-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Cadillac CTS/CTS-V: Real World MPG
First, the reprise of the Check Coolant message, after the dealer sealed the cooling system, seems to have been solved. When the message started reappearing, I noticed the overflow tank had been left open, with cap perched on the cowl. I replaced the cap, the dealer refilled the tank with DexCool, and the message hasn't reappeared in over a week.
Second, after the earlier discussion here on octane, I drove from Chicago to Toronto and back over the weekend, about 1200 miles. Used 93 octane going (which I had been using exclusively) and 87 returning. I always drive until the Low Fuel message, then invariably put in 16 gallons (the tank holds 17.5 per the manual), so by the second tank I think the residual 93 octane was negligible.
There were absolutely no differences in driving perceptions, highway, city or expressway, from one octane to the other. However, I did experience what I consider a very strange mileage phenomenon.
Keeping track of fuel consumption was really weird, because as soon as I crossed into Canada, I had to start using litres and kilometers (it's the law there, and you have to do it in French under risk of being arreted). Very confusing, especially when you multiply the metric hours by Canadian dollars and then convert everything to Celsius. Thank heavens the CTS has a computer to manage all these factors.
Anyway, driving east with 93 octane I got 24.0 mpg. Returning with 87 octane I got.....are you ready?.....26.4!!!! Both segments were essentially identical, highway speeds about 80 mph, negligible wind, comparable weather and the same terrain, and both cities are close to 600 feet above sea level, so it wasn't uphill one way and down the other. Temperature going hovered about 32F and returning was about 38F. I can't explain the difference, particularly the better mileage on lower octane fuel, unless the car just happened to "loosen up and break in" while on the trip (I have about 8K miles now).
In any event, I am going to use 87 octane from now on, unless something happens to change my mind.
Second, after the earlier discussion here on octane, I drove from Chicago to Toronto and back over the weekend, about 1200 miles. Used 93 octane going (which I had been using exclusively) and 87 returning. I always drive until the Low Fuel message, then invariably put in 16 gallons (the tank holds 17.5 per the manual), so by the second tank I think the residual 93 octane was negligible.
There were absolutely no differences in driving perceptions, highway, city or expressway, from one octane to the other. However, I did experience what I consider a very strange mileage phenomenon.
Keeping track of fuel consumption was really weird, because as soon as I crossed into Canada, I had to start using litres and kilometers (it's the law there, and you have to do it in French under risk of being arreted). Very confusing, especially when you multiply the metric hours by Canadian dollars and then convert everything to Celsius. Thank heavens the CTS has a computer to manage all these factors.
Anyway, driving east with 93 octane I got 24.0 mpg. Returning with 87 octane I got.....are you ready?.....26.4!!!! Both segments were essentially identical, highway speeds about 80 mph, negligible wind, comparable weather and the same terrain, and both cities are close to 600 feet above sea level, so it wasn't uphill one way and down the other. Temperature going hovered about 32F and returning was about 38F. I can't explain the difference, particularly the better mileage on lower octane fuel, unless the car just happened to "loosen up and break in" while on the trip (I have about 8K miles now).
In any event, I am going to use 87 octane from now on, unless something happens to change my mind.
0
Comments
Do you know if Canada requires a mix of ethanol (or MTBE) in their gasoline? Our gasoline supply currently contains up to 10% of those additives. I experienced a reduction of about 1 to 2 miles per gallon when the government mandated a "clean air" gasoline mix in the early '90's. Your results may be due to that difference.
Our gas mileage is always better on a return trip from central or southern Illinois, when we go to visit my wife's relatives. I forget how many gasoline blends the government mandates, but the largest metropolitan areas get gasoline with the least amount of "energy" due to gasoline blend. Therefore they get less miles/kilometers per gallon/liter .
I think clean air is important, especially for kids, so I don't mind getting a few less mpg.
Anyway, your experiment has given me a reason to try 87 or 89 octane with our CTS, just to see if it makes a difference.
Thanks,
Rich
on the Interstate or in town. I have used the xmission "Sport" mode on occasion and it does step things up a bit.
I probably could get better mileage if I didn't 'get on it' so often.
The CTS handled superbly. It's definitely made for the road. We averaged 25.5 MPG, which wasn't bad considering we used the AC on the entire trip and ran into heavy rain on the trip up and on the trip back. We also had some major traffic jams back in the Chicago area.
Unfortunately, I had a problem with water under the drivers seat and on the rear floor. I ran a search on this discussion and located some earlier complaints along with the number of the service bulletin (TSB). The CTS is scheduled to go to the dealer on Monday.
Now that I've learned how to position my seat, I didn't have any problems with my right leg getting sore. Although neither one of us misses a lumbar support in our CTS, Cadillac should have provided one in the '03's, because when it comes to seating, "one size does not fit all".
As for brakes, the performance pads on our LuxSport are the best brakes I've ever had. The CTS stops quickly and in a straight line every time.
Rich
I averaged 25.3 MPG on the trip, driving into a strong head wind on the leg going south. The CTS is great road car and is solid as a rock at highway speeds.
Comments on the previous post. A CTS is a good alternative to a BMW and no I-Drive; way cheaper than a 5-series and cheaper than most 3-series. We also try to buy GM if we are buying American, and the CTS is the hands-down best car they offer. Wouldn't take a Ford or Mopar on a bet. I doubt you'll see 25 mpg except on a nice level highway run below about 70 mph. Ours averages 19.8 mpg in almost 7000 mi of mostly suburban driving. That's the same as the 99 Olds Intrigue that it replaces, and way more fun. The car will go back to the dealer the first time for its first oil change, projected at about 10000 miles. In almost two years, my VW has visited the dealer no less than 15 times. I like both cars very much, though.
We've got over 43K miles and my wife is getting about 22- 23 mpg on her (part expressway/part suburban) drive to and from work. At first, our mileage was not too good. When we got around 10K miles, it improved drastically. We get about 26-27 mpg on the highway, on a non-windy day, at 70 to 75 mph. Headwinds reduce the mileage to about 20-21 mpg.
Before my wife started her current job (December) she was getting 18-20 mpg in city/suburban driving. We're both really pleased and my wife uses premium gas, with midgrade at every other fillup.
As I said before, based on this '03 CTS, our next car will be a another CTS.
As far as mileage, this first tank of mixed driving, about 60/40 highway/city, the DIC shows 21.7 as of right now. That isn't bad for a car not even close to broke in. My daily drive takes me 25 miles across the interstate at about 65-70mph depending on traffic. I think 25mpg is a reasonable estimate, and a huge improvement over the 17mpg of the Yukon.
I am a little surprised that a head wind has that big of an effect on the CTS. I thought the aerodynamics of it would make for less of an impact on mileage. It killed the Yukon, but it is about as aerodynamic as a brick! Give that Yukon a good tail wind and it could get 25mpg easily.
250 miles and loving it more each time I drive it!
Mike
i noticed huge power loss with my Z28s cross country at altitude, of course. 28 mpg tank after tank with the iroc-z & 87 octane. Huge power loss with the honda civic, mpg was barely better than 30, iirc. VW passat diesel did not suffer much power/torque loss at altitude, apparently thanks to turbo and diesel torque... passat TDI mpg was 35.
looking forward to someone posting a cross-country mpg reports with the new ~650 hp cts-V ...