FUEL EFFICIANCY - LIES
Discussion
This is absolute bollox. It is the consumer that is being dim and NOT reading the small print. 
The following was taken from the current Ford Mondeo brochure...
So it's there... in black and white. It is not hidden, the font size is comparable with the rest of the fuel and performance specifications. Seems to me that if people are stupid enough not to read how the figures were acheived (as per the EEC directive) then that's their fault...
The following was taken from the current Ford Mondeo brochure...
Urban An engine started from cold in laboratory conditions operated at varying speeds, maximum 31mph, average 12mph over a theoretical distance of 2.5miles (4km).
Extra Urban Conducted immediately after the urban cycle, it consists of half steady speed driving and half varying speed driving, maximum 75mph over a distance of 4.3 miles (7km).
Combined This is an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.
So it's there... in black and white. It is not hidden, the font size is comparable with the rest of the fuel and performance specifications. Seems to me that if people are stupid enough not to read how the figures were acheived (as per the EEC directive) then that's their fault...
superflid said: Agreed that the figures given are hardly likely to be equalled in real-life driving, but I think the point was that manufacturers are using specially prepared cars in order to achieve better figures. (Big surprise)
True, the figures are unlikely to be matched in the real world... however, the manufacturers print the details on how they tested the vehicles and folow the EC directive.
If people choose not to read the details which are printed in the brochures about how the tests are conducted, how can they moan that the cars did not perform as expected?
What twaddle - Its always difficult to match the manufacturers figures as the tests used dont really reflect the real-world. However, I would have to doubt the figures they got... I mean the diesel Volvo - 22.5 Miles to the gallon? In a diesel? You have got to be kidding! I mean they would sell NONE if it were that bad, and to put it into perspective my fairly normal driving that my TVR is doing at the moment I am getting 24MPG.... Its nearly twice the capacity and double the cylinders (nearly before anyone gets pedantic) and a whole load more power..... so whats happening here then?
As for the Renault - Autocar recently did the testing of the new PSA Citroen C3 1.4TD which is supposed to be 67MPG. Although they failed to get 67, the got into the 60's.... so only a small difference. So Again I seriously doubt the testing carried out. Also a friend of mine had a BMW 328i and always got 32MPG out of it - even when he hoofed it around the average was always into the 30's.... Unless they are suggesting that the computer software used in them is incorrect and over reporting.... and that would be a crime...
It all sniffs of someone writing a story to get attention and PR for the respective elements - not really news worthy is it. But then again what else could we expect from the Sun and the Consumers Association....
Cheers,
Paul
P.s. Champions of the people - pahhh
As for the Renault - Autocar recently did the testing of the new PSA Citroen C3 1.4TD which is supposed to be 67MPG. Although they failed to get 67, the got into the 60's.... so only a small difference. So Again I seriously doubt the testing carried out. Also a friend of mine had a BMW 328i and always got 32MPG out of it - even when he hoofed it around the average was always into the 30's.... Unless they are suggesting that the computer software used in them is incorrect and over reporting.... and that would be a crime...
It all sniffs of someone writing a story to get attention and PR for the respective elements - not really news worthy is it. But then again what else could we expect from the Sun and the Consumers Association....
Cheers,
Paul
P.s. Champions of the people - pahhh
So what, big story over nothing.
My workhorse Passat TDI (110bhp) which is the only car I bother to take any notice of as far as mpg is concerned can show anything from 28mpg to 55mpg (on the trip)doing the same journey to work every day it all depends on how its driven, traffic condition and if I'm feeling really tight so as to knock it into neutral going down hil
. I dare say the average average 
is in the low forties and about right for what VW claim.
My workhorse Passat TDI (110bhp) which is the only car I bother to take any notice of as far as mpg is concerned can show anything from 28mpg to 55mpg (on the trip)doing the same journey to work every day it all depends on how its driven, traffic condition and if I'm feeling really tight so as to knock it into neutral going down hil
. I dare say the average average is in the low forties and about right for what VW claim.
Regardless of the accuracy or blatent alarmist bull of this story, I couldn't help but notice on the page AFTER this article, there's a report that Jade from Big Brother 3 is releasing a keep-fit video. I'm very frightened. No, seriously. Can you imagine making love to... Never mind, never mind.
Podie, I have no problem with the tests themselves, if people are thick (Sun readers) that's their problem. My point, and I think the point of the article, is that, Quote:
David Evans, of consumer magazine Which?, called for a new system of independent checks, saying current tests provide only a rough comparison between cars.
He added: “Manufacturers are allowed to select specially-prepared vehicles to give them a good result. Most of these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.”
The manufacturers are not testing the same spec cars as they are selling, this is not in the small print.
David Evans, of consumer magazine Which?, called for a new system of independent checks, saying current tests provide only a rough comparison between cars.
He added: “Manufacturers are allowed to select specially-prepared vehicles to give them a good result. Most of these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.”
The manufacturers are not testing the same spec cars as they are selling, this is not in the small print.
The manufacturers arent selling the same cars as they are testing?
:sarcasmon: Of course there is no way any manufacturer would use specially prepared cars for marketing purposes :sarcasmoff:
(Echoes of the modeo being ejected from a "car of the year" award thingy where some parts were discovered to have been labelled "special car of the year award car" etc)
Seriously though, what evidence is there to back up the Suns claim?
These figures are artificially derived, though the methods are published, the laboratory and real world conditions rarely tally.
:sarcasmon: Of course there is no way any manufacturer would use specially prepared cars for marketing purposes :sarcasmoff:
(Echoes of the modeo being ejected from a "car of the year" award thingy where some parts were discovered to have been labelled "special car of the year award car" etc)
Seriously though, what evidence is there to back up the Suns claim?
These figures are artificially derived, though the methods are published, the laboratory and real world conditions rarely tally.
From what I remember (a few years ago now mind), the cars for fuel tests are not specially prep'd - not to the extent that you think anyway. They will take a car off the line, do a thorough check and then use it - but bear in mind that the big manufacturers spend MILLIONS on a new model and the engine development will take place over a long period of time with multiple vehicles, they have no real need to fiddle.
Anyone who believes the fuel consumption quoted will be reflected in real life is a sucker - they are under controlled lab conditions, with controlled acceleration, deceleration etc. The regulatory bodies have even gotten wise to smart electronics for emissions tests etc..
I always knock about 10-15% off the combined figure, and I haven't been wrong yet.
Anyone who believes the fuel consumption quoted will be reflected in real life is a sucker - they are under controlled lab conditions, with controlled acceleration, deceleration etc. The regulatory bodies have even gotten wise to smart electronics for emissions tests etc..
I always knock about 10-15% off the combined figure, and I haven't been wrong yet.
Jade from Big Brother 3 is releasing a keep-fit video. I'm very frightened. No, seriously. Can you imagine making love to... Never mind, never mind.
Echo Base calling Mungo...
mission accomplished 
>> edited to say Only joking Mungo, I reckon you've got better taste...but then I did see the pics of CST, so not much better
Interesting rubbish from The Sun. No detail about the "experts" from Top Gear's test cycle - which is a road test and therefore not repeatable.
The quote about specially prepared cars is true, however that's because they have to be tested to show that they conform to other requirements before they can test them for FE. There is a power and torque run done to show that the engine is in spec and then the FE test is run witnessed by the VCA usually. Same rules for every manufacturer. The question about how realistic the numbers are is irrelevant because if you changed the drive cycle then you'd have to retest all cars sold to have a fair comparison.
It must have been a very quiet news day - what am I saying they don't bother with the news they just make it up.
The quote about specially prepared cars is true, however that's because they have to be tested to show that they conform to other requirements before they can test them for FE. There is a power and torque run done to show that the engine is in spec and then the FE test is run witnessed by the VCA usually. Same rules for every manufacturer. The question about how realistic the numbers are is irrelevant because if you changed the drive cycle then you'd have to retest all cars sold to have a fair comparison.
It must have been a very quiet news day - what am I saying they don't bother with the news they just make it up.
superflid said: Podie, I have no problem with the tests themselves, if people are thick (Sun readers) that's their problem. My point, and I think the point of the article, is that, Quote:
David Evans, of consumer magazine Which?, called for a new system of independent checks, saying current tests provide only a rough comparison between cars.
He added: “Manufacturers are allowed to select specially-prepared vehicles to give them a good result. Most of these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.”
The manufacturers are not testing the same spec cars as they are selling, this is not in the small print.
Superflid - apologies, missed your point before (hey, it's Monday!).
Granted, the article states "Manufacturers are allowed to select specially-prepared vehicles to give them a good result" - however, this does NOT mean that the vehicles sold are not those tested.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff