Their claims varied massively before the standardized test was introduced, before that everyone used a different method and you couldn't do any meaningful comparison at all.

My commute of about 7 miles usually results in 41mpg, it's 6 miles of motorway and some sitting at traffic lights. Such short trips aren't economical.

I have done the 53mpg, I took the photo to prove it (trip of about 38 miles). It would have been better without the A/C running, and if I had dropped my speeds by 10mph I might have been close to 60mpg.

So my own experience tells me that the combined figure is not a "wild claim", it is perfectly achieveable by driving sensibly. Many people won't see it because they don't drive economically. They use the throttle as an on-off switch, rip down the motorway at 85mph, and then complain that the car isn't economical when that results in 38mpg.

Combined suggests urban/extra urban. Your example of 38 miles is considered 'extra urban' to which the figure raises to 64mpg i believe? Does seem a bit off to me.

There are two test cycles. Urban and Extra-Urban. They are run on a rolling road in controlled conditions, probably driven by a robot. A specific set of conditions has to be met and a specific distance covered.

Those two figures are then averaged to get the Combined figure.

Lab conditions mean no wind resistance and a perfectly flat surface. That is why you won't get the Extra-Urban figure in real life, it is not achievable in any vehicle whether it is petrol or diesel powered. I have never expected to achieve it. Anyone expecting to be able to get 64mpg average from a TSI on the motorway is living in fantasy land.

What you can expect to be able to achieve in real-life on a trip, is the Combined figure. I have never claimed otherwise.

The Urban figure should be more achievable though, since wind resistance is nowhere near as significant at town speeds. Again, the test is done on a flat surface, and if you have more stops and more idling, it will drop accordingly.

The 1.6TDI has an Extra-Urban figure of 78mpg. They won't get it though, they usually say they get 65mpg on a run, not far off the Combined of 67mpg. I'm sure that 67 can be done quite happily.

Anyone expecting to be able to get 64mpg average from a TSI on the motorway is living in fantasy land.

They shouldn't be able to publish it then, tis my arguement.

The test results are purely for comparison purposes, so that you can see that a Fabia TSI should be more economical than (random example) a Fiesta Zetec S, because they have both been through the same test and the Fabia scored better. That is all.

They are not a promise of economy, It says so in the manual. They know it can't be promised due to the laws of physics.

They are published because they have to be. Unfortunately there are many stupid people out there (not you vrs2) who think that because "they say it does 64mpg" the car will do it no matter how they drive it. Doesn't work that way. It's not rocket science, it's simple physics. Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that.

Unfortunately there are many stupid people out there (not you vrs2) who think that because "they say it does 64mpg" the car will do it no matter how they drive it.

Ta....?

The 1.2 TSI is a fab engine even if it does have a taste for oil at times lol, Just to prove that 53.3 combined is achievable:

This was done on a journey with a mix of motorway and small villages including stop for petrol and several sets of traffic lights just driven normally, was showing 55mpg but was a very steep hill all done with ac on.

Best I've had was coming back from sheffield mostly down hill and motorway where I got 58mpg with ac on. Overall managing around 45 - 48 mpg day to day and around 52+ on a run. Which is a bit better than the 1.2 hpt I used to have which averaged 45 mpg over 30k miles considering this is an auto, weighs more and has another 35bhp I think its pretty good.

I think the tests should be done at a higher speed with all electrical components on e.g. air con heated screen lights etc which would perhaps give a more accurate result. I think no matter what they seem to do the maximum mpg for a petrol is around the 50mpg mark and around 60mpg for diesel. My mums yaris is the same for kidding about fuel economy thats supposed to manage 64.2 extra urban not a chance in hell that it can do that :S it gets similar economy to the 1.2 tsi both day to day and on a run. Only car we have which beats the combined mpg is cayenne which gets 18.9 compares to combined of 17.9 rofl.

There are two test cycles. Urban and Extra-Urban. They are run on a rolling road in controlled conditions, probably driven by a robot. A specific set of conditions has to be met and a specific distance covered.

Those two figures are then averaged to get the Combined figure.

Lab conditions mean no wind resistance and a perfectly flat surface. That is why you won't get the Extra-Urban figure in real life, it is not achievable in any vehicle whether it is petrol or diesel powered. I have never expected to achieve it. Anyone expecting to be able to get 64mpg average from a TSI on the motorway is living in fantasy land.

What you can expect to be able to achieve in real-life on a trip, is the Combined figure.

I have never claimed otherwise.

The Urban figure should be more achievable though, since wind resistance is nowhere near as significant at town speeds. Again, the test is done on a flat surface, and if you have more stops and more idling, it will drop accordingly.

The 1.6TDI has an Extra-Urban figure of 78mpg. They won't get it though, they usually say they get 65mpg on a run, not far off the Combined of 67mpg. I'm sure that 67 can be done quite happily.

Mike I think what we have to except is the 1.2 tsi and the 1.6 cr diesel get the most complaints from owners about poor mpg compaired to the figures published in the brochure, that's what I am hearing from many dealers so it seems people are having the wool pulled over there eyes. As I have said on earlier posts I have achieved very near the extra urban of two Octavia estates on a straight run at 70 mph one of them a 1.6 MPI an engine often scoffed at on here for being old fashioned and uneconomic.

For me to match these figures in the fabia I would have at get 61mpg at 70 mph on the same run and I don't think even you have achieved that. When I hear people say it's because the fabia is poor on the motorway because of it's aerodynamic or it's not a diesel and petrols are getting better but are still not realistic on the claimed figures it makes me mad. Ether it will do near the claimed figures or don't publish them and mislead people.

Yesterday I did a normal non aggressive drive to the beach and some country driving to by an ice cream with flake an got 35.6 mpg that is frankly disguisting and something I would of got from my Octavia vrs petrols that had 200 bhp and a combind figure of 36mpg my last 2 weeks figure has been 38.7 and that's all driving with a very light foot.

Edited 7 November, 201114 yr by Vrs2

The 1.2 TSI is a fab engine even if it does have a taste for oil at times lol, Just to prove that 53.3 combined is achievable:

This was done on a journey with a mix of motorway and small villages including stop for petrol and several sets of traffic lights just driven normally, was showing 55mpg but was a very steep hill all done with ac on.

Best I've had was coming back from sheffield mostly down hill and motorway where I got 58mpg with ac on. Overall managing around 45 - 48 mpg day to day and around 52+ on a run. Which is a bit better than the 1.2 hpt I used to have which averaged 45 mpg over 30k miles considering this is an auto, weighs more and has another 35bhp I think its pretty good.

I think the tests should be done at a higher speed with all electrical components on e.g. air con heated screen lights etc which would perhaps give a more accurate result. I think no matter what they seem to do the maximum mpg for a petrol is around the 50mpg mark and around 60mpg for diesel. My mums yaris is the same for kidding about fuel economy thats supposed to manage 64.2 extra urban not a chance in hell that it can do that :S it gets similar economy to the 1.2 tsi both day to day and on a run. Only car we have which beats the combined mpg is cayenne which gets 18.9 compares to combined of 17.9 rofl.

You are very lucky to have a good engine, I can be very positive in saying my car would not do 53 mpg over that distance if it was dropped 18 miles up from outer space. This is the problem with this engine they seem to be so inconsistent, some people think they are great and many other thinking they are carp when it comes to economy.

The trouble is if you say your car returns poor mpg people just blame your driving style, but I have proved I can get figures out of the loan cars I get from the dealers that they never thought possible, my next test will be a Superb 3.6 V6 and I bet even that will be better than my weedy 1.2 tsi. A very good friend of mine took my car for a 10 mile drive and he is acclaimed at being so tight with money he squeaks, being able to manage a pretty constant 58 to 60 mpg over a week in his Citroen C4 1.6 HDI and guess what his replay was great little engine but boy is it hard to keep up good mpg and only managed 41.2 mpg with very smooth skilful driving. He commented even he would get bored of driving if he had to drive like that every day.

Edited 7 November, 201114 yr by Vrs2

They shouldn't be able to publish it then, tis my arguement.

The figures are just there so people can compare different cars and engines and get a better idea which could be more economical in real life... These are the tests...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/AdviceOnBuyingAndSellingAVehicle/CalculatethefuelconsumptionCO2andtaxcosts/DG_195297

Quite frankly we need some sort of independant test and this one isn't too bad, like others i reckon to get near to the combined figure and that what i use when looking round...

The problem is not the tests but the drivers and the way they drive a car... Its taken many so-called motoring journos like those on TG many years to realise that you need to drive a diesel engine in a totally different manner to a petrol to get the best results (whether mpg or acceleration)... I used to cringe sometimes when watching Clarkson and Hammond making a complete mess of driving a diesel and then blaming it on the car... Even engines using the same fuel are different, the Vauxhall 1.5TD was a very different engine in power delivery to their 2.0Di for instance...

Only thing to do is get as many test drives as you can and compare... If its got an on board computer then just remember to reset it before setting off!

Edited 7 November, 201114 yr by The PM

The figures are just there so people can compare different cars and engines and get a better idea which could be more economical in real life... These are the tests...

Yep but in the last few years to get into lower tax bands and fool the public manufacturers have learn't how to cheat the tests.

An example I posted earlier, the new Passat 2.0CR DSG is 10mpg more economical than the previous 2.0CR DSG and two tax groups lower. In the real world driving on motorways and A roads they are exactly the same, the techmology that is used to fool the tests doesn't work on the road.

Same goes for the TSi ours isn't bad, does high 30's around town and high 40's to 50mpg on a run. It's official figures are 5mpg better than my diesel Passat but apart from city centre driving the Passat is more economical than the TSI.

Wife's Uncle has a new big Merc E Class E250. This is a massive 200bhp automatic saloon that does 0-62 in 7.7 seconds and 150mph but Merc quote 67.3mpg Extra Urban and 56.5mpg combined, it's fully loaded with eco tech. He's not a speed merchant and is a 70mph man on the motorway but the car is averaging 34mpg

Point is the official figures are missleading, it depends on how much technology is on the car to fool the test.

If you are thinking of buying a car check the forums first.

Cheers

Lee

Surely Fuelly is best placed to comment on real-world MPG.

You are very lucky to have a good engine, I can be very positive in saying my car would not do 53 mpg over that distance if it was dropped 18 miles up from outer space. This is the problem with this engine they seem to be so inconsistent, some people think they are great and many other thinking they are carp when it comes to economy.

The trouble is if you say your car returns poor mpg people just blame your driving style, but I have proved I can get figures out of the loan cars I get from the dealers that they never thought possible, my next test will be a Superb 3.6 V6 and I bet even that will be better than my weedy 1.2 tsi. A very good friend of mine took my car for a 10 mile drive and he is acclaimed at being so tight with money he squeaks, being able to manage a pretty constant 58 to 60 mpg over a week in his Citroen C4 1.6 HDI and guess what his replay was great little engine but boy is it hard to keep up good mpg and only managed 41.2 mpg with very smooth skilful driving. He commented even he would get bored of driving if he had to drive like that every day.

I think it's becoming clear that all is not right with your engine.

It does seem that some manufacturers are more honest with the test than others. Going by previous testimony, Mercedes is way off. Skoda and VAG seem to be more honest, but some car/engine combos don't deliver in the real world. For instance, the 1.6CR works well in the Fabia, but it fails miserably in the Octy, probably even worse in the Yeti.

My Dad had a 1.6CR Octy estate and he struggled to get it above 50mpg, I could barely manage it either. Very disappointing when his previous 1.9PD would nail 55mpg without problem. The 1.6CR was not as driveable either. He is loving his new 1.4TSI one, it's quicker and more driveable than the 1.6CR and it will get 50mpg on a run. That combo delivers well!

Fuelly is a great idea, but you can 't compare the fuelly figure to the test figures. The test is over a single trip and fuelly is averaging an entire tankful, so it's not the same measurement.

Ta....?

Read what you quoted again. You didn't honestly believe that you would get 64mpg all the time did you? I'm pretty sure you didn't, I really hope I'm right because you don't come across as an idiot.

I think it's becoming clear that all is not right with your engine.

It does seem that some manufacturers are more honest with the test than others. Going by previous testimony, Mercedes is way off. Skoda and VAG seem to be more honest, but some car/engine combos don't deliver in the real world. For instance, the 1.6CR works well in the Fabia, but it fails miserably in the Octy, probably even worse in the Yeti.

My Dad had a 1.6CR Octy estate and he struggled to get it above 50mpg, I could barely manage it either. Very disappointing when his previous 1.9PD would nail 55mpg without problem. The 1.6CR was not as driveable either. He is loving his new 1.4TSI one, it's quicker and more driveable than the 1.6CR and it will get 50mpg on a run. That combo delivers well!

Fuelly is a great idea, but you can 't compare the fuelly figure to the test figures. The test is over a single trip and fuelly is averaging an entire tankful, so it's not the same measurement.

Yes Mike I do think VAG are normally honest as my first Octavia 140 PD diesel always returned very good mpg and very close to the official combined mpg and it was driven hard. My second Octavia a VRS 2.0 TFSI was also pretty good averaging 31/33 mpg only 3 to 4 mpg of the official combinined and also driven hard.

And as for my third VRS 2.0 CR diesel now that one was outstanding and I must of had a very good engine in that one averaging 44 mpg over most weeks usally about 600 miles a week of very hard driving, red lined it in most gears as I could drive like a mad man and still get great mpg. If I was ever in the mood for a slow gental drive it would often return 55 mpg some 7 mpg over the combined cycle, a truly superb car.

I will keep trying to get Skoda UK to take my case seriously but don't hold out much hope as fuel economy is a very easy thing for manufactures to dismiss as there are so many loop holes. Your comments on the 1.6 cr is interesting and I will have to pre-warn my brother in-law who is just about to buy a Seat Altea 1.6 cr dsg hoping it will be very economical, he must be pre-warned!!

Edited 7 November, 201114 yr by Vrs2

It's an odd one the 1.6CR. Below 2000rpm it does not want to know, uh uh, no way, get stuffed. It tends to be geared quite long, so it's really easy to end up close to or below 2k. Economy is then OK, but you have no performance at all unless you change down.

So, you end up changing down a lot for corners where you expect to be able to leave it in the higher gear, and you aim for 2.5k so that it will pull. You make better progress and the economy drops off. Maybe it will be better with DSG, but DSG does seem to like keeping the revs low, which the 1.6 will not like one bit.

I found the same in the Fabia, nothing below 2k, you had to keep the revs up, but in the lighter car it got away with it better and it had decent economy.

The 1.2TSI will pull from 1500rpm no problem (don't drop below that though), which turns the whole petrol-diesel thing on it's head!

My brother has the 1.9PD Octy vRS and he gets the same as you did in the CR version

Yes Mike I do think VAG are normally honest as my first Octavia 140 PD diesel always returned very good mpg and very close to the official combined mpg and it was driven hard. My second Octavia a VRS 2.0 TFSI was also pretty good averaging 31/33 mpg only 3 to 4 mpg of the official combinined and also driven hard.

Wait until the technology filters down.

Looking back the VW PD's and then the CR's posted reasonable mpg figures. For 2011 the new models have increased by 10-15mpg in some cases over the 2010 counterparts whith just tweaks, gearing and stop start. The 2.0CR140 Passat just about matches the Superb 1.6TDi 105 Greenline special. The 2.0CR Superb is 10mpg and two tax groups behind the Passat with the same engine, it's even way behind the big Auidi A6 with the more powerfull 2.0CR engine.

Skoda will have to react as all manufactures are going this way and the technology to fool the test already exists in the VAG group. Just means the rest of us will have even more to moan about.

We get cars that are not as good to drive either. I find the 1.6TDi Fabia really poor in 3rd, 4th and 5th when compared with the old 1.9TDi. The PD unit pulled stronger anyway but Skoda have increased the gearing in the top three gears so now 5th is 35mph/1000rpm up from 30mph/1000rpm. This may give better economy during the test but it's strange how people are having issues getting anywhere near 60mpg form the 1.6tdi Fabia where as the 1.9TDi would do it withouth really trying on a gentle run out.

The price of progress.....

Cheers

Lee

Lee, if you think they are fiddling it have you expressed your views to they authorities? I doubt they are, it'd ruin the reputation of the company if they were caught... They may be changing things on the engine/gearing to suit the tests though, which is not the same thing as cheating as long as its also in the production cars... At the end of the day its just a test to allow buyers to compare like for like and I still feel that it does the job its intended... The only problem comes is when people start expecting to get the extra urban figures in real life driving... Which was no different to the old tests where everyone expected the 56mph one! TBH I feel that if it was not for these tests we would not have the economical cars we have today... MPG is miles (!) better than it used to be when i started driving in the early 70s...

Re the gearing, they've done the same on the Golf with the 5 speed box as well, persoanlly i prefer it, it suits my style of driving and i do get better economy... I think the Fabia Greenline is similar gearing? What would be better is if they stuck a 6 speed on and let the 6th be the "long" gear... Anyhow I collect the Golf estate with 7 speed DSG today so I'll see how I get on with that... New learning curve methinks!

Edited 8 November, 201114 yr by The PM

I dont think it compares like with like though.

Anyone buying new would think the Superb 2.0CR diesel does 10mpg less than the Passat 2.0CR diesel. Yes it does on the tests because the test is carried out at very low speeds with a large percentage of the time with the engine at idle.

I know from experience that on the road the the 2.0CR diesel gives exactly the same economy with or without the Bluemotion/Greenline equipment fitted. I know on my 60 mile commute I had the stop start kill the engine once for about 20 seconds and 6th is that tall at 37mph/1000rpm that on a normal A/B road you are stuck with a 5 speed box because 6th is to tall to use.

In my eyes we are paying for technology that doesn't make that much difference to real world economy and getting cars with overtall gearing that numbs performance.

But as long as the Euro tests stay as they are and tax bands are defined by CO2 output then manufactures will continue to design cars to produce as little CO2 as possible in the unrealistic Euro tests.

Cheers

Lee

We'll have to agree to differ, then... I don't think it particular matters what test you put in as long as all cars are tested the same way, which they are on this one or the old one... This set of tests is better than the old "speed" ones and I've always found that the combined figure is attainable... As for gearing, as I said the higher gears suit my driving so I'm all for them... Perhaps you need to change you driving style?!

Regards, Blair

Edited 8 November, 201114 yr by The PM

I dont think it compares like with like though.

Start-stop skews the tests for sure. Test results do allow the punter to compare between models, but with the caveat that they should do so with models with the same set of features (start-stop, regenerative braking etc) when using the numbers to compare relative (not expected) real-world MPG.

In my eyes we are paying for technology that doesn't make that much difference to real world economy

What that technology gives - and FWIW I concur it is by presenting the best possible view in the standardised test (and especially in that sector) - is low BIK for company car drivers. Without that, mega miles are needed even to make a basic diesel engine worth while, let alone the green stuff on top. For private buyers with ordinary milage and especially in the used market petrol engines are usually a much better buy.

mega miles are needed even to make a basic diesel engine worth while,

That is just so wrong... There are so many other things to be taken into account than just purchase price and mileage... The only way to find out if diesel or petrol makes sense is to take into account all costs, running, depreciation, type of driving, the list goes on... For some people where they only pay for fuel then diesel even makes sense for a low annual mileage...

(Sorry to sound a bit harsh, but I've been running my own diesel cars for many years and rest assured I would not if it didn't make financial sense, even on 10k or less pa).

Edited 8 November, 201114 yr by The PM

We'll have to agree to differ, then... I don't think it particular matters what test you put in as long as all cars are tested the same way, which they are on this one or the old one... This set of tests is better than the old "speed" ones and I've always found that the combined figure is attainable... As for gearing, as I said the higher gears suit my driving so I'm all for them... Perhaps you need to change you driving style?!

Regards, Blair

I don't mind tall gearing for a relaxed cruise it's when they go daft and start fitting gearing with 37mph/1000rpm, even with the 2.0CR engine it requires a downshift if you want to join a faster line of traffic, something you never had to do on the previous 2.0CR with top at 32mph/1000rpm. I'm not on my own the Octy Greenline 11 has been crticized for it's overtall gearing, reviews I've read say the standard 1.6CR is a far better drive. Reviews of the Focus Ecotecnic read similar as well.

It's OK while you have a choice, in 2010 VW offered standard Passats, Passats with Bluemotion Tech Pack and the Bluemotion specials. For 2011 all models have Bluemotion tech.

As manufactures are legislated to reduce CO2 I believe this stance will filter down the brands soon enough.

Perhaps VAG want us all to go DSG which is the way round the frustrating manual box. I don't mind that I have two already.

Back to the car at the start of the Thread the 1.2TSi Fabia, the DSG version 7th is only a little taller than 5th in the 5 speed manual version, at 70mph there's only 200rpm difference between the two. It means the DSG version has a 7 speed close ratio box and together with it's crisp changes it makes the 1.2TSi great fun to drive. When the VAT offer was on the manual car with ESP was only £200 cheaper than the DSG which includes ESP. You's be daft not too really, VW stung me for £1600 for DSG.

Cheers

Lee

That is just so wrong... There are so many other things to be taken into account than just purchase price and mileage... The only way to find out if diesel or petrol makes sense is to take into account all costs, running, depreciation, type of driving, the list goes on... For some people where they only pay for fuel then diesel even makes sense for a low annual mileage...

If you get a car on motability or similar the diesel will be cheaper to run as basically you run a subsidised lease car with full maintenance package.

For a private buyer though the new petrols are very tempting, my wife has had diesel for over 10 years, she keeps her car 6 years so by the time she sells there isn't that much difference on resale.

She's previously paid a £1000-£1500 premium for diesel as it was the better car comparing the 1.9TDi against the old 1.4 petrols. This time around the she thought the new petrols were a better drive than the new diesels. It will cost us a bit more in fuel but at 4k-5k miles a year she'd never get her money back on the purchase price.

For me I do 20k miles a year and the diesel premium isn't that great percentage wise when paying £25k for a big saloon so diesel works for me.

My Dad's just bought a Fabia, he was took in with the Greenline figures but after driving one and the TSi back to back he ordered the TSi. He only does 3k miles a year so buying the Greenline was daft anyway. Car buying isn't all about which will be a few hundred pound cheaper over three years. With the overall cost of motoring over 3 years you might as well buy the one you will enjoy driving most as long as it's whithin your budget.

Cheers

Lee

Edited 8 November, 201114 yr by logiclee

Car buying isn't all about which will be a few hundred pound cheaper over three years.

That's my whole point, one or other could be cheaper, even on low mileage, so its best to go with what you like... But I hate the sweeping statements such as "only buy a diesel if you do mega miles" as its just not true but one peddled by many so-called car journos who should know better!

Re the gears, I used to have a 1.4TDi 80 Fabia estate and found the gearing very frustrating as it was so low... I test drove the Golf 1.6 which has that high gearing, I found that you just have to adjust to using a lower gear than you would have in your old car... If anything what they should do is use a 6 speed box, but that would involve more gear changes and probably affect the test results...

Since otherwise equivalent diesel varients are almost always more expensive to buy, the saving in fuel obviously needs some amount of miles to break even financially.

For me a CR probably would be about 0.5p per mile cheaper in the end, but I've had enough of grumbly diesels certainly for that price difference anyway. Plus to my mind there must be a risk that Joe Public will catch on to the potential problems (read costs) down the road for EU5 derv engines, which in turn could seriously impact residuals.

For example a generally well regarded motoring site emailed me in reply to a direct question on the subject, "However, turbos in diesels generally don't seem to last. Neither do dual mass flywheels, EGRs and diesel particulate filters. Which is why I am warning anyone buying a diesel with their own money to expect around £5,000 worth of repairs and replacements during years 4 - 6 of the car's life."

So if that becomes a general expectation then a 4-year old diesel supermini would be worth only scrap.