Just seen a BBC news report that looked interesting.I expect some of you have seen it too. It's about 'What Car' and some new tests they are carrying out on cars using state of the art testing equipment to see what the 'real world' passenger car fuel consumption is and to see how it compares to the official EU passenger car fuel tests. They rig the cars up with the equipment and off they go. Everything is logged electronically including weather, air pressure, humidity etc. The computer records the type of journey etc.

Already they have tested dozens of cars and made comparisons with the official figures and are finding most cars are giving about 15% less fuel economy in real driving conditions. Some cars are apparently managing the official figures and some exceeding them (but only two). It raises a number of question, that will no doubt be answered if we buy their mag, but it can't be a bad thing I reckon to get more information.

The point was made by an industry spokesman that we all get different mpg figures for lots of different reasons eg: driving style, the type of journey, load, weather as mentioned above. Even the same car, driven by two different people on the same run will/can give different mpg figures (and that's true of course) because we all have different driving styles. Even cruising on the motorway shows a very different driving style sometimes and very different mpg figures. I suppose it's watch this space so we can see the results in due course.

Manufactures claimed figures for any product should always be viewed with caution, especially when it comes to anything car related. Top speeds, 0-60, mpg are subject to various condtions and no two cars off of a production line will return the same figures.

The government figures for mpg are in simulated situations and should only be used as a guide when comparing different models. You should also take into consideration the type of journeys and number of passengers etc.

If all cars return 10 to 15% worse mpg figures under road conditions then I think the government should add this fact to the figures displayed in the showrooms.

Estateman - Fuel tip no 5 is not what you advise, no wonder they get 15% less. Think it would be worth you contacting them, I found what you had to say on the 1.6 TDI thread interesting. If everyone took that advice on board we wouldn't have to worry so much about the Tanker driver strike!

http://www.whatcar.com/truempg/fuel-tips

What was with 'What Car' driving that Ford Focus on the road fitted with the test equipment and the rear number plate illegally covered?

Too Lazy to have an extra number plate fitted like you would do if you had a bike carrier fitted.

Looked like that test equipment would reduce your MPG just like having a bike on a carrier might.

'What Car' is such a cr4p Motoring buying magazine and set of car testers IMHO.

george

Hi Black, yes...it is very interesting and in general you've found a good article. And they don't mention that if you drive like that all the time your engine starts to clog up especially if it's a diesel and you are doing mainly urban work. Just illustrates how seriously we all have to take this subject and find out as much as possible about driving our own cars.

On the radio they interviewed a chappie from the mag . One of the cars with the most unrealistic figures was a peugeot hybrid 25mpg under book figure. Another bad one was the Kia Picanto which was 15mpg under. I think it was a big Merc that gave 2 mpg better than book.

I can make book figures but its boring as hell. I prefer to drive normally and pretty much make the combined figure. MPG figures should carry a disclaimer stating that the mpg figures may not truly represent real world values (maybe they already do).

Problem for the government is that unless its an equal laboratory condition test most of the car companys would cry foul. Maybe it would be better to economy band them rather than give a specific figure. Still not ideal but it stops companys posting stupid PR values. I love the marketing term "up to 84mpg" What that actually means is it could easy be half that or less. The mpg tests just give the companys a figure they can legally publish "up to".

Time to fire up the trusty Honda C90 and do 130mpg, should be able to make it to work and back in about a week.... :think:

Edited 28 April, 201214 yr by raisbeck

Hi Black, yes...it is very interesting and in general you've found a good article. And they don't mention that if you drive like that all the time your engine starts to clog up especially if it's a diesel and you are doing mainly urban work. Just illustrates how seriously we all have to take this subject and find out as much as possible about driving our own cars.

I was thinking of pointing them in the direction of your advice/observations in the other post.

Hi Raisbeck, I had a Honda C90 years and years ago. Brilliant little bike, if not a bit slow! Think I used to get about 105mpg or something silly but I did used to wring it's neck somewhat!

I think you may be on to something with this economy banding thingy. I suppose though in a way, that's what we've got regarding CO2 levels emmitted from the engines, but things need to be clearer I reckon. We are all seeing the confusion and unhappiness that's going on regarding mpgs, particularly when a customer first buys his or her new car. Currently several members from this site are contacting me who have just bought new cars and are having the same problem that Mike Hart was experiencing especially when he first got his. I won't identify them as they contacted me through PM's and personal emails, although one or two gentleman have spoken on here about our contact. We've chatted and I've pointed them towards the things many of us are saying now in our threads and already most of them have had a big change in the mpg figures for the better. One or two have already posted about it on here and no doubt the rest will too. The one thing confusing some is the variability of the mpg's on occassions, but many are now getting pretty good economy and it seems to be improving all the time for most.

Just over a month ago I was in mainland 'Urop' visiting a very well know car manufacturer on business with two colleagues. As an engineer yourself, you'd have loved it. We were in R & D most of the time but got the guided tour of the whole manufacturing plant over a 3 day period. I can say car manufacturers seem to be well aware of the issues, certainly at engineering level, and that's where I'm at. They identified exactly the things we are all talking about concerning correct running in, allowing the engine to then bed in, driving it correctly etc etc also stating that Euro 5 is making all that stuff so critical now. Whereas before '5' although it was still important, but it wasn't so critical to getting good figures. If it's any consolation, if you look on any forum for any manufacturer, it's all the same. Mpg's are a big issue, not just for diesel but petrol too. But it seems the same holds good, given time to learn driving technique (not really much to do differently) and let the engine bed in, things seems to come good as people adapt to the car.

Edited 28 April, 201214 yr by Estate Man

Never mind the little Hondas - the Vincent Rapide did well into the 90s in road test reports ( at 30 mph )

Never mind the little Hondas - the Vincent Rapide did well into the 90s in road test reports ( at 30 mph )

I had to google that.....bit before my time.

The newish cbf 125 is supposed to do 140mpg. Not with my belly on it I suspect. Even my old Kawasaki 500 does about 70mpg.

With eco driving and rip off fuel prices being so prominent its no wonder companys push the inflated figures. Economy sells, even if it is a legally fiddled figure. I do wonder if newer cars are really any better than say 10 years ago. Newer cars are safer but heavier and with all the emissions control bolted on its no wonder economy suffers. Someone else posted on here that mpg is the new 'BHP'. Sums it up really.

I did see that real world figures for the new VW up! (Citigo) are mid fifties. Thats not far off book figures for combined. Seriously considering the Up! or Citigo for SWMBO. We buy cars and run them till they drop, dont want a more complicated Tsi and the even the Fabia is bigger than needed.

HonestJohn has real mpg site with users submitting their mpg

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/RealMpg/Results?manufacturer=skoda

And:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... -boss.html

When the test was introduced, it was supposed to represent real driving and was expected to show what a 'normal' drive could reasonably expect. This would not require special driving techniques or changes to the car or fuel. It came after aerodynamic drag figures had proved fairly useless for most people to interpret. The Honest John link shows the sort of figures my 1.6 diesel is getting.

I had considered a diesel Toyota Yaris as I have had several Toyotas and been pleased with them. I am dissapointed that my Fabia is currently returning about 50mpg on country driving when the Yaris would give me 61 if the figures on HJ are correct.

While that doesn't sound much, I drive about 6000 miles p.a. so I am spending about 120 X £1.45 when I could have been paying 100 X £1.45. OK so the difference is only about £29 p.a. but it's my £29 and I would prefer to keep it in my pocket.

According to What Car the Passat 1.6 tdi is far less economical than the 2.0 tdi in the Passat, especially when motorway work is selected. Most buyers would look at the official figures and buy the 1.6 for extra economy.

Depends on type of driving though. My Passat and our 1.2htp have the same euro combined figures of 48 mpg. Around town the htp is slightly ahead with 40mpg and even a bigger gap in cold weather. On a run over to our caravan 60 miles of 40 to 60mph both cars are roughly the same around mid 50s mpg.

Get on the motorway at 70 to 75mph the little Fabia drops to 40mpg while the Passat is still above 50mpg.

So really depends on what type of driving you do and pick a car that suits that style best.

And another comparison our Fabia TSI DSG has a combined figure 5 mpg better than the htp and Passat but it isnt as good as the htp around town and is behind the Passat on the motorway. Just shows how the latest technology fools the current euro lab tests

Edited 12 May, 201214 yr by logiclee

Going back a generation they use to say that most people woudld get similar or better fuel consumption from a 2 litre as a 1.6 as they would drive it more in the lower part of the rev range and therefore waste less energy with higher revs and in the part of the lower revs where the carbs/EMU/injectors would run leaner.

Good anticipation, higher gearing for cruising and larger capacity motors, once warm, can do some pretty impressive MPGs.

Echo the thoughts on the HTP and TSI. HTP is warm within the mile and good with fuel this side of 80 mph. Yes a third of the power of the vRSs but an excellent car 99% of the time.  Wish it had a sixth gear for motorways, sure it could pull 25 mpg per thousand.and then it might get under 120 gm/km CO2 and low tax.

Edited 13 May, 201214 yr by lol

HonestJohn has real mpg site with users submitting their mpg

http://www.honestjoh...ufacturer=skoda

I tend to take anything Honest John tells anyone with a pinch of salt, especially his tests. Considering that people are regularly beating his numbers in some cars without much effort on eco driving.

Also, regarding fuel tip no.5 (which I now believe is number 6), they do say to do it without labouring the engine, which implies you should certainly change gear higher if it labours your engine. If I changed at 2,00RPM in my car, I'd struggle to move the thing the engine would struggle that much (I have longer gearing in the Ecomotive). I probably can't change much less than 2,500RPM.

Does anyone have any idea when Which? will be posting the results?

Edited 13 May, 201214 yr by xreyuk