2008 Scion xB: Fuel Economy and Service

It's interesting that manual versus automatic makes no difference in EPA ratings, I see a lot of that. In fact when I was shopping for a car last month, a few had slightly better highway ratings with the auto. But I wonder if a good driver could still get better mileage out of a manual by upshifting sooner, not always downshifting for light acceleration, and coasting down hills in neutral. Also taking it easy in traffic, creeping along in first or second instead of jackrabbit starts and riding the brakes and tailgating. Of course folks in automatics could drive more smoothly too, but it's easy to ride someone's butt in an auto, whereas a manual encourages me to relax, leave a little more space, and try to maintain a more constant speed because it's less work. I like to think it makes it a little easier on the guy behind me too.

bemanix88: do tolerante leftys actually have that much hate. that everywhere they go they have to shout it?
 
and heck, it seems like most of the world likes us again, like the germans and french goverments. Err right, the world in the lefts mind is different

It surprises me too that recently a lot of manuals are rated at the same or worse fuel economy as automatics. I really wonder why that is. Is it the new EPA testing? Since that was one of the reasons given for not offering a manual transmission with the Pontiac G8 at launch, I think it is a question worth answering.
 
24 mpg is not impressive at all. Heck with a lead foot I can get my Cobalt to hit 26 mpg in stop and go driving. In evenly mixed driving it just about hits 30, and if I take care to drive it gently breaking 30 isn't hard at all in evenly mixed driving. I know it is a lot smaller than the xB, but for a brand that's supposed to be about cheap operating costs that mileage isn't very enticing.

I'm thoroughly confused as to why anyone would think the mileage you've seen with the xB is disappointing. You're averaging within 0.1 mile per gallon of what the EPA tells you to expect.
 
I can understand the disappointment with the range, as I've had similar problems in other vehicles. My solution?
1. Assume worse-case mileage - maybe 20mpg for the xB
2. Calculate your range at worst-case mileage. With the xB's 14 gallon tank, that would be 280 miles.
3. Pay much more attention to the trip odometer rather than the fuel gauge. Never stop before 260 miles, and if you've done a lot of highway driving, 300 should be no problem.
 
On the whole, the xB gets respectable mileage for what it is. You can blame Toyota for making it larger and more powerful than the previous generation xB, but given its increased utility, 24mpg is perfectly reasonable.

stovt, maybe the reason automatics get as good or better mileage than manuals is that with an automatic the engine's ECU can know what the transmission is about to do while on a manual it has to make a guess? Also, manuals have 5 or 6 gears while modern automatics have 6, 7, 8 or infinite gears.

Automatics have gotten more efficient, in addition to having more than 3 or 4 gears. Manual transmissions also seem to be geared for acceleration these days... maybe because of the profile of the buyers they expect to select a manual.
 
Anyway, the backlash against the new xB's mileage is more evidence to me that Toyota should've renamed it something else. The xA because the xD with a much smaller change in scope... I don't know why they didn't do the same to the xB. It's not the same car at all! It went from a small, funky 33mpg econobox to a boringly normal small CUV (in which a boxy shape is not new nor original).

manual drivers can get mpg way over the EPA ratings for most vehicles, as most records on
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList show.

ouch. our xa gets like 27 mpg in the winter, a drop of 3mpg, but its being idled alot more. with winter and all, esspically on short to work trips, it might idel for 5 mins out of a 15-20 min trip

stovt001, but you're comparing the Scion to a car in the same class (your Cobalt). My Accord V6 6MT gets the same mileage (30-32 highway, 25-27 mixed).

flipb - even if this is the kind of mileage that we all should expect from the little thing, it's still not good mileage considering its engine output, acceleration figures, and size. Any number of larger, more powerful, and quicker vehicles out there (including some in Toyota's own fleet) can return equal or better mileage.

I don't have to "shout it everywhere I go". It's just the best analogy I could come up with for Toyota having a very credible, popular brand with a personality and loyal following--and ruining it within one generation.
 
Sorry, I forgot that expressing dissent was un-American. I'll just look the other way when I see my country being mismanaged.
 
Back on topic: 24mpg is definitely too low for the xB's class. Far more powerful engines can attain similar or better mileage, such as the Accord's 190hp I4.

billt9, I've heard it said that we manual drivers can beat EPA estimates easily... but isn't the point of a manual to be able keep the revs UP? hehe

When I buy a manual, I don't get it for the fuel economy. I get it for the engine control (and the thrill).
 
24 is pathetic. The EP3 Civic Si hatchbacks got 26 around town and 30 on the highway. I'd also imagine it feels a lot peppier than this thing.

The EP3 had the same horsepower, but less torque due to the smaller displacement. It's the weight that's making the difference.

this mileage isnt good. Yes, its meeting the EPA numbers but those numbers arent great. Sorry, but I dont consider 158hp to be powerful. The Malibu/Aura weigh a whopping 3500lbs and get better mileage than this with 169hp. Every four cylinder equipped vehicle should get 30mpg on the highway in my book. Otherwise what is the point? The Scion would get the same mileage with Toyota's V6 and be much faster. The mileage on the 2.4L equipped 2009 Corolla is similarly unimpressive.

The Toyota 2.4L is just not a great engine. The power to size ratio isn't great (the GM 2.4L makes 177hp, with great torque too) and the fuel economy is sub par, as noted.
 
Its bad enough that most cars gain weight with each new redesign, and its even worse that the xB went from efficient and lightweight to mini-SUV is one redesign. It really does need a new name, as it bears no resemblance in purpose or design to the old one.

I'll concede that 24mpg isn't outstanding, but I still say it's pretty reasonable (average) for something with the xB's utility.
 
It's pretty goofy to compare the xB with the Accord or Civic for mileage. It's a boxy vehicle, with more versatile interior space. The aerodynamic profile doesn't do the xB any favors at highway speeds, in terms of mileage. But try fitting a washing machine in the back of your Civic.
 
However, I'll concede this: The RAV4 2WD uses the same engine, gets roughly the same mileage, despite being significantly heavier and roomier.
 
(Side note: The RAV4 is EPA-rated 21/27, while the xB is rated 22/28. Oddly, the EPA rates both vehicles an identical 24mpg for combined driving... does their test assume RAV4 drivers get a better city/hwy mix?)

Yes, comparing the xB to an Accord or Civic is apples-to-oranges. However, if you compare it to the Honda Fit at 28/34, you start feeling downright cheated by Toyota.

you could also compare Xbs mileage to vehicles like the HHR, Rondo, PT Cruiser, Element, etc. Do they get better mileage?