I have found the same mileage/speed as well. Which means them claiming 29-30 hwy is not true for highway speeds which average 60-70.

 

I agree about the speeds. The high end of the CVT ratio should have been a bit more, to "true" highway speeds of 60mph or so. On flat roads, 45-50 shows the best economy according to the computer.

I also live in hilly terrain, that may be the reason for the lower numbers. My last fill-up was in the satisfactory range for me, it gave me 25 mpg on 50% city (avg speed about 32mph), 50% freeway (65mph) driving. I guess the engine is breaking in nicely (around 1300 miles on the odo). Hopefully the mpg will continue to go up for the next few hundred miles!

 

Hmmmm, again, this is rather interesting. My Outlander 2.4L AWD (weight around 3500lbs) on flat highways like NJ Turnpike at 65MPH (around 2250 RPM) my real time computer shows over 25 MPG and average over longer trips on highways can get up to 28/29 MPG. City can drop to as low as 19 (but usually its above 21MPG) but I would expect Outlander Sport to post better numbers than 2.4L Outlander considering its a lighter vehicle. I do not drag race but I also do not hypermill.

 

Just took delivery of a 2011 se rvr awd. The drive home was about 200km, display showed avg. 7.8L/100KM or 36.5 mpg (imp. gal).

 

I have a 3.0 Outlander (2009) and on a flat highway run I can get it at about 8.0 L/100km (I'm talking flat - like prairies flat)....with cruise set at 115km/hr

 

This was yesterday. Mixed interstate/city driving.

Filled up full and drove 160 miles.

 

im just over 14,000 km and just now starting to see the best mpg yet. Its been constantly getting better. I'll have had the car for a year next month and I think its just about at its peak for as good as it gets. Be patient it will get better.

 

I think all these new car fuel estimates are a load of bull. I was browsing around other new car forums, especially the ones that rate their cars much higher - Chevy Equinox with a 2.4L engine supposed to get 32mpg on highways and the Kia sportage, which all "critics" rate much higher than the Outlander Sport because "they have bigger engines and give more fuel economy". Guess what I found. People are complaining about low mpg everywhere, and most people average around 24 to 25 on the highway and 19-22 in the city. Compared to that, I'll take my Outlander Sport which gives me 23 to 24 in the city even though it only gives me 24 to 25 on the fast freeways. My driving is primarily in the city and this works out good. It would have been great if it really did get 30 on the freeways, but with hilly terrain and okay speeds (65mph+) I guess it's not too bad.

Also, I read in several articles that EPA highway fuel estimate is done at an average speed of 48.3mph (which I think is a big scam and I don't think it's very realistic), and this may cause these manufacturers to gear their cars to give the best mpg at that speed, bringing it down drastically when the speeds go above that. But if the limit is 70, and you drive 50, you're going to cause a crash or cause a backup and they need to take that into consideration. Give us a different mode setting or something which bumps up the ratio even further once you get to a constant high freeway speed, and people will really love these newer cars that have the potential to be even better.

 

I totally agree with you, who drives 50 on the freeway? I don't even get the mileage you get, I got 23 something average at best and it's a 2wd.

 

Update on my 2nd fillup 41.2 mpg (imperial gal)...3rd tank 42.6 mpg and my rvr is rated for 43 on highway... I travel 99% highway around 55 to 60 mph......I always get 1 to 3 mpg better than they claim?