Your Fuel Economy Gauge Is Fibbing

Your Fuel Economy Gauge Is Fibbing

Edmunds Testing Finds Overestimated MPG Is Common


As gas prices rise, drivers are paying closer attention to the fuel economy gauges that are found in most late-model cars as part of the trip computer. The only problem is that the gauges are inaccurate. In fact, Edmunds testing reveals that one such gauge claimed fuel economy 19 percent higher than the actual result.

Across two tests in seven different vehicles, the gauges were 5.5 percent inaccurate on average, according to data gathered by the editors at

The editors noted such optimistic estimates from fuel economy gauges during our 2009 and 2010 "Fuel-Sipper Smackdown." In two separate tests, editors drove five fuel-efficient cars from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back under three different driving conditions: back roads (45-60 mph), city streets (stop and go) and highway (70-75 mph). During the tests (a total distance of more than 1,550 miles was accumulated by each car), the editors measured fuel economy by calculating how much gas was required to go a certain distance and comparing that to the reading on the fuel economy gauge.

Gauges Come Standard — and Skew High
Fuel economy gauges, which show both average and current fuel economy, are standard equipment in 92 percent of 2011 vehicles, according to Edmunds data. By resetting the gauge when refueling, a driver sees what kind of fuel economy the vehicle delivers. Drivers can change their driving style and see if this improves fuel economy.

The individual inaccuracies in Edmunds testing were as high as 19 percent for the 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid and 16 percent for the diesel-powered 2010 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI. This means that the Escape was getting 5 mpg less than the gauge indicated, while the Jetta was getting 5.7 mpg less. The test also included a 2009 Mini Cooper, 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid, 2010 Honda Insight, 2010 Toyota Prius, 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid, 2010 GMC Terrain and 2010 BMW X5 xDrive 35d.

A 5.5 percent error in a car's estimated fuel usage might not seem like a big deal over a single tank of gas, but over the typical five-year period of car ownership, it adds up. Take a car that shows 25 mpg on its fuel economy gauge, but which actually is consuming 5.5 percent more. Extend that over five years of driving at 15,000 miles per year and you get 132 gallons of unreported fuel use. That represents a substantial amount of money.

If a driver uses the fuel economy meter as the basis for budgeting, he would plan for five-year fuel costs of $12,000 (assuming fuel stays at $4 per gallon). In reality, the figure would be $12,660. The discrepancy is even larger for vehicles that have worse average fuel economy. The driver of an SUV or pickup that averages 12.5 mpg according to its fuel economy gauge might budget $24,000 for fuel. The actual cost would be $25,320 — a difference of $1,320.

But since our testing discovered that some fuel economy gauges are far more optimistic than the 5.5 percent average, some scenarios are even worse. It's entirely possible that our hypothetical 25 mpg car could consume 500 more gallons than predicted by the gauge over the typical five-year ownership period. That's $2,000, assuming $4-per-gallon gas. A thirstier truck or SUV might consume 1,000 additional gallons, adding up to $4,000 over five years. And, of course, it would be even more if the price of gas rises during that period.

The Manufacturers' Responses
Edmunds contacted all the manufacturers with vehicles represented in the two tests and asked for an explanation for these consistently overly optimistic fuel economy readings. A Ford spokesman replied that it was too difficult to find the right engineer to respond to this question. BMW and Volkswagen did not respond to requests from Edmunds.

Roger Clark, senior manager of GM's energy center, explains that the fuel economy gauge makes a calculation by counting the number and duration of pulses made by the fuel injectors as they squirt gasoline into the combustion chambers of the engine. The onboard computer system divides the distance the car travels by this estimated fuel consumption.

Clark says the gauge is "dead nuts accurate" — if you consider all the variables at work during driving, including temperature, driving conditions and driving style. The biggest fluctuation occurs because ethanol, which is blended with gasoline in varying amounts, contains less energy.

"When you fill up, you are paying for a gallon of gas, but the energy in that gas varies significantly," Clark says. This means that while the car's computer assumes the gasoline is providing energy to drive a certain distance, the fuel might have less energy and not propel the car as far.

The 5.5 percent average variation in the vehicles Edmunds tested "seems like a perfectly reasonable range to me," says Paul Williamsen, national manager of the Lexus College, where his responsibilities include service training for Lexus staff, dealers and corporate personnel. "I can't imagine any reason that any automaker would want to make drivers think they can get better fuel economy than they were getting," Williamsen adds.

Honda spokesman Chris Martin wouldn't comment on the accuracy of Honda gauges, saying he needed to do more research to give a good answer. However, he defends fuel economy gauges in general, and says that people should use them as "a driving-efficiency tool, not a precise measurement of fuel economy."

The gauges make their point best when they utilize symbols rather than numbers, Martin says. Many new Honda models have gauges that display color changes to reflect how efficiently someone is driving. This method is more effective at helping drivers learn to drive efficiently than is other feedback that might require more attention to understand, he says.

Mini's gauges are "very accurate" because they use real-time information, says Mini Product Manager Vinnie Kung. However, he adds that inaccuracies can come from such factors as fuels and even fuel tanks, which expand during warm weather. For instance, Kung notes that in the summer a Mini might be able to hold 14 gallons of fuel in a tank whose labeled capacity is 13.2 gallons. In the winter, it might only hold 12.9 gallons. This variation affects a variety of readings, including mpg and the "distance to empty" reading that shows how much range is left.

Don't Rely on the Readings
Steve Mazor, chief auto engineer for the Auto Club of Southern California, has a different explanation for the consistently high readings for the fuel economy gauges. The gauge "assumes it is a perfectly operating vehicle — and it isn't." For example, he says fuel injectors can become clogged and not deliver as much fuel as the gauge assumes.

Mazor certainly doesn't see any conspiracy by automakers to mislead the public with consistently high numbers, but says of the gauges: "We tell people not to trust them except as a comparative tool." In other words, a driver could use the gauge to see differences produced by changing his or her driving style.

Dan Edmunds, director of vehicle testing for, thinks there's a better way to express the variations in fuel economy. He believes that rather than consistently present a best-case mpg figure to drivers, the calculations that power the gauge readout should incorporate some of the variables noted by the experts above. That's better than presenting drivers with "figures that are never under and always over" the actual fuel economy, he says.

And despite protestations to the contrary, Dan Edmunds says there is an incentive for carmakers to present overly optimistic mpg feedback to their customers. "Because window sticker ratings and mpg advertising claims are hard to match in real life, fuel economy is one of those things that is often ranked 'below expectations' on owner feedback surveys like J.D. Power's Initial Quality Survey," he says.

Whatever the reason for their inaccuracies, it seems that fuel economy gauges should have this label: "Your actual mileage may vary." And Dan Edmunds recommends using a second source for recording fuel economy, such as joining and logging every tank of gas to get a more accurate reading. But for the technologically challenged, he recommends a hands-on approach. "Grab a pen and paper, keep track of the data yourself and come up with your own numbers."

To find a dealership that knows how to treat shoppers right, please visit's Dealer Ratings and Reviews.



  • dr_science dr_science Posts:

    Did you double check those numbers? My calculations yield: 12000 miles / (25 miles per gallon) * (4 dollars per gallon) = $ 1920 Looks like there was an extra multiplication by 4 in your numbers, making the problem look 4 times worse.

  • brianalex brianalex Posts:

    The mileage meter in my Mercury Grand Marquis is surprisingly accurate Except for one thing that should have been covered in the otherwise excellent article; The odometer in these cars also lies. Every car I have ever driven over the years has had an odometer that reads high. In my Merc it is 4% high even with brand new OEM tires. So although my fuel meter matches the odometer within 1% in most cases,it is still way off of the actual mileage covered. Also it could be pointed out that for the average motorist to get the best results he/she would have to fill up at the same pump facing the same direction at the same temperature,and the underground tank temperature is the same, IE. no recent fuel delivery. Bottom line; fuel meters are for finding the style of driving that yields the lowest number.-Brian

  • clachnit clachnit Posts:

    Thanks, dr_science, for pointing out our math error. We've corrected the article with a different example--it's accurate this time. Carroll Lachnit, features editor, Edmunds

  • spokybob spokybob Posts:

    I know the 2011 Scion fuel usage is lying. I checked a few tanks full. It is almost 10 per cent. The best part about the gauge is the ability to determine that 87 octane gets about 7 percent better milage than 89 octane. (E-10)

  • vinvaz vinvaz Posts:

    I have seen that my 2010 Jetta TDI sedan's fuel economy guage is pretty accurate.. The error values are usually 1 - 2 mpg at worst. Are we talking about 5 mpg variations here?? My observations are mostly over a tank full, and involves a 50 - 50 mix of city and highway driving..

  • username_1 username_1 Posts:

    I drive a 2011 Hyundai Sonata in Queens, NYC. I have noticed disparities in my fuel economy gauge and my actual "calculator" economy at the pump. Though NYC's weather is a nightmare for MPG variation, I am very unhappy with this. EPA claims 22 city, 35 highway, 28 combined. I am averaging 20.1 MPG across the board over a 16 month period. This includes a few 300-500 mile road trips and a normal highway/city breakdown of about 60/40. My gauge consistently reads 15-25% over actual MPGs. Buyer beware, this car gets insanely terrible fuel economy in the winter. I have seen entire tanks at 16 MPG! Worst part is the gauge reads, 20-22 MPG. Sites like are our best bet. EPA estimates and MPG gauges are simply fraudulent. My 2000 Civic's EPA estimate was 27. Guess what, it got 27. New EPA standards need a serious re-work.

  • printerman1 printerman1 Posts:

    fuel economy gauge is pure bull. Its a computer. if you drive city, you get crappy gas mileage. Cars, without computers, have not changed in years. Same bull, different pile. The computer drives the engine, not you!

  • carchatter1 carchatter1 Posts:

    Variances from the expected target is normal in everything, so this isn't really a big news flash. My 2 cars with trip computers both calculate the MPG to be accurate within 3 or 4 percent. A minivan and Mustang, both seem as accurate as can be expected. It would be difficult to predict perfectly what the real MPG was every time. Anyone expecting perfection is not living in the real world. As Brianalex noted, the odometers are more inaccurate than the MPG displayed. Now that would be a more newsworthy story, to show how few cars actually are going as fast as they say they are, and if the odometers are actually correct.

  • smkrmk smkrmk Posts:

    Your article may point to a bigger issue with car manufacturer's deceptive practices. I have leased three different model Nissans in a row (Murano, Altima & Roque). In each case, the computer calculated MPG is always higher than the actual MPG that I manually calculate. I took my curiosity a step further when I noticed that my speedometer reads 2-3 MPH faster than what my GPS indicates and the same amount whenever there is a radar driven speed sign posted. Knowing those two inaccuracies, I decided to check my odometer accuracy. When I was on the highway, using posted mile markers, after about every 3 miles my vehicle would read 3.1 miles higher. My theory is this... If the manufacturers calculate higher mileage on the vehicle, it increases the frequency of maintenance intervals, it makes the warranty end sooner and it could put lessees into an overage situation sooner. If your 5.5% inaccuracy is true on the odometer also, a vehicle with a 36,000 mile warranty and/or lease would only be getting just over 34,000 actual miles before expiration or overages. If this is intentional or and uncorrected issue with the manufacturers, it certainly is worthy of investigation and has the potential for financial damages to the consumers.

  • badhatharry badhatharry Posts:

    My 2013 Volvo C-30 computer showed an average of 32.0 MPG for the last 28 fill-ups. My actual calculations show 26.7 MPG. This is a skew of 19.9% - even higher than the "one such gauge" reported above. So how do we fight this? Our local newspaper has a column where the auto reviewer reports fuel economy on tested vehicles, but he hasn't responded to my complaint. I discount these reports, as well as the claims of my friends on their new cars.

  • cdiman7 cdiman7 Posts:

    I disagree, the fuel gauge is accurate, for instantaneous MPG. It assumes that you will be driving the whole tank at the same road conditions,angle, air temperature, wind, precipitation level, humidity, sun, etc. Once I just filled up my 2006 Civic Hybrid, going downhill, summer day, no rain. It registered 150 MPG for a second,then went down to 50 MPG. So the gauge is right, just doesn't average the mpg so it'd be closer to mileage/gas used.

  • craig2008tl craig2008tl Posts:

    My 2008 Acura TL grossly overestimates the fuel economy even according to it's own measurements. It's simple to check this, just fill the tank completely, reset the trip computer and then drive until the fuel light comes on. Divide distance by how many gallons you put in and compare that to what the trip computer claims is the mileage. Typically the trip computer will claim 20mpg when simple division shows more like 17mpg. Even allowing for rounding up that's at least 14% higher than reality, or put another way it's a shameless lie. As for why they would do this, I can't believe the article feigns not to understand. It's because they're trying to make you think your car is more economical than it really is. Amazingly people actually prefer cars that have better fuel economy. Who knew? And all of that rubbish about fuel energy density and metering squirts at the fuel injectors or mileage variations due to tire sizes or inflation is just that, rubbish. They know how big the fuel tank is and so they know how much fuel is consumed when it goes from full to empty, and I'm using the car's own stated mileage, accurate or not. Basically if you're going to even begin to talk about your car's fuel economy consider the mpg reported by the trip computer to be the pie in the sky fantasy number that they publish to entertain you. The real number is fuel used divided by distance travelled (and even that is better measured by an independent GPS since the odometer has also been found to overstate the actual distance), not the number the car self-reports.

Leave a Comment

Get Pre-Approved for a Car Loan


Get Pre-Approved for a Loan

Credit Problems?
We can help you get Financing!

Have a question? We're here to help!
Chat online with us
Email us at
*Available daily 8AM-5PM Pacific
Call us at 855-782-4711
Text us at ED411