Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota Sienna Gas Mileage

124

Comments

  • hause7hause7 Member Posts: 153
    Yeah, when we first got it it was not that good about 15mpg then after 5 tanks it was about 17mpg. Take it on a long drive and it should get good gas mileage =] ..if you don't need AWD you should get a FWD. We don't need AWD so we want to get a FWD.
  • gmuigmui Member Posts: 10
    Thanks for sharing that; it provides some hope that it can improve...

    I wish I can trade it for a FWD, but the dealer wants to rob me for the previlige to trade to an FWD. I would end up paying $5000 more for a car that's $3000 less in book value; that's a $8000 difference. Only a car dealer can come up with math like that!

    My 2008 Sienna has a total of 200 miles on it, so those are very expensive miles given the depreciation =)
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    One question I always have to ask about wanting to trade in a vehicle with low gas mileage is how long/how many miles would it take to pay for the trade in? Taking the dealer as quoted, trading in the AWD for a FWD would be $5000 cash out of your pocket, or more than 1600 gallons of gas at $3.10 per gallon- that takes you 22,400 miles at 14mpg. Assuming the FWD gets 24mpg to the AWD's 14mpg, you would have to derive equal enjoyment/utility for 55000 miles on the FWD before you made up the $5000 difference.

    55K seems like a long way to go on the assumption that the AWD is unnecessary and that the first 200 miles is a good measure of fuel consumption. Compared to your T&C, how does the Sienna do for acceleration? Are you happy with the van aside from the economy?

    Aside from that, thanks for the warning about the AWD economy. The available AWD is one of the biggest arguments for the Sienna in my book. I have a Subaru and love the AWD... and now I really hate :mad: FWD. The Subaru is 3 years old and the gas mileage is still improving.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    Don't buy a Sienna if you love your Subaru. Have you test driven the Subaru Tribeca and compared it to the Sienna?
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    I took a look at the 2008 Tribeca but dismissed it because, like all the crossovers I've looked at, the third row is small and hard to get to and the storage space is compromised. It is also expensive for the third row seat and decent equipment.

    The Legacy was a fantastic bargain for the quality, features and options and I could also get a station wagon with a manual transmission- the best of all worlds. The one thing I look forward to about getting a minivan is that my old Ford ZX2 gets the boot and I get the Subaru for my daily driver.
  • gmuigmui Member Posts: 10
    Thanks for the math, it just validates that I can't afford to trade in at this point.

    The power on this new sienna is much better than my old T&C. At the same time, even with my family of seven in the old T&C, I never had a problem merging into busy NJ highways going from near standstill to 40-50 in a short stretch. The Sienna's power is good, but probably much more than I'll need.

    I too like the AWD option for messy snow days as well as the benefit of going onto beaches and dirt when I'm camping. However, not at the fuel efficiency cost that the Toyota requires. My old T&C average 19mpg in mixed driving and 22+ on highways. I was just not expecting with all the new technology that the Toyota would do that much worst. I have a full size Chevy Express conversion van that does 14mpg local and 18 mpg hwy and that's a 5.7litre V8...
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    At refill today my 06 Sienna got 18.9 MPG....MUCH better than the dismal 10.9 MPG it got when it was refueled Feb 8 this year. ;)

    Overall mileage for 19,869 miles is now 23.6 MPG which is slightly better than my 02 T&C 22.3 MPG at 19,943 miles. By comparison, my daughter's 1999 GC SE w/3.3L V6 had overall gas mileage of 23.8 MPG at just over 20,000 miles.
  • ourohiofamilyourohiofamily Member Posts: 2
    Great web board! My wife and I are looking at '04 & '05 XLE Ltd's. We are seriously considering the AWD version because NE Ohio winters can be quite ugly. I have read many of the previous posts but wished to request any additional input on the AWD gas mileage. We are definitely not lead-footed and wanted to see what others out there are able to get 1) in city 2) highway 3) mixed use. We are afraid that the fwd version, that seems to get mid to high 20's in mpg, will not provide the safety that we desire. My wife drives about 25k-30k miles per year so I want to make sure she is safe but some of the mileage concerns of the AWD's still worry me due to the price of gasoline.

    Thanks!
  • odmanodman Member Posts: 309
    Rather than taking the MPG hit for AWD, why not go FWD and invest in a set of quality snow tires on steel rims? It would be less expensive on initial purchase and would give you better fuel economy. It would also give you and your wife a much greater edge in the winter, since AWD does nothing for stopping and cornering. Of course, AWD with snows would be unbeatable, but would yield the worst MPG.
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    I ran across this on the EPA website today where owners can report their own real-world economy results.

    On the road fuel economy

    Interesting data on the Sienna:
    The 3.3L on the Toyota Sienna of previous years was at 20 mpg with FWD and a bit more that 18MPG with AWD. The 2007 results for the new 3.5L FWD were 1.5mpg better than the 3.3L at 21.5, and indicating the Sienna with the 3.5L is the most efficient minivan of recent years.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    Your conclusion is questionable. Look more closely at ALL the data. For 2006, 14 Siennas were included while for 2007 there were only 10. :blush:

    One 2006 Sienna had a pathetic 14.5 MPG overall average for 70 % stop and go driving while the lowest 2007 had a 50 % overall average with only 50 % stop and go.

    The ONLY reliable comparison would be for long round trip HIGHWAY mileage ONLY and even then the vehicles would have to be driven on the same trip at the same time and switch drivers at the half way point.

    Stop and go driving average is completely unreliable since one person's stop and go can be very different from another one.

    My 2006 Sienna LE had an OVERALL average of 23.6 MPG at 19,869 miles. That included the dismal 10.9 MPG for one refill for January driving this year and the 34.9 MPG on one tank during a long road trip in April 2007 when the overall round trip mileage was 29.2 MPG.

    I agree that it is remarkable that the new, more powerful 3.5L V6 in the 2007 Sienna has the same EPA rating 19/26 that the 3.3L V6 had but I seriously doubt that real world mileage would be 1.5 MPG higher in the 2007 than 2006. :shades:
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    2006 Sienna long road trip mileage was just slightly better than 2002 T&C was at 29.1 MPG on same trip in May 2005. ;)
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    I took the data as provided. I posted the same information to the Foreign vs domestic forum including my caveats on the data.

    While the data on the 3.5L is limited to a small number of 2007 vans, the 3.3L mileage I posted is the weighted average for years2004 to 2006. It remains to be seen if the 3.5L mileage advantage holds up as more data rolls in, but I think it is safe to say it is as good as the previous engine's economy, and that makes it better than the Odyssey with or w/o VCM.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think 10 is a fair sample, certainly not scientific but it shows a trend.

    I've observed the same thing from mileage reports in other forums as well - the 3.5l engine tends to do a little bit better than the 3.3l.
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    There is a time factor to consider too since as an engine ages it will change it's performance and the ten samples in the data probably don't have that many miles on them. Given that these have Toyota engineering, these engines will probably loosen up and get better mileage, but that isn't necessarily the case.

    10 is a good starting sample, but we cannot say with statistical certainty that the 3.5L has better mileage than the 3.3L. With the range of data available, the raw mean could be as low as 19.6. A quick statistical model on the city vs highway data provided on the 3.5L suggests that the highway average is 25mpg and the city is 18mpg (error range about +/-3mpg). These are 1mpg better than the EPA estimates going back to my caveats about self selecting samples.

    I'm an engineer so I almost compulsively do these kinds of calculations. Knowing myself, I will create the same models for the data on the 3.3L and the Odyssey... but not right now as my real job is calling.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    My friend's 2007 Sienna LE has a long time average of 19.6 MPG compared to my 2006 Sienna LE long time average of 23.6 MPG.

    Based on information I can personally verify, the 2006 Sienna gets better gas mileage than the 2007 Sienna in the real world where we live. :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You can't compare those for a simple reason - different drivers!

    I'm averaging better than your 3.3l did, but it's just not relevant.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    AGREE 100% "You can't compare those for a simple reason - different drivers!" . That is EXACTLY why the data in posting # 162 and the link included has no merit. You get better gas mileage with your 2007 than I do with my 2006 BUT I get better gas mileage than my friend does with his 2007. Different drivers = different gas mileage. :blush:

    Since the carefully controlled EPA testing got the same 19/26 EPA ratings for the 2006 w/ 3.3L and the 2007 w/3.5L, the truth is that each will deliver the same gas mileage if they are driven on the same course by the same driver with same conditions. The 2007 will NOT get better gas mileage than the 2006 even though the 2007 has more power when desired. ;)

    I think it is remarkable that Toyota increased the power for 2007 while still having the same fuel economy when driven in the same manner. :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    When you look at a bigger sample, that takes varying driving styles into account, though.

    The EPA uses a dynomometer, they're not even out on real roads. Plus the Canadian EPA rates the new Sienna higher than the Ody, while the US EPA rates them the same.
  • todds4todds4 Member Posts: 2
    Don't trust the onboard computer calculation of average mileage. . It's way off. It would be interesting to know what it is averaged over.

    If you want to know the mileage you have do it the 'old fashioned' way. . .with math!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I do and my trip computer is surprisingly accurate. So much so that I may stop doing the manual calculations.
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    This is the wonderful thing about statistics. With one data point at each condition you can not conclude much since you cannot know how much uncontrolled variables skew the data. However as more data points are added there is what is called "regression to the mean", which in simple terms means that while one or a few points may have significant error in representing the population, as more points are added, the more confident you can be that the population is really represented.

    In the real world this means that comparisons between your friend's economy and yours are anecdotal and meaningless. Your experience is single combinations of variables so the best you can conclude is that you get better economy driving your van than he gets driving his and cannot extrapolate that across the general population of drivers and vans. Now if you switched vans for a period and tracked economy through a few tanks you might be able to draw two more conclusions: which individual's driving style gets the best economy and which individual van gets the best economy- but again you couldn't extrapolate to the larger population of driving styles or vans.

    The EPA site data on the other hand is meaningful because they are a sampling of vans and drivers. Though I would not expect the average of the whole driving population to match the contributers to the EPA site because of the biasing that occurs with self selection, I would expect that populations within the EPA site to be similar. While it is possible that the 10 drivers contributing data for the 3.5L would have more economical habits than the 48 drivers contributing to the 3.3L data, I see no obvious reason to assume so. With variability of driving habits squelched and with multiple samples of each design represented, we can begin to make meaningful conclusions about how the vans perform relative to each other.

    From this I conclude that if I were to have my choice of picking from two otherwise similar Toyota vans at random (not knowing anything about the van' performance other than what engine is installed), I will probably get better economy if I choose one with the 3.5L engine. Can individual vans vary so that a particular 3.3L gets better economy than a particular 3.5L? Certainly, there is more than enough variability in the data and that that can happen a fair percentage of the time. But if I can pick only one the probability is that I will do better with the 3.5L.

    Thus concludes this session of basic statistics.

    What is not disputed is that the 3.5L will also move me along faster, which makes the economy a bonus.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah. What the math professor said. ;)
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    IF you drive FASTER, your 2007 Sienna gas mileage will drop rapidly (according to a graph in the mailing Toyota sent me). :sick:

    Quote: " Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph...."
  • yatesjoyatesjo Member Posts: 186
    You state that as though there was something wrong with the Toyota when that is true for all vehicles.. The optimum economy is between 40 and 50mph for most vehicles, below that speed the friction between mechanical components dominates, and above that speed wind resistance dominates and rises to the square of the speed. That is simple physics and nothing peculiar to the Sienna.
  • hansiennahansienna Member Posts: 2,312
    " What is not disputed is that the 3.5L will also move me along faster, which makes the economy a bonus."

    I wrote that your gas mileage will decrease significantly because of this sentence in an earlier posting. I should have included "Your 2007 Sienna will probably get lower mileage than my 2006 Sienna IF you move along faster because you will LOSE your bonus by driving faster." :cry:

    According to the graph, a vehicle which gets almost 30 MPG at 50 MPH will get only 22 MPG at 75 MPH (and the most rapid decline in fuel economy occurs at a speed of about 60 MPH when it drops from 27 MPG to 24 mpg very quickly). ;)
  • mleonardomleonardo Member Posts: 45
    I bought my van new in 2005 and have gotten no better than 18 MPG HWY. I have used 92 octane and 87 octane. There is no difference. This van has very little power compared to my 1997 GMC Yukon with a 5.7 liter V8 and gets only 2 to 3 MPG better. I like the vans power sliding doors and the AWD is great in the snow and ice but with the new V8s getting close to 20 MPG, I kind of wish I had bought a new Yukon instead. My van is paid off and I plan on keeping it five or six more years but I will be replacing it with a V8 powered vehicle. There is very little difference in fuel mileage but the V8 has a lot more power.
  • hause7hause7 Member Posts: 153
    If you want power, the newer Sienna with the 3.5L gets better gas mileage with AWD and has more power than a Yukon and the older Sienna. We drove an 07 XLE and an 07 LE, both were very quick and felt as fast as the newer Escalade my relatives have(has 6.2L). Test one out, you won't be depressed :)

    By the way our 04 Limited AWD gets 16mpg in town and 20-21mpg highway.

    The new 07 LE FWD we had for a couple of days got 21-22 mpg in city driving and up to 27mpg on the highway!
  • mleonardomleonardo Member Posts: 45
    Thanks for the reply. After spending close to 40 grand on my 05, Im not in the market for an 07 or a yukon for that matter. What you say is interesting though. I was thinking about this. By the time I get rid of my sienna, my kids will be close to 12 years old. I think I will probably get a crew cab pick up instead. But it won't be a tundra.

    I really wish my van got the kind of mileage that you got with that 07. My window sticker stated 20-23 or something like that.
  • hause7hause7 Member Posts: 153
    You don't like the Tundra's?

    My uncle has had his 07 Limited Double Cab 4X2 in Nautical Blue(5.7L V8) for 6 months and now has about 9,000 miles on it. He loves it and it averages 17 mpg.
    No problems at all.
  • kjokjo Member Posts: 24
    We have a 2005 LE purchased new in July of 05. For the first 3 months, I was very careful about how we drove it and I took great pains to accurately compute the mpg. It was so close to the on board computer, I stopped doing it manually. During that first 3 month period, it got 22/23 city and 27/28 highway pretty consistently. I have never reset the mpg computer on board and it now reads 22.1 with 49k miles. We do a LOT of city driving and when we drive on the highway, we are in the fast lane doing 70-75mph. If the 3.5l gets as good or better, thats great, I'm pretty happy with the 3.3l.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Around town we've been getting around 22mpg, but I finally took a road trip and saw 27+ again. :shades:
  • vinijinvinijin Member Posts: 28
    I am wondering if there will be any difference of MPG between base model CE as compared to fully loaded Limited. All wheel drive, 17" aluminum wheels, Power sliding doors, power hatchback, and other accessories all add weight to the vehicle. I checked edmunds.com and it lists gross weight of 5690 lb for all the models. But I guess gross wt will be different between these models (and accessories) and will eventually impact MPG.

    RAV4 uses same engine (3.5 L) but rated 19/27. The gross weight of RAV4 is 4720 lbs. I am ready to buy new Sienna and trying to figure out how to keep Gross weight minimum. Most importantly, will there be any impact of this low weight on MPG ?
  • LuzerLuzer Member Posts: 119
    Around 17 - 18 city
    20 - 22 Hwy at 70 - 85 miles per hour.

    WARNING - These numbers are a little off as my GPS reads about 2 to 3 mph less at 75. (GPS = 73 and Van says 75; GPS says 77 and van is at 80) This translate into about 2.6%to 3% less. So the numbers are about 0.5 mpg too many, best case.

    My Garmin 650 GPS and my Pontiac Vibe are dead on.
    Wheels are original wheels with the XLE.

    Can anyone share GPS mph experience?
    A few post before notes a slight diff.

    This also affects odometer reading for selling the van, or your lease values....100K miles is really closer to 97,000 miles.....

    This was not the intent when I started writing this post, but can anyone say "class action suit?"
  • vinijinvinijin Member Posts: 28
    What model do you have ?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    2007 LE FWD, package 3.

    Basically a mid-level model.

    The Limited are heavier, and I have seen a tendency for the lighter models (CE, LE) to get better gas mileage.

    This is purely empirical data. EPA says they're the same.
  • vinijinvinijin Member Posts: 28
    Does anyone knows the weight difference between regular 16" steel wheels and 16" alloy wheels ?
    Thanks
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Probably a little lighter, though OE alloys are not usually ultra-light. I bet it saves 2-3 pounds.

    I will weigh mine (tires and all) next time I rotate my tires. I have the alloys. We'll have to ask someone else to weigh their steelies.

    For reference, the 15" steelies on my Forester weighed 44 lbs with tires mounted, and the 16" alloys that replaced them weighed the same. The alloys were an inch bigger, of course, so more metal was offset by the lighter weight of the metal.
  • vinijinvinijin Member Posts: 28
    That's interesting. It means I can go for 16" alloy wheels without increasing curb weight. I am trying to buy the lightest possible Sienna. CE-7 passenger and LE-8 passenger are lightest (4177 lbs) in base models. Unfortunately, I can't buy a LE-8 passenger without options in my area. I have to buy minimum of RL and Option package 1. I am trying to determine how much extra weight will be added with these options. Any help on this will be appreciated.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Why is weight so critical?

    I get great fuel efficiency with my LE, and it has package 3. I get 22-24 around town, and 27-30+ on trips.
  • vinijinvinijin Member Posts: 28
    I strongly believe weight is critical to get best fuel efficiency.

    RAV4 has the same engine (3.5 L) as Sienna and curb weight of base model (3.5 L) RAV4 is 3527 lbs - about 15% less than base model of Sienna.
    Based upon EPA estimates, RAV4 is estimated as 19/27 MPG - about 17-18% better fuel efficiency as compared to Sienna.

    My objective is to get MPG as close to RAV4 as practically possible. To achieve this, I am trying to get the curb weight of Sienna as low as possible.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Fair enough.

    Toyota lists curb weight for the 2007 CE and LE as the same - 4270 lbs. Wonder if it really is the same?

    Some add-ons are indeed lighter - for instance the CE has an antennae while the LE models with the JBL sound have an in-glass antennae. Not only does it weigh less, it would also produce no drag at all.

    You also want the most narrow tires, so stick with the 215mm section width on the 16" rims, which models you're considering all have.

    Remove roof rack cross bars if you get those. My LE has them.

    There may be other trade-offs to consider. You could remove the antennae from the CE model while the radio is not in use, but to me that's too inconvenient.

    The XLE is 4310, so 40 lbs worth of options. I don't think that's very significant given the RAV4 drops some 700 lbs. So you'll only see 6% of the fuel savings the RAV4 would give you.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Another idea - you can remove the 3rd row. I've seen someone do that and build a custom shaped piece of wood as a cover for the cargo well. That's surely lighter than the entire 3rd row seat.
  • bearcrkrdbearcrkrd Member Posts: 167
    Hi. My 2006 Sienna CE got great gas mileage. See my previous posts. 18 months, 36,000 miles. What a fine ride for a bare-bones trim level!!! I do not have a family, drive alone 99% of the time, don't tow or haul, and love to drive, Gas in Seattle is $4.11 for regular, 30 cents higher for premium. Always used premium. I went to mid-grade 3 weeks ago, regular last week, and gave up today. :sick: Got hit hard on my trade-in value, but it was the closest to KBB value (way under NADA or Edmunds), but it was the Edmunds number for that Zip Code I used to get the 2008 Honda Civic LX I just brought home an hour ago. Once at the table, they started at almost $3,000 over MSRP. :confuse: It's a tinny rice burner in a fancy overcoat. Base model. I think I can get 40 on the Interstate with my conservative driving style, so I justified it. After I unloaded the van, which has never been smoked in, driven on dirt except once, or even eaten in (honest), I patted the drivers door a couple times and walked away. First new car I bought was a Toyota in 2001, at 44 years old. Bought 4 more new Toyotas since. I'll miss that Sienna. I'll also miss ateixeira's posts. So Long.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Thanks for the update.

    Congrats and good luck with the Civic!

    I read that Honda may increase production to keep up with demand for the fuel efficient sedan.
  • honshuhonshu Member Posts: 11
    I have a new 2008 CE Sienna but having a head ache of keeping up with all the gas it consumes, sometimes it costs me $60 to fill from half tank and sometimes just $40, the price of gas would be +/- .04 cents. When I was driving my 2005 Corolla CE (Bless her little engine) :shades: , I would slap it down to neutral and let her cruise to the red light. I calculated it saved me an extra 30% of gas, I wonder if is the same with the Sienna, any one has experimented with this yet? :confuse:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I would leave it in gear.

    Think about it - in neutral, it needs fuel to idle and not stall.

    Coasting to a stop, it can cut off fuel completely and coast, yet the alternator is still spinning so it will not stall.
  • sf_siennasf_sienna Member Posts: 13
    That's very good mileage and somewhat better than what I've seen with our 2004 XLE FWD. In just under 5 yrs and 51K miles our trip computer tells us that we've averaged 22.7 mpg. Our miles are more city than highway, maybe 60/40 split. I had been checking the mileage in the early days and found it to be pretty reliable. Recently we completed a San Jose to Los Angeles roundtrip. This included approximately 800 highway miles and 150 city miles. The mileage driving south was 25.5 mpg and the mileage driving north was 23.1 mpg. The biggest difference was that we had 1 1/2 hrs of traffic delays heading north. Our average highway speed in both directions was 70 mph (cruise control) and we had the A/C on the entire time due to 90-100 degree temps through the central valley and LA area. We had 3 adults and 2 children in the car along with a full load of luggage.
  • kjokjo Member Posts: 24
    05 LE, package #8. It has 35K on it right now and new Yokohama Avid TRZ's (very sweet tires). We just got back from a week long trip to Cooperstown, NY from Columbus, Ohio. Total milage from driveway to driveway, 1367.2. Total fuel used, 53.872 gallons. Total MPG for the trip, 25.38mpg. Fully loaded both ways, family of 4, lots of luggage, I removed one of the middle captain chairs, I usually do for trips. I also removed my luggage rack cross bars a while ago, as they are never used. My tires always stay at 41 lbs. For the trip there, I went from 57 to 64 mph most of the way, there was a spell when I was going around 72-74 for about 40 miles. While in Cooperstown for the week, I averaged 21 mpg. The most impressive part of the trip was the return. I gassed up just after I got on I-90 and went 495.5 miles on 17.36 gallons = 28.54 mpg. On this part of the trip I was on CC at 63 mph for 90% of the time. Some things I noticed about going a bit slower than I normally have in the past, you will see many of the same vehicles pass you more than a couple times in a big hurry. I was not nearly as fatigued as I was relaxed watching cars pass me all the way instead of hurrying and always trying to find the open lane to keep moving at speed to my destination. Also, you never have to constantly look ahead for cops taking radar. I rather like going between 60 and 65, it still gets you there in good time and these Sienna's just love that speed for efficiency. I'm sure I could get over 30 mpg going a steady 55, but that is just anti-social and kind of dangerous as well.
    I forgot to add, that AC was used for about half of the trip. AC was used every day while in Cooperstown, city driving and most of the second half of the drive back to Columbus. All in all, I'm very impressed with Sienna's performance. It delivers a quiet ride , lots of room for "stuff", entertainment for the kids, (never heard a peep out of them, well except for the laughter while watching movies), just a very balanced vehicle and I'm glad this one is mine.
  • dnbqeednbqee Member Posts: 7
    hi new to the forum. Our trip computer consistently shows about 2 mpg above what the actual mileage really is by doing the math. Speedo is GPS verified as accurate for both speed and distance. The trip computer seems to be "programmed"to always show the "optimistic" old EPA numbers. Anyone else have the same problem? Thanks
This discussion has been closed.