I'm hoping is quite a bit better than the mileage I get from my '03 MC.

 

I've got a manual transmission MC and I'm getting 38-39 MPG with mixed city and highway driving. It's got 1400 miles on it so far, so it's past break in.

 

I have an auto MC, R56 and with 3500 miles my computer says 32.7 with 2/3 city driving, also the gas in this area is required to have 10% ethanol witch probably dosen't help any.

 

I'm getting about the same with mixed city highway driving. Best was 39.6, worst 38.2.

 

3900 miles on an automatic and the OBC (never reset, so it's been running since day one) indicates 33.8 mpg, but wife commutes and sometimes is in bumper-to-bumper traffic. In April we drove from our home to Arlington,VA (275 miles) and we got 41.7 mpg. We usually get about 400 miles to a tank of gas now.

 

I am averaging what kimmc is. However, on a recent trip, we did manage to average 42MPG (all freeway) for 200 miles @ 70-75MPH. Probably had a 10MPH tail wind during that leg of the trip.

Overall, after the breakin period, it seems Romi is actually getting better than the EPA ratings says she should.

 

I'm stuck in the lower 30s with my MC auto tranny. My miles are some majority highway, but running time is not. I.e. traffic is killing me. Glad to hear the 40s though!

 

OBC says my auto MC is getting about 28mpg with an average of about 21mph -- she's normally a commuter in slow, stop-and-go traffic.

A couple of 100mi highway jaunts on the weekend have resulted in 40mpg, so I know I could be doing better in different traffic conditions.

Overall, I'm very pleased. The SUV I replaced it with was getting about 13mpg on premium fuel. Ugh. So glad that's gone.

 

The reports of 40 plus mpg are encouraging. I average about 26mpg around town and 33-34 on the highway with my 03 5-speed MC...the 07's have improved on that a lot.

My guess is the biggest single reason for the improvement is the 6-speed transmission.

 

Check this thread as well. I think it's a bunch of things adding up to the improved economy. The new engine is completely aluminum, while the Tritec has a cast iron block. You've got variable valve timing and duration.

 

My OBC has been reporting an average of 42-44 mpg mixed hiway/city. I have the sport function, but have been driving without the sport button on. When I hit Sport...then it drops between 5-10 mpg.....

Running down the highway, behind a minivan and easy on the gas...I was getting a steady 55-60 mpg...but once you pull out it drops to about 40-45.

 

Yeah, the Mini is a brick on wheels (a nice looking brick) as it pertains to aerodynamics. 0.33 drag coefficient for the R56, if I recall.

 

At 3300 miles OBC says: 41.9mpg with average speed of 47.0mph.
My hand kept records say: 40.1mpg
I typically drive about 360 miles between fill-ups (5-6 bars dark = about 9 gallons). Where I live I always want at least 100 miles of fuel in reserve.
Conservative driving (most of the time ) on mostly open rural roads. Not much stop and go driving. But I do seek out mountain passes to go over.
My OBC average of 47.0mph over 3300 miles is probably quite a bit higher than 'city folk' are able to attain, and contributes to a higher mpg average.

 

2250 miles and OBC says 32.5 mpg (I have never reset it since new) and I drive "spirited".

 

Im at 36, after 2200 miles on him. I do quite a bit of city driving. And we have a high ethanol content in our gas here. (blech)
Im tempted to try gas from another state to see if getting less ethanol improves the situation any... Not that I am complaining.

 

I've got an MC with standard transmission and have 42.2 after ~400 miles. It's awesome my commute to work is around 5 miles city/10 miles highway. But there's plenty of stop-n-go in the mornings. In any case, 42.2 is waay better than I was expecting and right up there with what some Civic Hybrids get so I'm happy.

 

Now that I am back to that ethanol crap, my mileage is dropping. Down to 28MPG or so. Weather has been bad this entire tank as well, so I am not sure what effect it might have.

I think I will drive out of town this weekend to get a tank of that non-ethanol 93 octane at Shell. Seems to do wonders for the MC.

 

I too was delighted to be getting 40 mpg+, until I realized that the OBC was a lying son-of-a-gun.

Granted, it's optimism is probably due to error propogation on its cumulative real-time consumption calculations, but it is still a source of great annoyance to me that while the OBC claimed nearly 42 mpg on my last tank of gas, dividing the miles from the trip counter (started, of course, after the previous fill-up) by the amount of gas I put in yields more like 33 mpg. That's quite the discrepency! (and it's similar to the discrepency from the previous tankful)

For the same reason, the range estimate starts out very impressive, then slowly compresses (in a more or less linear fashion) as the tank is consumed
and the computer's miscalculated consumption comes to light. It's annoying how far off the early estimates are -- if you were trying to plan how far you could go based on that, even loosely, you'd be way off.

I hadn't quite finished the break-in period at my last measurement -- does the OBC get more accurate? I hear that the fuel consumption improves with time, and I certainly hope that's the case: Since most of my driving has been highway miles, I'm expecting a darn site better that 33 mpg on an R56 MC.

 

Whoa. Therer is normally a descrepancy, but that is nuts. I always check the good ole fashion way and find the computer to be optimistic by a mile or two per gallon, but I consider that acceptable.

And yes, Romi's gas mileage improved from about 36 to over 40 on highway travel once she got past about 1200 miles on the odo. Romi is also a standard though and not an MCS.

 

Yeah, mine is also a standard MC. I freely confess to "spirited" driving, but that really only effects the relatively small percentage of the time when I'm not on the highway (where I'm not, of course, going at the optimal gas consumption speed, but I'm not usually moving ridiculously fast, either). Like I said, I expect much better fuel efficiency, but even more so I expect the infernal OBC to be a little more accurate -- otherwise it's next to useless (unless, perhaps, it's only a linear discrepency, in which case I'd have to apply a multiplying factor, which would still be stupid).

Good to hear that an improvement with time is common. I'll wait and see what happens with this tank.

 

Gee Skuzzy, You need to complain (whine) to George B about the quality of Gas they are feeding you Texas natives. I would imagine that he would have taken care of the homeboys first with the "good stuff" and send the watered down stuff to us "outsiders" .

 

First of all, he is not from Texas. He is but one of many transplants here. I wish the country would stop blaming Texas for every miscreant that talks funny.

It has to do with the EPA. Many of the metropolitan areas of Texas are under advisroy due to pollution. So part of the 'cure' has to do with the 10% Ethanol crap. It is supposed to reduce pollution. It really doesn't as you have to dump more fuel in to maintain the same speed as before.

Outside of the metropolitan areas it is pretty easy to find real fuel. Romi sure likes that stuff. More power, better gas mileage.

 

850 miles , 2tanks of 91 octane,12.4 gals & 12.7 gals. 2 candy corns left hwy/city driving
avg 34 mpg OBC says 35.1 MCa some sport button in town ,but hard to keep from speeding on these small town streets w/sport button on

 

It's nice to see some good numbers from an MCa!

I'm hoping to average in that range!