That's the issue Happy Blue, nobody should expect to get any of the mpg figures that result from the EU tests. To expect such a result is being naive in the extreme.

The tests were not designed to give users an idea of the mpg they can get from a particular car in actual everyday motoring, but are structured to provide a yardstick between cars running through the same strict, laboratory procedures.

One big problem is in calling the tests 'urban' and 'combined' etc which gives the impression that if you drive in an urban environment you should achieve those figures. That's rubbish and maybe numbering the results say 'Tests 1, 2 & 3' would improve people's perception.

However even viewing the test results as a set of comparisons between different models doesn't really work because in real life there are so many variables. Rolling road tests themselves don't take account of varying levels of aerodynamic efficiency. Different drivetrains react in different ways depending on the road surface and topography. Even atmospheric pressure and temperature have an effect. And then there's the summer v winter diesel difference which as HJ points out drops his Fiat 500 from 55mpg to somewhere in the 40's as soon as the cold weather comes.

Kia and Hyundai's EU results are no better and no worse than those of any other manufacturer as proved by the HJ and What Car real mpg figures.

Possibly the answer is not to change the tests, because I doubt you'll ever get a set that 'connect' to the real world results we all see, but to work on users perceptions and get people to accept them for what they are, a rather flaky comparator between models, rather than a realistically achievable measure.

Whilst tinkering with the structure of the mpg tests will keep testing institute staff in work I doubt if they can ever build a testing regime that is fair and will reflect all the different facets of motoring in the real world.

I think they'd be much better advised to spend a much smaller amount of money publicising that the public should not expect to achieve the testing figures but that they do provide some guidance to the difference between models. Renaming the results so they aren't linked in people's minds to their own motoring habits would help, as would a ban on manufacturers or dealers quoting the results in adverts, except in a tabular form without any claims or other words that could lead people to think they might achieve the test results.

I've never understood why people still seem to think they should achieve the test mpgs when there's been masses of publicity and explanations in all sections of the media for several years. Or is it that people understand the limitations, but just want something to batch about?

Edited by Steamdrivenandy on 06/11/2012 at 12:49

The instantaneous readout is useful only in steady strate driving. Unfortunately, thick people and minsers hopelessly misintrepret the data being presented to them.

The best way to use the Official figures is to take their worst figure - Urban - and assume that's the best you'll ever get in sedate day-to-day driving

Regarding Hyundai and Kia, I read from an article that both 'fessed up to fudging the numbers on gas mileage, resulting in lawsuits, customer resentment and a Hyundai repayment program compensating owners. So far, it's gone over well as repaid Hyundai owners are fairly content with the compensation. You can figure out how to get a loan car that works for you.

SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM,

Wonderful spam!

(Yes, thanks Dabooka. Spam now in the trash can. HJ.)

Edited by Honestjohn on 07/12/2012 at 19:18