Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Kia Sedona Gas Mileage



  • rgochoargochoa Posts: 17
    I have a 2006 EX. The best mileage I have ever achieved was 23.4 miles per gal on a 2000 mile trip. On a side note, the miles to empty never has read more than 334 miles to empty. This is incorrect because the tank capacity is 21.5 gals---should read close to 500 miles to empty. The miles per gal were also calculated based on fillup and it agreed with the computer mpg.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Very cold this past week here - 10 deg F average temps. Overall, I was satisfied with 19.26 mpg on a tank split probably 40% 55-65mph highway cruising, 40% country road cruising 45mph, 20% stop-and-go 15-35mph highway driving (snow). Relatively few stops, plenty of idling/warmup, using the winter blend fuel here, and snowy and slippery roads. Our van already had 575 miles on it, so this was not the first tank of gas it has seen but still pretty early in the break-in period.

    Here are a few more of the details:
    * Trip odometer 346.7 miles
    * Max miles driven + range = 382
    * Range at time of fill-up 35 miles
    * Gallons to fill 18.00
    * Fuel needle at or slightly below the line for Empty
    * Trip computer 19.2 mpg
    * Manually calculated fuel economy 19.26 mpg

    I wonder if the trip computer on our EX really is quite accurate or if this was just a coincidence? Will monitor this on future fill-ups.

    Observations about the trip computer and fuel gauge:
    * Fuel gauge reads pretty true. Drops in a linear fashion; does not have the typical undesirable fuel gauge behaviors such as staying above Full for 60-80 miles, or dropping much faster when needle goes below ½ full, etc.
    * Range value on trip computer does not adjust quickly enough to reflect current fuel economy
  • I also have a 2006EX. The mpg your computer is pretty much the same as mine. I now have 12,000 miles and am averaging 22-23 mpg, the same as the computer readout. However, the miles to empty seems to be in error--it never exceeds 330 miles to empty. On a tank that is supposed to have a capacity of 21.5 gals, it should read over 470 miles to empty. Wonder if it is a software problem or Kia does not really have the advertised tank capacity?
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    My current tank is reading 240 miles or so to empty and I've driven about 125 miles. I think both times I have filled it up, it has indicated 320 miles to empty.

    Considering how low the fuel needle was, I expected the tank to take more than 18 gallons when I filled up.

    Hopefully this is a software issue and Kia will develop a fix in the future.

    The trip computer in our 2002 Sedona was as quirky as our 2006's, but in different ways. It 'remembered' the fuel economy from the driving prior to the fill-up, which was logical. So if I was driving 70 mph on the highway (probably 22-23 mpg in our van, which always did better than the EPA ratings), it might say something like 450 miles to empty after I filled the tank. It seemed even slower to react / update based on the current type of driving, and it was overly optimistic... Driving on the highway for a couple hours, I could get readings of (miles driven + miles to empty) as high as 460-480. Well, we never got more than 400 miles on a tank of gas in our 2002!
  • volfyvolfy Posts: 274
    First 2 fillups with our '06 Sedona EX came out both at around 20.6 MPG. Our Sedona has Luxury & Power Package and so is on the heavy side. The miles were 90% highway 65-75mph cruising, loaded with 4 adults and 3 toddlers. The trip computer was about 1 MPG optimistic both times, which is fairly accurate compared to most cars I've had.

    I think even before the engine breaks in, 25mpg is attainable cruising at 45-55mph, but that would be excruciating, not to mention pissing off other drivers. I'm glad EPA is revising the antiquated mileage ratings.

    I'm in Houston, TX and pretty much sea level. Posting your locale is important because altitude greatly affects MPG. My old VW GTI would go from 25mpg at sea level to above 35mpg traveling through NM & AZ.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    Just curious here, why, if everything else was equal, would your van or your GTI get better mileage at higher elevations than at sea level?
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Our van has almost 2,000 miles, so the engine is still breaking in.

    Location: Michigan (--> winter blend fuel which reduces fuel economy, fairly flat roads, cold winter air temperatures)

    Driving style: Pretty gentle and prudent. We slow well in advance of red lights, rarely goose the throttle past 3500 RPM, generally use cruise on the highway, etc.

    Fillup 2
    Incomplete data due to wife forgetting to record information. I'm in process of estimating / piecing it together. Grrrrrr.

    Fillup 3
    approx 18.5 mpg a couple weeks ago. avg temp 10-15 deg F. Snowy. Fair amount of warmup idling. 40% highway 70mph, 50% country roads 50-60 mph with occasional stoplights, 10% city driving.

    Fillup 4
    19.5 mpg today. avg temp 30-35 deg F. 40% highway 70mph, 50% country roads 50-60 mph with occasional stoplights, 10% city driving. max observed trip odometer + range = 400 miles. Trip computer said 20.3 mpg, which is only 0.8 mpg off.

    It seems 23-25 mpg highway @ 65-75 mph is fairly likely in our van once it breaks in a bit more and we get away from winter which includes winter blend fuel, cold starts, cold air temps, and extra warmup/idling. Even now, trip computer shows highway cruising in the 22-23 mpg range.
  • volfyvolfy Posts: 274
    The thinner air at higher elevation means the engine control system meters less fuel per stroke than if the air is denser at sea level. Result is higher mileage.

    Of course, there is no free lunch. Less fuel means less energy per stroke, so the same engine is less powerful at higher elevation.
  • volfyvolfy Posts: 274
    bluedevils, your EX is getting very similar mileage up there in the wintery North as mine is down here in the mild Gulf Coast. My Fillup#3 came out 19.2mpg (trip computer: 18.6mpg) with shorter trips and more city (suburb realy) driving.

    So far I'm extremely happy with the mileage. With the large 3.8L and the earlier sub-15mpg reports, I was fearing the worst. My loaded Sedona, still new, is getting about the same mileage as our well-broken-in '04 Sienna with the weezy underpowered 3.3L.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    "weezy, underpowered 3.3L"??? I thought that motor was a smooth, rev-happy, zippy 230hp ditty?

    I'm hoping our '06 ends up around 2 mpg better than our '02. Our '02 exceeded the EPA ratings (15 city / 20 highway) by 2-3 mpg, so if the '06 settles in right around the EPA numbers (18/25) I'll be a fairly happy camper.
  • volfyvolfy Posts: 274
    The Sienna 3.3L is smooth for sure, but it is rather soft in the low to mid rev range, where most of these people movers operate. I can see the Mazda MPV selling the zoom-zoom sportcar appeal to folks who might want to rev it up on the way to drop off junior at the Elementary school. I suspect most van buyers would rather not have to lean on the loud pedal too much for daily driving. I guess enough people complained that Toyota now equips the '07 Sienna with a more powerful 3.5L.

    Coming off of our '04 Sienna, both my wife and I felt the '06 Sedona's 3.8L less "strained" in pulling the heavier van around than the lighter Sienna with a smaller engine. The fact that we are getting about the same gas mileage also suggest that Sienna's 3.3L is working harder to keep up with our driving demand.
  • volfyvolfy Posts: 274
    BTW, Toyota was playing some funny numbers with their HP specs a few yrs back:

    2004-2005 3.3L 230HP, 242 ft-lbs
    2006 3.3L 215HP, 222 ft-lbs
    2007 3.7L 266HP, 245 ft-lbs

    I seem to recall reading about the Japanese having to recalibrate their HP measurements to be closer to or the same as the Americans and Eurpeans standards.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Wow. I didn't realize the reported hp in the 3.3L had been reduced. I always remembered it as a 230 hp 3.3L which seemed like decent output for that size motor. I never heard anything about this restating of HP numbers from Toyota. I *do* recall Hyundai/Kia doing the same sort of thing.
  • I recall reading somewhere it was to do with added pollution controls in 2006.
  • volfyvolfy Posts: 274
    Ooop, in my post #66, the 2007 Sienna should be 3.5L, not 3.7L. Sorry.

    Don't get me wrong. The '04 Sienna was a very nice minivan. The lack of low-end grunt was about my only complaint. That and the Toyota prices. My neighbor just bought a top-of-the-line Sienna XLE limited for some $40,000. Personally, I just don't see it as being $15,000+ better than the top-of-the-line '06 Sedona we got.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    A little disappointed with the numbers, but it is still winter and our van is still breaking in -- just passed 3,000 miles this week.

    Approximately 60/40 split highway/city. My wife tends to drive it faster on the highway (75-80) than she'd like (70-75), because the power is so strong and the van rides smooth.

    1 of the tankfuls was with 5 people including some office bags, around 19.7 mpg with 80% highway driving.
  • 97xpresso97xpresso Posts: 249
    Who cares what the trip computer says is "mile to empty" as long as the stated MPG agrees with your manual calculations. I suspect the "miles to empty" is easier than saying: fill up your tank now before your fuel pump is no longer immersed in gasoline, which keeps it cool and primed, which will then make it last for the life of the vehicle. ;)
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The main reason for higher fuel economy at higher altitude is that aerodynamic resistance is significantly lower at higher altitude because the density of the atmosphere is significantly lower.

    The fuel management systems of modern vehicles compensate well for differences in altitude. The manufacturers want the vehicles to perform well at altitude because the consumer demands it for driving satisfaction and for safety.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    I've never owned a turbocharged or supercharged car. All mine have had much worse acceleration at high altitudes. I'm not sold on the idea that thinner air would result in better gas mileage because of lower wind resistance. I suspect it has almost entirely to do with less gasoline being burned because less can be mixed into the lower oxygen content of the atmosphere up there due to less dense air, which is to say less fuel/air mixture in the combustion chamber.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    It only takes about 30 hp to push a passenger car or minivan down a level road at a constant 65 mph. If the aerodynamic resistance is less then it will take less hp and use less fuel per unit time and per unit distance. So lower density air could possibly give better mpg, although a quick search didn't give me an authoritative statement to that effect.

    A normally aspirated engine will develop lower max hp at high altitude, but this is irrelevant to the fuel economy under low load. Worse wide open throttle acceleration at high altitude doesn't mean that the engine would consume less fuel to develop a certain hp in the range of say 10% to 15% of the max the engine can develop.

    If the engine management system wasn't compensating for the lower density of the atmosphere at say 5000 ft, then the engine would be pulling in less air than at sea level giving a mixture that would be relatively rich (in fuel) compared to sea level. Presumably this would give worse fuel economy, not better fuel economy.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    You say, "...If the engine management system wasn't compensating for the lower density of the atmosphere at say 5000 ft, then the engine would be pulling in less air giving a mixture that would be relatively rich in fuel..."

    You miss my point.
    A rich fuel mixture should not result because the ECM will make adjustments for the thin air by DECREASING the amount of fuel being mixed in, so less gasoline will be used for each power stroke, resulting in lower horsepower at all rpm levels (and presumably greater MPG).
    Remember, in a naturally aspirated engine, the air is not being forced into the motor. It goes in due to atmospheric pressure. The ECM does not increase the amount of air available to the engine, it adjusts fuel delivery. That's my guess anyway.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The throttle of a normally aspirated gasoline engine restricts the flow of air into the engine. The air flow into the cylinders of the engine is not limited by the altitude that you are driving at, unless the throttle is wide open.

    Propelling a given vehicle down a level road at a constant speed at a certain altitude requires a certain exact power output from the engine, not more and not less. The power required to propel the vehicle at the same speed will be less at higher altitude because the aerodynamic resistance will be less and this is the major force resisting motion at highway speed. If the power output of the engine is less, then the engine would be consuming less fuel per unit time.

    The ECM in a modern engine controls both the throttle position (air flow) and the fuel flow.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    Your guesses do not account for my experiences in the many cars I've driven in higher altitudes.
    If what you say is true, then why has every normally aspirated car been slower in acceleration during non-wide-open throttle situations when at high altitudes? To hear you explain it, my cars should all be faster accelerating during non-wide-open throttle applications due to decreased wind resistance.
    That is just not the case.

    I believe it is analogous to athletes poorer performance at high altitudes. The race times and other sports records are less than spectacular up there due to less human power being produced because of less oxygen available to burn fuel in the muscles. If what you say is true then runners should go faster up there because the wind resistance is less. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
    Ever take a hike in the mountains? You just don't make the power up there that you do in lower altitudes.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Bah - I checked in this morning and saw 7 new replies in this thread. I excitedly opened it to see not a bunch more personal fuel economy reports about the 2006-2007 Sedona, but a hypothetical discussion of automobile fuel economy at high altitudes?!

    Interesting discussion, but slightly disappointing!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    So what did you get the last 3 fill-ups?
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Well, we were driving through Colorado and got somewhere between 38 and 40mpg, then back to the East Coast and it was down to 21-23mpg and then we drove to the moon and got almost 200mpg...

    Seriously, I'm filling 'er up today and will post the figures. Should be around 20, maybe 21, in mixed driving more highway than city.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    This seems to be the mean fuel economy per tankful for our 2006 EX so far.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    This NASA compilation of formulas gives the power required to overcome various forces which resist the motion of a vehicle.

    You can see that the power required to overcome aerodynamic resistance is given by

    P,aero = 1/2 x Frontal area x coef. drag x vel^3 x air density

    So the power reqd to overcome aerodynamic drag at a given speed is proportional to the cube of the speed. However, power is the energy consumed per unit time and what we want is the energy consumed per unit distance. The latter would be proportional to the fuel use measured in gal/mile or (in the UK and Europe) in Liters/100 km. We get the energy/unit distance by dividing the power by the speed.

    So Energy/unit distance = (Constant of vehicle) x (vel^2) x (Density of air)

    From this formula we see that the aerodynamic component of fuel consumed per unit distance traveled is proportional to the square of the speed and to the first power of the density of the atmosphere.

    The EPA highway mileage estimate assumes that the vehicle is driven at a faily low speed even on the highway, something like less than 65 mph. Driving faster than the EPA assumes is a major contributor to using more fuel/unit distance, that is getting lower mpg than the EPA estimate.

    This is the basis for the often quoted "folk" statement that "air resistance at 70 mph is double that at 50 mph". (70/50)^2 = 2.0. What this exactly means is that the aerodynamic resistance consumes twice as much fuel to go a given distance at 70 mph than at 50 mph.

    But we know that mpg wouldn't double if we slowed from 70 to 50. The reason is that there are other power consumers besides aerodynamic resistance.

    Within a few miles of the surface of the earth the density of the atmosphere decreases by 17% for each mile increase in altitude. So if a modern vehicle gets 20 mpg in hwy cruising at sea level it should get 20/0.83 = 24 mpg at 5300 ft due to the 17% lower aerodynamic power consumption.
  • WOW!!!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    Interesting maybe, and perhaps persuasive, but it does not answer my queston: Why is the performance of a naturally aspirated car so much lower at higher altitudes?
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    We are really getting into our version of Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine, and I'm not sure which of us is Abbot and which is Costello.

    The wide open throttle (WOT) performance of a normally aspirated (NA) engine is lower at higher altitude because when the air is less dense the engine ingests a lower mass of air per intake stroke.

    But we are not concerned in this forum with performance (like the shortest 0 to 60 time), but rather we are asking about fuel consumption per unit distance to cruise at a given constant speed on level ground.

    I'm no engineer, and so I am taking the simplifying approach of assuming that together all the sensors (MAP, MAF, knock, oxygen, etc.) and the ECM of a modern engine keep the air-fuel mixture constant at the optimum ratio from sea level up to considerable altitude when the vehicle is cruising on level ground at some reasonable speed, like 70 mph.

    Basic carbutetted engines can't do that but Sedonas can.

    See"At high elevations our engines are getting less air, so they need less fuel to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio. Generally you would go down one main jet size for every 1750 to 2000 feet of elevation you go up (info for Mikuni carbs). If you normally run a 160 main jet at sea level you would drop down to a 140 at 4000 feet. Something else goes down as you go up in elevation is horsepower. You can figure on losing about 3% or your power for every 1000 feet you go up. At 4000 feet your power will be down about 12%-even though you rejetted!"

    But the reason that the hp is less is that less air and less fuel is burned in the engine. Fuel is not being wasted. It is as if the vehicle had a smaller engine (i.e. lower hp) and this has no effect if the hp actually being developed to cruise on level ground is much less than the max the engine can develop.

    My idea is this: Assume it takes 30 hp to drive a Sedona on level ground at 70 mph at sea level. I think it only takes 26 hp to drive the Sedona at 70 mph at 5300 ft altitude, because the aerodynamic resistance is less due to the less dense air. The engine will burn less fuel to develop 26 hp than to develop 30 hp so the Sedona gets higher mpg at 5300 ft.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    OK, here's my take.
    My car is sluggish at higher altitudes because the motor makes less horsepower at any given throttle opening or engine RPM. The reason for that is less dense fuel/air mixture in the motor. The acceleration disadvantage due to decreased horsepower exceeds any acceleration advantage that might result from lower air resitance.
    If my car gets better fuel economy up there it is because the engine is doing less work, at higher constant speeds due mostly due to less wind resistance, and during acceleration chiefly because of less power being produced due to less fuel in the motor.
    On my trips at higher elevation, I usually must drive up and down mountains. So any high altitude fuel economy increase is usually overshadowed by the engine working extra hard going up. So, overall, my high altitude fuel economy is worse than on the flat lower elevations where my house is.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    Sounds good to me.
  • lavrishevolavrishevo Posts: 312
    Just purchased my 06 Sedona (07 will not be here for months) yesterday and I was a little worried on fuel mileage. One think to note is that I am here in Puerto Rico, air conditioning all the time and lots of hills. Also never really go over 65 mph on the highways here. So far I am getting pretty good MPG, average of around 18 and less then 100 miles. I think the trick is keeping the engine under 2500 rpms and you will save a lot of gas. Don't have a led foot and the need to start off like a bat out of hell and you will improve your fuel economy greatly.

    One note on break in. All engines are now broken in at the factories so when you get you engine it has already gone through a process to help seal the rings and bearings properly. This does not mean not to take it easy for a while but whole break in idea of the past does not apply to modern engines.

    Very happy with the van so far, only two days but it rides and drives great.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    I wish I wasn't the only one posting fuel economy numbers lately...

    Our 2006 EX has been around 21.5 mpg the past couple tanks. This is approx 50/50 mix of highway driving (70-75mph) and non-snarled 'city' driving, i.e. some stoplights but lots of 50-60mph cruising.

    21.5 mpg seems like a decent result considering the 18 city / 25 highway ratings. I think we'd be pretty close to 25 mpg in straight highway driving in the 70-75 mph neighborhood. Hope to test it out on a longer trip one of these days...
  • fishbreathfishbreath Posts: 58
    2006 LX 6000 miles and I'm getting 18 -19 mpg Not really city driving but small towns and 2 lane roads and hilly.
  • 11b33t11b33t Posts: 51
    Brand new 2007 EX w/>270 miles. Topped off today w/11 gal and averaged out 17.7 mpg city driving w/AC running. Wife's car but I get to do the maintenance stuff! :confuse:
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    that's 3 mpg better than my 2004
  • jbradley2jbradley2 Posts: 2
    Is there any known problems with the Sedona and low gas mileage? We own a '06 and we're getting 10 mpg in the city and 12 on the highway. Taken it to dealership twice and both times they have tried to convince me there is nothing wrong with it. It's a V6! You can't tell me it's normal to get equivalent gas mileage with a freaking Dodge Viper!
    Kia Sedona=Very bad purchase!!!!!!!
  • yep, that is about what I get with my 2005, dealership told me to wait until about 12,000 mi. Then it was out of the curtisy warrenty, or something like that. Basiclly we got hosed. worse yet, every 5-7 thousand miles I have to change the brake pads. They say it is the way I drive it. Hmmmm, all my other cars seem to take 20-25 thousand miles before they need to be changed.
  • jbradley2jbradley2 Posts: 2
    Well, I've got a little over 22,000 miles and they tell me there is nothing wrong with it. I'm taking it in tomorrow and I'm demanding a courtesy car and they can have the van until they figure out what the problem is or put in a new engine.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    10/12 city/highway really stinks!
    How many miles are on your van? Do you calculate MPG for every fill-up and keep a running average too?
    You need to do 3 or more fill-ups consecutively to get a good average.
  • jfee77jfee77 Posts: 1
    After about 500 miles our EX gets 24.5 highway, and 16 city. Here is the bad part, my wife drives the van to and from work everyday in rush hour traffic in Philly about 9 miles each way. 12-13 rush hour mileage. Overall not unexpected for 4700lb. vehicle. Great van for the price!
  • rrowe2047rrowe2047 Posts: 2
    We bought our very first new auto EVER, and chose the 2007 Kia Sedona. I want to say the buying experience was wonderful. Much less pressure that any place I have ever been to. We got the EX model with all the bells and whistles. I could go on and on and on about what a great van I think this is...except it is WAY overshadowed by the terrible gas mileage we are getting. I can't seem to get more than 13 MPG. I have tried everything....watching my driving patterns......using the 5 speed and shifting all the time (a royal pain if you ask me!) Last week I thought, fine, I will fill up and drive like the safest most perfect driver ever. I was the person who you probably whipped around last week if you were behind me.....drove 5 miles below the speedlimit......basically let the car accelerate itself when the light turned green....never let the track get over 2000.....anything I could think of.......and got 15 mpg. All that work, driving like no one on earth really does....for an extra 2 MPG. We had an appt. and took it in today. Got the bad news....nothing wrong with it. On top of that, the mechanic was very condesending....telling me that yes, it does state 18-25, but that at the bottom of the window sticker it does say 15. I told him I would be doing somersaults down my street if I were getting 15 at this point! He pointed out different driving habits mean different gas milage.....I just wanted to say...yes I am a woman, but that does not mean I am stupid. I explained my experiment that only got me up to 15, and he just said Um hum. I went to this from a Chrysler T&C van, and I was getting 18 with it...driving the same way I do now. my object is to see how many people out there are having this problem. It seems to me if it is widespread, something should be done. So I guess the bottam line is, although I love the van, my most important option would be good gas milage, and I would have rather gotten an Odysey with less options, and better gas milage. Luckily, my husband has a Taurus that seats 6 so we can use it most of the time to save on gas. Kinda sucks though that I have this brand new van that we can't afford to drive!
  • I have had the same problem with my kia sedona (2005) I can't get it over 15.5 mpg. I told my wife that if I wanted this kinda of gas milage I should have gotten a ford mustang. :mad: :mad:
  • rrowe2047rrowe2047 Posts: 2
    I KNOW! It would have opened the field a bit for me also! We could have looked at some SUV's or something. Not that I want one, but like you said....if I wanted this kind of gas mileage.......
    One time I looked at the average I was getting at the moment (on the console) and it said 10! I am seriously considering making up a bumper sticker that says "Kia Sedona.....Fun van....terrible gas mileage" Just to get the word out!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    Your mpg may improve later. How many miles do you have on it? Have you done everything (maintenance-wise) the dealer suggested for improved mileage?
    How long a trip have you taken in the van at constant highway speeds?
    It's rated close to the same as competitors by EPA now.
  • stevenfjlstevenfjl Posts: 5
    Don't count on improved gas mileage over time. Today's engines are finely honed and don't require a standard break-in for mileage. What you get in the beginning is about what you can expect over the long haul. Sometimes the mileage goes up a little and sometimes down. But, it will likely stay about the same as the first tank of gas in mileage. I'm getting 7 MPG City with my 2006 Sedona EX. It's been that way since day one. Highway mileage is fine, at 28 MPG. If I did mostly highway driving then it wouldn't be so bad, but the majority of my driving is city so I only get about 170+/- miles between fill-ups of 15 to 17 Gallons. Overall I get about 11 MPG. I could have bought that army surplus tank I always dreamed of owning if I wanted poor gas mileage. At one time, I had a 1973 Chevy pick-up truck with a 4-barrel big block V8 engine with a dead cylinder that got better mileage than this thing.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 996
    Unless your Sedona is in need of repair, or unless the driving circumstances are very different, I don't believe a '73 big block pickup with or without a dead cylinder would get better fuel economy. Something is screwy.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    This was a mix of highway and 'rural' (not as much stopping as city) driving. The 20.5 mpg is MY calculation; the trip computer showed about 0.5 mpg less than that which is pretty decent accuracy. Also, the trip computer shows around 24.0 mpg for my 45-mile commute which is 70-80% highway.
Sign In or Register to comment.