You nailed it.

I generally get 23-25 in town and 23 to 27 highway.

Ive been using CVTs for years so I know how to manipulate the throttle to achieve max mpgs in town. When applying my techniques I can usually get 28 city. Highway, well... slight incline decimates mpgs.

Atleast I look good!

 

Hmm...
On my first tank of gas I got about 250 miles on 3/4 of a tank and the in-dash computer was predicting I would get about another 100 miles.
My second tank didn't fare as well. I ran to UPS (about 20-25 miles round trip) went to work for one day (about 60 miles round trip) and ran around to a few stores (about 15 miles) and I was down to almost 1/2 a tank.

 

Try keeping track of the number of miles driven and the total gallons needed for a fill up, that's the only way to accurately measure mileage. I have been thrown off by the gauge before - after 250 miles it shows about half full but it goes down in big blocks (not gradual) so my tank was almost empty after 330.

It holds the "full" and goes down to half much slower than it should. In fact it'll show "full" (or very close to it) for about 80-100 miles for me, instead of the actual 3/4 tank mark. Once it gets to half, it drops like a rock.

 

Yeah, the gas gauge in these things suck.

I filled up today and did the math, I am gettin 25MPG mixed with a K&N Drop in. I was averaging 21-22 w/o one.

3MPG increase spread out over a 13 gallon tank is an extra 39 miles per tank, which for the sake of math w'ell say is equal to 1.75 gallons @ $4.00/gallon = a savings of $7.00 per tank. Me filling up once a week and saving $7 per tank means I will have paid off the $40 K&N Filter in less than 6 weeks, not including the factor of never having to buy a new filter again.

Seriously guys, go on ebay or amazon, and get the damn filter. Your MPGs and HP will increase without any implifications on your warranty.

 

Totally agree. CVT is something you need to get used to. Of course CVT starts your car a little on a slow side but if you are not pushing it mileage is not that bad. For example last week we went to Niagara Falls from Toronto over 100km trip one way (straight highway with a little traffic, no standstill). Recently I've started using 87 octane fuel (cheapest one) just to check if that makes any difference in mileage. And to my surprise with average speed of 110-115 km/hour on our trip to Niagara Falls and back RVR was eating 8.6-8.8 l/100 km... with 91 and 94 octane same trip wasted 10 l/100km straight. Go figure...

we have about 23.000 km on our RVR, using mostly FWD

 

I have 2011 outlandre sport SE AWC... With 2000 miles on it.... Ism driving with Mobil 1 syntetic oil 0 W 20.
I can't even gt close to the advertised 29 mpg on the highway. I drive only with 2 fwd on the expressway and get about 22 mpg. I tried using cruise control at 65 mph and 93 fuel for the whole 50 miles of my daily commute - Thn I to 25 mpg... Still far off 29 avg hwy advertised fuel economy.

I was hoping for better gas milagros.... Any suggestions! Thanks.

 

Well it is obvious to all that have read the 100 or so posts, that opinion differs with regard to the RVR's mileage claims. Personally, I bought this CUV 2 weeks ago, despite knowing that the engine was an "under performer", but more importantly that gas mileage would be the compensating factor. We all understand that getting the manufacturers quoted mileage from our vehicles would require a true desire to replicate as best we can the "testing" conditions used to initially gather the data to post mileage claims. The testing field is the optimal use of the engine/transmission and should in my opinion not be used as a firm statement that you/we should always get posted results. The fact that some have, is just reason to strive ourselves to attain MMC/MMUSA displayed mileage numbers. Often our own personal driving conditions such as hills, traffic, and at times quick acceleration, impacts our mileage numbers. Count me as one that appreciates the mileage available to me when i'm able to satisfy most of the requirements needed. Those times when i can't conserve, i try to keep to a minimum. Squeezing extra kilometers from a tank becomes my daily/ weekly challenge, and i always drive with the flow of traffic and do not impede any one. As a bus operator(24yrs) in a large urban city, driving techniques are practiced daily. Once you commit to this style of driving it becomes who you are in the car, and will evolve into routine. My first combined 70% highway/30%city produced 7.9 liters/100km. I feel this particular Mitsubishi is everything advertised and i would not hesitate to recommend this model to anyone. Should my feelings change in the future i will definetely post to all.

 

Do you live in a hilly area? From my experience, staying around 40-50 mph gives the highest mpg, but that's not practical on freeways. 65mph gives me around 25-26mpg. I have, however, gotten between 30 and 31 mpg in Minnesota driving at 45-63 mph (variable, different roads with different speed limits, single trip). Flat roads helps a LOT.

My mileage went up by 1 mpg after my last oil change a month ago. Mpg decreases as oil gets dirtier and thicker.

Here in Washington state, with all the hills, I average 23-24mpg combined. My last tank netted me 24.1mpg combined (measured manually by miles driven divided by gallons needed to fill up). I sometimes get 21-22mpg with around 80% city driving.

Try to avoid high-ethanol fuel and get 87 octane, that's worked for me well so far. 85 octane gave me bad mileage and 93 octane did not increase it by one bit.

 

I recently took in my car for the no-start issue that has happened to me a few times (I'm not the original poster of that thread). The dealership said there was a computer update, and they applied the update.

I had my first fill-up since the update mid-week last week. I noticed a big difference in the reported mileage. After 97% freeway driving, 58 miles since I filled up, very few traffic lights, on 2wd on throughout, slower than usual traffic, most of the time driving between 55 and 60 mph - my trip computer shows 28.9mpg average. This is the highest I've seen in this area in my whole year of owning this vehicle. I didn't drive drastically different - I just used a light foot beacuse of dense slow - moving traffic (at times moving 35 mph for maybe a couple of miles) but mostly doing around 55-60. I usually see around 24-25 mpg on the trip computer even on full time freeway driving. Same fuel - I usually get the 87 octane Costco one or Chevron, but the last two tanks have been Costco.

I noticed the car drives quite a bit different from before, it feels a little bit smoother. The most noticeable thing is the pull when I lift my foot off the gas pedal. Earlier it used to slow down gradually, but now I feel a quick, distinct deceleration. Possible the fuel cutoff is more aggressive...

Anyway I guess it IS possible to get the mileage in this hilly area as well. Maybe it was the 55-60 mph traffic, or maybe it is a combinaton of the update plus the light foot. When I calculate manually I always get 0.8 to 1.2 mpg more than what the trip computer shows (measured almost every tank since I've bought this), so if I filled up now, it'd take in a little less than two gallons. I've gotten really good mileage a few months ago when I drove my car to the midwest region but that was with uncharacteristically flat roads and smooth traffic compared to the traffic around here.

I'll update the thread at the end of this tank after I get a lot more city miles on it (my driving is usually 75% to 85% city).

Photos below:

 

I was one of the first people commenting on the bad economy of the RVR or Outlander Sport. We've had the car for about 15 months now and I have never come even close to the advertised economy. Just today we took an 80K round trip on the highway, 2WD, dry conditions and using cruise control @ 90KPH and only managed 9.4 on the computer. I'd be happy to even get the combined but I should be getting 6.6! My biggest issue is that I can drive it very conservitaly and not even come close to what was advertised, but even worse if I drive it sporty I'm up at 14L. My friends 5.4L Triton 4Door Long Box Ford gets 18!!! I honestly would not have bought this vehicle had I known. I mean if I had 180HP under the hood then I could understand but I don't. So somehow Mitsubishi has combined the dissapointment of poor fuel economy with the lack of power and put it in a package that lied to me from day one. I do not recommend this car to anyone who is looking for a fuel efficient car because it is not, cost me 66 bucks to fill up and I maybe get 450K? Come on what crap. Our 2005 Corolla took $40 and would go for 600K and on the sticker comparison the Corolla was only slightly better at 6.3L. We drove that car for 5 years all over and it always delivered. Unless we can gather together as a group and all sign something to submit to Mitsubishi then all we can do is complain about it on here. The dealer says "really, first I've heard of it". Oh so it's just me then, just my car? Then I come on here and see that they're many dissapointed people. Not only because of the additional cost but because we made a decision when we bought the car to buy A FUEL EFFICIENT vehicle so that we can minimize our impact on the environment. I can't get 6.6L unless I turn the car and push it!!!