At last the truth- in normal everyday use, the manufacturers MPG figures cannot be achieved! Who says so- The Advertising Standards Authority, thats who. This stemmed from a complaint by an Audi owner but they (ASA) have decided that all manufacturers will have to state that the published figures are derived from rolling road data and will not be realised !!

Many of us have found this for ourselves so no real surprise there. I hope that now Skoda et al will have to carry out realistic tests, or perhaps they could ask some of us to do it for them?

"in normal everyday use, the manufacturers MPG figures cannot be achieved"

Did the ASA actually say that? they should know better if they did say it,

because where someone, 'in normal everyday use does achieve the manufacturers figures', they are giving out a generalisation or an incorrect statement.

I regularly achieve Manufacturers MPG figures or better them.

eg, for a vRS ,

Urban 36.7, Extra Urban 54.3, Combined 45.6

I can not be the only one that does.

(we do know that often they are far from the truth, but surely saying they can not be achieved is wrong for someone picking fault with others statements or figures, wording etc)

http://www.savefuels...arsaveintro.htm

For starters, for a problem other than the Rolling road, is the Ambient temp of 20*oC - 30*oC, that would possibly be 14 days a year in Scotland starting from cold.

george

The only problem I can see, if they are all tested in real life situations the MPG will be all over the place between manufacturers, at least we know that all the variables are the same and the printed figure is always going to be high throughout all manufacturers.

Me too, in virtually all my cars that I've had. My 1.6 16v Tiptronic easily achieves the stated figures, actually bettering them, as did my PD engined Fabia Estate. But it's not the same for everyone as we've all discussed many times on this site. There are too many variables for us all. So the EU designed the tests to 'give us an idea' of what the cars are capable of. That's all. They make no claims, as is the case for the manufacturers too, that these figures will be achieved. Just read the manual in your car.

Edited 10 April, 201313 yr by Estate Man

They are not meant to be representative figures. As AJ says above, the EU fixed the parameters so they could be compared across the board. The engine isn't even put in a car for the test. What it's meant to clearly show is that a BMW that does 55mpg is 10% more efficient than a Honda that does 50mpg. The figures could be even more far away from the actual truth but at least you could compare them. Where manufacturers bend the rules is by setting the gearing a certain way or the fuelling, etc.. I believe that part of the test asks for the engine to be run for a period of time at a certain percentage of full throttle in the highest, second highest and third highest gears. If the gearbox had 8 speeds and so was run in 6th, 7th and 8th for the test against a car with a 5 speed box, then of course it would show better fuel economy even with the same engine. Unfortunately, due to the way the test is run and the way manufacturers build their cars to 'beat' the test you get some that get close to their EU figures and some that have no chance (hybrids & fiat twin air engined cars from what I've read.)

Skoda have a Statement on the bottom of the UK websites on Official MPG figures.

'Tested at the Unladen Weight'.

& obviously that is on the rolling road under the other Regulations as they are required to.

http://www.skoda.co.uk/fuel-consumption-statement

george

At last the truth- in normal everyday use, the manufacturers MPG figures cannot be achieved! Who says so- The Advertising Standards Authority, thats who. This stemmed from a complaint by an Audi owner but they (ASA) have decided that all manufacturers will have to state that the published figures are derived from rolling road data and will not be realised !!

Many of us have found this for ourselves so no real surprise there. I hope that now Skoda et al will have to carry out realistic tests, or perhaps they could ask some of us to do it for them?

Would be helpful if you could post a link to the source.

Personally, I'd rather come to my own conclusions than rely on the A.S.A. who, as far as I'm concerned, aren't fit for purpose.

If their 'solution' is to force manufacturers to declare that the figures are derived from rolling road data, they're not really helping. Said rolling roads have to be pre-programmed with rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, etc., etc., for the vehicle in question. The rolling road tests are actually very useful, as they standardise the tests - it's the determination of the 'resistance' data that is not properly governed.

Background reading for those that wish to know more:

http://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/mind-gap-why-official-car-fuel-economy-figures-don%E2%80%99t-match-reality

At last the truth- in normal everyday use, the manufacturers MPG figures cannot be achieved! Who says so- The Advertising Standards Authority, thats who. This stemmed from a complaint by an Audi owner but they (ASA) have decided that all manufacturers will have to state that the published figures are derived from rolling road data and will not be realised !!

Many of us have found this for ourselves so no real surprise there. I hope that now Skoda et al will have to carry out realistic tests, or perhaps they could ask some of us to do it for them?

By law the manufacturers can use only the numbers from the official RR tests they cannot give any other figures. The ASA could make them add a disclaimer but that would be about it unless they can over rule EU legislation.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

The engine isn't even put in a car for the test

Bull poo!

Read the link in my post above.

Thread title may not be what the ASA said, as i read after a google and a few different magazines reporting on it.

A 'disclaimer' on adverts is what is to be happening.

http://www.whatcar.c...-figures/265695

george

Thread title may not be what the ASA said, as i read after a google and a few different magazines reporting on it.

A 'disclaimer' on adverts is what is to be happening.

http://www.whatcar.c...-figures/265695

george

Thanks for the link

Seems the key wording is 'might not' (No mention of 'cannot')

I wonder if the OP appreciates the irony of using misleading wording to complain about misleading wording

Edited 10 April, 201313 yr by Skoda Al Coda

If you achieve 50 mpg in a tsi fabia vrs you must be driving at 50/55mph for a fair distance, I drove 100 miles to the Lake District a couple of weekends back, 70mph-44mpg and would not budge, on the return trip home half the journey at 65mph saw 45.5mpg & the final stint at 60mph got me 47.7mpg.

Haha. Yes, that'll teach me to believe a colleague at work without checking his facts. I'd make a lousy journalist (or good one depending on your moral viewpoint :-))

"Manufacturer fuel consumption figures don't stack up in the real world"....... And in other news....... Water is wet! Lol

LSrs, How many miles has your engine done & are you using 99 ron petrol?

You will find lots of Average Speed camera areas in Scotland, and some routes cover quite long distances,

so if you set the CC @ 55 for 50 mph areas,

or even @ 70 mph you can see the MPG's for different weather conditions and temps on the same roads.

62 mpg is a regular indicated figure at 60 mph or so..

The difference that gives the good economy in a Twincharger is, if the Revs stay at 2400 rpm and no Turbo is being used.

If you regularly get 400 miles for 9 gallons thats a nice Average over 44 mpg. per tank.

george

Does anyone think that published GOVERNMENT (not manufacturers')figures are what MOST people will see?

As discussed a million times, they are a guide, to help compare like for like, car to car, model to model, engine to engine etc.

It is also why most car mags now have GOVT ECONOMY and ACTUAL ECONOMY (or words to that effect) in their long term tests (and some short tests).

LSrs, How many miles has your engine done & are you using 99 ron petrol?

You will find lots of Average Speed camera areas in Scotland, and some routes cover quite long distances,

so if you set the CC @ 55 for 50 mph areas,

or even @ 70 mph you can see the MPG's for different weather conditions and temps on the same roads.

62 mpg is a regular indicated figure at 60 mph or so..

The difference that gives the good economy in a Twincharger is, if the Revs stay at 2400 rpm and no Turbo is being used.

If you regularly get 400 miles for 9 gallons thats a nice Average over 44 mpg. per tank.

george

19.5k on the clock, using shell vpower.

Just spoke to an ex Fabia VRS TSI owner leaving work tonight. Said with DSG it was fun and like driving a go kart, smooth, used a fair bit of oil and avg 36 Mpg meant he now has a new Polo ECO model. We live in a rural area so he must have been caning it to work each day based on what the other owners have said.

It depends how long the commute is & how cold its is as well as how he drives.

Often it can be 10-15 miles during the winter until up to temperature and the MPG gets to 40 mpg or above.

george

It still surprises m that people buy a car like the vRS and complain with 36ish mpg. Thats a phenomenal daily average for a 180Hp car. Isnt 36mpg the stated fuel economy for urban cycle.

36....I get that after a few spirited sprints on a decent journey.

At last the truth- in normal everyday use, the manufacturers MPG figures cannot be achieved! Who says so- The Advertising Standards Authority, thats who. This stemmed from a complaint by an Audi owner but they (ASA) have decided that all manufacturers will have to state that the published figures are derived from rolling road data and will not be realised !!

Many of us have found this for ourselves so no real surprise there. I hope that now Skoda et al will have to carry out realistic tests, or perhaps they could ask some of us to do it for them?

There is no "realistic test". I commute the same 8 mile route to work every day. The maxidot trip mpg varies between 28 and 41 mpg. Same car, same route, same driver. There are so many variables at work when driving on the road that "realistic mpg" figures do not exist.

That is why they use the rolling road.

I can't believe that anybody ever believed that these figures were achievable! The "urban figure" for example - what would that be in real life? Central London in the rush hour? Or the Leeds Inner Ring Road at 4 in the morning? Are all cities the same? "Hmmmm..... I'm driving in a city why am I not getting the stated 37.8mpg? I must write to the ASA to complain..."

All these numbers tell you is that if car A has figures of 40, 50 and 60 then you can expect that it will probably (not definitely!!) be more economical in real life than car B with figures of 25, 38 and 45. How much better will depend on too many variables..

These numbers are comparative NOT absolute!

This link might help raise more questions?

youtube.com/watch?v=LGQGzQY81Eg

just add the www where needed.

Thanks for posting, nice find.

i have gone and posted the vid in the 'General Car Chat section'.

It still surprises m that people buy a car like the vRS and complain with 36ish mpg. Thats a phenomenal daily average for a 180Hp car. Isnt 36mpg the stated fuel economy for urban cycle.

Needless to say I totally agree...and,broadening this out,I have to say that whilst Briskoda is a great forum there are far too many threads IMO with people obsessing about fuel consumption.They tend to feed the myth that anyone who buys a Skoda is a just a cheapskate.