Big List of Fuel Economy: December 2011

the Fusion Hybrid is still in the fleet?

I'm in shock that the Volvo gets better mpg then the camry. You guys should have got the v6 carry if your just going to wood the throttle on the 4banger all the time.

@texases - But, keep in mind that CR's average was 27 MPG, well higher than this early total. I'm wondering if a lot of the Camry's time to date has been city -type mileage, which it may be based on some of the LT entries.

That said, I really shocked that the Camry V6 averaged 26 MPG in CR test, and really impressed that the Camry Hybrid hit 38 MPG overall (with the Passat TDI barely behind at 37 MPG!!).

I'm hoping the Camry's MPGs come up a good deal here... time will tell.

Are you sure that 14MPG is accurate on the NSX? I wasn't sure if the broken trip meter was causing a skew if that was being used as the MPG calculation.

Even in pure city driving using A/C I've never seen anything south of 20MPG.

It would be helpful to add a column that shows the percentage of EPA actually achieved.

My calculations show the A8L (79%) and Camry and Fusion Hybrid the lowest at 81%, and the Jetta TDI the highest at 104% (of current production cars). Several are achieving in the 90%+ range, not bad, really.

elkriso,

The NSX got that 14.2 mpg number at the start of its stint with us so maybe it was just a matter of our editors driving it enthusiastically. The next lowest number is 16.1.

While I've been quite vocal about the new Skyactiv stuff not being anything more than catch up by Mazda, I have to give them props for the results so far. But, just like I won't condemn the Camry for poor mileage so soon in the test cycle, neither will I rain down plaudits on the 3.

If it keeps going like this though, it's going to fall into the pretty damn good category (for Edmunds drivers and LA traffic :) along with the Jetta, TSX, Odyssey and Sienna.

The Odyssey's best tank always amazes me. 31.5 mpg on a tank in such a large gasoline car is great. I don't think my Ford Windstar ever had a tank over 20 mpg. The A8 and Equus have disappointingly low best tanks. My 2007 A8 gets 27-30mpg on the highway and it's only rated at 23mpg highway by the EPA.

There must be a huge difference between manual and DSG TDI's, because my manual Golf TDI gets over 50mpg on snow tires and I get 55 mpg or better on my all-season tires.

The Countryman should be a lot more fuel efficient than it is. The Juke's low mpg doesn't surprise me, because it has a CVT, so it won't be fuel efficient in real world driving. The Camry's fuel economy is appalling, IL's best tank was barely above the EPA city rating.

These lists continue to be misleading. Keep in mind that the IL staff was playing hypermiling games with the Jetta (top of this list) and beating the piss out of the Mustang (tied for bottom of the list).

It would also be helpful to include type of fuel. Diesel, premium or regular will make difference in fuel cost as well. Taking that into account then Mazda would lead the list (although bit tricky since prices will fluctuate).

Your best mpg for the camry in this post is less the best listed in the LT intro. The best fuel economy number should be listed here right? Or is this just the fuel economy numbers for November and the the entire test?

http://www.insideline.com/toyota/camry/2012/long-term-test-2012-toyota-camry-se.html

The Camry only has 2300 miles on it...hardly broken in....too soon to tell.

Wow that Mazda Skyactiv drivetrain is amazing.
Or maybe it's because you have no other gas engined compact class car.
Now they just need to put that engine in a Kodo compact sedan instead of a smiley freak.
Smiley freak causes nightmares.

I continue to drive my 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 with a bit of restraint; no more than 10 mph over the posted limit(although I usually corner at double the posted ramp/corner "advisory" speed), only an occasional Stoplight Grand Prix, etc. From 9/1/11-12/31/11 the car averaged 28.2 mpg. Lowest tank was 25.4 mpg. highest was 30.1 mpg. Not bad for a 287 bhp grocery getter.

@ brn

How is the list misleading? Misleading would be trying to hypermile the Mustang while driving the piss out of the Jetta. As far as I'm concerned if I'm going to buy a diesel Jetta I'm going to try and get the best mileage I can. If I buy a 5.0 Mustang, I'm going to drive the piss out of it. Mileage be damned. Seems to me like the'yre driving the right cars the right way.

Real world driving for me in December is as follows. My 2 fill-ups totaled 28.915 gallons to go a distance of 995.9 miles. Fuel mileage is down to 34.4 mpg, largely due to cold weather, more idling in order to defrost windows and slightly more city driving. And, I put new Michelin tires on the car which seem to have a higher rolling resistance than the the previous tires. Keep in mind my Dodge Stratus with a manual is rated 27/37, and with 95% of miles highway miles, I generally get 36 or better as my average. What's hard to believe is how closely it compares to the LT Jetta TDI; and that it beats the 500 and the Fusion hybrid. Of course we all know that Your Mileage May Vary.

Oh, and back to your LT cars, I'm most impressed with the new Mazda 3 SkyActiv. Can't help but think that the cars with Skyactiv are gonna help Mazda sell a bunch more cars. That's one of my predictions for 2012. In a different way, I also predict that the upcoming Abarth 500 will drive more people into Fiat studios to check it out and take a test drive; and in turn 500 sales will continue to grow since some, perhaps many, of the studios have been open less than a year. And, my third prediction is that the soon to be revealed all-new Dodge Dart will be a smashing success after it becomes available in showrooms and on dealer lots.

The Mazda3 has almost 4k on it, and while I don't know the use profile, that Skyactiv tech seems to be working. I don't see much point in driving a 2 when a 3 will do this good.

Camry just has too small a sample space so far - it will come up.

Wrangler - I'm sorry, but that's awful. If your budget allows you a toy, I guess, but...

The NSX illustrates two things - why automakers (BMW, Honda to an extent) are leaving high-revving NA powerplants in droves, and how far fuel efficiency has come in 20 years. Engines that rev to 8 or 9k sound great, but they suck gas like crazy. A current V6 Mustang weighs 300 lb more than the NSX, has 35 more hp and is almost as fast, I bet, but it will also give a steady 26-27 mpg in the same use under which the NSX gives just over 20.

100% disagree with you Fordson on the NSX.

The last full test that Edmunds did of a 6MT Mustang V6 returned, wait for it, 20.7 mpg. And I'd be willing to bet that even that limited test had less of a hardcore nature to it than the average use of the NSX has so far. IL also noted that it returned about 26 mpg on pure highway runs (the Mustang that is) which is about what the best tank on the NSX returned.

High revving engines are kind of like turbo engines, in that they can get lower gas mileage if you choose to use the revs (and the power). But generally its easier to avoid the revs than it is to avoid boost in a modern spool-up-by-2000-rpm turbo car. And let's be honest, 7000 rpm is not that much lower than 8000 rpm in the grand scheme of things. It's not like we're comparing an NSX and an old 5.0 Mustang that runs out of breath at 5500 rpm. Both the current V6 and the 5.0 Stangs really rev.

Also, the Mustang V6 weighs about 500 lbs more than the NSX, but it also has the advantage of a 6MT and much taller gearing. Driven conservatively I'd bet the NA2 NSX with the 3.2 V6 and the 6MT would do a little better than this original NA1 model. And that car was also capable of 12-sec 1/4 mile times which is substantially faster than the Mustang V6.

church - yeah, I remember reading that V6 Mustang test - they beat the crap out of it and bragged of that all through the write-up. I'm gonna go on ahead and assume that test observed the same use profile as the LT Mustang GT that needs new rears after 7k miles. Test average for the V6 about 4 mpg better than LT average for the GT...sounds about right.

I have a tough time believing that that a modern DI V6 in a 3500-lb car, turning 2000 rpm at 70 mph, is going to get only 26 mpg on the highway. Any modern minivan, with a simliar V6 only without DI and thus running less advance, weighing a thousand pounds more and punching a way bigger hole, will get 26 on the highway. So no.

Yeah, if you drive an NSX...or an S2000, or a V10 M5 or a 458 Italia...like a granny, it will get OK mpg. But driven in such a way to extract their max performance, the NSX will get 15-16, the S2000 18, the M5 13 and 458 will get 10. BMW is going to a turbo 4 in the 3 series and a turbo V8 in the M5 because they get better mpg in 95% of driving scenarios and are faster in 100%. I dunno - argue with them, then.

I think you know that reciprocity failure dictates that once you get over maybe 6k rpm the amount of power needed to just rev that fast, much less push the car, means that 8k IS a lot different than 7k.

I have seen like one NSX test ever produce 12s - and it sure was not this one of IL's. The V6 Mustang IL tested did 13.9, and if they ever do produce instrumented testing of their NSX I bet you it does no better than maybe 13.6.

Part of all this is better engine control, part of it is direct injection, part is aerodynamics, part is a 6MT instead of a 5MT, sure.

I'd love to see the editors play some hyper-miling games with the Mazda 3 skyactive, and the Fusion Hybrid, just to settle the whining by those who think it is unfair.

It's not just the rpm fordson, it's the design. The Mustang V6 has something like a 87mm stroke to only 78mm for the NSX motor, so piston speeds at 7k vs. 8k are pretty similar for both. The Ford 3.7 is also port injected on the Mustang according to Ford's website, so no advantage there.

My point was that when it comes to an NA engine, I don't think fuel economy has come all that far - at least not when comparing middle of the road tech of today (Ford V6) vs. state of the art from 20 years ago (NSX). Kudos no doubt to Ford for getting a heavier car to do that well and great that its available for $22k instead of $82k, but the absolute economy hasn't changed all that much.

My comments on acceleration were regarding the NA2 NSX which came with the upsized engine and 6spd vs. the 3.0 liter and 5spd on the long term car. I doubt IL will do much better than 13.8@101 on this car to be sure. But I've driven some NA2 cars and we took a brand new one to a 13.1@107 with only a single pass on a warm summer day. With more time and attempts I'm quite sure we would have broken into the 12s. Not bad for only 290 hp.

I can't believe church is hating on mazda like he is. Most(if not all) the compacts seems avg around 28-29 mpg in real world use and your telling the world mazdas catching up. LOL. The IL's cruze average 25 mpg, motor trends elantra avg a little under 29. Mazda 3(heavier) hatchback a little under 32mpg. Yep mazda is catching up based up alright.

"I can't believe church is hating on mazda[sic] like he is. Most(if not all) the compacts seems[sic] avg around 28-29 mpg in real world use and your[sic] telling the world mazdas[sic] catching up. LOL. The IL's cruze[sic] average[sic] 25 mpg, motor[sic] trends[sic] elantra[sic] avg[sic] a little under 29. Mazda 3(heavier) hatchback[sic] a little under 32mpg[sic]. Yep mazda[sic] is catching up based up[sic] alright."

THAT's telling him!

"The Countryman should be a lot more fuel efficient than it is. The Juke's low mpg doesn't surprise me, because it has a CVT, so it won't be fuel efficient in real world driving."

Final drive ratio, buddy! More turns of the crank required = more gas needed. The Juke has by far the shortest geared differential in the list (5.8:1). Frankly, it's a miracle it isn't dead last mpg-wise, regardless of transmission type.

Yes bigjcm, I'm such a hater. That's why I said, regarding the 3 in this very thread, "I have to give them props for the results so far".

Ooohh, feel the haterade flow.....taste the bitterness of my hatred and know your demise. I am the ultimate hater!

I will be intererested to see the NSX's test numbers - anyone have an idea of why they're hanging fire on that? A laggy odometer should not affect track numbers, should it? Neither should a leaky trunk, unless there's a whole lot of water in there...

I predict a lot of "that's too slow" comments when the NSX results are released. It was pretty quick 20 years ago, but today if you've got a stock NA1 NSX you've got to be on your game just to stay in front of the V6 family sedans.