Mileage Moment of truth: We put 40 MPG Claims to the test

[silvrsvt]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/mileage-moment-of-truth-we-put-40-mpg-claims-to-the-test-6651300

 

Some interesting results, esp after all the MPG complaints vs the Elantra

 

[Noah Harbinger]

Huh, the Focus really falls behind the Elantra at 70MPH

 

But as they say, YMMV.

[RichardJensen]

Sigh. Popular Mechanics gets it wrong.

 

 

The EPA did more than just add air conditioning and 'correction factors' 2008.

 

 

I love professional writing, but it's getting so hard to find.

[RichardJensen]

OMG it gets worse.

 

This article is flat wrong. It's just flat out wrong about key facts.

 

The guy who wrote it obviously had no idea what the EPA website says (which is somewhat understandable), but he couldn't call up somebody at the EPA? Really?

 

There are 5 tests. Two of the tests are used to calculate the CAFE rating. The total length of time required to perform these tests, not counting changes in collection equipment, is well over an hour per vehicle.

[GTwannabe]

Sigh. Popular Mechanics gets it wrong.

 

 

The EPA did more than just add air conditioning and 'correction factors' 2008.

 

 

I love professional writing, but it's getting so hard to find.

 

Consumers were too stupid to realize that driving like a spastic jackass would prevent a vehicle from achieving its EPA-estimated fuel economy. So the EPA revised their testing to include spastic jackass driving (speeding, excessive idling/stop and go traffic, jackrabbit starts, heavy A/C usage, etc). I was always able to beat the old EPA ratings by 1-2mpg in normal driving.

[Edstock]

So the Hyundai gets better mileage at 70. The 1.6 EB should fix that.

 

The Focus is heavier. Down the road, the used market will appreciate that, IMHO. Small things like trunk hinges.

 

 

[jpd80]

Funny how they try to belittle the value of EPA sticker city/hwy mileage but hen go on

to agree that the tests are an accurate reflection of what can be expected...

 

But these two cars demonstrate that with very little behavior modification, 40 mpg is quite a realistic figure. Not only is it easy to achieve, it's easy to surpass, even under less than ideal conditions. If you choose a car with a high-economy claim and drive within reason, you should be able to match those window-sticker figures.

Read more: Mileage Moment of Truth - We Put 40 Mpg Claims to the Test - Popular Mechanics

Edited February 6, 2012 by jpd80

[Tboneguy]

Ouch, the Focus mileage drops 30% when moving along at true interstate speeds. I don't think I've ever had a car that dropped that much. In fact, I don't think I've had a car which couldn't meet the EPA Hwy figure when running 70, with one except, my 08 Edge....

[RichardJensen]

Ouch, the Focus mileage drops 30% when moving along at true interstate speeds.

Per one pseudoscientific test.

[MKII]

RJ a question concerning CAFE & OEM CAFE overall average.

Are CUV's classified in the truck segment as per CAFE vehicle classifications?

And if so would you know what the perimeters are from CAFE for a vehicle to considered part of the truck segment?

[RichardJensen]

Yes. CUVs are trucks, and AFAIK, the definition hinges on how the EPA determines what constitutes a wagon. I don't believe that a Fiesta hatchback constitutes a wagon and therefore a truck, but I do know that the short lived Dodge Magnum was classified as a truck.

 

Curiously, the chicken tax allows wagons to be classified as cars, thus to be exempt from the 25% levy on imported trucks.

[aneekr]

And if so would you know what the perimeters are from CAFE for a vehicle to considered part of the truck segment?

These are the NHTSA definitions for CAFE vehicle classification:

 

1) Passenger Car – any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting 10 people or less.

 

2) Truck – a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck); or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) transport more than 10 people; (2) provide temporary living quarters; (3) transport property in an open bed; (4) permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.

[SVT_MAN]

I'm honestly pretty surprised that the Focus gets that poor of mileage at 70. I know it isn't the same engine or transmission, but I'm AVERAGING right around 32 mpg in my Fusion .. during the winter in Wisconsin! When it was warmer out, I was near 33. Kind of disappointing that the Focus is that low - especially given the amount of passenger space a Focus gives up to a Fusion.

 

I actually looked at Focuses when I was looking to replace my 06 Fusion, and the deal breaker was the backseat. I'm a single male, but sometimes I drive my parents and brother places. That backseat is pretty lousy on the Focus, in my opinion anyway.

Edited February 7, 2012 by SVT_MAN

[Captainp4]

My experience in our superduty trucks has been a substanial drop in mileage over ~63-65mph, over 70 and it's right off a cliff. I think that with another gear or taller rear end gears they would do way better. I wonder if Ford gears their vehicles specifically for EPA testing to get the best mileage ratings possible, but in the real world where people drive faster than the speed limit the MPGs fall off a cliff.

[Noah Harbinger]

Per one pseudoscientific test.

 

I think most pseudoscientists would be offended to be associated with that test.

[aneekr]

I think most pseudoscientists would be offended to be associated with that test.

They, along with actual scientists, would be considerably more offended to be associated with the junk science promulgated by Consumer Watchdog.

[RichardJensen]

I'm honestly pretty surprised that the Focus gets that poor of mileage at 70.

It's one datapoint. You don't for instance, know what the Hyundai is getting at 75.

 

It's the equivalent of those scored comparisons where the scores are assigned on incredibly subjective measures such as "Fun to drive" and "Gotta Have".

 

What you have are the trappings of a scientific and objective measure, but no matching substance.

[fordmantpw]

My experience in our superduty trucks has been a substanial drop in mileage over ~63-65mph, over 70 and it's right off a cliff. I think that with another gear or taller rear end gears they would do way better. I wonder if Ford gears their vehicles specifically for EPA testing to get the best mileage ratings possible, but in the real world where people drive faster than the speed limit the MPGs fall off a cliff.

 

Ummm, the SD's are as aerodynamic as a house, so, yeah, it makes sense for fuel economy to drop off a cliff over 70, no matter what gears you use. You think it drops off a cliff empty above 70, try it with a fifth wheel behind you. Remember, SD's are built for towing, not so much getting good fuel economy cruising down the highway empty at 75 MPH.

[Captainp4]

No, really? They're still turning over 2k when they get over 70 and that is the point at which the turbo gets to doin it's thing on the diesels and fuel mileage really drops off. Not that they really have anything to do with each other, just thought maybe there might be some correlation, if others post up that their vehicles lose mileage over 70.

[fordmantpw]

No, really? They're still turning over 2k when they get over 70 and that is the point at which the turbo gets to doin it's thing on the diesels and fuel mileage really drops off. Not that they really have anything to do with each other, just thought maybe there might be some correlation, if others post up that their vehicles lose mileage over 70.

 

Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed, not linearly. So, once you reach a certain optimal speed (based on gearing, coefficient of drag, frontal area, etc), your fuel economy starts to drop. At first, it will drop slowly, but as you increase your speed more, fuel economy will drop faster than your speed increases.

 

Use this graph as an example. As your speed increases (goes along this horizontal line to the right), fuel economy drops faster (vertical portion of the parabolic graph).

 

 

 

 

[akirby]

In other words - it takes a lot more fuel to go from 65 to 70 than it does to go from 55 to 60.

[fordmantpw]

In other words - it takes a lot more fuel to go from 65 to 70 than it does to go from 55 to 60.

 

Yes, but that's not as pretty as a graph! :P

[akirby]

Yes, but that's not as pretty as a graph! :P

 

Some people get it but others need a 2x4 across the forehead.......

[MKII]

I'm honestly pretty surprised that the Focus gets that poor of mileage at 70. I know it isn't the same engine or transmission, but I'm AVERAGING right around 32 mpg in my Fusion .. during the winter in Wisconsin! When it was warmer out, I was near 33. Kind of disappointing that the Focus is that low - especially given the amount of passenger space a Focus gives up to a Fusion.

 

I actually looked at Focuses when I was looking to replace my 06 Fusion, and the deal breaker was the backseat. I'm a single male, but sometimes I drive my parents and brother places. That backseat is pretty lousy on the Focus, in my opinion anyway.

 

If you believe the test posted above from Popular Mechanics is 100% guaranteed proof, go over to focusfanatics.com forums and read what owners are posting.

 

For example here is a post from an owner of a 2012 Focus SE with SFE package "Update to my fuel mileage..

After a 5,000 mile trip to the West coast and back, my average fuel mileage went up as it should. A couple of times during the trip, I got as much as 42 MPG doing 80 on I-10 in the middle of Texas. It seemed to be at peak efficiency between mid 70's to 80 on the highway. Not bad eh?

 

And by now, the car feels like it's more "broken in" after the trip "

source http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3992675&postcount=102

 

Too many variables for anyone to claim that their test is THE TEST which is 100% accurate.

Edited February 7, 2012 by MKII

[V8-X]

If you believe the test posted above from Popular Mechanics is 100% guaranteed proof, go over to focusfanatics.com forums and read what owners are posting.

 

For example here is a post from an owner of a 2012 Focus SE with SFE package "Update to my fuel mileage..

After a 5,000 mile trip to the West coast and back, my average fuel mileage went up as it should. A couple of times during the trip, I got as much as 42 MPG doing 80 on I-10 in the middle of Texas. It seemed to be at peak efficiency between mid 70's to 80 on the highway. Not bad eh?

 

And by now, the car feels like it's more "broken in" after the trip "

source http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3992675&postcount=102

 

Too many variables for anyone to claim that their test is THE TEST which is 100% accurate.

See RJ's response below to Tboneguy. I'm sure we could all find plenty of examples on the net that credit or discredit both the Focus and Elantra.

 

And I don't think anyone stated PM's article is 100% proof. Again just like the EPA, these are simply estimated test results from their study. Everyone's results will vary depending on various driver, terrain and climate factors.

 

Per one pseudoscientific test.