Big List of Fuel Economy: October 2011

You guys need to get some more economical cars. There's a big jump between the Mini and your 500.

Where's an Elantra, Civic, Corolla, Versa, or Golf?

And the NSX and 911 are both a ridiculous waste of time, but the addition of a volume truck would make sense (as in a vehicle that real people drive).

bodyblue : It's a minivan, but a really slow one, and it's getting minivan mileage.

why not get a regular speed minivan and get minivan mileage? (+ better visibility)

Hall of Shame:
Ford Fusion Hybrid
Nissan Juke
Kia OPtima

Explorer looks promising--Thumbs up.

+1 dannyzrc

The Explorer is just a minivan in SUV clothes. Not only would you get better visibility, cargo, comfort in a minivan but you could actually get out of your own way in one. The Sienna or Ody would toast the Explorer in a drag race.

Even the Explorer's best tank hasn't matched the EPA combined rating. Sometimes it boggles the mind how the EPA gets a rating.

But the Explorer is what IL got and what almost 12 thousand people bought last month. Going on and on about minivans makes no sense. And dissing the Explorer about losing a drag race is really stupid. It must make you very upset that the Ex is selling so well.

As long as IL is going to continue to sort mpg lists, I'm going to keep repeating this.

IL staffers have been playing hypermiling games with the VW TDI. That give that vehicle a huge advantage in these test. On top of that, it utilizes a different fuel, making it not even a candidate for this list. Trace back to how many barrels of oil it translates to and you'll find the VW TDI doesn't deserve top honors.

Big typo for miata¡!!!!!¡!!!¡!!!!!!!!!¡!!!!!!!!!!

So, Fiat 500 has the same best, worst and average fuel economy for fourth straight month? You only C/P data from last month?

Also VW Jetta TDI, Fusion Hybrid, Outlander Sport, Nissan Juke AWD, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, Infiniti M56, Hyundai Equus have the same numbers in the last three months.

Mini Countryman had the same numbers from July through September.

What gives?

Brn +1000

"What gives?"

I have been reading IL since late 2006. In the past year or so I have noticed a real decline in the writing and accuracy on this site. IL seems to be now filled with half facts, flat out errors and biased articles. The single and comparison tests on here used to be some of the best on the net but now the tests are short, filled with errors and typos and just not at the same level of years past. It makes me sad to say such things since I have been a huge fan of this place since I started reading it.

"What gives" is indeed a question worth asking.

yellowperil says:

Hall of Shame:

Shame? for who? for what?

The Optima had the 3nd lowest "worst" tank, exceeded only by two honkin' big V8s in heavy cars? What were you doing with it?

@brankbox: The numbers presented are not simply numbers for THIS month. Instead they are lifetime numbers with this month's data folded in. Like batting averages, they fluctuate less and less as the "season" for a given car progresses.

The worst and best mpg figures may not change if no lower lifetime worst or higher lifetime best was achieved this month. You may not see a new best unless someone like me goes on a long Oregon road trip in the most recent month, for example.

And the data we're dealing with here is even less volatile that baseball batting averages, which are digital in the sense that you get 1 for a hit and 0 for an out. Our averages are comprised of far more analog data points, in which, say, 29.3 might be a good tank and 19.5 might be a bad one. Cars don't slump or streak in the same way -- they always get something for their at-bat. In such circumstances an average mpg change of 0.1 mpg is not necessarily going to happen once a car has 9 months of cumulative data under its belt, especially if the driving circumstances haven't changed.

Bottom line: the longer a car is in the fleet the more stable and representative its mpg data becomes. By the end of a year we end up with a very solid Edmunds Observed mpg number. The fact that it isn't changing from month to month in the late innings is indicative of that.

"The Explorer is averaging 19.4 not to bad all things considered......"

Considering what?

Forgetting minivans, the Explorer is getting worse mileage then the more simular Flex got... and it had a nice V6. Pointless engine in a pointless "truck".

Nice to see the TDI at the top of the list. You don't need to hypermile to get great mileage out of a diesel, just stay of of the boost in normal driving.

My 1995 Explorer got 20+ mpg avg...

My G8 GT is getting 22 mpg.

Ford I am very sad :/

The cars I'm most impressed with are the jetta and the infiniti. The honda oddisye is not looking bad either. The miata I'm going to say is an outlier, that's a lot of mpgs for a car that up intill a few weeks ago constantly overheated. I think sense they got the new radiator and some other things fixed they need a reset button on it I think the miatas ecu was running in limp mode and running super leen if it gets that good mpgs.

I'm not sure if I could live with a car that got less then 25mpg average tho unless it was STUPID fast. Or at least a laugh to drive.

Question for IL: are you using premium on the mustang?

The Fusion Hybrid is in the Hall of Shame for getting over 31 mpg? A good comparison would be with the TSX wagon, which is similar size, has similar power and performance, and is getting almost seven and a half mpg poorer fuel economy.

There is no way a hybrid like this, which gets way better fuel economy on the city cycle, is going to AVERAGE anything close to the city rating of 39 mpg, unless you only drive it in the city.

Fact is, the Fusion is getting amost identical mileage to that of the Mazda2, which is like 1,800 pounds lighter, has almost exactly half the power, and is a bit slower.

The Fusion Hybrid WORKS - it gets great economy and does not make you feel like you're driving a penalty box while doing it. I can't remember a hybrid comparison test it didn't win.

@ BRN and BB - yes there is some merit to the hypermiling criticism, but diesel belongs on the list for several reasons.

One - consumer choice. I have a Jetta Sportwagon TDI because there is not a hybrid currently on the market that offers the flexibility and overall package. The Prius V is probably the closest competetor (I like the cargo space of the wagon), if I can get past the styling....

Two - Environmentally, Diesels actually look good compared to comparable ICE engines, though do suffer when compared to hybrids. According to the US Energy Information Administration the green house gas emissions are about 15% lower on a "wells to wheels" basis than a comparable ICE engine http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/lightduty/execsummary.html

Three - Effortless torque (OK, that is once you past the turbo lag...) I drove my parents' '11 2.4 liter Ford Fusion SE and it was quite gutless in the mid revs when compared to the TDI.

Could you guys add the total miles driven by IL per car to the data sheet? That way it's easy to tell how "stable" the mileage data is for each vehicle.

bodyblue: It doesn't bother me at all that the Explorer is doing so well. I'm happy for Ford and all the people involved. It's not on my list, but to each his own.

I'm just irritated by these inaccurate EPA ratings for these big SUVs with small engines. People get the ecoboost Explorer or 4-cyl Equinox because they see the big EPA sticker that says 28 mpg or 32 hwy. People should know that they will most likely never see that number for a whole tank. Common sense will tell you that. It's a huge car! That's why these real-world tests are so valuable.

Personally, I take a lot more stock in the CR mileage ratings than EPA. Don't get me wrong. EPA gets it right most of the time, but sometimes they are way off.

@htr_hardtech

How the heck did you pull off that Explorer's number? I had a '99 V6 Sport and averaged like 16. Granted it was all city, but still. Wow.

My 5.0 gets around 20-22mpg with 50/50 city-highway driving, so I'm gonna just guess they can't lay off the pedal. I don't blame them one bit.

How can the Fusion not be in the Hall of Shame when it's returning 19% less than the EPA combined MPG?

How are those good numbers for the Explorer? It's got FWD and Ecoboost. I guess it all depends on how you drive the thing but I get similar numbers in a CX-9 with AWD and a V6. Edmunds had a FWD CX-9 in the LT fleet and averaged 18.2 mpg so the Explorer is getting 1 mpg better. Not that it's insignificant to get 1 mpg better in a sub-20 mpg car but I'm just feeling like the Ecoboost engine overpromises in this application. It's a $1000 option that comes with a decrease in capability (reduced towing and no AWD option). Ford claims a 3 mpg improvement vs. the V6 option but that's clearly using EPA numbers that, at least for the Ecoboost, are nothing close to realistic. I'm wondering how it would play out in the real world.

"Environmentally, Diesels actually look good compared to comparable ICE engines"

Not really....the report you linked does not say a word about the worst part of diesels....particulates. They spew soot into the air like crazy and when they are cleaned up enough to be even halfway clean they lose a lot of their MPG advantages. The report is interesting in that it notes the real reason that diesels are more popular in Europe...TAXES. Diesels are still more dirty than ICE units and even though they are more efficient it is not worth the extra pollution to make them more mainstream than they are. The more one reads about diesels the more one realizes that they have a part to play for sure in the US but only a small one.

I already explained that - maybe you missed it scrolling down too fast...

If you insist on going by EPA estimates, the Fusion fails. If you would rather view it as a nice midsize sedan that gets almost 32 mpg average, rather than the ~24-25 mpg a conventional one would, it works.

The EPA doesn't have anywhere near the experience dealing with hybrids that it does with conventional ICE-powered vehicles.

And we don't know what their city/highway balance was - if you drive more in the city, it will do better, if mostly on the highway, not as well.

My '03 SVT Focus was rated 21 city, 25 highway. Over 96,000 miles, it's averaged 28 mpg. Now, that sounds fabulous in terms of EPA estimates - its average exceeded its highway estimate by 3 mpg!

My 2011 GTI has averaged just over 30 mpg in exactly the same type of driving, over 12,000 miles, in spite of the fact that it's 400 lbs heavier and has over twice the torque of the Focus. But in order for it to exceed its highway estimate by 3 mpg like the Focus did, it would have to average 34 mpg. So I guess that's a fail for the GTI, in spite of performing better than the Focus on less gas?

Or maybe it's that the EPA estimates for the Focus were BS...because for the '04 model year, EPA raised the highway estimate for the car to 28, while the only change in the car was 6-spoke wheels from 5-spoke. OMG the EPA failed...

Don't get caught up in EPA estimates - worry more about what the car is and can do compared to other cars it competes with.

I don't see how the Explorer doesn't compare to the minivans of the fleet. Some people will cross shop them some will not. The I-4 Ecoboost shows no advantage in fuel economy vs. the v6 vans. Isn't that the point of the Ecoboost i-4? If its not getting better fuel economy then I see little reason to get this mill.
Hell My lead-footed wife is getting 20mpg in our 07 Odyssey.

@ BB "Not really....the report you linked does not say a word about the worst part of diesels....particulates. They spew soot into the air like crazy"

True, the report doesn't address particulates. The TDI has a capture-and-burn system in the exhaust for those.

At any rate, my bumper is clean :)

BTW, what is your source of particulates from today's clean diesels versus ICE?

While there are particulates in ICE exhaust they are mainly in older, worn engines and small engines (lawn mowers etc). But if you want the science you can use this from the SAE. One has to pay for the article so it is up to you. But it is a well known fact that the soot produced from diesel engines is much more heavy.....from the article :

"Particulate emission reduction has long been a challenge for diesel engines as the diesel diffusion combustion process can generate high levels of soot which is one of the main constituents of particulate matter. Gasoline engines use a pre-mixed combustion process which produces negligible levels of soot, so particulate emissions have not been an issue for gasoline engines, particularly with modern port fuel injected (PFI) engines which provide excellent mixture quality."

http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-1219

People and car companies can spin and distort what the truth about diesels is ("Clean Diesel"
BS from BMW for example)....but the truth is that they simply produce more particulates and particulates are a likely carcinogen. The diesel bandwagon is a rickety one that needs to be run off of the road.

http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html

A quick comparison to motortrend long term road tests shows Edmunds mpg numbers to be very close. Typically they're slightly lower than what motortrend reports.

"Isn't that the point of the Ecoboost i-4? If its not getting better fuel economy then I see little reason to get this mill. "

The point of the Turbo 4 in the Explorer is to bet better MPGs than in a comparable SUV...NOT compared to a mini-van.....how hard is that for people to understand? SUVs sell better than minivans....just the way it is. It was smart of Ford to at least TRY to give customers a choice in the SUV class. Why not compare the Mustang in the fleet with the Mazda 2? I makes as much sense.

Nevermind the Explorer vs. minivans...

This particular trim of the explorer is a poor value vs. the main competition. Consider a FWD V6 Highlander against this Explorer and it's not a very good matchup for Ford.

The Explorer ecoboost is:
-More expensive
-Larger exterior footprint
-Smaller interior volume
-At least 1.5 seconds slower to 60
-Over 500lbs heavier

The fuel mileage inside line is achieving is about equal to a V6 Highlander (in my experience) and worse than the 4cyl highlander. Right now, the Explorer is averaging only 1 mpg better than the long term 2008 CX-9 they tested.

The V6 Explorer is midpack in the field, but the Ecoboost is a poor value.

No doubt SUV's sell better than minivans, but that is because people want AWD, and some of them want to tow, so the SUV does those things and pays a fuel economy penalty for it. Nothing wrong so far.

But, the ecoboost explorer CANNOT TOW and IS NOT AWD. However, it still pays the platform's penalties for accommodating these features. Functionally, it's an overstyled minivan, but it's built on a platform which compromises it's performance in this role.

This is compounded by SUVs already taking functionality compromises for "tough guy" styling.

So the explorer ecoboost has "tough guy styling" compromises, fine, but it also has "platform built to tow and be AWD" compromises.

Basically, it displays a relatively poor fuel efficiency for it's internal space, poor speed for it's fuel efficiency and payload, and in return it DOES get macho styling, but DOES NOT get AWD or Towing.

Let me put this out there for the diesel haters.

1) Do you like readily available groceries and goods at the store?

2) Do you like the price you pay for them?

Guess what, they were probably cultivated and/or brought to you by something burning diesel. Tractors, combines, trains, 18-wheelers and many local delivery trucks use diesel, and LOTS of it. Even though they use lots, it is still cheaper than using the same vehicles powered by gasoline. You need to stand by an interstate or a railway and to get a proper perspective on the threat diesel passenger cars pose to your health. The filth put out by the average 18-wheeler or goods train probably could not be generated by a thousand modern diesel cars.

Now I am NOT going to say that particulates are harmless, but the US has little choice but to reduce its imports of crude oil, and greater use of more economical cars, many with diesel engines, is one aspect of that achieving that goal.

Diesel trucks and trains will have to be cleaned up as well. But there is no reason to increase the number of diesel cars. Gasoline engines have almost advanced to diesel MPGs when compared to "clean" diesels in cars. For big trucks and trains and light trucks they make sense, for cars, not nearly so. It is popular on sites like this because there is a certain amount of love for all things European.....Europe buys more diesels=diesels are better. But when confronted with the truth and given all of the facts, that proves not to be true at all. For some things they are better but for most things they are not. They play an important part in heavy transportation but unless they get massively cleaner they should not be encouraged.....there are cleaner alternatives.

"Europe buys more diesels=diesels are better. But when confronted with the truth and given all of the facts, that proves not to be true at all."

LOL you'd make a great European. They are alway sure they are right and their way is better... and they always have facts to prove it.... just like you.

Gee next time I will post opinions not based in any way on facts.....like most on here do. Would that be better?

"Basically, it displays a relatively poor fuel efficiency for it's internal space, poor speed for it's fuel efficiency and payload, and in return it DOES get macho styling, but DOES NOT get AWD or Towing."

SUVs are like that. The Ecoboost will get better MPGs than a V6 unit for light duty use around town....something that most are used for. The option of this engine is fine for soccer moms it seems to me. I am sorry that people that buy these cars (12K of them last month alone) seem to make you so angry. No matter how this car is trashed on here, it is a screaming success for Ford. And if they can get more money for an optional engine the all the more better for them. Its not as if people are being FORCED to buy Explorers ya know.

@BB yes, particulates bring concerns. but you lost me with "The diesel bandwagon is a rickety one that needs to be run off of the road."

The SAE article exerpt points to the challenges of cleaning up diesel combustion, but not imposibility, as demonstrated by the technologies introduced for diesel engines to comply with Tier 2 Bin 5 regulations such as capture-and-burn and urea-injection.

The EPAs website does assign higher overall air polution when compared to the ICE version, but lower green house gasses, and on balance designates the TDI as a "Smartway" vehicle being among the top 20% for combined air polution and green house gas emissions.
www.epa.gov/greenvehicles

And - I have yet to see actual data on soot emissions from the TDI or other newer diesel passenger vehicles, or a relative risk assesment compared to the lifecycle environmental and health dangers of hybrid batteries.

No, I am not anti-hybrid, I think they are a great solution on balance to reducing our fossil fuel consumption, but there is no such thing as a risk free solution, so pick your poison.