I was interested to read Andrew English bemoaning the fuel consumption of the Ford S-Max 2.0 diesel automatic compared to the quoted figures. He struggled to get 40mpg from a car supposed to achieve 47mpg and I'm not surprised he is disappointed as this is less than I get from our aging, bigger, 140,000-mile Volkswagen Sharan. The S-Max caught my attention because the Powershift auto has figures within range of the equivalent manual gearbox and I would like to move to an auto but have never been prepared to take the hit in mpg. You often refer to similar complaints from readers.

I imagine that Andrew English is referring to the 'Combined Cycle' figures that used to be a good guide to general use like it is with the Sharan. I also have a 2008 Focus 1.6 that barely manages 36mpg against a quoted 42mpg and which is worse than my previous year 2000 Focus by 25 miles every time I fill up. Is the claimed improved performance of petrol engines only achievable in the lab? At least I know I'm in good company but what can we do about this officially sponsored con? This is where you come in! A database of actual figures compiled by real drivers for the sole benefit of real drivers would be a perfect fit for the Honest John website. Are you up for the challenge?