Honest John "Official vs Real" MPG figures - worth a look!
Discussion
Stumbled across this little feature on the Honest John site.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/
Found that all of the cars I've owned sit pretty much on the "Real Average" figures. OK it doesn't cover a lot of "PH" or older stuff, but very useful nonetheless.
Well worth a look if mpg is a factor when buying a car... my colleague is gutted with his new 1.6TDCI Focus, supposed to be doing 67.3mpg on the combined cycle, his gentle 65mph 50mile motorway commute is returning 48mpg... I did warn him!!
Also the more people who submit there REAL figures the better a resource it will become...
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/
Found that all of the cars I've owned sit pretty much on the "Real Average" figures. OK it doesn't cover a lot of "PH" or older stuff, but very useful nonetheless.
Well worth a look if mpg is a factor when buying a car... my colleague is gutted with his new 1.6TDCI Focus, supposed to be doing 67.3mpg on the combined cycle, his gentle 65mph 50mile motorway commute is returning 48mpg... I did warn him!!
Also the more people who submit there REAL figures the better a resource it will become...
my last car did well
Legacy and Outback Petrol 2004
Engine Official Combined Real Average Real Range
3.0 spec B Sports Tourer 23 mpg 25.1 mpg 22.4–27.5 mpg
The last reading I had on mine before it sold was 27.1. it only ever got down to 22 in really bad town traffic driving so God only know what they did when they did the official tests.
Legacy and Outback Petrol 2004
Engine Official Combined Real Average Real Range
3.0 spec B Sports Tourer 23 mpg 25.1 mpg 22.4–27.5 mpg
The last reading I had on mine before it sold was 27.1. it only ever got down to 22 in really bad town traffic driving so God only know what they did when they did the official tests.
Confirms what I have thought for a while - MPG's are not getting much better - but the manufacturers are getting better at fudging the results.
Example
2004 - 2010 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 48.7 mpg official 40.1 mpg real 39.5–40.8 mpg real range
2011 - 2012 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 56.5 mpg official 38.5 mpg real 33.8–43 mpg real range
Example
2004 - 2010 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 48.7 mpg official 40.1 mpg real 39.5–40.8 mpg real range
2011 - 2012 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 56.5 mpg official 38.5 mpg real 33.8–43 mpg real range
I set one of these up years and years ago: www.actualmpg.com
I never got round to marketing it so it died a death
I never got round to marketing it so it died a death
PhilD said:
Confirms what I have thought for a while - MPG's are not getting much better - but the manufacturers are getting better at fudging the results.
Example
2004 - 2010 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 48.7 mpg official 40.1 mpg real 39.5–40.8 mpg real range
2011 - 2012 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 56.5 mpg official 38.5 mpg real 33.8–43 mpg real range
Assuming the official manufacturer's test procedure for both 2004 and 2011 vehicles was identical you are not making a valid comparison when you compare those stats against figures reported by owners. Owners stats will vary hugely based on driving styles, distances, terrain, weather, number of reports, the list is endless. Keep the manufacturers stats for comparison between vehicles only and you can't be disappointed...Example
2004 - 2010 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 48.7 mpg official 40.1 mpg real 39.5–40.8 mpg real range
2011 - 2012 A6 Saloon 2.0 TDI multitronic 56.5 mpg official 38.5 mpg real 33.8–43 mpg real range
For what it's worth my last two cars returned better than the maker's combined figure during normal commuting. Not because I'm some super eco driver, just because of the speeds, distances, traffic and terrain between me and my job. So sad geek that I am when replacing the car I could calculate fuel cost comparison based on official figures and then adjust for my circumstances
My current car Manufacturer Avg 49mpg Real world Avg 50.8mpg
The car I wanted to replace it with: Manufacturers 38.2 Real World 26.9!!!
So the car I'm wanting has terrible real world figures against Manufacturers claimed figures.
SO I'm deluding myelf into thinking the change 'wont be that bad' in fuel terms. But the rality is my fuel bill will double.
So i wont be doing that then.
The car I wanted to replace it with: Manufacturers 38.2 Real World 26.9!!!
So the car I'm wanting has terrible real world figures against Manufacturers claimed figures.
SO I'm deluding myelf into thinking the change 'wont be that bad' in fuel terms. But the rality is my fuel bill will double.
So i wont be doing that then.
i use
spritmonitor.de
for finding what real consumption figures are. Ok its a german site with consumption in l/100km but they have an english language version and its no trouble to find a l/100km to UK MPG converter to find out what they are.
For models with enough DB entries, they put a handy sort of bell curve so you can see the most frequent averages.
Added data I had for my cars
Superb 1.9TDI - 45.4 mpg
Civic 1.8 iVtec - 34.47mpg
I do not believe for a second that the average for the civic is 40!! and the range goes up to 46!! unless you drive around the motorways in a lorry slip stream all the time thats not going to happen.
I have just thought though.... I have been putting in actual pump to pump values calculated by hand. How many people are simply putting in the numbers their dashboard tells them?
I know for a fact my two cars over read the avergae MPG by at least 4 MPG. Perhaps it might be worth taking these honest john figures with a little salt and subtracting 2-3mpg from the averages if this is the case.
spritmonitor.de
for finding what real consumption figures are. Ok its a german site with consumption in l/100km but they have an english language version and its no trouble to find a l/100km to UK MPG converter to find out what they are.
For models with enough DB entries, they put a handy sort of bell curve so you can see the most frequent averages.
Added data I had for my cars
Superb 1.9TDI - 45.4 mpg
Civic 1.8 iVtec - 34.47mpg
I do not believe for a second that the average for the civic is 40!! and the range goes up to 46!! unless you drive around the motorways in a lorry slip stream all the time thats not going to happen.
I have just thought though.... I have been putting in actual pump to pump values calculated by hand. How many people are simply putting in the numbers their dashboard tells them?
I know for a fact my two cars over read the avergae MPG by at least 4 MPG. Perhaps it might be worth taking these honest john figures with a little salt and subtracting 2-3mpg from the averages if this is the case.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th May 12:17
Corsair7 said:
My current car Manufacturer Avg 49mpg Real world Avg 50.8mpg
The car I wanted to replace it with: Manufacturers 38.2 Real World 26.9!!!
So the car I'm wanting has terrible real world figures against Manufacturers claimed figures.
SO I'm deluding myelf into thinking the change 'wont be that bad' in fuel terms. But the rality is my fuel bill will double.
So i wont be doing that then.
Well that depends on how many miles you do. I've just gone from 53.7mpg (calculated average over 54 months / 18k miles) to about 24 (not had it long enough), yes I'm visiting the petrol station a little more, but petrol is cheaper (even though I went for super unleaded), and the reality is 2x my old fuel bill is still not a big number, and may be offset by the car holding more value.The car I wanted to replace it with: Manufacturers 38.2 Real World 26.9!!!
So the car I'm wanting has terrible real world figures against Manufacturers claimed figures.
SO I'm deluding myelf into thinking the change 'wont be that bad' in fuel terms. But the rality is my fuel bill will double.
So i wont be doing that then.
To the OP - the 1.6TDCi Focus - the older one I regularly saw 60 on the m'way, I do wonder how they are driving it to get 'only' 48mpg - unless it's low mileage and not run-in yet?
RenesisEvo said:
Well that depends on how many miles you do. I've just gone from 53.7mpg (calculated average over 54 months / 18k miles) to about 24 (not had it long enough), yes I'm visiting the petrol station a little more, but petrol is cheaper (even though I went for super unleaded), and the reality is 2x my old fuel bill is still not a big number, and may be offset by the car holding more value.
To the OP - the 1.6TDCi Focus - the older one I regularly saw 60 on the m'way, I do wonder how they are driving it to get 'only' 48mpg - unless it's low mileage and not run-in yet?
He's driving it gently, and yes its got less than 1000 miles under its belt. I also heard a report on Radio 2 the other morning, the AA or someone had compared real mpg figures to Gov figures, and found the biggest discrepancy to be with the New Focus 1.6TDCI, advertised at 67.3 and achieving 48...To the OP - the 1.6TDCi Focus - the older one I regularly saw 60 on the m'way, I do wonder how they are driving it to get 'only' 48mpg - unless it's low mileage and not run-in yet?
Two comments to make here:
The first is that car manufacturers are getting cleverer at designing cars (be it engines, gearing, whatever) to do well in the government tests which often doesn't translate well to the real world.
The second is, it doesn't matter how accurate the figures are because no one drives a prescripted route in a prescripted way with identical traffic, weather etc. So of course "official" figures bear little resemblance to real life.
What the figures are supposed to do is allow the consumer to gauge one car against another. So if one car is showing 25mpg and another 30mpg, then I may never match those figures, but I should still be able to make an informed judgement about which is the more economical.
Which is fine except it brings us back to point one, which is manufacturers designing cars with more emphasis on gov figs than real life in order to "get good grades".
The first is that car manufacturers are getting cleverer at designing cars (be it engines, gearing, whatever) to do well in the government tests which often doesn't translate well to the real world.
The second is, it doesn't matter how accurate the figures are because no one drives a prescripted route in a prescripted way with identical traffic, weather etc. So of course "official" figures bear little resemblance to real life.
What the figures are supposed to do is allow the consumer to gauge one car against another. So if one car is showing 25mpg and another 30mpg, then I may never match those figures, but I should still be able to make an informed judgement about which is the more economical.
Which is fine except it brings us back to point one, which is manufacturers designing cars with more emphasis on gov figs than real life in order to "get good grades".
Ari said:
What the figures are supposed to do is allow the consumer to gauge one car against another. So if one car is showing 25mpg and another 30mpg, then I may never match those figures, but I should still be able to make an informed judgement about which is the more economical.
Which is fine except it brings us back to point one, which is manufacturers designing cars with more emphasis on gov figs than real life in order to "get good grades".
Exactly so using the figures supplied as a comparison method may not actually reflect the true differences between the cars compared in real world conditionsWhich is fine except it brings us back to point one, which is manufacturers designing cars with more emphasis on gov figs than real life in order to "get good grades".
In other words useless
Sunday times motoring supplement last week also had a good article on it - probably thieved from what car mag or Honest John
Vocal Minority said:
MR2 2000
Engine Official Combined Real Average Real Range
1.8 VVT-i 38.2 mpg 41.7 mpg
Lummy
Based on fuel gauge reading & mileage I can do roughly 40mpg in my Celica. I thought it was amiss till I looked up Honest John.Engine Official Combined Real Average Real Range
1.8 VVT-i 38.2 mpg 41.7 mpg
Lummy
I was doing about 43mpg in a 1.4 206 which what most people got according to HJ.
Ari said:
Two comments to make here:
The first is that car manufacturers are getting cleverer at designing cars (be it engines, gearing, whatever) to do well in the government tests which often doesn't translate well to the real world.
The second is, it doesn't matter how accurate the figures are because no one drives a prescripted route in a prescripted way with identical traffic, weather etc. So of course "official" figures bear little resemblance to real life.
What the figures are supposed to do is allow the consumer to gauge one car against another. So if one car is showing 25mpg and another 30mpg, then I may never match those figures, but I should still be able to make an informed judgement about which is the more economical.
Which is fine except it brings us back to point one, which is manufacturers designing cars with more emphasis on gov figs than real life in order to "get good grades".
True but the main problem is in the way these tests on fuel consumption are conducted namely from a laboratory environment, not the real world.The first is that car manufacturers are getting cleverer at designing cars (be it engines, gearing, whatever) to do well in the government tests which often doesn't translate well to the real world.
The second is, it doesn't matter how accurate the figures are because no one drives a prescripted route in a prescripted way with identical traffic, weather etc. So of course "official" figures bear little resemblance to real life.
What the figures are supposed to do is allow the consumer to gauge one car against another. So if one car is showing 25mpg and another 30mpg, then I may never match those figures, but I should still be able to make an informed judgement about which is the more economical.
Which is fine except it brings us back to point one, which is manufacturers designing cars with more emphasis on gov figs than real life in order to "get good grades".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff