Real world MPG performance is a big factor in vehicle "owner satisfaction"
 

This is interesting:

Consumer Reports looked at about a million responses to their vehicle owner survey and discovered a strong correlation between a vehicle's real world fuel economy performance and the owner's satisfaction with the vehicle.

Fuel economy was more influential than:

• acceleration
• horsepower
• price

For example, looking at 2014-15 Ford Fusion owners:

• 45% of owners who reported getting 15 mpg were satisfied with their vehicle
• but 70% were satisfied who were getting 30 mpg
  

(FYI, the combined EPA rating for non-hybrid 2015 Fusions ranges from 25 to 29 mpg)

And they say the correlation held across all vehicle types -- it's not just about hybrids or thrifty econoboxes.


Source: Better Fuel Economy a Priority for U.S. Drivers - Consumer Reports

A lesson for automakers? Better to under-promise and over-deliver?

As 15 mpg better economy gets a 25% improvement on user satisfaction, I am happy to confirm that I am almost 112% satisfied with my 55 mpg Insight :D

Funny.

Your post made me realize though the "risk" to owner satisfaction in high mpg vehicles might be greater -- there's a lot more apparent variability in the MPG of a 50 mpg vehicle than a 15 mpg one.

I am very satisfied with my Corolla. My last tank was 42mpgUS (50mpgImp), with 187,500 miles (300,000kms) on the ODO, the toaster has still got it. I am trying my first tank with a freshly engine oil change of 5w40 oil to see if it makes a difference (so far it is the same)

Actually all of my vehicles meet or beat EPA so I am quite happy.

I can't complain about my Insight

I killed my IMA battery being an idiot http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post514886 and I am still pulling over 70 mpg and beating the EPA estimates by a wide margin!

This tank will be a pretty good one; I'm currently at 575 miles with 6 bars left and the FCD reading 77.0 mpg

I was reading some where that fuel economy was pretty far down on the list of people out to buy a new car.
I guess once you buy it and have to pay for it then people start to care about fuel economy.

The only thing the dealers care about is getting the vehicle off their lot.

In a country where 53.7% of new "car" sales are pickups and SUVs and 90% are automatics, practicality and driveability are apparently tied for last on our priority list.

It's nice to see that economy is high up. Pity it generally moves up only after the purchase, though.

I don't believe it one bit.

First, Duhmericans prefer SUVs and pickups for their solo commuting, and supersize them please. If they cared one whit about fuel economy this would not be so.

Second, Duhmericans drive like they are late to the fire. If they cared one whit about fuel economy they would put some air in the tires and calm down behind the wheel.

Okay if you're getting 15mpg in a Fusion you're obviously a ****ty driver, and are probably very aggressive, you know like flooring it all the way to the stop sign then slamming on the brakes, or doing the same in rush hour. This would indicate to me that the driver is just frustrated in general, and that's probably why they aren't satisfied -- every time they get behind the wheel they go mental.

That must be the difference between con-Fusion and pro-Fusion... ;)

If you get 15mpg in a fusion you might be at a drag racing track.

... Or just think you are. And if you're doing that in a Fusion, you're bound to be frustrated.

Part of this may be that when shopping you are looking for one basic type of car. You may compare a mid size Honda to a Mazda, to a Ford but they all pretty much get the same MPG so it isn't a factor so much in the comparison.

Related bit of info that seems to corroborate CR's theory:

The Mitsu Mirage has the highest owner loyalty in the econobox/entry level segment , meaning return customers (the yard stick CR is using when it talks about owner satisfaction).

Owners of both the CVT and 5-speed transmissions are beating the EPA ratings on average, calculated from 3k+ fill-ups over 1,426,475 km / 886,371 miles of driving so far.

Ironically, CR hates the Mirage. Hates, hates, hates it.

How can the EPA (or anyone) get "realistic" numbers when, as in the cited example, mpg can double just by changing the nut holding the steering wheel? For instance, the previous owner(s) of my Insight had a lifetime average just under 50 mpg (for 50K miles). I've averaged a bit over 70 mpg for 140K miles.

I'm a little skeptical about the doubling, but have always gotten 10-20% better than EPA from my vehicles.

The delta on a hybrid will always be lower as it does some of the hypermiling for you, and it was probably bought by a more genteel driver in the first place.

100% over EPA is definitely possible. Heck I've done a fair few trips that were 100% over NEDC.

I'm beating the EPA and previous owner lifetime MPG with the wrong tires, no IMA, and the wrong rims with only a few small ecomods. The way you drive the car counts a lot.

I agree with Old Tele man that there should be an EPA value scale corresponding with driver style, Better Typical Poor, or something that lets drivers know that how they drive the car matters.

Except who's going to think they're a poor driver? I doubt there are many who'll even admit to 'typical' - certainly not ME :-)

Most drivers think they are better than average, which is statistically impossible. However, I am statistically better than EPA, so there is that.

A quick check shows 2 of 3 Fusion engine choices are turbocharged. Jackrabbit driving and/or just a lot of stop/go driving could account for the large difference in MPG's folks are getting.

The NA engine in my GS gives me ~6MPG difference depending on whether I'm on the highway or secondary roads; I don't do enough stop/go driving to know for sure but I'd wager the MPG difference would be even higher. (Driving style is consistent.)

In my dearly departed STi I could get 7-8 MPG easily, or 24+ MPG easily, the difference all being in how I applied my right foot. That's a bit different than an economy-minded Fusion but I think it's still relevant.

Actually not impossible. The 'impossible' claim assumes a normal distribution (that is, the bell-shaped curve). If instead you have most people being fairly competent, but a small fraction being really, really bad, then most are above average.

Maybe a different example would make it clearer. Bill Gates' net worth is roughly $50 billion. Put him in a room with 49 homeless people, and make the claim that the average wealth of people in the room is $1 billion :-)

No, the problem is the EPA asks itself "How should we tell the factories to simulate the way idiots drive?" and the factories ask "How can I drive like an idiot and still get good test numbers to turn in?"

The test should simply be turning the car over to an idiot and reporting his mpg.