Big List of Fuel Economy: February 2011

Where are the Z-06's numbers?

OK I am stupid. I see the vette now.

Rambling thoughts....

Score one for the GTI. The only turbo that meets it's EPA numbers.

You really need some more small cars. Only 2 cars squeaked past 30 mpg and one was a hybrid. (you must really beat on that thing to get that bad mileage).

Strange the Traverse can't do better then that. It's mileage is more Suburban then crossover.

Yikes, the Juke gets awful mileage!

Strange that the Juke is only 0.4MPG better than the Odyssey. In fact, strange that it's in the bottom half in observed economy but EPA has it as the 5th best.

Actually, few of the cars seem to be hitting EPA this time around.

If the world allows me to buy a new car this year my short list has been the Mazda2, Fit and Fiat 500. Recently I added the Juke to the list. Not that much more money and good enough mileage (EPA numbers) for the performance.

The test numbers have me concerned though. That's a huge drop from the Mazda2 and Fit real world and likely the 500 too... plus the need for pricey premium.

Hopefully it will get some longer trips to see if the average rises.

whaa? I've never been a fan of the Corvette, but how'd it manage to get a better "best" and "worst" mpg than the Traverse?? not to mention that 29mpg is better than more than half of the cars here and its the third most powerful car here (behind the M56 and Mustang)

"whaa? I've never been a fan of the Corvette, but how'd it manage to get a better "best" and "worst" mpg than the Traverse?? "

My guess is it's a lot lighter and creates a lot less drag.

Looking at the average I wouldn't put too much faith in that one measurement that worked out to 29 mpg.

oo wow im impressed by the kizashi, 528i, and sonata!

@Firstwagon: Don't take the Juke out of consideration just yet...after all, this list is the perennial "worst-case scenario" of all automotive mileage comparisons. Frankly, I'm impressed whenever an Edmunds vehicle gets anywhere close to EPA. These guys will probably get the 101 hp Fiat 500 down to 14 mpg. :P

@firstwagon: If you check the Edmunds section where people express their opinions on their new cars, you will see that a lot of Juke buyers think they got juked-- the gas mileage doesn't hold up. Personally, I think it is because of the torque curve-- all 177lb ft from 2000 to 5000 rpm. It must be a lot of fun to drive.

The BMW 328 and the Sonata impress me, but the BMW is really frugal for its size, performance, and price. That mileage may be attributed to the 8 speed automatic.

The Sonata gets better mileage than the Cruze? How is that possible?

Looks like the Odyssey and Sienna are duking it out for best mileage for a minivan in the Edmunds LTRT fleet. No prizes will probably be awarded. Does the Sienna have a 5 speed automatic? I will need to check. If I were, shudder, to buy an Odyssey, it would have the 5 speed auto, because I certainly can't afford a 40K car.

@ firstwagon

That 29.0 mpg is accurate. The Corvette can get that mileage because of its uber tall sixth gear. All anyone needs to do to replicate that mileage is to drive on open highway for an entire tank - even at 70mph.

@ed124c

I'm sure the 8 speed is the major reason for the 5 Series's 30MPG "best" figure. Considering the size and weight of that car that's impressive. The 29MPG achieved by the Vette is what was most surprising to me in terms of best econonmy but am I the only one to notice that in the "worst" category the Raptor beat the Traverse!?

What gives?

8.2 doesn't sound right to me.

LOL@Traverse -- That's horrible fuel mileage! Who was the driver who "achieved" 8.2 MPG?

By the way, in Philip Reed's blog, he stated that the ". . . Volt drank only 5.6 gallons after traveling over 500 miles."

I am sad that the fat-ass minivans are not that far off from the A4 wagon ( similar average and Sienna's best has a clear margin above). At least I don't feel as bad about driving around our Sienna, knowing that it's not that much worse than a good 4 cylinder. I feel even better that a smaller "crossover" like the Traverse isn't really faster or more fuel-efficient. This just goes to show that driving a well-designed engine such as the 528 will get you a good combination of power andefficiency. I hate the iPod.

I like how the Vett has such a huge difference between best and worst. Obviously they are having fun with that car, as they should.

@DLu,
Isn't the Traverse a large x-over? The Equinox is the smaller one.

Traverse 14.7 avg? wow, glad I didn't buy that piece of crap.

Even though I might get somewhat different mileage based on the terrain, level of traffic congestion, and the weather where I live, along with my driving style, this is one IL monthly feature I find to be of great value in considering my next automobile purchase.

@autom3tro

Am in agreement with you. The Kizashi, Sonata and 528i are certainly impressive for their real-world combined fuel mileage.

In regards to the Ford Fusion (Hybrid), I've read owner reviews of The Fusion with the 2.5L 4-cylinder coupled with the 6 M/T that claim to exceed an average mpg superior to the figures shown for this hybrid. Likewise, have read of folks with the Fusion hybrid getting mileage than is better than reported.

Great mileage once again for the mazda2. It truly is an impressive little car. I'm glad to see the Cruze mileage is coming up, but I still expect better. The GTI mileage is pretty good too.

"Yikes, the Juke gets awful mileage!"

Yeah the Juke numbers really jumped out at me. They say its fun to drive, so perhaps it is driven a little harder then normal.

The other number that jumped out at me was the Cruze at 25 mpg. Thats about what I get with my Kia Soul now, and for an entry level car I was expecting a little higher.

Wow, thought the Juke would do better...wonder how the FWD with a manual fairs?

Since McFly brought up the GM is picked on crap again here is what AE says about GM and its "sales" numbers...

"But the ugly undertone beneath GM's numbers in particular are because of ramped-up incentives -- as much as $1150 more than the industry average -- which is roiling this business and basically pissing every other automaker off because once this industry goes down this road, everybody loses. What's even worse, GM's public statements about it can basically be summed up by "Who, us?" when in fact in the trenches they are employing a "scorched earth" offensive to move the metal and move the sales needle. This is a direct result of "Lt. Dan" Akerson's impetus to show short-term results -- the Wall Street mentality, if you will -- and also CFO Chris Liddell's industry inexperience. As executives in this business learned long before these two came along -- and the hard way, I might add -- you can play this incentive game all you want and you can end up with little shards of blue sky here and there, but the ultimate result is extremely negative, especially to resale performance, which has been a particular bane of the domestic automakers for a long, long time. It's dismal, short-sighted thinking on GM's part and it will bite them in the ass, big-time. - PMD"

"dougtheeng says:

06:13 AM, 03/ 2/11

"Yikes, the Juke gets awful mileage!"

Yeah the Juke numbers really jumped out at me. They say its fun to drive, so perhaps it is driven a little harder then normal. ""

That would be my guess as well. Judging by my own driving, I leave it in Sport and have fun with that engine's crazy boost. It lets you be a bit stupid, which is never good for fuel economy.

A very direct and clear compilation but why does the chart not include the grade of fuel consumed as well? Surely 25mpg on premium is a lot more expensive than 25 mpg on regular.

"A lot more expensive"? With gas over $3 a gallon and the price delta between regular and premium rarely topping 30 cents a gallon, premium v. regular is almost always well under a 10% price premium.

Around here there are stations with a 10 cent/grade bump so regular --> midgrade --> premium means premium costs 20 cents/gallon more. Regular is running $3.50ish; premium $3.70ish. That's less than a 6% premium price for premium fuel.

northsparrow,

"Surely 25mpg on premium is a lot more expensive than 25 mpg on regular."

Not really, over the course of the 20,000 mile test that's a difference of $240, assuming 91 at $4 and 87 at $3.70. And that's on a total fuel bill of $3200 (for 91). For the average 15k miles/year owner that's only a $180 difference.

...Whereas around here regular is $128.9/ litre and premium is $142.9 /litre. (a litre is roughly a quart)

At 14 cent per litre it's almost 11% more the regular. (around 55 cents per gallon).

For the power of the Juke I am willing to pay the extra but only if it's possible to get the rated mileage.

If gas were cheaper then I wouldn't care as much.