2012 vs. 2010 fuel economy ratings

[gearboxbygearhead]

Hi, all--new to the forum.
I see the 2012 is EPA-rated up to 30/38 city/highway mpg, vs. 29/36 for my 2010. Does anyone know what accounts for the 1-2 mpg improvement? If it's something simple (translation: CHEAP), perhaps I can retrofit my car.

P.S.: Personal best is 45+ mpg w/my manual trans. liftback, tires pumped to 44 psi, Orlando, FL round trip.

gearboxbygearhead
Augusta, GA

[why?]

I was wondering that too, now that some people are taking delivery of the car maybe they can get the specs. Out east I guess we aren't getting any info until spring.

[CTScott]

I have a feeling that it's a combination of slightly lower drag, narrower tires (5", rather than 5.5" wheel width) and possibly some minor tweaks to the fuel maps with the new ECM.

[why?]

Originally Posted by CTScott

I have a feeling that it's a combination of slightly lower drag, narrower tires (5", rather than 5.5" wheel width) and possibly some minor tweaks to the fuel maps with the new ECM.

hmm are the stock tires still bridgestone? Oh a new ecm that probably helps too.

But no new shiny tech? oh well.

[fnkngrv]

Originally Posted by why?

hmm are the stock tires still bridgestone? Oh a new ecm that probably helps too.

But no new shiny tech? oh well.

They didn't really make much of an effort it seems with the new design so I agree with Scott on his assessment. We already know that fiddling with the ECM can make minor increases in either FE of HP.

[A-Dingo-Ate-My-Baby]

Originally Posted by CTScott

I have a feeling that it's a combination of slightly lower drag, narrower tires (5", rather than 5.5" wheel width) and possibly some minor tweaks to the fuel maps with the new ECM.

and lighter overall