Fuel Consumption shocking

[Blue_Max]

Really? I see "shocking" as just a more extreme "suprised". It is not positive or negative. Though without the connotation it is hard to tell how it was used. I should have said "astounded".

Well, obviously you see it that way.

But "shocking consumption" is the opposite of "astounding economy." A shocking lack of consumption or shockingly low consumption would make sense. But hey, I've only worked as an editor for 36 years....

Sponsored

 

[Cougar70]

For the longest time, this was the only "metric" wrench in the toolbox. Also the go to wrench for those 1800's square head bolts that pre-dated either system.

I would mess with people and show them the side of the adjustable wrench in mm and tell them I needed standard and it would confuse the heck out of them! Lol!

 

[Oldgaffer]

Well, obviously you see it that way.

But "shocking consumption" is the opposite of "astounding economy." A shocking lack of consumption or shockingly low consumption would make sense. But hey, I've only worked as an editor for 36 years....

OH.. you are and EDITOR! ... please forgive my poor interpretation of language I have been using for 60+ years. I am humbled by your extensive knowledge and for taking the time to educate me in this forum.

 

[Blue_Max]

OH.. you are and EDITOR! ... please forgive my poor interpretation of language I have been using for 60+ years. I am humbled by your extensive knowledge and for taking the time to educate me in this forum.

I'm here to help.

 

[Rparry]

So I bought a used 2022 2.0 AWD a few months ago to take the place of my old Ranger.
It went on its first long trip over the weekend (NS to NB and back - just over 1000 km)

When I checked the results I found it a bit shocking!
Surely this can't be accurate?

I have a ‘25 Hybrid and currently in New Brunswick on my Cross Canada Tour. I have averaged so far 6.4l per 100km for about 11,000 km. I am astounded!
On a side note, did anyone notice that Trip 2 Rolls over at 9,999 in my case km?

BP

 

[Backin15]

I actually have been shocked at my gas mileage, I was hoping for low 30's on the road and was shocked to see 38 when I checked the trip odometer after our first road trip! Truly astounding!

 

[Tbone289]

Well, I for one am shocked and astounded at the same time as well!!

 

[dochawk]

I was hoping for low 30's on the road and was shocked to see 38

Noone should've to tolerate that!

Demand that they replace with something that meets your expectations!

 

[tom_tucker]

Damn near 1000 km on a tank in mixed driving makes for a pretty nice range. I drove from VT to VA on a single tank 2 days ago over 800 km highway.

 

[Mavster Mechanic]

"Shocking"

That could be either good or bad. Difficult to deduce.

I deduce that was intentional.

 

[Mavster Mechanic]

Well, obviously you see it that way.

But "shocking consumption" is the opposite of "astounding economy." A shocking lack of consumption or shockingly low consumption would make sense. But hey, I've only worked as an editor for 36 years....

They are not opposites.

"Shocking" is just ambiguous. Without direction.

You're trying to tell us 1 is the opposite of zero.

 

[commod0re]

I find it curious that in the US, fuel efficiency is measured by distance traveled per unit of fuel, and in Canada, it's units of fuel per set distance.

Two ways of expressing the same concept. it’s all about understanding how ratios work.

40 miles per gallon can also be expressed equally as:
- 1/40th (0.025) gallon per 1 mile
- 1 gallon per 40 miles
- 10 gallons per 400 miles

Conversion is super simple. “Per” is just another way of saying “divided by” so “x miles per gallon” is just (x miles)/(1 gallons). You can just invert the ratio to swap from distance per volume to volume per distance, and then multiply both numbers equally to scale them up to something that makes more sense.

 

[CBennett]

FYI, you bought a 2.0, not a 2.5.

Your fuel consumption equates to about 30 mpg. That is very good for an EcoBoost, but not unheard of. Congrats, and may you continue to be pleasantly surprised.

Yup, Good MPG for a ICE small truck. I just did a few longer trips running back and forth to Harrisburg PA and back to near Buffalo NY this was highway but mixed terrain(flats, hills, through the Appalachian mountains/foothills) got 32.5-33.7 on 3 hour drives. I think thats awesome... about the same as my 2020 Subaru Forester. I looked at the usual(mid size) suspects Toyota, Nissan, Chevy/GMC etc.. and best id be getting with those is low 20's and they dont do anything im using a Truck FOR better than the Maverick does.. glad to be getting low 30's highway low 20's mixed

 

[KrS]

I would suggest you never go by the lie-o-meter until you adjust your fuel bias. I get avg 8.6L/100 (27.4 mpg) in the summer. I am in a Tremor though so it may be a bit more than a normal 2.0L.

Just some food for thought.

 

[MaverickNoticer]

Yeah, I was confused, too. Typically, "shocking" fuel consumption would mean extremely low fuel economy.

consumption is a neutral term which just refers roughly to the rate of combustion / the efficiency of gas usage.
Whether the consumption is high or low would reflect bad gas mileage or good.

Sponsored