EPA mileage ratings is bull? (Elantra vs Civic vs Corolla)

[night9]

I hope the fit works out well for her.

I'm sure you are already aware but most oem on board computers are optimistic in their readings. The Elantra's readout is typically ~2 mpg higher than the actual calculations for my fill ups.

The decreased avg speeds that the EPA runs its testing at will not compare well to real world driving (people doing 70+ on the highway). This fact means for most people the numbers won't match. You car exceeding the EPA's numbers is not unheard of, Honda may also be conservative with its EPA numbers. For example, if you look at Pale's speed vs mpg chart for his Honda fit.

[ever_green]

yes the onboard computer on my subaru is about 7% too good. I think in my case though it's an unscaled MAF sensor. in anycase I use a calibrated scangauge 2.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by spacemanspif

Manuals with only "sport" gearing...how about adding an "eco" gear resulting in a close ratio 5spd with a big overdrive 6th...or 7th...I don't car how many of their gears I have to skip, just give me over 45mpg@65mph...

Exactly my frustration with the TSX. It will win a drag race against the same car with an automatic, but revs at 3000 RPM at 70 MPH. With 6 close-ratio gears, this is ridiculous. There isn't a racetrack with a straight long enough for me to need 6th gear, so it's useless as a racing gear, and useless as a gear on the highway. I've yet to encounter a mountain pass steep enough to cause me to downshift.

Originally Posted by ever_green

my subaru which weighs nearly 3200lbs and has a full time AWD system returned about 33.5mpg for a 150 mile highway trip with no fancy tricks. I just cruised at 70-75mph the whole way. this is much better than the 27mpg epa rating. at the same time driving the hyundai for a short while on the highway returned only about 36mpg for about 70mph cruising (lower than epa)...

While a single experience is useful as a single data point, there are so many variables at play that could return different results.

I got 38.3 MPG headed East on a trip, and on the exact same section headed back, got only 32.4 MPG, and this despite an elevation drop going West. The variable at play was the wind. I had a strong tailwind on the trip out, and a strong headwind coming back.

[XYZ]

I can remember a few decades ago that EPA ratings were quite accurate and in line with actual, real world results. Not any more.

After quoting the EPA rating, car manufacturers' ads used to say the disclaimer "your mileage may vary". I recently heard radio commercials for Lincolns that actually say "your mileage will vary" (my emphasis).

Probably nobody noticed this. Probably most prospective Lincoln owners wouldn't care, either...

So yes, EPA ratings are now mostly fantasy or 'puffing' the product.

[ever_green]

I dont know some manufacturers were good with their ratings like honda, but they too have starting spitting out inflated numbers with their new cars like the civic. in canada they claim 47mpg! the civic has virtually stayed the same since 2006 with minor cosmetic changes. in canada the mileage rating system is just criminal.

[MetroMPG]

in canada they claim 47mpg!

Two things about the Canadian / NRCAN ratings:

1) NRCAN MPG uses Imperial gallons (~20% larger than US gallons). So you can't compare NRCAN MPG to EPA MPG without converting.

2) NRCAN testing is still based on the old 2 cycle approach. The EPA has significantly changed its testing/reporting methodology since the days of the 2 cycle tests. So our two countries' ratings have not been aligned since pre-2008.

[ever_green]

I was not comparing imperial gallon. I simply converted 5l/100km (civic highway) to US MPG on google.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by night9

I hope the fit works out well for her.

I'm sure you are already aware but most oem on board computers are optimistic in their readings. The Elantra's readout is typically ~2 mpg higher than the actual calculations for my fill ups.

The decreased avg speeds that the EPA runs its testing at will not compare well to real world driving (people doing 70+ on the highway). This fact means for most people the numbers won't match. You car exceeding the EPA's numbers is not unheard of, Honda may also be conservative with its EPA numbers. For example, if you look at Pale's speed vs mpg chart for his Honda fit.

The Mustang and the Insight are not optimistic in their numbers. I haven't calculated how low they are, but I record it at each tank, and it's usually off by 3-5 mpg. The last two Insight tanks were optimistic by a MPG or two.

I don't think the EPA numbers are to show real world, they are to compare vehicles to one another. So the Fit or Elantra or Civic or whatever should not be expected to always hit those numbers, rather, if the Fit is the most fuel efficient in the city, all things being equal, the Fit will be the most fuel efficient in the city COMPARED to the others.

If the Fit gets 40 MPG highway,
the Civic gets 20 MPGh,
the Elantra gets 10 MPGh,
but the test is at 65 mph, then at 85, they should be in that order efficient to least efficient- not necessarily the same performance.