In my mind posted government posted fuel efficiency numbers should only be used as a scale for comparing vehicles against each other and NOT as an expectation of what is achievable.

For example my 2004 Jeep Liberty was rated at 14.2L/100 city and 10.1L/100 hwy. In real world driving I never came close, averaged around 20-22L/100 city and 12-13L/100 hwy. When looking at the RVR I compared the posted numbers to the official numbers of the Jeep and figured I should get use around 60% less fuel in city driving and 65% less on the highway.

When comparing my actual consumption in the Jeep at 20L/100 to my actual in the RVR at around 10-11L/100 in the city I'm pretty close to that estimation and use roughly 50% less fuel than the old Jeep. I get the posted 8.4L//100 (or less) on my drive back and forth to work which averages 15km with only 2-3 stops at 60-70km/h, I've even had as low as 7.0L/100 showing on that trip. However city stop and go driving is no where near the posted 8.4L/100, closer to 12L/100. Since half my driving is this type my overall average for a full tank is anywhere from 10-11L/100 week to week.

One other thing I've noticed is cold weather is significantly worse, anything colder that -10 and I've seen a drop of about 20%. I think this is due to the CVT keeping the engine in a higher RPM range when cold untill it reaches operating temperature. Personally I don't mind this if it makes the car warmer faster. I find the RVR is very slow to warm up compared to my Jeep. At -30 I'm almost home and the RVR is just starting to blow warm air after almost 15mins of driving.

 

I drive mostly between Revelstoke and Golden about 145KM or 95 miles. Winter time I am getting an average of 31.5 to 34 mpg....Summer time I am averaging 41 to 42 mpg, and that's traveling at around 100kmh.

 

Thats more like it! Mine is still quite new, had winters and a Thule on it, so I'm not expecting the best right now anyway.

Will see what happens this summer.

Gregor

 

Do you actually have a f150 and can get better mileage?

Everyone I know doesn't get anywhere near the 32MPG ford says it can get. If you think otherwise go buy one. Also not sure if the f150 uses premium or not, i know most turbo motors normally do use premium gas to get better mileage.

Also I think Mitsu made a mistake in their quoted numbers, the AWS 4WD models should take a hit in fuel mileage due to the extra load and weight. I think the quoted figures are probably for a base 2wd stripped down model. (Probably blame the government for not having stricter guidelines)

I get 8.5 -9.5 L/100km, which i think is reasonable for a 4wd small suv, Im not really sure if any other 4WD small suv can get better than that on regular gas. Some may advertise better, but i dont know any that actually gets it.

 

Same here.....I started taking depression meds because of this vehicle
I really find no difference between the 3.0 outlander that I had
and this very underpowered, make sure you have flat roads, drive only with tail winds, accelerate like you have a broken foot, and don't go over 50 mph... 2.0 sport I believe this choice was a mistake... but trying to convince myself "well hell 22-24 mpg highway with 4 wheel capabilites isn't so bad" My *** my FJ was getting 20-22 on highway!!! and that sucker was not known for economy
bottom line this truck sucks, but I'm stuck with it for now

 

The Outlander Sport/RVR is optimized for city driving. Filling it up with stuff/people will result in worse fuel economy on the highway than the V6 Outlander, because it has to work harder.
If you are just slogging from red light to red light then it will be more fuel efficient.
Remember, just because the engine is smaller doesn't mean there isn't an upper limit to fuel consumption (at least relative to distance).
I always end up with 7.6 L/100km with my Outlander LS (31 mpg) on long trips. I would imagine the RVR would use more fuel driving the same trips (mountain highways and steep grades).

 

My fuel efficeincy has DRASTICALLY improved with just the simple addition of a K&N Drop In panel filter

 

RVR GT - 22000km - average city 9l /100km, highway (average 110-120km GTA area - 9-10l/100km) - fuel: 91, 94 Petro Canada.

Of course sometimes when I get bored with slow acceleration I push it a bit higher then 2000 rpm (~2500) when starting on lights for example. Then it eats more fuel... Best mileage is in city + no hills + start at 2000 rpm...

What type of fuel are you guys using and what is your mileage on different types of fuel?

 

I use 87 octane, Chevron or Costco. My average went up about 1-2mpg after my the last oil change about a month ago. The air filter was not changed.

Still, the mpg what they say is way off unless you live in flat country. I did manage to get more than the highway specified mpg but that was in Minnesota on some of the low speed limit highways. Freeway traffic @ 60-65mph never gives more than 26 mpg.

Interestingly I noticed the 2012 numbers on the Outlander sport - the EPA gives it 23/28/25 (all 1mpg lower than 2011) for the same car. Can it be that the ECU reflash changed these numbers, or that their tests got a bit more realistic?

EPA ratings really should be: 22mpg city, 26mpg highway, 23 combined instead of the 24/29/26 on the 2011 model. With realistic driving I average 23-24 combined in the somewhat hilly area that I live in.

 

[quote=ProcessorHog;282194]

Interestingly I noticed the 2012 numbers on the Outlander sport - the EPA gives it 23/28/25 (all 1mpg lower than 2011) for the same car. Can it be that the ECU reflash changed these numbers, or that their tests got a bit more realistic?
quote]

It's from folks like us calling out mitsubishi's claim that changed the numbers....... mine avg's 20-24