Scion XB Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
HI I HAVE 3100 MILES on my SCION now ---ONLY GETTING 26.5 mpg--DRIVING IN FLORIDA AT 50-60 mpg most of the time here (so highway mileage is what i am doing )---WAS TOLD AT TIME OF PURCHASE S/B 28 mpg-- engine s/b broken in by now--- is this the mileage that others of you are getting-- or can i expect it to improve with more time on the engine? just curious if the mileage i am getting is what is expected ENJOY REGARDS--MERRY CHRISTMAS ----TONY
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
808 Posts
It does take a little time for the mileage to improve. Funny thing, though, it's not in all xB's. I got zilch mileage for the first 5,000 miles or so, then it started to improve. Hang in there and enjoy the ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I have an 09 with on 1800 miles so far and getting about 28mpg combined in SW FL. You didn't say how many eople in car and how much cargo...it can make a difference. Chief
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
scion said:
I get 30 mpg in the highway with 2 people and no luggage in my xB. My Oldsmobile 7 passenger van would get the same mpg, 30 fully loaded, go figure!!!
Yeah but is the olsmobubble as fun to drive ?
 

·
Royal Floor Sweeper
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
Aljay said:
scion said:
I get 30 mpg in the highway with 2 people and no luggage in my xB. My Oldsmobile 7 passenger van would get the same mpg, 30 fully loaded, go figure!!!
Yeah but is the olsmobubble as fun to drive ?
(start rant)
Now . . .
IF ONLY General Motors had left Olds as the real "rocket" brand it was in the 1940s and 50s . . .
THOSE were pretty awesome cars!

At that time, GM used a niche/strata marketing scheme.
It was something like this:
Top, showy: Cadillac, massive trim, massive power
Top, refined: Buick, subdued, elegant styling, high power
Bottom: Chevrolet, basic car, modest power

Between:
Pontiac: Chevy level power w/ heavy chrome trim
Oldsmobile: Chevy level trim w/ massive power

In fact, it you strip ALL the chrome off the GM cars, they look A LOT alike, though in a gradiated introduction of body style. Meaning, a shape would be introduced on a high profile model, then filter down to more base models over the next couple of years while the profile models would introduce a new style.
General Motors USED to be the MASTER of brand differentiation! They made cars that were basically the same look RADICALLY different with essentially the use of (bolt on) rear fenders, grill, and trim for the body, plus interior trim level (quality of materials and fit-and-finish) and engine size/power.
A side-benefit of GM's crossing of models was that pieces from one would bolt (basically, often with either no or minor alterations needed) onto another, as was used to wonderful effect by hot rodders in the 1950s and 60s.

IF Pontiac made real "rockets" today . . .
They'd probably still be alive.
What happened? . . . GM got stupid, forgetting what made their multi-branding work in the first place.

(End rant)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
TartanJack said:
Aljay said:
scion said:
I get 30 mpg in the highway with 2 people and no luggage in my xB. My Oldsmobile 7 passenger van would get the same mpg, 30 fully loaded, go figure!!!
Yeah but is the olsmobubble as fun to drive ?
(start rant)
Now . . .
IF ONLY General Motors had left Olds as the real "rocket" brand it was in the 1940s and 50s . . .
THOSE were pretty awesome cars!

At that time, GM used a niche/strata marketing scheme.
It was something like this:
Top, showy: Cadillac, massive trim, massive power
Top, refined: Buick, subdued, elegant styling, high power
Bottom: Chevrolet, basic car, modest power

Between:
Pontiac: Chevy level power w/ heavy chrome trim
Oldsmobile: Chevy level trim w/ massive power

In fact, it you strip ALL the chrome off the GM cars, they look A LOT alike, though in a gradiated introduction of body style. Meaning, a shape would be introduced on a high profile model, then filter down to more base models over the next couple of years while the profile models would introduce a new style.
General Motors USED to be the MASTER of brand differentiation! They made cars that were basically the same look RADICALLY different with essentially the use of (bolt on) rear fenders, grill, and trim for the body, plus interior trim level (quality of materials and fit-and-finish) and engine size/power.
A side-benefit of GM's crossing of models was that pieces from one would bolt (basically, often with either no or minor alterations needed) onto another, as was used to wonderful effect by hot rodders in the 1950s and 60s.

IF Pontiac made real "rockets" today . . .
They'd probably still be alive.
What happened? . . . GM got stupid, forgetting what made their multi-branding work in the first place.

(End rant)
he had a van, not a 442. i wish i had a 442...*dreaming*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
I only drive in the city, and I am getting 26.5 MPG. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Hey Tartan Jack dont get your bloomers in a bunch . :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I mean really GM has not made any real cars since the late 60s man .
 

·
Royal Floor Sweeper
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
Aljay said:
Hey Tartan Jack dont get your bloomers in a bunch .  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
One doesn't wear bloomers w/ a kilt . . .
Not much to get in a bunch . . .

I mean really GM has not made any real cars since the late 60s man .
There were a few good cars in the 1970-now.  Most were general POS shells made as cheap as possible and made for the brand by different badge and minor trim.  Thanksfully, there were some exceptions.

What saddens me about GM is that, under Harley Earl, they were THE masters of style and branding.  Now, they are one of the worst on the market. 
I really tried to like GM.  Before I got my xB, I looked at Ford, Chrysler, and GM products.  None really impressed me in what I wanted.  The products I looked at were overpriced for what you got, generally bland and design compromises different than preferred, or just what they were good at, I had no interest in. 
I tried, HARD, to like the HHR.  I love the design, but it drives like crap.  I mean, it handles like crap, brakes like crap, and doesn't has the power of an econo-car.  Plus, I can't see lights out of the tiny windscreen (needed a sunroof to see them when stopped in the right place.  I liked the HHR, but it drove horrible.
When I looked at the Scion, I wasn't impressed by the exterior, but it DROVE great! When looking at GM's comparison chart for the HHR and the Scion xB (and others), similarly equipped, the xB won about every category (despite GM saying: "Advantage Chevy." Oh, and they don't say what they did to get the $16/17,000 xB to over $20,000 . . . (the listed "similarly equipped" price, which doesn't seem to include ANYTHING they listed in the comparison). Clearly, it should read . . . "Advantage Scion, THEN Chevy"
(Getting back to topic . . . )
Plus, the mileage is VERY, VERY close, between the HHR and xB.  Considering the xB can scare passengers w/ acceleration, while the HHR (non turbo) has to be floored for adequate acceleration (would have to work hard in traffic), the similarity in mileage is remarkable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
GM failed when it got away from what it did best, and that was to make Chevy through Caddy a different car and not so much the same.

Didn't mean to start a "why" GM went down the tubes as much as to why the xB only gets around 30 mpg. My 2000 Sebring 'Vert gets 32 mpg highway with a 6 cylinder engine. I had a 1990 Buick Le Sabre (3.8) that would get 33 mph cruising down the highway. These are real number not the EPA's.

I just have to scratch my head as to why the xB with decades of improvements over my past cars can only achieve around 30 mpg!

I like the xB and that is why I bought it, period!
 

·
Royal Floor Sweeper
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
What kind or terrain/environment does the xB normally drive in?
The ecu learns your driving style and manages the powertrain accordingly. If it is normally in an aggressive city environment, the engine runs the same on the interstate. If one hyper-miles, or drives gently on flat roads, the mileage is higher than driving more aggressive and/or in hilly areas.

As for mechanically . . .
In general, the gearing is optimized more for 25-60 speeds than 80. It is good for well into triple digits, but not optimum for the RPM/speed balance. Above 70-ish, the mileage drops noticeably. As most driving is in the 40-60 mph range, the engineers geared the xB for engine responsiveness, optimum torque, and handling agility more for those speeds. Those also make the xB quite good for flying up mountain twisties.
Additionally, the xB punches a big hole in the air for it's engine size. The drag coefficient on the xB2 is better than most expect, but it still has to move a lot of air around it with a blunt front and rear (no trailing-off of the air in the rear, so is more drag in the back than with a modern sedan).

In contrast, many larger "cruiser" sedans have gearing for the interstate (taller gears, to maintain a speed w/ lower RPMs), so they are more efficient at 70/80-ish, while worse in mid-range speeds.

If you drive an xB2 gently, and with lighter rims/stock 205-width tires, it is well able to get 32-35 on the interstate. A year ago, I drove from South Carolina to Philadelphia to help my sister move. We drove up I-77 to I-81 into Maryland and PA. Then, across PA to Philly. On the way, we averaged 70-75 (as the rental truck was governed to 75-max). I got well into the 30s, average. On the way back, we drove more like 75-80 (depending on state's speed limit) and the mileage dropped to right about 30 mpg. (The specific figures are on here somewhere, under a long thread. It was in September 2008.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
What TJ is aying is right if I drive easy on the foot feed instead of a pissed of teen I do get better mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
26 MPG average here... mostly highway, maybe 20% city. I know three other people with same vehicle as mine and they are all getting about the same. I see no problem with that. It's about what the EPA rating was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I'm getting an avg. of 27.8. I drove mostly on I-5 because of work. I guess it's not too bad. It's not the best but definitely not the worst. Would installing a Cold Air Intake help improve the mpg's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I drive in metro Phx with a little bit of highway driving now and then. I drive alone and don't haul any cargo other than a backpack and some emergency gear. I average about 25.5 when driving normal (no speeding, driving just fast enough to not get run over) to about 27.5 if I grandma it and don't care about people riding my *** from light to light. During the summer, with the A/C blasting and driving normal will drop it down to 23.5-24ish
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
IN Phoenix as well. I drive 11 to and from work. Most of those miles are from free way I17. My miles reads 25.9. I have CAI TRD and still nothing higher. I did reach 26 once but since then I stay on 25.9. I tend to haulass on streets though so i see why it stays. :D hehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
My gas mileage hasn't been that great (whatever it says on my sig below from Fuelly) - HOWEVER, the majority of my driving lately has been less than 4 miles at a time, and not more than a few times a week. I THINK that would explain the lack of higher MPG my car currently exhibits. Unless anyone thinks it could be something dreadful or otherwise, then please let me know. I've been slightly concerned about it from seeing other reports of fuel mileage on the site, but also figure the car has less than 3200 miles on it and I bought it Sept. 30th of last year.
When I first bought the car, I put over 1500 on in about a month, and almost all of that was highway miles (October is a busy month for me). But since then it's been for back and forth to work, or to dinner. It will be interesting to see if the mileage goes back up on the next road trip.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top