Updated EPA #'s-very interesting.

[brianl703]

Quote:

---

then why is my saab rated 34 MPG on the highway and I get on average for highway only tanks 37.6???

---

I don't think the Saab is anywhere near 4K RPM at 75MPH. In fact, the Saab runs a lower engine speed in 5th gear at a given road speed than my 1996 Ford Contour V6 did, and both get about the same fuel economy.

2004 Malibu Classic with the Ecotec 4 cylinder also doesn't run anywhere near 4K RPM at 75MPH.

 

[Laminar Lou]

Quote:

---

Great news! The Enzo went from 8/12 to 7/12, not much of a drop.

---

With the cost of that car, you are concerned with the gas mileage?

I got to ask, do you track your MPGs? If so, how do they compare to the EPA numbers?

Actually, for the HP output on that car it sounds like the ratio of HP to MPG is probably pretty good. It's better than my minivan.

 

[AEHaas]

All I do is city driving and I do not have an exact number but I would guess I'm getting around 15 MPG. I keep it in a higher gear most of the time. I do drive with the intent not to waste gas much of the time. But this is a hobby, not just a ride to work. Others use gas to fly west for skiing or to the islands to vacation. I stay at home and drive. I get 15 - 16 MPG around town in the Expedition, essentially the highway EPA rating.

aehaas

 

[Laminar Lou]

Quote:

---

All I do is city driving and I do not have an exact number but I would guess I'm getting around 15 MPG. I keep it in a higher gear most of the time. I do drive with the intent not to waste gas much of the time. But this is a hobby, not just a ride to work. Others use gas to fly west for skiing or to the islands to vacation. I stay at home and drive. I get 15 - 16 MPG around town in the Expedition, essentially the highway EPA rating.

aehaas

---

Wow, that is pretty good fuel economy. That's actually close to what I get in the Honda Odyssey around town. But get that baby on the highway and I'll beat that Enzo of yours (in MPGs).

And honestly, I don't think you can possibly "waste" gas in a Ferrari. It's like my Harley Davidson. Every ounce of gas that goes through that machine is appreciated.

 

[Winston]

Here is the description of the new fuel economy test protocol.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

For the old protocol, notice that the top speed was only 60mph and the avg speed was 48mph. Thus it would produce very good highway mpg numbers. However, the mpg for the old highway test was reduced by 30% and then that number was posted on the sticker. Say if the EPA measured 30mpg for a car in their highway test they would put only 21mpg on the sticker. That is why most people could still beat the highway mpg numbers on their cars.

I wonder how they estimate the aerodynamic drag on the vehicles. It has always seemed the very aerodynamic vehicles tend to beat their EPA numbers more than the Boxy SUVs do.

 

[Jim74]

Wow it got my Cavalier dead on now. Average of 24 mpg is exactly what I get.

 

[Mitch Alsup]

I constantly get 15% above the old ratings. Case(s) in point:
200 Toyota Runner EPA 17/21. The Fuel meter in the truck is showing 23.9 and has never been reset since picking up this truck (25K miles ago). I get 20-21 MPG on the highway with my Ferrari F55B; EPA thinks I should be getting 16-17. To be fair, when I get to the race rack I get less than 6 MPG!

It IS all in how you drive the things.

I suspect I will be getting 25%-30% more than the new ratings.....

 

[berge]

how on earth are you people getting MORE than the old EPA highway ratings?
The test was with a warmed up engine, gentle acceleration and 60MPH cruise speed.

 

[Throckmorton]

I always beat the old EPA highway rating in my V6 Accord. In true highway driving with the cruise control set at 78 mph & climate control on I'll often get more than 31 mpg.

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:

---

how on earth are you people getting MORE than the old EPA highway ratings?
The test was with a warmed up engine, gentle acceleration and 60MPH cruise speed.

---

Most people stomp on the go pedal... others understand physics...

JMH

 

[Bryanccfshr]

My wife's '06 4 runner is the same. I have reset it a couple of times and I check the meter against the fuel pump(she keeps a mileage and fuel log for business deductions as well). It is old EPA rated at 22mpg on the highway. It gets 23 flat while she drives(she idles more than I) and does more city and traffic than I
While when I drive it for a weekend trip or a country ride
with her I can squeeze 25 MPG out of it.
My Tacoma with the same engine is rated at the same mileage (it's much heavier than the 4 runner and wider) I just now started to get over 22 mpg on it after 5k miles of use. There are tanks I only average 17-18 though because I use that truck on some trails and to haul a few things occasionally.


Physics lesson. Don't stay on the throttle until you have to apply the brake, coast to a stop when possible(bonus, it saves brake life)Accelerate smoothly. You don't have to accelerate like grandma but you need to be smooth and steady. Use cruise on flat terrain but turn it off in hills. Driving hilly terrain you can save fuel by accelerating towards to gain momentum near the bottom of a hill so less throttle is needed to go up the next hill. This also prevents the transmission searching in automatics with cruise on hills.
Conservation of kinetic energy needs to be taught in drivers education not just traffic laws.

 

[MNgopher]

'99 F150 4x4, 4.6L V8 and Auto Transmission: Old Numbers 14 City 17 Freeway (15 Average). New: 12 City 16 Freeway (14 Average). After 151,000 miles of records, I average 15.0 mpg (With a heavier version of the truck - supercab, hard cap, and oversized LT tires).

My '88 Jeep Cherokee, 4.0L, Auto: Old: 16 City 21 Freeway (18 average). New: 15 City 20 Freeway (16 Average). 50,000 plus miles with fuel mileage recorded: 16.5 mpg. (Granted that until recently I had the butt ugly vertical bug deflector that was no gas mileage friend!)

My conclusion: A bit of a mixed bag with the new results versus the old.

 

[outersquare]

Quote:

---

EPA testing was always more favorable to small 4 cyl type cars by testing at 55mph whereas most people drive 65-75 mph.
4 cyls usually got worse real world mileage than epa rated and V8s usually got better real world mileage because the v8 was chugging along just over idle at 75 whereas the little 4 banger was at 4k rpms. My toyota supra got 16 mpg avg where my 00 6spd Trans am got 28 mpg on the same 100 mile hwy commute.
Last summer I had 6 rent a cars for 1 week each while working at a site. Mustang,500,town car, subaru forester,camry,taurus. Every car got 21 mpg doing the same drive every day according to the built in computer. That is real world mileage. Yes I drive hard.

---

heh, myself, my 4 cylinder automatic turns 3k rpm at 90 mph.

 

[Winston]

Quote:

---

how on earth are you people getting MORE than the old EPA highway ratings?
The test was with a warmed up engine, gentle acceleration and 60MPH cruise speed.

---

The old highway numbers were reduced by 30% from the actual test results. Thus, it is easy to beat the posted number.

 

[Anduril]

I easily beat the EPA estimate for my '96 Accord (4 cyl 5 speed) driving 80 mph for 400 miles with cruise on. That trip got me just a hair under 34 mpg, normally I get between 28-30 with that car.

It's not quite what my Corolla used to get, but I find that a bigger car is worth the slight trade-off. Besides, for a couple years my only car was a '69 bug with an effed up carb that got about 20 on a good day.

 

[williar]

I find the new numbers to be more realistic; the old ones were idealistic and few people achieved the advertised mpg. Thus alot of auto dealer complaints.

 

[ALS]

My Volvo 960 is now dead on city and combined. Highway is a hair low by 1 mpg in stock condition cruising at 70 mph.
I could never get close to the city mileage no matter how careful I was with the throttle.

 

[Titan]

I found the old epa #'s easily achievable...especially if I had a manual transmission. My two automatics get right at the old epa #, unless there is something unusual going on, like going 80 mph, or a big headwind or tailwind. My Legacy is rated at 30 mpg highway, and after over 20,000 miles I'm averaging just under 30 mpg, with about 90% of that highway. Highest I've gotten is 33.5, I think, lowest is 25.5 (lot's of headwind, some traffic, more idling than usual). ALL my cars have achieved epa numbers, and I'm often accused of driving too fast. What people don't realize is that I don't drive very fast, I just don't put on the brakes as much as they do...so I go around corners more quickly than they do. Plus, I look ahead and anticipate when to go to zero throttle and allow the engine drag to slow me down, rather than the brake pedal. That efficiency-improver is apparently enough to get me at least as good as epa #'s. I feel sorry for the poor slobs that live where the traffic is heavy, and sitting in traffic jams is a normal thing...you'll not be achieving epa #'s in those circumstances.

 

[Pbert25]

No big change on either my present car(2004 Pontiac Grand Prix) and old car(2004 Toyota Matrix). I know why the Matrix went down alot more, this test is much harder on the cooling system as a hole. If only Toyota would recommend PAG oil in the R134A, things could get better.

 

[buster]

So I lost 3 mpg. I'll survive. One thing I've noticed is that my Toyota and Honda both have met or exceeded what the window sticker says. I havn't checked it in a long while. When I switch back to a 20wt I'll check it again. Thanks for posting this.