Why Are MPG Ratings Off the Mark?

[TBow]

I've been looking at purchasing another truck lately and have also been looking at replacing my wife's 13 year old jeep SUV. I used to be into power (many many moons ago), but lately performance for me is in a safe ride and mpgs or L/100km.

When I look at new vehicles, the window sticker specs for fuel ratings seem like they're through the roof. If that's what they can provide, then bring 'er on. But the more I talk to people who own the type of buggies I've been looking at, the more I come to realize that new vehicle ratings are nothing but BUNK!

Oh sure, they'll get the fuel ratings indicated on the window stickers, but EVERYONE says, "Yup! Going downhill with a tail wind!".

Even the believable auto tests and consumer reports give fuel economies that are far from the mfg claims. So why so far off, and where can you get believable fuel ratings for all vehicles?

TBow

[92xj]

What kind of vehicle are you looking at?

[Goinghuntin]

The numbers manufacturers provide are based off of non-typical driving conditions, most likely run in a lab. When you drive a car in the city, on the highway, uphill or downhill, around curves, etc your numbers are going to vary based off of the amount of engine power needed. You need more power, obviously, to move up a hill on a bumpy road than on a smooth test track. Gravel roads are gonna use more gas than a paved road. Gotta remember, every manufacturer has to have one more MPG than the other guys, so they're gonna squeeze every drop they can out of every test.

Nathan

[TBow]

I was looking at getting a new or new-to-me pickup. In the new catagory, I was looking at the 2010 GMCs and Ford F-150 or Super-Duty 250. I was also looking at a 2006 or 2007 new-to-me GMC 2500 with a Duramax diesel. I had heard they were getting 25+ mpg under actual conditions. The new pickups I mentioned at first were claiming 27 mpg hiway on the 2009s and I even saw on the internet that the new 2010s are claiming 31 mpg for some of the models and options in the full size trucks. I had considered a Ford Ranger supercab 4X4, but the 4.0L V6s are only getting 18 to 20 mpg on a good day. Heck if I can get better mileage with a full size, why would I buy a dinky-toy?

I talked to a friend of mine who has a 2009 GMC and I think it has a 5.2L V8. He told me he's lucky to get 18 mpg on a good day and typically only gets 15. And yes he saw the window sticker when he bought it and it indicated 27 mpg hwy.

I was also looking at a Honda CR-V to replace my wife's 1997 jeep, but she said she didn't like them, but saw the new Hyundai Tuscons and liked them. I went on the internet and researched mpg ratings for them and they're all over the place. Some places say 7.1L/100 km (39 mpg with an Imp Gal.) for the AWD, but others rate them at only 31 mpg. What the heck is a body to believe? Or my question, "Where in the world can you find believable ratings that are based on tests that will rate them all on an equal playing ground and actually under real driving conditions?".

TBow

[The_Kat]

Dont get a dodge if you want fuel mileage. I get 13.8 and when I was all stock I only got 15. My Chevy 4.8 liter v8 gets about 18.

[redkneck]

"Where in the world can you find believable ratings that are based on tests that will rate them all on an equal playing ground and actually under real driving conditions?".

TBow

http://www.internetautoguide.com/cost-of-ownership/09-int/2010/ford/f-150/index.html

http://www.internetautoguide.com/cost-of-ownership/09-int/2010/chevrolet/silverado/index.html

A good place to start looking. I also like consumer reports, but admit I am the worst about not researching things like I should.

[wtnhunt]

Don't really know. I do know I would like having a truck that got better. That thirty one to me seems to be inverted of what I expect of my 3/4 ton hd truck. I am lucky to get 12 out of it, but it gets the same typically whether I am pulling anything with it or driving highway miles or sitting in traffic, it is just geared low. I got around 10-11 mpg with it hauling hay back over last summer 3 1500 lb round bales at a time on a pretty heavy 16 ft trailer.

The ratings were actually low for our 2008 Durango on the sticker. The salesman told us it would do better than it was rated it and he was correct. Sticker said 13 to 18, it has the hemi with the mds, and I average 16-17 around town with it when I drive it, have gotten as good as 20 rolling down the highway with it with the cruise set at 74, probably could get a good bit better if I had backed off to 65. That is an awd vehicle too.

[ruttinbuc]

All I know is that when I hit the flatland of western Ohio and head west I love my gas mileage. Here in the stop and go of the hilly east I hate it. My 2003 w/5.3 ltr is rated for 15 to 20 mpg. No way.

I would also like to see the truth in advertising. Seems like lying cheating and stealing is the American way these days...:yes:

[Shaun_300]

MPG ratings are definitely not accurate for average drivers. If granny was driving it in Saskatchewan or Kansas, right elevation, tail wind, cruise set at 80km/h / 50mph, A/C off, maybe.

[Goinghuntin]

A good place to start looking. I also like consumer reports, but admit I am the worst about not researching things like I should.

I try to stay away from Consumer Reports due to the fact that they have admitted to have automatic ratings for certain manufacturers, without actually testing them as hard as they do for others.

Nathan

[redkneck]

I try to stay away from Consumer Reports due to the fact that they have admitted to have automatic ratings for certain manufacturers, without actually testing them as hard as they do for others.

Nathan

I did not know that. I've never subscribed to their stuff, but read some articles on the net occasionally and always thought they had a good rep for being objective. Should have known you can't stop the almighty dollar from creeping into product ratings.