What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
fuel figures - hotjazz

The EU fuel figures are ridiculous. However the U.S. government publishes figures which are much more realistic, and compare well with the honestjohn realmpg website. Look on www.fueleconomy.gov. You need to multiply everything by 1.25 to correct for the difference between U.S. gallons and Imp. Galls.

fuel figures - unthrottled

Yes, the FTP75 test cycle is much more indicative of 'real world driving'.

Higher average speed, faster accelerations and decelerations, less idling time. The latter is important because 1/3 of the EU drive cycle is spent stationary which flatters the effectiveness of Stop-Start.

Your conversion factor is a bit out though.

1 US gallon ~3.8litres

1 UK gallon~4.5 litres.

A conversion factor of 1.18 is more appropriate-1.2 if working on the back of a fag packet.

Beware of comparing VW or MB diesels. The US versions are significantly reworked to meet US NOx emissions. We've got that to lok forward to in Euro vI!

fuel figures - focussed

The EU fuel figures are ridiculous. However the U.S. government publishes figures which are much more realistic, and compare well with the honestjohn realmpg website. Look on www.fueleconomy.gov. You need to multiply everything by 1.25 to correct for the difference between U.S. gallons and Imp. Galls.

Actually it's multiply by 1.20 not 1.25

fuel figures - Leif

I always got +/- the official combined figure with a Nissan Micra (45 mpg versus 45 mpg claimed) and a Ford Ka (40 mpg winter and 45 mpg summer versus 42 mpg claimed). My VW Up is under the official figure by 10% but the engine is brand spanking new. They improve with age.

Official figures do not account for motorway driving at 70+ mph, and a heavy right foot, and tendency to brake. Also they are at summer temperatures. I get noticeably less mpg in winter, presumably it takes longer for the car to warm up (runs rich when cold) and the air is denser.

fuel figures - unthrottled

Also they are at summer temperatures.

You're spot on. We can argue all day about what constitutes a 'real world' drive cycle, but the most glaring error of the test cycle is the starting temperature. The rolling resistance of the tyres and the friction of the drivetrain and engine all increase massively at low temperatures, so starting at a more realistic 10C rather than a balmy 20-25C would have a big impact on the figures.

They don't take into account braking

Yes they do!

The EU test cycle doesn't use aircon or electrical accessories.

Rain is a big factor, since the rolling resistance of tyres is much higher on a wet road is much higher than on a dry one and the splashed water keeps cooling the tyres and gearbox.

My observed economy is very similar to your Ka with a similar winter/summer split.

Renault claim 37.7 combined-I average 43 on a long term basis, but that does require a few tricks.

Edited by unthrottled on 02/05/2012 at 00:48

fuel figures - Leif
They don't take into account braking

Yes they do!

I did not say that. What I did suggest is that they do not account for a tendency to brake i.e. the kind of person who rushes forward, brakes, rushes forward, brakes etc. I once got into an argument with a Ford Ka driver who averaged about 37mpg. He would not accept my mpg figures.

fuel figures - unthrottled

The Ka is very light and fairly aerodynamic-it should get decent economy-if the driver does their part!

fuel figures - hotjazz

I have rechecked - the us/Imp correction is indeed 1.201 . Means a Texan's hat only really holds eight and a bit gallons.

fuel figures - Leif

The Ka is very light and fairly aerodynamic-it should get decent economy-if the driver does their part!

Indeed, but it has an old engine. I think it was from an older generation Fiesta. Equally light and small modern cars are getting much better mpg, assuming these are real figures rather than the result of tweaks to suit the EU economy tests. :)

fuel figures - unthrottled

Some of it is genuine, Leif!

I wouldn't mind some modern gearing for instance. Mine has 21mph/1000 RPM in fifth is ridiculously low. It's nice being able to accelerate in top, but I'd rather have lower RPMs and better economy.

fuel figures - jamie745

Renault claim 37.7 combined-I average 43 on a long term basis, but that does require a few tricks.

I bet you're thrilling at dinner parties.

fuel figures - unthrottled

I bet you're thrilling at dinner parties.

Do you mean hot girls aren't enthralled by eloquent and comprehensive descriptions of hysteresis in tyre carcasses?

fuel figures - Leif

I bet you're thrilling at dinner parties.

Do you mean hot girls aren't enthralled by eloquent and comprehensive descriptions of hysteresis in tyre carcasses?

He's obviously a youngster, but he'll learn that it works every time.

fuel figures - Bobbin Threadbare

Physics girls like that sort of thing ;-P

fuel figures - jamie745

I do alright thank you ;)

fuel figures - 1litregolfeater

It's all a complete load of rubbish, all fuel figures are made up marketing nonsense.

Just been geeking at a test report at a Suzuki GT500 from 1976 that was ridiculous and that's 50 years old.

I don't think marketing's got more honest, I think they are out and out liars nowadays!

fuel figures - jc2

I used to ride a Suzuki GTA 500(1976 reg)-what did they quote?I know what I got.