RDX V6, Murano o Venza

[Laconian]

That's with lots of stop and go and like no highway.

[SVT_Power]

In the Sorento? Or did you get something else?

Sorento.

I also get (for the model) pretty low mileage on the bike as well, so I'm just assuming it's me not the machine 

[Laconian]

You must weigh 1000 pounds! Too much gainz bro!

[CaminoRacer]

The 3.7 VQ gets 17-18mpg for tasty tasty 92 octane around town.

But it's got a very healthy amount of power. What's highway mpg? Should be torquey enough to have a nice overdrive gear and get mid 20s like a Corvette

[Laconian]

Highway is like 29-30. If you have fun, maybe 27?

[SVT_Power]

You must weigh 1000 pounds! Too much gainz bro!

I wish mang

[CaminoRacer]

Highway is like 29-30. If you have fun, maybe 27?

Sounds right. The miracle of 6 speed transmissions.

[Tave]

Miata is averaging 32+ in mixed driving beating the ever-living snot out of it. Highway only I'm getting 40ish.

[Laconian]

I'm getting 34 on this tank with mixed driving. All time high is 39.

[MX793]

Highway is like 29-30. If you have fun, maybe 27?

That's still not great.  My 3.7 Mustang got ~22 around town and 33-35 on the highway.  I only recall 1 tank that I got under 20 on and that had 2 autocross events on it.

[2o6]

I'm getting around 31MPG constantly. If I keep it all freeway at about 75MPH it'll do 36MPG.

[Laconian]

That's still not great.  My 3.7 Mustang got ~22 around town and 33-35 on the highway.  I only recall 1 tank that I got under 20 on and that had 2 autocross events on it.

Yeah, I never said it was. It's a thirsty engine. That's why I'm impressed that SportyTownCar is getting 22mpg on a bulky AWD car.

[MX793]

Yeah, I never said it was. It's a thirsty engine. That's why I'm impressed that SportyTownCar is getting 22mpg on a bulky AWD car.

For the power and grunt they make, Ford's 3.7 is surprisingly frugal.

[12,000 RPM]

The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.

I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:

[FoMoJo]

The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.

I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:

All that ZOOM ZOOM must take more gas .

[ifcar]

The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.

I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:

It's probably a matter of improvements with time. The 2009 Fusion, with a 3.0-liter V6, is also rated for 20 mpg. I expect there were some improvements before 2012.

[MX793]

The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.

I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:

The version of the 3.7 that Mazda used in the 6 and CX-9 only had VVT on the intake cam (i-VCT).  It also made less power (only ~270-275, IIRC).  FoMoCo products of the same vintage ('08-'10) also used the i-VCT motor and similarly made ~270-275 hp.  In 2011, Ford introduced the 300-305 hp version with VVT on the exhaust cam as well (Ti-VCT).  All FoMoCo products transitioned to the new Ti-VCT version of the motor, but Mazda never made the upgrade.  The Ti-VCT version returned better fuel efficiency to go with the increase in power.  The 3.7 FWD MKZ with the Ti-VCT motor returns 2 mpg better than the 3.7 Mazda6.

[giant_mtb]

Low 20s sounds about right for a 5-banger VW.  In pure suburban driving (45 mph or less, some stop and go), I've seen multiple tanks under 20, and I drive the VW much less aggressively than my Mustang.  I barely keep up with traffic.

Ahhhh 5-cylz.  I was assuming 4-bangers, for which those numbers seemed oddly low.

[BimmerM3]

Is there something about 5 cylinder engines that inherently make them inefficient? Or was that specific engine just poorly designed?

[MX793]

Is there something about 5 cylinder engines that inherently make them inefficient? Or was that specific engine just poorly designed?

I think this engine is just really poorly designed.  They shouldn't be inherently worse than a 6 cylinder of similar size and output.

[giant_mtb]

Is there something about 5 cylinder engines that inherently make them inefficient? Or was that specific engine just poorly designed?

My guess is a combination of misapplication and naturally being in between a 4 and 6.  As sporty mentioned, you get the fuel economy of a 6 with not much more power than a 4.  I imagine there's a reason 5-cyls aren't all that common across the board.

[Laconian]

They're longer than I4s or V6es, which makes them harder to situate for transverse configurations.

[12,000 RPM]

And not powerful or smooth enough for the typical RWD application. 3 bangers make more sense to have in a manufacturer's toolbox. Actually, a turbo 3cyl in the Rabbit would have been kind of cool.

[MX793]

And not powerful or smooth enough for the typical RWD application. 3 bangers make more sense to have in a manufacturer's toolbox. Actually, a turbo 3cyl in the Rabbit would have been kind of cool.

5's smoother than a 3, though harder to package.

[MX793]

My guess is a combination of misapplication and naturally being in between a 4 and 6.  As sporty mentioned, you get the fuel economy of a 6 with not much more power than a 4.  I imagine there's a reason 5-cyls aren't all that common across the board.

Really, it's displacement rather than number of cylinders that primarily drives fuel consumption.  I would expect most any 2.5L engine, be it 4, 5, or 6 cylinders, to get about the same fuel economy when put in vehicles of similar weight, aero, and gearing.

[giant_mtb]

Really, it's displacement rather than number of cylinders that primarily drives fuel consumption.  I would expect most any 2.5L engine, be it 4, 5, or 6 cylinders, to get about the same fuel economy when put in vehicles of similar weight, aero, and gearing.

I suppose, yeah.

[MX793]

As to the turdliness of VW's 2.5, I chalk it up to VW throwing together a slap-dash engine effort to please North American consumers.  When the MkV platform came out in the mid 00s, the 1970s-era 8v 2.slow had already demonstrated that it was woefully outmatched by everyone else's 1.8-2.0L engines and inadequate as a base motor in cars marketed as a bit more upmarket than your typical Corolla or Civic, let alone the larger 2.3-2.5L 4s that were being used as the upgrade engine in compacts or as the base engine in midsize offerings.  the 1.8T was being retired, didn't have a great reputation in the US (timing belt issues), and was more expensive than a base motor should be.  VW needed a new, inexpensive entry level motor with sufficient power and grunt to satisfy American preferences.  They had pretty much been neglecting naturally aspirated motor development in favor of diesels and small, turbo engines for their smaller cars.  So they slapped an extra cylinder on their 2.0L I4 and borrowed the basic head design from their V10 and built a 2.5L I5 motor.  I blame the lackluster fuel economy and specific output that would have been considered average circa 1995 (for the early motors, at least) on the fact that VW simply didn't invest much in developing the engine.

[2o6]

And not powerful or smooth enough for the typical RWD application. 3 bangers make more sense to have in a manufacturer's toolbox. Actually, a turbo 3cyl in the Rabbit would have been kind of cool.

I think the 2.5L isn't all dissimilar to the 2.slow. Just a four valve per cyl design

[AutobahnSHO]

Miata is averaging 32+ in mixed driving beating the ever-living snot out of it. Highway only I'm getting 40ish.

I got 28mpg all day long doing the same to my gen1 Miata.

Our Subies (97 and 05) get long-term 23mpg driving to work mixed-highway. I get 16-18 in the Odyssey city and 26highway. All using cheapest gasssss available.

[giant_mtb]

As to the turdliness of VW's 2.5, I chalk it up to VW throwing together a slap-dash engine effort to please North American consumers.  When the MkV platform came out in the mid 00s, the 1970s-era 8v 2.slow had already demonstrated that it was woefully outmatched by everyone else's 1.8-2.0L engines and inadequate as a base motor in cars marketed as a bit more upmarket than your typical Corolla or Civic, let alone the larger 2.3-2.5L 4s that were being used as the upgrade engine in compacts or as the base engine in midsize offerings.  the 1.8T was being retired, didn't have a great reputation in the US (timing belt issues), and was more expensive than a base motor should be.  VW needed a new, inexpensive entry level motor with sufficient power and grunt to satisfy American preferences.  They had pretty much been neglecting naturally aspirated motor development in favor of diesels and small, turbo engines for their smaller cars.  So they slapped an extra cylinder on their 2.0L I4 and borrowed the basic head design from their V10 and built a 2.5L I5 motor.  I blame the lackluster fuel economy and specific output that would have been considered average circa 1995 (for the early motors, at least) on the fact that VW simply didn't invest much in developing the engine.

You are a wealth of knowledge.