2010 GMC Terrain: Mostly Living Up To Expectations

What's the benefit of buying a 182hp FWD Terrain over a comparable minivan? Both will be slow and boring. Neither will be particularly good in the snow or dirt. And the minivan will at least seat 7-8 people and have more cargo space.

So what we have here is a crossover with a higher base price than the competition and a peaky four-cylinder that gets probably worse real-world fuel economy than the downright fast RAV4 V6.

Ladies and gentlemen, Government Motors!

Those EPA window-sticker numbers do look nice though.

What's the benefit of buying a 182hp FWD Terrain over a comparable minivan?
-The Terrain screams "I am a macho car and run over Priuses for fun" where the minivan screams "I need to think about vasectomy..."

@banhughL Interesting point.

I'm always interested in how soo many people find that the car they drive corrolates with the size of their penis/social status.

notabigdeal:

Take a sociology course.

"-The Terrain screams "I am a macho car and run over Priuses for fun" where the minivan screams "I need to think about vasectomy..."

LOL ...the Terrain is "macho" in the same way as putting a cowboy hat on an accountant. It's a wimpy car for people who don't realize they are wimpy.

The minivan is just an appliance, a tool to do a job bought by people who are smart enough not to worry about impressing wimps.

@first, rofl. Nice post.

if a prior road trip yielded 29mpg than I would have to presume that this trip had quite a bit of urban/suburban driving. Again, we get low FE number will few details. How many of the 600m were highway? Average speed? How was the vehicle loaded? when you score 5mpg less than another editors who took a similar trip there must have been a lot of non highway driving or a lot of speeding.

BTW, numerous people have focused on the Terrain-gate FE conspiracy and yet MT took a 2200m road trip in a Sonata and averaged 30.2mpg- the car is rated at 34mpg highway.

"So what we have here is a crossover with a higher base price than the competition and a peaky four-cylinder that gets probably worse real-world fuel economy than the downright fast RAV4 V6."

All of that must explain two production increases in canada and lack of notable incentives since the vehicle debuted.

Took the family Equinox (FWD w/ SIDI I4) on a freeway trip this weekend. It was 260.1 mi. round trip, no city driving going/coming back (spent the weekend at my parents' home). MPG as calculated by the on-board computer was 33.3mpg. The gas gauge was at the 1/2 tank mark when we got back home but I fueled up anyways to see what real MPG I got. I put in 8.103 gallons according to the gas pump (used Mobil 87 octane, no markings on the pump to show it had ethanol in it, fueled up before and after at the same gas station near the house). That calculates to 32.1mpg. I was happy.

Couple of observations: The vehicle had 4 occupants (2 adults, 2 children), a few suitcases but not heavily loaded down. On the same trip in the past we've gotten 28-29mpg and my wife was driving. She has a heavier foot than me, rarely uses cruise control. This time I wanted to see if I can squeeze 32mpg out of the vehicle. I used the cruise for nearly the entire trip set at 66-67mph (the freeway was marked 65mph). I also had the ECO mode on the entire time. Can't say for sure if the ECO button made the difference but I'm betting the slower mph did. Mileage seems to plunge when you go over 65mph from what I can tell. On a trip from SC back to NC I got maybe 28mpg but I was doing 70-75 the whole way.

A couple of other tidbits: the driving was in central North Carolina, no big hills/mountains. Just gentle rolling hills, no big hill climbs. You can do better in MPG than Edmunds it seems. I have a co-worker with an Equinox, he routinely gets 30mpg in his on his round trips with the family to visit relatives in Asheville, NC (which does require some mountain climbing).

I will be the first to admit the 32mpg isn't easy to attain; we routinely do beat the 22mpg city mileage though; my wife, in routine suburban driving with frequent short trips (3 mi. or less) gets 23-24mpg. It drops to 22-23mpg during summer with heavy AC use. Aggressive throttle will make MPG plunge in this crossover. Yeah, the engine is a bit undersized or the vehicle is too heavy. But if you're not an aggressive driver, decent fuel economy is attainable.

I drove a similar Terrain (FWD/4cyl) from Detroit to Philadelphia and the best I could do with two people including myself and some light luggage was right around 26mpg. That was with 90 degree temps with AC on with heavy cruise control usage at about 75mph. Lots of steepish grades though.

Not unimpressive in my opinion, for a heavier vehicle, but obviously off of the EPA estimate.

audisport:

I think tmathes point is that speed is key. Doing 75mph is going to kill mileage, especially in a vehicle like this that weighs 3800lbs+. I bet if you averaged 65 your mpgs would've been at least 29 for the trip.

@1487- You're probably right. If one can take to heart the instant mpg readout in any vehicle, I was hovering close to 30mpg on flat land but trying to maintain that speed up a pretty decent grade killed my average.

24 is pretty lousy for a FWD 4-pot... we know the LT Terrain can't hit 32 mpg but you'd think with a conservative driving style and mostly freeway it would hit higher in the 20's, like Mike McGrath's road trip.

@audisport

I find the computer's average MPG display averages 1.3mpg optimistic (sometimes worse). I sure would like to know what algorithm it uses. My co-worker with an Equinox sees similar mpg results as I do, noticed the large roll-off of mpg above 65mph, and his computer is off about the same as mine. A friend with a 2010 Subaru sees his computer is about 1mpg too optimistic so it seems GM isn't the only guilty one.

Speed in this vehicle is key and I'm guessing the aerodynamics must be hideous. I have to wonder if the Terrain is worse than the Equinox; GM claims the Terrain has good Cd numbers but I don't fully buy it. And I have to wonder if the ECO button is also helping a bit at freeway speeds. I assumed it only really does something in city driving; maybe on the freeway it keeps the torque converted locked up more aggressively and hence helps mpg a bit.

I will be the first to admit the vehicle doesn't easily get the advertised 32mpg on the freeway. My experience over the last 30 years is I beat the EPA ratings, including several GM cars I've owned over the years. Then again, this is the first crossover/SUV we've owned and I've heard gripes from other SUV owners I know that they didn't get the EPA rated numbers. All of my experience is with regular passenger sedans or coupes, never a truck/SUV/minivan.

"24 is pretty lousy for a FWD 4-pot... we know the LT Terrain can't hit 32 mpg but you'd think with a conservative driving style and mostly freeway it would hit higher in the 20's, like Mike McGrath's road trip."

how do you know it cant hit 32mpg if an Equinox owners says its possible? The other road trip got 29+mpg which suggests some actual conservative driving actually took place. I guess each person has their own definition of "conservative" but any trip that yields 24mpg couldnt have been all that conservative.

Let's just say IL cant hit 32 (and at this point I doubt they will ever try to) but that doesnt mean it cant be done. Apparently plenty of folks have done it with careful driving and flat roads. For IL to ever get close to 32mpg as this point after making such a big production out of the fact that this vehicle has fake EPA ratings would be very contradictory so I dont really think anyone actually WANTS it to get 32 at this point.

Right. No one wants to hit 32 mpg. How about posting some links about people who DID hit 32 mpg rather than finding new ways to label this a conspiracy of some sort... Don't just ignore the fact that NO professional car reviewer has ever hit 32 mpg - even when trying. Check any Edmunds big list of fuel economy to see how close the rest of the vehicles come to their claimed mpg.

Does the EPA test vehicles at 75 mph? I suspect 99% of cars on the road will burn
substantially more fuel at 75 than at 65 .

Is anybody out there old enough to remember when as a matter of national economic security
Nixon made the speed limit 55 and mandated a doubling of fuel economy standards ? It just shows
how lax today's policies really are in comparison.

@1487 & bimmerjay

32mpg is possible but you gotta keep the speed in check. I've not had this happen on any car before but as I said previously that's with passenger sedans I've owned, not a crossover/truck. I've not had a vehicle that is so twitchy to freeway speed causing MPG to drop like this at 70mph compared to 65mph. Still, what IL drivers get with this vehicle also isn't indicative of what other drivers get. It's not hard to get 28-29mpg and I consider that "upper 20s". I have to wonder why they're getting such lousy mileage. Could the Terrain's blocky front compared to the Equinox be part of it? I doubt it but I am not an aerodynamicist.

There has been at least 1 transmission software update since we got the vehicle. I've had that TCM update installed in my wife's 'Nox and it does change the transmission shift character for the better. I wonder if IL got (or needs) that update and if it would affect fuel economy, especially if they drive with ECO mode on.

I also wonder why they got the Terrain instead of the Equinox; they only seem to complain about the Terrain's styling, as if they bought it just to gripe. Personally I wasn't a fan of it and I find the 'Nox is vastly more attractive. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

@ northsparrow:

No, they don't 75 in the EPA tests, they go 60mph maximum but throttle the speed up/down. You can get details here:

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

My 2005 Mazda3s (4 speed automatic/2.3L I4) gets 31mpg if I click the cruise at 65, drops to 30mpg at 70, drops again to 28-29 if I go 75mph. EPA rating is 29mpg; there's an example of a car, if driven a65mph, beats the EPA estimate easily. I wish the 'Nox did the same but I can't complain of 30+mpg in such a hefty vehicle.

@milt72

It's not true no one wants to hit 32mpg, I did and tried to see if I could do it. :-) Yeah, I was in the right lane for the trip and had lots of cars blow my doors off going 75-80 in a 65. But you can do it or at least get close. The editors for Ward's AutoWorld got 32mpg in their review. Just don't expect it unless you're willing to do 65-ish and have that ECO button on (which REALLY makes the transmission balky to upshift).

@tmathes,

You're only looking at the old highway test in your link. Click on the "High Speed" tab, the new testing hits speeds up to 80 mph.

From your link-

"For 2007 and earlier model year vehicles, only the city and highway schedules were used. Beginning with 2008 models, three additional tests will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures."

"Does the EPA test vehicles at 75 mph? I suspect 99% of cars on the road will burn
substantially more fuel at 75 than at 65 ."

See above.

@bimmerjay

Fair enough. I didn't realize I was quoting the old tests. My observation is that *cars* I've owned beat the EPA estimates but I've heard gripes from other SUV owners that theirs didn't match EPA estimates. I've never owned anything but passenger sedans until this vehicle and it's the first one I've had that doesn't match EPA freeway numbers. It does meet/beat city numbers though.

There are cries GM "gamed" the test. I sure would like to know how you "game" a fuel mileage test. Alls Iiz knows is keep it at 65-ish with ECO mode on and you get 30+mpg. Not shabby for such a large vehicle.

BTW, check out the experiences of owners reported MPG on several vehicles at that EPA web site. I noticed that for cars (ie passenger sedans) I see the occasional meet/beat reports. For SUVs / crossovers I noticed the MPG reports fall short of EPA estimates.

Jay, you are just wasting your time, buddy. No matter how you cut it these GM cars dont get the MPGs as claimed....you know it....I know it........IL knows it.........but certain folks on here will never admit it because their egos are far to large to ever admit error.

The Terrain didn't get 29 mpg on a prior road trip. It got 29 mpg on one hypermiling leg at 65 mph with 1 passenger and the AC off. At 93 degrees no less. Of course it can't duplicate that keeping up with traffic in 35 degree weather.

The EPA tests vehicles at 0 mph. On a treadmill. What they call high speed highway includes acceleration from 6 dead and 2 near stops in less than 8 miles. And is combined by undisclosed formula with the results from three other tests to arrive at the sticker highway number. It's ridiculous and so removed from actual driving as to be accurate only by coincidence.

A meaningful highway figure would be as easy as setting the cruise at 70 on a flat piece of interstate for an hour or two. GM couldn't game that.

And it was only a matter of time before it came out of the woodwork....

1487:

"So what we have here is a crossover with a higher base price than the competition and a peaky four-cylinder that gets probably worse real-world fuel economy than the downright fast RAV4 V6."

All of that must explain two production increases in canada and lack of notable incentives since the vehicle debuted.
____

No, I'll tell you what explains that: the big juicy EPA numbers on the window sticker. It's a great marketing tool. Game the test to get the best numbers. Most people don't read long-term road tests; they see the numbers on the window and plunk down their money.

"I've never owned anything but passenger sedans until this vehicle and it's the first one I've had that doesn't match EPA freeway numbers. It does meet/beat city numbers though."

Therein lies the problem... the new EPA tests are far more realistic in that they encompass a more dynamic test routine and incorporate factors (like A/C use) to make the results more easily achievable to the typical driver. I honestly don't think it has anything to do with being a truck vs a sedan, although I'm not sure if an aerodynamic correction factor is used in the EPA highway estimates. That could certainly affect the results.

"There are cries GM "gamed" the test. I sure would like to know how you "game" a fuel mileage test. Alls Iiz knows is keep it at 65-ish with ECO mode on and you get 30+mpg."

The vehicle can be programmed (ECU engine mapping, timing, burn richness, shift points, etc) and geared such that it maximizes its efficiency under the *exact* conditions of the EPA test protocols. In the real-world these exact conditions are not the exact routine a typical owner would drive, making those specific results almost impossible to achieve. If the manufacturer instead calibrates the vehicle for a balance of many different driving factors, it may not do as well in the EPA highway test but it will be easier for an owner to achieve the mileage.

If you drive at 65 mph on a flat highway with the ECO mode on at a steady-state, you should be easily exceeding the EPA 32 mpg highway number. You can see from their test protocol that it is much more dynamic than a 65 mph steady-state cruise.

"Right. No one wants to hit 32 mpg. How about posting some links about people who DID hit 32 mpg rather than finding new ways to label this a conspiracy of some sort... Don't just ignore the fact that NO professional car reviewer has ever hit 32 mpg - even when trying. Check any Edmunds big list of fuel economy to see how close the rest of the vehicles come to their claimed mpg. "

You have an actual equinox owner HERE who said he has gotten in. I pointed out that in Carpace people noted achieving 30-32mpg on road trips. Are they all lying? You tell me boss.

"Jay, you are just wasting your time, buddy. No matter how you cut it these GM cars dont get the MPGs as claimed....you know it....I know it........IL knows it.........but certain folks on here will never admit it because their egos are far to large to ever admit error."

so tmathes is a liar? Let me know. How about other owners who have stated they have recorded 30+mpgs on the highway? They liars as well? How many times have you driven the Terrain on the highway and recorded your mileage?

"The vehicle can be programmed (ECU engine mapping, timing, burn richness, shift points, etc) and geared such that it maximizes its efficiency under the *exact* conditions of the EPA test protocols. In the real-world these exact conditions are not the exact routine a typical owner would drive, making those specific results almost impossible to achieve. If the manufacturer instead calibrates the vehicle for a balance of many different driving factors, it may not do as well in the EPA highway test but it will be easier for an owner to achieve the mileage."

Tell us which manufacturers are doing what you stated above and which ones are doing it the "honest" way. When I see a 528i rated at 32mpg and a Mustang rated at 31mpg and an Elantra rated at 40mpg with no special fuel economy enhancing features I believe everyone is playing the same game to get great EPA ratings. I dont believe for a second that any of those vehicles will easily meet those hwy figures. You keep making the same point over and over and there is some truth to it- the problem is you are so focused on Terrain bashing that you refuse to acknowledge that everyone is doing the same thing as manufacturers try to one up each other in fuel economy.

"the problem is you are so focused on Terrain bashing that you refuse to acknowledge that everyone is doing the same thing as manufacturers try to one up each other in fuel economy. "

Again you keep changing the subject. We are talking about GM and the Terrain.....what another company does, doesn't matter.

"so tmathes is a liar? Let me know. How about other owners who have stated they have recorded 30+mpgs on the highway? They liars as well? How many times have you driven the Terrain on the highway and recorded your mileage?"

I take any post on the internet with a grain of salt....if you dont you are a moron. I take what IL and other mags say much more seriously. That is again what we are talking about. ILs experience with the Terrain. Tmathes does not own a Terrain, he has an Equinox. Do you own a Terrain? How do you know? IL owns one and it does not get even close to the EPA estimates like other cars in the fleet, fact.

What kind of car do you own, 1487? Then we can talk about something you actually know about.

"Again you keep changing the subject. We are talking about GM and the Terrain.....what another company does, doesn't matter. "

according to whom? An accusation only carries weight if a) you can prove something (which hasnt been done) or b)if you can show that whats being done is actually wrong or out of line with industry standards. I am talking about other cars because I pointing out the obvious- all manufacturers have figured out a way to get rosy EPA figures now that the new test has been around for 3 years.

"ILs experience with the Terrain. Tmathes does not own a Terrain, he has an Equinox. Do you own a Terrain? How do you know? IL owns one and it does not get even close to the EPA estimates like other cars in the fleet, fact."

Anyone with a scintilla of commone sense knows Terrain and Equinox are identical mechincally and have the same powertrain. To suggest that Tmathes should be dimissed because he doesn't own a Terrain is the dumbest thing you've said since the last time you posted. You sound like an idiot. There is no notable difference between the two vehicles. I havent driven a Terrain so I take the word of owners who say they have gotten 32mpg. Basically, we have lead footed editors saying its impossible and owners who say it is possible if you drive at a modest pace on level ground. You have yet to explain HOW anyone has gotten 32mpg if you and bimmerjay have sworn up and down that it is IMPOSSIBLE and GM has used a phony rating. Answer a simple question- do you believe Tmathes and other owners are liars?

And its ironic that you say IL should be believed simply because other LT vehicle have gotten closer to EPA figures- you just told me that other vehicles are irrelevant to the discussion. If that be the case, stop using the other LT fleet vehicles as proof that IL's editors are doing reasonable driving in the Terrain. All the vehicles follow different routes and some have been on several highway trips while others have not. In addition, their PRius is well off its EPA combined figures but when I mentioned that before I was given excuses about it being in the desert for months or some other nonsense. I'm pretty sure the Fusion is well off its numbers as well. In fact, most fuel economy updates are missing a few cars since some cars are out when they compile the data. It would be nice to see a full up to date listing for every vehicle.

What kind of car should I own BB? I believe in consulting experts before making major decisions. What do you recommend? You hate everything but Fords so I guess you will recommend something they make. You spend a lot of time worrying about what I do, my level of education, what I drive, what cars I've owned, what I post, etc. considering you have stated numerous times that I know nothing and are not worthy of your respect. Funny how that works.

"I take any post on the internet with a grain of salt....if you dont you are a moron. "

But you take IL commentary as gospel? Interesting. And you didnt answer the question about whether or not he was lying.

"Tell us which manufacturers are doing what you stated above and which ones are doing it the "honest" way. When I see a 528i rated at 32mpg and a Mustang rated at 31mpg and an Elantra rated at 40mpg with no special fuel economy enhancing features I believe everyone is playing the same game to get great EPA ratings."

I'm not going to accuse a manufacturer of gaming the test just because they post good numbers. The proof is in the pudding, when Edmunds or a credible source with substantial experience with the vehicle (i.e. a long-term test) can report on their experiences, I'll provide comment. The Terrain is missing its mark by almost 20% which is very significant. Where's the proof that those other cars can't hit their numbers, other than your assumptions?

And there is no such thing as a purely "honest" rating. Each manufacturer chooses how to calibrate their vehicles, it's not black and white. There are simply too many factors. The Terrain is so far off it's pretty clear what GM did.

No "special fuel economy enhancements"? The 528i has tall highway gearing, an electronic mapping-based cooling system, a decoupling alternator, an energy-efficient heater core and low-resistance A/C compressor, regenerative braking system, an electronic oil pump, a 'smart' intake system that can enhance high-speed airflow efficiency (no throttle plate and selective intake ducting), EPS, and underbody aerodynamic enhancements. In the intro ride-and-drive events, I personally saw a bit more than 32 mpg in my 40 minutes on the highway as calculated by the OBC. However, I can't speak to the exact accuracy of that estimate.

Ford has demonstrated the Mustang V6's fuel-efficiency - they blew away the EPA rating (as they well should have) in the track test they staged a few months ago.

"In addition, their PRius is well off its EPA combined figures but when I mentioned that before I was given excuses about it being in the desert for months or some other nonsense"

You only call it nonsense because you don't like the fact that there is a valid reason for the Prius' economy numbers. You'll criticize the Prius up and down for not hitting its numbers, yet you're making excuse after excuse for the Terrain, calling the Edmunds' drivers lead-footed when they have clearly posted multiple times about their experiences in the fuel-sipper smackdown, Mike Mcgrath's experiment, and Brent Roman's experience, including details about EXACTLY how they drove the vehicle.

"I'm not going to accuse a manufacturer of gaming the test just because they post good numbers. The proof is in the pudding, when Edmunds or a credible source with substantial experience with the vehicle (i.e. a long-term test) can report on their experiences, I'll provide comment. The Terrain is missing its mark by almost 20% which is very significant. Where's the proof that those other cars can't hit their numbers, other than your assumptions?"

check out the mileage recorded by C&D or MT during their tests. C&D recorded 18 or 19mpg in a Sorento rated at 21/29 and they recently got 21mpg on an Optima rated at 24/34. Granted, they said some of the mileage was racked up during 10Best evaluations (not sure how that proves the car was being drag raced) but that is WAY under the EPA combined. Keep in mind, C&D has acheived GREAT mileage in some comparison tests like their recent FWD sedan comparo with the TSX. I cannot believe that the driving in the Optima was so much worse than average that its the sole reason for 21mpg.

Missing a combined EPA number by ANY % is irrelevant without information about how the car is driven. If 50% of the Terrain's miles were accumulated on open highway do you REALLy think it would be off by 20%? As far as I can tell its been on two, maybe three, long trips so far which indicates most of its mileage came from being in LA. Could that have something to do with falling far short of EPA combined mileage? I get NOWHERE near EPA combined figures in my car (or any other one I've owned) because 90% of my driving is in the city.

"You'll criticize the Prius up and down for not hitting its numbers, yet you're making excuse after excuse for the Terrain, calling the Edmunds' drivers lead-footed when they have clearly posted multiple times about their experiences in the fuel-sipper smackdown, Mike Mcgrath's experiment, and Brent Roman's experience, including details about EXACTLY how they drove the vehicle."

Wrong again. No surprise there. I am not criticizing the Prius' economy, I pointed out that it was another vehicle in the fleet that was WELL off its EPA combined numbers. When I pointed that out people explained why the Prius' mileage was justified although no one could explain how a few months in the desert could bring down an average over 80k miles.

Brent Romans didnt provide exact details, he said he tried to drive conservatively and get 24.4mpg. He also said his trip was mostly highway miles but didnt tell us what milage he got ONLY on his highway run- I guarantee you it was well above 24mpg if someone else averaged nearly 30mpg on the highway. There has only been ONE trip in which details about average speed were provided and that was the test where it got over 29mpg.

"No "special fuel economy enhancements"? The 528i has tall highway gearing, an electronic mapping-based cooling system, a decoupling alternator, an energy-efficient heater core and low-resistance A/C compressor, regenerative braking system, an electronic oil pump, a 'smart' intake system that can enhance high-speed airflow efficiency (no throttle plate and selective intake ducting), EPS, and underbody aerodynamic enhancements. In the intro ride-and-drive events, I personally saw a bit more than 32 mpg in my 40 minutes on the highway as calculated by the OBC. However, I can't speak to the exact accuracy of that estimate."

I was talking about the Elantra when I said "40mpg with no special FE ehancements", not your precious 528i. Relax dude. And BTW, are you suggesting the Terrain doesnt use any tech to achieve good fuel economy? It doesnt have direct injection, tall gearing, low resistance tires, electric steering and other tricks? Its just a normal SUV with a fake rating that wasnt engineered to save fuel?

"Ford has demonstrated the Mustang V6's fuel-efficiency - they blew away the EPA rating (as they well should have) in the track test they staged a few months ago."

What? I have no idea what you are talking about but not ONE test of the 2011 Mustang has shown anything close to 31mpg. MT tested it vs Camaro and got WORSE mileage than the Chevy- I believe it was around 16-17mpg.

PS, the aero aids on the 5 series or any other car make incremental gains to fuel economy. At the end of the day its still a 3800lb car with a 240hp engine rated at 32mpg which is my point. That is well above other cars of similar weight and power- as much as 6mpg over similar cars.

BTW, some of the tech you are referring to is on the Cruze as well- another car people are saying wont be able to achieve EPA mileage.

"check out the mileage recorded by C&D or MT during their tests. C&D recorded 18 or 19mpg in a Sorento rated at 21/29 and they recently got 21mpg on an Optima rated at 24/34. Granted, they said some of the mileage was racked up during 10Best evaluations (not sure how that proves the car was being drag raced) but that is WAY under the EPA combined."

Completely irrelevant. We're not even talking about those cars and the 10Best testing regiment is extremely demanding on a vehicle's performance. C/D does publish how they do it too.

"I am not criticizing the Prius' economy, I pointed out that it was another vehicle in the fleet that was WELL off its EPA combined numbers."

For good reason. The Terrain has no valid reason despite multiple attempts at hitting the EPA rating.

"When I pointed that out people explained why the Prius' mileage was justified although no one could explain how a few months in the desert could bring down an average over 80k miles. "

It was calculated and explained by several of the Edmunds' editors themselves.

"What? I have no idea what you are talking about but not ONE test of the 2011 Mustang has shown anything close to 31mpg."

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/2011-ford-mustang-v6-set-for-fuel-economy-challenge.html

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang/2011/photos/2011-ford-mustang-v6-sets-hp-mpg-record-gallery.html

"PS, the aero aids on the 5 series or any other car make incremental gains to fuel economy."

You can't quantify this so what you're saying is merely a baseless assumption.

"BTW, some of the tech you are referring to is on the Cruze as well- another car people are saying wont be able to achieve EPA mileage. "

I don't know who's saying that but I know I certainly didn't. Why don't we wait and see what happens in the long-term test?