Topic: Real-world fuel consumption

[Trainman]

So an interesting anomaly I have found with the XT.  It has now had 2 oil changes (one at about 3,300 kms and the last at 12,000 or so).  After both changes, there was a marked increase in fuel consumption, to the point that after the last one the lifetime average went from 8.5 to 8.6 in less than a 1,000 kms.  I will be asking at the 20,000 service if they do anything to the computer, maybe it is trying to re-learn my driving style?  Fuel consumption seems to be back to normal now, will see how long it will take to get back to that 8.5.

[Seafoam]

So an interesting anomaly I have found with the XT.  It has now had 2 oil changes (one at about 3,300 kms and the last at 12,000 or so).  After both changes, there was a marked increase in fuel consumption, to the point that after the last one the lifetime average went from 8.5 to 8.6 in less than a 1,000 kms.  I will be asking at the 20,000 service if they do anything to the computer, maybe it is trying to re-learn my driving style?  Fuel consumption seems to be back to normal now, will see how long it will take to get back to that 8.5.

They didn't change to a heavier grade of oil by mistake? Seems strange that fuel consumption would go up. It's not your heavier foot with that turbo?

[Solstice2006]

So an interesting anomaly I have found with the XT.  It has now had 2 oil changes (one at about 3,300 kms and the last at 12,000 or so).  After both changes, there was a marked increase in fuel consumption, to the point that after the last one the lifetime average went from 8.5 to 8.6 in less than a 1,000 kms.  I will be asking at the 20,000 service if they do anything to the computer, maybe it is trying to re-learn my driving style?  Fuel consumption seems to be back to normal now, will see how long it will take to get back to that 8.5.

They didn't change to a heavier grade of oil by mistake? Seems strange that fuel consumption would go up. It's not your heavier foot with that turbo?

Are you taking into account the heavy use of A/C this summer?

[Trainman]

So an interesting anomaly I have found with the XT.  It has now had 2 oil changes (one at about 3,300 kms and the last at 12,000 or so).  After both changes, there was a marked increase in fuel consumption, to the point that after the last one the lifetime average went from 8.5 to 8.6 in less than a 1,000 kms.  I will be asking at the 20,000 service if they do anything to the computer, maybe it is trying to re-learn my driving style?  Fuel consumption seems to be back to normal now, will see how long it will take to get back to that 8.5.

They didn't change to a heavier grade of oil by mistake? Seems strange that fuel consumption would go up. It's not your heavier foot with that turbo?

Are you taking into account the heavy use of A/C this summer?

Some good points, but the fuel consumption goes back down after about a 1,000 kms.   I guess I will have to get a couple of sockets out to see if I can fix it.

Posted from my awesome Z30 on the Telus Network

[tortoise]

I don't think a difference of 0.1 l/100 km is enough of a difference to be statistically relevant.   It would chalk it up to a coincidence.

[mlin32]

Stuck in the low 9s with the 3er. I guess it's acceptable for a 80/20 split of mostly urban, some highway and use of the climatisation in the afternoons.

Think the T-stat is stuck in eco-mode though. Not much midrange power, I find myself dipping the throttle pedal to 80% in 2nd just to get moving.

[valuator]

Stuck in the low 9s with the 3er. I guess it's acceptable for a 80/20 split of mostly urban, some highway and use of the climatisation in the afternoons.

Think the T-stat is stuck in eco-mode though. Not much midrange power, I find myself dipping the throttle pedal to 80% in 2nd just to get moving.

I have tracked every tank of gas I've put in my 3er since purchase in April 2012.  sitting at 11.40 lifetime over 74,000km and 11.77 thus far over 8,000km in 2016.  Doing 80% highway with AC always on in the nicer weather. 

I too find mid-range power to be lacking these days....

[Bulkley]

I have tracked every tank of gas I've put in my 3er since purchase in April 2012.

That's the only accurate way to do it. 

[Angry Chicken]

Just got back from a trip to NW Arkansas from Ottawa.

km/miles each way = 2347 / 1461
fuel used (average each way) = 53.095 US gallon
Calculated fuel economy = 27.52 MPG (US) -or- 8.55 litres/100km
Average hwy cruising speed = 115 km/h = 71.6 mph [actual]
Trip overall average speed (incl. stops) = 101 km/h = 62.9 mph

Impressive mileage for a 3.2 V6. Mind you my old TT 1.8T (w/ multiple mods) was good for 7.3 litres/100 km = 32.7 for the same trip last year. 5 mpg difference = meh. ;-)

FYI the car has 149,000 km on the odometer and it's equipped with the DSG. It's got newish Continental ExtremeContact DW summer high performance tires....not exactly high mileage Prius tires.

[blur911]

9.3 l/100km for the last tank in our 2003 Outback wagon with the 3.0 six.  Still running well

[mlin32]

173km on the track @VIR yielded 4,6 l/100km on the bike.

Oh wait, that's not "real-world" conditions..............

[blur911]

13.25 l/100km for the 2006 Cayenne S's last tank

[5 Wheel Drive]

Just got back from our annual trek to Maine.  It was our first long trip with the CX9.  We drove a total of 1803.4 km's and used 216.43 liters of regular.  That works out to 11.9 l/100km's, or 23.4 mpg.  Not too bad for a large suv with a carrier on the roof and the cruise set to about 115-120km/h for most of the trip.

[Solstice2006]

Just got back from our annual trek to Maine.  It was our first long trip with the CX9.  We drove a total of 1803.4 km's and used 216.43 liters of regular.  That works out to 11.9 l/100km's, or 23.4 mpg.  Not too bad for a large suv with a carrier on the roof and the cruise set to about 115-120km/h for most of the trip.

Sounds like the one of the worst out of the 3rd row SUVs.  Thank heavens the new one is so much improved in terms of fuel mileage. 

[tortoise]

Really?  I would think the Pilot and Highlander would be about the same at 120 with a roof box on top.

[Angry Chicken]

Really?  I would think the Pilot and Highlander would be about the same at 120 with a roof box on top.

Exactly!  This is the real-world fuel consumption thread after all.  That sounds good for a big SUV loaded with kids, kaboodle, and karrier.

[5 Wheel Drive]

Really?  I would think the Pilot and Highlander would be about the same at 120 with a roof box on top.

Exactly!  This is the real-world fuel consumption thread after all.  That sounds good for a big SUV loaded with kids, kaboodle, and karrier.

I forgot to mention, the interstates in New Hampshire & Vermont aren't exactly flat.  I used have my foot right to the floor in a couple of places when the Forester was all loaded up.  It was effortless with the CX9.

[Gurgie]

Just got back from our annual trek to Maine.  It was our first long trip with the CX9.  We drove a total of 1803.4 km's and used 216.43 liters of regular.  That works out to 11.9 l/100km's, or 23.4 mpg.  Not too bad for a large suv with a carrier on the roof and the cruise set to about 115-120km/h for most of the trip.

I'm thinking that's a pretty decent number based on the terrain traveled & the amount of cargo as well.  It might be a little better than I would expect even 

[Fobroader]

Just got back from our annual trek to Maine.  It was our first long trip with the CX9.  We drove a total of 1803.4 km's and used 216.43 liters of regular.  That works out to 11.9 l/100km's, or 23.4 mpg.  Not too bad for a large suv with a carrier on the roof and the cruise set to about 115-120km/h for most of the trip.

Thats not bad at all for a full vehicle with messed up aerodynamics doing a good clip of speed.

[quadzilla]

I forgot to mention, the interstates in New Hampshire & Vermont aren't exactly flat.

This. The topography of VT and NH does not help fuel economy in any way.