2009-2010 Ford Flex SEL & Limited AWD

I'm still trying my best to get 2 reviews a week. Today is yet another crossover review.


Introduction: The Ford Flex was introduced in 2009 as Ford's replacement for the Freestar minivan. Unlike most crossovers, the Flex is Ford's attempt to combine the minivan and the SUV. Much of the whole design came from the 2005 Ford Fairlane concept, the differences between concept and production vehicle are minor. Initially Ford anticipated 100,000 units of sales for the Flex, unfortunately Ford hasn't come close to meeting this. Still Ford wants the Flex to live on despite its modest sales now offering incentives.

This is the first of the new Fords I've come across. I was glad it wasn't a minivan but I wasn't so sure about it as a crossover. I thought it looked interesting so at the minimum it seemed creative.


Performance: The Ford Flex is given 2 engines the standard 3.5L V6 which this review will be focusing on. The other engine is the Ecoboost 3.5L twin turbo V6, the same engine available in the Taurus SHO. The standard Duratech V6 produces 262 hp and 248 lb.ft of torque. On acceleration the Flex is capable of getting from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds. Considering how big and heavy it is, this is reasonable performance. The engine is particularly quiet on highway drives and overall is pretty smooth. Fuel economy isn't great but what did you expect from a vehicle this big. Despite being the base engine its a good one.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable performance, quiet and smooth.

Handling: There are small differences when you choose SEL and Limited, the SELs get 18 inch wheels while the Limited gets 19 inch wheels. Despite having rims this large, ride quality doesn't actually suffer. Due to its weight, its not able to take corners as quickly as cars can. If you push it, you'll feel the understeer very early. It does well for a vehicle that's heavier than 4500 lbs much to my surprise which might have to do with how short it is compared to SUVs of the same size. Steering is weighted well making it a pretty easy vehicle to drive. Its certainly nicer to drive than any minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - On the whole its pretty good at handling but its weight means it also suffers from major understeer in a corner.


Interior: One of the things you'll notice inside the Flex is how spacious it is. First things first, a lower range model will have the 6 seater arrangement, while a higher one will have a 7 seater arrangement. Both are fine, the 6 seater is just the easier one for getting people into the back as its layout is much like a minivan's with space in between the 2nd row unless you decide to have the 2nd center console added. With 7 seaters to enter the back you need to fold a seat, fortunately Ford thought of this and decided this should be done with a single push of a button. To put return the seats in position is very easy and straight forward, no muscle required. To fold the 3rd row its not electrically done like a Explorer but its still pretty easy by pulling the straps as indicated on the seats. The 3rd row is spacious enough for medium sized adults and since the Flex can still carry cargo they don't sit so close to the tailgate. The tailgate itself is rather heavy, but Ford again thought about this and made opening and closing easy with the use of a button. I didn't really find much difference between the cloth and leather seats, of course the leather is softer and smoother but neither is a bad choice. Driver control layout is much as what you would expect from a Ford, everything is pretty much where you'd expect it to be. Visibility isn't great I'm afraid, the D-pillars are particularly large but most Ford Flexs come with rear parking sensors which will help. Interior materials are of modest quality, none look or feel particularly awful. Build quality is very good, the Ford Flex is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada. The most impressive thing about this interior is just how user-friendly it is, Ford hired someone who has made a crossover very easy to live with, everything annoying on most crossover interiors seems to have been addressed in the Flex.

My Score: 10/10 - I've never come across an interior that should be complicated to work out, made so easy with little effort to understand how everything is done. The overall interior is good, this just stands out as excellent interior design, because its so well thought out.

Styling: This appears to be the Flex's biggest problem when it comes to its sales. It does look a bit like its been shaped from a tetris block. Much of the exterior tries to emphasize how square it is. Some people think it looks particularly ugly, I'm not one of those. I think it looks alright, it just looks even better if you bought the rather expensive Titanium package where it looks a bit like a Range Rover. It may be polarizing, but I'd rather have a vehicle that tries too look different than your typical minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - Its a bit square but its more interesting than the shapeless blobs that many cars are.

Value for money: Sales for the Flex aren't as hot as Ford wanted so when it comes to value its going to start off well with employee pricing discounts. The Flex's target is primarily minivan drivers who don't want a boring vehicle to drive but still want much of the capacity and flexibility of a minivan. On this front the Flex does well, the interior is much easier to work out than any minivan I've encountered. The problem with most minivans, they require muscle to get their full use either by removing heavy seats or operating a rickety contraption that's in the floor. Unlike many crossovers it has room for full passenger capacity and some room for luggage like a minivan. The only places where the Flex does scare off people is the price and the styling.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit pricey if no discounts are available and it depends on how it looks to you, otherwise its the best alternative to a minivan.

Overall: 40/50 - A very good crossover, with a clever interior. If all crossovers were done like this, perhaps the minivan might be extinct.

2007-2010 Mitsubishi Outlander

I know updates have been lacking this whole year so I'm trying to make up for it. Today's car is the Mitsubishi Outlander.



Introduction: The Mitsubishi Outlander originated in 2001 as the Mitsubishi Airtrek. This vehicle was derived from Mitsubishi's ASX concept. The idea behind this was to make a crossover that had the off-road ability of the SUV but retain the standard car's emissions, size and fuel economy. The Airtrek name was eventually phased out in favour of Outlander which is the name most familiar with those outside of Japan. The Outlander was redesigned in 2005 being the first vehicle of the new GS platform which includes the Lancer and the rally racer Lancer Evolution. This second generation vehicle would only come to North America in 2007. The Outlander went for a redesign in 2010 taking the new Lancer and Lancer Evolution's front end.

This is the very first Mitsubishi that I got the chance to drive. I was sort of excited but I was also wasn't sure what to make out of it. Nobody I knew ever drove a Mitsubishi and I didn't hear the greatest praise for them either outside. Yet with Mitsubishi's history of excellent cars like the Lancer Evolutions, I wasn't expecting terrible things.


Performance: The North American Outlanders only are equipped with a 3.0L V6 MIVEC engine. This engine produces 220 hp and 204 lb.ft of torque for the earlier Outlanders. The 2010 updated engine is the very same engine but now producing 230 hp and 215 lb.ft of torque. Its acceleration from 0-100 km/h takes about 8.5 seconds on older Outlanders, the new one strangely is quite a bit faster in under 8 seconds. Having driven both I honestly didn't realize the newer ones were that much faster. In low speeds the engine has a slightly annoying whining sound, its a lot better when taken to highway speeds. Still it pulls rather well and is surprisingly quick despite not being turbocharged or having a high displacement making it a rather clever engine. Fuel economy for this crossover is rather average if you notice you need to fill up often, its not bad fuel economy but rather the Outlander has a rather small fuel tank(50-55L) for some strange reason.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit noisy at slow speeds but surprisingly quick

Handling: When you take the Outlander into a corner I was rather surprised at how much of a car it felt. You don't seem to feel the higher center of gravity as much as some of the taller small cars. Steering feel is actually very good, in the corners its rather crisp in its changes. This crossover isn't as happy in the corners as the Mazda CX-7 but feels very competent. Normally crossovers are nowhere near as good as their car counterparts, the Outlander despite its bulk doesn't feel that far from its Lancer roots. The ride comfort is a bit firm than most of the other crossovers but that's expected for performance like this.

My Score: 9/10 - A surprise, car-like feel in an area where most crossovers are not so good. Ride comfort suffers a slight bit.


Interior: Well, I haven't said as many nice things about the previous Mitsubishi interiors and this one isn't any different. Once again the materials appear to be the worst offender here. The plastic just don't have that quality feel you get on say a newer Hyundai. Its not the most inviting interior either as its full of dark plastic and black carpets. The stereo is alright but the knobs are very small which may be a problem for those with larger fingers. On the bright side, it actually feels a lot bigger inside than the vehicle seems on the outside. I don't know if Mitsubishi focused on space efficiency but it felt cavernous inside. It has a split folding tailgate which I think is very good. Higher trim levels feature the 7-seater arrangement, for small children I don't think they're too bad but a large adult won't like them. Having the second row fold is actually quite easy, holding the lever is all that has to be done. Higher trim levels also have key-less start which is neat at first but I find a bit gimmicky. I think this is the best interior Mitsubishi has designed mainly due to the engineering. The build quality is very good, its built in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan.

My Score: 7/10 - Very clever designed interior, feels spacious, built rather well but has cheap material and isn't very pleasant inside.

Styling: There are two styles the original and the refreshed style. I personally prefer the original as that style fit with the entire car without looking like everything else. I didn't find the Lancer Evolution X's front end fit with the car very well but some people like it. The rear remained the same regardless of which version and is a bit more original. Its the side profile where I find the newer front a bit awkward as it has a slight overbite while the older doesn't and flows smoothly. I can see some of the appeal of the newer front but I think it looks better on a car.

My Score: 7/10 - Nice styling particularly the older design which flows very nicely, newer is more aggressive if that's your thing.

Value for money: This is one of the better crossovers I've ever driven. The clever interior, the rather good driving dynamics and overall good styling. I found the Outlander drives a lot better than many of the alternatives. If you get the 7-seater arrangement its not as great at carrying passengers as a minivan and its a bit more expensive. For that extra expense however you are given the 4WD and a easier and nicer vehicle to drive so its a bit of a trade off. If you occasionally need the 7 seats, the Outlander is a better choice than the minivan. Another nice bonus, it has Mitsubishi's industry leading warranty. I can't think of a great reason for buying any other crossover unless you want a nicer interior.

My Score: 8/10 - If you need this sort of vehicle its one of the best, with a great warranty and presents great driving dynamics. It only falls short if you constantly need a 7-seater or want a nicer interior.

Overall: 39/50 - Some minor flaws cannot deny that this crossover is a very good vehicle.

2007-2009 Kia Rondo

Second review of the day...another Kia.


Introduction: The Kia Rondo is what's considered a small MPV(multi-purpose vehicle). Essentially its a small minivan. The vehicle is called the Carens in South Korea, the original car was made in 1999. The Rondo is the 2nd generation of this car and was released for the 2007 model year. It initially sold well, but it was later discontinued for the US market in 2010 with Kia hoping Rondo buyers would instead go for the newly designed 2011 Sportage.

Like most Kias it doesn't have a big history, my opinion of Kia wasn't very good when I began to drive them.


Performance: The Kia Rondo comes with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine found in the Sonata and the Magentis, it also has the 2.7L V6 also found in the Magentis. For this review I'll only look at the 4-cylinder. Like the Magentis this engine produces 162 hp for earlier cars, 175 hp for later ones and 164 lbs.ft of torque for earlier cars and 168 lb.ft for later cars. Unlike the Magentis, due to the taller shape and its overall bigger heavier body with this engine the Rondo is not very quick. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 9.5 seconds. Its only marginally quicker with the V6. Considering the Rondo can be fully loaded with 7 passengers, I'd highly recommend the V6 mainly since its already slow without passengers and with significant weight added with a fully loaded car its ridiculous. Like the other cars that use this engine it can be a bit noisy with a annoying drone. Another downside to the 4-cylinder is if the Rondo gets stuck in snow its unable to rescue itself on its own power.

My Score: 3/10 - Underpowered considering its application, noisy and not all that refined.

Handling: With its intention being a MPV, driving dynamics also suffer. Its high center of gravity along with its soft suspension make it not a very good choice for cornering. Fortunately it does ride reasonably well. The lack of agility however makes it just as poor as a regular minivan. I just don't really see the point if it loses the car agility. The light wheel makes it easy to turn the wheel but it lacks feel. This car just doesn't like changing directions quickly.

My Score: 4/10 - Rides alright, unfortunately its handling is as bad as a bigger minivan


Interior: The Rondo is one of the nicer Kia interiors from this time. Not a great interior but at least one that doesn't look extremely dull and grey. Once again the interior is full of plastic but you can tell a few of the touches are at least better than a standard Kia of this time. The best thing about the Rondo is it has the optional 7-seater configuration. Getting to the 3rd row of seats is done by moving the 2nd row forward and then folding it. There is enough room for children in the 3rd row and if the 2nd row passengers aren't very tall there can be reasonable amount room for both 2nd and 3rd row passengers. I like how its not difficult or confusing to use and its operation is solid. As for problems, the D-pillar is rather thick so seeing out of it isn't that great from inside. When using the 3rd row, tailgate space is sacrificed meaning you can't carry many extra things. The build quality in these vehicles appear to be pretty good, these vehicles come from Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score: 6/10 - Build well, a mostly usable 3rd row, built with average materials

Styling: Kia didn't really try to make the Rondo look different. Its a rather generic MPV or crossover, its the same shape as everyone else and the front is pretty generic. I just don't see the effort. Its not ugly, but its totally forgettable.

My Score: 2/10 - Looks like any generic MPV, no real effort put into it.

Value for money: The idea of the Rondo is to save you money from buying a minivan. Unfortunately I just don't see the point in having a Rondo over say a Sedona. Its just too slow and weak, also when using the 7 seat configuration it loses a lot of trunk space. Its more difficult to park the Rondo due to its size than the Mazda5 which I think is even more clever and more agile than the Rondo. The Rondo is quite cheap even with the 7 seats but a minivan is not that much more but is more comfortable for 7 passengers. If you rarely carry 7, just get a normal sedan and rent a minivan when you need that capacity.

My Score: 4/10 - Yes its cheap and its not all that terrible, but the vehicle is sort of pointless. I just don't see the value in buying it.

Overall: 19/50 - Kia did some things right, but sadly its a rather pointless car. Its not as good as a minivan for capacity and driving position, yet its not as efficient or as good to drive as a regular car. It doesn't have the prestige of a SUV either(I admit I don't get it myself). If you somehow want a car that's not very good at anything that sits right in the middle between car and minivan I guess you could then want one.

2007-2009 Kia Magentis

My first car review since August. For the first of the cars will be a Kia Magentis.



Introduction: The Kia Magentis was first introduced in 2000 as a replacement for the Mazda based Credos. The Kia Magentis is mostly a re-badge of the Hyundai Sonata with minor differences. Since 2009 Kia has decided to take a slightly different route by altering Kia's styling and interior styling from its Hyundai parent.

Yes, the Kia Magentis does not have a very interesting nor long enough history. Its no surprise that when I first encountered it I didn't have much interest in it.



Performance: The standard early Kia Magentis are equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that develops 162 hp and 164 lb.ft of torque. In 2009 the Kia Magentis got an update in its 4-cylinder where the engine now produces 175 hp and 169 lb.ft of torque. The early Magentis was capable of acceleration from 0-100 km/h in a bit over 9 seconds while the newer 2009-2010 Magentis was able to accelerate from 0-100 in a bit under 9 seconds. The older Magentis engine was not very exciting nor felt very refined, the noisy drone was present. The newer Magentis engine felt a bit more refined although it overall didn't change perception of the car very much.

My Score(both): 5/10 - A mediocre engine, not very exciting in both versions.

Handling: Starting with the older Magentis, unfortunately the car handled a lot like how the engine felt...boring. The steering on the old Magentis feels particularly numb and feels disconnected. It doesn't inspire any confidence in the corners, you might even back off because of how very little information the wheel gives you. Ride comfort was surprisingly disappointing given how the car isn't able to carve out corners. Its a bit choppy when driving over rougher roads. When given the wheel of the new Magentis, things are a little big different. The wheel no longer has the same numb feeling and disconnected feel the older car had. The wheel is still as light as the old one but the turning feels more sharper and thus you're more confident to take the car into the corner. The ride comfort is also nicer than the older car surprisingly despite its improvement in performance. The newer Magentis feels much nicer to drive over the old one but it doesn't feel as sporty as other midsized sedans nor is the most comfortable.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Numb, inert, feels disconnected, not that comfortable thus makes driving very boring

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Decent steering feel, better cornering, better ride comfort but still a bit lacking though.



Interior: Once again starting with the old Magentis. The interior is unfortunately very boring and not a particularly nice place to be. Its a sea full of dull grey and black plastics, none of which looks very nice and none of which looks like material of quality. The seats don't feel all that comfortable. The stereo like all older Kia and Hyundai vehicles is awful to use and listen to. Fortunately interior space is decent so is trunk space. With the newer Magentis a few changes have been made. Most of the dull grey plastic was removed. The stereo was also replaced with a newer unit with red display to fit with the newer white and red dash gauges. The plastic quality has also been stepped up a notch. The seat is still a bit firm but not as stiff as the older seat. I didn't find the Magentis interior to be as good as the Sonata's interior redesign, a sense Hyundai gave Kia little money. Still, its a bigger improvement over the older boring one. The build quality in both cars are pretty good, both cars are built in Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Depressing, low quality plastics, a rubbish stereo, not very comfortable seats and overall very boring but its at least reasonably spacious.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Decent level of plastic, a nicer environment, better stereo but compared to other vehicles just a average interior.

Styling: With the old Magentis, much like everything else I've said about it this car looks so dull. This particular styling is so anonymous that I'm sure people can point out each part that looks similar to some other cars. It appears Kia spent no money to style this car probably due to the problems from the old Magentis which was styled but not very well. The newer one again changes things up. The headlights are much more aggressive and sharper than the dull round ones from the older car. The grille is now Kia's signature grille and it actually goes quite well with the newer front styling. The rear is a little bit more conventional and looks a lot like a Honda Accord, while it goes well with the front considering how different it looks there...I was hoping Kia would also do the same to the rear. Still, its good that Kia wants to change its image.

My Score(2007-2008): 1/10 - So boring, you can tell nobody bothered to style it.

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Front end looks nice and different, rear is still on the boring side.

Value for money: The Kia lineup in general has never been bad value for your money. Whatever Kia is often always the cheapest in its class and if that's all that matters to you then they're usually worth it. The older Magentis is so anonymous that as a used car its a bit of a bargain often lower than 13K for one that has a bit above 60,000 kms. The newer one because its better doesn't suffer the same bargain. The problem the newer car has to deal with is its sibling the Sonata. The 2009 Sonata is just as inexpensive but overall a much better car and a nicer car to be in. Unless Kia offers a nice deal on a Optima, it'll be overshadowed unless one likes its looks over the generic looking Sonata.

My Score(2007-2008): 8/10 - Very cheap to buy, even cheaper to buy used.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Its Hyundai sibling the Sonata is nearly as cheap but overall better in every way, its best hope is on its looks.

Overall(2007-2008): 20/50 - A below average car, its just too bland and boring.

Overall(2009): 32/50 - Much better than the older one, sadly it suffers from not being as good as the 2009 Sonata.

Hypermiling, can it be done?

This will be my first entry that isn't based on a specific car, but rather reviewing a type of driving. These days hypermiling seems to be one of the things that's in to save your fuel costs with the car you already have. There are variations of this technique, a few of them can be useful for your regular driving providing you with savings benefits by just altering your driving behaviour. The reason why fuel economy ratings have to say they can vary is primarily due to the way people drive, if you drive with a lead foot you'll never reach those numbers you might get a significantly worse fuel mileage than less efficient vehicles not being driven so hard.

I did probably my best hypermiling run on a 2010 Chevrolet Impala LT, its the base model but it comes with a 3.5L V6. Its also a rather large car which isn't ideal for a hypermiling run. The good news however was I was running it on essentially an empty tank on reserve fuel(needle under E) and had to drive this car another 10 miles or 16 kms. The reason why the nearly empty tank was a good thing was, due to the lower weight. Filling up your car to full will make the car heavier and forces it to consume more fuel just to push this weight around. Now the most efficient way of actually hypermiling is to actually select neutral, get out of the car, push the car so that it starts rolling, while rolling start the car. The reason for this is it requires more energy, thus more fuel to move an stationary object basically inertia. However practically this can be dangerous, should your car not start, you essentially have a car moving with no power. A powerless car means, no power brakes and no power steering which is terrible news if your about to hit an object. As a precaution and for everybody's safety...don't do this.

I take a less extreme way of hypermiling. Another instance where I don't follow the extreme rule of hypermiling is not stopping. If you encounter a stop sign, you legally must stop but assume you don't look at the law, to get the most out of each drop of gas stopping is bad. I urge anybody every trying hypermiling to follow the stop sign rules. Now one of the worst ways you waste fuel is acceleration, to hypermile you must actually accelerate rather slowly. The most important gauge to you will have to be tachometer, the best you can keep the tachometer reading below 2000 rpm, the less harder your engine works and the more fuel you save. Reading the speedometer won't help, you just won't be accelerating quickly enough to net a speeding ticket, you are trying to save fuel after all. If you accelerate this way, I guarantee you'll be passed very quickly I even got passed by a bus. Please keep to the curb lane(the right lane on any country where the steering wheel is on the left, vice-versa for the other countries), this way you're respecting other motorists by staying in the appropriate lane. By the time you need to make lane changes you'll be traveling at speed limit making the change easy.

When you approach an intersection with a red light, lightly brake early and try your absolute best to at least be moving before you must stop. By doing so you not only save fuel by not dealing with less interial mass, and you also don't have to work the car as hard to return to the speed you need to travel at. When traveling downhill, let go of the accelerator pedal as your car will stop sending fuel yet you'll still travel at speed(possibly faster depending on the hill) thanks to gravity. When going up the hill you may want to increase speed early as you have to fight gravity and also if your driving a manual prevent stalling, keeping watch of your tachometer is most necessary. Ideal efficient speeds may vary, 60-70 km/h(35-40 mph) is typically the ideal speed to travel at. For most people highway mileage is better, although 100 km/h(60 mph) isn't when the engine runs at its most efficient level. The good news about highway driving is under normal circumstances you shouldn't have to stop. Keeping to the outer lane while maintaining speed limit is your best bet of achieving very good fuel economy numbers.

Having done this, there are only a few things that affected my run. There was an occasional person who cuts you off, this is bad as your forced to brake harder and it'll take longer to retain speed. If you can read the traffic, you may be able to avoid these drivers by anticipating them either by cutting off their path or brake early preventing harsh braking if you're unable to. Traffic is the worst thing to encounter on a hypermiling journey, if you know a way around the traffic that doesn't increase the distance of your driving by a lot then take the longer route. Sometimes you can be unlucky where traffic lights are against you, like they were in my case constantly stopping and taking a long time to regain speed. In my case my car wasn't in great shape, thus it overheated for an unknown reason forcing me to pull over. Despite these problems I still managed according to the car's computer got 5L/100 km this translates to roughly 47 mpg US or 56 mpg imperial. This was mostly city driving, with a stretch of highway driving. This is definitely double the fuel consumption of what the Chevrolet Impala is rated to do.

Would I change my habit of driving having achieved a pretty good number for a first timer? I'd only change a few things. The reason being, I found accelerating very slowly to be rather stressful. I found that constantly worrying about the tachometer, worrying about stopping and worrying about how traffic felt about my driving to be distracting as well. If someone behind you isn't too happy about your slow acceleration they'll definitely cut you off, adding danger to himself and yourself. Here's what I would change in my driving that doesn't affect safety or stress.

1) When approaching a red light, ease off the accelerator and brake gently. If you still approach the intersection and its still red, that's fine you at least reduced brake wear if nothing else. If it goes green, you deal with less inertia and its actually faster in the long run. It makes you think that driving quickly to the light is idiotic, bad for brakes, bad for your fuel consumption and its hard on the engine lowering your car's lifespan and you'll be passed that instance since a car driving at some speed can reach higher speeds easier than doing it from a stop.

2) Keeping an eye on your tachometer once in a while will help judge whether you drive too hard or not. I find anything below 3000 rpm to be the best balance between adequate speed and isn't that much worse for your consumption. If your driving on the highway this can help you increase your car's range from filler station to the next.

3) Good route planning can eliminate the fuel killing traffic stops. The best route gets you to your destination quicker and will be more fuel efficient. The less lights to stop at, the less 0 mpg moments you'll have in your drive.

4) Toss out anything you don't need in your car. If there's a big heavy box in your trunk that isn't useful to bring along then don't bring it. All you really need is emergency equipment should you need to pull over because there's a problem with the car or in the event of an accident. Not treating the car like a garbage bin would also help as litter isn't useful in any way.

Something that isn't mentioned as often as a good way to hypermile, maintain your vehicle to as good condition as possible. A healthy car can produce better fuel economy numbers than a poorly maintained car. Cleaning the air filter is one area where a poorly maintained vehicle will consume more fuel for instance. Fighting off rust will eliminate the possibility of your fuel lines or the fuel tank from corroding which produces leaks. Timely oil changes will allow the engine to work more smoothly, failing oil changes results in the engine working harder and heating up as the oil is a lubricant. Making sure your O2 sensor is working can mean the difference in good fuel economy and bad fuel economy. If you're noticing worse fuel economy, you may need to change your spark plugs as they're supposed to ignite the fuel in your engine. Keeping your tires at the correct tire pressure is useful, most newer cars have them listed on one of the labels on the driver's door, this piece of maintainence is good for the tire life and your fuel consumption and shouldn't cost a penny. Doing all these things not only help your fuel efficiency, but extend the life of your vehicle.

Hopefully some of these tips have been helpful. I speficially chose the items I felt you didn't need to truly alter your driving style. Yes it would be nice to double your fuel economy every single run, but I'd rather spend a little bit more fuel knowing my driving in the long run is less stressful and crucially safer. Any gain in fuel economy is beneficial to pretty much everybody except the oil company, if they're going to get your money anyways why not try your best to give as little as you can.