Out of this weeks Auto Express...."Trading standard bosses are to investigate how car firms report fuel economy figures......"
Examples given of huge differences between 'Claimed MPG' and 'Real world' MPG include:
Vauxhall Astra 1.7CDTi....56.5MPG Claimed, 37.1 Real, Diff 34%!!
Peugeot SW 2.0HDI 110SE..52.3MPG Claimed, 40.6 Real, Diff 22%
etc etc etc.....makes interesting reading.....any comments?
|
I have not seen the article but, for what it is worth, my Honda Jazz does better than the figures given by Honda and my maths are based on actual amount of fuel used (not what the computer tells me!).
|
|
|
Well it is more realistic now than the days when consumption at 56mph(90kph) and 75mph(120kph) were the quoted figures.
Whatever the criteria. manufacturers will 'map' the engine management systems to give the most flattering figures.
|
I used to get better fuel economy than the combined figure in my Xsara 1.4, dad could never reach the combined figure in his 206 1.4. Same engine.
Now we drive 2.0 turbo diesels, he has a Picasso, gets 47 average against 51 combined, I get 44 in my C5 against 50 combined.
It seems manufacturers have found a way to massage the results.
I blame it on the increasing weight of new cars, and that economy tests are done on a rolling road.
Drive a big car up a hill (no choice when in Yorkshire) and it burns more fuel.
Not that I would want to lose 8 airbags, side impact bars, crumple zones and toys to play with.
|
Ford Focus 1.8 Ghia - Offical combined figure 37mpg. Actual return 28-30mpg. Very disappointing, one of a stream of them with this car.
Mondeo Zetec 2.0 TDCi 130 - Offical figure 47mpg, Actual return 45mpg, I've not tanked it up yet so it may actually hit the official figure. Delighted with the economy and the performance.
|
Are these "real world" figures backroomers are quoting here from experience or from other sources ?
SWMBO's 1.8 TDDi Focus CL did 33 mpg on very short journeys when she first got it with 2000 miles on the clock. Now it's done 7000 miles, it does 41.5 mpg on the same journeys. Ford's official figures for it are: urban; 39.2, non-urban; 64.2, total; 52.3 mpg.
|
The official figures are recorded under ideal circumstances - real life figures are approximately two-thirds.
In any case, no two drivers would return the same mpg even if they took turns to drive the same car over the same route.
|
|
|
|
Some drivers get "official" figures (or vey close, maybe even exceed),
some - the "heavy brakers" get much poorer.
Your choice.
|
I agree with quinny100 on the Focus 1.8, I had a hire one with about 5K on the clock. It only did just over 30mpg on a gentle (50-70 mph) motorway run.
My own Octavia 1.4 betters 50mpg on the same run with the same driver(me) etc...
|
My 1.8 Focus did 40-45 mpg on a good motorway run, but in town the mid twenties was more realistic. In town the A2 mpg has increased from about 45 to about 50 now its done over 20,000 miles. Motorway mpg is slightly more, but not up to 60+, but I do tend to go over the limit (sorry officer).
The smart does about 45 mpg regardless of where or how it's driven - less than the published figures but 45 mpg is acceptable to us. Best we have had from it is just over 50 on a trip to Scotland.
|
|
|
|
