2017 Mirage MPG/fuel economy rating on EPA site (lower than last year/ revised test)

[cyclopathic]

www.fueleconomy.com

and they are 1mpg lower than 2015:

[ComputerAbuser]

Were there any changes to the testing procedures? Environment Canada updated theirs since testing the 2015, so the numbers all went up here.

[MetroMPG]

Yes, the EPA testing methodology for 2017 is slightly stricter than previous years.

So 2017+ ratings may not quite be directly comparable to pre-2017 numbers. (Though the changes are going to be small, as we see.)

They changed the way automakers determine the "road load" value, which is used to set the mechanical resistance in the laboratory dynamometers on which they run the fuel economy / emissions tests. The value is determined in coast-down testing runs.

We can thank Hyundai (and a couple other manufacturers) for the changes -- they got caught gaming that part of the testing process. "Mistakes in testing" were made, they say.

It'll be interesting to see in the fuel log whether there's any real world difference between the redesigned Mirages with the roller cam engine vs. previous years.

[MetroMPG]

As for Canada, I imagine NRCAN will adopt these new EPA testing rules. How soon is anyone's guess!

It took them 7 years to adopt the previous "new" EPA system (our 2015 changes were in place since 2008 in the States).

[Daox]

What kind of fuel economy increase did we see for the 2017 in the Canadan ratings?

[ComputerAbuser]

What kind of fuel economy increase did we see for the 2017 in the Canadan ratings?

Decrease...
ESTIMATED FUEL CONSUMPTION
2017
5MT - CITY (L/100 KM) 7.1 L/100 km - 33.12881455 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
5MT - HIGHWAY (L/100 KM) 5.8 L/100 km - 40.55423851 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
5MT - COMBINED (L/100 KM) 6.5 L/100 km - 36.18685897 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)

CVT - CITY (L/100 KM) 6.4 L/100 km - 36.75227865 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
CVT - HIGHWAY (L/100 KM) 5.5 L/100 km - 42.76628788 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
CVT - COMBINED (L/100 KM) 6.0 L/100 km - 39.20243056 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)

2015
5MT - City (L/100 km) 7.0 L/100 km - 33.60208333 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
5MT - Highway (L/100 km) 5.5 L/100 km - 42.76628788 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
5MT - Combined (L/100 km) 6.4 L/100 km - 36.75227865 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)

CVT - City (L/100 km) 6.4 L/100 km - 36.75227865 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
CVT - Highway (L/100 km) 5.3 L/100 km - 44.38011006 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)
CVT - Combined (L/100 km) 5.9 L/100 km - 39.86687853 mpg, m/g (miles per US gallon)

[cyclopathic]

Here is some info on EPA changes:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/23/e...year-vehicles/
(the whole EPA letter is at http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/displa...d=34102&flag=1)

You might remember that the main problem with the vehicles that needed to have their MPG numbers changed was difficulty getting the road-load force correct. The EPA defines road-load force as the force "imparted on a vehicle while driving at constant speed over a smooth level surface from sources such as tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag." Getting this number right is key for ending up with a miles per gallon number on the window sticker that is closer to the real-world fuel efficiency buyers will see once they drive the car off the lot. The EPA issued a statement that says the new guidance document, "provides the automotive industry with detailed information about how EPA conducts audits of road load force values," and we can only hope that the days of big fines for incorrect MPG numbers are over.

The easiest way to compare oranges to oranges is to compare the raw data from dyno tests, before the load correction applied. Unfortunately data for 2017 has not been published, and there is no Mirage in 2016 file b/c it is 2017 model.

Other possibility is that Mirage did loose MPG b/c of the higher weight and higher output. This is possible but not likely judging by improved ratings in other countries.