Quote:
Originally Posted by GregMN
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
(Also never say never or always.)
My 1996 E300D's are currently rated 24/32 mpg by the new EPA rating system.
Tire pressure 34, cruise set at 5mph over the posted limit. Hwy 260, 60, 54, I-35
Date...... Location................. Mileage ..... Miles..... Gallons ....MPG
01/09/13 Payson, AZ .............66104........ ............ 6.082
01/10/13 Springerville, AZ ......66245........ 141 ........3.704 .... 38.1
01/10/13 Socorro, NM........... 66399........ 154 ........4.361 .... 35.3
01/10/13 Santa Rosa, NM ......66571........ 172 ....... 4.579 .....37.6
01/11/13 Hooker, OK .............66819........ 248....... 5.437 .....45.6
01/11/13 Pleasant Valley, MO .67261 ........442 .......11.622 ....38.0
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shertex
I would not put too much stock in mpg figures over short distances....because then variables such as pump shutoff points, etc. play a larger role. Best to make calculations when you've used almost a full tank of fuel.
|
I put zilch stock in his numbers. His mpg will always fall between the EPA's published numbers. The quoted numbers he listed above are not the complete EPA statement available. Those are the headliner numbers. His model may be so aged that perhaps they weren't publishing for that model at the time his car was built. Or, he's completely unaware of this.
The numbers he's quoting are outliers or exaggerated. As reflected in the short gallon numbers, or perhaps his calculation method or car's odometer isn't calibrated.
The EPA changed how their stated mpg numbers are calculated at least once over the years.