What if the editors spent 80% of their time on the track or going through twisties at WOT? Would 13.8 still be bad in that case? How can you make a judgement with absolutely no information?

Comparing a Tahoe to an RDX is like comparing an Avalon to a Cobalt SS. How could the Avalon get better mileage in a road test? It's twice as big! Maybe because the editors drove the snot out of the sportier vehicle while they merely cruised around in the other.

187320[/snapback]

Umm, the Cobalt SS is rated at 23/29 MPG, while the Avalon is rated at 22/31. So, they're HP numbers would probably be pretty similar, with the Avalon having the edge if they did much highway cruising.

Umm, the Cobalt SS is rated at 23/29 MPG, while the Avalon is rated at 22/31. So, they're HP numbers would probably be pretty similar, with the Avalon having the edge if they did much highway cruising.

187833[/snapback]

Also, when I can drive my GTO for fun about 20% of the time and the rest of the time in the city (meaning about 1/4 of that time I'm sitting at a light) and get 14MPG, I'd say 13.8 is pretty bad.

Umm, the Cobalt SS is rated at 23/29 MPG, while the Avalon is rated at 22/31. So, they're HP numbers would probably be pretty similar, with the Avalon having the edge if they did much highway cruising.

You're missing my point.

My point is, you can't compare a Tahoe to an RDX because they were probably driven very differently during their reviews.

The RDX probably observed bad mileage during their test for the same reason C&D got 16mpg in their test drive of the RAV4. Which would be very aggressive driving during the test. Reg just likes to point out the bad numbers whenever he can, it's doubtful he even reads the articles, just scans them for low numbers. The title of the article is probably "RDX does 80-lap time trial on Laguna Seca", in which case 13.8mpg would be extremely good. :AH-HA_wink:

you are thinking of the freelander.  go back and check your list.

187603[/snapback]

NOpe

LR3 was the worst......RR second-to-last.