EPA finds diesels get better mileage than sticker

valkraider · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:15 pm

Quote:

"As can be seen, diesels appear to perform the best with respect to their label fuel economy, outperforming the label by 4.3%," the EPA technical support document said. Diesel was the only power source to see an increase in real-world MPG. Gasoline cars decreased by between 1.4%-1.7%, while hybrid owners saw their real-world mileage drop by over 8% compared to the current fuel economy label.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/auto/20061214/CLTH51914122006-1.html#

KenJennings · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:58 pm

Maybe the people at Consumer Reports will be surprised by this, but I don't think very many here will find this surprising.

Jeger · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:21 pm

I'm thinking...DUH! this is old news to anyone that owns a diesel! They also need to realize if they havnt already, that diesels dont see peak fuel mileage until at least 10K miles.

BioJeep · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:53 pm

Quote:

They also need to realize if they havnt already, that diesels dont see peak fuel mileage until at least 10K miles.

I didn't look into Consumer Report's figures but I would suspect this to be the explanation.

Jeger · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:04 pm

BioJeep wrote:

Quote:

They also need to realize if they havnt already, that diesels dont see peak fuel mileage until at least 10K miles.

I didn't look into Consumer Report's figures but I would suspect this to be the explanation.

Maybe part of the explanation, but they reported 11 MPG I believe. I honestly think you could drive full throttle all day and still get better than that!

BioJeep · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:25 pm

WHOA!

Yeah, something went wrong there...

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:36 pm

Jeger wrote:

BioJeep wrote:

Quote:

They also need to realize if they havnt already, that diesels dont see peak fuel mileage until at least 10K miles.

I didn't look into Consumer Report's figures but I would suspect this to be the explanation.

Maybe part of the explanation, but they reported 11 MPG I believe. I honestly think you could drive full throttle all day and still get better than that!

Their testing process was flawed. I read something about the way they did the testing that they weren't accounting for the unused fuel that was being drained back into the fuel tank. The lowest I have ever averaged on a tank was 21 mpg.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:34 pm

I emailed them and I think someone esle also did, and I asked about their testing procedure and they replied that they disconnected the hose from fuel tank and put it into a container with a measured amount of fuel. I emailed back that that was an invalid test as the diesel fuel system returns about 30% to as high as 70% of the fuel to the tank unused. They politely told me that their test was done properly and would stand by what they stated in the report.

valkraider · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:26 am

Go to fueleconomy.gov and share your mileage:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do

Jeger · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:49 am

oldnavy wrote:

I emailed them and I think someone esle also did, and I asked about their testing procedure and they replied that they disconnected the hose from fuel tank and put it into a container with a measured amount of fuel. I emailed back that that was an invalid test as the diesel fuel system returns about 30% to as high as 70% of the fuel to the tank unused. They politely told me that their test was done properly and would stand by what they stated in the report.

I had heard that before, but didnt know it had been verified. I guess it would "look bad" for them to admit one of their tests was flawed.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:15 am

I think it would look better if they admitted they made a mistake on the test. Retested, and put the true figures out there. It is impossible to get 11mpg with this jeep unless you punch a big hole in the fuel tank and allow fuel to leak out while you are driving down the road.

DZL_LOU · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:33 am

no-blue-screen wrote:

I think it would look better if they admitted they made a mistake on the test. Retested, and put the true figures out there. It is impossible to get 11mpg with this jeep unless you punch a big hole in the fuel tank and allow fuel to leak out while you are driving down the road.

Yeah, even a fully loaded over the road diesel semi hauler will get around 7~8 mpg. Maybe consumer reports thought we had a six cylinder CAT underneath that plastic black JEEP bonnet.

Jeger · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:58 am

DZL_LOU wrote:

no-blue-screen wrote:

I think it would look better if they admitted they made a mistake on the test. Retested, and put the true figures out there. It is impossible to get 11mpg with this jeep unless you punch a big hole in the fuel tank and allow fuel to leak out while you are driving down the road.

Yeah, even a fully loaded over the road diesel semi hauler will get around 7~8 mpg. Maybe consumer reports thought we had a six cylinder CAT underneath that plastic black JEEP bonnet.

I could have gone for a 4 cyl CAT under the hood, that would have been awesome!
Dont get me wrong this VM is a sweet little engine, But I would love to put a big CATERPILLAR sticker across the top of the windshield. That would make me happy.

BiodieselJeep.com · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:24 pm

I remember reading CR that their test was 18-19 mpg mixed highway/city. Where did you guys get 11mpg? Can someone confirm?

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:24 pm

BiodieselJeep.com wrote:

I remember reading CR that their test was 18-19 mpg mixed highway/city. Where did you guys get 11mpg? Can someone confirm?

Not the one CR I read, a friend showed it to me and ask me about the mileage.

EPA finds diesels get better mileage than sticker

Who is online