Popular Mechanics june issue

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Popular Mechanics june issue

BrankoBox
High mileage test

VW Jetta TDI EPA 30/42, PM tested 40.4
Ford Focus SFE EPA 28/40, PM tested 38.6
Chevrolet Cruze EPA 28/42, PM tested 36.7
Fiat 500 EPA 30/38, PM tested 34.6
Hyundai Elantra  29/40, PM tested 32.3


ACCELERATION (sec) 0-60 mph
Focus - 8.02
Cruze - 8.55
Jetta - 8.77
Elantra - 8.89
500 - 10.18

BRAKING (ft) 60-0 mph
Jetta - 112.6
Focus - 119.6
Elantra - 122.4
500 - 125.6
Cruze 129.1

SLALOM (mph)
Cruze 72.5
Jetta - 72.2
500 - 70.1
Elantra - 69.3
Focus - 69.1

LANE CHANGE (mph)
500 - 54.6
Jetta - 51.5
Cruze 50.6
Elantra 50.4
Focus - 48.3

SKIDPAD (g's)
500 - 0.85
Jetta - 0.85
Focus - 0.82
Elantra - 0.81
Cruze 0.80

They comment that Fiat 1.4 Multiair works hard, so the 500 is not a fuel economy champ in this group. There's no surplus of oomph - but enough to make 500 drive as spunky as it looks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Popular Mechanics june issue

ciddyguy
BrankoBox wrote
High mileage test

VW Jetta TDI EPA 30/42, PM tested 40.4
Ford Focus SFE EPA 28/40, PM tested 38.6
Chevrolet Cruze EPA 28/42, PM tested 36.7
Fiat 500 EPA 30/38, PM tested 34.6
Hyundai Elantra  29/40, PM tested 32.3


ACCELERATION (sec) 0-60 mph
Focus - 8.02
Cruze - 8.55
Jetta - 8.77
Elantra - 8.89
500 - 10.18

BRAKING (ft) 60-0 mph
Jetta - 112.6
Focus - 119.6
Elantra - 122.4
500 - 125.6
Cruze 129.1

SLALOM (mph)
Cruze 72.5
Jetta - 72.2
500 - 70.1
Elantra - 69.3
Focus - 69.1

LANE CHANGE (mph)
500 - 54.6
Jetta - 51.5
Cruze 50.6
Elantra 50.4
Focus - 48.3

SKIDPAD (g's)
500 - 0.85
Jetta - 0.85
Focus - 0.82
Elantra - 0.81
Cruze 0.80

They comment that Fiat 1.4 Multiair works hard, so the 500 is not a fuel economy champ in this group. There's no surplus of oomph - but enough to make 500 drive as spunky as it looks.
They clearly aren't doing it right then, or this is the automatic, which drops the fuel economy.

I can't say for Popular Mechanics these days as I've not read it in years but some people have gotten as much as 9.4-9.7 Sec, 0-60 times with the Fiat so I'm not sure what's up with that, other than perhaps a poor rolling start, which WILL mean the car's acceleration times are going to be slower.

Also, are their mileage numbers for combined or was this the highway mileage?

I may have to see this article for myself.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Popular Mechanics june issue

panther76
i know i was able to take a 17 mile test drive on the interstate last week at 65-70 mph which achieved 44.8 mpg. granted this was a pretty small sample.

i spent ALOT of time on the Hyundai forums/2011 elantra section the last few month as i had a fair amount of interest in that car. getting 40+mpg on the highway has been a pretty elusive proposition for most drivers. in fact drivers who have gotten 40 mpg for a tank almost get a parade thrown for them.

i also wonder how all variants of the elantra got rated at 40 mpg when a loaded automatic limited is pushing 2900 lbs and a manual gls  weighs less than 2700 lbs.

i also would not be surprised if they were testing the automatic.

i dont even see how anyone can get less than epa highway numbers under the current testing methodology unless they are driving 75+ mph or generally abusing the car.

i definitely think at 70+ mph the 500 will take more losses than those cars because it is not as slippery.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Popular Mechanics june issue

kzod
In reply to this post by BrankoBox
BrankoBox wrote
High mileage test

They comment that Fiat 1.4 Multiair works hard, so the 500 is not a fuel economy champ in this group. There's no surplus of oomph - but enough to make 500 drive as spunky as it looks.
Without reading the article it seems like they drove all the cars similarly, and the fiat with it's tiny engine had to be worked hard to keep up.  So, it's normal that they didn't get the super low numbers that others get when focusing purely on fuel economy.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Popular Mechanics june issue

panther76
so, little engines that have to work hard get poorer fuel efficiency because well, they are tiny and have to work hard.  that is a silly argument for the most part. some of the most fuel efficient cars in the world have "tiny" engines that have to work hard.

the most fuel effiecient non hybrid in america in the last 15 years was the toyota echo with a tiny 1.5 that had to work hard. (it barely put out 100 hp).

Loading...