. Please explain? They are almost identical (2wd version) in spec.

thank you for claiming I don't know what I'm talking about - very mature

 

Wait, so because you are older, I am wrong?

Where did I say the new xB would get 30 mpg? I think it will in a constant 70 mph cruise, but lots of cars do.

All I said is that it will get between 2.5 and 5 mpg less than a first gen in mixed driving.

xB2 and Element 2wd almost identical in spec? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Compared to the xB2, the Element is
2" longer
7" taller
2" wider
400 lbs heavier (manual transmissions, 2wd compared)

It's EPA 2008 score will be:

19/23 (again, manual transmission, 2wd)

Do I think the xB2 will get better mileage than a 2wd Element? Absolutely. There is no way that a vehicle rated 19/23 will match the mileage of a vehicle rated 22/29 (the numbers your agreed with, my best case scenario) or even worst case at 19/27.

Interesting fact, the Element is 400 lbs heavier and less aerodynamic than the xB (I think, no coeff of drag yet listed for xB2). The original xb was 400 lbs heavier than the echo and was less aerodynamic (admittedly, the aero diff between the echo/xB1 is bigger than between the xB2/Element). By your numbers the diff between the echo and xB1 was 7 real world mpg. You claim that the difference between the xB2 and Element will be 0 mpg?

 

Mr Fieroman: now we are getting somewhere. I don't totally disagree with you, I just think that your worst case scenario is likely your most accurate. Sure the Element is taller and 400lbs heavier (I think it is silly to point out that it is 2" longer and 2" wider) but the Element is 95% the same vehicle that the 08 xB is. Please don't try to tell me that the new xB will significantly more efficient than the Element. Is the 7" of height worth 6mpg (highway)? Certainly the 400lbs is not a significant factor on the highway. You and I both know the Element and xB will be close in drag. If the Element is 19/23 the xB will be very similar. If Toyota offers the new xB with low gearing then the highway will suffer. If a typical Element gets 23mpg real world then expect the xB to get 23 - 25. If the xB gets 2 extra mpg that equals 10% (roughly) better fuel economy. 10% better for very little design difference. I believe that you are claiming the xB will be over 20% more efficient on the highway. I don't think your numbers add up.

 

Wider makes a difference in frontal area. Drag resistance is coeff of drag times frontal area. I also think the xB will have a better coefficient of drag, in addition to the smaller frontal area. I do think there could be up to a 6 mpg (depending on gearing/tune) diff highway, as the Element has lots more area and prolly a higher coeff.

I never said it would be significantly more efficient than the Element, but if the Element gets 23 mpg real world mixed, I expect 25+ real world mixed depending on Scion gearing/tune.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree until the numbers come out, because it looks at this point that we have both run out of hard data and are now speculating.

I stand by my prediction of somewhere between 19/27 and 22/29, using 2008 tests. We will see for sure when the numbers are released.

 

Lets not forget about all the parasite drag (antenna) on the ne Xb!

Seriously... it's easy to get good MPG's on the highway. VVT, aero design including clean undercarraige, smart gearing choices, etc..

I used to be fooled by the allure of good highway mileage. I was proud of the fact that my 1995 Ford E-350 15 passanger van got 17MPG on a trip to Florida!!!! The problem was that 99% of the time I was driving around town in stop and go traffic. 9 MPG was common!! With a 32 Gallon tank and a low fuel light on, it would cost me about $48.00 to fill at $1.60/gallon. Today it would be $78!!!

For most people, the local mileage is critical. Even if I drive 5 miles a day on highway, it doesn't matter because of the fuel it takes to get up to speed.

Anyway, if the local mileage of the new Xb suffers more that 2MPG published/converted(apples-to-apples) then it will be a tough sell for me.

I hope that the "camry" engine is de-tuned for low end efficiency and the M-tran is geared to maximize the MPG's. That may save the MPG issue and get the box 28-29 MPG local.

I predict 28-32 MPG in 07 speak..don't know what that is is 08 speak?!?!?!?!

Please advise....

PS: I drive my 06 rs3.0 hard 70% of the time and mostly local. I get 24.5 to 27.1 MPG. I got 31 once and once only. My first tank!

 

Real world city mileage, (never above 40 or so) I would expect 25 if driven very softly and 22 if driven like a normal person. Driven "hard" (remember, it will be a good bit faster than the old one) I would not expect much beyond 19-20 mpg. I know my Fiero is capable of 19 mpg city but I usually get ~12 because I fly in that thing.

You say you drive "hard" a lot of the time. The mpg split for you will probably be ~5 mpg or maybe more unless Toyota really pulls something out of their butt.

 

Interesting conversation between the two of you, so thanks for the entertainment. I still think that the xB mileage will be very close to what the Camry is rated at, since what it lacks in aerodynamics it makes up for in weight.

Just a side note... I can't believe that the Echo was lighter than my MR2 Spyder. I even looked it up because I didn't believe it. Sure enough, 2000-2100lb (www.caranddriver.com). AMAZING!

 

Not to get too far off topic but when gas peaked at $3.30 in this area, i offered to fill my wife's suburban for her. Nearly FOURTY gallons later and $125 bucks i was floored!! i got out the owner's manual and found that it has a 44 gallon tank! She had like 6 gallons on the tank but the gauge still read empty. I haven't really complained about gas since!