Official: What are your real world MPG Numbers
- Thread starter Sonic-Mike
- Start date
someone pushing you in neutral????? my 2012 LTZ HB was lucky to get 22~ mpg intown.. just before i sold it . (99.5% town) #*(@^%(&@
and parents 2015 LS base still only gets average of 10.3L/100km according to the dash which is pretty accurate .. and is still under 23mpg .. and thats a 70% city 30% highway ...it only has 25k on it.. so its still a baby ..
i'd like to know how the &^%*&% people get this ridiculous high mpg (intown)
jackgopack4
New member
I have tracked with Fuelly since about a month after I bought and I have gotten an average of 34.9 MPG or 6.7L/100km on my 2014 hatchback LT 1.4L turbo with 16” wheels.
I lived in a rural area for a few years where there wasn’t much traffic and most of the roads were two lane 45/55mph and I got great mileage there, around 37MPG or 6.4L/100km average. Now I moved to a more traditional city with stop and go traffic. I drive more 50/50 city/highway these days and the last year have gotten right around 31MPG or 7.6L/100km.
I have the manual, I aggressively upshift and reluctantly downshift, and have used 100% gasoline (no ethanol) as much as possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
best i did with my 12' LTZ turbo auto HB is 40mpg highway and 25 intown at this point was atleast better then my grand caravan ... but that was after transmission rebuild.. then slowly dropped off from there to be equal to slightly worst.. the 15' 1.8 auto HB has never seen better then 30 highway and 23 intown.. and by these its 100% intown or 100% highway it did have the BCM just replaced aswell on the 15' so we will see..
yet above claims 45 intown :/ jeeze thats double what i get/got idk.. someone musta be pushing
or driving downhill.. BOTHWAYS!!! lol
yet above claims 45 intown :/ jeeze thats double what i get/got idk.. someone musta be pushing
or driving downhill.. BOTHWAYS!!! lol
Last edited:
No? I don't floor it (Usually), use a bit of common sense with predicting and maintain my momentum through corners, but nothing that's crazy or anything. I'm on a base model, 1.8L and the manual. I mainly just follow the golden rule of fuel economy: Any time you touch the brakes, you've wasted fuel.
JTee2017
Well-known member
2017 LT HB auto 1.8L.
Is just one year of owning it bought new off the lot. Lifetime average on the DIC is 33.2 MPG. About 65% city [30 to 40 MPH] and 35 % state hwy/interstate [55 to 75 MPH]. Also have kicked it down into passing on the interstate cruising at 65 to 70 MPH and took it up to +80 MPH a number of times. . . OK . .. a dozen or so. Just to see how it does.
I was actually surprised that the little 1.8L NA engine will actually take off and pass going 70 MPH if you step on the pedal smartly when you need it. The engine comes alive at 3,500 to 4,500 RPM. It does get "buzzy" then, but does not sound like it is complaining.
But the point is. . not really babying it.
Fill ups hand calculated. . . worst was 29.1 MPG the best was 36.7 MPG during this first year of driving. Not a lot of miles on the car. 4,930 so the engine is just breaking in.
Is just one year of owning it bought new off the lot. Lifetime average on the DIC is 33.2 MPG. About 65% city [30 to 40 MPH] and 35 % state hwy/interstate [55 to 75 MPH]. Also have kicked it down into passing on the interstate cruising at 65 to 70 MPH and took it up to +80 MPH a number of times. . . OK . .. a dozen or so.
Just to see how it does. I was actually surprised that the little 1.8L NA engine will actually take off and pass going 70 MPH if you step on the pedal smartly when you need it. The engine comes alive at 3,500 to 4,500 RPM. It does get "buzzy" then, but does not sound like it is complaining.
But the point is. . not really babying it.
Fill ups hand calculated. . . worst was 29.1 MPG the best was 36.7 MPG during this first year of driving. Not a lot of miles on the car. 4,930 so the engine is just breaking in.
Setup: BNR tune w/ MPFab intake on my 2017 1.4t
Driving Conditions: 90% city/10% highway (AVG speed per tank is almost always: 19.2 +/- 0.3 MPH)
Winter Blend: 27-29 MPG
Summer Blend: 29-32 MPG
Best MPG - 44 MPG going 55 MPH for 80 miles straight..
*All measured at the pump - DIC MPG calculation is usually 1-3 MPG optimistic.
Driving Conditions: 90% city/10% highway (AVG speed per tank is almost always: 19.2 +/- 0.3 MPH)
Winter Blend: 27-29 MPG
Summer Blend: 29-32 MPG
Best MPG - 44 MPG going 55 MPH for 80 miles straight..
*All measured at the pump - DIC MPG calculation is usually 1-3 MPG optimistic.
so what your saying is you get roughly 900km to a tank intown based on fact i get 430~ at 23mpg i still call BS .. i could't get that highway tailing a rig with a tailwind going downhill .. i know the manual is a few better but and NO i did not drive the turbo hard, and neither does my 60 year old mother on the LS..
i just dont see the intown rating you got... just can't . unless your traffic is nil and only 1 traffic light for miles..
Don't know what to tell you man. Reset before each trip yesterday and today. 5.2L in to work yesterday, 5.2L back home yesterday, 5.2L back in to work today.
Tank usually lasts me about 800KM or so since I've fixed my intake. Not sure why you're only getting 430KM a tank. Mine lasted longer than that even when my intake was cracked.
joe truck driver
New member
no requirement that anyone believe anything posted here, but....i posted fantastic mileages and i can prove them. 1) the manual gets better mileage than the automatic. 2) how you start and stop and whether you stop and start makes a big difference. 3) ambient temperature matters. 4) warm up and use of a/c uses more fuel that you can imagine. 5) if your mileage is that bad..... MAYBE there is something amiss in your cars or the fuel you are putting in them. 6) kind of goes without saying ,but.....anytime you are into the turbo your mileage will go down. the automatics that i remember have shift points above the no turbo range...no matter what i did.
had a 99 neon get 35-40mpg intown (city runner its a neon didn't trust it on highway lol) .. had a 2013 Lancer Ralli-Art AWD Turbo get over 30mpg intown and towards 50mpg highway dealer didn't believe the dash .. both were auto's .. tobad wife wrote it off running a red light was a nice car never even seen an oil change lol .. didnt have it long enough..
Not saying its impossible.. but like when i posted about my neon and the van getting better then my sonic(s) got backlash thats noway possible kinda responses... knowing your vacuum pressure is great to keep the mpg up..
*** Reset before each trip yesterday and today. -- has an effect on what it says my average mpg was over a tank.. or few thousand km.. not a short trip.. if i go that way my van see's 2.3l/100km going to work today as its no traffic early sunday and downhill.. the way home is another story haha.. but over 4500km's mixed city and highway its around 8.8l /100km and this is same travelling i did with sonic that average about the same on a good day .. but 1.4L vs 3.6L 2500lbs vs 4500 lbs .. (guesstimate)
Everyone i have talked to that owns these cars around here complain the mpg sucks and thats even base of base manuals with no ac.. i work hotel industry i see a few a week..
not sure what u have for town driving but here CITY driving is much stopping every 2-3 blocks for a red light(if wife dosent choose to run it...see above..LOL) and busy traffic running rush hour, the vehicle getting 23mpg isnt the worst thing in the world.. its the fact got better with a 19 year old neon ... that honestly was running 100% condition 3 speed auto with lockup . same gas station same fuel(shell) as here its only station with 91 octane no ethanol in the gas... i know esso aswell but its otherside of town..lol
was a nice car never even seen an oil change lol .. didnt have it long enough.. Not saying its impossible.. but like when i posted about my neon and the van getting better then my sonic(s) got backlash thats noway possible kinda responses... knowing your vacuum pressure is great to keep the mpg up..
*** Reset before each trip yesterday and today. -- has an effect on what it says my average mpg was over a tank.. or few thousand km.. not a short trip.. if i go that way my van see's 2.3l/100km going to work today as its no traffic early sunday and downhill.. the way home is another story haha.. but over 4500km's mixed city and highway its around 8.8l /100km and this is same travelling i did with sonic that average about the same on a good day .. but 1.4L vs 3.6L 2500lbs vs 4500 lbs .. (guesstimate)
Everyone i have talked to that owns these cars around here complain the mpg sucks and thats even base of base manuals with no ac.. i work hotel industry i see a few a week..
not sure what u have for town driving but here CITY driving is much stopping every 2-3 blocks for a red light(if wife dosent choose to run it...see above..LOL) and busy traffic running rush hour, the vehicle getting 23mpg isnt the worst thing in the world.. its the fact got better with a 19 year old neon ... that honestly was running 100% condition 3 speed auto with lockup . same gas station same fuel(shell) as here its only station with 91 octane no ethanol in the gas... i know esso aswell but its otherside of town..lol
Last edited:
Ah, that makes sense, because:no requirement that anyone believe anything posted here, but....i posted fantastic mileages and i can prove them. 1) the manual gets better mileage than the automatic. 2) how you start and stop and whether you stop and start makes a big difference. 3) ambient temperature matters. 4) warm up and use of a/c uses more fuel that you can imagine. 5) if your mileage is that bad..... MAYBE there is something amiss in your cars or the fuel you are putting in them. 6) kind of goes without saying ,but.....anytime you are into the turbo your mileage will go down. the automatics that i remember have shift points above the no turbo range...no matter what i did.
1) I drive a manual.
2) I only stop a couple times on the way in to work across a 35KM commute.
3) OK, that part kinda sucks for me. The temperature in Canada is all over the map.
4) Ain't got A/C, and my whole warmup cycle is spent going downhill.
JTee2017
Well-known member
I am fine with the MPG we've been getting with our 2017 Sonic. Even with the 1.8L engine it is about what I expected and maybe a little more for around town city driving. After buying it new in Sept 2017, I am doing about 30 to 31 MPG in mixed driving about 80% city and 20% some 50 to 60 MPH highway.
We have made a few 150 to 170 mile round trips to another city this past year and filled up upon leaving and then at the same station upon returning. On those trips I saw 33 to 36 MPG going +70MPH. I do know dropping down to 60 to 65 MPH would get me closer to 38 MPG which I have seen on one day trip.
To me, I hoped for maybe a bit better on highway trips, but +70MPH in a hatchback does a number.
To put this in perspective, yeah I've had a 1987 Chevy Spectrum (Isuzu) sedan with a 1.6L engine and 5 speed and we would get 30 to 33 around town and up to +44 MPG on highway trips. But that car had a carb and only 67HP. So back in '87 there certainly were cars that got amazing MPG, but were not noted for much in performance. But neither is even a Sonic with a 1.4L stock turbo.
We have made a few 150 to 170 mile round trips to another city this past year and filled up upon leaving and then at the same station upon returning. On those trips I saw 33 to 36 MPG going +70MPH. I do know dropping down to 60 to 65 MPH would get me closer to 38 MPG which I have seen on one day trip.
To me, I hoped for maybe a bit better on highway trips, but +70MPH in a hatchback does a number.
To put this in perspective, yeah I've had a 1987 Chevy Spectrum (Isuzu) sedan with a 1.6L engine and 5 speed and we would get 30 to 33 around town and up to +44 MPG on highway trips. But that car had a carb and only 67HP.
So back in '87 there certainly were cars that got amazing MPG, but were not noted for much in performance. But neither is even a Sonic with a 1.4L stock turbo.
Last edited:
Noticed something weird this morning. Fuel economy seemed to improve dramatically in the colder temperatures, rather than decrease as it should.
I normally get around 4.8L/100KM while driving through Richmond (Dead on at sea level, perfectly flat, little to no traffic/lights and 50-60KMH the whole way). Today the temperatures dropped to -1C, and the car pulled 4.4L/100KM, which is mind-boggling. Normally, fuel economy decreases to 5.2L/100KM by the time I get to my own work one city past, in Vancouver (Still at sea level, many elevation changes, much more traffic/lights and 50-60KMH the whole way); Instead today it only fell to 4.9L/100KM.
Now, I'm assuming part of this is because I'm on brand-new rubber up front, but even then, 10% improvement seems a bit much for just that. Anyone recorded their fuel economy in cold weather?
I normally get around 4.8L/100KM while driving through Richmond (Dead on at sea level, perfectly flat, little to no traffic/lights and 50-60KMH the whole way). Today the temperatures dropped to -1C, and the car pulled 4.4L/100KM, which is mind-boggling. Normally, fuel economy decreases to 5.2L/100KM by the time I get to my own work one city past, in Vancouver (Still at sea level, many elevation changes, much more traffic/lights and 50-60KMH the whole way); Instead today it only fell to 4.9L/100KM.
Now, I'm assuming part of this is because I'm on brand-new rubber up front, but even then, 10% improvement seems a bit much for just that. Anyone recorded their fuel economy in cold weather?
Kryptonsonic
New member
As atmospheric air becomes colder it becomes more dense. Note, the percentages of gases in the air remain the same, but the specific gravity of the air increases. Therefore in a liter of air there are more molecules of air available for combustion. So colder air will improve performance. In fact that is why people install cold air intakes, to provide as dense air as possible to squeeze as much horsepower out of the engine.
Right, no doubt, but the car is also compensating for that - you're not getting a leanout condition in cold air, you're just getting more air and fuel. On top of that, most oils/greases are more resistant to movement in the cold, that denser air is harder for your car's body to cut through and typically cold air is less efficient at mixing compared to warm air. Almost universally, cars get worse mileage in the cold. It's very odd that the Sonic seems to get better.
The only thing I can think of is that many people have said the Sonic tune is always on the border of knock. Cold air is more resistant to predetonation, so perhaps the timing is advancing in the cold weather.
JTee2017
Well-known member
Exactly. While extremely cold weather may cause more drag with wheel and transmission lubricants when cold, there is usually an optimum temperature range where air density/temperature results in best performance and MPG.
I've found over many year now, that MPG and performance seems to optimize between about 45F and 50F or maybe a bit lower depending on the engine and vehicle. Whether a car, truck or SUV, I've monitored this over the same 330 mile trips I take many times in a year.
Of course, when temps get down to below 25F or lower, any potential improvement in MPG or performance kind of gets nulled out. And onece down into single digit and below F temps .. . it's just plain too cold and we;re glad to have heated interiors to drive in.
joe truck driver
New member
don't know why, but the sonic i had responded to temperature. not better in cold, not better in chilly, the hotter is was the better the fuel mileage. i think few believe the numbers i posted, but i can back them up. i live in Michigan and would be happy to run the route i did and pay for the gas used that day a see what any other sonic could do. no two cars are exactly the same, but there is something GM is not telling us about the car. My friend who worked as a test mechanic for Saturn showed me all kinds of things GM didn't want you to know. Wasn't about safety, but just things that the car did. one example is the wow affect. for wagon or sedan...roll back windows down and keep front up and begin driving. if you don't feel it by 55 something is amiss. warning, once done, you will always notice effect in any car it happens too or in. yes, i know off topic. back to fuel economy...i actually rented a Sonic and a Cruze to see differences in economy. the 1.8 could not match the 1.4 which i though and still do was related more to rpm shift points than engine size. i have never gotten a response from GM, but wrote 2 letters to ask about ambient temperature's on 1.4 motor. i think with a little work..... All the Sonics could improve in fuel mileage. just don't know what the long term effect would be.
That's the way it normally is supposed to go. Hotter air promotes better air-fuel mixing, is easier for the car to cut through, increases tires psi (Which decreases rolling resistance), allows the car to hit operating temperature quicker, heats the fluids quicker and decreases the amount of air available to the engine (Which limits how much fuel the engine can use).
I haven't any idea why my own car seems to do the opposite, the only thing I could imagine was that the timing was advancing dramatically thanks to the cold, which was burning more of the fuel before the exhaust valve opened.
