Wots your thoughts on new modern diesels and small petrol cars tht can

do things like 80+mpg and £0-£30 road tax?

Are thy true figures?

Is it worth paying £1000s for new cars like BMW 1.6d or even 520d with twin-turbo tht does 60+ mpg?

The Golf 1.4 TSI twin turbo - smaller engine but more economical and retains the performance?

Or better to buy OLD like myself and get big petrol engines with LPG conversions.

Of £1000s less, but with higher toad tax and lower mpg - but over the years of ownership still cheaper

(Due to the initial cheaper purchased price)?

My general thoughts are they manufacture engines to pass the tests, not necessarily to be efficient in realistic situations. I know Subarus have a map for the emissions test that changes the behaviour at a certain rev range in 3rd gear. Also look at the kinds of things they do to push the tax band down on a car, such as you cannot spec a Greenline with a spare tyre. The manufacturer doesn't really have any incentives to make cars actually efficient in real life. Its not their money being spent on fuel. However, how low they can get the figures for the sales sheet does matter a lot.

I always take the brochure figures with a large pinch of salt and prefer to read people's real world opinions.

Eco cars don't work as their figures are un achievable in the real world so you are better off in a pre dpf diesel

"Official test fuel consumption" has always been somewhat divorced from the "real World"; this became worse with mapped EFI because you could achieve artifically good figures by mapping in flat spots at critical revs.

I'd look more at the urban figure quoted for an idea of how far they'll really go on a gallon of fuel in normal use.

My Fabia Greenline II was quoted as:

Urban 68.9

Combined 83.1

Extra Urban 94.2

It would regularly show in the 90's and 80's on the dash, but in real terms it was doing less.

Using the Fuelly website I tracked the fuel use of the car and it averaged around 72mpg, which was on a route that promoted good economy as my commute is 70% open road cruising at 60(ish)mph.

When I was checking this there were around 7 or 8 Greenline Fabias on Fuelly, mine was the most economical due to my journey.

All the others were under 70mpg...

So if they claim 83mpg on the Rapid it's probably more like 60-65mpg.

Interesting comments.

But the fact is if the official figures are only tested under ideal situations,

Then its still a good benchmark for comparison purposes only?

I mean if there was a choice of a car costing £1000 more doing 83mpg,

As opposed to car cheaper car doing 73mpg - then the

money would be on the more expensive car?

Obviously as BossFox said try to get some real life mpg figures 1st.

Like myself when I bought my £11k Superb Elegance 170 DSG TDI.

I looked at the Rapid and 140bhp Superb and the new Superb does 62mpg - I still chose my current car.

Why? Coz for the exact spec - the new car price would be MUCH MUCH more than the standard cheapest asking price!

I also looked at the Hybrids - 74mpg and almost motoring free as at times only the electric motors are working = no fuel usage at all. = £0

But I couldn't see myself driving like Miss daisy - not yet anyway :-)

Unless they're plug in ones, all hybrids run 100% on petrol

A good diesel will outdo a Prius, especially if you do a lot of motorway.

I don't think there is a "better" and it comes down to what is important to you. For me, economy was a factor but how it drove was a far bigger factor and the new breed of diesels give great, refined performance (similar in delivery to a decent 6-cylinder N/A petrol) while still returning decent economy when being driven enthusiastically. I couldn't say the same for the small TSI engines I have tried which were economical (in petrol terms!) when babied around, but got very thirsty when pushing on and also felt a bit underwhelming - although that is just my opinion

I had considered going the LPG route on an older bigger engined car, but was put off by the hassle of finding a reputable company to do the conversion, sacrificing some boot space, and finding fuel stations which carried LPG (and had a working pump!), as well the other potential associated costs of running an older car, which could easily wipe out any savings made.

I've been very happy with my decision, but YMMV

Chris

I think I have been quite fortunate with my gone Subaru Legacy LPG.

Was reluctant to let it go.

Comparison of the 2004 Subaru Legacy 3000cc 242BHP 4-wheel drive effectively 50MPG on £260 tax

Compared with my current 2010 Skoda Superb 2000cc 170BHP 2-wheel drive officially 47MPG on £170 tax

Always concerns abt LPG complications and refuel stations.

Never had a problem where I was.

Most supermarket offer LPG and privately plenty of LPG supplier found on LPG websites.

Annual service only £55-£120 all inclusive - no extra cost in insurance and saved a measly £10 in road tax.

Always taken car to manufacturer approved LPG garages.

Nothing ever went wrong for 3 years - in fact the costly bit was the routine Subaru servicing - though independents off-set that cost.

But having to life the engine out to replace the 6 spark plugs ....cost me £200 alone at Subaru

Would go down the LPG route again - if, I can find the ideal car.

Big boot to house the larger LPG tank, retain the spare and top spec LPG system.....but I couldn't find one :-(

Wots your thoughts on new modern diesels and small petrol cars tht can

do things like 80+mpg and £0-£30 road tax?

Are thy true figures?

Is it worth paying £1000s for new cars like BMW 1.6d or even 520d with twin-turbo tht does 60+ mpg?

The Golf 1.4 TSI twin turbo - smaller engine but more economical and retains the performance?

Or better to buy OLD like myself and get big petrol engines with LPG conversions.

Of £1000s less, but with higher toad tax and lower mpg - but over the years of ownership still cheaper

(Due to the initial cheaper purchased price)?

In short, no

a car like the Rapid will not do the claimed MPG but then neither will a poof powered car achieve the claimed mpg..

In real terms i would expect a modern 1.6 TDi to do circa 60-65mpg and a poof power to do 45ish

A good diesel will outdo a Prius, especially if you do a lot of motorway.

correct

effectively 50MPG?

I'm not convinced it is a level playing field, the most obvious one that comes to mind is the old 1.9 PD engine vs the new 1.6 CR engine. The newer one is meant to be more fuel efficient but there seems to be a lot of complaints about the CR engine not being that great on economy compared to the old.

John

What will Golf Mk7's 188mpg amount to in real life, I wonder? :think:

What will Golf Mk7's 188mpg amount to in real life, I wonder? :think:

31 miles on the battery could get me to and back from work easy

At first I thought its fuel efficiency is much better than that of the Chevy Volt. But then found this bit on wikipedia:

The Opel Ampera official equivalent fuel consumption under the EU-approved UN ECE R101 standard for plug-in hybrids is 1.2 L/100 km (196.0 mpg-US; 235.4 mpg-imp)

It looks like another variation on the theme... I think the price is also going to be too high to be justified by the savings on fuel.

At first I thought its fuel efficiency is much better than that of the Chevy Volt. But then found this bit on wikipedia:

It looks like another variation on the theme... I think the price is also going to be too high to be justified by the savings on fuel.

Under that standard, it needs to be able to manage something like 5 (five) miles.

My old Octavia estate (PD140) used to get 49.33mpg on my commute (compared to 51.4mpg combined) - so not too far off.

My current Fiesta ECOnetic got 57.53mpg on the same commute (compared to 76.3mpg combined) -

This is the average of approx 2 years of data for each car. There certainly seems to be a mismatch between book and real world efficiencies for the Fiesta.

My 4x4 PD140 gets 42mpg brim to brim, compared to the 44mpg combined in the brochure, so it isn't that far off. The motorway rating is purely made up though.

I have recently had a pug 107 1litre petrol and a 1.2 petrol fabia both get beaten on MPG and £PM by my 1.9TDi Octavia estate which is even better still because I can run it on chip fat. The Fabia is close, the Pug was no where near. Might be the style of driving but the driver hasnt changed nor has the journey.

Solar recharging electric car might be better at a push, but we dont get much sun in this country.

At best Extra Urban with the Fabia vRS Estate is supposed to do 45mpg. I've found it will do it but only on a motorway at around 60mph. Round town I can get 36mpg provided I can keep moving, no excessive throttle etc. Basically not using the performance at all. Normally I get between 27-32mpg round town.

Combined I get bang on the figures with my 330d - around 42-44ish. Has dropped down to 36 over a tank though, but I think that was due to a dead MAF.

The motorway figure of 53 isn't too far off. I can get to within 3mpg, but usually it's nearer 47 cruising at 65ish.

The tests seem to be getting more far fetched the more technology (like start-stop) etc is added.

My Mazda 3 has done 53.5 mpg over the last 45K miles. Mostly rural roads. Published " combined" mpg for the current 6 sp model is 66mpg but mine is an older 5 sp.

I'm happy with that as no reasonably informed person would expect to get the published figures. I always reckon if you use the lower "Urban"" published figure you will be much closer to the real world average. This is published as 55.5 for Mazzie so almost spot on.

Are there not tales of Fiat requiring owners to sign disclaimers that they won't sue before they're allow to buy a TwinAir because the real world mpg is so far from the paper figures?

The only car I've bee able to regularly achieve and even exceed the paper mpg is the VRS. When I bought it the combined mpg on paper was 35.7 I regularly see more than this on my commute which is a mix of speeds and roads.

My Mazda 3 has done 53.5 mpg over the last 45K miles. Mostly rural roads. Published " combined" mpg for the current 6 sp model is 66mpg but mine is an older 5 sp.

I'm happy with that as no reasonably informed person would expect to get the published figures. I always reckon if you use the lower "Urban"" published figure you will be much closer to the real world average. This is published as 55.5 for Mazzie so almost spot on.

That just says how truly unrealistic the figures are, if you don't even get the urban figures.