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?
Best mileage I ever got was with a 1986 Honda CRX HF. I understand it was purpose built and about as basic as could be, but I was still surprised to get well over 50 MPG on a road trip. Worst was a 1978 Jeep Cherokee Chief with a 401 and 4 barrel. You could literally watch the gas gauge move when you put the pedal down. Mileage was in the single digits if you weren’t gentle.
I have a 2003 VW Eurovan Weekender. It has the VR6. It requires premium and gets about 14mpg. Ugh. Who knew a fairly compact van could weigh so darn much.
Many GM cars with the 3800 series V6 have surprised me with their mpgs, which can be in the mid 30’s.
How about a configuration that some how increased gas millage when it shouldn’t have? Between 2 Nissan Frontiers a 2007 and 2015 with 2 14’+ kayaks on the roof I got an increase of 2 MPG’s.
Not only close to 180 pounds of plastic on the roof add in a few hundred of pounds of fishing and paddling gear I’d go from the 15’s to 17’s in overall MPG. Over the 17 years of ownership and 400,000 plus miles combine over the 2 trucks from April to October they were probably on the roof 90% of the time.
This pass summer went with a 2.0 Maverick,and sadly efficiency goes way down with the kayaks, 32 to 27-28 on the highway & overall from 26 to 23, so now I unload between trips.
Place I worked at in late 80s had a Ford F150 with std v8 w/ a ‘variable venturi’ carburetor or some sort. It would always get better mileage towing construction equipment than when empty.
Reminded me I sometimes towed a small 3 kayak trailer fitted with all the gear to get Veterans out on the water for a charity I volunteer with called Heroes On The Water NJ Chapter estimated it weighed 1,500 pounds didn’t bother the Frontier’s mileage, have yet to tow with the Maverick but I do have the 4k package and a brake controller LOL
I have the Maverick’s cousin, Escape w/ 2.0. Occasionally pull a small utility trailer w/ side boards a couple hrs away. Almost no weight, but it scrubs several mpg’s off norm, running 78mph on hilly interstate. Guess the wind drag messes up the aerodynamics.
Also have traveled with one of those foldable ladders I strap to a receiver mounted bike rack..no trailer, but almost same result, but not as much. Guess Escape is very sensitive to additional wind drag…more boost needed?
I once had a 1997 Ford Contour 4cyl manual. That thing regularly got mid to high 30s highway mpg. On the other end of the spectrum was our 2021 Ford Explorer ST which struggled to maintain 20mpg in mixed driving.
Bad: 2003 Dodge Dakota with the 5.9L V8 – a compact truck that got 12mpg. After the first tank of gas, I looked all over for a fuel leak because it seemed like it was just pouring gas out on the road.
Good: 2000 Corvette. Close to 30mpg on the highway.
Nissan Juke. A small car with a 1.6l turbo 4, AWD that can be manually disabled, and a CVT would seem like a formula for efficiency but the aerodynamics and weight were a huge letdown.
I frequently drive from northern to southern UT, and am often met with a persistent breeze blowing out of the south. My Juke would struggle to maintain 17 MPG in these conditions (it could eke out 22 on the return trip). I probably shouldn’t have been surprised – the wind, 80 MPH speed limit, and handfull of mountain passes meant that little mill was always in the boost and spinning at an alarmingly high rate.
I eventually traded it in on a Ram 1500 with the 5.7 Hemi, which averages 16 MPG on the same southbound trip, and has seen as high as 24 on the return (tho it’s usually closer to 20).
Surprisingly nice in my 2017 ‘GT if I start off in 2nd or 3rd gear (yes 3rd believe it or not.. it has 3.73 ratio gearing) and skip gears. I do that for a few days, accrue good fuel economy.. but then 1st gear calls my name and ruins any progress I made fuel-wise.
I can say without a doubt the 304V8 Scout 2 gets the worst gas mileage than any small displacement, 2 barrel, manual trans vehicle has a right to get. 10MPG is the norm.
I will Say, I have a 392 CHallenger with a stick that gets way better gas mileage than I really expected. I have hit 24 MPG on a trip to the midwest going 80 mph with the AC on.
the one that I recall as a kid being the most surprising though was a Carb optioned 1987 Camaro with a 305. It was not terribly fast, but for whatever reasons the 700R4 and that spread bore carb managed to get 25-28 MPG on a trip to Minneapolis in the winter. that was surprising as it really only ever got 20-25 otherwise.
My ’08 Mustang gets mid-20s MPG which isn’t bad for an old 4.6 with a bunch of bolt-on stuff. It actually gets about the same MPG as my daily WRX.
The best economy car I’ve ever owned was my 2010 Genesis Coupe.
One trip in particular that really flexed it’s fuel sipping was a trip from Ottawa to Toronto & back.
4 dudes (averaging out to about 220lbs each), every bit of luggage we could cram into it (including the rear window shelf), traveling at EXTRA legal speeds (at some points SUPER DUPER legal speeds).
806km (500miles) on 62.5L (17ish gal), for a grand total of 7.7L/100km (30mpg).
I did at least a dozen road trips in that car, and it consistently delivered around 30mpg. Not bad for a sports coupe with a 3.909 rear end.
My 2018 F150 was also a fuel sipper for what it was pushing
(Crew cab, 4×4, 6.5′ bed, FX4 package, 3.55 rear end, and a leveling kit the dealer left installed but didn’t charge me for)
I could get it as low as 10.2L/100km on trips. Combined with the 137L fuel capacity, it was nothing to do 9 hours non stop before refueling.
By comparison, my 2016 V6 Sorento has only ever beaten the trucks best by a litre per 100. Did I ever mention I hate my sorento?
What powertrain is in your F150? 5.0 ‘yote? 3.5T or 2.7T?
Asking for a friend… Thanks!
Totally forgot! 3.5 ecoboost with the 10speed.
I miss that truck and will forever regret trading it for the sorento.
My 13 BMW 320i could top 44mpg on the highway if I kept it on cruise at 80, which was really impressive. The rest of the car, not so impressive.
Our 2025 Pilot gets 27 on the highway (I check most fill ups) which I’m very happy with.
Also I just googled it and apparently that is what they’re rated at so I guess not that big a deal… Still seems darn good for a large awd crossover with no hybrid stuffs
The Honda Ridgeline could get better gas mileage, for sure. It gets more or less the same mileage as the traditional midsize trucks, which in turn, don’t really get much better mileage than their equivocal full sized trucks. I mange low/mid 20s on the highway and mid/high teens in the city.
I want to like the Ridgeline, but it doesn’t make up for the tradeoffs it has.
As you said, more or less the same mileage as traditional midsize trucks, and I’ve heard the handling isn’t much of an improvement over them either. Factor in the lower towing capacity and higher price and it’s not the reasonable alternative it’s touted as.
I can confirm that it handles and rides noticably better than the competition – at least when I was doing test drives. The Canyon felt practically agricultural by comparison. I didn’t drive a Ranger, but the Taco and Gladiator were even less competitive.
Interior space is also nicer than the other midsize trucks with better storage. The 5000 lb tow rating can be a bit of a hindrance, but it’s enough for anything I’ve wanted to tow over the past 3+ years.
Glad to hear that then. I do think there’s a market for the Ridgeline, and I see enough of them they must be doing something right, but I just couldn’t wrap my head around the other specs.
Traditional mid-size trucks are quickly becoming too bloated outside without any noticeable interior room improvements. Not that I want the mid-size trucks to keep getting larger at all, but if they’re going to make the outside almost as large as what full size trucks were at two decades ago, they might as well give some legroom.
Surprisingly bad: My current daily driver, a 2005 Lexus RX 330 with 230K miles on the 3.3 V6. Currently getting 9.8mpg. It is also failing in every way possible. Thank goodness my drive to work is only a couple of miles.
Surprisingly good: My 1992 Lincoln Town Car Cartier Edition. I could get over 30mpg on the highway if I was gentle with the throttle, especially with light traffic. It was an effortless highway cruiser. It was my second car and replaced the honorable mention below.
Honorable mention: My 1994 Mitsubishi Eclipse. I’d regularly see 40mpg or so. It had the 1.8, a manual, no A/C, no power steering, manual everything inside, and just an AM/FM tuner. It gets honorable mention status because a light weight Japanese car with no options should get great mileage. It was lovely only filling up the little tank once a month in high school.
I’ve heard consistently from people that the aerodyne years of the panther platform had tall rear end gearing and sipped fuel on the highway. Especially the town cars and marquis.
our 2013 3.7 Grand Cherokee is rated at 22 highway. We regularly exceed that, and got as high as 27.5 on a trip from Eastern PA to Watertown NY. I only mentioned that because it’s not exactly flat between those two points.
On the flipside, our 2008 3.8 GC regularly gets excactly what the EPA rating is (17/20), and not one MPG more. It’s not a car that likes to roll, if you know what I mean…you kind of have to keep feeding it.
2022 Colorado ZR2 diesel. I tend to average 21-23mpg in everyday commuting. Road trips it’ll be anywhere from 23 to almost 30mpg, depending on speed and headwinds. Best I’ve seen for a 50 mile average is a bit over 33mpg on a flat road with a nice tailwind.
Of course, it’s a brick so once I try to push it above 70mph the fuel economy drops pretty fast. Worse I’ve had was with a kayak on the bed rack, decent headwind pushing 75mph+ gave me 17-18mpg.
My Camaro was pretty dang good on fuel, easily over 20 on the freeway. 6mpg after 3 sessions on the track, though.
Love that diesel. Had a 16 Canyon with it and I could get 33mpg highway out of it without too much effort. Of course I had the air dam on the front since it wasn’t a ZR2.
The front bumper, 3″ wider body and 285/70 (non-stock) tires put a pretty hit on the mileage. I’m still getting over the EPA rating for the ZR2 but I also drive pretty tame on the road.
Both of the vehicles I ever owned always got worse MPG then I thought they should. Dakota was rated at 14/18, Compass at 21/27. Best I ever got with the Dakota was 17, & 24 in the Compass. 17 was the Dakota’s standard for anything out of city speeds, and 24 only happened once, on an 8-hour drive to Virigina. Otherwise, no matter what I do, the Compass manages at best 21mpg, whether it’s at 73mph or 60.
Rented a car in central PA and got a free upgrade to a Mustang GT. Sad part was the 55mph speed limits on every road, and speed traps everywhere. I averaged 32mpg
Not that 16-17mpg is anything to crow about, but I’ve been absolutely shocked about the degree to which my ’05 Escalade ESV (6.0 AWD) gets better mileage than the ’03 Suburban (5.3 2WD) that preceded it. Granted, the Cadillac has more than 100k fewer miles on it at this point, but my assumption is that the torquier 6.0 just isn’t working as hard as the 5.3 was.
My 2003 Honda element (yes it’s as aerodynamic as a brick with a smaller brick on top) gets about 18mpg around town. My 1968 cortina gt got about 24mpg in nice weather, when it was raining the mileage went into the high 30’s I guess it was optimized for English weather
My tuned 2013 Chevy Sonic LT was advertised to get 38 Highway, 28 city. I regularly got mid 40s out of it on my 550 miles of weekly commute.
It was definitely the tune, as back then my life was so dull I had a spreadsheet to track mileage for each fill up, and I saw a 5 or 6 MPG improvement after turning the boost up by 10 lbs.
Sometimes more power can increase economy when it hits that sweet spot of efficiency.
It’s why I plan to upgrade my injection pump and turbo on my ’86 diesel Mercedes.
Apparently between getting up to speed quicker, and the fact that the larger elements can inject more fuel in a shorter window, you can get a more complete burn. So you get a 3 fold increase in power, AND better economy while cruising.
Yeah I once had a conversation with my Ex-Father in law, about his new V8 Monterro getting better gas mileage than his V6 Ranger, on paper it should have been worse, but in practice he didn’t have to tax the larger engine as hard to do his daily driving. It wasn’t a huge difference, but it was noticeable.
This is why the early 2000’s Vettes and even camaro’s do surprisingly well. over powered, sure, but not so overpowered the motors suffer just to run at lowered speeds. lots of torques so no real struggle to get off the light. and the relative weight due to reduced safety equipment compared to the stuff today.
It helps that the C5 and up are pretty slippery cars from a drag coefficient standpoint.
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.