# Interesting EPA milage discovery



## CruzeDan (May 17, 2015)

While on the EPA's fueleconomy.gov site today, I was comparing a few cars to my 2014 diesel. I noticed that the EPA dropped the diesel's highway milage by 2 MPGs to 44 MPG, the city remained at 27 MPG, and the combined dropped to 32 MPG. These numbers are based off updated milage calculations for 2017.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

Not sure about that, mine will do over city and highway mileage no problem. My lifetime average is over 42 mpg. I think the ratings are never very accurate. It varies a lot by driver.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

IndyDiesel said:


> Not sure about that, mine will do over city and highway mileage no problem. My lifetime average is over 42 mpg. I think the ratings are never very accurate. It varies a lot by driver.


There's a lot of variability. But the EPA test is a standardized test where they follow a specific "traffic" profile on a dyno. What you get depends a great deal on how closely your driving profile matches the EPA's.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

ChevyGuy said:


> There's a lot of variability. But the EPA test is a standardized test where they follow a specific "traffic" profile on a dyno. What you get depends a great deal on how closely your driving profile matches the EPA's.


I find I normally get better than their numbers. Not a lot better but better.


----------



## oldestof11 (Apr 3, 2016)

IndyDiesel said:


> Not sure about that, mine will do over city and highway mileage no problem. My lifetime average is over 42 mpg. I think the ratings are never very accurate. It varies a lot by driver.


I'm averaging 46-48. Best tanks have been 51mpg and worst so far was my very first one where I spent a lot of time driving around town at 41mpg


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Yup - similar thing happened in around 2007 or so. 

I thought the ratings were supposed to get more representative - which would mean that the diesels wouldn't be underrated, but I guess that is not the case.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

oldestof11 said:


> I'm averaging 46-48. Best tanks have been 51mpg and worst so far was my very first one where I spent a lot of time driving around town at 41mpg


I have too much city driving to average much more than I do. Just took a 1200 mile trip, first half no ac and drove little slower and got 51.5 mpg, came back head wind, some ac and drove 75 mph and averaged 48.5 for trip. Economy wise very happy with car.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Are you comparing the 2014 to the 2014 CTD or the 2014 to the 2017 CTD? The 2017 is a new drivetrain.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

obermd said:


> Are you comparing the 2014 to the 2014 CTD or the 2014 to the 2017 CTD? The 2017 is a new drivetrain.


Talking about the original post? He's talking about the 2014 CTD "converted" to the 2017 EPA rating method, which "drop" the fuel economy to 44 on the highway, from 46.

Which we all know is making the rating _less_ accurate.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I remember the 2007 mileage adjustments from when we were shopping for a car in 2007. The ratings dropped from 2006 to 2007 models despite nothing having changed. 

They *were* more accurate, though.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I read about this a few weeks back, the cruze diesel is not the only car effected by this, nor is Chevy the only manufacture. this is all due to testing differences starting in the 2017 model year. 

EPA updates MPG sticker rules for 2017 model year vehicles - Autoblog


Gas mileage ratings for some 2017 cars to fall as EPA tweaks tests


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

2016 Traverse, Acadia and, Enclave had MPG lawsuits and gave out visa cards to the owners based on if you were a 2wd or AWD variant. AWD got like $1600 back per car but after lawyers it was like $900


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I disagree with the change on the diesel Cruze. They easily get 46+ MPG on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

diesel said:


> I disagree with the change on the diesel Cruze. They easily get 46+ MPG on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.


Or raised both. We did a 100% city tank a couple weeks ago and it was still in the low 30s.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> i disagree with the change on the diesel cruze. They easily get 46+ mpg on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.


 i do 33mpg city for 10 months now and hwy i got hypermile gold


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

diesel said:


> I disagree with the change on the diesel Cruze. They easily get 46+ MPG on the highway. If anything they should have raised the highway and lowered the city.


This is all based on testing changes. Remember diesel engines typically real world better than those EPA test indicate so I have no doubt the old vs new allot of people can achieve better. 

On that Same note I have no problem beating the EPA city/hwy with my cruze or sonic either, not sure how so many others get so low of MPG. Only way I ever had any top off lower than the city EPA number was -15F or more for a week and I used remote start 2-3X a day with 100% city driving, I only got 21mpg with my cruze. Some might think that's bad, but my previous GM 2.2L ecotec and 2.5L iron duke both got around 13MPG in the same conditions. Most other times I never average under 30MPG city with my 1.4T and easily get 4-6MPG or better average on the highway than the EPA numbers indicate.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> This is all based on testing changes. Remember diesel engines typically real world better than those EPA test indicate so I have no doubt the old vs new allot of people can achieve better.
> 
> On that Same note I have no problem beating the EPA city/hwy with my cruze or sonic either, not sure how so many others get so low of MPG. Only way I ever had any top off lower than the city EPA number was -15F or more for a week and I used remote start 2-3X a day with 100% city driving, I only got 21mpg with my cruze. Some might think that's bad, but my previous GM 2.2L ecotec and 2.5L iron duke both got around 13MPG in the same conditions. Most other times I never average under 30MPG city with my 1.4T and easily get 4-6MPG or better average on the highway than the EPA numbers indicate.


The EPA city numbers assume you're driving Los Angeles or NY in the middle of the summer rush hour with your A/C blasting. For the rest of us simple defensive driving should beat the EPA city number.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The EPA dropped my ECO MT from 42 to 40 MPG. I'm going to leave the HyperCruzer numbers as is and use the original highway values. We've had enough people reach both Silver and Gold that I suspect this is a testing artifact only.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

obermd said:


> The EPA dropped my ECO MT from 42 to 40 MPG. I'm going to leave the HyperCruzer numbers as is and use the original highway values. We've had enough people reach both Silver and Gold that I suspect this is a testing artifact only.


I did 43 last night on a non Eco! So yeah, should definitely be above that. 

How are they readjusting numbers without retesting every car again?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> I did 43 last night on a non Eco! So yeah, should definitely be above that.
> 
> How are they readjusting numbers without retesting every car again?


I believe the issues was on how each manufacture was calculating the data, not actual testing changes. * Your 43mpg is now 7MPG over the 36mpg hwy rating for your car!!!*!


----------

