EPA Fuel economy numbers skewed?

[JusBringIt]

Granted the terrain usually decides how well a particular vehicle does. It would seem that Most automakers play the numbers game and do well on the epa, (and for us hypermilers) but not so well when it comes to the average driver.

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGui...ories&year=New

Car EPA mileage Trip computer mpg

2011 Honda CR-V 21/28 28.8
2011 Hyundai Tucson 22/31 28.8
2011 Subaru Forester (AWD) 21/27 28.2
2011 Toyota RAV4 22/28 27.7
2011 Chevrolet Equinox* 22/32 27.7
2011 Nissan Rogue 22/28 27.4
2011 Dodge Journey (V-6) 17/25 27.0
2011 Ford Escape 21/28 26.7
2011 Kia Sportage 22/31 26.6

Note that the Dodge Journey was the only V-6 of the bunch and the Forester was AWD.
Additionally, I concede that trip meters could be off slightly, but within reasonable amounts. Comments?

[PaleMelanesian]

between 60 and 80 mph

I think this is a big part of the shortfall. Even with the new high-speed epa test, it is averaged with the old 55-mph test. If you don't drive 55, the results will likely not be as expected.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

[FSUspectra]

Yeah, the EPA test still doesn't come close to how the average driver drives on the highway (interstates mainly). Definitely not for pre-2008 models. The numbers are skewed and adjusted to make the drivers happy to think they are getting what they're "supposed" to be getting , imho...

The city numbers might be a little closer to real-world, as well as "back-road" (county/state) highways where speed limits are typically lower. When people drive the interstates in hilly/mountainous areas, sure they're doing 70-80, but they are also maintaining 70-80 the whole way up... just a thought.

[ALS]

Like with my old 960 the EPA rates it at 16 city, 24 highway, 19 combined. At 55 mph I can easily break 32 mpg. I can also get better than 25 mpg at 70 mph with the AC running on E-10 with out trying. Normal city numbers are horrible at 15-16 mpg.