https://www.transportenvironment.org...ap-2016-report

Mind the Gap 2016 - Report

Published on December 21, 2016 - 08:01


This report examines the difference between the official laboratory test results and real-world CO2 emissions and fuel economy of cars. It shows the current system has totally failed and explains how to fix the problems. The difference between official laboratory test results and real-world car performance is growing uncontrollably jumping from 9% in 2001 to 28% in 2012 and 42% in 2015. It is expected to reach 50% before 2020.

I believe everyone knows that the test results bear no actual resemblance to real life, and that manufacturers state they are provided for comparison purposes only. 

 

If people seriously believe a diesel Insignia will return 74.3 mpg they need their heads looking at!

I believe everyone knows that the test results bear no actual resemblance to real life, and that manufacturers state they are provided for comparison purposes only.

If people seriously believe a diesel Insignia will return 74.3 mpg they need their heads looking at!

I can categorically say thy a diesel insignia will not get anywhere that figure :rofl:

Fuelly or Spritmonitor, do your own research. Crowd sourcing FTW.

I can categorically say thy a diesel insignia will not get anywhere that figure :rofl:

My point exactly, but Vauxhall website says it can!

Perhaps the testing is  scheduled for windy days only - storm "Barbara" behind you has got to be worth + 5 MPG.

 

Or do they just install undersized wheels and over inflate the tyres  ?

 

I suppose the mileage could be increased significantly if the mixture was set at the max allowable weakening and the EGR valve set permanently to 100% recycle - through software. Do the published tests show the cylinder head temperatures ?

 

N

Edited 22 December, 20169 yr by Clunkclick

My immediate thought - "Hybrids" that have "just enough" battery to complete the tests but then turn into petrol cars hauling 50kg of excess mass about.

Our 308 is averaging 4.9/100 which includes some trips to inner Melbourne suburbs off-peak.

The 2008, 3.9/100 for similar driving

All mainly country cruising though but not far off advertised

It's the brakes that kill economy so it requires very little traffic

speak English cobber. we still have mpgs here.

speak English cobber. we still have mpgs here.

Hearwith my good man

60 and 73 ....near enough

:-)))

73 sweet. I only get 40-45 on my commute in the Rapid-alike.

73 sweet. I only get 40-45 on my commute in the Rapid-alike.

73 sweet. I only get 40-45 on my commute in the Rapid-alike.

Me being retired and having 'escaped to the country' it's an unfair comparison I suspect

Also in 'breaking news' - bear defecates in woods

 

This is a car forum so it's not surprising we look at lab figures and call BS. But most people take these figures at face value even where the manufacturer put in a disclaimer. I've had arguments with relatives where I tried to tell them they would not get 45mpg from their petrol 4x4 only to be ignored then see them hand the car back 6 months later when they got close to 25mpg from it.

 

IMHO the more 'eco' the car the bigger the lie.

 

My last few cars labs Vs real world

 

Octy VRS TFSI  - 35.7 / 38

Honda Accord 2.2d  - 45/47

Mazda 3 2.2d  - 69 / 50

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

 

There are those in the USA that look at Reviews & roadtests on models that they will get after they are available in Europe and road testers quote MPG's. 

Some seem not even aware in the USA that their MPG can not be even as roadtesters mention as they will not gets the same amount of fuel in a gallon.

 

At least when the authorities and lawyers get on the case the likes of KIA / HYUNDAI assume the position.

Part of the problem is that these official figures are quoted too often in lazy magazine/newspaper/web reports, and generally without sufficient warnings about reliability of figures.

 

Motoring supplements with newspapers are particularly bad, little more than press handouts, but still disguised as journalism.

 

Bad also that official figures are not even reliable as a comparison, given the gap between official and reality varies from car to car.

 

My last car Octy 2 1.9 PD was probably one of the few where you had any chance of getting close to official figures.

The Americans are in trouble if they quote an unachievable battery range like those quoted in the EU but I'm not sure if that attitude applies to US mpg.

I guess if they accept a low emissions figure from a test cell they have to accept the unrealistic consumption figure also but BEVs don't get the same leg-up.

The Bolt EV range is quoted as 238 in the U.S. which would equate to considerably more elsewhere, closer to 300.

They are a World Super Power,

they put a man on the Moon and they are putting a Moron in the White House, so there must be some bright people in the USA.

Reagan was quite a good president in the end though ;)

 

In the US a certified moron has an IQ of 65 or less.

 

If you score just one more (66) you can join the US Marines and become a "killing machine"...

 

 

and just to get back on topic, then you get to drive a HummVee that does about 6mpg

Edited 25 December, 20169 yr by camelspyyder

I never knew that Moron was a Medical term, but that says more about me.

IQ of 64. Higher then an Idiot or Imbecile sometimes.

 

Easy to get a Humvee to do 0 MPG like any vehicle even with a US Gallons, just sit with the engine running and go no place.

Edited 25 December, 20169 yr by Offski

Honest John's website has 2 articles re Diesel vs Petrol running costs, which reflects real world useage. The Golf 110 and A3 150 TDI needed 53K and 290K miles respectively to justify the costs vs their equivalent 1.4 TSI option. Conclusion being that as a private buyer with low-avg annual mileage, unless you intend to retain the vehicle or prefer diesel characteristics, then the petrol is the obvious choice. Of the 10 cars tested 30K miles was the approximate tipping point where the diesel versions were recommended. The majority of the choices were for petrol.

They obviously never counted in that the 1.4 TSI might need a replacement engine by the time 60,000 miles have passed, to that is an extra £5,000

 

Or that the TDI's will need 500,000 scrapped in the USA so that is 3 Billion Dollars, 

then the other 10.5 Million World wide need The Fix and then the fines, so that is only 1.5 Billion Euro.

Edited 25 December, 20169 yr by Offski