I drove from Vancouver to Banff for the long weekend, and saw some great fuel economy on the Golden-Banff-Kelowna leg of the trip. 31MPG was achieved with relative ease. I averaged 110-115 km/h with numerous WOT passing zones, two people and lots of camping gear on board.
I should mention that I easily could have gone much further on the tank. 15.2 Gals = 59L, so the gas light had not come on yet.
The fuel economy from Vancouver to Golden was not nearly the same, 27.7 MPG. The drive on the Coquihalla was a blast though. Great weather, almost no traffic (Thursday afternoon) and a convoy of my G, a BMW, and a new Miata. We each took turns being the rabbit. There were several stretches of prolonged high speeds that would not have been attempted in any other conditions. Let's just say the G pulls hard in 5th at the top end...
mostly stock '04 M6 sedan btw...
I should mention that I easily could have gone much further on the tank. 15.2 Gals = 59L, so the gas light had not come on yet.
The fuel economy from Vancouver to Golden was not nearly the same, 27.7 MPG. The drive on the Coquihalla was a blast though. Great weather, almost no traffic (Thursday afternoon) and a convoy of my G, a BMW, and a new Miata. We each took turns being the rabbit. There were several stretches of prolonged high speeds that would not have been attempted in any other conditions. Let's just say the G pulls hard in 5th at the top end...
mostly stock '04 M6 sedan btw...
Registered User
Math might be off...
15.2 gal (I'll assume US gal???) x 3.78 ltrs = 57.456 ltrs
15.2 gal (let's use the imp gal) x 4.546 ltrs = 67.731 ltrs
taking 755 kms and converting to miles:
755 x 0.62 = 469.1 miles
469.1 / 15.2 = 30.8
so that part appears correct. We just don't know whether you used US or IMP gallons for your original calculation.
If you filled up with 57.456 ltrs, then your numbers work out. If you filled up with 67.731 ltrs, then your mileage ends up at:
67.731 ltrs / 3.78 ltrs = 17.918 US gal
469.1 / 17.918 = 26.18 mpg, which is probably in the ball park of what I've seen in my personal experience with my '05 AT sedan.
15.2 gal (I'll assume US gal???) x 3.78 ltrs = 57.456 ltrs
15.2 gal (let's use the imp gal) x 4.546 ltrs = 67.731 ltrs
taking 755 kms and converting to miles:
755 x 0.62 = 469.1 miles
469.1 / 15.2 = 30.8
so that part appears correct. We just don't know whether you used US or IMP gallons for your original calculation.
If you filled up with 57.456 ltrs, then your numbers work out. If you filled up with 67.731 ltrs, then your mileage ends up at:
67.731 ltrs / 3.78 ltrs = 17.918 US gal
469.1 / 17.918 = 26.18 mpg, which is probably in the ball park of what I've seen in my personal experience with my '05 AT sedan.
Swivel
Moderator
close
- Join DateJan 2007
- LocationCalgary, AB, CANADA
- Posts:19,680
-
iTrader Positive Feedback100
-
iTrader Feedback Score(13)
-
Likes:148
-
Liked:161 Times in 122 Posts
We use Imperial gallons in the GWN...or we did til we joined the rest of the world on a real system of weights and measures. So ours are bigger than yours.
Registered User
Quote:
I know it "may" be slightly better, but if it's >2mpg better, I'll be quite shocked.Originally Posted by Mmagic76
I think the M6 gets better fuel economy than the 5AT.
Registered User
I can believe the 31mpg with the MT RWD G35.
On my 2005 G35X I recorded all gas fill-ups since new and my gas mileage ranged from a low of 21.157 MPG (13.35 L/100KM) to a high of 29.237 MPG (9.66 L/100KM), which isn't bad for an awd vehicle.
I do not get as good of gas mileage with my 07X, it is less
.
On my 2005 G35X I recorded all gas fill-ups since new and my gas mileage ranged from a low of 21.157 MPG (13.35 L/100KM) to a high of 29.237 MPG (9.66 L/100KM), which isn't bad for an awd vehicle.
I do not get as good of gas mileage with my 07X, it is less
.After review, the title should read "755kms, 15.6 gals, 30.1 MPG"
I blame some rounding error, but I am using US gallons in the calcs.
I fueled up with 59L, and as I said the gas light had not come on.
I blame some rounding error, but I am using US gallons in the calcs.
I fueled up with 59L, and as I said the gas light had not come on.
Registered User
Quote:
Not sure who your comment was directed at, but as my profile doesn't list my location (gotta get around to fixing that...), I'm going to figure it's me. I'm from Kitchener, ON...Originally Posted by SwivelMan
We use Imperial gallons in the GWN...or we did til we joined the rest of the world on a real system of weights and measures. So ours are bigger than yours.
Quote:
I should mention that I easily could have gone much further on the tank. 15.2 Gals = 59L, so the gas light had not come on yet.
The fuel economy from Vancouver to Golden was not nearly the same, 27.7 MPG. The drive on the Coquihalla was a blast though. Great weather, almost no traffic (Thursday afternoon) and a convoy of my G, a BMW, and a new Miata. We each took turns being the rabbit. There were several stretches of prolonged high speeds that would not have been attempted in any other conditions. Let's just say the G pulls hard in 5th at the top end...
mostly stock '04 M6 sedan btw...
Etirely attainable.....On my '03 Sedan and '03 Coupe (AT), I could get above 30 mpg's with ease....Originally Posted by canucklehead
I drove from Vancouver to Banff for the long weekend, and saw some great fuel economy on the Golden-Banff-Kelowna leg of the trip. 31MPG was achieved with relative ease. I averaged 110-115 km/h with numerous WOT passing zones, two people and lots of camping gear on board. I should mention that I easily could have gone much further on the tank. 15.2 Gals = 59L, so the gas light had not come on yet.
The fuel economy from Vancouver to Golden was not nearly the same, 27.7 MPG. The drive on the Coquihalla was a blast though. Great weather, almost no traffic (Thursday afternoon) and a convoy of my G, a BMW, and a new Miata. We each took turns being the rabbit. There were several stretches of prolonged high speeds that would not have been attempted in any other conditions. Let's just say the G pulls hard in 5th at the top end...
mostly stock '04 M6 sedan btw...
C.
Registered User
Got over 600km with trunk packed, spare tire/tools and a passenger to Montreal and a several WOT as well. With more than a 1/4 tank to spare...
Didn't calculate Litres/100km or MPG though..
Didn't calculate Litres/100km or MPG though..
Swivel
Moderator
close
- Join DateJan 2007
- LocationCalgary, AB, CANADA
- Posts:19,680
-
iTrader Positive Feedback100
-
iTrader Feedback Score(13)
-
Likes:148
-
Liked:161 Times in 122 Posts
Quote:
My bad, I assumed since you assumed US gals that you were from US.Originally Posted by akrus
Not sure who your comment was directed at, but as my profile doesn't list my location (gotta get around to fixing that...), I'm going to figure it's me. I'm from Kitchener, ON...
Quote:
On my 2005 G35X I recorded all gas fill-ups since new and my gas mileage ranged from a low of 21.157 MPG (13.35 L/100KM) to a high of 29.237 MPG (9.66 L/100KM), which isn't bad for an awd vehicle.
I do not get as good of gas mileage with my 07X, it is less
.
My '04 M6 averages about 31 at 110-120km/hour. On the '06 Lake Placid trip my best was 31.75 and on this years Quebec trip 31.9 Originally Posted by GEE35X
I can believe the 31mpg with the MT RWD G35.On my 2005 G35X I recorded all gas fill-ups since new and my gas mileage ranged from a low of 21.157 MPG (13.35 L/100KM) to a high of 29.237 MPG (9.66 L/100KM), which isn't bad for an awd vehicle.
I do not get as good of gas mileage with my 07X, it is less
.
In the city I only get about 21 or so. I've never driven at a steady 80 or so on the highway to try to maximize economy. I think another 1-2 mpg is possible.
Quote:
In the city I only get about 21 or so. I've never driven at a steady 80 or so on the highway to try to maximize economy. I think another 1-2 mpg is possible.
those figures closely resemble mine, both city and hwy. Originally Posted by RBull
My '04 M6 averages about 31 at 110-120km/hour. On the '06 Lake Placid trip my best was 31.75 and on this years Quebec trip 31.9
In the city I only get about 21 or so. I've never driven at a steady 80 or so on the highway to try to maximize economy. I think another 1-2 mpg is possible.
it is interesting to see the difference between the EPA estimate and real world results. i believe the EPA for a 6mt sedan is 21/27. the city 21 sounds about right but not the hwy 27. i'm not sure what their testing procedures are though...
i agree about the potential for ~33mpg if one were to drive the "speed limit". however, driving 90-100km/h would be painful on a nice dry hwy day in a G.
I could never keep my foot out of it long enough to consider worrying about milage.

Quote:
it is interesting to see the difference between the EPA estimate and real world results. i believe the EPA for a 6mt sedan is 21/27. the city 21 sounds about right but not the hwy 27. i'm not sure what their testing procedures are though...
i agree about the potential for ~33mpg if one were to drive the "speed limit". however, driving 90-100km/h would be painful on a nice dry hwy day in a G.
No, the ratings are 24 city and 35 highway.Originally Posted by canucklehead
those figures closely resemble mine, both city and hwy. it is interesting to see the difference between the EPA estimate and real world results. i believe the EPA for a 6mt sedan is 21/27. the city 21 sounds about right but not the hwy 27. i'm not sure what their testing procedures are though...
i agree about the potential for ~33mpg if one were to drive the "speed limit". however, driving 90-100km/h would be painful on a nice dry hwy day in a G.

