My Pontiac Firefly / Chevrolet Metro / Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift
metrompg.com welcomes fuel efficiency nerds everywhere

spacer spacer
Latest fuel economy stats
for my '98 Firefly 1.0L 5-speed
  best: 2.3 125.1 104.2
 worst: 6.4  44.1  36.8
prev.3: 3.3  82.3  68.6
   all: 3.8  73.4  61.1
L/100km | mpg IMP | mpg US
Jul 28/07: more, graph, calc.
spacer spacer

Google

Automotive magazines:

Latest 10 posts:
1. Experiment: how long should a block heater be plugged in?
2. Everything old is new again: Car and Driver magazine modifies an econobox to improve MPG
3. Project Convertible XFi: alfresco efficiency
4. The floor is yours: MetroMPG opens a fuel efficiency forum
5. Fleet update
6. Q: How do you get 116 mpg (US) in a Metro XFi? A: Pulse and glide.
7. International heart transplant: the Blackfly gets an XFi cam
8. Mini-experiment: the wrath of roof racks
9. Interview with Ron DeLong, inventor of the ScanGauge
10. Meet Rick: motorhead, econohead, Metro XFi owner
11 ... 58. Show all posts




spacer spacer
Links: (added Mar. 14/06)

Discuss amongst yourselves

Good MPG forums: I spend a lot of time at Ecomodder.com and have also been known to lurk around cleanmpg.com.

> Lots more Metro links...
spacer spacer

Send me a note:
darin AT metrompg D-O-T com,
or here


letter icon Get MetroMPG.com e-mail updates
(NO spam --- Full details here)


NEW: MetroMPG has opened a fuel economy forum
Read about the project here, or go straight to Ecomodder.com.
Ecomodder fuel economy forum


The government lies, and my car is fat

Posted Monday, September 12/05 in Suzukiclone info

bathroom scale

My suspicion that the official mileage figures for the Firefly are overly optimistic are gradually being confirmed.

Just got back from a weekend away, having put around 750 km on the car over a couple of days. Ideal conditions were had for a high mpg run: warm temperatures (25 C), calm winds, relaxed highway driving (95 km/h average).

The results?

A very enjoyable weekend, but just 4.9 L/100 km (57.9 mpg IMP / 48.2 mpg US). This is significanly lower than what my government says the car should get.

Now, I know the government-approved figures are mostly lies. Consumer Reports recently revealed that fully 90% of 303 cars and trucks they tested for model-years 2000 to 2006 fell short of their EPA mpg figures. "Average" drivers, they say, will rarely see the figures posted on the stickers in new car windows.

But my driving style is decidedly not average. Fact is, I'm used to exceeding the official mpg ratings on a regular basis. Over the 8 years that I tracked mileage in my carefully maintained 1989 Honda Accord, I beat the ratings on almost every tank of gas, in both city and highway driving. I've also confirmed my ratings-beating driving habits in several trip-computer-equipped cars owned by a friend (VW Passat 1.8 turbo) and a relative (Cadillac Seville V8).

So why am I having so much trouble in my Firefly? Are the ratings that far out of whack? The evidence is pointing that way.

One clue: Someone seems not to have taken some basic physics into account. Just have a look at the ratings between the 3rd and 4th generation models. From the previous body style to the current one, they packed on a few extra pounds - 1650 lbs vs. 1808 lbs.

Yet despite the relative corpulence of my car compared to the previous generation, the NRCan fuel economy ratings actually increased by over 3%. Huh? Not what I would have expected to see.

Better aerodynamics? Excessive optimism?

Or is my particular car an economy dud? A gas hog among Metros? The mystery deepens.

[Update: October 2/05 - 69 mpg: I beat the Canadian rating]

Tip of the hat: to evconvert.com for the Consumer Reports item






Ecomodder fuel economy forum NEW: MetroMPG has opened a fuel economy forum
Read about the project here, or go straight to Ecomodder.com.



darin AT metrompg D-O-T com, or here



stats