# So who buys a car based on the mileage it gets?



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just wondering how many seriously consider the amount they will spend on fuel when getting a new/used car?

If you drive very few km's it probably won't matter much but even for the average 20k km's a year it can add up. I see many of my neighbors buy trucks/SUVs with no real need to do so. A difference of 4L/100 kms adds up to near $1000 a year and I think many small car vs truck comparisons will probably be in the 6-9L/100km range difference. So it seems this is one area many choose not to save money on.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We put on very few miles so buy a good used car with low mileage. We are more sensitive to purchase price than efficiency. Our major expenses are depreciation and insurance.


----------



## Jim9guitars (May 5, 2012)

I do the same as kcowan, if I had to drive much more than I do now I probably would be more diligant. As it is though I have a 4 cylinder standard that does get very good mileage and has low km's, it just happened to be the right car at the time.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I've started to consider it the past few years. I do miss driving V8's, but couldn't ignore the sticker shock. It's certainly nice filling up twice a month rather than once a week. I do miss my Camaro though (sold it in 2008).


----------



## gimme_divies (Feb 12, 2011)

I have to do daycare drop-off and pick-up and commute about 40kms worth of in-city driving every day. Lots of lights, lots of acceleration and deceleration, lots of 40 kph to 60 kph zones. With my Prius, I can do this whole commute averaging about 4.5L/100 KM and can do over 700 KM on a tank that costs me about $45 to fill-up, ALL city driving. Even compared with our previous vehicle, a 4 cylinder RAV4, we use less than half the fuel as we used to. Saving money was part of it, but really I hate the idea of wasting gas for no productive reason.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

So which year/model of Prius do you have?
4.5/100 is really good!


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Many of the taxis is Vancouver are Prius Hybrids and they swear by them for gas mileage. I suppose 40km a day would justify one. I had thought it would be more than double that. Have you done the analysis on the extra purchase price?


----------



## gimme_divies (Feb 12, 2011)

I have a 2012 Prius V (the station wagon) and I get about 4.5/100 city and about 5.0/100 overall - highway driving actually bumps me up. I make a conscious effort to try to maximize use of the electric motor using hypermiling techniques, so for example if I am coming up to a light and I see that it is red, then I take my foot off the gas and glide towards the light - often with other people burning past me just so they can slam the breaks when they get to the light. What's nice about the toyota hybrid system (not sure about other companies), the electric motor actually recharges when you brake and when you glide without your foot on the gas, so if you manage it effectively, you can use the electric motor alot while constantly recharging it - dowhill sections are the best for this.

In terms of the extra purchase price - it depends what you are comparing it to. We went from leasing (I know this is a cardinal sin in a frugality forum) a RAV4 to leasing our Prius V and the monthly cost is actually lower to lease the Prius in addition to the $100-125 fuel savings each month. I am not sure what else you might compare it to since the Prius V is truly a family vehicle with tons of cargo space - but in terms of overall vehicle cost when purchased new, it is good value no question.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Over the long haul, in 10 years you'd probably save 20,000 in fuel if compared to a 12L/100 minivan doing 20K kms a year. Not sure what the Prius maintenance costs are over 10 years (new battery needed?) so that might dig into the savings a fair bit.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

on the other hand minivan might save you your life in a big collision vs prius... mileage isn't everything



cainvest said:


> Over the long haul, in 10 years you'd probably save 20,000 in fuel if compared to a 12L/100 minivan doing 20K kms a year. Not sure what the Prius maintenance costs are over 10 years (new battery needed?) so that might dig into the savings a fair bit.


----------



## thompsg4416 (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm cheap. I always consider sticker price and cost of operation when looking to purchase a vehicle. I'd have to be in a much better financial position then I am now before I'd consider buying anything but a 4 cylinder car even with a family of 4. Given the option to pay more up front for lower operating costs? I like this idea because I hate to be tied up with monthly bills and operating costs. The more free cash flow I have the better as far as I'm concerned. That said you won't catch me buying another new vehicle for a long time either and I'm not brave enough to buy a used hybrid just yet. So although I love the idea of the Prius I'm just not there yet.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I own a 13-year-old Mazda, 4-cylin. standard transmission that gets pretty good mileage. My next car will be very (even more) fuel efficient. I drive about 40 km each day.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

My Own Advisor said:


> I own a 13-year-old Mazda, 4-cylin. standard transmission that gets pretty good mileage. My next car will be very (even more) fuel efficient. I drive about 40 km each day.


We have a 2005 Civic standard trans......don't drive a lot locally, (walk when we can), but if we do (have to) go somewhere it's usually (at minimum) a couple hundred km round trip.

Don't like paying for gas, but we do like a small, peppy, maneuverable vehicle....win/win.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

Decide on what you want to spend on fuel in a year relative to the utility you need the vehicle for. 

In our household we have a mid sized crew cab pickup truck for around the house fix up jobs, hauling things too big for the car around, and taking four of us off on driving summer vacations going camping or canoeing. Most of the year it sits in the underground garage of my work place. Travels 5k per year on average for work related travel, all reimbursed at 0.50 per km. then maybe 2-3k for personal use other than vacations, and vacations is the big variable - 0.5k to 5k depending on the year. 

Hauling utility offsets the insurance for a really otherwise under used vehicle - last weekend given 4 book shelves (if new about $500) we had a good use for for free becuase we could haul them away ourselves from downsizing pals. Also took a whole bunch of e-waste to the scrap yard for them, and pocketted over $80 in scrap value. 

Truck consumes about 14k/100 km summer, and worse on short trips in the winter. Bought it knowing it would eat more gas, but gave more utility than a car.
Bought a V8 over 6 at the time when gas prices high, because it was $2k less than the comparable 6 cylinder models. $2k is a lot of gas whe you don't drive much.

Every day little car- can just fit 4 of us, and takes wife to work daily, and us out and about on evenings and week ends. A tight squeeze for a weekend away visiting if going in the winter time with coats, snow pants etc. 
It travels about 15k per year, and averages about 8l/100km. 

Bicycle - used for my daily commute in nice weather - $25 at a garage sale 8 years ago.

Feet for walking in when too crappy weather to bike - free; boots a wedding gift from my wife. Still going strong after 18 years, 2 sets of soles, and numerous re-stitchings.


----------



## travelgeek (Nov 29, 2009)

I haven't really considered gas mileage as a primary factor when choosing a vehicle. But one thing I ensure is that it uses regular gas and not premium.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I did a comparison for a friend who owns a small truck and really doesn't use the truck for what it is. My car just turned over 200K kms and has a lifetime average of 6.2L/100 (~75% city/25% hwy) so doing the math I would have paid out an extra $16000 over the 10 years had I owned the same truck. Now for me, I'd rather invest that $16K than burn it!


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

I consider the "fleet" fuel economy. Two vehicles get terrible mileage, my truck, and my old car. The minivan gets better mileage.

When it comes time to purchase my next vehicle, I certainly don't want worse fuel economy. I'll always have the old car, and I'll always need a truck. So when I go looking for a vehicles it will come down to finding a list of truck/minivans that fit my needs, and then looking at fuel economy and sticker cost.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

We owned a VW jetta TDI, it would get around 900km/tank (5L/100) about 45 bucks to fill up. 

Fuel economy definitely plays a role in our car making decisions.


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm from the UK and mileage played a massive part in my decision. Roughly $2.20 per litre fuel.

I owned a diesel and we are soon to be considering a second car. I would probably go for a golf TDI but considering the price I doubt it will be worth the premium based on the fuel savings / mileage I will be travelling. 

Instead I may consider a smaller utility truck such as a Ford Ranger. 

It really depends on what mileage you were doing. But if I were to be frugal and buy new then it would be Diesel over Hydbrid. I would never consider a second hand Prius / EV.

The motorbike is awesome on fuel. Aprrox 65mpg (safety factors aside)


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I think the best way to approach this if you want to save money is to look at cost per kilometer traveled. It's hard to figure out, but if you look at your transportation options as a portfolio you can find ways to reduce your overall cost per kilometer by using the cheapest transportation mode that will get you there in time.

For example, walking and biking would have the lowest cost/km, public transit would have the next lowest, then bus, then train, then car, then airplane.

Using that portfolio approach we keep our cost per km pretty low; we walk and bike whenever practical (nearly all of our grocery shopping and local errands are done by foot or bike), take public transit for most of our travel within the city, and always look for a fuel-efficient and reliable car to keep that cost/km to a minimum. For longer distances bus is usually cheaper than driving but usually takes more time; train is more expensive but faster, but ultimately it depends on things like traffic avoided and time spent trying to find parking or paying for parking in your destination. We never, ever drive to Toronto, for example; we always take the train.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

We worry a lot about gas mileage compared to other auto expenses like insurance, car payments and repairs. It is kind of funny seeing someone spending $30,000 on a new car and justifying it because it will save $5 a week compared to their old car. You have to about double your mileage to get a significant saving.

I must admit I am as much a slave to this as anyone even though I have done the math and know better.


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> We worry a lot about gas mileage compared to other auto expenses like insurance, car payments and repairs. It is kind of funny seeing someone spending $30,000 on a new car and justifying it because it will save $5 a week compared to their old car. You have to about double your mileage to get a significant saving.
> 
> I must admit I am as much a slave to this as anyone even though I have done the math and know better.


That was my thoughts when looking at diesel VW options. The expense of the car for fuel saving just isn't worth it. Second hand prius etc I think will bite people in the butt once they start having to replace batteries. 

Insurance rates are simply brutal :hopelessness:


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

travelgeek said:


> I haven't really considered gas mileage as a primary factor when choosing a vehicle. But one thing I ensure is that it uses regular gas and not premium.


I definitely consider gas mileage when purchasing a car. We put 50K plus a year on each of our vehicles so gas adds up. I agree that regular fuel is a good choice but the truth is that most cars that state they need premium fuel do just fine on regular. It's also reasonable to buy a car with standard size rims/tires because of the expense of high end tires.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> We worry a lot about gas mileage compared to other auto expenses like insurance, car payments and repairs. It is kind of funny seeing someone spending $30,000 on a new car and justifying it because it will save $5 a week compared to their old car. You have to about double your mileage to get a significant saving.
> 
> I must admit I am as much a slave to this as anyone even though I have done the math and know better.


Good point. A quick back of napkin calculation reveals that 30K would by me gas for about 25 years... LOL.

My 2000 Pontiac Sunfire gets about 8L/100 km, so assuming the new car averaged about 5L/100 km, that's only a 37.5% savings... gas would still cost me 18.75K over 25 years.

New car cost: $30,000 + Gas for 25 yrs @ $18,750 = $48,750

Old car cost: *$2,000 + Gas for 25 yrs @ $30,000 = $32,000

Note: I actually paid less for my car, but then I'm good at fixing things for cheap (my car is in better shape than most cars half its age).


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

From a total financial standpoint you do have to factor many things in. If you drive very little, mileage and longevity don't matter much, a cheap second hand car is probably a good bet. If however you're driving 20K or higher kms a year it might just pay off getting the more expensive diesel or hybrid offering, also providing you plan on keeping the car 10+ years.

If you are a high mileage driver, like uptoolate's 50k kms/year, those extra 3-4L/100km can really add up over the years.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

^ Yep, clearly my situation is atypical since I drive less than 15K a year (I probably drive more distance for pleasure than for my commute, which is negligible). I think a hybrid or VW TDI would probably be great for a 50K/yr driver... I heard that cab drivers really like hybrids.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

nathan79 said:


> ^ Yep, clearly my situation is atypical since I drive less than 15K a year (I probably drive more distance for pleasure than for my commute, which is negligible). I think a hybrid or VW TDI would probably be great for a 50K/yr driver... I heard that cab drivers really like hybrids.


Also fixing your existing car is almost always the cheaper route than getting something new(er), especially so if you can DIY.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

No, but our preference is always for a smaller imports. We are getting 6.2L/100Km highway on our 16 year old V6 Camry and almost the same on the Honda V6. We won't consider a car that requires premium fuel. We have downsized everything in the past year and one car may go. Tires on both are speed rated but we always buy at Costco and the prices are reasonable. 

We would like to get something that has even better mileage, especially in the city, but our cars are in good condition and are worth more to us than they are to the market. If we give one to my son, we will replace it with a Honda Fit for city driving. 

My last two company vehicles were SUV's-6cly. full load Escapes. They both sucked gas at an unbelievable rate (to us).


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

fraser said:


> My last two company vehicles were SUV's-6cly. full load Escapes. They both sucked gas at an unbelievable rate (to us).


Yes but since we put less than 2000 km on it, it is cost-effective for us as a northern vehicle. (2005 cost $12000 4 years ago)


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

MPG alone is the dumbest reason to buy a car. give your head a shake and learn how to calculate TOTAL cost of ownership.....



cainvest said:


> Just wondering how many seriously consider the amount they will spend on fuel when getting a new/used car?
> 
> If you drive very few km's it probably won't matter much but even for the average 20k km's a year it can add up. I see many of my neighbors buy trucks/SUVs with no real need to do so. A difference of 4L/100 kms adds up to near $1000 a year and I think many small car vs truck comparisons will probably be in the 6-9L/100km range difference. So it seems this is one area many choose not to save money on.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

haha, it is lego. why would you not be able to DIY?

my five year old had a screwdriver ready to fix a cupboard the other day. there are no 'professionals'...


cainvest said:


> Also fixing your existing car is almost always the cheaper route than getting something new(er), especially so if you can DIY.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"I agree that regular fuel is a good choice but the truth is that most cars that state they need premium fuel do just fine on regular."
Today's computer controlled engines will adjust themselves to run on low octane fuel without damage, but at a cost of reduced power and mileage. So if you save 10% by buying cheaper gas but get 10% less MPG what have you saved? Nothing. You might as well buy the gas the owner's manual calls for.

Incidentally if your engine calls for 87 octane there is nothing to be gained by buying premium. It will run just as well on the petunia juice, maybe better. Octane is a measure of knock resistance and is related mainly to the compression ratio. If you don't have a high compression engine you don't need high octane fuel.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sprocket1200 said:


> MPG alone is the dumbest reason to buy a car. give your head a shake and learn how to calculate TOTAL cost of ownership.....


Well of course its not the *only* thing, who said it was? Obviously if you drive a fair number of kms fuel can be a significant cost factor.
BTW, care to share your "TOTAL cost of ownership" calculation?




Rusty O'Toole said:


> Today's computer controlled engines will adjust themselves to run on low octane fuel without damage, but at a cost of reduced power and mileage. So if you save 10% by buying cheaper gas but get 10% less MPG what have you saved? Nothing.


True only *IF* you lose 10% on the mileage, which from what I've measured (one car only that can use regular but they recommend premium), you don't. I think as long as the car can adjust the timing accordingly the mileage doesn't appear to suffer any significant amount.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Did an interesting fuel experiment in the past weeks as I needed to replace a part that required me to remove my serpentine belt until the part arrived. So without an alternator, power steering pump or A/C being driven for a little more than half the tank I gained almost 1L per 100kms. I was quite surpised that the load on these caused such a drain on fuel and of course the inconvenience of driving without the belt is far greater than the fuel savings.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

For sure cainvest!

In thinking about the question...I figure my next car will be one >50 mpg. I want something that sips gas. Likely look at KIA, Hyundai, Toyota or Honda for small econo-car.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Well of course its not the *only* thing, who said it was? Obviously if you drive a fair number of kms fuel can be a significant cost factor.
> BTW, care to share your "TOTAL cost of ownership" calculation?
> 
> 
> ...



Agree totally Cainvest. I wondered about this myself and ran a comparison of premium to regular unleaded and didn't find a significant difference in terms of mileage. Big difference with either type of gas when I lightened up on my somewhat heavy foot and took a little extra time to drive to work.


----------



## YYC (Nov 12, 2012)

I drive over $50k per year, most of it highway driving. I test drove a Prius, and notwithstanding the fact that I hated how it drove and the visibility out the backside, it really isn't an improvement over a regular gas powered car for highway driving. I also considered diesel cars such as VW. However, I found that the up front purchase price was generally around $10,000 higher than a similarly equipped gas car, and the mileage might be just slightly better. As well, diesel fuel seems to often be around 10 cents per litre higher than gas around here, which would negate any savings on mileage that one might obtain. I ended up with a new Chevy Cruze Eco at just over $20k brand new. I get around 5.5 l/100km on an average tank, better if I can keep my speed under 110km/h when on the highway (I usually can't...). Anyway, without inputting everything into a spreadsheet to get an exact TCO figure, the Cruze was a good fit in general and ticked all the boxes for me. So far (15 months in), I have 65,000km on it and am very happy. Also, getting over 10,000km to an oil change is nice and is right up there with a diesel engine from what I hear. Anyway, to answer the OP's question, fuel mileage was a very important consideration for me, but had to be considered within the context of how I drive (ie: almost all highway, etc).


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Are you sure your car requires premium? If there is no change in power, mileage or driveability evidently it doesn't.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Are you sure your car requires premium? If there is no change in power, mileage or driveability evidently it doesn't.


For my car premium is "recommended" and I'm not surprised that no real difference is detected by my butt-dyno. If you put the car on a real dyno and tested, ya, you'd probably see a small difference in HP output but really meaningless on the street. I would image that putting regular in a car that absolutely requires premium it would be more apparent though.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

YYC said:


> I get around 5.5 l/100km on an average tank, better if I can keep my speed under 110km/h when on the highway (I usually can't...).


I'd be happy with 5.5 real world, that's very good.

I'm unhappy with the latest VW diesel offerings, they boosted the base car price (mid trim and up only) and reduced the mileage for more power compared to the older models.  Diesel around here normally is 6-10 cents lower than regular but there have been some price jumps due to "shortage" issues, or so they claim.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

this is what underdrive pulleys are for. work great!



cainvest said:


> Did an interesting fuel experiment in the past weeks as I needed to replace a part that required me to remove my serpentine belt until the part arrived. So without an alternator, power steering pump or A/C being driven for a little more than half the tank I gained almost 1L per 100kms. I was quite surpised that the load on these caused such a drain on fuel and of course the inconvenience of driving without the belt is far greater than the fuel savings.


----------



## thesheet (Apr 20, 2012)

Based on how much I drive, the less fuel consumed, the better. 

Based on my mileage I will save 12000 over ten years with a Golf TDI @ 60 mpg vs Altima @ 45 mpg...

If I drove my wife's Tacoma, I 'd save almost 18000$ 

Diesel re sale value higher than 90% vehicles on the road, and the above savings doesn't take into account diesel is cheaper than gas 3/4 of the year at least where I live.

To get a accurate total cost of ownership including re-sale value, subscribe to consumer reports and find your potential car and click on ownership costs. the Golf Diesel est cost is 0.45 per KM which is among the lowest of any car i've seen. There are cheaper cars to run, but the Golf is a bit more premium and my costs might be lower due to the fact I drive more than the K driven that CR uses to determine costs of ownerships... So, cost isn't the only thing... but


----------



## spiritwalker2222 (Nov 7, 2017)

I bought my last car for it's efficiency. I'm saving $2,000 a year in gas vs a similar sized vehicle. This is going from a Dodge Caliber with a 1.8L to a Kia Niro PHEV.

My average fuel consumption has gone from 10 L/100 km's to 2.3 L/100 km's. The Caliber wasn't as bad on gas it that number suggests. I do/did a lot of towing with both of those cars.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I get 34.59 Liters per 100 km in my motor home.Not really the reason I bought it though.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I couldn't care any less about gas mileage. Last year I put 1,118 km on my Mazda6. I put 4,200 km on my bicycle. (And winter is 6 months long here).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't care either. At 10,000-15,000 km per year, it simply does not make enough difference to be 10l/100km or 7l/100km or 4l/100km


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I agree AltaRed. It is what it is, and why obsess over it. Compared to insurance, maintenance and depreciation it's a very minor expense. I could never understand why my father always filled the tank to overflowing, then wrote down the mileage so he could calculate MPG. What's the point? My wife's father was exactly the same. Until the day he finally gave up his last vehicle at age 95 he was still doing the same thing. Why measure something you have no influence over? Other than the obvious things like correct tire pressure, a clean air filter and take that load of bricks out of the trunk the only real measurable impact you can have over gas mileage is to slow down.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

pwm said:


> I agree AltaRed. It is what it is, and why obsess over it. Compared to insurance, maintenance and depreciation it's a very minor expense. I could never understand why my father always filled the tank to overflowing, then wrote down the mileage so he could calculate MPG. What's the point?


Everyone is different, I enjoy logging the data for the 5 seconds it takes per fill up. It can also tell me if something is not right engine wise, as in maintanence might be needed. If you don't drive much it probably doesn't make sense to do it though.

BTW, my quick calculation shows I spent more per year (on average and per today's prices) on fuel than insurance and maintenance combined for my car. I almost could have bought another car with the money I've saved on fuel.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

We all spend on fuel in the absolute sense with ICEs. The question is whether relatively small differences in consumption rate (the specific subject of this thread) are that meaningful. Obviously, the more fuel efficient the better but significant degradation in performance (and I would say safety such as passing on two lane highways) is a high price to pay for, say 7l/100km versus 9l/100km. Things like stop/start at red lights, cylinder de-activations, etc. come close to pure nonsense.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Obviously, the more fuel efficient the better but significant degradation in performance (and I would say safety such as passing on two lane highways) is a high price to pay for, say 7l/100km versus 9l/100km.


Not sure I follow you on the performance and safety point ... talking about passing due to lower HP? If so, that's never been issue for me.



AltaRed said:


> Things like stop/start at red lights, cylinder de-activations, etc. come close to pure nonsense.


I agree.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Acceleration is primarily about torque, not HP. A small naturally aspirated 2 litre four banger doesn't cut it on Highway 1 through BC relative to, for example, a 2.5 litre turbocharged engine. I've seen too many close calls on that highway in the past 20+ years. A reason why many opted for the 3 litre, or 3.5 litre V6.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Acceleration is primarily about torque, not HP. A small naturally aspirated 2 litre four banger doesn't cut it on Highway 1 through BC relative to, for example, a 2.5 litre turbocharged engine. I've seen too many close calls on that highway in the past 20+ years. A reason why many opted for the 3 litre, or 3.5 litre V6.


That's really a driver issue, nothing to do with the vehicle. I've towed my trailered motorcycle numerous times in the mountains (to Kelowna) and never had a problem with my Golf.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

With Vancouver gas prices it's definitely on my mind. I've bought fuel-efficient cars in the past, but I ended up returning to a larger, less fuel-efficient model. I only buy older used vehicles, which makes it harder to find something fuel-efficient and safe, that also has decent power and cargo space.

My current vehicle has 309K on it, so I expect to be in the market again soon. I've been putting it off for a while because the prices I'm seeing in the used market are frightening right now.

I wish there were more fuel efficient wagons available, since I'm not really an SUV person.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I consider it as part of Total cost of ownership.
But really I'm spending 20L/month in fuel, even if I doubled my consumption it's insigificant.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Acceleration is primarily about torque, not HP.


Unless your transmission is broken, acceleration is almost entirely about HP. Torque is just a feel good thing. It lets you be lazy about downshifting and it gives the false impression that the engine is not working hard because of low rpm. It's even more true these days with 8-10 speed automatics and CVTs where the engine can be kept near its maximum output at any speed.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

cainvest said:


> BTW, my quick calculation shows I spent more per year (on average and per today's prices) on fuel than insurance and maintenance combined for my car. I almost could have bought another car with the money I've saved on fuel.


I guess you are due for an EV?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Acceleration is mostly about ft lbs of torque. The flat torque curve is what gives EVs an advantage over ICEs overall, and what a well designed turbo-charger can give one at low rpm. HP is the key factor for maximum speed.

The torque curve was one of the key drivers for me to buy a Mazda with a turbo-charged 2.5l and true 5 speed auto, over a RAV4 which had to howl like a banshee with its CVT. There was no comparison especially at low speeds. I couldn't get the RAV4 test driver back to the dealership fast enough.

I thought most would know that. As in Torque vs Horsepower Explained

P.S. My last Nissan was a CVT. I hated how the engine had to scream with the pedal to the floor and the temporary lag while the CVT got the most from engine torque. That was exactly the same effect in the 2020 RAV4 we test drove. Disappointing is the kindest way to express that. I want the tires to immediately want to squeak when the hammer goes down.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> I guess you are due for an EV?


Not enough range in the EVs but I will look at PHEVs if more become available.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> I wish there were more fuel efficient wagons available, since I'm not really an SUV person.


Are the newer models Volvo, Toyota Venza, etc not wagon lookalikes?


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I'm about 20K per year in driving. I went from a mid sized pickup to a chevy volt. 

Truck was about $3600 in gs in a year. Volt was less than $200 in gas, and maybe $extra 800 on electric bill.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Ponderling said:


> I'm about 20K per year in driving. I went from a mid sized pickup to a chevy volt.
> 
> Truck was about $3600 in gs in a year. Volt was less than $200 in gas, and maybe $extra 800 on electric bill.


And a normal, gas Honda Civic would cost you $1800/yr in gas, for your heavy driving, saving you $800. That's $8000 for the life of the car, how much extra did your Volt cost? Lots.

Get everyone driving regular hybrids and difference is even less.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that it only costs can extra $200/month to gas-up a huge truck vs. a dinky Volt, for heavy driving use. Not a big deal for most, and will be even less of a factor as (if) the economy improves.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

peterk said:


> Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that it only costs can extra $200/month to gas-up a huge truck vs. a dinky Volt, for heavy driving use. Not a big deal for most, and will be even less of a factor as (if) the economy improves.


Ya, not a big deal for many (or me) but I'd rather spend that money on other things than just wasting it out the tailpipe.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

not any more.....not since they changed to km & litres, too much trouble to convert it to something I understand- mpg 🤓


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> not any more.....not since they changed to km & litres, too much trouble to convert it to something I understand- mpg 🤓


This is something I don't understand, I still hear people (30's) talking about mpg.
We buy L, we drive km, what's to understand. I understand the emotional understanding of mpg, but it simply doesn't make sense, I don't buy gallons and I don't drive miles.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

YCFS.....Seriously though, there is a whole group of pre-boomers especially and even some boomers 65+ who don't have the capacity to make the switch....no matter what. I suspect Gen-Xers have been unduly contaminated by their parents or they spend far too much time being influenced by even more backward Americans.

It's a sad commentary that it's only been in recent years where some automakers finally stopped putting the mph scale as a secondary on speedometers. Then again, the Brits are hopelessly incompetent continuing to use old units on a continent that is almost fully metric.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> This is something I don't understand, I still hear people (30's) talking about mpg.
> We buy L, we drive km, what's to understand. I understand the emotional understanding of mpg, but it simply doesn't make sense, I don't buy gallons and I don't drive miles.


There could be a debate though about why it's L/100km instead of km/L (which is more like MPG).

It depends how people calculate their trips.

If my car makes 20km/L and its tank is 40L, then I can make 20*40 = 800km with one tank.
If my car makes 5L/100km and its tank is 40L, then I can make... 40/5 = 800 km with one tank. Seems a bit more complicated because people are bad with divisions.

But...

If my car makes 5L/100km and I want to travel 300km, how many litres must I add to my tank? 3*5 = 15L.
If my car makes 20km/L and I want to travel 300km, how many litres must I add to my tank? 300/20 = 15L. Seems a bit more complicated because people are bad with divisions.

But... What's the most common question?

Oh no! My tank is at 1/4 (10L left in tank) and next station is in 150 km, can I reach it?

5L/100km => 10/5 = 200km
20km/L => 10*20 = 200km

Since people who are bad at math are better at multiplication than division, then I guess it would make more sense to report km/L?

But then, what's more precise...

Car 1 makes 6L/100km, car 2 makes 7L/100km. That would be 16.66km/L and 14.28km/L and since I said people are bad at simple math, it would have to be rounded to 17km/L and 14km/L. Which one is better?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> But... What's the most common question?
> 
> Oh no! My tank is at 1/4 (10L left in tank) and next station is in 150 km, can I reach it?
> 
> ...


Well my car gets 42 mpg, so that means????/


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> There could be a debate though about why it's L/100km instead of km/L (which is more like MPG).


It is whatever the SI Metric standard says it is. Don't mess with Mother SI.

Doesn't much matter anyway. Vehicles I am familiar with have a continuous estimate of km remaining in the tank either in the instrument cluster or in the screen settings, or both.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Well my car gets 42 mpg, so that means????/


17.9 km/L or 5.6 L/100km


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

AltaRed said:


> Vehicles I am familiar with have a continuous estimate of km remaining in the tank either in the instrument cluster or in the screen settings, or both.


Yes even my Hyundai Accent 2014 has this so we don't even have to worry nowadays. The estimate disappears when the remaining is below 50 km so that you don't complain about bad estimations if you can't make it.

My 2016 motorcycle as a trick. When the tank is "empty", since it wouldn't be wise to estimate what's left, it instead displays how many liters you've used since it told you that the tank is empty. And I know that "empty" tank means 4 L left. The screen starts flashing very fast after you've used 2 L beyond "empty", lol.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

Semi-related: I do mental math while on extended drives to fight boredom. l/100km which my dashboard displays allows me to easily estimate how much it will cost me to complete my journey and reach my destination. I play around with different speeds and calc the cost versus time to destination balance. At least for my car L/100km in relation to speed is non linear at highway speeds so there is some fun math. Do the math in your head and the time passes LOL


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Covariance said:


> Semi-related: I do mental math while on extended drives to fight boredom. l/100km which my dashboard displays allows me to easily estimate how much it will cost me to complete my journey and reach my destination. I play around with different speeds and calc the cost versus time to destination balance. At least for my car L/100km in relation to speed is non linear at highway speeds so there is some fun math. Do the math in your head and the time passes LOL


yeah, my son did that till he was about 8.
Lots of fun for the math minded people, but it gets old pretty fast.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Covariance said:


> I play around with different speeds and calc the cost versus time to destination balance.


Yeah, I don't think I could calculate fast enough if I try this with my motorcycle as I cruise at 3,000 to 4,000 RPM, display an estimated 4-5L/100km and then decide to kick it to 11,000 to 12,000 RPM and the display spikes to 30L/100km for a few milliseconds due to acceleration, lol.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It's a sad commentary that it's only been in recent years where some automakers finally stopped putting the mph scale as a secondary on speedometers. Then again, the Brits are hopelessly incompetent continuing to use old units on a continent that is almost fully metric.


I kind of prefer having the mph scale as a secondary when driving though the US. It saves the brainpower to quickly estimate the speed limits, but that's my take. Of course, you could always follow traffic flow, but if everyone is speeding, I'm sure an out-of-state car is going to get stopped.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Just wondering how many seriously consider the amount they will spend on fuel when getting a new/used car?
> 
> If you drive very few km's it probably won't matter much but even for the average 20k km's a year it can add up. I see many of my neighbors buy trucks/SUVs with no real need to do so. A difference of 4L/100 kms adds up to near $1000 a year and I think many small car vs truck comparisons will probably be in the 6-9L/100km range difference. So it seems this is one area many choose not to save money on.


Nope fuel does not enter into it. This is a penny wise pound foolish decision in my books. I'm only concerned with TOC.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

afulldeck said:


> This is a penny wise pound foolish decision in my books.


Not sure how you see the above applies to fuel savings ...


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Not sure how you see the above applies to fuel savings ...


I was addressing the original question. "....Just wondering how many seriously consider the amount they will spend on fuel when getting a new/used car?..."

Answer is no I don't. 

I consider the total cost of ownership, the fuel is a distraction...generally speaking.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

afulldeck said:


> I was addressing the original question. "....Just wondering how many seriously consider the amount they will spend on fuel when getting a new/used car?..."
> 
> Answer is no I don't.
> 
> I consider the total cost of ownership, the fuel is a distraction...generally speaking.


If you drive very little fuel will be a minor cost but it'll surely add up in the total cost if you are driving many km's in a gas guzzler. In any case, no "pound foolish" that I see picking a more fuel efficient vehicle.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

cainvest said:


> If you drive very little fuel will be a minor cost but it'll surely add up in the total cost if you are driving many km's in a gas guzzler. In any case, no "pound foolish" that I see picking a more fuel efficient vehicle.


I just don't see it as a big issue. The TOC will be much greater....

The math is very easy with L/100Km ....let's speculate--- today we buy a new car (50K and change) but gas is $1.40 so it's $1.40 x 10L/100 x 25000Km = 3.5 K/year 50K >> 3.5 K.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

afulldeck said:


> The math is very easy with L/100Km ....let's speculate--- today we buy a new car (50K and change) but gas is $1.40 so it's $1.40 x 10L/100 x 25000Km = 3.5 K/year 50K >> 3.5 K.


Yes, if you buy a $50k car every year the money spent on gas is not much in comparison.


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

Since my wife and I are retired, we do minimal driving. However, since we both drive luxury vehicles which require premium gas, the incremental cost of premium is disturbing. Recently gave our granddaughter an older Infinity SUV. Although she appreciates the gift, she is very cognizant of the extra cost of fuel and uses her parents vehicles for longer trips.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Almost no vehicle requires premium fuel. It is recommended....to get the advertised HP and torque and mileage. I have used regular or mid-grade in my 2007 Infiniti for years.

Octane has a relationship with power and fuel efficiency but the price spread for premium doesn't make up for it.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I once bought a car based on the fuel efficiency -- a diesel VW Passat. It was roomy and fairly powerful and got fantastic mileage. And diesel fuel is generally cheaper than regular by 5 or so cents/L. I was getting 700km (8.5L/100k) on a tank just driving 5km at a go on city streets and could go over 1,000km (6L/100k) on the highway.

Then came dieselgate. I traded for a gas powered Golf. It's a reasonably efficient car, but the worst mileage I got out of a tank on the diesel is around the same as the best I get from the Golf on a litre/litre basis. Considering the price difference in the fuel, it is hands down worse.

I hardly drive the thing since I retired, so it hardly matters. But if I was worried about mileage again, I would go for a diesel, if you could find one.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I actually calculated and the better numbers in l/100km basis for premium than standard. Better enough to balance the higher premium selling price.

Then moved to a hybrid, and premium became a must to me, as gas engine sometimes does not run in it for week, and I don't want the ethanol in lower grades breaking down and gumming thing up in my car's gas engine as it sits still in the fuel system.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

gardner said:


> But if I was worried about mileage again, I would go for a diesel, if you could find one.


Getting hard to find a VW diesel (not crazy priced) that's why I'll keep on running mine until it dies.



Ponderling said:


> I actually calculated and the better numbers in l/100km basis for premium than standard. Better enough to balance the higher premium selling price.


You are in the minority, almost all people and tests performed show it's not worth it mileage wise to run premium.



Ponderling said:


> Then moved to a hybrid, and premium became a must to me, as gas engine sometimes does not run in it for week, and I don't want the ethanol in lower grades breaking down and gumming thing up in my car's gas engine as it sits still in the fuel system.


No fuel will gum up an engine in a few weeks, takes over half a year before it really starts degrading. Also ethanol doesn't gum up your engine but does attract water though not at an alarming rate.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

The way I drive my hybrid when commuting to office and trips around town, the gas engine might run an hour or two in month. In the first part of covid lockdown I was 7 months between going to the pumps.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ponderling said:


> I don't want the ethanol in lower grades breaking down and gumming thing up in my car's gas engine as it sits still in the fuel system.


BTW, I believe in 2022 all fuel grades will contain ethanol. Many stations here in MB already have ethanol in their premium, not sure about other provinces.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

We have a turbo in our full size truck. It only requires regular gas. However, when towing, putting in premium gas has a noticeable impact on gas mileage. Enough to offset the cost difference on premium vs regular.

On the highway, we get about 8.5L/100km when not towing, and around 10.7L/100km when towing a boat (using premium). The tank is also large, so we can get up to 1500-1700km on a single tank (when not towing). Have got as low as 7.8L/100km over several hundred kms of hwy driving.

Mileage was definitely a factor when buying the truck. Wanted something that was comparable to a minivan when not towing, and had the ability to tow a boat, travel trailers, etc without a big hit to mileage. It provides hwy and city mileage the same or better than a non-hybrid minivan, which I think is pretty impressive for a full size truck.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Ponderling said:


> The way I drive my hybrid when commuting to office and trips around town, the gas engine might run an hour or two in month. In the first part of covid lockdown I was 7 months between going to the pumps.


You can add fuel stabilizer and it will keep for at least a year. Canadian Tire, auto parts stores, hardware stores have it.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes, I do use stabilizer. In fact, I buy premium fuel, then transfer it to clean but empty Coleman naptha fuel cans which have first had their tops and bottom exterior surfaces sprayed with a rust inhibitor. I do fueling in the open on a picnic table on top of a cement patio, so if fire breaks out only so much on hand to burn, and otherwise is well ventilated.

When filling a can first I add the measured amount of fuel stabilizer, then I fill them by weight sitting on a scale while I transfer fuel to about the 3.6l mark so to leave a head space. Put the lid on, shake well, then remove the earthing clip tied to the earthed scale case and proceed to move them to an under cover but out of the sun and direct rain storage shelf near by back up power generator hutch sited near the back of my yard. 

Typically I do this mid summer,so lots of fresh fuel for the genny for fall and wither power outage times. 

The scale was designed to weight out auto paint tints, so it is safe to use around volatile liquids. . 

The cached fuel comes out of cans into use in the cars in April and May, and the back yard gas storage cycle begin again.Summer is when we use the most gas, so it does not sit in the hybrids for long


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Here's some good info on stabilizer ...


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

I don't drive a lot anymore. Maybe 8000Km a year max.

I only use ethanol free from Costco or if I am in a pinch Mobil or Canadian Tire.

Ethanol grade has never gone in my lawnmower and I drain every fall and start fresh next spring.

I have never had any use for fuel stabilizer.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Zipper said:


> I only use ethanol free from Costco or if I am in a pinch Mobil or Canadian Tire.


Just an FYI ... most stations now have ethanol in their premium fuel, including Costco. I did find two local stations, a shell and a Co-Op, that still have ethanol free premium grade.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Ontario premium is still ethanol free for Shell Costco Canadian Tire and Mobil. And maybe others.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Zipper said:


> Ontario premium is still ethanol free for Shell Costco Canadian Tire and Mobil. And maybe others.


Guess they found a way to get around the 10% requirement for premium fuel in Ontario?


----------



## l1quidfinance (Mar 17, 2017)

Yes. Just got a 2013 Diesel Jetta for using for work. Avg 5.7l/100 so far in winter. VS 14.5l/100 on the truck. 



cainvest said:


> Getting hard to find a VW diesel (not crazy priced) that's why I'll keep on running mine until it dies.


No kidding. Selection and price was terrible here in NS but I had my mind set on a diesel commuter.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

l1quidfinance said:


> Yes. Just got a 2013 Diesel Jetta for using for work. Avg 5.7l/100 so far in winter. VS 14.5l/100 on the truck.


Good score and you'll love the mpg.


----------



## spiritwalker2222 (Nov 7, 2017)

I bough my CUV for it's fuel economy. I average 2.4 L/100km's, although it's a plug in hybrid, so my effective fuel cost is probably around 2.6 L/100km's.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

l1quidfinance said:


> Yes. Just got a 2013 Diesel Jetta for using for work. Avg 5.7l/100 so far in winter. VS 14.5l/100 on the truck.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. Selection and price was terrible here in NS but I had my mind set on a diesel commuter.


Our VW Golf wagon is from 2010. We didn't realize its age until about 2 years ago. Still has lots of life left in it as it doesn't see a lot of driving time as wife works from home and had done so before it became the norm. We considered trading it in this year but prices on on vehicles are ridiculous right now. The golf wagon line no longer exists but will likely go VW again. We bought new and will likely do so again next time. Whether it will be ICE, EV or hybrid has yet to be determined.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Zipper said:


> ... I only use ethanol free from Costco or if I am in a pinch Mobil or Canadian Tire.


Haven't noticed for Mobil or CT but the Costco stations I have been at in Ontario have a "10% ethanol" sticker. Almost always buy the low grade, with maybe every five years, a purchase of the higher grade stuff.



Zipper said:


> ... Ethanol grade has never gone in my lawnmower and I drain every fall and start fresh next spring. I have never had any use for fuel stabilizer.


I think I still have a can of fuel stablizer, intended for the lawn mower.

I have yet to drain the lawn mower, leave it all winter and it starts with a few a few extra pumps the following spring.
I have drained the small can of lawn mower fuel into the car to avoid it sitting all winter, though.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

cainvest said:


> ... Just wondering how many seriously consider the amount they will spend on fuel when getting a new/used car?


Always considered it ... and always have had in the manual shift cars, anywhere from five to ten MPG better than the rating.

For the automatic, it's been about five MPG worse than the rating.


Cheers


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Keep in mind we were talking premium. Shell Costco Mobil and CT premium continue to be ethanol free.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Zipper said:


> Keep in mind we were talking premium. Shell Costco Mobil and CT premium continue to be ethanol free.


Depends on your province, some are ethanol in everything now as of 2022. Costco premium in MB switched in early 2021 to include ethanol.

BTW, you can't trust online sites ... they are way out of date.


----------

