MPG inconsistencies (answered!)

[felixdd]

I noticed something a little interesting in the window sticker generated by [url=http://services.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/]Ford Services vs the advertised MPG on Ford US and Ford Canada

On the window sticker and on Ford.ca, both report a city/hwy US MPG of 30.2/42.8 (converted via Google) for the non-titanium, non-ST models

However, on the American website, they quote 26/36 for similar models.

Furthermore, I'm finding the Canadian figures to be pretty much unattainable; even driving like a blind grandmother, and coasting in N rather than using my brakes, I'm only achieving 27.4/35.6 MPG. I am using a manual, but I'm doubting the DCT would give me a 3/7 MPG improvement (especially the highway figures). It seems that the American figures are more accurate.

Then again; it seems like there are many users on this board at least that are doing better than me for mileage. Then again, it seems like I'm sitting right on the average on fuelly.com.

Anyone like to comment?

[Sponsor]

[Deftmetal]

Canadian gallons are bigger

[Elizabeth]

Winter gas...
Summer gas has a different mixture
Winter gas has higher volatility so it will start the car in subzero weather.
Summer gas cuts back on that stuff so the gas does not evaporate too easily.
Winter gas gives fewer mpg compared to Summer gas

Plus if you fiddle with the mpg gizmo in the dash, you can see how in Winter, a cold start uses a huge amount of gasoline before the engine is warmed up (compared to very little in Summer weather)
((This is why they say start and drive right off in Winter. Wasting a ton of gas idling to warm up the engine is just wasting gas.. And the engine warms up faster if it is being used instead of idling))

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by Deftmetal

Canadian gallons are bigger

This is the biggest factor since the canadian gallon is 20% larger (canada uses the imperial gallon), as opposed to the U.S. gallon (4.54xL/gal vs 3.785 L/ Gal) That means the economy figures are approximately 20% higher.

[felixdd]

Originally Posted by Deftmetal

Canadian gallons are bigger

You would note that I'd already converted the MPG to US units

Lets be clear on this:

Ford America Website
In US MPG: 26/36 (as listed)
In UK MPG: 31.2/43.2
In L/100km: 9.0/6.5


Ford Canada Window Sticker
In US MPG: 30.2/42.8
In UK MPG: 36/51 (as listed)
In L/100km: 7.8/5.5 (as listed)



Ford Canada Website
In US MPG: 30.2/42.8
In UK MPG: 36.2/51.4
In L/100km: 7.8/5.5 (as listed)


Note if you compare the converted US MPG for the Canadian vehicles, they are 4/6MPG higher than that listed on the US website.


PS: I just thought of this, but perhaps this reflects regulatory differences in the way gas mileage is reported in Canada vs USA.

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by felixdd

Note if you compare the converted US MPG for the Canadian vehicles, they are 4/6MPG higher than that listed on the US website.


PS: I just thought of this, but perhaps this reflects regulatory differences in the way gas mileage is reported in Canada vs USA.

Yes the test is much more optimistic in Canada as it also follows the european cycle rather than the US EPA test cycles.

[felixdd]

Originally Posted by suss6052

Yes the test is much more optimistic in Canada as it also follows the european cycle rather than the US EPA test cycles.

That makes more sense then. Crazy canuck/euro testing

Does the "don't coaset in neutral" thing apply for manual cars too then?

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by felixdd

That makes more sense then. Crazy canuck/euro testing

Does the "don't coaset in neutral" thing apply for manual cars too then?

ADFSO doesn't care what transmission is behind the engine. (ADFSO being agressive deceleration fuel shut off). So yes as long as you were moving at speed you are probably above the threshold where the engine will be driven by the wheels slowing down the car and using no fuel while coasting, however you will not coast as long as if you were in neutral due to driving the engine via the wheels instead of burning fuel at an idle rate. If you need to coast for a long long time then being in neutral may be more beneficial, but otherwise keep it in gear.

[kam327]

Originally Posted by felixdd

That makes more sense then. Crazy canuck/euro testing

Does the "don't coaset in neutral" thing apply for manual cars too then?

The US EPA rating system changed in '08 and used to be more optimistic too. The '07 Focus window sticker said 27/34, but the "new" ratings (under the '08 system) on fueleconomy.gov are 23/31. That would suggest that the '12 Focus manual would be rated at 29/39 under the old system, much closer to the current Canadian rating of 30/42.

[dan50]

Originally Posted by felixdd

I noticed something a little interesting in the window sticker generated by [url=http://services.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/]Ford Services vs the advertised MPG on Ford US and Ford Canada

On the window sticker and on Ford.ca, both report a city/hwy US MPG of 30.2/42.8 (converted via Google) for the non-titanium, non-ST models

However, on the American website, they quote 26/36 for similar models.

Furthermore, I'm finding the Canadian figures to be pretty much unattainable; even driving like a blind grandmother, and coasting in N rather than using my brakes, I'm only achieving 27.4/35.6 MPG. I am using a manual, but I'm doubting the DCT would give me a 3/7 MPG improvement (especially the highway figures). It seems that the American figures are more accurate.

Then again; it seems like there are many users on this board at least that are doing better than me for mileage. Then again, it seems like I'm sitting right on the average on fuelly.com.

Anyone like to comment?

This has been said before, but to maximize fuel economy don't coast in neutral. While this seems counterintuitive, when coasting in gear fuel supply is generally cut-off as the mechanical connection to the wheels keeps the engine "running". If you shift to neutral, fuel has to be supplied to accomplish the same thing. This won't make a big difference, but manufacturers engineer it this way for a reason.