2008 CanadianDriver 50-litre Challenge

[D. R.]

They 'bought' carbon offsets [translation: trees] to feel less guilty about burning 900 L of fuel while conducting their tests?  How touching... yes, I am being cynical.... very cynical.  If they're that worried about the environment, maybe they should just give up on cars altogether and test bicycles instead.  We live in a country with more trees than people, and they bought some more trees... ha ha... that is quite humourous, and I would say that they paid dearly for those tree seedlings too.  Glad it isn't my money they're wasting

[dkerr24]

I'm not surprised the Pontiac Vibe did well in this test.  I own a '03 Toyota Matrix (1.8L, 5 speed manual), and it returns 40 miles to the US gallon on steady freeway driving of 65mph.  I drove from my home in Oklahoma City to Guadalupe Mountains Nat'l Park in West TX a few weeks ago.  Worst tank was 36 mpg, best was 40 mpg.  I had on the AC the entire trip, as temps were near 90F (32C).

Sorry, my metric knowledge is pretty bad, so converting it to KM per liter may be wrong, but I came up with 17KM per liter (?).

I did enjoy reading about the 50 liter challenge - thanks for putting this together for us!  At least now I know my Matrix can run another 100 miles or so once the low fuel light comes on.

[johngenx]

No science at work here.  Nope, this test must be taken for what it was: an observation of how far a bunch of cars that have the same stated fuel capacity can go on that capacity.  Nothing more or less.

The best thing to come from this is the fact that you don't have to drive around in a penalty-box to have great fuel economy.  Both the Corolla and Civic are good sized cars capable of carrying four adults.  They have lots of safety features and even some luxury touches.

Back in the fall of 1989 we bought a 1990 Acura Integra for slightly less than we paid for the 2009 Corolla.  The Corolla has the same size engine and makes only 2hp more.  Progress?  But, the Corolla is larger, has tons more safety equipment, more creature comforts and uses significantly less fuel.  I'm pretty impressed at how much car you can buy for about $20K today, and the crowding of this segment is great for consumers.  Once Ford brings the "real" Focus, they'll be a real player here, too.

[pickles]

Ah now I figured it out.  It was not my former 08 Honda getting bad gas mileage.  Inside source says the following was used during the test.


What is the Tornado Fuel Saver?
Install the Tornado Fuel Saver in the air-intake of your vehicle for better gas mileage and increased horsepower! The Tornado Fuel Saver is an automotive air channeling tool that creates a swirling air motion, allowing the air to move faster and more efficiently by continuously whirling air around corners and bends.

Imagine a mini-tornado on its side moving through the intakes of your automobile. It causes better fuel atomization, resulting in an increase of gas mileage anywhere from 7-24%. These figures are confirmed by road testing performed at an emission lab licensed by the EPA.

Dyno testing shows 4-13 added horsepower as well! The Tornado Fuel Saver is easy to install; 2-5 minutes usually, requires no maintenance and is an affordable addition to most passenger cars, light trucks and RVs on the road.     

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I'm not surprised the Pontiac Vibe did well in this test.  I own a '03 Toyota Matrix (1.8L, 5 speed manual), and it returns 40 miles to the US gallon on steady freeway driving of 65mph.  I drove from my home in Oklahoma City to Guadalupe Mountains Nat'l Park in West TX a few weeks ago.  Worst tank was 36 mpg, best was 40 mpg.  I had on the AC the entire trip, as temps were near 90F (32C).

Sorry, my metric knowledge is pretty bad, so converting it to KM per liter may be wrong, but I came up with 17KM per liter (?).

I did enjoy reading about the 50 liter challenge - thanks for putting this together for us!  At least now I know my Matrix can run another 100 miles or so once the low fuel light comes on.

40 US mpg is 48 Imperial mpg or 5.9L/100km. I used to have an 05 Vibe and got about the same as you on the highway. Very efficient cars for their size.

And welcome to the site. Hope you stick around. We need some more diversity here!

[rrocket]

The results are in, did you pick the winner?

Where are the results?  Didn't see them....

[johngenx]

Go to the front page of the CTC main site (Canadian Driver) and look for the

50-litre Challenge TM

I am wondering, if the "subcompact standard tank" is 45L, are there plans to do
another 50-litre Challenge TM but, only a 45-litre Challenge? TM

[johngenx]

http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/index.htm

[rrocket]

Thanks!!  Toyota FTW!!!   

[Minou]

It is beyond me why they didn't fill up the supposedly 50 liter tanks after running them dry to obtain the true figures.  I complained about the same issue in the previous test in 2005.

9th generation Corollas were known to hold close to 58 liters.

Shave 16% off the Corolla's numbers and you get a much more realistic 5.7 L/100 km.

[lostcomma]

The results are at the first article on the page. 
Yah it took me awhile to find them too.

By the way the lancer is now 170hp so it mileage would be probably poorer. A lot of the questions asked in the forum  addressed in the multipaged article.


One thing they didnt speak to is 50litres? So they drained the tanks
and then added a crtically measured amount of fuel? Or did they just
did they just trust that manufacture figures for volume?
Probably the latter. I dont think that this is a problem but us that like count our coupons..
By the way I dont understand why all the cars were not white?
cause you know...

[chrischasescars]

9th generation Corollas were known to hold close to 58 liters.

What? My dad has a 9th gen 'Rolla, and he thought for the longest time the car only had a 45 litre tank, cos he could never get more than 42-43 litres into the thing, even when he ran the car till the gas gauge was pegged on "E."

[Juke1]

It is beyond me why they didn't fill up the supposedly 50 liter tanks after running them dry to obtain the true figures.  I complained about the same issue in the previous test in 2005.

9th generation Corollas were known to hold close to 58 liters.

Shave 16% off the Corolla's numbers and you get a much more realistic 5.7 L/100 km.

I agree, we need to know if the gas tanks were bone dry before the test run.  If the cars were added 50L of gas when the low fuel light was on, then that's not very precise since we know some have gone a good distance, meaning a good amount still in there.  Is this a competition of the least vs more accurate fuel gauge?

[airbalancer]

will everyone lighten up
 it is not life and death stuff

[libraman]

Its not a question of "lightening up". It is a question of accuracy. Throughout the article there are repeated statements to the effect that "so and so vehicle went 1000 km on 50 litres of fuel". If the actual amount of fuel that went into the tanks was not measured, then these are not accurate statements. The authors of the challenge are not pointing out this flaw in the methodology so someone else has to.  There is even the article questioning why the Honda and Toyota did so much better than the others without raising the issue of the failure to measure the actual amount of fuel burned. In other words, conclusions are being drawn based on bad science.

[quadzilla]

Is this now Scientific Car Canada. 

Did you also want them to weight the cars to ensure their weights are accurate also?

Did you also want to know something else. If the repeated the tests today the results will come up different. Shocking isn't it.

[Minou]

9th generation Corollas were known to hold close to 58 liters.

What? My dad has a 9th gen 'Rolla, and he thought for the longest time the car only had a 45 litre tank, cos he could never get more than 42-43 litres into the thing, even when he ran the car till the gas gauge was pegged on "E."

On my '05, when the low fuel light lit, I'd put only 40 liters.  I once drove 104 km on the highway with the light on and put 47 liters in.  An act of faith I would'nt have done had I not known beforehand that my car could swallow more than its stated 50 liters.

So to conclude, this test is more of a range test where the cars with the bigger tanks stand more chances of winnning although I fully admit the Corolla and Civic to be the more economical of the group.

[msantos]

...

Besides, the route we use for this event is mostly highway, and hybrids are designed to shine in city driving.

In the above statement lies one of the major flaws with the selection criteria... So far, all other criteria for the selection seem plausible and beyond scrutiny

[chrischasescars]

I agree, we need to know if the gas tanks were bone dry before the test run.  If the cars were added 50L of gas when the low fuel light was on, then that's not very precise since we know some have gone a good distance, meaning a good amount still in there.  Is this a competition of the least vs more accurate fuel gauge?

Guys, there's a link in the main article that explains how we started with 50 litres in every car. Here's the explanation. Read this, and I will ready myself for the onslaught of "there's no way that could ever be accurate" comments: 

How we made our calculations

Five of the cars in our group have 50-litre capacity fuel tanks. Although some of the cars have 51, 53 or 55-litre tanks (one had 59), we only used 50-litres for our "Challenge." The range of these vehicles (Volkswagen City Golf, Mitsubishi Lancer, for example) would certainly be extended by their larger fuel tanks, had we started filled them to capacity.

Our technique to equalize the tanks was to fill all the tanks, then "drive off" the required number of litres based on the combined city/highway rating for litres/100 km as supplied by the manufacturer to Transport Canada. For instance, the Dodge Caliber has a 51-litre tank; the combined L/100 km rating is 8.24 which is equivalent to 12.1 kilometers. Consequently we "drove off" 12.1 km before starting the event in the Caliber. We used the same method for each of the vehicles with larger-capacity fuel tanks.

Note: We understand that our method is not scientifically defensible. In order to cover all possible factors that impact an event like this would be beyond our resources. In fact, Transport Canada uses a simulation to generate its ratings precisely because of the numerous factors that can affect results. We feel that we have used the same methodology for each of the vehicles, driven them on the same route on the same day, and offer our results with some certainty that they are representative, and accurate to a plus or minus two-percent margin of error.

[rrocket]

It would have been easier to start from the "low fuel" light. These are very accurate on new cars.  Consider the "low fuel" light as empty.  Put in X number of liters.  If it's less than 50, when the light comes on again, add the leftover and drive till light comes on again.  More accurate than the way you guys did it...