Big List of Fuel Economy - March Edition

Only 6 cars on that list burn regular unleaded and the other 8 burn something else?

The Genesis is impressive- 3.8l V6 and only 1mpg less than the tiny SX4 and 2mpg less than the 4cyl Mazda6? Wow.

I'm a little surprised at the Focus only being 26.4, as well. Seems a little low for a car that's been hyped as a gas saver.

I'm not really seeing the point of the Evo having a turbo 4, when it actually gets worse mileage than the older M3...yes it's faster, but so is a new M3. In terms of weight, would a well designed 6cyl really be much heavier than a complex turbo 4?

Wonder what the Evo GSR is running these days...

I continue to be completely underwhelmed by the fuel economy of the 4-banger Mada 6. You put up with all that moaning and goraning and sluggish performance for what - 2 mpg better than a 300hp V6?? Gimme a break.

The VW Jettas on diesel are impressive and the Honda Fit & Civic are getting the mpg's I'd expect. Same goes for the Audi A4 Avant.

The Mazda 6, Suzuki SX4, and Ford Focus are a bit disappointing when compared to their competitors.

The Evo MR's fuel economy is horrible when compared to the older M3 and the new 370z.

The Genesis was on a long road trip recently, and the Mazda6 sounds like it's being thrashed time to time from a few recent posts.

Excuses, excuses...

Riiight, that's an excuse. You should brush up on what excuse means, you're mistaken.

Just added the Infiniti FX50 -- Donna

Thx Donna.

Wow, who woulda guessed that the average fuel economy of the Infiniti FX50 is better than the Evo MR.

The Drift King (Josh Jacquot) looks so lonely. :(

Evo FTL! j/k, Jay. I'm curious what the GSR's numbers are.

This is why I don't worry too much about fuel economy when car shopping. Unless you're buying a diesel, a golf cart (smart), or the world's least efficient turbo 4-banger (Evo), you're going to end up in the 18 to 23 mpg range for most cars. At $3.00 per gallon, 12K miles per year, the difference between 18 mpg and 23 mpg works out to $36 per month. Not going to break the bank for most people...

DCuerpoJr, one should remember the Evo(s) have full-time all-wheel drive. The E46 M3 and Z34 370Z don't.

@subytrojan

True, but if you compare the Evo MR's average mpg of 16.8 to the GT-R's 16.6 (the last time they updated its average mpg) you're about even.

That said, a 4cyl. sports car is averaging the same as a 6cyl. supercar that has over 100 more hp.

And a more likely competitor, the WRX Sti, averaged 18.9 mpg during the previous update and also has AWD.

@cx7lover

These average figures, when rounded, for the 6 & Genesis exactly match was CR got in their formal testing for overal numbers. So don't know that it's an issue of what kind of driving has been done lately. Most of the other ones pretty well match as best I recall. Though I did check the Jetta TDI and Edmunds is doing better.

Don't just look at the averages folks, look at the best/worst too.

The best/worst numbers reflect what the car is capable of (either in frugal hands/long trip or being flogged by high revving hot shoes).

In the case of the Evo MR (which was showing about 1 mpg less than the GSR in the last roundup - ECU flash wins again), note that the best and worst are decent in the scheme of things. You have to go up 4-5 cars to find one that has a better "worst". And for best, the MR is only a hair off the Genesis and only 0.3 mpg behind the SX4.

What should be obvious from this is that if you drive the Evo like a Genesis, you'll probably get similar economy. But good luck doing that, because then there is no point in driving the Evo, is there?

I'm getting 37 mpg average in a 50/50 mix of city and highway driving in my 09 Fit Sport 5-speed manual. Maybe if the Edmunds staffers didn't shift at 4,500 RPM's and drive 80mph plus on the freeway they would get the same. But I know, they get free fill-ups so who who cares about fuel economy, right!

i get an average of 34mpg in my ford focus manual transmission... my best tank is 42.4 and my worst is 27.1 and i live downtown, so more than a few times i have to creep through inner city traffic. if i can manage 27mpg even in inner city traffic... then again they do have an automatic :(

Never forget YMMV.

Currently (may change), the EPA ratings are the best we have to determine expected MPG.

This sample data from Edmunds is interesting, but purely anecdotal.

The Focus seems to be on par to me. That's about what I get from my Cobalt, and I drive in similar conditions and in similar style as the Edmunds editors (which is to say horrific traffic and a lead foot). My wife can easily get my Cobalt over 30, even in traffic, and I'm sure the Focus could do at least the same, probably better. That 40 mpg tank is pretty impressive.

You guys should have gotten a Mazda6 with the V6 engine. (I know, not the first time you've heard that).

A bit of extra fuel economy will never match the giddy grin on my face, every time I step on the gas on my new V6 Mazda6. And I know fuel prices are going to go up once Summer hits. I know it! Ask me if I care! Maybe if the Mazda's 4-banger got better fuel economy, I might care... maybe.

"I'm not really seeing the point of the Evo having a turbo 4, when it actually gets worse mileage than the older M3...yes it's faster, but so is a new M3. In terms of weight, would a well designed 6cyl really be much heavier than a complex turbo 4?"

Rally bred monsters and all that. WRC rules state 2L engines so thats what you get in the street version. Thats why the Japanese Subaru crowd get the 2L engines versions(they are also supposed to be better for tuning).Drawing large outputs from low displacements vastly increases fuel consumption despite what people think about low displacement turbo engines, i.e fuel efficiency. Subaru met the emissions by increasing the displacement and in the process, I personally think they lost a little bit of the rally monster in the process. And a six cylinder with moderate displacement and low boost twin turbos might weigh more but the mileage will be better. Iam just glad the X doesn't have the turbo lag issues mainly accompanied by low displacement turbo motors.

And if you think the mileage is bad now, wait till the FQ400 comes out. Its average mileage might be 14mpg. Hate to even think what the worst mileage would be like.

-I continue to be completely underwhelmed by the fuel economy of the 4-banger Mada 6. You put up with all that moaning and goraning and sluggish performance for what - 2 mpg better than a 300hp V6?? Gimme a break.

It's 272 hp. If you're going to make a comment at least get the figures right.

cx7lover - I have a pretty good idea what the word "excuse" means and know one when I see one. You've been trotting them out with great regularity to explain why the 4-banger Mazda 6 gets only slightly better (if that) fuel economy than its V6 competitors. Sure - they've been "thrashing" their 4-pot sedan and babying their powerful V6 stablemates - riiiiight.

Then again, it may be the fact that you drive a 4-banger that gets V8-level fuel economy which skews your perception of the Mazda 6's comparative performance in this regard.

@bullitt5 "It's 272 hp. If you're going to make a comment at least get the figures right."

I'd trade approximately 2mpg on average for approximately an extra 100 horsepower every single time. Wouldn't you?

Oh - and the Genesis makes 290hp, not 272. If you're going to go out of your way to do nothing more than correct someone, best make sure of YOUR numbers before you post.

Looks like diesel is kicking everyone's butt in the mileage wars.

jaeger1 - bullitt5 thought you were saying the Mazda 6 had 300 (which has 272)

bullitt5 - jaeger1 thought you were saying the Genesis has 300 (which has 290).

Now you two play nice.

IL needs at least another SUV or truck or something. (Yeah, I'm one of them).

Some of us do actually need those type of vehicles for towing and gear, etc. An EVO just ain't gonna cut it. Crossovers are getting there, the Lambdas in particular, but that's about it. Most CUV's are rated no higher than 3500, which cuts out all but the smallest pop-ups.

O.K. I'm drifting here. ANYWAY, as the owner of one SUV and one crossover, I'm pretty disappointed in the numbers up there. I feel all cars right now that aren't 370 types should be around the Focus numbers. But maybe that's just from living with the 4x4 numbers and getting bashed left and right from SUV haters for our mpg. From that list below the Focus, I wouldn't be bragging too much. IMO.

Speaking of getting figures right, I mis-read the 6's as 23.8, not 23.3. That's be 23 rounded; CR's average was 24 for the 4. Mea culpa.

@jaeger1- Would i trade 2mpg for 100hp? yeah i would

@jaeger1- Would i trade 2mpg for 100hp? yeah probably

I have a hunch the 4 cyl Mazda6 would get much better mileage then the 6 cyl in the hands of a more typical 4 cyl buyer.

Larger heavy cars with small engines loose their advantage when driven hard. The motor just has to work too hard to keep up. Drive it like the seniors in my area and you'll see much better numbers in the 4 then the 6.

You still have the Civic GX...?

I am very suprised that the A4 Avant has such a low average for you guys. My A4 2.0t auto averages about 29mpg on freeway trips and about 24-25 on mixed driving in the warmer months and I am not easy on the go pedal. At worst I see about 22-23 in mixed driving during cold Michigan winter months. The new b8 chassis is bigger overall but any weight gain was kept to a minimum.

I don't put too much stock in IL's fuel economy numbers. It seems like the staff treats them like rental cars at times & they drive them hard. I don't think they pay for their own gas in these vehicles. And they commute through LA which has terrible traffic. Add all that up & it equals poor fuel economy.

I've put 10K miles on my Smart Fortwo and I have never gotten less than 33mpg, ever. (I record fuel economy every tank) I don't hypermile and regularly drive between 70-80mph on the expressway. Which ever driver got 25 mpg on a tank needs to go back to driving school.

@ farvy

I think IL's average mpg ratings are fairly accurate. They tend to do several long road trips (higher fuel economy) with these cars along with several road/track tests to rate performance(lower fuel economy) so it all evens out on the averages. In addition, many large cities have terrible traffic during rush hour. Seattle happens to be just as bad as LA's during certain times of the day. So I wouldn't completely dismiss their average mpg ratings.

@joquito

The 25mpg on the Smart Fortwo was most likely recorded after performance testing. Remember the video of them going over 90mph in Germany? That was definitely kill fuel economy.

"going over 90mph in Germany? "

In Germany?? LOL