What station is that, I'll give it a try :-), I live in Aliso Viejo, work in Santa Ana/Tustin? I have 2wd, keep my tires inflated properly at 32 and still get kinda bad mileage

 

Right now it's drinking Shell 87...I live in Anaheim Hills and commute to Rosemead. Again, I'm not surprised your mileage is low or what you call 'kinda bad'. Just try and slow it down for one day..say cap your freeway speed at 70 and see how much that trip's mpgs increase over where you're at now. It HAS to be better than your normal 80+ mph commute.

I wish Mitsu would have brought their 1.8 turbo diesel over that the ASX has in Europe...Pair a high torque, low revving diesel with a 6 speed manual and you've got a highway bruiser that would probably turn in near 40mpg at 75~80 mph. Alas we don't get such 'fun' toys here in US.

 

Hi. Well I've finished another tank. When the dealership took the car for a test drive there was no arguing that over an 80KM test the vehicle got slightly better than the advertised 6.6L/ 100KM. I can't argue that, I was in the car after all. So here I am today with fuel receipt in hand. I drive 603.5KM on 62.071L of fuel. I filled it right to the top as the dealer did during our test. So let's see here, carry the 2 dived by 3.5 minus 6... Wait a minute that's a very crappy 10.285L per 100KM. 1.885L off the city rating. I don't live in a city? So it's better than I got last time but still not close to the truth. So screw you Mitsubishi. I have no accepted the fact that you lie and I must move on. It was almost unbearable for me to drive my new car over 600KM like a granny (no offense, I love my grandma) trying to get good economy. Oh and by the way my Ipod still doesn't work.

 

Something is not right with your car. I just drove my Outlander V6 to Whistler today from Vancouver and its basically all uphill. With 4 adults and going 90-110 (and passing dozens of cars on uphill parts) and with A/C I got around 10-11 L/100km. Keep in mind lots of curves and slowing down/accelerating very frequently. The rating is 9.8 L/100km, so I am very impressed that it manages to get close to that with all those factors.

 

That's what I think too, but the dealership was only willing to take the car on an 80KM trip, 95% HWY with about a 5K trip through Parksville. It's a big **** off for me. I was recently with my friend who has a new Toyota Highlander, we drove to Tofino with 7 people in the thing and it got 9.6L on that trip!!! I tols them I want them to take it over a tank and see what the results are... It's very obvious on here that it is an issue, there's many, many people. Oh and this is weird, when you look on the US site the economy numbers are different when transferred over to L/100K. I just used a converter site online but it converted to I think 9.8L in the city which is much closer to what I'm actually getting??? Weird.

 

I just found it. The Outlander Sport advertises 25/31MPG. That converted to L/100K is 9.408 and 7.59. Well isn't that intersting? something is squirrely.

 

Have you tried disconnecting the battery? What RPM range do you get when driving normally on a highway? Have they checked the O2 sensor?
Make sure when converting you are not using imperial MPG, which is what manufacturers use here to advertise fuel economy (not same as US MPG).

 

There have been lots of different posts about numbers here and some seem strange.

The paperwork that came with my SE AWC states 24 US MPG City and 29 US MPG Highway. At least for my car and my commute I can vouch for this as being correct. The numbers I have found for the manual 2WD state 25 US MPG city and 31 US MPG Highway.

The first tank was about 22.5 mpg and the next was closer to 24 mpg. (I can believe that for the first tank) The dash numbers for my daily commute have also been improving. I was getting close to 19-22 when I first got it and I'm getting 25 to 28 now. (Most often around 26).

Given that my last vehicle was an 07 Mitsu Raider double cab (V6 3.7l) which got 14mpg and I am pretty happy. I do miss driving a truck but I only ever used it for lugging my kayaks around which my outlander sport does just fine with a new roof kit and some thule racks.

 

CITY 25/ HIGHWAY 31MPG is for 2WD models.
The US website, lists 24/29MPG for 4WD SE model.

The issue is in Canada, Mitsu lists:
CVT - CITY - 8.4 L/100Kms
CVT - HIGHWAY - 6.6 L/100Kms
CVT - COMBINED-7.6 L/100Kms

I think this is because vehicle Fuel ratings may be tested differently than they are in the US. The reason i think that is that 31MPG(US) converts 7.6L/100km, which is the combined numbers listed in Canada, not the highway numbers. Canada list 6.6L/100km as highway numbers, which is lower than all of the US numbers I've found, so manufactures in Canada must be testing their vehicles differently.

As comparison, the US CITY numbers for 4WD is 24MPG, in L/100km that is 9.8L/100km, which is more than what Mitsu claims in Canada for City economy.

 

I was able to get 30.8 mpg (on the display) this morning 19 mile trip, 80/20 HWY/CITY by keeping it below 2000 RPM's at all times....even merging onto the highway while pissing a lot of folks off! Average speed was 39 mph. That's 7 mpg better than has ever been shown on the display yet. If this is the way to get decent economy then count me out. I'm ready to exit the tin can car economy vehicle class. I would encourage anyone who is getting poor mileage to try driving around and keeping the rpm's below 2000, see if that helps.

2011 Outlander Sport SE AWC