Unbelievably poor mileage

[Jus-A-CMax]

Hey...let me do the name calling around here...

 

L'Oréal :dance:  - yep, it's sure is nice in California, where the sunshine except yesterday - crap - we had our first winter storm and my Maxine looks all iccky with the dust and I have not time to wash her. Damn, is it me or has the colder weather now producing < 60 MPGs on my work trip, thats 2 days in a row.....that s*cks... :gaah:

 

DrEasel :jump_earth:  - I read the posts so jus cool it. "buddy" doesn't warrant an "idiot" as your reply.

 

 

I know everyone has their off days, tired and sometimes post stuff they regret so...so....so.....chill out, go visit the What are you listening to? thread for some cool videos...or add your own.

 

Peace :)

 

Jus-Another-Pod :drop:

Edited October 11, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[Laurel]

Edit

Edited October 12, 2013 by Laurel

[Jus-A-CMax]

Nah, no need...I don't think this is going to any further. Ssssh,,,,I have not even heard of that movie...for a moment there I was imagining that it was some Bollywood special there...- I jus googled it......would you believe me that I was right in my sense...its got Dame Judy Dench aka "M"..... :drool:

[Laurel]

Edit

Edited October 12, 2013 by Laurel

[Adair]

Laurel, (or L'Oreal.....I kinda like that  :) ) You have your updates scheduled for next week, the 16, right? I really believe you are going to see some positive changes to your mpgs after that!

[ptjones]

Hi Adair.   Okay I admit metric can be confusing.  Our window sticker promised 4.0 L  and 4.7 L.  Basically this converts to getting in the 60's mpg us and the 70's in our imperial gallons.We are very conscientious drivers and we are well read about the style and methods to achieve improved mileage.  But in a nutshell, the only way to get the window stick mileage is not to run any climate in the car, or in the nicest moderate temperature days of summer when you don't need AC.  Most of the Canadian car reviewers loved the car, but most have reported mileage of 6.8 L and 7.4 L. (roughly about 30 to 35 mpg) so they wound up confused with Ford Canada's window sticker.  From what I can read on the internet, it seems most Canadian drivers are basically getting high 20's and low 30's mpg gallon in the winter months. Yes we can indeed get some phenomenal low mileage (we aim for low and you aim for high) with p and g and not using climate, but if  Joe citizen in Canada asked me about mileage I would be frank and say for us "it is fine" but we live in a very temperate climate and much of Canada is not temperature (think Winnipeg at -40C).  And I would prepare them for some of those horrible mileage figures when the car is not warmed up such as 23 L/10 mpg.  And I think my husband's theory about a high idle is probably correct as the yoyo mileage is very weird.  Hopefully the dealership will return Tip and she will no longer be manic depressive. LOL

The cold weather MPG problem can be improve on by installing Grill Covers with about 4mpg improvement during the winter.    Paul

[C-MaxSea]

Hang in there drdiesel1, we all have our irksome moments; your input and opinions are highly valued here too.  :)  ;)  :)   Nick

[C-MaxSea]

................  Our window sticker promised 4.0 L  and 4.7 L.  Basically this converts to getting in the 60's mpg us and the 70's in our imperial gallons.........................

 

Zowwy!  I just checked your math Laurel - that is baffling,dumbfounding, outrageous, .....................we are not talking 47 vs 43 here, rather, 59 vs 43, a huge difference.  Given 47, the lowest they could report converted to liters/100km would be 5.0 - not 4.7, or the crazy good 4.0!  That is so egregious it is extremely hard to believe.  I'm dying to see the before and after window stickers. (Canadian lawyers salivating (forget the US))  BTW, our window sticker promised nothing, only postulated hypotheticals. :)

 

Been meaning to check for a long time, lazy me. (Someone please correct me if my numbers, thoughts, .......... are faulty)

 

Nick

 

PS  Laurel, the only glitch in your statement would be that 4.0 converts to 59, therefore it would be 'up to ' 59, and not "in the 60s" US gallons.

 

PSS  Does Canada have a different testing procedure?  I guess that must be it - an outrageously misleading one.  Drive a very slow 10/20 mile loop at 25-35 MPH and bingo 59 mpg - works for me, as long as it's balmy warm and not the arctic tundra of Canada - hmmmm, I think they forgot to apply the 50% 'Tundra Rule'.  But, then again, as they say, 'for comparative purposes only', not..................... ;)  ;) ;)  (cuss, swear, cuss, swear..... dang  .... system)

Edited October 11, 2013 by C-MaxSea

[Laurel]

Edit

Edited October 12, 2013 by Laurel

[C-MaxSea]

Hi Nick,

I dug out our yellowing window sticker (time flies).  It is 4.0 L for city /71 imperial miles per gallon and 4.1 L for highway/ 69 imperial miles per gallon.  So that works out to 58.81 us mpg city and 57.37 us highway

The new window stickers are revised to 4.2 L city/67 miles per gallon and 4.9 L highway /58 miles per gallon .

 

Thanks Laurel, probably best to stick to US gallons, and not mix it up with Imperial gallons - that only confuses us the more.  So, to de-confuse it:

 

Before:  4.0 - 4.1 liters per 100 km = 57 - 59 MPG

After:     4.2 - 4.9 liters per 100 km = 48 - 56 MPG 

 

Like I said, astounding, crazy, misleading..... ;)  ;) ;)  (cuss, swear, cuss, swear..... dang  .... system)

 

Nick

Edited October 11, 2013 by C-MaxSea

[Laurel]

Edit

Edited October 12, 2013 by Laurel

[Ryan McEachern]

The Canadian numbers have always been unrealistic. This is due to totally different testing methods. I have always considered the canadian numbers to be what a decent hyper-miler could achieve under ideal conditions. Laurel, as unrealistic as our Canadian C-max stickers were, consider the expectations that came when the 2011 Prius was sold in Canada, it shipped with a window sticker of 3.7/4.0 l/100km, totally over-the-top!! Your dealer should have informed you that NO CANADIANS ever hit the window sticker numbers, but that they are equally unrealistic for all companies. Here are THREE samples I picked at random from the .pdf to show how different the US and Canada ratings are. I have converted all units from the original l/100km into US gallons per mile, because most of our readers are American.

 

MAZDA 2

Canada = 31/39

US = 27/33

 

SUBARU IMPREZA AWD

Canada = 23/31

US = 20/26

 

TOYOTA PRIUS

Canada = 64/59

US = 51/48

 

Here is link to some info from the Canadian equivelent of the EPA, notice that the average speed in the city test is only 32km/hour, and in the highway test, is only 77km/hour. Notice how they do two city tests, one cold start, and one hot start, but only one highway test, with warm engine. Notice how the 18 stops in 23 minutes, and 4 minutes of idling time in the city test really favour the hybrids in the Transport Canada test.

 

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/oee.nrcan.gc.ca/files/pdf/transportation/tools/fuelratings/fuel-consumption-guide-2011.pdf

 

Here is an passage that deals with the testing:

 

"The FTP is composed of two tests – the city test and the highway test.

Simulated city course

The city test simulates a 12-km, stop-and-go trip with an average speed

of 32 km/hour (km/h) and a top speed of 91 km/h. The test runs for

23 minutes and includes 18 stops. About four minutes of test time are

spent idling, to represent waiting at traffic lights. The test begins from a

cold engine start, which is similar to starting a vehicle after it has been

parked overnight during the summer. When the test is completed, the

test cycle starts again with a hot engine start, and the first eight minutes

of the test are repeated. This simulates restarting a vehicle after it has

been warmed up, driven and then stopped for a short time.6

2011

Simulated highway course

The highway test simulates a 16-km trip with an average speed of

77 km/h and a top speed of 97 km/h. The test runs for 13 minutes

and does not include any stops. However, the speed varies to simulate

different kinds of highway and rural roads. The test begins from a

hot engine start.

Fuel consumption values from these test cycles are calculated from

the emissions generated. The fuel consumption ratings, shown in

the Guide, are generated based on fuel consumption values from the

laboratory testing and are averaged based on Canadian production

volumes. They are then adjusted, using Canadian factors, to reflect

real-world driving conditions.

For more information on vehicle fuel consumption testing, visit TC’s

FCP Web site at www.tc.gc.ca/fcp"