Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I stumbled on this a few years back. Ostensibly the old vs new mpg numbers are due to changes in their testing matrix, due to increased average speeds. I do wonder though whether they actually retested anything, or just hit all the numbers with a fancy or not so fancy) algorithm.

Posted

I don't pay much attention to gummint fuel mileage lies.

 

I don't remember what my '88 XJ 4.0L was supposed to be rated at, but I know that when it was one or two years old I got 28 MPG on a trip from Connecticut to Vermont, with a GF, two kids, and all out clothing and stuff for the kids to play with for a weekend on board. That was far better than whatever the EPA numbers said.

 

I just drove my 2000 XJ 4.0L from Connecticut to central Pennsylvania and back. 24.23 MPG for just over 600 miles. Again, I'm pretty certain that's better than what the official numbers were.

Posted

I think it’s a neat thing. I’m not going to say everything they have is accurate. Maybe the 2.5L as I see somewhere around 18mpg but I digress. It’s neat to see what cars originally were rated for when they first came out on that model year.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...