30 MPG is enough.

[Jesda]

The new Elantra gets 40mpg, has "interesting" styling, and comes packed to the gills with gadgets. The biggest selling point is that it gets as much as 40mpg.

However, the Mazda 3, despite the garish happy face, is still my favorite small car despite the comparably poor fuel economy (29mpg). And once you hit 25-30mpg, fuel economy gains beyond that have a smaller impact on savings. Going from 30 to 40mpg you arent saving as much money on fuel as going from 20 to 30.

--At 12,000 miles per year at 20 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $2400.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 30 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1600, saving $800 per year over the 20mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 40 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1200, saving $400 per year over the 30mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 50 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $960, saving $240 per year over the 40mpg alternative.

The savings diminish as you go up the scale, but in your head 40mpg sounds like "whoa thats a lot" when its not quite dramatic compared to the 30mpg standard of typical economy cars.

To me, the fun and character of the Mazda 3 makes it worth the $400 more per year to fill it up. I refuse to subject myself to driving a pile of sadness. The Elantra is an interesting car but its often described as lacking in driving dynamics.

The 300HP, 4000-lb Seville gets 23-26mpg on the highway, which seems good enough for me.

[chompsticks]

On that note, you have the drive the crap out of your hybrid to make up for the additional price tag on them.

[Kompresshun]

That's some good information to know though, I need to pass that along to my father in law, who thinks a Fusion Hybrid is the way to go because it gets 40mpg vs the 28ish mpg he gets in his Acura TL that is paid for. You can't convince me that buying even a used Fusion Hybrid at $18,000-20,000 is going to save you enough in fuel to warrant the car payment.

I absolutely love the 3 hatchback though, but i'm like you Jesda, I refuse to drive a pile of under-powered garbage to save a few bucks on gas. My wife had a Chevy Aveo when we got married, which was rated for 23 city and 31 hwy, but you were lucky to get 20mpg on the highway considering how under-powered it was. I do like small hatchbacks like the Versa and Mazda 3, but I still can't convince myself to drive a 4cyl, considering my I30 gets 28-30mpg on the highway, which is plenty for me. Plus it's paid for as well, but even if I were going to buy something new, a lot of V6 sedans still get pretty good fuel economy without having to sacrifice power, so why drive a 4cyl unless it's truly a better choice?

[Rev_D21]

The new Hyundai Elantra and Accent don't come with spare tires, only a can of fix-a-flat. I guess this was done to save weight.

[hannibal]

^ Seriously?! Even in this cell phone/AAA world, I can't go for that.

Jesda, while I get your arguement, it could be summed up this way. Going from 20mpg to 30mpg is a 50% improvement in mileage and you'll save 50% on fuel costs. Going from 30mpg to 40mpg is a 33% improvement with a corresponding savings. 40mpg to 50mpg is a 25% improvement and savings.

Yes, higher mpg are better, but we are unlikely to see large improvements continue indefinitely. Thats why the car mfg'ers are fighting these mileage targets. I dont think we'll ever see an auto mfg'er average 60mpg across its full lineup, especially since that average is weighted by sales. Ford sells almost a million F-150 a year and will prolly never be able to hit that target.

[Jesda]

^ Seriously?! Even in this cell phone/AAA world, I can't go for that.

Jesda, while I get your arguement, it could be summed up this way. Going from 20mpg to 30mpg is a 50% improvement in mileage and you'll save 50% on fuel costs. Going from 30mpg to 40mpg is a 33% improvement with a corresponding savings. 40mpg to 50mpg is a 25% improvement and savings.

I see where you're coming from, and your calculations are correct, but I respectfully have to disagree with your conclusions.

Let's say you're in the market for a new car and looking to upgrade from your older 20mpg Ford Explorer (lets just assume you're somehow averaging 20 in the older BOF Explorer).

If you chose a Hyundai Elantra, the fuel annual savings over a Mazda 3 (calculated monthly) comes out to $33/mo for a chassis that lacks stiffness, steering that lacks feel, and noticeably slower acceleration. To me, if someone said they could make my car stiffer and more precise for just $33/mo, I'd accept the offer.

When shopping for an economy car, my contention is that settling for 30mpg (in a Mazda 3) is worth the sacrifice in fuel costs compared to the current crop of somewhat bland 40mpg cars.

The difference makes itself more apparent when you compare standard equipment and available options. You can even get heated rear seats in the Elantra. I'll sacrifice that for driving dynamics.

Its too easy, in this media environment that hypes the cost of fuel (without considering how much our friends in Europe pay), to place fuel economy above all else. There's more to motoring than the cost of fuel. There's more to the enjoyment of life than saving pennies. I could see how a typical automotive commoner (the Camcord crowd) would feel a benefit from pinching pennies here and there, but those short-term pennies sometimes translate into fewer than expected long-term savings.

[IBCoupe]

For those of us in the 30,000+ club, the savings might be a bit more noticeable. At $4/gallon, I spend more than $5000 a year, averaging 25mpg. With 40mpg, I'd spend roughly $2000 less. That's about twice what I'd save at 30mpg.

You're right in that it's diminishing gains ($1000 for te first 5mpg, and $1000 for the next 10), but at some point, the hard numbers count for something.

[hannibal]

If you chose a Hyundai Elantra, the fuel annual savings over a Mazda 3 (calculated monthly) comes out to $33/mo for a chassis that lacks stiffness, steering that lacks feel, and noticeably slower acceleration. To me, if someone said they could make my car stiffer and more precise for just $33/mo, I'd accept the offer.

We're talking about tradeoffs and value, not just dollars and cents. This really puts it into perspective. You'd rather spend that $33 at the pump and get a driving experience. I can dig that. As you said, more and more auto commercials brag about mpg. It's become the most marketed aspect of a car's 'performance'. Soon it'll be taboo to brag about horsepower (though I just saw the new Civic Si ad and they mention power... of course its the sporty Si model so it makes sense).

IBC hit it spot on too. The more you drive, the more you can save from that last extra bit of fuel economy. I don't know anyone in Atlanta that drives less than 12k miles per year. Thats very possible in DC where my car usually sits for 5 days a week. But someone that drives 40 miles each way might be willing to trade driving quality for better mileage.

[Amays U G37S]

I just found out the other day that...

In 1912, Cadillac was the first vehicle to adorn a 'Hood Emblem'

And, I could careless what gas mileage the car gets. Period. You have to have to gas. There is absolutely no other way around it. We are addicted to OIL PERIOD.

Amaze me with 50mpg, and then we will see if I want to lease or buy.

[Jesda]

But someone that drives 40 miles each way might be willing to trade driving quality for better mileage.

I think most of the driving public would.

And its too bad.

[Kompresshun]

My biggest problem with this "what gets the best fuel mileage" craze, is that most people are trading in cars that are paid off or that they owe a ridiculous amount on, for something new, because it gets slightly better fuel mileage and they think that's going to be the saving grace for their bank account. Now, if it's time to replace your car and you're already shopping, then I can understand shopping around for something more economical, but trading in a "gas guzzler" that you owe 15-20k(or more) on for something "green" is just plain retarded.

You're likely not going to be able to trade in something you already owe money on, on a new vehicle and lower your payment, so are you really saving money by trading in for something more economical? No, you're likely going to be increasing your payment by $50-100 a month, and extending your debt for a longer period of time. You might save $100 at the pump every month, but you've increased your payment by that much roughly and you have also extended your debt for another 5-6 years. It may take some of the pressure off of your wallet at the moment, but it also is leaving pressure on your wallet for a longer period of time.

To me it's even worse if you're vehicle is paid off, considering that it's not a pile of garbage that needs to be replaced, because you're likely going to be taking on a new $300 a month payment, at minimum, to get something more economical. Again, you can't tell me that you're going to save $300-400 a month in fuel unless you're driving a Suburban, a Excursion(Gas), or a Viper. Now, yes you can shop around and get something older, to have a lower payment or be able to pay cash. Most people are going to go for the cars that the media are telling them "save you money at the pump" though.

I don't care if they achieve 50mpg, until I see something that is not dependent on fuel and can go long distances, I will continue to drive what I want to drive and not whatever hyrbid/econobox/electric POS that the media is trying to convince everybody to buy.

/rant

[AZ89two4Tsx]

Meh, $400 a year is $400 a year.

Yeah, I'm sure the Elantra is about a dull as they come as far as "fun" factor, but do you really think a 148hp Mazda 3 is going to be that much more "fun?" Yeah, I'm sure it's a little more nimble, but for 10mpg more, count me in for the Elantra. I'll milk as much mpg as I can out of my daily, and have a cheap, fun, gas hog to drive on the weekends.

However, if it's your only car, that's a totally different case. I'd be looking at the Speed3.

[Jesda]

Meh, $400 a year is $400 a year.

Yeah, I'm sure the Elantra is about a dull as they come as far as "fun" factor, but do you really think a 148hp Mazda 3 is going to be that much more "fun?" Yeah, I'm sure it's a little more nimble, but for 10mpg more, count me in for the Elantra. I'll milk as much mpg as I can out of my daily, and have a cheap, fun, gas hog to drive on the weekends.

However, if it's your only car, that's a totally different case. I'd be looking at the Speed3.

That's the magic of Mazda. Even base models with no options and the lowest-output engine are still fun to drive. The pleasure comes from the suspension tuning, the steering feedback, the progressive action of the brake pedal, the audible feedback, and the feel of the engine quietly purring in the shift knob. There's Miataness engineered into the 3.

Thrust is a big part of driving fun, but only one of several parts. Feedback is essential for control, and control is what makes driving enjoyable. In an economy car that's unlikely to have much in terms of power and refinement, those little rewards mean a whole lot.

So yeah, a basic Mazda 3 is going to be a lot more fun to drive than most of its competitors.

[seyath]

I am going to have to agree with Jesda on this one.
I would rather trade some MPG in exchange for a car that puts a smile on my face when I drive it. And besides, I shouldn't have to trade driver's enjoyment for fuel economy.
My '04 Maxima has 156,xxx mi, burns oil like a GM, and has her share of small dents. However she still puts a smile on my face everytime I shift through the gears or take her around corners. And I am currently averaging 26.6 mpg mixed driving and 32 on the highway.
I have looked at all the options out there that offer 35 to 40 mpg in the market, and honestly there isn't an option that would even make me consider trading in the Maxima.

[MinisterofDOOM]

My uncle just bought a brand new Elantra. Everyone keeps talking about how good it looks. I keep wondering if we're seeing the same car. It's a MESS. There are no less than FIVE body creases running various lengths of the side of the car, and none of them do anything of value. The headrests in the back window are LEVEL with the lower window sill next to them. The rear bumper is a mess, as are the rear fenderwells, which have the modern flat-sided look going to minimize the incongruity between the 2-mile-high beltline of the car and the visually tiny 17'' wheels. Read the last bit of that sentence again. Don't do that to your desk, you'll hurt your forehead. But the rear fenders...ugh. It's not the slabsidedness that's bad. It's the fact that the slab-sided bit follows a COMPLETELY different curve than the wheel cutout it's trying to mask.

The car's a mess. The Kia Forte is in a whole different league as far as looks. Kia's "what Acuras would look like with some taste" strategy works well here. I still can't stand whatever the hell is going on with the beltline of the Forte underneath the mirrors, and I can't understand why EVERY SINGLE CAR made these days needs some kind of weird indentation at the bottom of the doors along the rockers, but otherwise it's a genuinely attractive car. Why anyone would EVER buy the Hyundai instead is beyond me.

Let me ask one question, to drive home a point:
Remember back in the early 90s when Civics made 15 inch wheels look BIG? Now look at the Elantra. Guess what: PROPORTION. Yep. It's everything.

As far as fuel economy:
There are diminishing returns on many levels. Since I was never a fuel economy whiner in the first place, I have trouble justifying the extremes both buyer and manufacturer must go to in order to push past 30mpg. Crap like low-rolling-resistance tires and special fuel economy trims with terrible final-drive ratios is the spawn of Satan in my book. It all goes to show just how out of focus the whole fuel economy picture has become. When did the POINT of a car become fuel economy rather than transportation?

[Kompresshun]

As far as fuel economy:
There are diminishing returns on many levels. Since I was never a fuel economy whiner in the first place, I have trouble justifying the extremes both buyer and manufacturer must go to in order to push past 30mpg. Crap like low-rolling-resistance tires and special fuel economy trims with terrible final-drive ratios is the spawn of Satan in my book. It all goes to show just how out of focus the whole fuel economy picture has become. When did the POINT of a car become fuel economy rather than transportation?

EXACTLY!

That's my point, why on earth would you go out and buy a new "fuel efficient" vehicle, when 95% of the industry still have no idea of how to really produce results? I'd much rather buy something used, save some money, and have something I enjoy even if I have to sacrifice fuel economy, which really isn't much realistically. There are plenty of fun options that can achieve 30-32 mpg on the highway and aren't hybrid or a neutered 4cyl, so why settle for less? Until I see a sport sedan or similar achieving 40+mpg, I won't be interested or impressed. The auto industry needs to go back to the drawing board, because low rolling resistance tires aren't the solution

[alms24sebring]

1) agreed that the more mpg you get the more you save. I think its even more drastic lets if you have a late 90's-early 00's Jeep that gets 10mpg at best. Even the 6 cyl was disgustingly slow and about as aerodynamic as a brick. Then you go to a 40 mpg newer car. You get 4x the mpg and you save 4x the money at the pump, on top of that a new car will not need as much maintenence for a while. It adds up way more in the long run years down the road. Even though you may have put down alot of money for the (brand new) car, depending on the car, there are still good mpg cars that have been out for years. But, thats the sacrafice in most cars. Power for mpg. Some pull it off but there's not a huge list of options.

2) ^ MoD Im not really sure what you are getting at. Elantras are ugly so dont buy it? Do you know how many Scion XBs, elements, Smart Cars, chromed out Camry's with wing put on backwards I see, etc, etc. Not everyone cares about looks. I think alot of people are more conscience of mpg and saving the Earth and all, so they do their part and contribute. And let me just say, my good friend just bought a 2010 Elantra Touring (wagon). Its a 4cyl and actually makes decent power right when you press the pedal. I think it has very nice looking wheels too. It gets 24 in the city and close to 30 on the highway. It was everything she was looking for. Leather heated seats, a big trunk for her 2 dogs and to carry stuff easier, descent mpg, XM radio, and a cool color all for a good price she could afford.

What I do agree on is body lines. I think the first car that comes to mind that made the nasty body lines was the 3rd gen Eclipse(?), the one from Fast & Furious 2. It does seem like every car has some kind of stupid body line to try and set it off. Also low resistance tires are stupid. What was it like 1200 extra miles from the life of the tires? Its not even significant enough over 30,000+ mile tires.

If I had the choice of 1 car to drive I would get a car with 25+ mpg with 170-220 hp. I mean if I could ask for 500hp with 30 mpg, I so would. Anybody would. But the thing is that gas prices are unpredictable. Who knows, it might reach $10/gal next year. Then everyone will be on the hunt for a 40mpg car regardless of power or looks then. And those people that have 5000 lb 12mpg SUVs will be walking to work. If I want a fast car, I would have a swapped 240 project car or something, that only comes out on nice days while the other is the DD.

[IBCoupe]

The Kia Forte is in a whole different league as far as looks. Kia's "what Acuras would look like with some taste" strategy works well here.

I award you +1 Internets.

[headhunt3r]

I think the real solution is for the US to switch from MPG to L/100km.

http://www.alt-energy.info/hybrid-elect ... g-is-dumb/

[hbpignosePA]

i get a suprising 27 mixed in my volvo brick.... not bad for a car so underpowered its pathetic. but i have the five speed so im sure my shifts help

[Kompresshun]

1) agreed that the more mpg you get the more you save. I think its even more drastic lets if you have a late 90's-early 00's Jeep that gets 10mpg at best. Even the 6 cyl was disgustingly slow and about as aerodynamic as a brick. Then you go to a 40 mpg newer car. You get 4x the mpg and you save 4x the money at the pump, on top of that a new car will not need as much maintenence for a while. It adds up way more in the long run years down the road. Even though you may have put down alot of money for the (brand new) car, depending on the car, there are still good mpg cars that have been out for years. But, thats the sacrafice in most cars. Power for mpg. Some pull it off but there's not a huge list of options.

If I had the choice of 1 car to drive I would get a car with 25+ mpg with 170-220 hp. I mean if I could ask for 500hp with 30 mpg, I so would. Anybody would. But the thing is that gas prices are unpredictable. Who knows, it might reach $10/gal next year. Then everyone will be on the hunt for a 40mpg car regardless of power or looks then. And those people that have 5000 lb 12mpg SUVs will be walking to work. If I want a fast car, I would have a swapped 240 project car or something, that only comes out on nice days while the other is the DD.

I do agree, if you're driving something that gets 10mpg, then I can understand trying to find something more economical completely. Now I disagree with the analogy of a new car being cheaper to operate, because you lose a considerable amount of money purchasing a new vehicle versus a slightly used vehicle that has already depreciated in value some. While purchasing a new vehicle does mean it will go longer without maintenance, you still are going to be paying considerably more for it because it's new, whether you drive it for 20 years or not. My I30 is 10 years old, I bought it with cash and i've spent roughly $2,000 in maintenance(which includes routine maintenance like brakes, tires, ect), over the course of 3 1/2 years of ownership so far, which equates out to $42/mo. That's much cheaper than a car payment

40mpg economy cars aren't something new either, it's just that people don't think to shop around for one from the past because it's not in their face and not being talked about. A 1997 Civic for example, is rated for 39mpg, and even in the current overpriced used car market you could probably purchase one for $5,000 or less and it will be dead nuts reliable too.

To even further the point: My I30 gets up to 30mpg and a new Elantra gets up to 40mpg, you want to know the difference between those? It's roughly $33/mo, which is about $8/wk. $8 a week is one day of me not eating out and i'm willing to sacrifice 1 day of eating out, or working an extra 30min to not have to drive something like an Elantra. If you compare the Elantra to my Jeep Commander, you're looking at $100 extra per month and $20 extra per week. While that may sound like a considerable amount of savings, I couldn't go trade that Commander in and lower my payment, nor will an Elantra be able to tow anything or be used for trips for our family, which is why I have it in the first place. I prepared myself for higher fuel costs with it though, because I shopped around and a smaller SUV would have only saved me about $30/mo in fuel, and it would barely be able to fit all of our stuff for a vacation or be able to tow anything. To not have to deal with those limitations alone is worth more than $30/mo to me.

I do agree though, some of these people aren't prepared for higher fuel costs and they think the solution is trading in their gas guzzler for an economy car. Now again, I can understand if you're driving a 10mpg or worse land yacht, but if somebody is hard up for $33/mo, they don't need to be driving a car, they need to buy a bicycle or ride the bus.

[Jesda]

I think the real solution is for the US to switch from MPG to L/100km.

http://www.alt-energy.info/hybrid-elect ... g-is-dumb/

Agreement.

[fiznowler]

I think my next daily car will be another 97 and up prelude. They look good, handle well, are pretty quick and mine got around 30mpg whether I was beating on it or driving it slow it didn't care. I love Nissans but it is hard to beat a 90s era honda for daily driving duties.

[alms24sebring]

I do agree, if you're driving something that gets 10mpg, then I can understand trying to find something more economical completely. Now I disagree with the analogy of a new car being cheaper to operate, because you lose a considerable amount of money purchasing a new vehicle versus a slightly used vehicle that has already depreciated in value some. While purchasing a new vehicle does mean it will go longer without maintenance, you still are going to be paying considerably more for it because it's new, whether you drive it for 20 years or not. My I30 is 10 years old, I bought it with cash and i've spent roughly $2,000 in maintenance(which includes routine maintenance like brakes, tires, ect), over the course of 3 1/2 years of ownership so far, which equates out to $42/mo. That's much cheaper than a car payment

40mpg economy cars aren't something new either, it's just that people don't think to shop around for one from the past because it's not in their face and not being talked about. A 1997 Civic for example, is rated for 39mpg, and even in the current overpriced used car market you could probably purchase one for $5,000 or less and it will be dead nuts reliable too.

To even further the point: My I30 gets up to 30mpg and a new Elantra gets up to 40mpg, you want to know the difference between those? It's roughly $33/mo, which is about $8/wk. $8 a week is one day of me not eating out and i'm willing to sacrifice 1 day of eating out, or working an extra 30min to not have to drive something like an Elantra. If you compare the Elantra to my Jeep Commander, you're looking at $100 extra per month and $20 extra per week. While that may sound like a considerable amount of savings, I couldn't go trade that Commander in and lower my payment, nor will an Elantra be able to tow anything or be used for trips for our family, which is why I have it in the first place. I prepared myself for higher fuel costs with it though, because I shopped around and a smaller SUV would have only saved me about $30/mo in fuel, and it would barely be able to fit all of our stuff for a vacation or be able to tow anything. To not have to deal with those limitations alone is worth more than $30/mo to me.

I do agree though, some of these people aren't prepared for higher fuel costs and they think the solution is trading in their gas guzzler for an economy car. Now again, I can understand if you're driving a 10mpg or worse land yacht, but if somebody is hard up for $33/mo, they don't need to be driving a car, they need to buy a bicycle or ride the bus.

I can agree with all of that. I guess it depends on what people are looking for. She's never ganna tow anything, travel off road, or worried about snow. I guess the point is that everyone can find a car that has the features they are looking for. In fact she did have a 03 Jeep I-6 that was horrible. I think she made a great choice.

I for one dont trust a car payment. I have had badluck with a long lasting job so I wouldnt take the chance in putting myself in debt. Personally I think its a rip anyways, I would always buy used. Wasn't there a thread about car payments and how much you can save? Anyways in her situation, she traded the Jeep for like $3000 (dont remember exactly, maybe more) and got this car brand new for like $14,000 said and done. Thats a good deal if you ask me. She makes good money and has been at the same job for 2 years, and has a bright future ahead. A person like that can afford a car payment. But like alot of people I know, they buy new cars every 1 or 2 years, buy a house and freshly married with a kid on the way. Next thing you know 6 months later divorce is around the horizon and your stuck in a money pit for years. People just dont think ahead sometimes..

I also agree with worrying about $33 a month lol. Well put.

I think my next daily car will be another 97 and up prelude. They look good, handle well, are pretty quick and mine got around 30mpg whether I was beating on it or driving it slow it didn't care. I love Nissans but it is hard to beat a 90s era honda for daily driving duties.

Not a Prelude fan but I so would get an EG hatch. Thats actually what I want. I plan to rebuild this motor in the 240, 5speed it, and sell it for just that plus cash or certain upgrades. Or I would try and get a little stock SR'd, ~200hp S13 with cash on the side on my part because I do want something turbo. Im not worried about making bug hp right now, thats later.

[Kompresshun]

I'm not gonna bother quoting, since my iPad gets pissed off trying to work with that much text.

I-6 Jeeps were horrible, even though the engine was bulletproof the transmissions sucked and the build quality was craptastic in the Grand Cherokees for sure. The fuel mileage was miserable most of the time too. That's the right situation to buy too, she traded in something she didn't fully use for better fuel economy and what fit her needs better.

We have one car payment, which I'm fine with because I like having one newer vehicle and I can be a little more picky that way too. I let the wife drive the Jeep most of the time though, because her commute is 2 miles from the house and she has to go to work whether it's sunny, a hurricane, or 3ft of snow on the ground. I'd rather not have any car payment at all, which we are on track to get to eventually, once we pay off some other small debts first.

Exactly as you said though, it's all about buying what you need, which people tend to not really do. I know plenty of people that have two insane car payments, a huge house for 3-4 people, and are up to their ears in debt. That's their business though if they want to live that way.

[alms24sebring]

I meant to mention not disagreeing in the last post, but just saying. I know I HATED that Jeep and it stunk from hot dog hair and her ex that slept in the car. Dont feel bad he was a crackheaded liar and cheater and is now in jail.

I hope that scientists and chemists find a way for cheap, clean, and renewable energy in the next decade or so. Its a hard combination but there is always an answer. Lots of new ideas are popping out but efficiency and mass production is a major problem since just about everything uses a fossil fuel.

btw I love pulling up to a petrol station and seeing the last person that spent $1.48 in gas. You got shoes, use them. I do.

[Eikon]

If I were only driving 12k a year, I would not be very concerned about gas milage. You are correct, the extra savings from the 40mpg vs. the 30 just doesn't make sense.

--At 12,000 miles per year at 20 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $2400.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 30 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1600, saving $800 per year over the 20mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 40 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1200, saving $400 per year over the 30mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 50 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $960, saving $240 per year over the 40mpg alternative.

But, I'm looking at a 70 mile per day commute.. plus some trips... Probably close to 20k miles per year.
So now let's do the math..
20k miles x 30mpg x $4 per gallon = $2666 --- Mazda 3 -- $18k = $343/mo plus gas (222/mo) = $565 per month
20k miles x 40 mpg x $4 = $2000 --- Hyundai Elantra -- $18k = $343/mo plus gas (166/mo) = $509 per month
20k miles x 50 mpg x $4 = $1600 --- VW Jetta/Golf TDi or a Prius would be your closest bets at this point. $23k = $444/mo + gas (133/mo) = $577 per month.

So.. is the "more fun" Mazda 3 worth $56 per month more than the Elantra?
Is the VW diesel a better deal? Not when you do the math.. especially since I didn't add $.30+ per gallon for the more expensive diesel fuel.



A couple comments:

People shouldn't use highway mpg and 12k miles per year in the same calculation. Most people who drive 1k miles a month do at least 50% and probably closer to 60% of that driving in the city... so we should use the "mixed mpg" calculations.

People who only drive 12k miles per year shouldn't worry so much about gas prices.. as Jesda points out... it's not a huge difference in your annual fuel bill



I test drove a new Elantra.. The style is just OK.. Hyundai is getting much better.. still too many lines and curves.. but getting better. The car itself is pretty nice.. roomy, comfy, well appointed, reasonably priced. But, it drives terrible! It's got the chrysler affect.. lots of noise with little acceleration to join it. The delay between "flooring it" to pass is about 2.3 hours... feels like it anyhow.. You really need to predict the need to accelerate and start flooring it well before you actually need the speed up. The biggest issue for me.. the steering is horrible.. very numb! The worst part about the steering is that you can't make small adjustments on the highway to keep in the center of the lane.. a little touch of the wheel make the computer drive steering column adjust too much and you wind up not being able to drive straight and smooth down the road.. you're constantly correcting and over correcting and re-correcting.. it's horrible!

[Kompresshun]

Seth, I agree totally with you on longer commutes. I can see where the savings add up a little more, but even $56/mo difference wouldn't take my eyes off of the 3 vs the Elantra. That's still a pretty minimal difference IMHO.

I think it would still be hard to consider something economical even then though. I was watching an old Top Gear this morning and they had a BMW M3 follow a Prius running as hard as it could around the track, the Prius got 17mpg and the M3 got nearly 20mpg, that M3 had 414hp! You can achieve pretty amazing results if you just change your driving habits.

I get 21mpg out of my I30 in the city but I really like the Kia Optima, which is rated for 24mpg city. Now I could also go and buy an 04+ Acura TL though for less money and get similar numbers to my I30, probably better according to consumer feedback, and have something that is a lot more fun to drive for less money, so do the fuel savings really make up for buying something that is marked as economical? I've been doing a lot of research on real world MPG in sedans lately and you'd be surprised with some of the numbers that some 6cyl sedans get vs a comparable 4cyl.

I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of an economy car either, I just am not seeing a considerable enough savings to buy or lease a brand new one.

[Dattebayo]

I just had the timing done on the Sentra from Hell, and I am getting like 32 highway and around 28 around townm and i can seriously feel the difference from what I was getting before.

So what's wrong with saving that yet again with more mileage?

[Jesda]

If someone said, "Here's your stiffer chassis, quicker and more accurate steering, sportier suspension, and faster acceleration, all for $56/mo as long as you own the car"

I'd take them up on that offer. I'll sacrifice miles per gallon for smiles per gallon if its the difference between enjoying my long daily drive or not. If you drive 20,000 miles a year or more (I certainly do, usually about 25-30k per year), you should probably spend more on the niceness and enjoyment of your vehicle, not less.