New mileage estimate for old cars

[Mike The Canadian]

Well, lately I've noticed mileage estimates for old cars have changed and reduced, dramatically in some cases.

I drive a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu. It used to be rated at 20 mpg city, 29 highway.

Now it's rated at 16 mpg city, 26 highway and 21 combined.

Can anyone tell me how the hell this was done? Was everything re-tested or just reduced by a certain percentage?

Is this accurate at all do you think?

I have never seen anywhere near 16 mpg even in all city driving and with a lead foot.

Maybe these are good estimates but the older GM engines don't get mileage that bad?

Perhaps this is a gimmick to make new engines seem more efficient? I really don't understand.

We have a 2002 Buick Century (now rated the same as the Malibu, previously rated at 20 city, 30 highway).

I don't drive that daily but from road trips we've taken we've easily gotten 33 mpg on highway driving with the AC blasting.

My 2001 Malibu I drive daily so I keep track of mileage. I only take combined figures as my driving contains an almost even mix of city and highway driving.

My highest in the past 3 months has been 28 mpg COMBINED. My lowest has been 21 mpg combined, and that was as bad as I've ever gotten it to go. I had a problem with the car and it was literally on and not moving for about an hour and a half as the mechanic did not want to turn it off so he could diagnose it or some bull$h! like that. (Guess that's what I get for going to Canadian Tire).

Over the last 3600 Km I've averaged just over 25 mpg, that's where these new estimates top out. I call BS, and don't get me wrong, I've gotten this mileage by trying to be conservative over the past few months, but I think something is WAY off that my average is close to the new "maximum" mileage of the cars.

Thoughts?

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't know where they're getting new numbers for old cars. I doubt they're going back and retesting them.

[Robert Hall]

Depreciation.

[Mike The Canadian]

It sounds like BS.

To me cars aren't getting any better mileage than these old ones.

Say what you want about the 3100 I am getting fantastic mileage for what it is.

[balthazar]

Undoubtedly a conversion formula; they have NOT retested older vehicles.

As for why, IDK.

[loki]

Say what you want about the 3100 I am getting fantastic mileage for what it is.

i got 37 out of my 99 MC in indiana.

since i started my job ~34 miles away. ~27 on the interstate, 29-30.

Edited August 13, 2010 by loki

[Drew Dowdell]

It sounds like BS.

To me cars aren't getting any better mileage than these old ones.

Say what you want about the 3100 I am getting fantastic mileage for what it is.

Supposedly, on the highway those 3100 Malibus were more efficient than 4-cylinder Camry's because the top gear was lower.

[occupant]

It is garbage to me. I never had a problem getting at or above EPA ratings on any car I owned. And I did look them up in the library. You know, that place with all the books that existed before the internet? 1986 Mercury Lynx original rating 30/39 I got up to 42. 1995 Geo Metro original rating 30/34 I got exactly 30/34. 1993 Dodge Dynasty 3.0L original rating 20/28 I got more like 22/28. 1995 Buick Century original rating 25/32 I got exactly 25/32.

I can only think of ONE VEHICLE that never got the mileage stated on the EPA rating back in the day, and that would be the 1991 Ford Aerostar minivan. I could never crack 16mpg in that, was always 15.something, and it was rated 17/23 or something. Couldn't do it no matter how I drove or how much I tuned it or cleaned it up.

At this point I ignore the "new" EPA ratings. I wish there was a cookie on the fueleconomy.gov website where I could turn off the new rating and have it display the old.

Edited August 15, 2010 by occupant

[Intrepidation]

Over a 135 mile trip Friday, this was my average fuel economy:

This was going 55-65 on one highway and 70 on the other highway...with a few bursts for passing.

Easily beating the highway rating of 26 mpg.

[Blake Noble]

Uh, okay. So the 3.8L V6 Camaro can only get 1 mpg better than an LS1 Camaro in the city? There isn't much gain on the highway, either.

I smell a conspiracy.

I know for a fact some LS1 F4 owners have gotten as high as 27 to 30 mpg combined. I remember getting an average as high as 33 mpg on a trip with my car before it started biting the dust. Even still, at the moment, I can still average a decent number.

Throwing this out there, the Aura is rated at 20/30. It's only been able to average 25 mpg since we bought it brand new. I don't know why, but I find that disappointing.

EDIT: Looked up some numbers for a 5.2L Dakota Sport. That particular truck with a manual gets worse gas mileage than the same truck with an automatic. Say what?

Edited August 25, 2010 by whiteknight

[Mike The Canadian]

I can see pretty much everyone here agrees with me and is getting the same results.

WhiteKnight, what engine do you have on your Aura? I was considering one in a few years when the Malibu gives out.

How is it reliability wise?

[siegen]

Over a 135 mile trip Friday, this was my average fuel economy:

This was going 55-65 on one highway and 70 on the other highway...with a few bursts for passing.

Easily beating the highway rating of 26 mpg.

Getting excellent mileage in a single trip doesn't mean anything though. What matters is your average mileage over the course of a significant period of time, like a year. My car's computer shows that I get 30-34 mpg on the way to work every morning, and 19-21 mpg on the way back (downhill/uphill). That's 26 mpg averaged. If I were to look at just that it would paint a very optimistic picture for my car, as that beats the EPA rating considerably. But, when I look at my average mpg overall, recorded by the computer over the course of a year, I am averaging 23 mpg.

Furthermore, most trip computers are optimistic, and mine is no exception. My real manually-calculated mileage over the last year was 18 mpg.

So, when I drive to work every morning it is nice to see the trip mpg over 30, but I know that over the course of the week, including stops and other trips, I am really only getting 18 mpg.

With that being said, I am still beating the EPA rating of 16/23 and I drive over 90% city. The old rating was 18/25, which is apparently accurate in my case. The new rating would probably be more accurate if I lived in a crowded city.

[Cory Wolfe]

One virtue of the Cobalt was it's stellar gas mileage. I always averaged in the upper 30's with a high of 42. Lowest ever was right around 28, with lead footed driving. Considering it was a non-XFE automatic, thats pretty good. The EPA's rating? 21 city, 29 highway, and 24 combined. Yeah, I don't think so.

With my Jetta, I always averaged between 28 and 30, never higher, never any lower. It was the most consistant car I've had with gas mileage. The EPA's rating? 19 city, 26 highway, and 22 combined.

[Intrepidation]

Getting excellent mileage in a single trip doesn't mean anything though. What matters is your average mileage over the course of a significant period of time, like a year. My car's computer shows that I get 30-34 mpg on the way to work every morning, and 19-21 mpg on the way back (downhill/uphill). That's 26 mpg averaged. If I were to look at just that it would paint a very optimistic picture for my car, as that beats the EPA rating considerably. But, when I look at my average mpg overall, recorded by the computer over the course of a year, I am averaging 23 mpg.

Furthermore, most trip computers are optimistic, and mine is no exception. My real manually-calculated mileage over the last year was 18 mpg.

So, when I drive to work every morning it is nice to see the trip mpg over 30, but I know that over the course of the week, including stops and other trips, I am really only getting 18 mpg.

With that being said, I am still beating the EPA rating of 16/23 and I drive over 90% city. The old rating was 18/25, which is apparently accurate in my case. The new rating would probably be more accurate if I lived in a crowded city.

I'm quite aware of that, thanks.

I concomitantly get 29-31 mpg on highway trips computer averaged, actual calculating is 1-2 mpg each time off so you can take that into account if you like. City mpgs are 18-20. The last tank was about 3/4 highway. It averaged 27.3

[Blake Noble]

I can see pretty much everyone here agrees with me and is getting the same results.

WhiteKnight, what engine do you have on your Aura? I was considering one in a few years when the Malibu gives out.

How is it reliability wise?

The Village Bicycle (the Aura) has the 3.5L V6 in it. It's been a pretty solid car over the course the 50,000 miles we've racked up on it in the past 3 years we've had it. We did have in in the shop under warranty a few days to replace a faulty body control module which was preventing the brake lights and brake pedal from syncing up correctly, but other than that, it's been mostly oil changes and brakes. Not much drama here.

EDIT: Oh, and the key fobs suck. Forgot that. Then again, every GM car from the pre-bankruptcy era used the same shitty fob. If one isn't working, pop it open and check out the prong on the back of the CB that holds the battery in place. If it just falls out, it's time to break out the soldering iron. Blame it on the cheap solder GM used originally (wonder if their solder supplier was the same group who supplied Microsoft with the solder to use on the 360 CBs?). Sometimes the posts on the bottom of the prong will break off and after that the fob is screwed.

Edited September 1, 2010 by whiteknight