New Vehicle Owners - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-19-2007, 06:45 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Chester Taje's Avatar
 
Name: Ches
Trailer: 1992 Kustom Koach 17 FT
British Columbia
Posts: 4,897
Quote:
I would bet the vehicles sold in Canada specify the mpg ratings in imperial gallons.
Thats correct Morgan
__________________

__________________
Retired Underground Coal Miner.
Served in Canadian Army (1PPCLI)
Chester Taje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2007, 07:40 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
None of the 2007 Frontier Crew Cab 4x4 LE specs, in the Canadian or U.S. Nissan sites, exactly match 15 and 20 mpg... so there's been some change between 2005 and 2007; however, those values are much closer to the U.S. 16 and 20 than the Canadian 19 and 27. I'm guessing Lainey's numbers are in US gallons, from the US spec.

This is one reason I agree with the earlier sentiment: just use L/100km. Especially since the odometers are in kilometers and the fuel pumps are in litres. Why do any conversions at all? I sometimes convert to miles/USgal for display in topics as a convenience for members in the U.S.

The Canadian specs for the 2007 version of that Frontier are 10.6 L/100km (highway) and 14.9 L/100km (city). 12.9 L/100km actual experience in mixed driving makes it look to me like the official estimate is reasonable.

Yes, Morgan, the published numbers which I have seen in Canada are all L/100km and miles per Imperial gallon... the latter being a unit of measure we were supposed to abandon about 30 years ago.
__________________

__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2007, 08:49 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Lainey's Avatar
 
Trailer: 1989 Bigfoot 17 ft and 1989 Li'l Bigfoot 13 ft
Posts: 538
Quote:
The Canadian specs for the 2007 version of that Frontier are 10.6 L/100km (highway) and 14.9 L/100km (city). 12.9 L/100km actual experience in mixed driving makes it look to me like the official estimate is reasonable.
Brian, that sounds about similar to what I remember the specs for my 2005 to be also. It's good to know that the actual fuel consumption in real life is matching what the specs are (or at least according to what that little computer thingy says...)

Any way you cut it, 12.9L/100km sure is a LOT more fuel than my little 4 cyl. 5 spd Rav4 used! Luckily I don't commute into work anymore, or I'd be broke!
__________________
Lainey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2007, 09:10 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
pjanits's Avatar
 
Name: Pete
Trailer: 17 ft 1986 Burro
Tennessee
Posts: 881
Here in the Midwest we have Summer and Winter blends.
I have noticed that the winter blend gives horrible mileage ( along with the slower, heavier traffic).
Maybe 3 to 4 mpg less than summer.

Thanks, Gas folks, for the special blends.
__________________
pjanits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2007, 02:23 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
I have also noticed the seasonal difference, but I would be very surprised if the winter gasoline formulation is responsible for any significant fraction of the observed decrease in fuel economy. The seasonal blends are not done to hurt us, or even to benefit the fuel producers, but to make the fuel more suitable for driving conditions.

I suggest a reading of the Wikipedia page for gasoline, particularly the Volatility and Energy Content sections, as a start to a better understanding of this situation.

Winter driving is bad for fuel economy, due to traffic conditions (as mentioned), plus longer idling times as people leave vehicles to warm up, richer fuel mixtures required by the vehicle to start and to run cold, greater drag of cold lubricants in the transmission and final drive, greater drag of snow-covered streets, and probably some other factors.

I assume that the government tests are under conditions more like a typical midwest summer than winter.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2007, 10:30 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
brendadave's Avatar
 
Trailer: 1976 Trillium 13 ft
Posts: 218
Quote:
I was just wondering if you folks which have bought new vehicals in the last few years are getting close to published miles/gallon of fuel on normol driving conditions.
EG---My Toyoto Rav 4 is stated to be 25 City and 37 Highway.I am not getting close to the posted Highway rating of 37 miles per gallon CDN

How about you all.
Okay, I finally went through a tank of gas with just city driving, it is rated at 12.5L/100KM, and I got 12.3L/100KM. I have not done a lot of highway driving without the trailer yet, but it was around what is rated... 9.1L/100KM.

I am quite happy that it is getting the economy that is advertised.
__________________
brendadave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2007, 10:59 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Patrick M.'s Avatar
 
Name: Patrick
Trailer: 2007 Casita Liberty (Sold 2011)/ Honda Odyssey
Arizona
Posts: 705
Just returned from a 2,000+ mile mostly Interstate trip in our 2007 Honda Odyssey EX. EPA rating is 18/25 and we averaged 24.6 running at 75 MPH on cruise control. In-town driving really impacts this car as I'm seeing 15-18 despite coasting to red lights, while other blast up to the red lights at full speed just so they can then slam on their brakes.
__________________
Patrick M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 09:25 PM   #22
Junior Member
 
Trailer: 2005 Tab
Posts: 17
Quote:
I was just wondering if you folks which have bought new vehicals in the last few years are getting close to published miles/gallon of fuel on normol driving conditions.
EG---My Toyoto Rav 4 is stated to be 25 City and 37 Highway.I am not getting close to the posted Highway rating of 37 miles per gallon CDN

How about you all.
Chester: I too drive a new Rav4 with the V6. Mine is still far from broken in but it appears to get 32mpg (canadian) on the highway, rather than the rating of 36. It sure works nice when pulling my T@B though!!!

Ken D
__________________
Ken D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 10:23 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Lainey's Avatar
 
Trailer: 1989 Bigfoot 17 ft and 1989 Li'l Bigfoot 13 ft
Posts: 538
I just returned from camping in the Rockies for the weekend.
On the way back I averaged 16.3 L/100km. Not too bad considering
__________________
Lainey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 02:01 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
james kent's Avatar
 
Name: james
Trailer: Boler 1984
Ontario
Posts: 2,938
How heavy is your foot? It can make a sizeable difference. When my RPM goes over 2000 my mileage drops considerably. If I keep it under 1800 I get excellent mileage from my Dakota with a 4.7 v8.
On the hwy at 55-60 mpn....excellant
65-70...........crappy
Jim
__________________
james kent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 03:52 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Ken introduced the idea of breaking the vehicle (or engine) in... while new engines don't require the same sort of break-in period or practices which they did decades ago, it is still a factor, although probably more relevant to available power than to fuel efficiency. In addition to the engine, transmission control computers now often "learn" the driver's habits, and adapt to them, so drivetrain behaviour changes with time.

Chester, since you've been tracking fuel consumption for a little while now, have you seen any change?
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 04:33 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Roger H's Avatar
 
Name: Roger
Trailer: Y2K6 Born Free 32RQ on the Kodiak chassis, 1995 Coachmen 19' B-van and 1996 Precision 21' Sailboat
Iowa
Posts: 5,000
We bought a new '06 Honda Civic, with all of the options and the gas engine a year ago January. It now has a little over 30k miles on it. My wife drives 90 miles/day round trip to work in the car. It's mileage has continued to increase and she is now consistently getting between 39 and 41 mpg (U.S.) out of the car commuting. It started at about 36-37 mpg average. I couldn't be more pleased with it.

Roger
__________________
Roger H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 05:46 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Honda lists the automatic Civic sedan at 30 (city) / 40 (highway) MPG, and a 45-mile (each way) commute is presumably mostly highway, so that sounds like a pretty good match between the claim and the actual experience, Roger.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 07:11 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Chester Taje's Avatar
 
Name: Ches
Trailer: 1992 Kustom Koach 17 FT
British Columbia
Posts: 4,897
Quote:
Ken introduced the idea of breaking the vehicle (or engine) in... while new engines don't require the same sort of break-in period or practices which they did decades ago, it is still a factor, although probably more relevant to available power than to fuel efficiency. In addition to the engine, transmission control computers now often "learn" the driver's habits, and adapt to them, so drivetrain behaviour changes with time.

Chester, since you've been tracking fuel consumption for a little while now, have you seen any change?
We have not used the Rav4 since my last trip out.Going on vacation on the 16 Aug so will get a real good idea when pulling trailer.
__________________

__________________
Retired Underground Coal Miner.
Served in Canadian Army (1PPCLI)
Chester Taje is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need a new tow vehicle? George Cathcart Jokes, Stories & Tall Tales 3 10-27-2006 09:52 PM
tow vehicle Legacy Posts General Chat 20 05-09-2003 07:17 AM
Owners helping Owners Legacy Posts Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 10 04-15-2003 02:54 PM
My next vehicle Legacy Posts Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 19 01-25-2003 08:39 AM
Tow vehicle Dick W Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 0 12-31-1969 07:00 PM

» Trailer Showcase

scamp

Janet H

Mildred

Jim er
» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.