MPG; Don't Jump from the Frying Pan into the Fire

[1sttruck]

I can see some people selling their SUV with the new low profile wheels and custom paint at a large loss in order to buy a small BMW for better mileage....


http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/consumer-guides-real-world-fuel-economy-losers-cga.htm

Consumer Guide's Real World Fuel-Economy Losers

Part two of our review of test-vehicle fuel consumption spotlights the guzzlers. Last month we featured our fuel economy champions, the cars and trucks in each category that went the furthest on a gallon of fuel. This month we present the losers, the vehicles in each class that hit our wallets the hardest.

Why does our list matter? Because the EPA admits its fuel economy numbers are estimates. Ours are real. A typical Consumer Guide test car is evaluated by at least four editors, all of who account for their fuel usage.


Compact Cars

Vehicle Transmission CG mpg EPA city/hwy mpg
1. Chrysler PT Cruiser GT conv. Auto. 16.1* 19/26
2. Subaru Impreza WRX STI Manual 17.1* 18/24
3. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Manual 19.0* 18/24


Premium Midsize Cars

Vehicle Transmission CG mpg EPA city/hwy mpg
1. Audi A6 4.2-quattro Auto. 14.2* 18/25
2. Infiniti M45 Auto. 16.0* 17/23
3. Cadillac CTS-V Manual 17.0* 16/25


Sporty/Performance Cars

Vehicle Transmission CG mpg EPA city/hwy mpg
1. Ford Mustang GT Auto. 14.9 17/23
2. Mazda RX-8 Manual 18.0* 18/24
3. Nissan 350Z Manual 18.8* 19/25


Minivans

Vehicle Transmission CG mpg EPA city/hwy mpg
1. Honda Odyssey Touring Auto. 16.3 20/28
2. Hyundai Entourage Auto. 16.5* 18/25
3. Ford Freestar 4.2 Auto. 16.6 17/23

 

[ThirdeYe]

20/28 for a big van like the Odyssey is pretty dang good IMO. I assume 16.3 is the mileage that they actually got? I wonder how hard they drove it... I've never gotten below EPA estimates in my car, no matter how hard I drive it.

 

[01rangerxl]

I agree. 28 MPG in a V6 van is pretty good.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I agree. 28 MPG in a V6 van is pretty good.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that their observed MPG for this vehicle was 16.3. The 20/28 EPA figures are just provided for reference in order to show just how far off they are from what CG considers "real life mpg".

 

[rcy]

Yes, and their observed MPG will vary from anyone else's MPG. When my wife drives my Outback, I think someone is siphoning fuel. She has jackrabbit starts and speeds on the highway (this is just to keep up with everyone else). When I drive on the highway, I set the cruise to 110 KM/H and my mileage is 2-3 mpg better than hers. I have a Scangauge II that proves this.

 

[firemachine69]

Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
20/28 for a big van like the Odyssey is pretty dang good IMO. I assume 16.3 is the mileage that they actually got? I wonder how hard they drove it... I've never gotten below EPA estimates in my car, no matter how hard I drive it.


Particularly considering the thing weighs over 4000 pounds! :eyebulge:

 

[Kestas]

Did the journalist have an agenda before they did this study? Like rcy mentioned, the results can vary widely among different drivers. If they commissioned a lead foot driver, the results wouldn't do the reader any good.

 

[Silber Igel]

No surprise with the Odyssey. My friends Oddys easily get 17 - 23 mpg. My Sienna gets 18/19 - 24+. And either van can haul the world in great comfort.

 

[Jeffdc5]

those people drive hard as [censored] i just had a road trip from Nyc to ATl with one of my friends and his 350z averaged 29 mpg on my scanguage. We took turns driving we set the cruise control to 75 mph

 

[BrianWC]

Originally Posted By: Jeffdc5
those people drive hard as [censored] i just had a road trip from Nyc to ATl with one of my friends and his 350z averaged 29 mpg on my scanguage. We took turns driving we set the cruise control to 75 mph


Exactly.

They're automotive journalists. They are going to be a bit more spirited drivers than many people. Besides, placing their combined fuel mileage next to the EPA figures stated in city/highway is a bit misleading. :no-no: If they were to place the EPA combined MPG up there next to their figures, there wouldn't be near the shock value.

 

[firemachine69]

Actually, based on the number of idiots driving, their numbers are pretty accurate. Test drove my Yaris in the same fashion as them, and surprise-surprise! Pretty much the same numbers!

If I hypermile, however...

 

[d00df00d]

Consumer Reports once tested a bunch of infant car seats and "found" that almost all of them were horrifically unsafe. It turns out that the test sled they used was set very poorly, and was closer to simulating a 70+ MPH side-on collision than anything else. Needless to say, the test was therefore laughably irrelevant. That was the straw that broke the back of my opinion of Consumer Reports...

 

[ryansride2017]

Where is the list of vehicles that over-performed?

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
Why does our list matter? Because the EPA admits its fuel economy numbers are estimates. Ours are real. A typical Consumer Guide test car is evaluated by at least four editors, all of who account for their fuel usage.


I'm thinking the EPA controls the variables in their estimates better than CR does with these estimates. This is just a demonstration of how bad mileage can be with certain driving patterns compared to what one can do if they actually try to get decent mileage.

 

[glennc]

I agree with that comment. I thought it was ironic that they proclaimed the EPA test to be less real-world than theirs, then apparently drove the cars so freaking hard that they did even worse than the EPA.

However, it is Consumer Guide, not Consumer Reports.

 

[Audi Junkie]

My target auto was one that could get good mpg driving semi-fast. I drive "appropriately".

 

[javacontour]

It appears the article was from 2006, when EPA estimates where a bit more optimistic compared to 2008.

"Consumer Guide's Real World Fuel-Economy Losers." 27 December 2006. HowStuffWorks.com.

This is from the citation link.

So while I agree a good driver can beat EPA estimates, more and more drivers will find their results correspond with the 2008 and later method the EPA uses to calculate estimated fuel economy.

 

[JohnBrowning]

That can not be right I drive my 2003 Camry I4 like I just stole it and the lowest I have ever gotten was 26MPG in it and my Interstate averqage is like 32 or 34 MPG and that was on my way to Florida. So people would have to be driveing like John Force to get numbers that bad or their vechiles are all poorly maintained!! I maintain my vechile like it is going to save my life some day maybe that is why I get such great milage.

My Dodge Dakota 4X4 used to get 21 average but my best was 24MPG and my worst was 19. My Dad drives his Tacoma like he stole it and he never gets lower then 22 and My Moms Tundra wich she drives very easy turns in about 19MPG on average. So those numbers are not right!!

 

[1sttruck]

Our 2006 Taurus got 17 mpg on the last tank, worse than my 3/4 ton quad cab 4x4 diesel pickup has gotten recently, but we live on a hill and more ethanol has been added to gas lately. The Taurus is in good shape, with fairly fresh plugs, rgeular fluid and air filter changes, 35 psi tires, etc.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: glennc
However, it is Consumer Guide, not Consumer Reports.


Oops. Thanks for the correction!