I got about 30 mpg on my first few tanks in my MCS. I filled my tires halfway through this past tank, accelerated slowly, and coasted as much as possible, and ended up with over 36 mpg. That's not why I bought an S though, so now it's back to the sport button and having some fun.

Just thought I would throw that out there that 36+ mpg is possible on an MCS.

Another possibility is that my car just needed time to break in. Who knows, I will report back.

 

I made an excel sheet of my gas expenditures.

My driving route is mostly city traffic to/from work and to/from the shopping centers. I only average about 80 miles on highway a month traveling to/from a friends house.

From the chart, everything before 05/04, I drove with air conditioning on at all times. After 05/04, I drove with windows down.

I find that my last tank was my best miles per gallon obtained. I drove with windows down in stop-n-go traffic.

On 05/25, I did a test to run my tank to 1 notch and as low as possible. The OBC said I had 24 miles left til empty. Hence, I filled 13.452 gallons. Does this mean the MINI tapped into the reserve tank? There could be the variable that the pump is set to conspire customers into pumping less gas for more money.

I pump Sunoco only, from the same station each time, because they're the cheapest and closest to my house around my area. Premium = 91 octane, Ultra = 93 Octane.

I find that Premium is better than Ultra. Although Ultra gives a higher 'kick', but burns up rather quicker than the Premium.

These are just my numbers based on my driving habits. But for you number crunchers out there, perhaps you can make better sense of the data you need to give a better idea of how an MCSa drinks up petrol.

Hope this helps.

 

I've had mine since Wednesday and based on OBC, it states 40.8 mpg. My commute is primarily highway driving approx. 85%/15% for city. After my first fill up I will compute by hand. So far so good!

___________

had two fill-ups since last posting, 37 mpg for the first and 35 mpg for the second - difference was due to driving a bit faster on the highway (70 vs. 75-80 mph).

 

Using hand-calculation (the OBC is a little optimistic), I'm getting 36mpg on the highway in my MCS, as long as I keep the "driving like an ***" bursts down to a min. Chicago traffic does cultivate what I call "combat-mode" habits on the expressways ... but I DO like being able to get out of trouble quickly.

 

I just went camping this past weekend in Northern New Mexico and got really great gas mileage. Here is the breakdown:

295 miles round trip
6200' - 9200' range in elevation
25mph - 70mph range in speed (highway, mountain road and town driving)

37.4 mpg (calculated mathematically)
38.2 o.b.c.

11,400 miles on the odometer

 

I had a similar question as you. I searched and found people getting anywhere from 26 to XX with a MCS. Problem is, you can't compare how everyone drives and what their roads are like, so its difficult to get a consensus. The only place the same driver has driven a MC and a MCS under exactly the same conditions is the EPA. You may laugh, but I think the 08 numbers probably reflect what you might get for mileage.

MCS 6sp 26 city 34 hwy
MCS auto 23 32

MC 6sp 28 city 37 hwy
MC auto 26 34

So figure the MC is 2-3 mpg better than the MCS. Not that much... We're going with the MC and will hypermile it, hope to get around 40 mpg combined city hwy.

You can't compare a hypermiler in a MCS and a lead foot in a MC..

 

amen ... you COULD, but you'd be full of hooey to depend on it; the temptation is just too great sometimes to JUST PUNCH IT (aaaaand: we still haven't really explored the "sport" button as an additional variable!)

 

Trying to find out how GOOD it can be, I've managed to get an overall 35 - 36 (hand computed) with about 70% Interstate and 30% city... I have found that keeping it under 70 on the Interstate makes a BIG difference and I also do the 1st to 3rd to 6th shift pattern...

Now it's about time to see how BAD it can be... ie - Sport mode on and have some fun... Will be interesting to see the differences...

I know with my old 93 Dodge Dakota with the 5.2L Magnum V8 in it, the difference between GOOD and BAD was only about 3 mpg... The high was 17 and the low was 13... and that was in Germany without speed limits on the Autobahns...

 

The EPA numbers that DanQ posted above would be an accurate comparison with both versions driven conservativly.

With aggressive driving, that spread will increase far above the 2-3 mpg difference shown.

If I drove at high altitudes or a few second 'passing' advantage were a factor, I would go for the Turbo
and install a boost gauge to help monitor my right foot.

Another way to look at it is if you use 67% of a MC's available power and 44% of a MCS's available power,
you will get identical performance and suffer that 2-3 mpg penalty anyway.

If you go up to 67% average of a MCS's available power, you will use a LOT of fuel, but it may be worth it for you.

ANY 'Turbo' will show a far greater range between "GOOD and BAD" which is ideal as the choice is yours.

 

Really? that's certainly impressive, were seeing a bit more improvement as time and miles rack up (a solid 33mpg and ticks to 34 combined).

 

I average 31.4 mpg overall with mostly 50/50 mix city and highway. I just drove 450 miles home from the Dragon and averaged 37 mpg on I-75 traveling 75 mph. I calculated this not the computer. I never drive and try to get good mileage. I enjoy hearing the turbo!

 

I avg 32 with 75% hwy and 25% city.

I wear lead boots when I drive.

 

We just got back from vacation. 3700 miles. Started with only 900 on the car. Total average for the entire trip - 35.5 MPG. Best was in the mountains of West Virginia with sport and turbo going as much as I could push it - 38.4 MPG. I expected it to be my worst. It looks like my city is going to be about 26-27 now that Bimini is broken in. Highway is running pretty much at 35 MPG (maybe a few tenths less sometimes). I have noticed that MPG has gone up following break in.

And I think that anyone who hypermiles an MCS is taking a big risk of their MCS just running away some night. They aren't built for that.