Troll?

 

I consider my gas mileage decent even though it isn't close to the advertised amount. I always attributed that to the fact that I got the AWC model, with glass roof, Rockford sound system, 18'' wheels etc. All of that adds weight.

Anyways on long highway trips I get 8L/100km, I regularly average 9L/100 mostly city driving (Calculated).

Last summer I did a 900+km trip and got 8.4L/100km with 4 Adults + Luggage and AC on for most of the trip. I consider that damn good.

PZABOY: Goodluck with the Class Action lawsuit, it takes years to reach a settlement. Honda Civic Hybird owners got $100! haha the lawyer fees are so high, nothing is left for the customers that were effected.
Class-action settlement over Honda Civic Hybrid mileage claims approved

 

RVR has CVT, CVT is generally making car slower than the rest of em.

I've started using 87 fuel and driving around 2000 RPM, yesterday city 7.9 l/ 100km, highway 8.5-8.8 l / 100km which is not bad actually

 

I was able to get the advertised mileage by driving in a completely unrealistic way. I think this is how Mitsubishi got their numbers also.

 

Awesome!!! I just went through a tank of gas. 75% highway 25% city. All highway was cruise control at 90kph in 2WD. Also I used the "resume" button each time after having to stop or slow down.

Drum roll please..... 516.5KM driven and 53.034Litres used for an absolutely awful econmoy of 10.27L/100K

My 1993 Nissan Pathfinder V6 with 33" tires got 12L/100K

Do not buy this car if you want a fuel efficient vehicle!!!

 

When I'm accelerating the consumption bar shows 20L, but I'm at about 1700RPM approaching 50KPH??? I've also noticed the transmission becoming quite jerky if you take your foot of the accelarator, it certainly doesn't coast very well. That and sometimes it'll shoot up to 4000RPM but with zero increase in speed??? I'm curious about the ECU Re-Flash I saw posted on here, anyone have more details about it?

 

On my new 2011 RVR GT I have the following data:

Total Kilometers Driven: 3406
Total Litres of Fuel: 330.998
Lifetime l/100km: 9.718
Lifetime Imperial MPG: 29.068
Lifetime US MPG: 24.203

Lots of highway miles but I have a Thule on top and 16" knobby winter tires.

Last tank all highway with 200km at 110 kph and 300km at 90 kph I got 8.787 l/100km (32.148 mpg imperial) (26.767 mpg US)
I'm hoping the summer tires and no Thule will make a difference.

Highway driving is going up into the mountains and coming back down.

Gregor

 

I think my gas mileage went up a slight bit (maybe 1mpg) after the ECU reflash. After 149.5 miles since the last tank, the avg mpg shows 24.1 on the computer (58 miles freeway in about 65 minutes, 91.5 miles city in about 270-300 minutes of city driving time). The fuel gauge is a little less than halfway between F and 1/2.

I personally think a lawsuit will not work. It's not just Mitsubishi cars that have this big mismatch between rated mpg and real-world numbers. I did google searches on "kia sportage poor gas mileage", "chevrolet equinox poor gas mileage", and did the same for other cars like GMC terrain, nissan juke etc. Browsed around on customer review sites and their car-specific forums. For every single one of those cars, just like with this, a few people complain about very bad mpg, a few say they get excellent mpg, and a lot are in between. There are a lot of variables - terrain, driving habits, even the kind of gas you get.

One thing in common among all the cars among different manufacturers that people complain bad mpg about is this: a small-ish four cylinder engine. I haven't seen V6 or V8 owners complaining about poor mileage. It may be because of two reasons: either they don't care about mpg so no one checks mpg closely, or that larger engines are actually better for real world driving with only a slight drop in mpg from their I4 counterparts.

There may also be a problem with the EPA testing - they say they have start/stops and a/c on in their testing, but I'm thinking their acceleration does not come close to that of real-world scenarios. Plus they don't use ethanol in their fuel which immediately drops real-world high mpg from the advertised 29 to 27.5. (I had to do some fun math for this. Ford escape flex fuel says 14mpg combined on E85 and 20 combined on pure gas [E0] and I based my calculations on that. Economy for 1 gallon of pure gas equals that of 1.0545 gallons of gas with 10% ethanol, so divide the EPA mpg by 1.0545 and you'll get E10 fuel's gas mileage)

I've found that inclines hurt the mpg a LOT. So do speeds above 55-60mph. I have 15500 miles on my car, and I've owned it for a year and one week.

Even though I'd like to see more miles to the gallon on mine, I'm actually satisfied with the numbers given that there are tons of hills around here. My old Nissan Altima gave me about 19-20 in the city and 25-27 on the freeways. My city mileage has never gone below 21 with this car.

I did get more than their advertised gas mileage when I drove around for two weeks in Minnesota. Same car - I drove it all the way there but got about 4-5 mpg (highway) more than what I get in Washington state (see here). City mileage was higher too, Traffic lights are timed and placed in a different way in their cities and roads are much flatter.

If I had known hills affect mpg this much for a smaller engine before I bought the car, I probably would have gotten the big Outlander with the V6. My next car will either be electric or a V6 3.0L or higher :-) but that's quite a few years away.

EDIT: Given that the 2011 numbers were probably a bit inflated - the 2012 AWD model is rated 23 city/28 highway/25 combined which is probably due to more realistic EPA testing. With these numbers, the actual gas mileage on E10 fuel will be 21.8city/26.55hwy/23.71combined which actually is very close to what I'm seeing (my city mileage is in fact higher, highway a bit lower, combined exactly on the spot - sometimes 23, sometimes 24). I'm not over-aggressive on the road, but not super soft on the gas pedal either.

 

Here's the authoritative answer straight from the horse's mouth for those who didn't know whether EPA's gas blend is indeed 100% gasoline:
Frequently Asked Questions

Search for the word "ethanol" on that page - they use 100% pure gasoline. They say that there's a 3-4% drop in fuel economy if you use E-10. My calculations show a 5.2% drop.

There's one gas station that sells pure gasoline 12 miles from where I live (there are more further away). Their gas costs about 25-35 cents more per gallon compared to where I regularly buy gas from, and while I'm sure I'll get more mpg, it's not worth the hassle for me and the effective cost will be more than that of the E10 with lower gas mileage. In many states you can't even buy E0 anymore.

So there you have it. Whenever you see EPA estimates, divide the numbers by 1.0545 and you get the mpg for the average folks.

It beats me how the older cars used to beat the EPA estimates, though. I don't think any new car can exceed the EPA estimates under normal driving conditions.

 

Quick post.....re last tank...575km with 50 litres gas...150km highway, 425 km city for a rating of: 8.7 litres per 100; 27mpg. Going on a 400km trip today on the highway ony...will report back. I dont expect 8.6city or 6.6highway as these are ideal conditions, so i'm happy with 7highway 8combined and 9city. These numbers represent realistic goals for myself, are achievable, and are so close to the posted numbers that i cant quibble. Not trying to undermine those that are unhappy, but either driving styles, terrain, etc are noticably different, or their is a quality control problem from Mitsubishi. My conditions in the Toronto area are flat, with no rush hour traffic at all(I'm driving my city bus in rush hour lol), just the regular stops for traffic lights about town.