holy freaking crap 16mpg city that is totally way off. all i do is city and i get 26,

 

more realistic review of MPG.....24.1 overall

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...6/pageNumber=1

Current Odometer: 1,324
Best Fuel Economy: 27.1 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 21.8 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 24.1 mpg

 

I just finished my break in period and I'm at 27.8 avg mpg mixed highway and city. I have no idea where they're getting that 16 from.. seriously.

 

Keep in mind, when you are sitting at a stoplight with the engine idling, you are getting 0 MPG. When you are stuck in stop-and-go traffic you are getting very close to 0 MPG. Factor in enough of that (as apparently CR's city test course does) and you've got your 16 MPG.

 

This is actually not much different from CR's 23 overall.
And according to their latest blog entry, the Edmunds test vehicle has dropped to 23.8
http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/1435

 

Yeah but if you push the button to the Average MPG it shows the Average. I do 95% around town driving and I haven't dropped below 24mpg.

I can't imagine CR used the "Active" mpg setting to gauge the cars mpg. Hell I've been going downhill with little throttle and shown 60+ mpg.

 

CR does the same tests using the same equipment on the same test course for every car. The xB2 got an overall 23mpg in exactly the same test that the xB1 got 30.

They're not saying that an individual driver can't do better. They're just letting every car perform on exactly the same level playing field.

It's not about comparing their result to your results. It's about comparing their results for one car with their results for another car.

r

 

CR actually splices a device into the fuel line which measures how much fuel is used. So it's very accurate.

 

Exactly!

 

My 1st gen:
generally about 60%city - 40%hwy

last tank - 34.78 MPG
tank before that- 36.97 MPG
tank before that- 35.71 MPG
tank before that- 35.43 MPG
tank before that- 34.86 MPG

 

Think about it. THey get one brand new with no miles like we do. They test for ACCELERATION AND BRAKING. hard use somewhat i would imagine, on a new engine. I can not get that low no matter how hard i try unless i drill a hole in the gas tank maybe. I am at 7500 and average around 39 to 30 mpg on average..

 

Oh wait!! The (CR) tester was an xb1 owner.

Now those figures make perfect sense to me.

 

CR must be smoking crack. 16 mpg? My BLAZER got better mileage than that. Maybe they were towing a f**king horse trailer when they did the test.

"The new 'xB' gets 1.2 miles to the gallon and weighs 50,000 pounds. Our tester ran the 0-60 in 35 minutes, clearly delayed when the car veered violently toward the sidewalk in order to run over a puppy. An orphan puppy. "

Even 25 mpg is good mileage for other vehicles in the xb2's class.

 

This is exactly what the EPA tests are. The EPA tests are VERY tightly controlled, scientific measurements performed by a government agency; they control every variable imaginable and all possibility of "human error" is removed from the equation. CR performs cheap knock-offs of the EPA tests.

 

I'm not sure why you'd characterize them as "cheap" -- do you know something specific about their equipment or methodology that would justify such a label?

And I'm not sure who's copying who, here; CU has always done calibrated, repeatable real-world testing. The EPA just started using more realistic (still far from"real world" however) methods this year.

Also, EPA tests are NOT performed by a government agency. They are performed by the manufacturers using government-mandated methodology. This makes it doubly-important to have and independent, non-affiliated organization like CU doing its own tests.

 

On the subject of testing, we are both right:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

The EPA has been doing testing since the early 70s, and the tests are done in a completely controlled lab environment. The epa does 5 tests, explained here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

As for the CR tests, I am not as familiar with them, but I do not think they are as well controlled as the EPA tests, and I am pretty sure they only have one cycle, not 5.

The big difference between the tests is probably the amount of heavy throttle in each number. CR prolly uses more throttle for longer periods than the EPA tests, and that is what causes a larger gap in fuel economy. Basically, the bigger engine uses a lot more fuel than the old 1.5, but this is mitigated by the fact that it does not have to use as much throttle to get the same accel. When you start driving faster/more aggressively, the thirsty nature of the 2.4 and the additional mass shows through. For example, driving responsibly on a given route, the old xB would get 33 and the new xB would get 30. (these numbers are hypothetical) Say this route is your commute to work, and one day you are running late and drive like a total jackass. You might manage 26 in the old xB but only 20 in the 2008.

 

First, let me repeat that the EPA does not do the testing. The manufacturers do, using the EPA methodology (and the EPA then double-checks 10-15% of the results, according to the site you linked).

Second, let me again repeat that the point here is not to compare EPA results with CU results.

The point is to compare CU results to other CU results. For example, no pre-2008 xB was ever tested using the new EPA method, so comparing EPA '08 results with EPA '05 results is just guesswork. *

But CU tested the 08 xB and the 05 xB using exactly the same methods, the same methods they use for every vehicle they test. These are a mix of road, test track, and lab tests. So you can reliably compare the results of an 08xB with an 05xB or an 04 Civic or whatever cars CU has tested, large or small.

This does not mean you will get the same efficiency CU got, obviously. It just means that the two cars got the stated results when subjected to the same tests.

Gen1 owners had the same reaction to CU's tests that xB2 orners are having: "their results are whack, my car is much [faster, more efficient, more comfortable, less noisy, whatever] than they said."

That's the sound of the point being missed. They're comparing cars to each other using common testing metrics, in order to determine relative performance.

They are not comparing their cars to our cars, or their driving techniques to our driving techniques, or their MPG results to the EPA's.

Bottom line: if CU's tests show that a given car's overall MPG is, say, 20% lower than another's, then it probably will be. A careful driver will probably get better numbers, and a leadfoot will probably get worse, but the relative efficiency of the two vehicles with the same driver under the same conditions will remain similar. That is the information the test is designed to yield.

*Yes, I know the EPA posted numbers estimating what older cars would have achieved in the revised test. Key word: estimate. They did not re-test the old cars. They just reduced the old results by a sliding percentage scale based on size, weight, and engine displacement. IOW, guesswork. CU's data through the years, on the other hand, is based on consistent and repeatable testing

 

What city is that? I didn't think there were any cities in Tennessee!


Seriously, this points out why objective and repeatable testing is so important. When I think of "city driving" I assume a 6-lane wide parking lot sometimes known as I95 where you're lucky to go a mile in a half-hour, or gridlocked city streets where you routinely wait six lights just to make a left turn. I couldn't get 26MPG on a bicycle in traffic like that.

Other people mean other things by the same term.

What CU means when that say it is irrelevant. All that matters is that they mean the same thing every time they test a car, year after year. They're not comparing their xB to your xB, or their driving to your driving. They're eliminating the variables and comparing cars to other cars.

 

I have in my hot little hands Consumer Reports "08" ratings magazine & on pg. 11 CR tells us how they test cars. It states in part "Each CR vehicle is typically driven for thousands of miles over several months" Then 50 individual tests and evaluations on a 327 acre auto test center. Tests on that center are designed by CR's auto engineers. Much of their testing is on real roads with cars they themselves purchased. Up to this point fine. But where is CR located? they let testers take these cars for long drives in cities and on highways otside of the test facility. What is the driving like there? Hills, wind, bumps, smooth, signals, roadwork, etc.? We, consumers who care, try to baby our cars if we care about mpg. These people just drive. Quick starts, hard brakes. People like us are the best source for reliable gas testimony. Some report quite good. Listen to people in this forum and compare. This is a whole lot better than anyones printed page. I congratulate us!

 

Yes, each vehicle is driven for thousands of miles over several months. That is NOT the gas mileage test.

The gas mileage testing is done in three parts, a city course, a highway course and a 150 mile trip. Each of those tests is done in the exact same way for every car they test. They are scientific, controlled, repeatable tests.

As the old saying goes, "Your mileage may vary". An individual can get a different result (better or worse) than CR.

Where CR is useful is when you are cross shopping several different cars and you want to see how they perform relative to each other.

rdclark put it best: