What's Your Real MPG?

Starting with 2008-model vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency is revising its tests to better reflect real-world driving conditions.

but here's the thing.... my CTS and Avalanche seem to get exactly the 2007 numbers. I'd be disappointed if I was getting the 2008 numbers simply on past performance.

Edited February 22, 200718 yr by Oldsmoboi

My car doesn't exist

Or you could go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and get it straight from the estimated horses mouth.

Manual Cobalt numbers: 22 city 31 hwy

22 mpg = 10.7 l/100km.

The only time I ever see numbers as high as 10.7 only my mileage readout is when I'm angry in a traffic jam and jumping ahead at near WOT.

What are these morons doing to test these cars?

Wow, these numbers are terrible.

The Silverado drops to 14/18 for 4WD with the 5.3 and 13/17 for the 6.

The Tundra 4.7 is 13/17, but it doesn't have the 5.7?

The Titan is 9/12 !?! with 4WD!

Wow, these numbers are terrible.

The Silverado drops to 14/18 for 4WD with the 5.3 and 13/17 for the 6.

The Tundra 4.7 is 13/17, but it doesn't have the 5.7?

The Titan is 9/12 !?! with 4WD!

Tundra 2WD 5.7 - 14 City 16 Combined 18 Hwy

Tundra 4WD 5.7 - 13 City 14 Combined 17 Hwy

Manual Cobalt numbers: 22 city 31 hwy

22 mpg = 10.7 l/100km.

The only time I ever see numbers as high as 10.7 only my mileage readout is when I'm angry in a traffic jam and jumping ahead at near WOT.

What are these morons doing to test these cars?

They're driving like Americans.

I admit my gas numbers are low because I don't exactly baby the car. But I've gotten 34 mpg highway, as previously advertised. It's just that most of my driving takes place in "city" conditions. And I usually don't meet 24 mpg in the city.

The Durango is 8/13!

If automakers had to use these numbers for CAFE...........

We shouldn't be shocked by these numbers at all. We were told before on what to expect, but I guess seeing the numbers makes it shocking for some reason. It really opened my eyes.

but, I'm thinking these numbers are now making the cars under-rated. Cobalts and Malibus regularly see over their 2007 EPA rating now.... they'll be even higher over their EPA ratings afterwards.

Edited February 22, 200718 yr by Oldsmoboi

Looks like the Prius would get approx. 48 city, 45 highway. Fun.

Meanwhile, my Millenia is calculated to get 18 city, 24 highway if it were to be tested under the new ratings... Course, my Grand Am is estimated to get 19 city, 29 highway...

Edited February 22, 200718 yr by blackviper8891

About 10-15 percent drop across the board. Smaller cars have been hit hard though.

Prius got a serious whack in the city driving conditions.

look at this. this is laughable for the "worst in class"

What's the significance of the Aveo in that graphic? Is it the median entry or something?

What's the significance of the Aveo in that graphic? Is it the median entry or something?

no, i was just looking to see what a "compact"car rating would do, but my entry was to show the bently, how can a V-12 engined car be called a compact anything (of the same era)

no, i was just looking to see what a "compact"car rating would do, but my entry was to show the bently, how can a V-12 engined car be called a compact anything (of the same era)

By interior passenger volume. Remember how the Hyundai Sonata was 'more spacious than a BMW 760i'? It is. So is a '98 LeSabre. Big deal.

Which is why interior volume is an utterly useless method to catagorize cars.... unless you deliver inflated party balloons for a job, of course.

Wow, these numbers are terrible.

The Silverado drops to 14/18 for 4WD with the 5.3 and 13/17 for the 6.

The Tundra 4.7 is 13/17, but it doesn't have the 5.7?

The Titan is 9/12 !?! with 4WD!

Those Titan numbers are with E85. Ram gets the same numbers, Silverado gets 10/14.

This isn't going to help the ethanol cause, that's for sure.