BlueEFFICIENCY!? What a load of cobblers!
Discussion
Mercedes leant me a Billy basic A160 BlueEFFICIENCY whilst my SLK 200K is in having some work done.
Now this thing had an ECO thing that tells you when to change gear, stop/start at traffic lights, skinny wheels with nasty wheeltrims, and a 1.5 litre super efficient engine.
The official figures tell me that its combined fuel consumption figure is 47.1mpg compared with 32.5 for my SLK, and the emissions are an impressive 139, versus 209 for my SLK, making it £115/year to tax, compared with the £260 I have to pay.
Performance-wise, it does 109mph and 0-60 in 12.6 seconds compared with my car's 144 and 7.9.
I spent yesterday driving to my companies head office and back, a journey I do about twice a month, a round trip of 250 miles, mixing A roads, dual carriageways and a reasonable chunk of urban. There was plenty of traffic so my speed was limited to normal driving speeds, in other words I wasn't thrashing the living daylights out of it everywhere, and my average speed for the whole day was 39mph which gives you an idea of the mix. Windows were up, air con off, and I was on my own.
Total journey MPG? 36.7mpg. I would normally see between 35 and 37mpg from my SLK for the same trip.
Remind me again why my road tax is more than double the A160? Oh yes, to encourage me to drive a more economical car like this A Class thing.
Just shows what a load of complete b
ks all this low emissions super efficiency Government target crap is doesn't it? 
Now this thing had an ECO thing that tells you when to change gear, stop/start at traffic lights, skinny wheels with nasty wheeltrims, and a 1.5 litre super efficient engine.
The official figures tell me that its combined fuel consumption figure is 47.1mpg compared with 32.5 for my SLK, and the emissions are an impressive 139, versus 209 for my SLK, making it £115/year to tax, compared with the £260 I have to pay.
Performance-wise, it does 109mph and 0-60 in 12.6 seconds compared with my car's 144 and 7.9.
I spent yesterday driving to my companies head office and back, a journey I do about twice a month, a round trip of 250 miles, mixing A roads, dual carriageways and a reasonable chunk of urban. There was plenty of traffic so my speed was limited to normal driving speeds, in other words I wasn't thrashing the living daylights out of it everywhere, and my average speed for the whole day was 39mph which gives you an idea of the mix. Windows were up, air con off, and I was on my own.
Total journey MPG? 36.7mpg. I would normally see between 35 and 37mpg from my SLK for the same trip.
Remind me again why my road tax is more than double the A160? Oh yes, to encourage me to drive a more economical car like this A Class thing.
Just shows what a load of complete b
ks all this low emissions super efficiency Government target crap is doesn't it? It will hardly be a shock to anyone to know that manufacturers are getting increasingly good at building cars to pass the test, rather than to be good in real life. However for a 1.5l diesel to get the same economy as a 2.0 supercharged petrol, I'd say there's something wrong with the A-class. Or is it a petrol?
I am quite surprised you see 35+ mpg from the SLK though, that's quite impressive.
I am quite surprised you see 35+ mpg from the SLK though, that's quite impressive.
Like the passat turdmotion I had for a week,
Horrific turbo lag, had to rag it everywhere utter pile of st.
To gain decent economy I think you need a balance of power and efficiency anything too slow and your ragging the arse off it to get anywhere and using more throttle at cruising speeds
Horrific turbo lag, had to rag it everywhere utter pile of s
t.To gain decent economy I think you need a balance of power and efficiency anything too slow and your ragging the arse off it to get anywhere and using more throttle at cruising speeds
kambites said:
It will hardly be a shock to anyone to know that manufacturers are getting increasingly good at building cars to pass the test, rather than to be good in real life. However for a 1.5l diesel to get the same economy as a 2.0 supercharged petrol, I'd say there's something wrong with the A-class. Or is it a petrol?
I am quite surprised you see 35+ mpg from the SLK though, that's quite impressive.
The A Class was a petrol.I am quite surprised you see 35+ mpg from the SLK though, that's quite impressive.
I regularly get 35mpg from the SLK on a run. My best ever (I'm the sort of anorak that uses one of those iPhone programs to record these things) was 38.02mpg over 375 miles between fill ups. And that's actual MPG (the trip computer tends to be 1 or 2 MPG optimistic).
Indeed since I bought it I've averaged 31.58mpg over 9,470 miles, which I'm really pleased with.
Hence I expected a lot more from the A Class thing.
I presume the A Class is a petrol and not diesel.
I tend to find that cars with little torque (like small petrol engines) struggle to get close to their claimed fuel figures, due to the fact that you have to work them quite hard to keep up with normal traffic speeds.
Diesels and petrol turbos tend to get much closer to their claimed fuel figures in normal driving.
I tend to find that cars with little torque (like small petrol engines) struggle to get close to their claimed fuel figures, due to the fact that you have to work them quite hard to keep up with normal traffic speeds.
Diesels and petrol turbos tend to get much closer to their claimed fuel figures in normal driving.
It's an absolute sham - a point missed on the "new 3-series" thread is that although on paper the newer FI engines appear more economical, they aren't really.
I get slightly more mpg from the Z4M (supposedly 23, actually 25) than a 135i (supposedly 30, actually 24). I never got more than 42 from the 123d (supposedly 54).
The economy is only delivered if you don't use the turbo at all (so why not be honest with us and not bother fitting one at all, instead of claiming that the power/economy rule book has been re-written )
I get slightly more mpg from the Z4M (supposedly 23, actually 25) than a 135i (supposedly 30, actually 24). I never got more than 42 from the 123d (supposedly 54).
The economy is only delivered if you don't use the turbo at all (so why not be honest with us and not bother fitting one at all, instead of claiming that the power/economy rule book has been re-written )
Ari said:
I regularly get 35mpg from the SLK on a run. My best ever (I'm the sort of anorak that uses one of those iPhone programs to record these things) was 38.02mpg over 375 miles between fill ups. And that's actual MPG (the trip computer tends to be 1 or 2 MPG optimistic).
When you say "actual" are you trusting your odometer or using a GPS to calculate distance travelled? Odometers can misread by a fairly hefty margin sometimes. Still, it's a pretty respectable figure.
RenesisEvo said:
Was the A160 run-in? I would also bring the 'driving style' argument into it (e.g. were you trying to achieve the same level of progress/acceleration in a slower car) but you seemed to have ruled that out, that and given you can get 30+ from the SLK. It does make you wonder.
Yes, the A Class had about 27,000 miles on it. (And was given to me very dirty, not particularly impressive from a main dealer, but hey ho).I was driving "normally", ie not trying to be fuel efficient, just driving as I normally would, and you're right, that meant a lot more foot hard down to make it go. But as I say, this was in traffic most of the way so I wasn't driving faster than normal traffic speed.
mnkiboy said:
Diesels and petrol turbos tend to get much closer to their claimed fuel figures in normal driving.
Curious. I'd say exactly the opposite - that turbocharged engines are always miles off their official figures but normally aspirated and supercharged cars are generally easy to get to their official figures. That's certainly been my experience and seems logical from what I know of how the test works. kambites said:
When you say "actual" are you trusting your odometer or using a GPS to calculate distance travelled? Odometers can misread by a fairly hefty margin sometimes.
Still, it's a pretty respectable figure.
Yes, odometer so that's a fair point, never thought to check it. Still, it's a pretty respectable figure.
Having said that, the speedo is the most accurate of any car I've ever owned compared with GPS, reads 72mph when the GPS is reading 70 so I'd be surprised if the odometer was far out.
In terms of comparing the two cars however ,I'm comparing the trip computer figure since that ought to be a fairly like for like comparison (ie they're both probably a tad optimistic).
Ari said:
Now this thing had an ECO thing that tells you when to change gear, stop/start at traffic lights, skinny wheels with nasty wheeltrims, and a 1.5 litre super efficient engine.
The upchange lights are there so it can get a good score on the CO2 test. Without them they test the car at 30mph in 4th for part of the test, even though most cars could be in 5th saving fuel, however if there is a light saying to change up they can test it in 5th. So if you do that anyway you will struggle to get near their ideal world figures. This is why autos tend to have better emissions figures, they will be in top speed at 30mph.kambites said:
I didn't realise that change-up lights allowed the car to run in different gears. Can they install change-down lights too? My car is more efficient at 30mph in 3rd.
Yes, they advise you to go down as well as up. Or they do on BMWs anyway.To the OP - a 320ED has similar performance to your car (0-60 in 8, 142mph) but would probably have done mid 50s, early 60s mpg on your journey. £0 road tax for the first year, £20 after that. That's why there's so many of the things about! I appreciate it's not a two seat convertible, but the ED system does work very well in real life.
RicksAlfas said:
Yes, they advise you to go down as well as up. Or they do on BMWs anyway.
To the OP - a 320ED has similar performance to your car (0-60 in 8, 142mph) but would probably have done mid 50s, early 60s mpg on your journey. £0 road tax for the first year, £20 after that. That's why there's so many of the things about! I appreciate it's not a two seat convertible, but the ED system does work very well in real life.
Yes, my (limited) experience of BMW's is that they are very efficient in the real world, not just in some theoretical test.To the OP - a 320ED has similar performance to your car (0-60 in 8, 142mph) but would probably have done mid 50s, early 60s mpg on your journey. £0 road tax for the first year, £20 after that. That's why there's so many of the things about! I appreciate it's not a two seat convertible, but the ED system does work very well in real life.
I'm not actually looking for a more economical car, I'm very happy with my SLK. However I was really shocked that this supposedly super efficient A Class thing was no better than my six year old heavy supercharged high emissions sportscar.
Ari said:
I didn't know that either, very interesting and completely skews the figures.
So basically, adding a change up light can lower emissions and increase MPG as far as the government and official figures are concerned, even if the car is otherwise identical!
What a joke!
The problem is simply that for manual cars, the test forces the car to be in a particular gear at each particular point on the run. That's why recently automatics have started to overtake manuals in the tests - because they can pick their own gears. Autos still don't generally get close to (well driven) manuals on the road. It sounds like the "change-up light" thing is a way for manuals to get around that.So basically, adding a change up light can lower emissions and increase MPG as far as the government and official figures are concerned, even if the car is otherwise identical!
What a joke!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff