I recently went on a 4100 mile road trip in my Outlander Sport, and got the opportunity to test it in a variety of conditions. Here are the results:

I got around 25mpg doing 80-85, about 26.5 MPG doing 75 and around 28 on stretches that had a limit of 60 - 65mph. The best economy I got during the LONG drive was while going through Yellowstone, I went 384 miles (approximately 180 miles at 40-60mph with 4WD on, about 100 miles at 70-75 mph (2WD) and the other 100 miles at 80-85mph (also 2WD) and put 13.5 gallons in the tank to fill up. The mileage info above was for full tanks of gas - drive for a stretch and then calculate how much it takes to fill it up. After 270 miles of the Yellowstone trip (avg spd=47mph in the display), my trip computer showed 29.6 mpg average. This included around 15-18 stop/starts - there's so much to see! Then I drove another 114 miles or so at about 85 mph and killed the mileage, I still got 28.4 for the whole tank.

The worst fuel economy I got was when I chose "regular" at a station in Montana - and they had 85.5 octane for "regular", while usually regular around here (and most other places I've filled up) is 87. I got a little less than 21 mpg (20.7 or so) for that tank, but the average speed was also around 85mph. From that point I made sure I got 87 or 88 octane gas. I also made the mistake of getting gas at a place that had "super" or "extra" cheaper than "regular" (I usually fill up the cheapest and don't check the octane) but that had 15 or 17% ethanol in it, so that tank gave me around 23 mpg.

This was with three adults and a child, A/C on throughout, lights on for most of the time and luggage packed up to the top in the back. If you arrange it well, it can hold quite a bit: we had 3 big bags (airline check-in size), 3 small ones (carry-on sized), some toys, a large backpack, a small child-sized backpack, a 1.5'x2' box with stuff and a couple of medium sized tote bags and some books, all this fit in the back even though it was stacked pretty high up. The ride quality was great as well, and the seats gave my back no problems at all, and I loved the space in the back seat, my legs could stretch all the way under the front seat.

And during my stay in the midwest, the car gave me 29-30 mpg. I used to think that there was some problem with my car or my driving, because the average I used to get in Washington state was about 23 to 26. But the same car gave me almost 29 mpg AVERAGE (about 70% highway/30% city) over a whole tank (approx. 350 miles). The trip computer showed 30.4 average after an 80 mile highway drive (see pictures), and I've found from multiple tests that it underestimates the economy by 1 to 2 mpg, so the actual mileage for that trip should be somewhere around 31 - 32 mpg. This was mixed with city stop-and-go traffic, in mall parking lots, and climbing a 500 ft hill every time I went out (the place I was staying was at the bottom of possibly the only hill around there) and I got almost 29 mpg average for that tank. I'm happier than before because I know for SURE that my car isn't the problem.

 

Oh, and I'm back in Washington, and the first tank after I got back gave me 25.8mpg: 80% freeway at 60-65mph, and 20% city. The car has 11100 miles on it.

 

First post. So hi, and nice to be here.

Got 309 miles on 11.9 gallons. 25.9 MPG
497 klicks on 45 liters (100 km on 9.57 ltrs)

80% Hwy (Dallas/Fort Worth area, sometimes Hwy sometimes parking lot) and 20% City. Not driving like an Eco-****, but but still taking it easier than in my last vehicle. One week into the Sport model and I think I made the right choice.

Mike

 

well some time ago i took it to my sport to the dealer to clear a cel. it had a random engine misfire with about 3000 on the clock. i mentioned my bad gas mileage. i was averaging 18mpg in the city, 20.7 was the max i had been able to pull out. this was driving like an eco-****. he mentioned as others had to change the brand of gas. i figured eh, it was worth a shot. i told him i would have results when i returned in december for the oil change. since then i have been using Exxon brand 87, not Valero brand 87. I know average 22.4, with 24.7 the highest per tank. i figured it might make a difference, but not that much. the display regularly shows over 20mpg, where as before it would only get to 20 if i cruised downhill for a few blocks. lol.

 

I have reached 9000 km on my RVR GT. I just had the oil change and did a drive to london ontario to test out the mpg because i am far from satisfied with what i have been getting. I drove no more then 100 km/h i was in the slow lane being passed by 18 wheelers even. Either way my trip was 643.8 km all hwy, and it took 53.796 L. I worked it out to 8.36L/100 km or 28 mpg. That was not normal driving that was extremely slow, extremely easy on acceleration, so basically not how anybody would drive on a daily basis. Prior to me purchasing this the dealer told me they were getting 39 mpg combined city and highway, and i called again to confirm and complained bout my mileage at the same time. They said i was right on par which makes absolutely no sense, if i have calculated my mileage wrong let me know but other then that i confirmed with the dealer prior to purchasing before and after. The only reason i purchased this car was for the amazing fuel economy but its embarassing when a f150 is getting better mileage then my 4 cylinder cvt.

 

My calcs using Imperial gallons give 33.8 mpg for 8.36 L/100

1 Imperial gals = 4.546092 liters
1 US gals = 3.785412 liters

MPG = 282.47 / (L/100)

Also read this...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...y-compare.html

 

According to Mitsubishi specs in Canada, we should be getting 8.4 l/100km city and 6.6 l/100km highway (or 43 MPG).

Is anybody getting even close?

Gregor

 

Nova Scotia, with about 4000kms it. The switch is in 4WD Auto all the time.

Highway : ~9.5L/100km (going slightly less than 100km/hr), city ~10.5L/100km (Halifax is pretty hilly though).

I've been recording litres at the pump vs the odometer since January 1, 2012 and it's been ~10.6L/100km combined city and highway. I drive pretty conservatively and there are a lot of drivers passing me when they can.

This is winter time, so there were a couple of snows in there and I'm guessing winter tires and colder weather aren't the optimal conditions. We'll see when it gets warmer out.

 

Even so, for the test i did you can not drive any better, and its still far from what the dealer claimed they are getting at 39 mpg COMBINED and i highly doubt they are driving any better. My test was all highway I really should of been aiming for 43 mpg. I took a huge loss on my trade in 2008 Cadilac Escalade EXT, i traded it due to my commuting, but with the smaller car payment and supposedly great fuel savings i was suppose to attain, it would of been less then a year recovery because of how much money i should be saving on my fuel cost, i am still saving but not what i was told or should be. The most i have put in my car is $67 with gas light on at $126.9 L, way better then putting $190 into my Escalade and getting barely any mileage but still i am not getting what i paid for out of the RVR. I have contacted OMVIC to see if there is anything that can be done because in all my past vehicles i have gotten better mileage then listed on the cars sticker, but this case i have given it time and waited patiently but i dont seem to be getting close at all. i would not of settled for an RVR for these results.

 

In the US, the converted (to imp. gals), rating is city 30mpg and 36mpg on Highway with one user reporting average of 31mpg.

The Canadian system is AFU and will be revised foe the year 2014.
It's 15 to 20% optimistic vs the US.

read this Canada's fuel efficiency ratings out of sync with U.S. numbers - Canada - CBC News