Fuel economy, ugh. It’s the most unsexy of all the car-number-things to care about, but since miles per gallon is really dollars per mile, we generally care a lot – especially when it comes to a daily driver. Thankfully, the government is pretty good about enforcing legislation that ensures manufacturers don’t give us numbers that are overly optimistic, and with a couple of miles wiggle-room per gallon depending on your lead or helium foot, most cars tend to deliver the efficiency claimed on the window sticker.
However, some cars may deliver significantly different results than the expected mpg numbers, if only based on the sample-of-one survey data generated by you or I and our individual test examples. Hopefully any discrepancies you’ve experienced were on the greater efficiency side of the fuel gauge, but these things can very much go either way.
Spacer
As for me, the car that surprised me the most, and pleasantly, was my Mustang GT. It’s the one genuinely high-performance car I’ve owned, which I purchased new in 2012 when the lure of the then-new Coyote V8 and its 412 horsepower (not to mention X-Plan pricing via my employer at the time) proved too much to resist. The official EPA fuel economy numbers were 17 city, 26 highway, and 20 mpg combined, but I was surprised to discover the GT could manage darn near 30mpg when my travels called for a long stretch of flat and straight driving across Texas, perhaps with a tailwind. As for my daily commute, well, I wasn’t exactly easy on the gas and so the Mustang wasn’t either, and I was happy if I got 15 miles out of a gallon. But hey, that was on me.
When it comes to gas guzzlers, I’d have to say the Jeep J10 Thriftside I drove in high school was probably the most surprisingly thirsty. Not that I (or my Dad, to whom it belonged) expected it to be some kind of economy machine, but the mere nine or ten miles its AMC 258ci inline-six managed to eke out of a gallon of gas seemed super low. I’m sure the truck’s short gearing (it sure felt short, anyway) and the extra rotating mass of the 4X4 system adding to the oomph required for each acceleration took a toll, and let’s not get started on aerodynamics, but man, that truck liked to drink.
Now it’s your turn: what car or truck have you owned that got way better (or worse) fuel economy than it should have?
I have a 2011 mustang gt and agree the highway economy is pretty good, and I have a 3.73 rear end. Barely turns 2000 rpm on the highway which helps for sure. Cottage trips I can get it under 10l/100km.
My tiny 1974 Fiat X1/9 has always gotten low 20’s mileage; my 2014 Boxster averages around 30 with 4 times the horsepower and 55% more weight.
2002 Trans Am. I regularly got close to 30 when cruising, and even around town it was almost always over 20.
Ah had forgotten my ’88 trans am until I saw your comment! With older tech mine still managed to hit an impressive for its time 24 on the highway though I only got around 14 in daily commuting.
Yeah every SBC I’ve been around did surprisingly well in cars. Not so much in the trucks but it makes sense, I think mine was at all of like 1800 rpms at 80
I assume your TA had the 6 speed? But agreed it’s kinda shocking the difference between the v8 cars and trucks.
Unfortunately no, it was the stupid 4 speed auto. But man it was geared high. Second went to like 90, and third was 120 or so.
2013 Chevy Cruze, 1.8, manual. . .epa 25-35. Averaged 37-38. Best tank was 42.
20.0 MPG out of my medium roof Transit 350 on a 600 mile parts run from Forgottonia to Atlanta. Yeah, my buddies all called me a liar too.
A relative made it from where they were in Maryland up to PA on a single tank in a Transit U-Haul, albeit low-roof short wheelbase model. Had nothing but good things to say about it.
03 wrx got the same mpg as the 93 explorer, but premium required.
30mpg of 05 legacy gt was outstanding. Really liked being fully warm. So a day long highway crawl or city use got that mpg, expect f all if starting it and shutting it off slightly after.
Yah forgot the gt350 was rated at 20 highway
24mpg was my first trip. 23mpg the 2nd.
Virtually all Subarus, especially WRX and variants that have the fuel economy of a V6 but are only 4 cylinders. Also Miatas. All these cars should manage the mpg of the base Honda Accord with 192 hp and mpg of high 20s city to 40+ highway.
I always had really good mileage on my 2012 WRX. Averaged 27mpg of largely city driving when living in the suburbs. That dropped to 24-25 of mostly city driving when moving to a more urban area. I didn’t drive like a grandma but typically also not like a typical WRX bro either.
Wife’s 19 Crosstrek consistently get 29-30 around town, but never topped 34 on interstate (she usually running 80ish).
My 1990 Pontiac Sunbird averaged 34-35 MPG on the way to Detroit from my home in western Kentucky for RADwood last September. It is not known to do nowhere near that well as a 3-speed automatic car with a 2.0 4-cylinder making a whopping 96 horsepower. Especially with cruising speeds north of 70 MPH.
But, it was running lean thanks to a flaky oxygen sensor at the time (“check engine” light coming and going when it felt like it). That was the contributing factor. Said oxygen sensor has since been replaced.
I had a succession of Jetta TDI wagons through the last decade and they all did, at worst EPA numbers. Usually they did quite a bit better than that.
Managed to hit 50mpg on a whole tank once, but it was medium speed driving through mountain roads which was probably a best case scenario for mileage.
Every car I have owned has been lucky to average its EPA city ratings over the course of its life. Living in the city is not good for fuel economy.
Get a plug in hybrid. Those thrive in city driving.
I’m waiting for an enthusiast oriented one that isn’t a German luxury car. If Toyota would bring the Crown Sport over here I’d buy one tomorrow.
I’m not going to blame any of my vehicles for getting worse-than-expected mileage: it was my fault for ignoring f=ma. Newton is a strict motherscratcher.
But dropping the hammer on a 500hp supercharged V-8 and shoving 5000+lb of vehicle with authority was totally worth it, even if it did mean 11-12mpg around town. Which it did. Oh, well.
I’ve been wondering how many of the responses here can be attributed to manual transmissions and how they were being used.
I find manual cars in general get better fuel economy than the EPA numbers suggest if they are driven efficiently.
But the biggest gap for me was with my 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser.
It was EPA rated for 22 mpg combined.
My average fuel economy was 28.9 mpg (US gallons) over the 2.5 years I owned it which included some winter driving in snow… over 30% better than the government-rated numbers.
The manual PT’s EPA fuel economy numbers were seriously sandbagged.
My Fiat 500 Abarth averaged 33 mpg but if I didn’t romp on it I could get up to 40
My Elantra N Line averaged around 34-35 mpg but could get 42 mpg sometimes.
Usually it depended on what time of the year. The joys of switching between summer and winter fuels.
YMMV!
Our 2011 330e xDrive gets both way better and way worse fuel economy than it should. It’s rated at 33pmg highway, but we get more like 42-44 when we’ve taken it on long trips. But the all-electric economy is pretty horrible, getting like 2-2.5 miles per kw. And range in the winter drops to like 9-10 miles vs more like 18-19 in the summer. For comparison, I could get 4 miles per kw pretty frequently in my 2014 Volt and could get 40 miles before running the gas engine. The 330e is a lot more fun to drive than the Volt though, and can do 0-60 in 5 seconds according to some tests. BMW definitely underrated it at certain things to make it equal to the 330i.
While I didn’t track my mileage when I was younger, I never had any complaints about mileage even beating the hell out of cars. All manuals I’ve had easily beat EPA’s highway on a combined cycle with Boston traffic and Italian tuneups when it opens up. Of particular note, my ’16 Focus ST averaged around 29 mpg lifetime in a combined cycle dealing with Boston highway traffic (same as my ’06 Mazda3 2.3 with about 100 less hp) and my GR86 gets around 31 with slightly less traffic conditions. Highway alone, it could probably hit 36, but best I got was 34. I’m getting around 29 now on winter fuel and snow tires, but that’s with taller sidewalls increasing gearing by about 7%. All numbers calculated at fill ups.
My 1978 VW Rabbit 4speed manual with fuel injection got 33 mpg city/highway/traffic/rural whatever never better never worse.
My 2006 Jeep Commander got 8-12 mpg. My Wrangler gets 50% better.
My Mercedes-Benz CLK350 routinely gets better highway mileage than the EPA estimated 25mpg. I can get 27-28 all day long at speeds up to 80mph – top up or top down.
The 89 Mercury Tracer 5-speed was also a mileage champ. I could get mid 30’s on the highway easy.
On the other hand – the ’97 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab 2.3 5 speed – always lower mileage than estimated, whether it was City or Highway. Probably because I had to rev the hell out of it to make the thing go.
V6 gearing on a i4 was the terrible i found. Also the wieght of explorer parts on the extended cab i drove some. Nice to stop, bad leaving a stop sign.
Both of my 5th gen 4Runners have been bad. Like, shamefully bad. On a trip from Chicago to Portland Oregon, my old one was getting about 14-ish MPG on the highway through Montana. Add in some hills and it gets even worse. This would all be more acceptable if the things weren’t so goddamn slow. But… I don’t care because I fucking love 4Runners.
My G87 M2 gets pretty abysmal mileage too, but at least it’s fast. Plus, most of that is down to my driving, not necessarily because the car is inefficient. I mean, it is, but I’m not helping matters.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a car that got BETTER mileage than expected.
I could routinely squeeze 32-33 mpg tanks of gas out of a Buick LeSabre. Back when I was young and broke. Then I got a Cruze Eco and with some practice could get 50 mpg tanks.
My Tesla can really guzzle electrons under the right, er, wrong conditions. Cold, on snow tires, into a headwind and going fast with the heat cranked? 400 watt-hours per mile. That’s almost as bad as the 450-500 Wh/mi it uses in the summer towing my camper. In ideal conditions it can do 210 Wh/mi for my commute. That’s 4-5 months off…..
I came here to say Buick LeSabre exactly. On streets it was terrible, but on the highway I would cruise well into the mid-30 mpg range.
“but since miles per gallon is really dollars per gallon”
–is this meant to read “but since miles per gallon is really miles per dollar“?
anyways, I had a 2015 Forester XT, it got 18-20mpg combined on Premium when I owned it, which is about 5-7mpg off where it oughta be. I don’t think it was entertaining enough (CVT) to justify the extra I was spending.
My old Jaguar gets 17mpg… but it’s charming enough to get away with that kind of thirst.
Good lord. I’ve always been unimpressed by my brother’s 2010 Outback mileage, too. 22 from a wheezy 4 mated to a CVT that wakes up and moves with all the urgency of a teenager catching a 6:20 am bus to school.
4.44 auto takes no prisoners. Given 100kph in japan lines up too well with the old 55mph limit. So I expect the xt barely tolerated 55mph much less 75mph of modern interstates.
Thanks, correct, will fix!
2002 Saturn SC1, with a five-speed manual. Bought specifically for the fuel economy. Was supposed to be 30ish MPG around town, and damn near 40 on the highway, but it averaged more like 23-25 in mixed driving. Must have been something wrong with it, but I never could figure out what.
On the other end of the spectrum, I averaged 28.5 MPG driving across the country last summer in my 300 with the 5.7 liter Hemi, going 75 most of the way. Best tank was 31, though admittedly that was with a tailwind.
2004 Lexus IS300 Sportcross. I was lucky to see 27mpg with mostly freeway driving. It would drop to 18mpg with city driving.
All of them, lol, worse than advertised.
But the holy grail of fail was my first car, which in its defense was waaay out of tune, but an 86 cutlass supreme v6 was supposed to get something like 18/24 mpg.
I got SIX… six mpg, and it rolled “coal” when you floored it, so the gas gauge would go from f to e, then almost go back to f when you let off.
I had alot of people think it was a diesel.
Dude you had a burnt valve or some seriously wonky valve stems/guides.
Nope, just a waaaaay out of adjustment carb.
During the summer, a quick key flick with no pedal would start, and winter, required about 5 pumps and half held to the floor with a 5 min warmup or itd stall.
We’re all spoiled on fuel injection that starts right up in winter. How many times did I have to stick a screwdriver into the butterfly? Ugh.
Ohh, that was the best part, if it died while warming up in the cold, you got to take the air cleaner off and hold the choke wide open then itl restart, and redo the whole thing again.
Still miss that car
I don’t think my 98′ Mazda B4000 ever saw above 13 mpg. Way too underpowered to get that kind of mileage.
Uh, every Volkswagen I’ve ever owned got lousy MPG. My big Buick does better!