Real world MPG
Discussion
I know there'll be lots of replies along the lines of 'we know/told you so/old news' but until you see it quite so starkly it shows what a complete con emissions/official MPG is!
Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Yes it's a load of.
No matter how efficient, there will be a brick wall at the end of a long history of diminishing returns MPG wise, because if a litre of fuel contains "x" amount of energy in it, and you need "x" to shift "w" weight of vehicle "d" distance, the laws of physics will dictate that no matter what you do, you will never go beyond "d" distance with a litre of the same fuel.
As for CO2 ratings, another massive con, and totally unnecessary.
The same litre of fuel will produce the same amount of CO2 when burnt no matter what it's burnt in, so all that really matters is MPG, as there is a perfect relationship. If there is a conflict then the CO2 rating is generally bunk i.e. subject to a different and deficient test procedure.
No matter how efficient, there will be a brick wall at the end of a long history of diminishing returns MPG wise, because if a litre of fuel contains "x" amount of energy in it, and you need "x" to shift "w" weight of vehicle "d" distance, the laws of physics will dictate that no matter what you do, you will never go beyond "d" distance with a litre of the same fuel.
As for CO2 ratings, another massive con, and totally unnecessary.
The same litre of fuel will produce the same amount of CO2 when burnt no matter what it's burnt in, so all that really matters is MPG, as there is a perfect relationship. If there is a conflict then the CO2 rating is generally bunk i.e. subject to a different and deficient test procedure.
So, we have successfuly exposed the great CO2 producing myth, and the fact that the manufacturers MPG ratings are rubbish, because the testing that goes into producing them is at best imperfect, and at worst, a total fraud when it comes to the selling of new, supposedly more 'eco friendly' (whatever that means), cars, and the scrapping of older ones.
In my view, the real scandal is the way that the CO2 figures are used in order to establish the level of taxation. Its all utter rot.
Theres no one to complain to though, because the faceless beurocrats are just that, straw men of no substance. No one voted for the useless system we have, and now, there appears no way of getting rid of it.
My 1.4 TDi Polo is from 2000. It returns 58mpg however you drive it, and yet I have to pay much more in road tax than a car which is newer, and has the same engine, and returns the same mpg and produces the same CO2.
I get my own back though by owning a 54 plate 997 C2, which costs much less to tax than a similar newer car...
When politicians start modifying taxation to try to modify people's behaviour, then its going to cost you more, whatever it applies to.
In my view, the real scandal is the way that the CO2 figures are used in order to establish the level of taxation. Its all utter rot.
Theres no one to complain to though, because the faceless beurocrats are just that, straw men of no substance. No one voted for the useless system we have, and now, there appears no way of getting rid of it.
My 1.4 TDi Polo is from 2000. It returns 58mpg however you drive it, and yet I have to pay much more in road tax than a car which is newer, and has the same engine, and returns the same mpg and produces the same CO2.
I get my own back though by owning a 54 plate 997 C2, which costs much less to tax than a similar newer car...
When politicians start modifying taxation to try to modify people's behaviour, then its going to cost you more, whatever it applies to.
acme said:
I know there'll be lots of replies along the lines of 'we know/told you so/old news' but until you see it quite so starkly it shows what a complete con emissions/official MPG is!
Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Were you driving at 39mph?Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
gizlaroc said:
acme said:
I know there'll be lots of replies along the lines of 'we know/told you so/old news' but until you see it quite so starkly it shows what a complete con emissions/official MPG is!
Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Were you driving at 39mph?Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Looking at the OBC over the past 835 miles I've averaged 32mph & 54mpg, & in 50k miles of brimming tanks the OBC is slightly optimistic by 2 odd mpg, so I'd assume likewise for average speed!
I've found the following a rough formula for the countless cars I've driven:
Petrol take off 10mpg from the manufacturers figures
Diesel take off 25% from the manufacturers figures (congested South East driving)
Hybrid take off 40% from the manufacturers figures
Ecoboost/TwinAir halve the manufacturers figures
Petrol take off 10mpg from the manufacturers figures
Diesel take off 25% from the manufacturers figures (congested South East driving)
Hybrid take off 40% from the manufacturers figures
Ecoboost/TwinAir halve the manufacturers figures
The problem isn't the manufacturer's it the test itself
It is massively flawed because it is a pan European test, which means it has to work for hotter climates like Greece, and colder climates like Norway - so where do you set the temperature for that?
Well according to the EU, 20 - 30 degrees. The car is soaked at that temperature for a minimum of 6 hours prior to testing (meaning a quick/unrealistic warm up period) and the highest speed achieved during the 19 minute, 7.2 mile test is 71mph, the average speed during the 2.7 mile urban test is something stupid like 14mph, the hardest acceleration during the test is from idle to 50kph, in a leisurely 28seconds!!
So now ask yourself, when you were driving to work this morning, was it 25 degrees, had your car been sat at that temperature for 6 hours before you left? Did you accelerate to 30mph quicker than 28 seconds? We're there any hills on route? Was there any wind? Oh and is your car fitted with the second biggest wheel/tyre combination available?
The test is flawed, and it is supposed to getting a change in 2017 - faster speeds, slightly harder accelerations, but you know what that means - lower fuel economy results (yay, I hear you say) higher CO2 figures (oh I hear you say) but what are the chances of the DVLA changing the CO2 bands? Slim to none I would think - meaning higher RFL for everyone, and higher BIK for company car drivers.
What ever test is used, it will be flawed in some way, and will still only serve as a comparison tool - which funnily enough, is exactly what it does now. The biggest problem at the moment, is people buying cars with little understanding of what NEDC was originally intended to do, and actually believe that they get eleventy million miles to the gallon
It is massively flawed because it is a pan European test, which means it has to work for hotter climates like Greece, and colder climates like Norway - so where do you set the temperature for that?
Well according to the EU, 20 - 30 degrees. The car is soaked at that temperature for a minimum of 6 hours prior to testing (meaning a quick/unrealistic warm up period) and the highest speed achieved during the 19 minute, 7.2 mile test is 71mph, the average speed during the 2.7 mile urban test is something stupid like 14mph, the hardest acceleration during the test is from idle to 50kph, in a leisurely 28seconds!!
So now ask yourself, when you were driving to work this morning, was it 25 degrees, had your car been sat at that temperature for 6 hours before you left? Did you accelerate to 30mph quicker than 28 seconds? We're there any hills on route? Was there any wind? Oh and is your car fitted with the second biggest wheel/tyre combination available?
The test is flawed, and it is supposed to getting a change in 2017 - faster speeds, slightly harder accelerations, but you know what that means - lower fuel economy results (yay, I hear you say) higher CO2 figures (oh I hear you say) but what are the chances of the DVLA changing the CO2 bands? Slim to none I would think - meaning higher RFL for everyone, and higher BIK for company car drivers.
What ever test is used, it will be flawed in some way, and will still only serve as a comparison tool - which funnily enough, is exactly what it does now. The biggest problem at the moment, is people buying cars with little understanding of what NEDC was originally intended to do, and actually believe that they get eleventy million miles to the gallon
I swapped from a 2010 Audi S3 S-Tronic to a 2013 model Volvo V60 D5 about a year ago.
The S3 was my own car that I was running on business mileage, but I was strongly encouraged to take up my employer's scheme. My mileage in both cars was almost all motorway work miles and I've been keen to track the difference (because my life is sad like that now).
The S3 had a notional 33mpg / 199g Co2, whereas the D5 is 61 / 120g. I used to drive the S3 at 60mph as much as possible, partly to chill but also for fuel economy. The overall consumption in the later months of its life with me was just about 30mpg, with 35mpg within reach for very restrained 60mph runs.
It's just another example of a petrol getting closer to its claimed average economy than a diseasel - albeit when used predominately for 60mph motorway cruises!
The D5 is averaging 51.3mpg brim-to-brim over the last year, which I'm actually really pleased with. The odd thing is that my driving style makes little difference to fuel economy, unless I go off the motorway (in which case it's about the same as the S3!).
It's only fair to point out that I'm now defaulting to a cruise of 70mph in the Volvo (instead of 60mph in the S3). However, it's almost impossible to get it to average the claimed 61mpg - even on 60mph runs.
The S3 was my own car that I was running on business mileage, but I was strongly encouraged to take up my employer's scheme. My mileage in both cars was almost all motorway work miles and I've been keen to track the difference (because my life is sad like that now).
The S3 had a notional 33mpg / 199g Co2, whereas the D5 is 61 / 120g. I used to drive the S3 at 60mph as much as possible, partly to chill but also for fuel economy. The overall consumption in the later months of its life with me was just about 30mpg, with 35mpg within reach for very restrained 60mph runs.
It's just another example of a petrol getting closer to its claimed average economy than a diseasel - albeit when used predominately for 60mph motorway cruises!
The D5 is averaging 51.3mpg brim-to-brim over the last year, which I'm actually really pleased with. The odd thing is that my driving style makes little difference to fuel economy, unless I go off the motorway (in which case it's about the same as the S3!).
It's only fair to point out that I'm now defaulting to a cruise of 70mph in the Volvo (instead of 60mph in the S3). However, it's almost impossible to get it to average the claimed 61mpg - even on 60mph runs.
Edited by Basil Hume on Saturday 9th November 21:13
vikingaero said:
I've found the following a rough formula for the countless cars I've driven:
Petrol take off 10mpg from the manufacturers figures
Diesel take off 25% from the manufacturers figures (congested South East driving)
Hybrid take off 40% from the manufacturers figures
Ecoboost/TwinAir halve the manufacturers figures
Anecdotally most driver actually BEAT Urban AND Combined figures .It is Extra-urban figure they fail to match- but that is so unrealistic anyway it is equivalent to the 140 mph speedometers on boggo Ford Sierra 1.6Petrol take off 10mpg from the manufacturers figures
Diesel take off 25% from the manufacturers figures (congested South East driving)
Hybrid take off 40% from the manufacturers figures
Ecoboost/TwinAir halve the manufacturers figures
Is there anyone here who gets less than their claimed urban figure ?
acme said:
gizlaroc said:
acme said:
I know there'll be lots of replies along the lines of 'we know/told you so/old news' but until you see it quite so starkly it shows what a complete con emissions/official MPG is!
Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Were you driving at 39mph?Currently swapping between two diesels; 54 plate Golf GT TDI/2.0 TDI that I've done 50k miles in & a 13 plate 1.6 Peugeot 308 nearly 3k miles in. Official figures are Golf; 149g/km & 50mpg, Peugeot 107g/km & 67mpg.
By both monitoring the OBC's (Peugeots seems more accurate) and brim to brim each full tank, the Peugeot is getting about 52-54mpg, the Golf about 50-51 - not only is the Golf a 2 litre, but its a non common rail (presumably more efficient, in theory?) PD. Though the Peugeot as the current company car is getting far more motorway use I've also monitored it on my commute, this morning the Golf got 61mpg- albeit on a clearish run and stuck 10 odd miles behind a lorry doing 50, but the Pug never gets that!
Basically the official stats are a total con; same driver, same routes, so where the hell has the extra 17mpg gone.........
Yep, I agree life's far too short for all this sad MPG watching, but it's kind of interesting and makes the commute slightly less dull.....
Thankfully this is all offset by 6 cyclinders and 3+ litres of thankfully petrol!
Looking at the OBC over the past 835 miles I've averaged 32mph & 54mpg, & in 50k miles of brimming tanks the OBC is slightly optimistic by 2 odd mpg, so I'd assume likewise for average speed!
It is accelerate to 70, then slow down to 33 for 4 miles averaging 39 overall.
That is 20ºc ambient temperatures and a car fully up to temperature as well.
So you can only compare the official mpg figures with each car if you are replicating the tests used to achieve them.
If you average say 15mph in town and then sit at 70 or 80 on the motorway you can't even look at official figures, it is pointless.
I can pretty much hit the official figures in every car I have ever driven, but I get bored of driving like that after 10 minutes and then the figures go out the window.
This is why people need to test the car so they can see what they will get when 'they' are driving it, cause that is all that matters.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff