Canadian 50-liter challenge finds the most efficient compact
Back in 2005, when gasoline cost $1 Canadian per liter and it was already considered expensive, Canadian Driver inaugurated the 50-liter challenge. This event highlights the fuel-saving benefits of driving a compact car, and tries to promote an efficient driving style. But why choose 50 liters (13.21 gallons U. S.)? Even though 50 liters isn't a complete fill-up, most of the cars in the test have a 50-liter tank and this amount would give a fair level of comparison between the contestants.
Canadians are buying gasoline at $1.50 per liter (Canadian) and the challenge, which included fuel saving techniques, seems more useful today than ever before. The theme - "Drive a fuel efficient car fuel efficiently, and save money at the pump" - seems right. Lucky for Americans, most of these models are also sold stateside.
The test route consisted of a combination of main and secondary highways, mainly flat roads with very heavy traffic in the morning, changing to fairly steep hills and remote forested areas in the afternoon. Skies were mostly grey, but the temperature was 24 ºC and rather humid. All calculations were done with GPS. The test also included a Ford Escape Hybrid as support vehicle and the organizers purchased carbon credits to offset the emissions.
The winner? Find the results after the jump.
[Source: Canadian Driver]
The car that went the furthest on 50-liters of fuel in the Canadian Driver 2008 50-litre Challenge was the 2009 Toyota Corolla, followed very closely by the 2008 Honda Civic. Third place went to the Pontiac Vibe. None of the vehicles consumed over 8.0 l/100km (got worse than 29 mpg). Thanks to Dick for the tip!
| Kilometers (miles) | L/100 km (mpg) |
|
| Toyota Corolla | 1017 (632) |
4.9 (48) |
| Honda Civic | 947 (588) |
5.3 (44) |
| Pontiac Vibe | 854 (531) |
5.9 (40) |
| Hyundai Elantra | 812 (505) |
6.2 (38) |
| Mazda3 | 784 (487) |
6.4 (37) |
| Pontiac G5 | 755 (469) |
6.6 (36) |
| Mitsubishi Lancer | 754 (468) |
6.6 (36) |
| Kia Spectra | 742 (461) |
6.7 (35) |
| Ford Focus | 742 (461) |
6.7 (35) |
| Nissan Sentra | 717 (446) |
7.0 (34) |
| Volkswagen City Golf | 670 (416) |
7.5 (31) |
| Dodge Caliber | 653 (406) |
7.7 (31) |
| Suzuki SX4 | 637 (396) |
7.9 (30) |
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rj 3:14PM (6/25/2008)
yay Corolla - I drive one - I guess the Fit and the Yaris didn't qualify for this because the tank is too small?
too bad - they should be in on this
Reply
rj 3:18PM (6/25/2008)
Now that I think about it, those numbers are very low. The best I sqqeeze out of my Corolla is about 5.5, and thats slow lane highway driving. Can't imagine how somebody got 4.9 on a varied course.
Reply
KFR 4:51PM (6/25/2008)
They should explain the corolla better.
Reply
Snowdog 4:47PM (6/25/2008)
Here is what they did in 2005 on the same test to account for different size tanks. Yep, they just drove around a bit with the cars that had bigger tanks.
" Instead, we calculated how much fuel we needed to burn according to the Natural Resources Canada fuel consumption rating for city driving, then ran the cars enough kilometres to burn it off (give or take, of course, a few kilometres)."
It is bad enough to rely on one inconsistent fill up for fuel used, but these guys seem to be relying on manufacturers tank spec, so cars with slightly bigger tanks, bigger filler pipes have an advantage. Until they man up and use something to properly measure fuel used, these tests are borderline useless.
I would much rather see them use the fill up technique than this. Just drive a set route (say 500kms) and measure the fuel used. That way you can include other cars like Fit/Yaris.
Also this was a highway run done at 90-110 km (that would make them the slowest vehicles on the road) I drive these same sections at 110-130km/h and get passed all the time.
In short poor methodology all around, pretty much zero methodology on fuel measurement and maximized highway mileage granny driving technique. This proves what exactly. A puff piece for the manufacturers (who supplied the vehicles) to showcase great "real world" fuel economy (that isn't).
I'll continue to compare numbers from consumer reports and Edmunds long term tests.
Reply
Wave54 5:04PM (6/25/2008)
Good chart for comparison -- no real surprises in the order, except the Vibe placed higher than I would have expected.
Overall, the numbers are well above the averages posted at fueleconomy.gov for the same models. I would have liked to have seen more detail on their driving techniques. With city driving and hilly country roads, they got great mileage.
2009 Corolla AT:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=25254&browser=true&details=on
2008 Civic AT:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=25082&browser=true&details=on
Reply
skipowda 6:04PM (6/25/2008)
Would love to know how the hybrid did.
Reply
Snowdog 7:22PM (6/25/2008)
I live in the Ottawa area and this is primarily a highway route avoiding major centers. Describing it as hilly is making a mountain out of a molehill. A topo of the area will show it is generally pancake flat, throwing in a hill or two on a 1000km road trip doesn't affect fuel economy. This isn't the rockies.
In short a flat road highway road trip at slow speeds. No wonder they got good mileage. The also described driving with a light foot and maintaining a smooth pace.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 9:32PM (6/25/2008)
The Pontiac G5 is the same as the Chevy Cobalt. I saw a G5 on the road yesterday. I wonder if they had the Cobalt XFE if it would have done better? I kind of expect so, since the XFE is rated at 36 highway, and every car on here did better than rated, so the XFE would maybe have done almost 40.
Reply
brn 9:36AM (6/26/2008)
Snowdog is dead on. This test is meaningless. They don't really know how much gas is in the tank at the beginning of the test or even at the end of the test. What kind of crazy person would take their numbers over the numbers of the EPA?
Canadian Driver should really be lambasted for this kind of puke.
Reply
Don 11:07AM (6/26/2008)
Those numbers are misleading...who can do 49 mpg US in a Corolla? Answer: no one under normal circumstances.
Reply
dar 4:34PM (7/03/2008)
hey ther bud, if you read the artile you will note that they are talking metric Liters and kilometers. if you use a american gallon vs a metric gallon you numbers will be out - its a given.
as far as the validity of the test My sisters corrolla will get between 5-5.8 L / 100 km on the highway, my best friends civic is very close to the same #'s and one of the guys has a SX4-suzuki, and he said he gets about 600 km to tank of 50 liters, do i would say the numbers are right.
Don 7:29PM (7/03/2008)
Uh, NO...if you look at how they broke it down, they're getting 48 mpg by dividing 4.9L INTO 235.21...which gives you miles per US gallon.
If you divide 4.9L into 282.48, THEN you're getting miles per English gallon.
Let's get it together people!
iSpec 12:51PM (6/26/2008)
'purchased carbon credits'? There are enviro-suckers born everyday
Reply
Paul Sallmen 2:49PM (6/28/2008)
I don't think this "experiment" was to be taken scientifically. Of course a test by the US EPA or Environment Canada is far more accurate because all the cars have exactly the same parameters. I think this exercise was more to showcase the cars, have a fun trip and do some loose comparisons. Environmentally, perhaps ironically, the best way would've been to have forgotten this "experiment" and left all the cars at home where they would've all used 0 L/100 km (or infinity MPG).
Reply
Keith 9:20AM (6/30/2008)
I've gotten 5.0L/100km on my 2008 Corolla driving from Kitchener to Downsview (north of Toronto) at a speed of 115km/h. The numbers don't seem far-fetched to me considering they were going slower.
Reply
Greg 10:08PM (7/27/2008)
I drive a 2007 Nissan Sentra 2.0S. Each day I commute 120km to work and routinely get 40-42mpg (5.9-5.6L/100km). This is mainly highway, but it does include some city driving as well. I can easily get 800km for 50 liters, so it makes me wonder how accurate this the 50 Liter challenge is. The Sentra deserves more credit. Don't forget, I'm getting this milage with a 140hp/147lb/ft, which is higher then most in this class.
cory 7:51PM (12/08/2008)
I recently purchased a 2009 corolla CE after seeing the results of these 50 liter challages in the hopes of saving money, but I got to say I am not impressed maybe I have a lemon but I have got 3900 approx km on it now and I only ave575 km approx on each tank and I have ran the thing dry twice to see howmany km I get. Thing is I have a 1993 corolla That is about to go on her last run.(to the scrape yard) She did me good. It can still get over 600 km per tank. Now the dealers said that i takes time to break them in. I don't know if there is any truth to this.
Reply
Ian Griffin 2:24AM (3/16/2009)
I get about 600km per tank which is about 32MPG with a 1.8 5 SPD. I think these numbers are a bit biased. I fill with 43-45 liters everytime I fillup, so there is only 5-7 liters left when I fill. That should get to about 700km, but no way it can get to 1000km. I live in Calgary and do mostly highway driving (80%) and 20% stop&go.
Reply