Hello, I recently purchased a new 2010 Touring L (no bells / whistles). At the moment there is only a little over 400 kms on the car and I had topped off the tank a week or so ago. Right now I have gone through 5/8 of the tank (according to the gauge) and have only got 265 kms so far. This only puts me on track to get a little over 400 kms for the tank. Now, this is 90% city driving in rush hour, bumper to bumper, stop and go traffic and I know i'm going to burn more gas than highway driving. My concern is that the Chev Cavalier I traded towards this car (same size tank; bigger engine) would seemingly get better mileage. I have been driving easy, trying to keep in line with the break-in directions in the manual, its just concerning.

My questions....

Is this typical of a new car to have such poor fuel economy in the "break-in" phase?

Will it get better?

Am I the problem?

Other than that, I love the car!!! Perfect for a 4 piece family.

I appreciate any input.

Thanks!

 

That does seem a bit low (around 18 or mpg for us Americans), but you are in heavy stop and go traffic a lot. When I'm driving in downtown traffic (Cincinnati), I rarely am able to meet the EPA estimates for city mileage, which leads me to believe "City Mileage" does not equate to what I experience.

My mileage got marginally better after the break in period, but I wouldn't look for huge gains. I'd say what you're getting in stop and go heavy city traffic is about right for a 3000lb. compact wagon. Others can chime in if they think my claims are bogus.

On the plus side, I get upwards of 35mpg on the highway and usually average 26-27 mixed. I have about 15k miles on my car.

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply!!!

Yeah, the commute is a killer... as long as it doesn't get worse i'll be ok with this car. I haven't had a good reason to take a long hwy drive but I hope it gives me as good as the mileage that you've been getting. The Nova Scotia winter will be interesting with snow tires. Hopefully mileage doesn't change too much for the worse.

 

I would wait until you top off again before concluding anything. The gauges hit zero before the tank does, so 5/8 to zero on the gauge is not 5/8 to empty.

 

i get 325-350 km per tank. granted i drive almost all short trips in the city, but this really sucks for a 3000 lb 2l engine car

 

First, the Cavalier weighs 300 pounds LESS than a Touring. And the Cavalier is smaller and more aerodynamic. Those 2 things alone give the Cavalier an advantage. The Cavalier is rated at 33-mpg in the city while the Touring is only 30-mpg. As you can see, that extra weight makes all the difference. On the highway (where acceleration and weight don't affect the MPG as much) BOTH cars are rated at 36-mpg.

For range, the Cavalier is rated to get approx 462-miles per tank in the city while the Touring is only rated approx 420-miles per tank in the city. Converting that to kilometers:
Cavalier = 743-km/tank
Touring = 675-km/tank
ALso, you can assume the amount of fuel used by the gauge. You have to fill up, drive until most is gone and then fill up the same way again. Then divide the km's driven by the amount of fuel to get an accurate number.


Okay, 350-km but how much fuel was used? The 675 number was driving the tank dry. I'm sure you didn't do that. So how much fuel did it take to refill the tank again?

 

Consider that the EPA ratings (USA) are under "ideal" driving conditions. This means they take place in a laboratory where they have "perfect" air movement, a computer that compresses the acceleration peddle "perfectly", etc.

My father worked for the EPA in Ann Arbor back in the 80's and those estimates literally go all over the place.

We have had vehicles that get more than EPA and less than EPA.

My car got 17 mpg city when I worked about 1.5 miles away. Now that I work 5 miles away I am getting 20.5 mpg because I was able to hit some longer stretches of 35 mph cruising speed several times through my drive. My previous drive would max out at 30 mph for a few blocks and then I would have to slow down and accelerate again.

Obviously, I am using slightly more gas than previous... but I am also getting a bit better mpgs now too.

 

So I filled up after 2 weeks of commuting to work and running errands in the local area, the trip odometer was at 349 km. The gauge was at about 1/8 a tank and it took 38.xx liters to fill which with a 53 liter tank would actually give me a little over 1/4 a tank. So the gauge is not entirely accurate, but whatever. I calculated this to be 10.9 liters per 100 km (roughly 21.5 mpg).

Last night the family and I (additional 200 lbs) went for a 50 km drive through both city and hwy. I topped off again after this drive and had a result of 7.5 liters per 100 km.

I can live with these numbers, perhaps I jumped the gun naming the thread "Bad Fuel Economy" as I wouldn't want to scare people away from this great car... I wish I could rename it. Maybe call it "Misleading Fuel Gauge".

Bottom line... I love the car. My only other concern is that the film that is used on the doors is starting to peel off of the 2 front doors. I'm taking it in tomorrow for them to have a look at it. I'm scared water will get under there and start to form bubbles on the outside surface.

Thank you for all the replies.

 

No automotive fuel gauges are accurate. All are designed to stay on Full longer, drop quickly and have a reserve when reading empty. This was done because most car owners are idiots. Studies found thet people wanted to see the fuel gauge stay at full longer because it made then feel like that car got better fuel economy if it didn't drop right away. They also wanted to have a little extra fuel when reading empty . They felt running out of fuel just as the needle hits Empty was dumb.

Read more:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/a...ges/index.html

This is why you can go by the fuel level gauge when determining fuel economy. Always divide the miles by the gallons use to re-fill up.