fuel consumption
Discussion
It's not a matter of integrity - manufacturers do not test their cars, they are all tested independently according to the NEDC. It's now the case that so many cars are so finely tuned to get the best possible results in the test, that it's quite likely that if your driving habits give you much worse results in one car, you'll get much worse results in all of them.
Not much difference really, although I find turbocharged cars to be further from their claimed figures than N/A ones. If you buy a car expecting to average the urban figure in mixed driving and the combined figure on the motorway, you usually wont be far off. If you're getting much worse than that. There's either something wrong with the car or your driving.
kambites said:
If you buy a car expecting to average the urban figure in mixed driving and the combined figure on the motorway, you usually wont be far off.
This. My 307 gets 40-45 mpg mixed and 55 mpg on the motorway. The official figures?WhatMPG.co.uk said:
Urban: 40.3 mpg
Combined: 54.3 mpg
Extra Urban: 67.2 mpg
The day anyone gets 67.2 mpg from that car without resorting to drafting lorries or other hypermiler bullsCombined: 54.3 mpg
Extra Urban: 67.2 mpg
t is the day that pigs start flying.bull996 said:
They are tested in a lab, no wind, no road resistance and no hills.
But surely as long as they're all tested in the same way then it doesn't matter?And for what it's worth, I've never failed to get a car to match or exceed the manufacturer's claims on mpg. Granted, if I drive spritedly across the Surrey Hills with air-conditioning on and a boot-full of suitcases I won't match it - but that's not a very meaningful test either.
bull996 said:
They are tested in a lab, no wind, no road resistance and no hills.
The rolling road is set up to replicate the drag and weight of the car, they also pipe air into the intakes at the appropriate rate. The real problem is the unrealistic driving profiles they use - there are no hills, the acceleration is spectacularly slow and the stops are unnaturally long (which is why stop-start helps in the tests but much less so on the road). The acceleration is the really unrealistic bit - it takes over 20 seconds to accelerate up to 30 mph in the ECE 15 urban cycle.You can blame the manufacturers a bit, but given they can't (by law) quote any other mpg figure it's really no wonder they design the cars to do well in the test rather than in real driving conditions. WHat we need is more realistic profiles in the test - harder acceleration, hills, headwinds and tailwinds, realistic variations in speed etc.
I must be like 'Driving Miss Daisy' or something as I was easily able to get 55mpg out of my diesel Accord and the round town figure was about 40mpg too:
Honda Accord 2.2 CTDi Sport GT 4dr Fuel Consumption
Urban fuel consumption: 39.2 mpg
Extra Urban fuel consumption: 60.1 mpg
Combined fuel consumption: 50.4 mpg
As for the MR2 I regularly get 40mpg on a long run at 70mph. Never tried for all out economy so don't know what the ultimate is but 40mpg isn't far off the official figures either:
Fuel economy (93/116/EEC) - l/100km (mpg)
Urban 10.1 (28.0)
Extra Urban 5.9 (47.9)
Combined 7.4 (38.2)
Honda Accord 2.2 CTDi Sport GT 4dr Fuel Consumption
Urban fuel consumption: 39.2 mpg
Extra Urban fuel consumption: 60.1 mpg
Combined fuel consumption: 50.4 mpg
As for the MR2 I regularly get 40mpg on a long run at 70mph. Never tried for all out economy so don't know what the ultimate is but 40mpg isn't far off the official figures either:
Fuel economy (93/116/EEC) - l/100km (mpg)
Urban 10.1 (28.0)
Extra Urban 5.9 (47.9)
Combined 7.4 (38.2)
plassey9 said:
So, the bottom line is I never will achieve anywhere near the figures quoted. Is there anybody out there getting good economy froma small car?
Do you drive a diesel? Although I could get 55mpg out of the Accord, I had the same engine in a brand new Civic and it couldn't do any better than 45mpg. Even after 10,000 miles it improved a bit so I could only conclude that it got better with more miles (many people have suggested the same).Personally I think you're being a tad harsh as I know someone that owns a Toyota Aygo and gets 60mpg out of it. Although a little low I was also able to get low 50's from a new Honda CR-Z so I firmly believe it's down to driving style. Not that I'm slagging yours off but it's worth considering.
point taken but no harsh acceleration and at 70mph the best I can get is 46 or 47. appreciate any comments to my previous message
Do you drive a diesel? Although I could get 55mpg out of the Accord, I had the same engine in a brand new Civic and it couldn't do any better than 45mpg. Even after 10,000 miles it improved a bit so I could only conclude that it got better with more miles (many people have suggested the same).
Personally I think you're being a tad harsh as I know someone that owns a Toyota Aygo and gets 60mpg out of it. Although a little low I was also able to get low 50's from a new Honda CR-Z so I firmly believe it's down to driving style. Not that I'm slagging yours off but it's worth considering.
[/quote]
Do you drive a diesel? Although I could get 55mpg out of the Accord, I had the same engine in a brand new Civic and it couldn't do any better than 45mpg. Even after 10,000 miles it improved a bit so I could only conclude that it got better with more miles (many people have suggested the same).
Personally I think you're being a tad harsh as I know someone that owns a Toyota Aygo and gets 60mpg out of it. Although a little low I was also able to get low 50's from a new Honda CR-Z so I firmly believe it's down to driving style. Not that I'm slagging yours off but it's worth considering.
[/quote]
plassey9 said:
point taken but no harsh acceleration and at 70mph the best I can get is 46 or 47. appreciate any comments to my previous message
I don't think harsh acceleration is an issue. I used to have a 30 mile commute cross country and would accelerate quite hard in the MR2. Yet it always returned 40mpg. Personally I think reading the road and taking corners is more important. Consistent speed is the key (or as consistent as possible).Reading the road ahead is a classic. So many times I see cars heading towards a slower moving/stationary car ahead but are still on the accelerator. Often if the driver just took his/her foot off the pedal then things would have freed up by the time they got there but instead they carry on at the same speed, brake and then have to pull away in 1st, burning up loads more fuel. Same goes on the motorway. Someone pulls out into another lane and the approaching car carries on, then slams on the brakes 2m away from their rear bumper
70mph could also be your problem as small cars don't often like high speeds. I'd hazzard a guess that even dropping 5mph would yield improvements. Ultimately, what's 5mph in the grand scheme of things. Ok it's not particularly PH but give it a go and see what happens. Perhaps not more than 5mpg but added to all the other subtle changes and you could see another 10mpg, which is 20%.
What's the spec of your car though and the official mpg figures?
Mr2Mike said:
oyster said:
Granted, if I drive spritedly across the Surrey Hills with air-conditioning on and a boot-full of suitcases I won't match it - but that's not a very meaningful test either.
Why is driving a car as it's likely to be used on the road not meaningful?Car 1 may have less traffic than Car 2.
Or there may be differences in ambient temperature, humidity etc which will all impact fuel economy. So it would be impossible to compare different cars against a reliable benchmark.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff