Rejecting Car Based on Misleading MPG

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

And the only way to give figures that can be used as any kind of comparison is to take the variables - driving style, traffic, environmental factors - out of the equation with a standardised lab-based test.

Absolutely. Unfortunately the previous testing method was proven to be both inaccurate and cheated on by the manufacturers.

Let's hope the new one is of a better standard and compliance enforced more effectively.

[Wooda80]

Thesprucegoose said:

Wooda80 said:

They're not morons, you've just failed to fully understand their motives.

No one spends all that money "to save money"...

Shrub said:

I bought the car to replace my Land Rover Discovery 4 to save money on fuel.

Wooda80 said:

What are your views on people who change their boiler or install solar panels to save money?

Morons as well, any efficiency gains will roi over a long time, but the flawed thinking of saving money, they always forget to factor in initial costs....

Shrub also said said:

No, I bought it to replace a Discovery 4 that is out of warranty, has 100,000 miles on the clock, is starting to need very expensive repairs, costs £540 per year in road tax and does 26mpg. I do 20,000 miles per year. The diesel really adds up in top of all the other costs

So he clearly wanted or needed a new car anyway, just a question of which one he liked best and which suited his needs best.

Shame he doesn't like the one he picked though, but looks like he'll just have to come to terms with that.

Have you ever bought a new pair of shoes, for example, because (a) you liked them and (b) there was a sale on? Even if the cheaper option would be to have the old ones repaired?

[anonymous-user]

Wooda80 said:

So he clearly wanted or needed a new car anyway, just a question of which one he liked best and which suited his needs best.

Shame he doesn't like the one he picked though, but looks like he'll just have to come to terms with that.

Have you ever bought a new pair of shoes, for example, because (a) you liked them and (b) there was a sale on? Even if the cheaper option would be to have the old ones repaired?

This could go round for ever with your analogies, he bought a new car for a specific reason, depreciation would be 5x fuel cost,savings.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 25th July 12:35

[alorotom]

Shrub said:

Hi

I bought a 2017 Peugeot 5008 SUV GT Line 1.6 diesel on the 4th July. After two days of driving it, it has become very apparent that the purported 65.7 miles per gallon combined claim is never going to be attained. Real world is more like 44.5 MPG. I drive like a saint.

Thanks

Oddly I’ve had the same make, model and engine for the past week as a hire car - I’ve done 1200 miles in it so far with a mix of city and mway and it’s been driven hard without much care and/or attention and I’ve still not managed to get it under 55.2mpg ... I’m very heavy footed and definitely don’t take it easy.

Something’s a miss somewhere.

[Monkeylegend]

Wooda80 said:

Shame he doesn't like the one he picked though, but looks like he'll just have to come to terms with that.

He won't, he really won't.

[heebeegeetee]

Thesprucegoose said:

This could go round for ever with your analogies, he bought a new car for a specific reason, depreciation would be 5x fuel cost,savings.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 25th July 12:35

Yes, and everybody knows that, however when one replaces a car we will use all sorts of criteria to select a new one, and mpg is a common one.

I largely agree with the OP, I think he has a valid point. I don't understand why the motor industry finds it so difficultly to be straightforwards and honest, and I also don't really understand why just so many of you fall for the flannel the motor industry gives you.

This is an ordinary car aimed at ordinary people. If they're advertising an mpg then this should be readily obtained by ordinary people, and should not require specialist driving skills to attain. If the advert clearly states that mpg figures can only be obtained in laboratory conditions and are unlikely to be obtained in normal driving conditions, then fair enough, but the manufacturers shouldn't be able to use this hogwash.

There are vehicles driving about out there, still to this very day, which are badged "Zero Emissions" which of course is complete and utter hogwash. I don't know why the industry finds it impossible to be honest, but it really is time that all and sundry, including customers, regulators and governments, stopped colluding and/or blindly accepting all this nonsense.

Fair play to the yanks for catching VW at their game. Everyone on this side of the pond just seemed willing to accept all they're told.

[eldar]

janesmith1950 said:

Who you blame for it not being available is open to debate, however it's not an unusual or unreasonable concept to want to know reasonably accurate MPG figures for any given vehicle.

Running costs are an entirely appropriate metric when deciding what to buy.

Yes, there will be variations due to driving styles, however the previous tests have been discredited beyond any doubt and it remains to be seen whether the new one will be fit for purpose.

I have two cars. One does between 8 and 30mpg , the other between 29 and 70 both depending on usage. One averages about 75% of the 'official' figures, the other 95%.

I could achieve the official figure in both, but that would remove any element of fun. Why bother?

[The Mad Monk]

HTP99 said:

Thesprucegoose said:

The whole mpg claim is a moot point,the depreciation lost per year pales this into insignificance. The buy a new car to save money morons will keep carrying on, they keep the economy going though.

I love them as I sell cars, but I've never understood the mentality of trading in a perfectly good car for a new/newer car that has (on paper) better MPG, so that they can save money, yet it has cost them £5k to do so; £5k buys an awful lot of fuel.

Would you have a word with my daughter - in - law?