2015 Fuel Economy? (Changes in Canadian fuel economy testing)

[Canoehead]

It took me a while to realize they weren't making the 2015 cars much worse, just using the new NrCan 5 cycle testing. When I saw Honda bragging about getting a combined 6.4L/100 with the CVT on the new Fit, I had to read the fine print, since the old fit got 6.5L/100 combined with the Manual.

In order to fairly compare the 2014 Mirage to its competitors, is there a fixed multiplier, or is the test completely different and numbers vary between models? Does anyone know what the number will be for the 2015 Mirage? I'm sure it will be the same car, just interested for comparison purposes.

For example, would the Mirage that gets 5.3L/100 combined just be 5.3 X 1.2 = 6.4, and that would work for every make/model of vehicle?

[MetroMPG]

For 2015 models tested under the new system, the Canadian ratings should be essentially the same as the U.S. EPA's (which switched from 2-cycle to 5-cycle testing for the 2008 model year... we're finally catching up). So you can just look those up & convert to L/100 km.

NRCAN has added "new, improved" ratings on their site for pre-2015 models (you have to click into the vehicle details to see them; they don't show on the search results page).

EG: check the NRCAN details:

2014 MITSUBISHI MIRAGE CVT
5.3 city / 4.4 highway ("old" NRCAN ratings)
6.4 city / 5.4 highway ("improved" NRCAN ratings)

vs. 6.4 city / 5.4 highway (EPA ratings, converted)

2014 MITSUBISHI MIRAGE MANUAL
5.9 city / 4.6 highway ("old" NRCAN ratings)
7.0 city / 5.6 highway ("improved" NRCAN ratings)

vs. 6.9 city / 5.6 highway (EPA ratings, converted)

[Canoehead]

Great. Thanks.

Here's another question: People who complain "this new car doesn't get better mileage than my old car" looking at the ratings. I know we have discussed the extra weight of safer cars, more features etc. Is it also possible that the old ratings were more generous? Put another way - is the Mirage actually less efficient than the stock Metro/Firefly, or just on paper?

[MetroMPG]

The ratings have been updated (ie. made more "pessimistic" or "real world", depending on your viewpoint) several times in the past. So it's possible they're thinking of the "old" ratings and comparing to the new ones.

The switch to 5-cycle testing is going to complicate things: for example, it's already easy to find online chatter about the 2015 Micra's "horrible" fuel economy. It's not great relative to the Spark/Mirage, but it's not "horrible" in the big picture - that's just the effect of people comparing 2015 numbers to 2014 numbers.

But the Mirage is effectively as efficient as my last generation 1998 Metro/Firefly (unmodified). And that's with 35% more power, more space, more features, refinement, safety equipment, etc etc.

I just collected level road, steady-speed fuel economy numbers for the Mirage last night, from 50 to 120 km/h. I suspect they will be very close to the numbers I have for my Firefly (just have to verify the ScanGauge calibration before I post).