In a sign of openness toward its customers, Mitsubishi will begin publishing real-world MPG figures for their entire lineup, beginning with the Outlander PHEV.
Auto Express reports Mitsubishi UK marketing director Lance Bradley stated the plug-in SUV was chosen because his customers, expecting the 148-mpg claimed in official tests, found the vehicle returned 90 mpg instead:
It’s crazy that people think that’s bad, but it’s all relative to the official figure. We’d like to do a graph, maybe just a figure, starting with the PHEV but then rolling it out to other cars. It would come from customer information.
The move comes as the automaker plans to have an PHEV variant for every one of their models within five years’ time. With more buyers reporting what their vehicle averages in fuel economy, future owners could compare the official test results with those found in real-world driving.
Don’t nobody got time fo Internet before they head down to the BHPH to PH fo a POS PHEV Lancer.
Maybe they can put a graph next to the aggregated fuel economy with the aggregated credit scores of their customers.
I have three Mits. A Ralliart and SE (AWD) Lancer in the US, and an Adventure in PI. My credit is OK, and I own my own biz that is doing quite well with projects all over the S/W US. Just sayin’….
Not really what Mitsu is talking about, but I’d love to see better data for fuel economy. Right now we have the EPA city and highway cycles, Consumer Reports’ city and highway cycles (subscription only), and the mess that is Fuelly (where no one knows what engine they have, you can’t segregate between non-turbo and turbo engines if they are both 4 cylinders, no accounting for modifications, little accounting for driving style or driving cycle). Now that cars are so optimized for the fuel economy cycles, it is pretty tough to get an idea of where your car will fall when you leave those set cycles. Drive 80mph everywhere? You might want that 9 speed Cherokee instead of a 5 speed CRV, for example. 70mph interstate through WV mountains? Your tiny 4cyl is going to huff and puff and rev to the moon to keep speed up while a V6 in the same car might return the same mileage while being more pleasant to drive. Most of your driving suburban at or under 45mph? That small 4cyl hybrid is going to return amazing numbers.
Definitely wishful thinking on my part because there is no good reason for the automakers to share this and you can get a pretty good idea what a vehicle will do by test driving it on said conditions and watching the instant/trip mpg readout, though. That doesn’t really give those of us that like discussing cars a whole lot to talk about other than anecdotes, though.
I designed TrueDelta’s fuel economy survey to gather the variables you mention. The downside is that the form is a little longer than fuelly’s, and most people prefer quick entry over results that can be compared with other cars. For tracking your personal fuel economy, fuelly is fine, and that’s all many people are interested in.
This is for the UK, not for the US. The European testing requirements allow for a lot of gaming, and fuel economy figures from the UK tests are often 20-30% or so higher than the results for equivalent US-spec cars (after adjusting for imperial measures.) The EPA test is actually pretty good compared to what is done elsewhere.
the euro tests are pretty accurate if you live in a flat area with mediterranean climate, no traffic, hypermile and drive a manual transmission car…. MAYBE.
It’s an awfully substandard test where the manufacturers are able to “teach to the test” to a degree that is bordering on fraud. I’d bet most cars now sense when they are on rollers performing a euro test and hence activates “test mode” returning unrealistic numbers.
In my perfect world, I’d like to see two things (about mpg) when researching a car:
1. The EPA city number
2. A plot of steady-state instantaneous mpg v. speed
Too many people just look at the hwy number, but IMO, the city is a better figure for real results. Also, a curve instead of a single value for hwy would tell you the absolute best that could be expected (and at what speed it occurs) and how driving at various speeds affects it.
“2. a plot of steady-state instantaneous mpg v. speed”
Great idea, I think you just fixed the EPA mpg problems right there. My issue with current highway numbers is that they don’t include steady state cruising at all (which leaves a huge percentage of US drivers without a usable metric and disadvantages alternative combustion and transmission strategies) and they blend highway with non highway driving, which means that if your route is longer or shorter than the EPA test the accuracy of the results gets worse and worse.
This would also break up the strategies that (some) automakers are currently using to game the EPA cycle. What’s the point of forcing upshifts at certain rpm’s if customers can clearly see what that does to fuel economy at other speeds?
“A plot of steady-state instantaneous mpg v. speed” That would work great for me since the roads I travel on are mostly flat, but not so much for hilly areas. Current new cars seem to be optimized for flat roads…. the slightest incline and many of them are kicking down to a lower gear.
I would like to know steady state mpg vs speed.
But I’m afraid if such a thing were actually published in an official capacity it would get every coffee shop, non car owning greenbean in the country out in the streets screaming to bring the double nickel back because 47 seems so much bigger than 36.
weather stats would be awesome as well, especially when electric vehicles become more common, living in a cold climate might otherwise mean that your commuter car doesn’t get you to work like you expected. Fuel consumption figures does get really wonky when you start a car that’s been outside in zero weather as well.
Can we persuade Hyundai to do this?
Would be sorely needed. In Brazil Hyundai can’t even get the HP figures right on their engines.
I would venture to say it’s the same in the US. In particular, the 1.6L in the Accent/Rio/Veloster feels seriously overrated on power. They actually claim 138hp out of that thing.
Ford as well.
Agreed. My Ford consistently beats the EPA ratings.
The new Fusion Hybrid Is rated at 47 city 47 hwy, people have been averaging 37 mpg. The C-Max was worse so bad that Ford actually had to re rate it from 47 city 47 hwy to 45 city 40 hwy. The C-Max is ugly too.
http://www.fordmpgfraud.com/
The C-Max was a complete f-up. Ford did misrate that and should have known better.
Most of their ICE vehicles do quite well (yes, even ecoboost). Until 2013, their hybrids were realistically rated. They could use a little kick in the pants on their recent hybrids. The competition hybrids don’t get any better mpg, but they don’t claim to either.
All the reports I’ve heard are that ecoboosts are not that stellar, especially the 2.0. I’m sure they can beat their EPA numbers, but an aweful lot of people don’t. Maybe the engines are super-sensitive, maybe their buyers just love power too much, or maybe they just don’t match other engines.
Carfan-
I knew my C-Max wouldn’t beat EPA tests when I first test drove one. Anyone who bought one and thought they were going to get 47 MPG on the freeway is a fool. Despite that, I love the car. I will take 38-43 MPG combined depending on season.
redav-
I have a harder time hitting EPA numbers on the 1.6T/1.5T than the 2.0T. The only exception is the Explorer. God help the 2.0T in the Explorer. I get better MPG with AWD and the 3.5EB.
Makes sense for Mitsubishi to do this. They’ve got terrible market presence in the US, but at this moment, they’ve got offerings with relatively decent economy. Having “real world figures” for the Outlander PHEV and Mirage will certainly be a good image boost, since both cars are pretty good compared to what else is out there.
*cough* In terms of fuel economy, that is.
the Outlander PHEV seems pretty decent to me, perhaps not the best at anything but all around decent machine at a reasonable price.
Is this even legal? I was under the impression that federal law limited auto manufacturers to using the EPA numbers only, with no other MPG claims allowed.
This might be Mitsubishi in the UK. The sources are all in the UK.
Imperial litres consumed per nautical miles gallon knots!
Integrated over furlongs per fortnight.
Oh jolly well, just a stone’s throw away.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I likes it!
IIRC, car companies can use any number *less than* the EPA number–so if they want to understate the mpg, that’s fine.
I’m not too sure about that. The EPA requires their mileage stickers on all cars sold here, and mandates those are the ONLY numbers that can be used in advertising, so people will have a consistent(ly wrong) point of comparison. The only deviation now in use is the message, “your mileage may vary”.
Due to that ‘consistent point of comparison’ standard, I really doubt any car company can advertise different numbers at all. But you may be right, and it’s understandable why car makers wouldn’t use lower numbers if they could.
All both of Mitsubishi’s customers will welcome this.
LAWL
What consumers need to take from the EPA ratings is that they are a standardized test, allowing for apples to apples comparisons, or at least as close as can currently be had. Real world Midwest is going to be quite different than real world Rocky Mountains. If you really care about the extra 2 or 3 mpg difference between cars then you should probably be doing more homework on your own. Too much information doesn’t make a better decision in most cases.
Mitsubishi needs to stop selling cars in america.
They pretty much have.
You’re right. But despite the efforts of the car buying public they still TRY to sell cars over here.
I love MPG! Maybe because I grew up in the 70s with the energy crisis.
The EPA has revised it’s numbers downward several times. I remember our 1980 Fairmont was rated 23/38 (yes 38! More than a Pinto, lol), and it got 19-23 in suburban driving and 28-33 on the highway (28 at 63 mph and 33 and 52mph). I tracked every gallon in my first new car-over the course of 144k, my 86 VW GTI (26/31 EPA MPG) average 28.5 mpg. About the same as my 2011 Malibu (22/33 EPA MPG), which includes a year of 160 mile round trip commutes.
I like the idea of a graph showing steady state mpg from 50-90 mph!
I’d like to see this extended to other manufacturers. For example BMW could publish a doucheometer index for their different models, Lamborghini could publish average penis size and Subaru the sexuality of its car owners on the Kinsey scale
Dang, that would be hard to quantify. Maybe it’s best if we leave it all to our imaginations.
The only number I’m ever concerned with when shopping is the combined rating because I usually hit that right on the head. I’ve never had a full city cycle, and I’ve never had a full highway cycle.
Of course I’d rather see gallons/100 miles in something other than microscopic type on the forms. This shows consumption in a much more understandable way that MPG.
20 MPG = 5 Gallons/100 miles
30 MPG = 3.33 Gallons/100 miles
40 MPG = 2.5 Gallons/100 miles
60 MPG = 1.67 Gallons/100 miles
This really makes it obvious when you’re reaching diminishing-returns land especially when your choice is between two vehciles whose mileage figures are 2 points apart.
Is a 34 MPG car really that much better than a 32 MPG car? It comes down to a rounding error.
Total horse crap that Mitsu or anybody can give “real world” MPG. There are so many variables it’s damn near impossible to tell someone exactly what the number will be.
I don’t even wanna know the EVO.
I’d like to see such a system for EVs. Here is a simple example:
http://news.fleetcarma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Leaf_Range_Cold_Weather_FleetCarma.png
Mitsubishi was doing much better when they were making cars for everyone else, literally. Mitsubishi made cars for Hyundai, Chrysler and themselves all over the world.
Now, they don’t make cars for anyone and they’re sucking wind. Weird how that worked out for them.
mitsu are building cars for PSA currently.
It’s all well and good that Mitsubishi will publish more realisitic economy figures for its vehicles, but the brand has bigger problems. A top spec Outlander in the UK is £35K, which is insane money for utilitarian load lugger.
Another article, from 2012, talking about the same mileage discrepancy issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/9241054/Fuel-economy-why-your-car-wont-match-the-official-mpg.html
Should this Worldwide Light-Duty Vehicle Test Cycle be introduced (and you know the OEMs are fighting that one all the way) there could be more realistic numbers for everyone, everywhere.
Good grief 35K? Isn’t that more than a loaded Shogun? How much is a Lexus RX or GX?
A Lexus RX 450h starts at £45K. It’s probably quite well equipped, but I imagine there are a few other options that will lift that up a little more. A top-spec ’14 CR-V is about £32K, and I’d rather drive that day-to-day than a poorly executed Mitsubishi of any type, including a tarted up Lancer with 300bhp and a squeaky IP.
I would far prefer an energy cost sticker based on standard assumptions of annual mileage and cost per unit fuel. Informed consumers being essential to a free market and all that. Asking politicians to rid the world of snake oil is a fools errand, and yet I find myself walking that path.
“I would far prefer an energy cost sticker based on standard assumptions of annual mileage and cost per unit fuel.”
The EPA already does that.