Maufacturers misleading fuel consumption figures

[andygo]

I should have known better.

My wife recently was able to choose her new company car from a very short list.

Astra 1.6 estate
Golf 1.6 estate
Skoda 1.6 estate
Focus 1.6 estate.

All the above are turbo diesel variants.

She discounted the Astra estate immediately as she had been driven one for a whhile recently. It was tinny, slow and gave her backache.

We visited the Skoda showroom and were treated by the biggest show of indifference ever and were put off accordingly.

The Golf estate was discounted mainly because my wife has had a Golf for the last 12 years. As the 2012 was still based on the MK5 platform any change was cosmetic.

In the end she chose the Focus 1.6 (115 ps) Duratorque Titanium. A part of that decision was based on the combined fuel consumption of 67 mpg.

She took delivery last week. On a run over from Southport to Nottingham and back using mainly the M6/A500 it averaged 44.1mpg. At an indicated 75mph its fuel readout is about 42mpg.

Just how do the manufacturers get away with such a massive disparity between claimed and real world mpg? I'm not thick (well not always) and didn't expect 67mpg ever, but 44mpg whilst driving like Miss Daisy is way off.

My mapped 300bhp Golf Edition 30 gets 35 mpg on the same run and is ever so slightly (!) brisker everywhere without the need to constantly stir the gearlever.

If it wasn't a company car you would really want to take it back under trade descriptions..

[CarlT]

It needs to cover a few miles first. Ever heard of engines improving with miles?

You might want to read this!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aut...

Edited by CarlT on Wednesday 26th December 17:47

[Condi]

Its a standard test they do across all cars, so all are comparable. Also its not described as a real world test, more of an relative indication.

That said, my car 'should' get 41mpg around town. Last tank did 45, which considering most journies were 'late for work' 5 mile dashes, Im not too unhappy with.

[Effortless]

People moaning about manufacturer's economy figures has been going on for as long as manufacturer's economy have been around.

Manufacturer's figures are best left to compare between brands and models... not as an indication of what you can expect in real life motoring.

The test they use is antiquated, and as in any tests in any walk of life that you might come across, there are ways to get the best possible results. I believe the drivers used in this tests are highly trained economy driving specialists who are paid to get the best possible figures.

How many typical dads on the work commute, or typical mums on the school run, are economy driving experts???

Cheers,
Effortless.

[anonymous-user]

The figures don't represent the real world, you can say one car is more economical than another but not that they'll return those figures in the real world.

Blame the EU, it's their stupid system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_...

[Artstu]

I wouldn't call driving at 75 mph "driving like Miss Daisy" I think you need to try again at 56 mph to stand a chance of getting 60+ mpg.

[McSam]

charltjr said:

The figures don't represent the real world, you can say one car is more economical than another but not that they'll return those figures in the real world.

Blame the EU, it's their stupid system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_...

Quite.

For the millionth time, these figures are not anything to do with the manufacturers, they are a forced requirement laid down by the EU and the results are adjudicated by the EU. The test is identical for all models on sale, and thus no manufacturer is misleading anybody.

The fact that all modern cars are clearly designed to give the best possible results in the NEDC, making the system flawed when it was already hopelessly unrepresentative of real-world driving anyway, is another point entirely. The figures, as actual values, are largely meaningless and are useful only for comparison, but then only sometimes as your own usage might cause more or less variation from the test figure in one car compared to another.

But it is not the fault of the manufacturers. Contrary to popular belief, they are not evil..

[McSam]

Effortless said:

I believe the drivers used in this tests are highly trained economy driving specialists who are paid to get the best possible figures.

The driving is done robotically, strictly regulated so that every car is tested identically and under the same conditions, to include a twelve-hour temperature soak at the test temperature, manufacturer tyres and pressures, no ancillaries used, etc etc..

If I remember rightly the maximum acceleration is something under 0.2g.

[10 Pence Short]

The combined on my C1 is supposed to be 66mpg, yet I've had it at 75mpg. It's terrible!

[valiant]

Thought that a car is at it's most economical at 56mph in top gear. If you want max economy then you have to stay in the slow lane slipstreaming artics.

Plus there's all the stuff about driving style, keeping weight down,etc,etc.

[andygo]

I appreciate and understand all the above, but a 1.6 diesel sold on its fuel consumption should be light years ahead of a fairly fast mapped golf petrol car.

Additionally, it's a lot worse than my sons MK6 Golf diesel GTD with 170 bhp as standard that's regularly nailed.

Edited by andygo on Wednesday 26th December 18:27

[McSam]

valiant said:

Thought that a car is at it's most economical at 56mph in top gear. If you want max economy then you have to stay in the slow lane slipstreaming artics.

Oft said, but garbage. You're going to really struggle to find a car that's more economical at 56mph than, say, 40mph! 56mph, a convenient 90kph, was taken many moons ago as the best compromise between efficiency, not taking years to deliver things, and not causing a massive speed differential on motorways - and that's why HGVs used that speed. Of course, they would have been optimised to work best at it, but cars simply aren't.


As a side-point, the NEDC goes to 75mph, so most cars will not suffer a sudden drop-off in economy - due to, say, a variable valve timing shift - until past that speed.

[Toilet Duck]

I think someone should take [insert car manufacturer] to court as the mpg is not as advertised. I appreciate the EU mpg test has naff all to do with real world driving, but thats not how its advertised. Its advertised as "urban," "extra urban" and "combined." Its not advertised as a "lab/bench test POS noddy figure". A test case in court would be interesting.

[Engineer1]

There are cheats though the manufacturer can force the test to be in a specific gear by showing change lights or symbols, then you can map the engine to suit the specific test conditions.

[csmith319]

Who cares?

There's no test that would be applicable to all drivers or all cars, so what we have is at the very least a consistent baseline to say whether or not a car is terrible, not too bad or very good from an economy perspective - we should all know by now that there will an error margin.

What doesn't change is that a lightweight car with a small (not too small!) engine will be more economical that a big heavy one with a big engine. If you want a bit of performance you're going to have to pay for it, no matter what car / fuel you choose. Its not rocket science!

[McSam]

Toilet Duck said:

I think someone should take [insert car manufacturer] to court as the mpg is not as advertised. I appreciate the EU mpg test has naff all to do with real world driving, but thats not how its advertised. Its advertised as "urban," "extra urban" and "combined." Its not advertised as a "lab/bench test POS noddy figure". A test case in court would be interesting.

Obviously this would never make it to court. They are obliged by the EU to show the EU economy figures resulting from an EU-spec test on all adverts, in a manner in accordance with the EU regulations.

Do you see the recurring theme?

With regard to fuel economy figures, all manufacturers are bound by the EU directive and must follow it exactly. They all do, thus far. The idea of taking a manufacturer to court because they followed the regulations is ridiculous - the actual answer is to go to the EU and ask them why their regulations are so laughable, but the motor industry has trying to do that for years.

[CarlT]

andygo said:

I appreciate and understand all the above, but a 1.6 diesel sold on its fuel consumption should be light years ahead of a fairly fast mapped golf petrol car.

Additionally, it's a lot worse than my sons MK6 Golf diesel GTD with 170 bhp as standard that's regularly nailed.

Edited by andygo on Wednesday 26th December 18:27

But, at a guess your Golf has done a lot more miles than your wife's new car!

[Toilet Duck]

McSam said:

Toilet Duck said:

I think someone should take [insert car manufacturer] to court as the mpg is not as advertised. I appreciate the EU mpg test has naff all to do with real world driving, but thats not how its advertised. Its advertised as "urban," "extra urban" and "combined." Its not advertised as a "lab/bench test POS noddy figure". A test case in court would be interesting.

Obviously this would never make it to court. They are obliged by the EU to show the EU economy figures resulting from an EU-spec test on all adverts, in a manner in accordance with the EU regulations.

Do you see the recurring theme?

With regard to fuel economy figures, all manufacturers are bound by the EU directive and must follow it exactly. They all do, thus far. The idea of taking a manufacturer to court because they followed the regulations is ridiculous - the actual answer is to go to the EU and ask them why their regulations are so laughable, but the motor industry has trying to do that for years.

Did you actually read my post? Perhaps you missed the following:

Toilet Duck said:

I appreciate the EU mpg test has naff all to do with real world driving

My point was that they should not advertise "combined", "urban" and "extra urban" figures. They should stipulate that these mpg figures are from lab/bench/dyno tests, and not mpg figures obtained from driving an actual car. The terms "urban," "combined" and "extra urban" imply mpg figures that you'll get from driving in "urban" or "extra urban" conditions. They do not state in car adverts that the mpg figures are obtained in a laboratory.

I don't care how they do the test, but if they aren't going to do it by driving an actual car around, don't advertise the mpg figures in a way that suggests they were obtained from real world driving.

[kambites]

Toilet Duck said:

I don't care how they do the test, but if they aren't going to do it by driving an actual car around, don't advertise the mpg figures in a way that suggests they were obtained from real world driving.

You realise that manufacturers aren't allowed to state fuel consumption figures based on anything else? I thought they always did say that it was based on the standard Eu combined cycle test, anyway? All the adverts that I see say that.

[Sharted]

Oh FFS it's for comparison.