Big List of Fuel Economy - April Edition

I would assume that the avg for the VW diesel would fall between the best and worst tank.

You would think the 135i would get better gas mileage. Ave 19.1 mpg gallon for the big 750i is impressive.

Does anyone know why the 335i gets better gas mileage then the 135i? Aerodynamics?

2005 Volkswagen Jetta on Biodiesel - expected
2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI - expected
2008 Smart Fortwo Passion - pathetic
2009 Honda Fit Sport - expected
2007 Honda Civic GX - You guys still have this?
2008 Ford Focus SES - not so good...
2009 Mazda 6 - really not so good...
2009 Suzuki SX4 - pathetic
2009 Audi A4 Avant - no bad but should be better
2009 Hyundai Genesis - spot on
2008 BMW 135i - meh...
2009 Ford Flex Limited - not bad considering the size
2008 Cadillac CTS - meh...
2009 BMW 750i - this is a pleasent surprise
2002 BMW M3 - spot on
2008 Pontiac G8 GT - spont on
2009 Infiniti FX50 - decent
2008 Mitsubishi Evo X MR - pathetic, why? see below
2009 Nissan GT-R - great considering the performance
2009 Dodge Challenger R/T - meh...
2009 BMW M3 - pathetic

Seriously, waevox has a point. How can the 2005 Jetta's average be lower than the worst tank?

TPAWRX-
Gearing? They weigh about the same, sadly.

Waevox-Good spot. WTF, Edmunds?

I think the driver reported his worst tank from the past month, instead of overall.

I corrected the numbers to reflect our entire time using biodiesel.

Sorry for the confusion. The new numbers did not affect the Jetta's place at the top of the list. -- Donna

So what's your average fleet fuel economy and how does it compare to the CAFE standards?

@louiswei "2008 Smart Fortwo Passion - pathetic"

I'm guessing the reason its average is so low is that it rarely sees highway service. Remember, these things are city cars and it is probably being driven as such. This is dead on to what I have been averaging in the smart that I am driving and my commute consists of canyons and stop-and-go traffic on Pacific Coast Highway.

Avereages for the 135i and 750i are embarrassingly close.

"2008 Smart Fortwo Passion - pathetic"

After reading this I was talking to a neighbour that has had a diesel Smart for almost 4 years. He averages 4.0 L/100km (59 MPG US) on his daily commute to downtown Vancouver.

Smart really screwed up by not offering the diesel in the US.

Just added the Evo GSR -- Donna

Firstwagon, I agree wholeheartedly.

GSR is better than MR? with all that tunings? how rich the MR is running factory?

About 9.5-10:1 at peak torque and full throttle. Its really bad.

On the A4 window sticker, notice the price per gallon of gas the epa uses to calculate annual fuel cost. $4.30! I can't wait for summer for prices to be that high again. Yay!

I've owned my 2009 Honda Fit Sport for two months now. I have the same exact model as Edmunds, only the color is different. Calculating my fuel economy by hand (not relying on the optimistic and incorrect real time fuel gauge) I've been getting a steady 37.7 mpg in my mixed city/hwy 40 mile round trip commute to work. That doesn't matter if the A/C is on, or where I shift (but I usually shift between 3K and 3.5K rpms). I still don't understand how these Edmunds employee's managed to get 26 mpg out of the car as an average.

This just reaffirms my assumption these people don't pay for their own gas and turn in their expense sheets to get reimbursed every week. Edmunds should make these people pay for their gas and then I guarantee you would start seeing those fuel economy figures go way up.

So WHY would you get a smart over a fit or a civic? It costs almost the same.

"This just reaffirms my assumption these people don't pay for their own gas and turn in their expense sheets to get reimbursed every week. Edmunds should make these people pay for their gas and then I guarantee you would start seeing those fuel economy figures go way up."

A car rated at 28/33 or whatever isnt likely to get a COMBINED 38mpg from normal drivers. I would suggest IL is much closer to "normal" than your numbers in this case. Its amazing that people totally ignore the EPA ratings even when IL's results come close to those ratings. In this case, they are EXCEEDING them with the Fit and you are complaining.

I'm not complaining, I could care less, it's their money, not mine. I would be complaining big time if I ever saw a tank of gas average 26 mpg. That is atrocious in a little car like the Fit. And I don't care what the EPA says, in REAL WORLD driving owners are reporting much higher numbers than the EPA. Go to Fitfreak and you'll find most everyone there posting much higher numbers. I guess we're all making that up, right?

No, Edmunds is not normal driving. I suspect because they don't pay for their own gas those people hammer the accelerator at every green light and shift at very high RPMs. That is not normal. That is typical boneheaded aggressive driving, made even worse by the fact they don't pay for their gas. Yeah, I guess if my gas was paid for I would drive my Fit like an idiot too.

But the 39 mpg tank was impressive and more like "normal" driving. I wonder which employee got that?

"I would suggest IL is much closer to "normal" than your numbers in this case. Its amazing that people totally ignore the EPA ratings... "

Why do you consider the EPA's numbers to be normal? I find they are worst case at best.

i.e....My Subaru is rated at 18 city and 24 hwy. However I average 24 to 26 in my city commute and about 29 mpg on the hwy (over 30 if I keep the speed down).

My Grand Cherokee is rated at 14 city and 18 hwy. Strangely I get 18 city and about 23 mpg on the hwy. (and yes I'm using US gallons)

Every car I have ever driven (and it's a lot) beats the EPA numbers and while I'm not a lead foot, I do not hyper mile either.

dgs4

For more accurate numbers, the Canadian government ratings for the Fit are 33 mpg city and 41 mpg hwy (US gallons).

What do you consider "city", firstwagon? Is it stop and go or is it suburban-style lights every mile to couple of miles? That's one of the problems with comparing mileage: people's ideas of driving styles and conditions vary considerably. The EPA numbers aren't even worst case: they're just more accurate than the old estimates.

My idea of city is about 15 minutes on residental streets (stop sign to stop sign, less then 30 mph), dropping one kid of at school and the other at grandmas.

Then 10 minutes of freeway at about 60 to 70 mph and then 15 to 45 minutes of stop and go traffic depending how bad the bridge is backed up.

May not be the worst commute in the world but no where near a leisurely hwy cruise.

No info on 370Z?

Wow the average MPG for the M3 is much worse than the E46 M3.

When gas prices go back up, which they will I can see that car sucking your $ at the gas station.

I had a S4 that I got about 11 MPG on average. No matter that I can afford >$50K cars with relative ease, paying $60 for a tank of gas that doesnt last more than a week doesnt feel right. May need to pick up a clean, low mile competition package E46 M3 soon.

dgs/firstwagon:

There are a few possibilities here. Either you are very conscious of your mileage and drive economically or you are calculating your mileage differently than IL. Its that simple. Most magazines (and my personal experience) suggest that the new EPA ratings are relatively accurate. I have not seen any publication that tests cars routinely exceed the new EPA ratings. This idea that the numbers are wrong because IL staffers are speeding is nonsense. These cars are used for everything from family road trips to errands. There is no evidence that these guys are stoplight drag racing. It is illogical to suggest that the EPA's numbers are 20% too low. It seems to be that people who drive high mileage cars are the main ones contending that the EPA's new methodology is flawed. If you drive NORMALLY in real city traffic a car rated at 28mpg is not going to average 35mpg, period. In additon its ridiculous to infer that getting 26mpg on a tank is unrealistic for a car rated at 28mpg. 26mpg is unrealistic for a Prius, but not for a Fit. I will repeat once again that EPA stickers provide a RANGE of expected mileage. For the Fit the range is probably 26-32mpg in the City.

The M3's mileage is terrible for a car with a 4L engine.

My MS3 averages 23 mpg, but I cannot wait to be averaging less than 20 mpg in an E46 M3 or M Sport 135i...

"There are a few possibilities here"

One possibility is magazines record their mileage while TESTING the cars. If you're testing something, you're not likely to spend much driving along in a quiet and relaxed manner. You want to see how the car performs.

Another possiblity is does you gas have alcohol in it? Last year I ran on Mohawk gas (which has 10% alcohol) for a couple months. My mileage dropped by a surprising 10% to 15%. When I switched back it went back to normal. I remember reading alcohol in gas is more common in the States... that might explain some of the difference.

"If you drive NORMALLY in real city traffic a car rated at 28mpg is not going to average 35mpg, period"

But what if it were rated at 33 mpg? Like I said the same Fit is rated at 33 mpg city by the Canadian version of the EPA. That make 35 mpg sound reasonable.... and much more in line with the Fit owners I know.

There is ethanol in gas in the US. They also have a summer blend and winter blend of gas so that could be one of the issues.

Are Canadian cars rated in US gallons? If so, how can the Fit be rated at 27 here and 33 up there?

When I talked about testing I am including LT tests like IL conducts. I understand that performance testing will yield poor results but a LT test is likely to be conducted under normal driving conditions. I would say IL is doing well to get 32mpg from the Fit in normal driving. That exceeds the EPA's predictions.

"Are Canadian cars rated in US gallons? If so, how can the Fit be rated at 27 here and 33 up there? "

Canadian cars are rated in Litres per 100 KM. Years ago we used miles per Imperial gallon and some older folks still do.

The Fit is rated at 7.2 L/100 km in the city and 5.7 L/100 km for the manual (auto is a bit better). I used an online calculator to convert to US gallons so we could compare.

The difference is really just the result of different conditions used in the testing done by the EPA and by Natural Resouces Canada.

dgs4: You're reading our numbers wrong. We're averaging 32 mpg in the Fit. 26 mpg was the worst we've ever gotten. -- Donna

Canadian's sell gas by the litre. Prior to conversion to metric in the 80's, they sold it in Imperial Gallons like the UK.

Also, reports I've seen using E-86 state the MPG drops. Anybody else care to comment?

It would appear as if the smart's MPG rating is only 1 or so above the Honda Fits. To my mind, that just solidifies it as a stupid car. Buy Honda Fits people! Not Smarts!

People seem to ignore than "range" under the official EPA number. if you look at that window sticker, underneath the 21 city figure a 17-25 range is printed. That's why I laugh when people question how my car can achieve a lowly 17mpg in the city. Well as far as I am concerned, it still falls within the possible range according to the EPA. I find the new EPA figures spot on (and optomistic in my 95% city driving) in the 3 to 4 vehicles I drive on a semi regular basis.