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?
The worst I’ve ever experienced was my father’s early ’70s Ford F-350 Camper Special. I think it had a 460 in it, and it got 6 mpg whether you were taking it across town to the grocery store, going down the highway at 55 mph, or pulling a heavy load. We never tried pulling a full size camper down the highway, but that probably would have been even worse. (Very effective, if gas hungry. It “died” when someone stole the radiator out of it.)
Best was a 2009 Honda Fit. Rated for 33 mpg, but I got above 50 on some tanks, and once or twice touched 53-54.
Similar to your Honda Fit, I have a 2009 Scion xD. It’s rated for 27mpg in town, 33 on the highway. I get 38 on the interstate if I actually follow the speed limit. In town? If you baby it you can get 42mpg. The only way you’re getting 27mpg is if you’re beating it like a horse that killed your entire family and stole your wife.
My 66 Dodge A100 Sportsman van has a 225 slant six with a manual three speed. It was getting 8-9 mpg. I could go about 120 miles. I finally figured out it was the vacuum advance diaphragm. Mileage improved to about 15 (not great, but much better) and performance was way better.
My 2022 Bronco Sport. Considering it’s a box and I don’t drive with a light foot and I throw it down the road at the maximum velocity I think I can while still avoiding a ticket, I remain impressed that it returns an indicated 28 mpg +/-. It’s got the 1.5 I3 Ecoboost with an 8 speed transmission.
Some people say the OEM fuel economy read out is wrong but I question if it is. These new cars have telemetry capabilities that are pretty accurate. And the EFI systems are super precise. You can’t convince me that the ECU doesn’t know whow far it’s moved or exactly how much fuel it’s passed through the injection system for every run cycle it has. And it can definitely track time running. It has to be able to accurately calculate the true fuel consumption rate. There’s probably an article in this line of thought.
Best: 50mpg out of my GT86. It’s takes some effort, but nothing your passenger would notice. It’s more fun to thrash it but even then I’m averaging 36mpg. I never bothered doing the numbers on my Citroen AX GT, but I used to fill it up six times a year. The Diesel version could do 100mpg.
Worst: the 2CV was rubbish, and so was the MX5, and my RX7 with the 160bhp Wankel. All used a lot of fuel to very little effect. But the worst by far was the S12 Nissan Silvia Turbo. It had a welded diff which never helps, but it still got a catastrophic 12mpg.
All of that is in imperial gallons, I’m not converting it.
I had a 1998 Honda Civic HX with the CVT transmission that has made me hate CVT transmissions forever. I think it was rated at ~35 mpg highway. When I took a specific non-interstate route to my office in VT, I would regularly get 42mpg.
My company was reimbursing me at ~$0.58/mile at the time, which worked in my favor.
On the other side, my Miata’s mileage is somewhere in the high teens. I swapped in a 6-speed but left the rear end from the 5-speed which results in some very short gearing. Good for acceleration, but not ideal for prolonged interstate use.
I got a ’98 Civic EX with a manual that I bought for 600$ and I am currently restoring the suspension, I look forward to finding out what mpg I get on the highway, and while flooring it.
Best – currently driving a ’14 MDX. I can squeeze out 28 mpg hwy if I don’t push things. Not bad for a tall, 3 row suv.
Worst – ’68 Caddy DeVille convertible that I had in high school. 8 mpg.
Helluva party-mobile though.
My old 2008 Kia Rondo with the 2.7 liter V6 was low 20’s at best. Typically about 21 even with a fairly heavy highway mix. I bought the car because I needed 3 rows of seating but didn’t want to feed a real SUV, but ended up with the same mileage without the benefits of 4wd and more towing/hauling capacity. Not one of my better buying decisions. Although it was generally reliable and very easy to drive with fantastic sightlines. Of course it looked dorky as hell but…
My 1999 Miata is pretty dismal for a light, tiny car with mid 20’s. I think the best I’ve ever seen was maybe 28 on a long highway slog (not recommended) up to New Hampshire. It’s the combination of short gearing and the 1.8 which was never a very efficient engine in any application.
My ‘92 MX5 got the same terrible fuel consumption after I put a turbo on it. So going much faster was basically compromise free.
It is weird that they are so inefficient. I guess that sports car efficiency at Mazda still uses RX7s as a bench mark.
I loved most things about the Suzuki SX4, but the fuel economy was pretty terrible for a tiny hatch. Rated 23/29, I averaged around 24, which while within the range, still sort of sucked for a small hatch, even considering the AWD and relative heft of the car. Those tall proportions gave it brick-like aero, I’m sure.
Still a great car though.
As for thirst it has to be the ’08 PT cruiser I bought for my daughter. Wheezy 4 banger automatic maybe got 24 on its best day and around town with ac running 18. It’s not like there was much performance to go with the mileage. The surprising best is the ’04 LaSabre I inherited from my dad. It was a Florida car so I drove it back up the east coast and got around 30 mpg doing it all in a big floaty boat.
My 911, despite a smaller engine, lower coefficient of drag, lighter weight, narrower tires, long-ish gear ratios and ten year newer engine controls, at best was slightly better in mixed driving and 1-2mpg worse on the highway than my Corvette (which had a larger fuel tank and also happily ran on regular). And as I spent the last six months looking to move on from my Corvette, one thing that kept coming up to me is how much of a massive hit I would have to take in fuel economy for literally any similar car from a European brand vs just buying another (newer) Corvette. I ultimately decided to do so *anyway*, but it did strike me as ridiculous that all of (for example) the Mercedes rough equivalents (the SLK55 most notably) had such putrid fuel mileage even after switching to the 7Gtronic.
Luckily the Elise gets 29mpg no matter how you drive it.
My 04 STi. 16mpg!
I had a 1995 Miata and a 2005 WRX. They both averaged about 23 mpg, despite the Miata weighing about 1,000 lbs less and making less than half the power.
One specific road trip comes to mind: Colorado in 2015 with my 2013 Fiesta. It averaged 63mpg round trip. Cruise was set between 75 and 85 most of the way.
I’d calculated how much money I thought I’d spend on gas, figuring it around the 39 it was getting. I kept all the receipts because it was the first long trip it was going on and I was curious how it would do. I thought I’d done the math wrong or lost a reciept, but I hadn’t. Sadly that was the only time it pulled anywhere close to that. It got me 42 going to Phoenix the next year. It never did better than 42 again.
Worst: Any time I put my AWD turbo Mazda 3 in M. I swear I can watch the gas gauge go down when I put my foot in it and it only gets 10 MPG on the way to work that way. It does a much more reasonable 31 in D.
I was constantly surprised by my 2012 BMW 335i. I would get 42MPG on road trips. A pretty substantial increase on the 32 MPG EPA highway estimate. Granted, this was CC set, and no spirited driving, but I would set the CC to 77 when outside of cities, so I wasn’t hypermileing.
Best: My 1994 Buick Regal. With overdrive, I swore I averaged 35 mpg on the highway. Man, I still miss that car.
Worst: My 1972 Buick GS 455. It was already a thirsty sonofabitch when it was built, but some owner before me modified it for racing, which dropped the mileage down to 8 mpg. Oh, and that was the first model year that engines had to use unleaded gas, so I had to fill it up with 91 octane or better. Thank God I was driving it when gas prices were at a historic low. I still miss that car, too, but for different reasons.
In 1996, my high school girlfriend had a ’94 Regal. It was a GS. I really loved it, probably more than her.
My Altima. It gets like 23-24mpg highway and it’s just a 2.4 and it’s kind of slow. Probably becuase it doesn’t have the Jatco Xtronic CVT to help boost its efficiency and power delivery! Ugh.
You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
Really?
I find him constantly variable.
You, YOU own an Altima unblessed with the holiest grail of transmissions?
Heretic!!
Unfortunately, I am deprived of a true driving experience every day. Maybe some day I’ll get that Xtronic….
Best: 2014 Mazda 6. It kinda blew me away really. It was the biggest car I ever owned, but somehow was also easily the most fuel efficient (I tracked every tank of gas in a spreadsheet for nearly 20 years). In the best case scenarios – long road trips that stay in the 90 km/h range – I easily crested 40 mpg. At it’s worst, I’d get a bit over 30 mpg in winter. It’s not like I had all big engined cars before either, I’ve only owned one V6 and no V8’s, so it was better than all the 4-cyl cars I owned.
Worst was the V6. Nissan Pathfinder with the 3.5 V6. I loved that truck, but for reasons, I bought it at a point in life when I couldn’t afford the gas. It needed premium, and I still have bad memories of the $400 – $500 I’d spend each month on gas…and that was back when gas was $0.70 per litre.
My 2016 Mazda6 does the same. Upwards of 40 MPG on the highway when we take it on long trips – even when its loaded down with us and the kids and luggage.
It’s absolutely a car that doesn’t get enough love. Great to drive, great interior, super reliable and great mileage. I kinda miss mine.
Current car is a 2023 Kia Rio 5 door. Window sticker says 32 city and 41 highway, mostly because it has a sport button that I do not press. I have gotten 40 in the city taking it easy and am getting 35 in the winter in the city on snow tires not taking it easy. Best tank ever was 52 mpg. It is a 1.6 L with no turbo, so it is really good at rural country roads where you can go 55 miles per hour with no stop signs and get 55 mpg.
Past car would be a 1995 Toyota Celica GT with a 5spd manual. I had this 15 years ago and it had a piggyback ecu to run ethanol. Got terrible mileage flooring it every gear in the city, but got good highway mileage at 80 mph with E85.
Wonder if people know to what extent the average fuel economy readout on the gauge cluster is estimated, typically with 3-5+% optimism as a target. Since it’s calculated by dividing miles (easy for the vehicle to know precisely) by gallons of fuel (not so easy to get super precise). Total fuel usage is estimated by the engine computer assuming it knows how much fuel got through each injector each time, then adding it all together. Difficult to be perfect on. Calibrating it is something that requires testing and work by the OEM. Most OEMs end up with avg fuel economies many percent optimistic because they reallllly don’t want to show a number that’s incorrect on the pessimistic side.
My 350z is getting 13 mpg right now. V8 mpg, but two less cylinders! It probably doesn’t help that I’m lead-footed and let it warm up a long time in the mornings.
Best: 2017 Honda Fit 6MT. It was rated for 29/36/32 and I averaged 38.5 mpg over 40k miles. Such a great little car.
Worst: 2016 Mazda3 Hatch 6MT. Rated for 29/39/32 and it got 34.4. Boo hoo, right? I did pretty much all freeway and never saw anything remotely close to 39, which after the Fit, was a bummer.
My 2003 Mazda B2300 should have gotten 26 mpg highway and that’s probably pretty accurate. I did manage 30 mpg over 300 miles from Madison to Minneapolis once. That was accomplished by drafting a big rig at 65 mph pretty much the entire way.
Two better-than-expected:
84 Camaro, 305, carb, 700R4. 26 mpg on the highway, which matched or beat a lot of smaller cars of the era.
06 Silverado, 4.8. 22 mpg on the highway, which matched our Sienna of the same year.
Worse-than-expected: also 06 Silverado, with a trailer and a headwind. I was probably towing too much for the gearing, so 2nd gear and 6-7 mpg. Ouch.
Worst: 2012 Acadia, suburban driving, it got 7-8 mpg.
Best: 2023 Sierra 1500 with the 2.7: 25+ mpg on the highway doing 70-75.
I’ll throw in my Volt: 45-50 mpg on hybrid.
Best ever one off: Fully loaded 1995 Cavalier. Montreal-Brampton and a good ways back. Math says 35+ mpg
Worst one off: Towing with the Sierra into a steady 60km/h wind. The computer won’t display anything worse than 39.9l/100km / 6 mpg. Spoiler: it was worse.
The 2002 BMW e39 M5. It could manage a great 26 on the highway and I once managed to hypermile a tank for over 400 miles at over 30 mpg.
My 62 Austin Healey Sprite also gets great fuel mileage, mid 20s literally hooning it everywhere with constant flat out acceleration after almost every stop. Darn impressive for an ancient car with a very hot tuned dual SU carbed engine. It will get over 30 mpg if you respect it.
In a lot of cars, fuel mileage is dictated by driving style. When you have a car that, no matter how hard you drive it, gets good mileage then you have something truly efficient. I’m not nearly as impressed by people bragging about 50 mpg when achieving it required painstaking effort.