|
My 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco would get similar MPG results, with about 40HP more.
I would occasionally hit 70+MPG at 40-45MPH in final gear;
60MPG at 50MPH, and 50MPG at 60MPH.
Once above 75MPH, the turbo wastegate would kick in, and MPG would drop drastically.
Not a good car if you regularly drive at more than 80MPH.
The fit has a very tiny engine, and is non-turbo. By default they are over-revving for good MPG. If they would do 2500RPM at 70MPH (CVT) you'd get much better gas mileage than if they would do 3500RPM at 70 (manual).
That being said, this vehicle works best in the city, because it has a CVT.
Hatchbacks with CVT lack the aerodynamics of a Sedan car, and have more gearing friction than a manual geared car.
If they only had 1 or 2 more gears on the manual, or their gears spaced out more, the manual would get even better MPG. However, the 1.5 liter engine would need a turbo to keep up with the HP demands for highways.
For that reason I prefer sedans with turbo engines. They usually are geared taller (run lower RPM at highway speeds) and usually run below where the turbo kicks in.
I currently have a Ford Fiesta ST with 1.6liter Turbo engine. It runs at 3k RPM @80MPH, and gets an average of 33-34MPG. If it was geared properly at 2,5k RPM at that speed (it has plenty of power to do so), it would be getting 40MPG avg as well.
For eco cars, I would say 1.5 liter turbos give much better MPG, and have more torque/HP than their 2.0 liter NA variants.
Still, nothing beats a turbo powered 2.0 liter Atkinson engine in terms of MPG. The 2.0 atkinson engine gets great gas mileage, but a turbo on it, and it's an awesome sports engine!
|