Good work by Nissan to improve the safety so much! That's what's great about the NCAP ratings really, it forces manufacturers to strive for a quantified safety rating. 20 years ago they might've just left it as-is instead of revising.
2002 Renault Laguna 1.9dci Dynamique, done around 75k. Atm, I'm getting around 38mpg. Managed to get it to about 47 at one point, on a long run (6 gears are lovely). It's in need of a new exhaust and it's just had new springs all round as one snapped recently.
Hah!.. this could be a new stat to post as well - biggest disparity between best and worst. I think I'll win. Constant 60mph = 28mpg Having fun = 6.9mpg
I think I'll add to this one: 2003 Mini Cooper: Boring: 30mpg Fun: 16mpg Nothing like rocketing through roundabouts at 3am at over 45mph
1998 Nissan Almera GTi 2.0l 16v Motorway cruising: 44mpg (used to get it regularly cruising 90 miles to work and back each way at 60MPH) Around town: 34MPG (includes some right foot action) Driving it hard: 28MPG Nurburgring: 22MPG
So far on it's current tank filled from empty my onboard computer is stating 51.1MPG. The math proces it's pretty damn close. Driving more sensibly this week
Volvo V70 2.5 20v Petrol Trip computer averages at 30mpg, on long motorway runs this will rise to 35mpg Get about 400 miles of 60 odd litres which is about 30 to the gallon Kimbie
You Sir are the uninformed one, on the basis of crash survivability a well designed SUV is superior to a small car. The problem is the much higher mass of the SUV means its kinetic energy simply bludgeons the lighter vehicle. The height of impact of an SUV means that it will hit a regular car at its weakest point, the area around the A-pillar, this is exacerbated by the fact that the SUV is impacting the car at the point where its body is stiffest, due to its chassis. In terms of active crash avoidance a regular car is generally superior, as its lower centre of gravity and weight means that it has better manoeuvrability, improving the chance of not crashing in the first place. The video below shows the result of a crash-test of a 5-star NCAP supermini, against a technically inferior 4-star SUV. It is a sad and frightening fact that a crash with a heavy SUV will ultimately leave the other vehicle worse off. http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Fiat-500/234235/ Of course all tall and heavy vehicles pose a greater risk, yet at least a van or a lorry has a practical reason for its exterior dimensions, too often a SUV is simply a fashion choice (waning), or chosen for its greater crash survivability (real yet selfish). The dilemma is that if I had children then I would choose a SUV or at least a larger car, and in that decision I know that I am not alone.
For many years Marilyn and I owned Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited. We went back and forth to Iowa when our parents were dying. 654 miles one way. The Jeeps were stable and highway speeds even in cross winds. They gave a sense of security - rightly or wrongly - that we could do the distances safely with a small child. On a solo trip I took the Jeep into the middle median on Interstate 80 at 75mph when a diabetic woman went the wrong way and was pushing vehicles out of the way. 75mph into the median, impacted with a cross median water control dike, lofted the jeep completely in the air and landed with no more damage than an undercarriage full of tumbleweeds. If I was prone to travel on the highways of the US again the Hyundai would go bye bye for a larger vehicle. An American perception. john
Just over 6 months ago I changed jobs and my daily commute is less than 5 miles (yeah I could use a bicycle but 1) I like to go home at lunch 2) there's no cycle paths and 3) the route I have to take is VERY busy and I like living) so these figures are based on winter usage not necessarily current. I'm also "cheating" and using the "tank average" figure from the trip computer ... I drive my car right down til it says "0 miles left" Skoda Octavia VRS with 2.0L 170PS TDI engine (168bhp turbo diesel to you americans!) Crusing motorway @ 75mph gives trip avg of 46-48mpg Daily commute in traffic of 60 miles (30 each way) @ 30 - 70mph gives tank avg of around 43mpg Previous car (2 years ago but should be accurate) - VW MK5 Golf 2.0L 140PS TDI (138bhps turbo diesel) Cruising motorway @ 75mph best I ever got was around 55mpg Daily commute in traffic same deal as above, the trip avg was once 60.1mpg (still got a picture on my camera phone lol) although tank average would be mid 50s A huge amount of cars in the UK have small engines, in the 1.0 to 1.4 litre range, petrol. Younger drivers have to take these due to the insane insurance cost - usually as much or more than the value of the car for an 18 y/o male. A lot of family cars are 1.6/1.8/2.0 litre petrol or 1.7/1.9/2.0 litre diesel. In this range the petrol will almost always be NON turbo, and the diesels are probably a good split of the two. Then consider that even on motorways we don't always have the same kind of distance to move. Isn't it said that you can fit the landmass of the UK within Texas and still have leftovers??
2005 Ford Mondeo Hatchback TDCI (Common-rail turbo diesel) 2.0 130PS. I get around 58mpg on a motorway run, 48mpg day to day around town.
Have to disagree with some points there! my Dad owns a Prius (granted its a company vehicle) and that in itself was part of the reason he got it, cheaper to own across the year as the tax is a lot less on the hybrid. for city driving (which is what the car is designed for) the mileage is pretty good, on a full tank he has never gotten less than 510/505 miles which does actually equate to around 50mpg which isnt too bad for the city driving! its a lot more when he's doing motorway runs though. and its not just the eco-wannabies that drive priuses! cost factors in hugely too, the last time i was in london i was aware of the huge numbers of priuses driving around simply because they are more economical in city driving and theres no congestion charge either!
It's a sad truth that a supermini like that simply can't cope with the sheer momentum of a big SUV. What is true, however, is for hitting a stationary object (as seen in the standardised concrete block tests) is that the supermini is still safer. The problem comes when you start having collisions between huge vehicles and small, light ones. It's a simple fact that without making a supermini weigh the same as a big SUV, then jacking it up to the same height to combat submarining, the small car will come off worse.
In terms of hitting a stationary object, a 5-star NCAP SUV should perform just as well as a 5-star supermini, however the design qualities of the SUV, make it harder for manufacturers to engineer such a vehicle. However, to put things into perspective a lorry would make mincemeat of a SUV, so short of buying a tank, learning some advanced driving techniques to help avoid a crash, through better awareness is probably the wisest option. SUVs are too large for the UK's roads, outside of rural communities who could be given a form of financial dispensation if they own such a car, the government should tax them to the hilt. As a final insult, I'm only 6ft, but I find many SUV quite cramped, and my 6ft 7' friend is far more comfortable in his Focus. Not nice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUIxMIyExqE
89-95mpg, baby. Honda CG125: Awwww Yeeeeaaah! I should get some neon strips and a custom paint job on that beast.
