15-18 mpg, but I am on E85. When I ran gas it was 20-22 unless it was all highway then it would be 24-26 or so. Range right now is a huge 200miles

 

In stock form your only going to get 16-25mpg best case.... maybe modified and free the exhaust ppl have hit 30's but I really believe that is rare. I go bout 240mile/tank 100% stock, 280miles only a few times 100% highway.

 

Actually not to hijack the thread here but this makes no sense to me. How can a 7.2 liter V8 get better gas mileage than a 2 liter turbo. I was under the impression that turbo vehicles are supposed to get better gas mileage anyways. Is it primarily dependant on the tune or what?

 

Because, a 7.2L motor develops enough torque down low to work with a very tall gear, while cruising, and still have a hope of picking up speed if needed. A 2.0L motor, not so much, so it revs a lot higher to allow for more available juice.

 

Weight, Gearing, Aerodynamics, 2WD vs AWD, compression ratio.

We run high rpms on the highway, the Z06 practically idles down the road at 70.
We have full time AWD, the Z06 has a rear mounted tranny and RWD providing less drivetrain losses.
We have low compression motors which by definition are less efficient to allow room for lots of boost.
The Z06 is already more aerodynamic than the Evo, by a long shot.
The Z06 is lighter than the Evo.

People with higher compression 10:1 or even higher will get better mileage. But usually people build the car for crazy HP by the time they swap to a high compression motor, so no one notices the extra mileage.

Hope that helps.

 

Actually turbo vehicles tend to get worse gas mileage then their NA counterparts because the compression is so low off boost to allow for tuning wiggle room. As far as the Z06 getting 27mpg, I would believe that when I see it under standard driving conditions. My ram 5.7 liter only gets 18mpg with all highway driving. I would say the Z06 has a more realistic figure of 23, maybe if you are really light footing it 25mpg. They try to claim my ram will get 20mpg as well, but I know that never happens unless you are going 55mph the whole time on a flat road.

I would say stating the Z06 will get 27mpg is like saying the standard evo will do 30mpg. Possible? Yes.... likely? No.

I have noticed American car companies tend to exaggerate the mpg figures and use the ideal best case scenario to give a figure instead of a more realistic figure. My corolla on the other hand, is pretty much rated at what it does on a normal basis.

 

This would be an interesting comparison - their respective Cds relative to the front area of the car at ~75MPH. No doubt the Evo is worse, but by how much?

Not really. A Z06 with the Carbon Package and its Ultimate Performance Package is quoted at 3253lbs. In comparison, my own IX with a full tank and a few little things on-board tips the scales at 3258lbs. It would be interesting to note the Corvette's test weight (I don't have the figure) as the MR-T's test weight per R&T was a hair over 3800lbs (compared to Mitsubishi's much lighter quote).

Right, because the motor's compression is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of fuel used by the motor at a given rotation.

 

Interesting. I never knew they tested at 3800lbs for the Z06. Odd.

I also have an IX but our cars are getting older and older. An Evo these days is a few hundred pounds more unfortunately. Unless they come to their senses and shed some weight off the next Evo.

I still think the #1 most important difference is the gearing at cruise. If we could do 70mph under 2000rpm we too would get a few more mpgs. Just no torque until you go rich and throw fuel away.

 

14mpg on 100 octane. I really need to think about re-tuning for 91 if im going to be driving this thing a lot...

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. The Evo X MR-T test weight was a hair over 3800lbs, not the ZO6.

 

I think I read it wrong too.... Split blame

 

i get about 150 to a tank with pure city driving with a 2 mile commute lol. i do have a mostly dead front o2 tho...

on the highway i get 25 no problem.

 

2 mile commute? Get a bicycle !

 

I was getting 20 city and Highway on 93 & 16 on E85, I enjoy every bit of it.

 

While that it is true that I would be driving a vehicle that develops a lot of low end torque and mileage would naturally be lower than the NA counterpart, there are many people who frequently use their EVO as their daily driver. As such, most people tend to be conscious of how far they can expect to drive on a tank before needing to refuel.

While it is true that this isn't a stock Honda Civic, we would like to think that we can take our nice vehicles that can make it up a hill without making a sweat about it without feeling like we're digging into our pockets. This is why this is a concern to many drivers. Mainly cause we spent so much money on the car that we don't have much money left until a few paychecks down the road.