Hi all,
I treated myself to a copy of Auto Express 16 July issue as I wanted to read about the new Fiat 500 Abarth.
I also read about an 'eco' roadtest between 2 x diesel family cars: VW Passat and Ford Mondeo.
Once again, manufacturers' mpg quotes have been shown as untrue. The mag quoted that the Passat/Mondeo returned 39.4mpg/41.5mpg respectively. I'm not sure of what type of driving they did to achieve these figures. The manufacturers' combined mpg quotes were 55.4mpg/53.3mpg respectively.
Is the motorist being hoodwinked by the 'eco' and the mpg claims?
I have owned an R Reg Toyota Carina E 1.8 for the last 6 years and have put 70,000 miles on it since I bought it. It now totals 115,000 miles. It has been totally reliable and bears no rust. It is a large family car like those on test.
I check the mpg regularly; it has never dropped below 36mpg even with winter starts and my daily commute (a 12 mile country lane round trip). The last tankful consisted of 120 commuting then 275 motorway miles. It returned 42mpg.
How can these cars call themselves 'eco' when they are returning nigh on the same mpg as my old bus?! Don't get me wrong, I'd love a new car, but when you analyse the figures it's not worth spending 18,000 pounds on something that's no more economical than my sub-1000 pound car.
My Carina is also approx 300kg heavier than the Passat, so if my Carina was 300kg lighter than it is, the economy would be even better! And it runs on the cheaper petrol rather than diesel.
Has engine economy improved? It doesn't look like it!
I think I'll save my pennies and wait until the old bus reches 200,000 miles before I change it.
Edited by V4 Heaven on 17/07/2008 at 13:46
|
My Carina is also approx 300kg heavier than the Passat
I was thinking it must be that the Carina is lighter, but then read the above. Do you have the figures?
|
>> My Carina is also approx 300kg heavier than the Passat I was thinking it must be that the Carina is lighter but then read the above. Do you have the figures?
My own googling seems to show the Carina is about 1200kg and the Passat 1500kg - correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Is the motorist being hoodwinked by the 'eco' and the mpg claims?
In my non-expert opinion, it sounds more like the motorist is being hoodwinked by the lead boot on the right foot of Auto Express's journalist. I presume the cars you read about were the latest models. Although I'm slightly behind the times myself, I know quite a few people (not boy racers, but not mimsers either) who drive newish (between 2 and 6 years old) diesels in the same class as Passats and Mondeos in a combination of driving conditions: rural twisties, motorway, occasional towing, although perhaps not too much serious stop-start in town and any of them would be horrified to see 40mpg. 50 or slightly over is normal.
I'm sure the manufacturers' figures in the brochure are as optimistic as they can get away with compared to what mere mortals might actually achieve - but optimistic by a few mpg I'd have thought, not 12-15mpg.
Over the same sort of driving, I achieve around 48mpg in my ZX turbodiesel estate. That's definitely lighter than a new Passat, but if a modern common rail, high pressure complexo-diesel doesn't do better than that then there's got to be something wrong.
Interesting to hear your experience with the Carina. My ZX may be on the way out, and after reading about their economy in HJ's Car-by-Car, I have been eyeing up Carinas as a possible sub-1000 pound replacement. Sounds like your experience bears out what the Car-by-Car says.
|
I got the figures of the Carina at just under 1200 kg and the Passat at around 1600 kg. Not sure where OP got their figures from on that one.
The current mpg figures tend to flatter the careful driver and hammer the lead foot driver. The Urban figure is best to know what you would get with average driving.
Lets not forget that the Passat is far safer that the Carina which does often account for much of the increased weight.
I imagine if you stuck the Passat's engine in the Carina it would be far superior to the original unit for mpg.
Didnt the Carina have a 'lean burn' feature whatever that means?
|
|
|
|
V4 Heaven - you are also overlooking performance. I have owned two mid-size Toyotas, the first was a 1989 Carina II Executive, which had a 2.0 twin-cam 16v petrol engine producing just under 130hp. I now have a 2006 Avensis 2.2 diesel, producing 148hp.
The performance stats of the two are comparable, around 9.0 sec 0-60 and a top whack of 130ish mph. They are very different to drive, once wound up the Carina seemed to hurl itself at the horizon, the Avensis does not feel as quick. That's just the character of the different cars though, I would bet that the Avensis would blow the Carina away in real world driving, eg 30-70 in fourth.
The Carina was a much lighter car, smaller, no airbags, no side impact protection etc etc, as with the other examples compared above I would reckon on the Carina II being 300kg lighter.
Comparison on economy - the Carina could just crack 40mpg on a gentle tankful including plenty of Motorway, the Avensis can do 50mpg in similar conditions. So this is 25% better economy in a much heavier car with similar, arguably better, performance.
Chuck the 2.2 common rail lump in the Carina II and it would probably hit 60 in 8 seconds and return 60mpg - pure guesswork in case you can't tell ;-)
So my view is that engine economy has improved vastly. It's just that we are all driving much heavier cars these days.
Also, the 2.0 EFi twin-cam 16v Carina motor was heady stuff by late 80s standards, most 'repmobiles' would have been running 90/100bhp 8v 1.6/1.8 motors. A 150bhp common-rail diesel is run of the mill these days.
|
Hi all,
My owners handbook shows the Carina E 1.8 to be a whopping 1720kgs as opposed to the weights of the 2008 Eco Mondeo and Passat shown in AutoExpress at 1505kgs and 1422kgs respectively. Confusingly, the Haynes manual quotes 1185-1290kg! If my Carina is lighter, then my argument is worthless!
The 'lean burn' engine is included in this model range. I read somewhere that if you keep the economy light glowing on the dash, it burns 1 part air to 14 parts fuel. Give it some and it's 1:23. That's the basic principle, however I can't say for certain what the ratios are. You can still drive faster than your average sunday driver with the economy light still on.
So if the newer cars are lighter, the Carina wins. If they're heavier, then I'll get my coat ;-).
GJD - I'd recommend one. Good value for sub 1000 pounds, otherwise you could spend 1500-2000 pounds on a supermini of equivalent age (and similar economy)!
|
My owners handbook shows the Carina E 1.8 to be a whopping 1720kgs
Thats the maximum permitted gross weight surely? Even my BMW 5 Series doesn't weigh as much as that - there is no way a 93 Carina weighs 1720kg.
|
My mate has one of the 'learn-burn' engines (L reg 1.6 Carina) and on a run doing about 60/65mph he gets in the high 40's.
I have a 2001 1.8S Primera and get 40mpg doing 80, I am sure if I could be patient enough then I could get same fuel consumption as he if I drove at 60mph on the motorway.
Similarly if I drove his car at 80 I am sure the fuel consumption would drop to around 42-ish to the gallon.
So yes, I think enconomy has improved in the last 11 years. And don't forget the engine design is actually older than that, the engine for the Carina could have been designed at the end of the 80's/very early 90's, thus making it 17-odd years!
|
The very latest diesels spawn contant gripes from drivers about the fuel consumption; they're nothing like as economical as their predecessors.
It's almost impossible to get them to accept that there's nothing wrong - 30's is now all you'll get using it loaded.
|
Part of the problem is that the methods used to make cars and bikes meet ever more stringent NOx, CO, HC and particulates legislation actually makes them less efficient, increasing CO2 output and wrecking fuel economy as a consequence.
Bike magazine recently mentioned that "de catting" a Honda Blackbird, and uploading a new fuel map to suit increases power by 10%, increases torque throughout the rev range, and reduces fuel consumption by 15%.
In the case of diesel cars, most people I know who have gone from Euro III to Euro IV versions of the same car report noticeably increased fuel consumption in the order of 10% or so.
Doesn't make sense in the light of the "we're all going to die because of CO2 emissions" prophecies that are now being peddled by our leaders.
In terms of economy in general, diesels have got worse (but almost unrecognisably quicker and smoother), and 200+ bhp petrols with 30+mpg are increasingly common.
I think the argument for diesel is dwindling, and I'm a diesel owner!
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 18/07/2008 at 14:44
|
|
|
Compared with the old IDI engines, and bearing in mind that they are far heavier than they used to be, they are better than they used to be - as a previous poster said, put a modern TDi in an old body and it would be much better...
Whats happened is that the car manufacturers have been flogging the mpg figures as gospel which they never have been - and combined with drivers switching from petrol and continuing to drive like they have a petrol its no wonder we have the publicity we have...
I often travel with a firm which uses diesels as their minicabs and its notciable that many drivers just don't know how to drive them to get the best out of them, and they are supposed to professional drivers!
|
|
|
|
|
Once again manufacturers' mpg quotes have been shown as untrue.
Is the motorist being hoodwinked by the 'eco' and the mpg claims?
The "official" fuel consumption figures are arrived at from tests carried out under controlled conditions on one sample, and as such may not necessarily match figures obtained by an individual driver in a different sample. In the main, the official fiigures are only intended to give potential purchasers a benchmark for comparing different models. tinyurl.com/67sdyr
I have no problem whatsoever with the official combined figure for my car, as I can consistently better it with my genuine average consumption calculations.
|
I have no problem whatsoever with the official combined figure for my car as I can consistently better it with my genuine average consumption calculations.
Me too. But Screwloose's comments about mpg in the 30s for modern diesels have alarmed me.
How old is your car? Petrol or diseasal?
|
|
"sweeping generalisation"... forget it!
|
|
|
How old is your car? Petrol or diseasal?
What, mine? 5 years old petrol.
|
Its the Turbo`s I think. As I mentioned before a mate in a Perkins Prima turbo Montego could only get 40 ish mpg.
My non turbo perkins Maestro could get 60mpg.
Perhaps if we had the `old gasper` type diesel engines in a modern body, mpg would pick up? ;);) Mind you, I had enough of driving like a snail and going up hills in 2nd gear, that I now take in 4th.
|
Mind you I had enough of driving like a snail ...
What are you implying, oilrag?
|
|
|
|
Some diesel cars used to be like that oilrag, but intelligent design with diesel cars means a bigger engine capacity than with a petrol motor and higher gearing, to exploit low-down diesel torque and compensate for high-rpm diesel loss of puff. The non-turbo Peugeot 205, and doutless many other cars of the same period, was extremely economical, surprisingly refined and went like a fairly staid and nose-heavy rocket. There was never any question of slogging up hills in second. I know modern CR turbodiesels are super-refined and rev more easily, but are they finally any better taking their complex and sometimes crotchety nature into account?
|
|
|
Its the Turbo`s I think. As I mentioned before a mate in a Perkins Prima turbo Montego could only get 40 ish mpg. My non turbo perkins Maestro could get 60mpg.
I do wonder sometimes what people do to their cars to get such low consumption - I had no problem with a minimum of 50 out of my Montego and 60 was not unheard of! Agree with the n/a Maestro - I remember when I first got it and a comment after a week's worth of use from a driving instructor friend was "has the needle on the fuel gauge moved yet?!!"
I'm not convinced that things have got worse in recent years, especially in view of cars being heavier than they were and added engine strangulation with emmission regs - you've seen the mpg out of the two Austin/Rovers - my next was a low-blow 1.7D Astra Estate Mk3 which did mid 40s, a Vectra DI (the 80 bhp one) which was about 52 then the Fabia Estate 1.9TDi which was 55/60 - I'm pretty sure that the Fabia and Astra were pretty similar in weight so there's a fair comparison with IDI and Di, though power-wise the Fabia would blow away the Astra....
|
"The non-turbo Peugeot 205,"
I regretted not buying one of those Lud. If I had been aware at the time of the better rustproofing I would have, as the Maestro had rust from new.
However I did manage 130,000 miles in it in 6 years. It seemed far longer ;)
Edited by oilrag on 18/07/2008 at 19:19
|
You have to take all factors into account when comparing old with new: performance, economy, weight etc, otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Modern diesels do dip into the 30s / low 40s mpg but the performance available is in a different league compared with even 10 years ago.
Most modern 2.0 diesel full-size saloons will tick off the 30-50 / 40-60 / 50-70 in-gear acceleration increments in 4th gear, in under 6 seconds. That is Sierra Cosworth / Porsche 911 Carrera 4 territory.
These were viewed as supercars in their day, and now a similar level of real-world performance is available in an average repmobile.
What's more, the modern car has standards of safety, accomodation & crash protection far in advance of anything we've had before.
My Passat B5.5 PD130 averaged nearly 47mpg over the 5 years I had it (real mpg, not from the computer). My new Mondeo 2.0 TDCi has averaged 41.5 (and rising) over the first 4000 miles.
Both figures are excellent for 1.5 ton+ family barges that get driven a lot around town, and driven hard out of town.
It's like in the 70s when old Brit bikers used to bemoan the dying of the Brit 500 single, which would apparently do 100+mph and give 80+mpg. Yes, 500 singles could do both, but not in the same bike :-D
A Gold Star or Velo Venom would indeed do more than 100mph, but woe betide you if you tried to ride it around town, and you'd get 35mpg if you were lucky.
Equally, you could get an AJS, Matchless or Enfield to do 80+mpg, but you'd never get it above 80mph ...
|
"You have to take all factors into account when comparing old with new: performance, economy, weight etc, otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Modern diesels do dip into the 30s / low 40s mpg but the performance available is in a different league compared with even 10 years ago."
Whilst I can see where you are coming from with reference to most cars, I do wonder about its applicability to my car, a B5 Passat TDI 110 (1997). The current equivalent model is probably the Passat TDI 105, based on the same engine. It's performance is very similar to my car, yet its Co2 is apparently 148, compared to 143 on my car. I would guess that kerb weight is pretty similar too?!?!?
|
|
Current model will be Euro 4 - I'd have thought the old one would be Euro 3 at a maximum - not sure what they'd have to do to the old engine to get it to meet E4, though the 90/110 had a good reputation for economy and power for their time.
|
|
When I drive in my normal style on an intercity route on A-roads, I get about 34mpg, but if I follow something like a Rover 25 or old Civic, Toyoya etc... I get over 40mpg. It goes back to what they did on Top Gear a few weeks ago (Prius vs. M3) it's not what you drive it's how you drive it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
