I know that Edmunds reported that: "... announced today were official EPA ratings for the Evo X. The GSR earned 16/22 mpg for city/highway, while the paddle-shifting MR did slightly better with 17/22 mpg."

Can anyone confirm these values? KMX or someone else from mitsu?

iam guessing these are estimates because part of the whole SST movement was for better fuel economy and if this is true then idk wth they did wrong

lol, well technically it has 1 mpg better in the city, so it is "better on gas" slightly

yea lmao " better on gas" ..................... ppl told me that when u drive the IX to its full potential u get like "4 mpg" how true is that and maybe the SST would be better on gas when u drive it to its full potential

Well, you're not exactly driving it at WOT around town all day long...I think they have a system.

Either way, hopefully some weight reduction will help the fuel economy.

For a car with direct injection and a new 4cyl motor, the gas mileage is piss poor.

What are the EPA requirements not to get hit with the gas tax? Over 20 MPG on highway?

this fuel economy really sucks i get 17mpg on my work truck being empty and its a 6.0l.

I posted it somewhere in another thread, but here it is again so more people can see it. They changed the way they estimate the MPG's; now the Evo 9 would be 17/23 and 16/22 for the 6 speed; even the Civic took a hit at 28/34, I vaugely remember it hitting high 30's to 40 before.


www.fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov)

"Starting in 2008, estimates will reflect the effects of

Faster speeds & Acceleration
Air Conditioner use
Colder outside temperatures

the tests lower MPG estimates for most vehicles"

:tmyk:

16mpg is really, really bad but seriously tho. if u cant afford the gas, dont buy the car. if u cant afford gas .period., you cant afford a 30k+ car.

16mpg is really, really bad but seriously tho. if u cant afford the gas, dont buy the car. if u cant afford gas .period., you cant afford a 30k+ car.


no one can afford to destroy the environment!
if the Vette Z06 can get 16/26 with 7L then mitsu can do better.

^True story.

Are You sure that SST more fuel economic?

I bet it was drived with normal mode right?

Are You sure that SST more fuel economic?

I bet it was drived with normal mode right?

It is...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/mitsubishi-moto.html

no one can afford to destroy the environment!
if the Vette Z06 can get 16/26 with 7L then mitsu can do better.

Is the Vette AWD? There must be significant power losses in the Evo AWD drivetrain, anyone know how much?

The WRX and STI also have poor MPG ratings:
WRX (sedan and wagon): 19/24 (manual) 20/25 (automatic) (WTF?)
STI: 17/23

I posted it somewhere in another thread, but here it is again so more people can see it. They changed the way they estimate the MPG's; now the Evo 9 would be 17/23 and 16/22 for the 6 speed; even the Civic took a hit at 28/34, I vaugely remember it hitting high 30's to 40 before.


www.fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov)

"Starting in 2008, estimates will reflect the effects of

Faster speeds & Acceleration
Air Conditioner use
Colder outside temperatures

the tests lower MPG estimates for most vehicles"



Spiritech's got a good point. The wesbite also provides old vs. new mileage estimates for cars. This link might be of interest... :)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=21843

^Ah, so the old evo and the new evo have the same real world fuel economy.

For a car with direct injection and a new 4cyl motor, the gas mileage is piss poor.


Just wanted to say that according to SCC, the production X is in fact NOT direct injection. Can anyone confirm this?

^ Ive heard its not.