Big List of Fuel Economy: September 2010

I would like to see a long-term Fiesta or Mazda2 as well.

Where's the MS3?

Oh nevermind. Just scanned over the list without reading above it. :)

The Prius' mileage really is pretty impressive.

The Terrain's is embarrassing (given its rating).

"The Terrain's is embarrassing (given its rating)."

Given that it's just really a front wheel drive 4 cylinder wagon.

"The Prius' mileage really is pretty impressive."

It is...I have one. I hate driving it but it is practical, safe, roomy, reliable and just an all around great car. Many people cannot stand that so many actually like their Prius and would buy another. Many act as if the very existence of hybrids offends them......they need to get a life.

A lot of effort goes int beating up the Terrain for it's lack of economy, but it's doing better than the ugly Honda and the Outlander...heck the beloved Suzuki is doing less than 10% better. I dont think they're getting old becuase only the Prius and the Sonata are beating what I get delivering pizza in a Volvo 240 with 200,000 miles on it.

Amazing to me that the Camaro SS and Z06 have both managed better fuel economy highs than I ever have in my 10 G37S. I recently went on a trip with all highway driving and the best I could muster was 24.7. Admittedly I was running 80-85 mph and not at all concerned with gas mileage at the time, but those are some astounding numbers for big V8 musclecars putting out over 400 hp. I guess tall gearing has something to do with it....

@colorado kid

Yes, 20 mpg is not "terrible". But when it's 1.0 and 0.3 mpg better than the two V6 powered wagons you compared it to, and 6 mpg worse than EPA, it's terrible. And actually the Kizashi IS getting more than 10% better. Check your math again.

@majin_ssj_eric

Well of course if you're running 80-85 you're not gonna get great mileage. At 80 I get around 24 as well in my Altima SE-R (3.5 6MT), above that the numbers drop big time. At 70, I get around 26. The best I've seen is 29, but that was at 55 mph (was testing to see how high I could go).

"A lot of effort goes int beating up the Terrain for it's lack of economy, but it's doing better than the ugly Honda and the Outlander...heck the beloved Suzuki is doing less than 10% better."

The Terrain is the only car in the LT fleet that is grossly underachieving from its EPA estimates. 29 MPG as the best-achieved is nothing to sneeze at in a small SUV, but IIRC that was netted during the 'Fuel Sipper Smackdown', a test in which all 14 other cars run on this loop hit or exceeded their EPA highway numbers - the Terrain was the only one to fall several MPG short.

The Accord Crosstour and Outlander GT both have substantially more powerful V6 engines and full-time AWD. They're also actually slightly exceeding their EPA combined estimates. The Terrain has the Weakotec 4-cylinder with FWD, it SHOULD better them significantly but it doesn't, they're pretty much the same.

My issue isn't with the Terrain's actual fuel economy, it's with GM's blatant gaming of the EPA test and subsequent misleading advertising, since the average consumer probably won't be able to hit those numbers.

What bimmerjay said. Everyone's used to wild variations in EPA and real world, never have I seen a car so obviously tuned very specifically to get unachievable mpg numbers.

@majin_ssj_eric

I have a 2010 G37S 6MT Sedan myself. The VQ's have never been known for great economy, but this one does better than my old G35. Mine's only got 3000 miles on it, but it average a solid 18 mpg around town on the stock tune. Best hwy was 25 mpg.

One thing I did do to get better economy was to create a gas saving tune. Using a program called Osiris from Uprev you can put up to 5 tunes on the stock ECU and toggle through them with the cruise control buttons. I did my own custom tunes (since that's my business), but you can get e-tunes done if you aren't near a dyno. In the economy mode around town I get closer to 20 mpg if I take it easy and traffic isn't too bad, which is fabulous for a 3700 lbs sedan. I'm hoping to do a 400-500 mile interstate trip soon and I think I can hit 27-28 mpg holding 75 or so if my short freeway hops are any indication (I did one clear 20 mile run and averaged over 30 mpg on the trip computer which seems very accurate compared to fillups).

Look into it if you are interested - www.uprev.com

+1 to bimmerjay.

Thanks for the tip Church but I am not really worried about the mileage (I average around 21 mpg around town which is just fine for me). I was just impressed with the economy of those massive V8's....

Where is the Fusion Hybrid???? Is that car, like, dead or something?

"What bimmerjay said. Everyone's used to wild variations in EPA and real world, never have I seen a car so obviously tuned very specifically to get unachievable mpg numbers."

First of all none of these cars are driven in the exact same manner so you have no idea why one model may exeeed EPA mileage and why another fails to come close. One thing is for sure, any tank that yields 12.7mpg in the Terrain must have been attained in gridlocked traffic. It is almost unfathomable that ANY I4 equipped vehicle could acheive such poor mileage unless conditions were extreme. The worst tanks of gas I got on the Aura (EPA- 17mpg in the city) were in the 13mpg range and my city mileage is worse than what most people report due to conditions. I cannot see ANY way that a vehicle rated 5mpg higher would get WORSE mileage that what I managed in a 3660lb car with a 3.6L V6. The Terrain's average is going to be horrible when you have a tank (or possibly numerous tanks) below 13mpg. The weight of the vehicle is barely an issue at city speeds so using weight as an excuse for the city mileage is a crock. The driver, traffic and AC use had to be the issue.

For those who are having a field day beating up on GM for "lying" or "gaming the test" please note that C&D recorded 18-19mpg average mileage for the Equinox, Sorento and Tuscon in short take road tests. All are rated at 21-22 city and 30-32 on the highway with FWD. I believe the testers may have been AWD but still their recorded mileage was BELOW the city mileage for all three vehicles. Conversely, C&D averaged 21mpg in a V6 powered Terrain in a comparo test.

The new Sorento is only slightly lighter than the Terrain and is rated at 21/29 FWD and 20/28 AWD- hardly lower than the Terrain. Is Kia also deliberately designing a vehicle that can't possibly meet EPA ratings? The Fusion isn't listed above but road tests of the Fusion Hybrid have consistently failed to meet the 41mpg city number on the sticker.

@1487

I don't understand your point. Are you saying we should be "beating up on" the other manufacturers of cars not in a long term test because other publications didn't achieve their EPA estimates? The fact is, IL has a Terrain, the Terrain is the only vehicle that horribly underachieves it's EPA, so everyone on this site is going to rag on it.

So the 22/32/26, 3853 lb Terrain gets a combined 21.1.

And the new Sorento, at 21/29/24, and 3796 lbs.

The Terrain makes peak power at 6700 rpm, and peak torque at 4900 rpm.
The Sorento makes peak power at 6000 rpm, and peak torque at 3750 rpm.

I'd wager the Sorento is more aerodynamic as well.

I'd also wager that the Sorento would be able to achieve at LEAST 22 mpg combined, putting it at 2mpg off of the EPA combined. Not 5.

actually the prius is over 10% off its ratings if you look at the chart.

How would you be able to wager what the Sorento would get based on specs? I just told you C$D averaged about 18mpg in their model. The lighter Tuscon is rated at 23/31 in FWD guise and C&D didnt come close to the combined mileage in their test.

Aerodynamics play a minimal role in highway mileage and virtually no role in city mileage so don't use that as an excuse.

Other reviews have noted mid 20s mileage for the Equinox I4 and owners have said the same thing on this site. There is no rational explanation for how a vehicle with a 2.4L could average 12.7mpg for an entire tank of gas unless conditions were extreme. Thats worse than V6 or many V8 equipped vehicles perform in city driving. Thats worse than their worse tank for the 4500lb Flex with a 3.5L V6. It makes no sense.

"Aerodynamics play a minimal role in highway mileage "

They play a decent size role, hardly a minimal one. If it did not then car makers would not pay so much attention to it.

The worst tank for most of the cars on the list is the tank used when doing the intial track tests....so if the Terrain did more than the usual acceration runs then the MPGS would reflect it.

"actually the prius is over 10% off its ratings if you look at the chart. "

And if you've been reading the blogs about the Prius, its average fuel economy has dropped because the car has spent a great deal of time in the last 10,000 miles or so idling in the desert with the A/C on.

"Aerodynamics play a minimal role in highway mileage "

Really? Please cite a source.

"There is no rational explanation for how a vehicle with a 2.4L could average 12.7mpg for an entire tank of gas unless conditions were extreme. "

A single worst tank average from a track day or a day spent as production support would have easily been averaged out by now.

@skyggge,

"I don't understand your point. Are you saying we should be "beating up on" the other manufacturers of cars not in a long term test because other publications didn't achieve their EPA estimates? The fact is, IL has a Terrain, the Terrain is the only vehicle that horribly underachieves it's EPA, so everyone on this site is going to rag on it."

Exactly. 1487 will make any excuse in the book to prevent the Terrain from being seen as an outlier, which in this test it clearly is. Edmunds has some solid real-world data and other vehicles tested in similar conditions - like the 'Fuel Sipper Smackdown' article to back this up.

"Aerodynamics play a minimal role in highway mileage"

We should strip the Nobel prize off my old Fluid Dynamics professor and give it to 1487 instead.
Yes, my prof really is a Nobel laureate.

"They play a decent size role, hardly a minimal one. If it did not then car makers would not pay so much attention to it."

Gains in mileage directly related to minor aero tweaks in minimal. when manufacturers brag about low cd its mainly for advertising purposes. a diesel SUV cna get great mileage in spite of high curb weight and "poor" aerodynamics. The speeds that are simulated to get highway mileage arent high enough for aerodynamics to play a major role. Besides, the tuscon is rated at 31mpg highway and I doubt its much more aerodynamic than the Equinox or Terrain.

"And if you've been reading the blogs about the Prius, its average fuel economy has dropped because the car has spent a great deal of time in the last 10,000 miles or so idling in the desert with the A/C on."

its a lifetime average, not an average for the last few tanks. Either way you spin it, the vehicle is over 10% off its EPA average.

"Really? Please cite a source."

common sense. There is a reason you hear much more talk about aerodynamics in relation to acheiving top speed than achieving great mileage. Drag become significant at high speeds which is why minor tweaks can yield a few extra mpg in a test of top speed- as seen on the Top Gear episode where they pushed 3 V8 Americanc cars to their limits at the Salt Flats. Even so, discussion of drag coefficients is pointless because WE DON'T KNOW THE FIGURES for any of the vehicles being discussed. People think that the Terrain has "poor" aerodynamics because its got a two box shape but early Lexus models were boxy and had best in class drag coefficients.

"A single worst tank average from a track day or a day spent as production support would have easily been averaged out by now."

doubt the Terrain was at a track day. My point is it must have spent some time in some unusually heavy traffic jams for a long period of time to come up with a figure like that. In addition, it seems that its only been on the highway in recent weeks in spite of the fact that it has over 10k (or is it 15k?) miles already. I have pointed out numerous times that there are accounts of these models gettting mid 20s in combined mileage and no one has responded. Are you all saying that anyone who gets more than 21mpg is lying? I also pointed out that in C&D similar models got similarly poor mileage when driven by "enthusiasts" who want to force a crossover to perform like a sports car.

"We should strip the Nobel prize off my old Fluid Dynamics professor and give it to 1487 instead.
Yes, my prof really is a Nobel laureate."

Go ask you professor what role aerodynamics play in mileage at 60mph and get back to me. Weight, engine tech and gearing are far more important. When the Malibu went from a 4 speed to a 6 speed mileage on the highway jumped by 10% with no changes to styling. No amount of aero tweaks could've yielded half that gain on the car.

http://www.cars.com/chevrolet/equinox/2010/reviews/?revid=55938

http://www.autosavant.com/2009/07/22/2010-chevrolet-equinox-2lt-review/#more-6169

http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/chevrolet/2010-chevrolet-equinox-1lt-awd-review-1226.html

Three reviews indicating better mileage than IL has observed including one claiming 32mpg was achieved on the highway. That figure came from the trip computer but its safe to assume he was around 30mpg.

"its a lifetime average, not an average for the last few tanks. Either way you spin it, the vehicle is over 10% off its EPA average. "

I'm not spinning anything. 10,000 miles of poor economy is easily 25-30 tanks of gas, not a "few". Did you even bother reading what has been going on with the Prius?

Quote from Dan Edmunds:

"Our Prius has been out for "mileage accumulation" duty in the desert over the last 13,000 miles. Lots of stationary idling has been going on to keep the A/C working while the car sat parked in hot places."

Oh, and I actually cite sources:

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2010/09/2004-toyota-prius-higher-age-lower-fuel-economy.html

"doubt the Terrain was at a track day"

All of Edmunds' cars are track tested. That would be known as a "track day". This may or may not be captured as the worst tank number, but they have stated before it's excluded from the averages.

"common sense."

That's not a source, that's your baseless assumption. As usual you can't come up with any hard data on anything, only your often incorrect limited technical knowledge or apples to oranges relational comparisons. Cite an example of what relative impact drag coefficients and frontal areas have on highway fuel economy or stop arguing something you know absolutely nothing about.

"Go ask you professor what role aerodynamics play in mileage at 60mph and get back to me. Weight, engine tech and gearing are far more important. When the Malibu went from a 4 speed to a 6 speed mileage on the highway jumped by 10% with no changes to styling. No amount of aero tweaks could've yielded half that gain on the car. "

1487, don't even bother. You are running against 150 years of fluid dynamic research here. Einstein turned Newtonian mechanics upside down with relativity. Do you seriously think you are just as pioneering here?

"People think that the Terrain has "poor" aerodynamics because its got a two box shape but early Lexus models were boxy and had best in class drag coefficients. "

You have the strangest thought process I have ever seen. The above statement is so demented I dont know where to begin.

The Terrain is probably aerodynamic for what it is but such a vehicle is far less so than a sedan. So even though the Lexus, you thought, was "boxy" it is far more slick than a Terrain or Explorer and that makes a huge difference in drag.

"I'm not spinning anything. 10,000 miles of poor economy is easily 25-30 tanks of gas, not a "few". Did you even bother reading what has been going on with the Prius?"

doesnt it have over 80k miles on it?

"As usual you can't come up with any hard data on anything, only your often incorrect limited technical knowledge or apples to oranges relational comparisons. Cite an example of what relative impact drag coefficients and frontal areas have on highway fuel economy or stop arguing something you know absolutely nothing about."

You are ignorant as ever. My limited tech knowledge must have been a factor in my engineering degree. You have never demonstrated a working knowlegde of ANYTHING besides BMWs so I find it interesting that you are taking shots at me. The new Cruze ECO is employing numerous tricks to gain about 4mpg on the highway. These include lower weight, special tires, shutters on the grille, special gearing, smaller gas tank, etc. Its very difficult to get any measurable gain on the EPA highway test without some sort of change in powertraint. Aerodynamics play a VERY small role at highway speeds which is why a RWD E350 gets about the same highway mileage as a FWD Traverse. I'm sure the frontal area and cd is lower on the E class and per your logic it should be measurably more efficient than the Chevy. When you look at all the things that are being done to improve mileage aero tweaks are at the bottom of the list. Better tires, aggressive fuel cutoff, direct injection, more overdrive gears, etc. are all widely used but little is said about aerodynamics.

"The Terrain is probably aerodynamic for what it is but such a vehicle is far less so than a sedan. So even though the Lexus, you thought, was "boxy" it is far more slick than a Terrain or Explorer and that makes a huge difference in drag."

Why do you even post? You need to learn the difference between frontal area and coefficient of drag. Any SUV has more frontal area than a sedan which leads to drag. Its true that SUVs resist airflow more than sedans based on their dimensions. Coefficent of drag measures how slippery a given shape is and you don't need a "sleek" overall shape to acheive that. The LS400 was very boxy but it was designed in way that eliminated areas for potential drag around the car. Nothing about the shape of the car (upright grille, and nearly vertical windshield) would've clearly indicated the car was slippery. Meanwhile some sports coupes with low hoods and aggressive windshield rake have poor drag coefficients due to large tires and numerous grilles and ducts in the front of the car.

"1487, don't even bother. You are running against 150 years of fluid dynamic research here. Einstein turned Newtonian mechanics upside down with relativity. Do you seriously think you are just as pioneering here?"

Go ask the question I told you ask or quiet down. I gave you a simple assignment but you totally dodged it. If you believe you are correct go ask your professor about drag at 60mph and its effect on fuel economy. Also note, I never said it has NO impact, I said its a negligible impact. ON top of that no one has explained to me how the Tuscon gets 31mpg if the aero profile of a crossover makes it impossible to get near that figure as some have inferred. Is Hyundai lying just like GM?

" My limited tech knowledge must have been a factor in my engineering degree."

I in no way believe that statement. You have never shown ANY technical knowledge before. Not once, ever. Only when backed into a corner do you come up with "I am an engineer". The only engineer you are is one that carries an oil can and wears striped overalls. That indeed proves that you subscribe to the "a bigger lie is more believable" theory. Take your lies and find somewhere else to spread them.

"doesnt it have over 80k miles on it?"

It does, and in the blog they show how the mileage has changed since it was assigned to desert duty.

"You are ignorant as ever."

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

"My limited tech knowledge must have been a factor in my engineering degree."

I'm with bodyblue, I don't believe you have an engineering degree either. If you were a technically-minded person, I don't think you would make some of the silly narrow-minded comparisons that you do... like the one below.

"Aerodynamics play a VERY small role at highway speeds which is why a RWD E350 gets about the same highway mileage as a FWD Traverse."

How on earth did you come up with that gem? The E-Class is a RWD, V6 mid-size luxury sedan, and you're saying that despite aerodynamic differences it gets similar mileage to a FWD Traverse? As an "engineer" you should know that there are so many variables in that comparison affecting fuel economy as to render an aerodynamics vs. MPG comparo to be completely worthless.

Cruze Eco vs. regular Cruze? The aero enhancements are quite minor and you didn't address what relative impact the other changes would have - because you don't know. Since you can't provide that breakdown, you have no idea if the aero tweaks were responsible for 3 MPG or 0.003 MPG of the gains. How does this further your point? IF the aerodynamic-related gains were "negligible" as you say, why would GM have bothered to put in the fancy active flaps or any of the other tweaks?

"I gave you a simple assignment but you totally dodged it."

Hahahaha- pot, meet kettle...