Okay, but a 100hp per liter naturally aspirated engine is very rare. There just aren't many of them out there for comparison.

If I hypermiled it I am sure I could easily get over 40. On a 100 mile trip on hilly backroads doing around 65 I got 39.4 mpg.

My lifetime mpg's so far have been a little over 31. Overall I am pretty happy with the mileage.

There are tons of N/A cars that do 100+ hp per liter. If you are looking for 2 liter specifically, the K20 comes to mind.

I get 25 in the city and 35 highway. What is your point? :iono:

You might have missed the word "rated" in my post. If you're getting 25/35 in a car that's rated at 22/30, then you might be getting 28/40 if the car was rated 25/35. Unless of course you drive an automatic. I should have prefaced that I was talking about the M/T cars. Personally, I wouldn't buy a car like this in automatic, so I was basically ignoring the better fuel economy numbers of the automatic cars.

Like in the RSX from 10 years ago? That car is rated a little higher than the FR-S, according to the EPA fuel economy ratings.

BTW, if there are tons of other N/A cars that are 100hp/liter, you should list some of them. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't think of many at all. The S2000 comes to mind, but I'm definitely not coming up with "tons" of them...

remember, you have to reset the MPG AVG frequently -- otherwise ur averaging since you bought it ... i usually do every tank fillup.. or when i specifically want to see the results.. its pretty close to actual.. plus-or-minus 1-3mpg..

but like i said, the FRS is rated at 25-34 .. and it easily does over 34 if you late it easy.. everytime.

idont know whats up with that guy saying he cant get anything over 25 -- i would of taken it to scion right after the first fill-up.

You bet it matters! If a manufacturers average is less than the minimum required they get fined a rate times the total number cars manufacturered/sold by the brand. So for every pickup truck there has to something small and efficient to balance out to at least the minimum average.

But you dont need to have many cars to compare. If it gets more mpgs than the rest its good. Not bad

There is one car that appears to have an average of 42.9 mpusg however it hasn't reported since July and also has a data entry error, so the best averages appear to be in the 32-36 range.

manuals:
17/26 - 2012 Accord V6
18/28 - 2013 Accord V6
15/26 - 2013 Stang V8

autos:
21/32 - 2013 Accord V6
18/25 - Stang V8

The city mileage is what is shocking.

Because it's a sports car !
 

If you want better fuel economy you have bought the wrong car, buy a prius yaris or IQ.

I doubt very much that fuel economy was one of the design aims

RWD + Superb handling
Lightweight to enhance above
enough speed to make it fun through the bends

anything to improve mpg is just gonna cause less power and I'd rather have it the way it is with 200 hp available when you rev the nuts off it

I'm sure someone could do an ECU remap to prevent you revving above 5k rpm that would improve the mpg but thats not going to improve it as a sports car.

Alec

Okay, fair enough. So tell me which cars have lower mpgs in comparison.

Okay, so I was right...the Accord does get better fuel economy. With the automatic transmission, the Accord is considerably better. With the manual transmission, there's not a huge gap, but it's still better, which is what I expected.

BTW, why do you find the city MPG shocking?

I think you missed my point. I'm not interesting in buying/driving/owning an econobox or a hybrid. Fuel economy isn't my primary concern. What I was saying is that for the size/weight/power output of these cars, I expected better fuel economy ratings. That's why I mentioned that there are cars that are larger/heavier/more powerful that have higher fuel economy ratings. In other words, I don't need to buy an economy car like a Prius/Yaris/IQ to get better fuel economy. Hell, right now I own an Audi A5 quattro and it has the same fuel economy ratings as the FR-S.:confused0068: