I find the manufacturer MPG figures a very accurate guide...
Discussion
... sort of 
We all regularly hear the 'my car does 65mpg'. Yes, according to the marketing materials which sold you on this car, I'm sure it does. But don't give me the "I've got lead boots and don't hang about - and I do get 65mpg"
Anyhow, I do actually use the figures supplied as a good guide, as the last few cars I have had, this system is pretty accurate. Having spent an hour tapping away at a miles/journeys/costs/mpg spreadsheet for tax purposes, it still works well.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Fuel consumption (urban) will generally be close to what I get as an average over a tank in normal combined driving
Fuel consumption (combined) will not be far off what I get on a run involving mostly motorway work
Fuel consumption (extra urban) OK, this is a mythical lab-based number I cannot attain and hence not worthy of consideration
I now welcome your mixture of insightful replies and 'cool story bro' images
We all regularly hear the 'my car does 65mpg'. Yes, according to the marketing materials which sold you on this car, I'm sure it does. But don't give me the "I've got lead boots and don't hang about - and I do get 65mpg"
Anyhow, I do actually use the figures supplied as a good guide, as the last few cars I have had, this system is pretty accurate. Having spent an hour tapping away at a miles/journeys/costs/mpg spreadsheet for tax purposes, it still works well.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Fuel consumption (urban) will generally be close to what I get as an average over a tank in normal combined driving
Fuel consumption (combined) will not be far off what I get on a run involving mostly motorway work
Fuel consumption (extra urban) OK, this is a mythical lab-based number I cannot attain and hence not worthy of consideration
I now welcome your mixture of insightful replies and 'cool story bro' images
Edited by Matt UK on Sunday 15th January 19:40
Ohhhkay... except that means the manufacturer figures are still rubbish (given they're only created on a rolling road anyway).
My car.. a 2004 320cd M Sport (I say that as it has the larger fuel-sucking wheels) averages me 48/50mpg depending on the week. On a run I can get north of 60mpg, but combined, it's still 50mpg.. which is as the book predicts. I, however, do a shedload of miles (around 30k PA) so my shortest journey is over 50 miles on A-roads. But, I'm not what the stat people would call "average" am I? So the numbers I get, whilst in line with the manufacturer, are also not average.
My car.. a 2004 320cd M Sport (I say that as it has the larger fuel-sucking wheels) averages me 48/50mpg depending on the week. On a run I can get north of 60mpg, but combined, it's still 50mpg.. which is as the book predicts. I, however, do a shedload of miles (around 30k PA) so my shortest journey is over 50 miles on A-roads. But, I'm not what the stat people would call "average" am I? So the numbers I get, whilst in line with the manufacturer, are also not average.
I find it varies between manufacturer.
Some cars I've owned have been pretty much 100% spot on in terms of quoted MPG. For example. I had a Primera P12 1.8 16v Estate. Quoted figures were around 39mpg combined, I got between 38-42 doing a mixture of B/A and motorway on the way to work with town driving around the weekend. The variance depended how hard I was pushing it but I never got less than 35mpg average on a tank.
Bearing in mind that the majority of extra urban tests are done at 50mph, you can't really compare them to motorway only driving.
Some cars I've owned have been pretty much 100% spot on in terms of quoted MPG. For example. I had a Primera P12 1.8 16v Estate. Quoted figures were around 39mpg combined, I got between 38-42 doing a mixture of B/A and motorway on the way to work with town driving around the weekend. The variance depended how hard I was pushing it but I never got less than 35mpg average on a tank.
Bearing in mind that the majority of extra urban tests are done at 50mph, you can't really compare them to motorway only driving.
Matt UK said:
Fuel consumption (urban) will generally be close to what I get as an average over a tank in normal combined driving
Fuel consumption (combined) will not be far off what I get on a run involving mostly motorway work
Works for me too. When looking at new cars last year I only ever looked at the urban figure and assumed that's what I'd get on average over a full tank.Fuel consumption (combined) will not be far off what I get on a run involving mostly motorway work
Can't get near the extra urban figure, even on a 400 mile motorway journey from the South coast to Scotland.
They aren't "manufacturer's" figures, they're EU figures.
I've found it varies from car to car though. The Elise I average very close to the EU combined figure unless I'm running it predominantly cold or bouncing it off the limiter (unfortunately I am usually doing one of those things, but that's hardly the car's fault). The Octavia is almost as you describe - I get about the combined figure on a long motorway run but some way above the urban figure on average. The Punto was somewhere between the two.
The Lotus I can hit the extra-urban figure (52mpg), but only by slipstreaming lorries.
I've found it varies from car to car though. The Elise I average very close to the EU combined figure unless I'm running it predominantly cold or bouncing it off the limiter (unfortunately I am usually doing one of those things, but that's hardly the car's fault). The Octavia is almost as you describe - I get about the combined figure on a long motorway run but some way above the urban figure on average. The Punto was somewhere between the two.
The Lotus I can hit the extra-urban figure (52mpg), but only by slipstreaming lorries.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 15th January 20:10
yellowbentines said:
Matt UK said:
Fuel consumption (urban) will generally be close to what I get as an average over a tank in normal combined driving
Fuel consumption (combined) will not be far off what I get on a run involving mostly motorway work
Works for me too. When looking at new cars last year I only ever looked at the urban figure and assumed that's what I'd get on average over a full tank.Fuel consumption (combined) will not be far off what I get on a run involving mostly motorway work
Can't get near the extra urban figure, even on a 400 mile motorway journey from the South coast to Scotland.
kambites said:
They aren't "manufacturer's" figures, they're EU figures.
Think its a bit of both really. EU test with manufacturers optimizing the cars towards that test. I guess Lotus won't do that, they just submit the car (hence the better accuracy). The other two probably invest a bit in optimising specifically for the ECE test which is a known procedure. I guess ECUs these days might even 'know' when the test is running because they can be programmed to recognize the patterns.
I think the point about cars being tailored to tests is very valid.
I have recorded worse fuel economy in a Focus TDCI than i got in my 4.2 Jag; same route same speed simmilar driving. I was not bending time either.
I find a lot of blue efficiency, ecotec etc cars when driven in the real world and trying to make progress are not that efficient and actually chew fuel. They are fantastic in the urban environment but really struggle when acceleration or high cruising speeds are required
I have recorded worse fuel economy in a Focus TDCI than i got in my 4.2 Jag; same route same speed simmilar driving. I was not bending time either.
I find a lot of blue efficiency, ecotec etc cars when driven in the real world and trying to make progress are not that efficient and actually chew fuel. They are fantastic in the urban environment but really struggle when acceleration or high cruising speeds are required
As personal examples:
Our BM (335d) is well under BMWs claims. Very low 30s at best.
Our Defender (now sold) 110 was actually BETTER than LR claimed by 1mpg tank after tank - but it was still pretty dire on fuel.
Will see what the VW van is like but so far is seems about right (33mpg) - and the engine's only done about 500 miles so we expect it to improve.
Our BM (335d) is well under BMWs claims. Very low 30s at best.
Our Defender (now sold) 110 was actually BETTER than LR claimed by 1mpg tank after tank - but it was still pretty dire on fuel.
Will see what the VW van is like but so far is seems about right (33mpg) - and the engine's only done about 500 miles so we expect it to improve.
Sam.F said:
whereas my GF's 116d averages about 40mpg and gets about 51mpg on a long run (combined 62.8) - the only way you can get near the combined figure is if you have a slow A-road run or cruise at 50mph (I've seen an indicated 63mpg when pooling through that absurdly-long SPECS section on the A1 in Yorkshire).
Your GF gets around 40mpg from a 116d...She once managed to get 63mpg driving at a consistant 50 on a slow A road...
Looking at what fuel consumption I get at a consistant 50, I'd say her car is broken or she should have bought a much faster variant in order to save money on fuel.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff