In Canada the 2015 Mirage is essentially exactly the same as the 2014 mocel. Can anyone explain why the fuel economy numbers for the 2015 Canadian Mirage are so much worse than the 2014 numbers?
In Canada the 2015 Mirage is essentially exactly the same as the 2014 mocel. Can anyone explain why the fuel economy numbers for the 2015 Canadian Mirage are so much worse than the 2014 numbers?
For the 2015 model year, NRCAN essentially adopted the more thorough U.S. EPA testing methodology. The change was applied to all vehicles sold in the country, and the effect made it appear that almost every car's fuel economy got worse between 2014 to 2015 even if the vehicle itself didn't change.
The ratings are now in line with what more "typical" drivers can get in real world driving.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)
Well, the 1.2L Euro Mirage is actually slightly more efficient than the U.S. one (differences in aero, engine stop/start, slightly higher compression, gearing differences). But not by as much as the numbers appear to show.
The US has a very different fuel consumption testing approach than NEDC. So, the ratings are very different.
NEDC testing wil likely be revised because so many drivers can't achieve the rated numbers. When that happens, the numbers will get closer to the U.S. (which was revised in 2008).
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)