^im actually amazed the test is that thorough. regardless of being on a dyno or real life.

i assumed they did something like put it on a dyno with no resistance and cruised at 60km/h and recorded the number. lol

Most new cars have the A/C compressor on when your defrost is on, which also turns on the rad fan, making it the warm up cycle a lot longer in winter.

My wifes versa gets 500km to a tank in summer and 400km in winter. We've had the car for 3 years and its the same every year.

As to the article 7.9l/per 100km is actually pretty good. As mentioned elsewhere the rating system is set by transport Canada, you can't blame the manufacturers for useing goverment tests. BTW my wifes versa doesn't get anywhere near the Canadian rating, but bang on the US rating.

stupid people... calgary is around 1,084 m (3,557 ft) above sea level so less air... and its really cold in winter, and really hot in the summer... plus fuel economy also depends on the driving style, and how well you maintain your car... maybe they drive like a douchebag... i don't get y they are b!tching anyways, since their gas is so much cheaper...

I still don't get why Splinter is adamant that multiple people are wrong on the same subject. Unless you are trolling. Otherwise, stahp.

I had a cruze with a 1.4l. it even had the eco package with the crazy transmission. it was rated at 4.5l/100

Best I ever saw, which was fuel computer reset at the midpoint of the ironworkers bridge, out to hope, at the speed limit was 5.2l/100. That car was so unrealistic it wasn't funny. I'd be lucky to get 7l/100 on the sea to sky! While i honestly wasn't expecting to get 4.5 on the sea to sky, it was upsetting

then the engine blew up at 24k kms and i traded it in for a speed 3

The speed3 is rated at 8l/100 highway, and I can consistanly get lower numbers than that. I can get better numbers than the cruze did on the sea to sky!!


so why was the cruze rated soooo far under my normal average, and the speed 3 is almost always better than rated????

Because no one has actually explained it yet.

It doesn't matter if 50 people say the same thing, if they all heard it from the same incorrect source.

I'm not saying they're wrong, I just want to hear an explanation. I'm genuinely curious.

That Google thing - CRAZY. I didn't even type in a question **mind blown**....is the US Department of Energy credible enough, or is this another "incorrect source" for you?

Many Factors Affect MPG

The us gov data, which is bang on accurate for all 3 of my cars, dissagrees with you. So does the consumer reported data.
Compare Side-by-Side

Is it really necessary to be such a sarcastic piece of shit or can you converse like a normal human being?

I don't get why you're 'coming at me'. I said something which may have been incorrect, people offered different opinions, I asked for something to back it up so I could understand it.

No need to act the way you are.

I can elaborate on my above post.Even the owners manual on my versa says it will get worse millage in winter time. This is because of several factors, when the defrost is on the A/C compressor is always on. As the A/C dries the air while heating it, creating parastitic loss. In order to run the A/C the rad fan comes on, so its always pulling extremely cool air (compared to summer) it takes far longer to reach operating temp, up to 5-6 min of driving. ECUs add fuel to bring a car up to operating temp. If you've ever had a car with a bad coolant temp sensor you'd get horrible fuel millage all the time as the ECU defauts into warm up mode if the temp reads to low or not at all.

I have a data logger on my BMW that shows the exact coolant temp in winter its always 15-20 degrees colder. My IATs are are 20-30 degrees cooler in winter. The logger shows the ECU adding fuel and timming, consequently the car makes more power in winter , but its worse on fuel, to the tune of about 3 mpgs on average.

Gasoline engines have poor thermal efficiency, much of the heat they produce is lost and not used to produce work, the colder it is, the less efficient they are.

If my explanstions aren't enough. Read this.
Why is the fuel economy of an automobile worse in the winter than in the summer?: Scientific American

Intelligent, insightful, well written and polite.

Thank you, sir.

"You SPEND $7,250 more in fuel costs over 5 years compared to the average new vehicle"

fuck hah.....

I suggest Google - hundreds of links to answer your exact question, you swear at me in two different posts, and I'm not conversing like a human in your eyes. Sorry you took a simple post the wrong way.

Not coming at you, I just don't act like you.

You suggested it in an extremely rude fashion.

Anyway, whatever it doesn't matter.

3 different people explained it. You claim they are all wrong. That is quite possibly the stupidest reasoning for not accepting you are wrong, that I have ever heard, and I have read a lot of Timpo posts.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Pull your wet fucking panties out of your goddamn back pussy. Jesus fuck woman.

I did accept that I was wrong, when someone explained it properly with a credible source.

so you say no one has explained anything.

i posted this a page back:

you refuted or simply argued (incorrectly or otherwise) all of my points except the first one which you apparently didn't look on google

You say everyone's opinion is invalid because it it just their opinion, then you turn around and say things like

and
So maybe your 'understanding and 'everything [you] know about engines', was, infact, incorrect.