Can you rely on your car’s mpg claims?

by , Senior Cars Researcher Transport & Travel 16 December 2012
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
1 - 0
avatar

Car manufacturers use official miles-per-gallon figures to promote their most efficient models. Yet our recent head-to-head test found that some ‘eco’ cars’ mpg ratings are way off the mark with everyday motoring.

Empty fuel gauge

Our research shows that rising fuel prices are one of consumers’ top financial concerns. So making sure you buy a car that doesn’t guzzle petrol or diesel is a higher priority than it ever has been before.

As a result, ultra-efficient small cars have become extremely desirable. The current range of ‘eco’ cars available that claim to emit less than 100g/km of CO2 seem to be the models to choose from, as they also mean free car tax and exemption from the London congestion charge.

Miles off the mark

Worryingly, of all the cars we tested in 2012, the ultra-efficient small cars showed the greatest difference between our own mpg tests and the EU tests used by manufacturers.

In fact, all 10 of the cars with the largest disparity between claimed mpg and our test results are ‘eco’ models that claim to beat the 100g/km CO2 emissions mark. Seven of these 10 claim to achieve more than 70mpg – but our test reveals this isn’t always the case.

The worst is the Peugeot 208 1.4 e-HDi EGC automatic, which our test found to be an astonishing 21.7mpg short of the claimed mpg. It’s still a highly efficient car, but the difference between the EU test of fuel consumption and ours could cost drivers £327 a year in petrol.

However, the biggest cost difference revealed by our tests came from the Fiat Punto TwinAir at £366 a year. The disparity between mpg ratings wasn’t as large, but because the tested mpg was the lowest of all, you’ll have to fill the Fiat more often than the others.

What’s the difference?

One reason for the large disparity between the figures is the difference in our own test cycle compared to the EU cycle that manufacturers use for their official claims.

Like our test, the EU test uses rolling roads. However, unlike EU tests, we use the same rolling road in our lab for all cars to make sure results are directly comparable. We also test any cars with adaptable settings (eco mode, sport mode, town mode) in the default mode the car starts up in – unlike the EU test, which uses the most economical mode.

On top of this, our urban and extra-urban test cycles are conducted from both a cold and warm start and then averaged. It also includes a section of motorway-speed driving. Finally, our mpg figure combines the urban and extra-urban test, together with the motorway test, weighted 70:30. All of these factors make our tests very robust.

Do you know how close you are to actually achieving the official mpg figure for your car? How important is the mpg rating to you when choosing a car?

Can you match your car's mpg claims?

No (68%, 784 Votes)

Yes (18%, 205 Votes)

I don't know (14%, 153 Votes)

Total Voters: 1,150

Loading ... Loading ...

70 comments

Add your comments

avatar

Malcolm R

Car manufacturers have to declare extra-urban, urban and combined fuel consumptions according to EU standardised tests. These are known not to be representative of “real life” consumption. This is not the manufacturers publishing misleading information, but a deficiency in the EU test conditions – or perhaps better described as a penalty of having to standardise test conditions. At best they can be seen to compare vehicles relative performance to one another.
Therefore tests such as Which? perform, and aggregate data from drivers, give a more realistic picture of what to expect.

avatar

macrotech

No, because in neutral, the car is using fuel to keep the engine ticking over, but in gear with your foot off the accelerator it is using no fuel at all.

avatar

wavechange

I thought that manufactuers’ fuel economy tests are more realistic than they used to be but Rob’s introduction suggests that that might not be the case. Maybe they are only useful to compare the relative fuel economy of different versions of the same car.

It is good that Which? publishes more realistic figures. One of their tests includes a cold start and anyone who bothers to look at the information on their dashboard will know just how thirsty cars are when the engine is cold. There could be a case for including a cold start in every test since that is representative of how most of us are using our vehicles.

It would be useful if MOT testing stations were to collect information about actual fuel consumption for vehicles presented for testing if lifetime information is stored by the computer.

When I was a child my father used to allow his Austin A35 to coast downhill when it was safe to do so, and I have done the same on some familiar roads. I don’t do this on unfamiliar roads or ones where I would have to brake to control the speed. Some may say that I am irresponsible but those who do the same as me will know that coasting can be done safely and can even help achieve the fuel economy figures published by the manufacturer.

avatar

Malcolm R

I believe coasting out of gear is illegal? I also seem to recall that a diesel engine uses more fuel coasting than it does in gear. It seems counter-intuitive but I think it was to do with the way fuel was delivered. Anyone know?

avatar

NukeThemAll

If by ‘coasting’ you mean putting the car into neutral so that the engine is idling freely independent of road speed…..then yes, for modern cars this is less economical. The reason is that the car’s ‘electronic brain’ knows the mismatch between road speed and accelerator position and will simply stop supplying any significant amount of fuel to the engine.

Coasting used to be frowned on for a number of obvious safety reasons, including the lack of engine braking on a descent. However, modern cars are often so highly-geared in top gear, there is negligible engine braking in most circumstances anyway.

avatar

wavechange

Coasting certainly can save fuel on a diesel engined car. The fuel consumption indicator makes this very clear. I don’t know about the legality but I only coast where I know the road and not when I have a passenger in the car. The argument is that you are not in full control of your car. That would certainly be the case if you were foolish enough to stop the engine.

With rising fuel prices, I would not be surprised if manufacturers introduce coasting as a feature of models with automatic or semi-automatic transmissions. There are safety features that could be built in to minimise the risks.

My father also taught me to put my foot on the clutch before starting a car engine, for safety and to disconnect the gearbox and put less load on the starter. I knew I must never do this when there was an instructor or examiner around. When I bought a new car recently the salesman warned me that I would have to remember to put my foot on the clutch when starting the engine. I said that I probably would not have a problem, having done this since 1968.

avatar

AQ

Interestingly, back in the 60′s when Saab still produced cars with 2 stroke engines, they actually fitted a freewheel mechanism which allowed the car to coast when you took your foot off the throttle. They did this to improve the awful economy associated with a 2 stroke and also to reduce the smoke from the exhaust.
The danger with coasting is the risk of the engine cutting out – rare perhaps, but it can happen, but when it does, you might lose the power assistance to the steering, making it very heavy – and you can lose the vacuum assistance to the brakes – reducing their stopping power.

avatar

wavechange

I have read that other cars would coast too, though I don’t know the details.

Yes the engine could cut out when idling, but I can’t remember ever this happening to me, even when stationary. Maybe that’s why the Highway Code does not even mention this. If it did happen the dashboard warning lights would alert me to the problem. You are right about loss of power assistance to steering (one reason why I only coast on straight roads) but the vacuum reservoir provides power assistance for two or more applications of the brakes. I periodically do check the effectiveness of my brake servo and handbrake in deserted car parks to ensure they are working well.

I am certainly not promoting coasting but I doubt if I am more of a danger than those who allow themselves to run out of fuel on the road. A good habit that I learned from my father is to fill up promptly and so far I’ve not run out of fuel.

avatar

macrotech

I believe it’s an urban myth that coasting saves fuel, and it’s dangerous. Just taking your foot off the accelerator while still in gear does save fuel though, as does a light touch on the accelerator of course.

avatar

wavechange

If you acknowledge that taking your foot off the accelerator while in gear does save fuel, then is it not reasonable to think that you will save more fuel without the drag of the engine slowing down the vehicle?

I’m a cautious driver and far more concerned about the danger of overtaking. I have checked the Highway Code and there are warnings about the dangers of coasting and overtaking.

I wish I had not raised the matter since driving technique is not the subject we are supposed to be discussing.

avatar

macrotech

Iin neutral, the car is using fuel to keep the engine ticking over, but in gear with your foot off the accelerator it is using no fuel at all.

avatar

wavechange

Oh dear. I must just be imagining that I’m getting more miles per gallon when I coast. Let’s drop this discussion – please.

avatar

NukeThemAll

Back on the subject of ‘real-life’ fuel economy……the other thing to remember is that it is actually very difficult for the average owner (even if they can be bothered) to get an accurate economy figure.

I know from a comparison with my sat-nav that my vehicle speedo over-reads by ~10%. Making assumptions that the trip computer or even a simple mileometer may be equally in error, it would mean that the trip computer mpg figure is 10% optimistic and doing the sums manually by ‘brimming’ the tank and recording mileage, is equally inaccurate.

A sat-nav, which is of course pretty damn accurate for speed and location, would be the only trustworthy ‘true’ mileometer (or perhaps reading the mileage from a trip planner such as Google Maps – but I’ve never researched the accuracy of their claimed journey distance).

There have been countless posts on the Which? conversations regarding how to drive and maximise fuel economy (but without doing silly things like driving at 30mph on a de-restricted road and annoying everyone) so I won’t refer to or repeat them. However…..I do find that driving with a fair degree of care and mechanical sympathy allows me to get close to or even exceed the manufacturer’s claims for my car.

Given the way that most of the local drivers hurtle about, fuel economy and hence price of fuel are simply not factors in their day-to-day thinking……

avatar

rarrar

Agree with Nuke.. the mpg displayed on the onboard computer is 5-10% higher than the one I get by calculation on tank filling ( over several tanks full) , this is on a Skoda Yeti my old VW Golf mk4 figures didnt seem to show this difference.
The speedo also again does over-read by almost 10% .
However if it was simply a matter of the mileometer being wrong I wouldnt get a discrepancy between the displayed mpg and the calculated one !

Not sure how accurate sat-navs are especially at lower speeds and in town, the gps location can be a few metres out and would result in a more zig-zag path (and longer) than actually is driven. However I suppose with suitable smoothing this error could become negligible

Whatever methods are used to provide “realistic” mpg figures, individuals driving habits and journeys vary so much as to make them pretty academic.

avatar

wavechange

If my comments about coasting are regarded as irresponsible the moderators may wish to remove my messages on this Conversation. I would like to make it clear that I am not suggesting anyone should break the law or do anything that could risk injury to themselves or other people.

It would also be a good idea to get back to the topic of manufacturers’ claims for fuel economy.

avatar

Peter C

A comment posted on 16 December speaks of putting your foot on the clutch when starting the engine, and says “I knew I must never do this when there was an instructor or examiner around”. Why not? Personally, I always declutch and put my foot on the brake when starting the engine for the reasons given by the commentor, and this also allows me to know that the brake servo is operating before I move away – and I am an examiner. Good road observation is the best way to improve fuel economy – releasing the accelerator in good time when a traffic light ahead is red, for example. What is the point of burning fuel to get to a red light? There is also the possibility that it will change through to green before I stop, thus saving fuel and giving a smoother ride to passengers into the bargain. “Slow to flow” is the slogan sometimes quoted. There are many occasions when good planning can save fuel.

avatar

wavechange

We are a bit off-topic but the way we drive certainly has a big effect on fuel economy. I do the same at traffic lights but it does not seem to go down well in central London, where some drivers get upset if you start to slow down before they consider it necessary.

avatar

brianac

I do not understand this article at all. The gallon is not used in the UK, it has not been used in 30 years.
Why is this being discussed? Surely it should be “why are manufacturers still using MPG figures?”. It means absolutely nothing to me.
Miles per litre would be a lot more useful.

avatar

wavechange

As far as I know, all manufacturers publish fuel economy figures in both mpg and litres/100 km in the UK. Many of us are keen on metrication but until miles disappear from road signs, most of us will continue to refer to mpg.

The graphics in Rob’s introduction make the differences clear, irrespective of what units are shown. If you really can’t cope with mpg, just assume that the manufacturers are being a little optimistic in their claims.

My car will display fuel economy figures as litres per km and litres per 100 km.

avatar

brianac

Neither miles per gallon nor litres/100 km makes any sense in a country that uses miles and litres but not gallons nor km.
As I said, why not miles per litre? That is how I work mine out.
Just how many here know what mpg actually means? How do you relate that to a gallon of petrol?

avatar

wavechange

Which? has kindly provided a litre/gallon converter on their website:
http://www.which.co.uk/cars/driving/driver-tools/litres-to-gallons-converter/

Those of us who can remember fuel prices in shillings and pence might resort to a quaint system called mental arithmetic that was popular in the dark ages.

My car (Golf 1.6 D) was doing about 13.5 miles per litre but with the recent cold weather and short journeys it’s down to a depressing 11.5. :-( The ‘combined’ figure given by Which? is 12.9 miles per litre, a bit more realistic than the manufacturer’s figure of 13.8 miles per litre.

avatar

clint kirk

The Which? converter uses an imprecise conversion factor of 4.55 instead of 4.546. This is a very small difference, so I’m being pedantic, but the website incorrectly says that 4546 litres is 999.12 gallons when the real figure is 1000.

avatar

Malcolm R

It’s probably an age thing, but I use mpg and have a feel for what is good and what is bad consumption. I wonder how many people have the same feel for litres/100km? I suspect the only reason we see fuel priced in litres is that it disguises the cost per gallon. The younger generation have a feel for metric measurements because they are educated to use those – this is a bit like losing a grasp of the value of goods when we went from lsd to decimal currency.

avatar

wavechange

I’m sure you are right, Malcolm. Part of the problem is that increased mpg is good whereas in litres/100 km, a lower figure is better. Maybe we should have gone for miles/litre, as suggested by brianac, when fuel sales moved from gallons to litres.

avatar

brianac

Just what “Age thing” is this Malcolm?
I still rememer petrol going up to 3/6 a gallon when I filled my motorbike, it does not mean I want either gallons nor £sd to return.
The fact is we no longer use either and have not done so for 30 years.
Live with it and get over it.

avatar

Malcolm R

The point I was making was that people brought up – educated – in a particular era still can relate to the values of that era – as, for example, in evaluating the significance of miles per gallon. Incidentally, as far as I am aware, gallons and miles are still UK measures (or pints, if you drink). I have nothing to “get over” as you put it, as I am quite capable of working in metric or imperial.

avatar

brianac

OK, thats fair enough. I too was educated for the most part in Imperial. I could not wait to get rid of its shackles and start using something a little more logical. I do not find it so easy to work in both units, I don’t want two incompatible units thrust on me such that I really understand niether. I do not like references to ‘my age group’, and ‘waiting for us to die out’ as being reasons for this country being held back. The gallon was removed from UK allowed primary units of measurment from 30 September 1995. It has been illegal for trade from that time. I see cars as trade, mpg displays are part of that trade. Peace.

avatar

L2

Some people do brim to brim fill ups to calculate their MPG, or use a fuel calculating website. I don’t do it myself though, I couldn’t be bothered.

I’d say the MPG is affected by individual driving style, for example I remember there was a hybrid MPG challenge in a local dealership, the participants all drove the same car on the same route but got different MPG results.

avatar

Andrew G

So why haven’t Which? lobbied the EU to make the economy tests more representative of real life?

There’s a clear example from the USA where the economy testing regime was changed precisely to make the results match the public’s experience more closely.

avatar

L2

I don’t think the EU would listen to Which?

avatar

AQ

Rob
The Fiat Punto TwinAir is a petrol car – not diesel.

avatar

Abueloeddie

Moving ever so slightly away from the original topic but in reply to the ‘MPG v Kilometres per 100 litres’ topic…. I drove a local Rapid Transit system which was the first in the country constructed in metrical units ( Newcastle on Tyne’s Metro) As forward thinking planners had everything one could see and touch metricated, Kms for speed limits, metres for Metro car measurements and metric Tonnes for weights, it often amused me when, after a breakdown in service, the driver had to fill in a Lost Mileage report!

avatar

AQ

With more and more cars these days having on-board “computers”, it is often possible to set the display to give a constant read-out of miles per gallon. Put your foot down and the figure instantly plummets, but ease off, eg when going down a slope and the figure can soar, even off scale. Whilst not totally accurate, seeing this figure displayed as you drive does have a positive effect on how you drive, without going too slowly or causing a nuisance.

avatar

clint kirk

I think the constant fuel consumption readings can be a bit misleading. They do indeed show your instantaneous fuel consumption but it doesn’t necessarily mean that minimizing it at all times will lead to better overall consumption on a complete journey. For example, when going downhill, the reading will show a very good consumption figure indeed – but all this means is that you are using up a different form of energy instead of petrol to maintain your speed. You are using up potential energy, in the form of altitude. Eventually, you will have to go uphill again, and fill up your lost potential energy reserve by using up more petrol (with very low mpg figures). Similarly, putting your right foot down to the floor will show a very poor instantaneous consumption figure but in fact it won’t result in a poor overall consumption because you’ve converted petrol into kinetic energy (speed) so haven’t in reality thrown energy out of the window. Indeed, by accelerating fast, you can afford to keep your maximum speed a little bit lower and still reach your destination at the same time, and by having a lower speed you can save fuel.

avatar

Jehosophat

I find if very odd that manufacturer’s MPG and CO2 ratings are for a test cycle that is basically very short, slow trips. I wonder what % of the miles driven is in fact on the motorway? It is really hard to get figures for economy for a steady 70mph for modern vehicles, and yet surely this is how most of the miles for medium to high mileage drivers (and thus most of the miles full stop) will be driven.

I have owned various cars with fairly large normally aspirated petrol engines (2.8, 3.0. 3.2 litres) and they can easily better the quoted EU mpg at motorway speeds. And it is in this sort of driving that I find the small cars with supposedly amazing mpg really suffer – many can barely better 40mpg. I can do that at a constant 70 in my 3-litre automatic petrol estate car (trips up to 42mpg if I drive like a saint – 38mpg EU).

As I do a lot of miles but almost never short trips in my cars, it is really annoying that the quoted MPG figures bear no relation to how I will use a car.

avatar

brian.t

I venture to suggest that all new cars are becoming ‘keyless start” now, consequently you have to decluch to start the thing! Regardless of what posters are quoting on here, I know in that 1957 I paid 19/10p for 4 gallons (18.18 litres!). 18 litres and change out of a pound! Those were the days.

avatar

L2

Brian, even some cars which aren’t ‘keyless start’ require the clutch to be depressed when starting. I had a 2003 Yaris where this process had to be followed and it wasn’t a keyless entry car.

avatar

macrotech

If you go to honestjohn.co.uk you can get a real world idea of what mpg other drivers get in your car, which the site compares to the manufacturer’s figures. This tells me, for instance, that my car has one of the worst discrepancies between manufacturer’s claims and real world figures. I know I’m not going to get the manufacturer’s figures but such large discrepancies are unacceptable, and indicate to me that the tests are seriously flawed, and/or that some manufacturers know how to “cheat” the tests to look good in their brochures.

avatar

kremmen

I don’t know what has recently changed with the tests but for years my daily journey used to beat the claimed MPG by a few MPG. Lexus reckoned I should get 28mpg but I actually achieved 32. Then comes the Honda Civic where It’s gone the other way and I’m 4 mpg under.

avatar

clint kirk

I think this is due to what relative percentage of your journeys are in town, on single-carriageway extra-urban roads (whose speed limits are best for economy) and motorway. Some cars are better suited at higher speeds, others at lower speeds.

avatar

clint kirk

From the description of how the EU and Which? test their cars, I don’t understand how a rolling-road test accounts for the fuel needed to counteract aerodynamic drag. Can someone explain?

avatar

Malcolm R

Clint, it doesn’t. I presume the EU tests should not be regarded as realistic of everyday performance, but are standardised tests to ensure all vehicles are tested on the same basis. Apart from being unrealistic, this also can lead to designers developing vehicles that perform well under the artificial test conditions, but not necessarily in real life. Best to use car reviews.

avatar

clint kirk

Malcolm, if the EU and Which tests neglected drag, they would be meaningless, for it would be impossible to compare mpg figures between two different cars, and that is exactly what those tests are designed for. For example, if they just measured engine and drivetrain efficiency then they would show that a square-shaped van had better economy at motorway cruising speed than a streamlined luxury car, when the reverse would be true.

avatar

Dave Walker

I would like to raise the issue of tyre choice \ wheel size in the MPG discussion. I am driving my second 2.0 TDI 140 Diesel Ford S Max. The first new car 06 achieved 46mpg if driven carefully. The second has never achieved 40mpg regardless of how carfully you drive it. The only difference between them is wheel size and width. The newer car has 18 inch x 235 x 45 tyres. I am convinced the wider tyres cost MPG and this is not pointed out in any official figures when you buy the car. The second point is that each replacement tyre costs over £250 each!! Combine this cost with the lower MPG and you are looking at thousands of pounds over 4 years motoring. Options in the brouchure should carry with them the true costs and implications.

avatar

AQ

Whilst a change in tyre size / width / make etc is likely to have a bearing on MPG, it might also be the fact that no two cars / engines are exactly the same in performance / MPG etc.

avatar

Malcolm R

Clint, generally, as far as I know, “putting your foot to the floor”, i.e. trying to accelerate hard, wastes fule because your engine is working inefficiently. Best to accelerate relatively gently if you want to improve your fuel consumption.

avatar

clint kirk

Malcolm, I think it is a misconception that full throttle wastes fuel. It is probably an over-simplification stated to discourage drivers from doing stupid things like accelerating towards red lights. From the Wikipedia page on Engine Efficiency: “Under part throttle conditions (i.e. when the throttle is less than fully open), the effective compression ratio is less than when the engine is operating at full throttle, due to the simple fact that the incoming fuel-air mixture is being restricted and cannot fill the chamber to full atmospheric pressure. The engine efficiency is less than when the engine is operating at full throttle.”

avatar

AQ

Clint – it all depends on whether you want maximum efficiency from your car or maximum economy. Using your theory, you could travel all day in 3rd gear at say 60mph to achieve “maximum efficiency”, but you would use much more fuel than doing the same trip at the same speed in top gear (say 5th or 6th).

I think most of us would choose top gear to improve the economy – this is after all the main objective of this subject.

avatar

clint kirk

AQ – Efficiency translates directly as economy, as it is defined as energy output as a percentage of energy input. (In this case, output energy is mechanical and input energy is chemical.) But this assumes that everything else is unchanged, so your example doesn’t hold. By saying everything else is unchnanged, I mean that under identical conditions (atmospheric pressure and temperature), and identical engine revs, an engine at half throttle is less efficient than an engine at full throttle. The engine at half throttle will be using a large proportion of its petrol just to keep running (the compressions take away a lot of power) whereas the engine at full throttle will be outputting something useful: acceleration. That’s the theory. In practical terms, it means that economical driving entails accelerating at full throttle to reach your desired final speed in the shortest possible time, and then reducing the throttle to maintain that speed for the rest of your journey in the highest possible gear. (I don’t think we are disagreeing, just interpreting the theory differently. And of course, most people would prioritise safety and smoothness before economy.)

avatar

AQ

Clint – whilst I am fully conversant with the laws of physics in relation to energy input, output and efficiency, you have drawn a direct correlation to economy with your argument – and all this is theoretical and bears no relation to real life driving, which was the original basis for this debate. Even the manufacturers’ MPG figures cannot be relied upon as to what is genuinely achieved on the road. If you believe you will get the best economy by flooring the throttle in each gear until you reach the speed you want, before easing back, you’re on your own – nobody else subscribes to such a practice for maximising fuel economy and nor would they recommend it. Safety and smoothness should, indeed, be high on everyone’s priorities – and are more likely to be achieved when driving with economy in mind, but if you insist that full throttle acceleration to the desired speed is best – then safety and smoothness, as well as economy have gone out of the window.

avatar

Steve

I have a brand new focus ST (not in the slightest a green car, i know!) but the manufacturers MPG claims are way off! I am lucky to get 26 MPG when ford claim over 30 combined.

avatar

macrotech

That’s not too bad. Avoid the Mini Countryman Cooper Diesel – Mini claim 64 mpg combined, but most people struggle to get more than mid-40s.

avatar

clint kirk

My brother has a Mercedes diesel. After his previous car was stolen, he replaced it with the exact same model (both were second-hand but with similar ages and mileages.) The second car has noticeably worse economy than the first one.

avatar

abueloeddie

Gentlemen.

My vehicle, 3.2 ltr E series M/Benz ’04 saloon is not noted for its frugality. BUT, I think that on a motorway with 69.99mph set and a clear( ish) road ahead, the resulting 46.76 MPG speaks volumes for the auto engineers at M/B This is taken from the car’s computer readings which compare well with the Garmin Sat Nav’s trip stats, and are also borne out on the nifty iPhone ‘Fuel app’, which has returned an average consumption of 39 mpg since May 2012.

avatar

wavechange

Fuel consumption indicators are a great help to demonstrate the effect of driving style but I wonder how accurate they are. Has Which? ever tested their accuracy?

avatar

Vynor Hill

I brim the tank regularly as I don’t get many chances to fill up in the week. Mine is about 3mpg optomistic. I find the instant read out distracts me from the job of driving and it doesn’t really tell me much in the end. When the car goes into its ‘de-clog filter’ cycle the mpg drops for a while and then creeps back up. Its never below 40mpg and never above 45mpg. While on the subject, I find litres per kilometre meaningless since I never use it. If we converted I’d have to make the effort. I expect it would register in time.

avatar

wavechange

I must go back to working out my fuel consumption, as I did in the days before fuel consumption indicators.. How often does a DPF filter go through a cleaning cycle? My car does indicate when this is being done.

avatar

Vynor Hill

About once every thousand miles, but it doesn’t tell me. Surprisingly, where ever I drive and at what ever speed, the MPG doesn’t seem to change. Can’t explain that. ( I got the “it’s” wrong again – sorry. )

avatar

Vynor Hill

Optimistic. Oh bu**er!

avatar

wavechange

Thanks. That could explain why my fuel economy is occasionally very poor.

avatar

Chris Gloucester

To get back to the question.
Given there are so many factors that can affect fuel consumption the surprise would be if the manufactuers figures were actually correct.
But it doesn’t really matter because campared to each other you can still tell which car is likely to be the most economical even though none of them will as economic as claimed.
After all you’ll drive in the same maner, usually buy your fuel from the same place and usually take the same routes whichever car you buy. So comparison between the cars you’re thinking of buying is all that counts, and currently optimistic manufacturers figures still do that because they all go about establishing their figures in the same standard way.
The reason manufacturers figures tend to be a bit optimistic isn’t really al that difficult to work out is it?

avatar

AQ

Well, we all know that we are very unlikely to achieve the economy figures quoted by the car manufacturers, but it does not necessarily follow that if a certain model has a better economy figure than a particular rival, that drivers will also find that the same car still beats its rival in real life. Whilst a car promising 70mpg is very likely going to achieve better real life results than one promising 40mpg, quite frequently another rival promising 60mpg turns out to be more economical than the 70mpg car in real life driving. Although car manufacturers have made significant advances in improving fuel economy, the government prescribed tests result in a grave distortion between the publicised figures and what are really achieved. The figures might be as close as 10% worse on some models, but could be 30-40% worse on others. Interestingly, the greater amounts of difference are usually found on those models that promise the greatest economy, whilst conversely, the claimed fuel consumption of performance cars are usually much closer to what is achieved in real life – and sometimes even exceeded. So the differences probably come down to the manufacturers’ priorities model by model – where the primary aim is fuel economy, you must expect real consumption to be rather worse than the claim. Where fuel economy is lower priority for a particular car, then your own results are likely to be very much closer. As with anything that any government meddles with (of any persuasion) take the figures with a very large pinch of salt – best to rely on real figures.

avatar

clint kirk

“the claimed fuel consumption of performance cars are usually much closer to what is achieved in real life” – I’m a bit surprised by that. I would have thought that someone who bought a performance car would be more likely to drive it enthusiastically, with less consideration being given to fuel economy.

avatar

malcolm r

The manufacturers consumption figures are produced using standard EU test procedures. Wikipedia says the following:
“In the European Union, passenger vehicles are commonly tested using two drive cycles, and corresponding fuel economies are reported as ‘urban’ and ‘extra-urban’, in litres per 100 km and (in the UK) in miles per imperial gallon.

The urban economy is measured using the test cycle known as ECE-15, first introduced in 1970 by EC Directive 70/220/EWG and finalized by EEC Directive 90/C81/01 in 1999. It simulates a 4,052 m (2.518 mile) urban trip at an average speed of 18.7 km/h (11.6 mph) and at a maximum speed of 50 km/h (31 mph).

The extra-urban driving cycle or EUDC lasts 400 seconds (6 minutes 40 seconds) at an average speed 62.6 km/h (39 mph) and a top speed of 120 km/h (74.6 mph).[21]

EU fuel consumption numbers tend to be considerably lower than corresponding US EPA test results for the same vehicle. For example, the 2011 Honda CR-Z with a six-speed manual transmission is rated 6.1/4.4 l/100 km in Europe and 7.6/6.4 l/100 km in the United States”.

For real life fuel consumption, Honest John (DT) has a website with a useful database.

avatar

wavechange

I don’t believe that these tests involve cold starts, though Which? does include a cold start in one of their tests. Cars are much less economical before the engine reaches the correct operating temperature, so it is hardly surprising that many of us do not achieve the fuel economy figures published for our vehicles.

avatar

AQ

It might sound surprising Clint, but if you check out what the motoring press find on their road tests and long term tests, their findings do seem to show this. One of the contributing factors is that, very often, the smaller engined versions of cars will deliver worse results than the larger engined versions, if the smaller engined one is driven in a manner to keep up with the larger engined one. Unfortunately, many people make the mistake of trading down to a car that promises more economical motoring, but don’t make sufficient adjustment to their driving style to achieve it. By way of example, the final gearing on cars is getting longer and longer to reduce the revs at cruising speeds (which should reduce consumption). However, an incline, headwind or full load will work against this and more throttle is applied to compensate (almost sub-consciously), when a change to a lower gear would be better. Remember the days when you could pootle along at 20mph or less in top gear ? – well not now, because of the gearing.

avatar

Donna

I have a 2012 Astra 2.0 CDTi Sri which I am getting 32 mpg urban and 38 combined. I took it into the garage last week they hooked it up to the computer said there was nothing wrong with it, reset the trip computer then told me they were getting 50mpg by going round the block. I’m a 40 odd year old mother of two! I’m not hammering it and think its a joke. Do I have any comeback as when I bought it they told me 60 + to the gallon combined. Please help x

avatar

abueloeddie

Donna. It’s all down to driving style. The engine in your car was tested under laboratory conditions before it was ever fitted to your vehicle and produced some very fanciful figures so that the manufacturers could comply with the Law as pertaining to the sale of cars. They are merely a guide and as this conversation has shown, are no where near what would pass for the truth.

Your daily use may be to use the car for several short trips and your style of driving as you typify by admitting your age and status, will be quite gentle. Add the timing of your journeys…(School run both ways in heavy stop / start traffic,) and that will blow large holes in anyone’s attempt to eke out their car’s consumption.

Your local garage mechanic timed his trip ‘around the block’ to enjoy a light traffic time between 9.30 and Midday, plus I’ll bet my best boots that he warmed up the engine first, cleared out the boot and removed the roof rack. ( I obviously can’t know about the last two but if I was wanting to show how well a vehicle performed, they’d be high on the list) Correct tyre pressures, a well serviced engine, clean oil, the list just goes on and on.

Then he’d move out and get into top gear just as soon as traffic conditions allowed, and drive up to the speed limit 50, 60 , 70,mph briskly and time his approach to hazards to use the brakes as little as possible. He’d not be forced to sit stationary for long periods with the engine on, and all in all he’s easily shown you that a higher consumption figure is possible.

I bought a 6 cylinder 3.2 litre car just in time for the current fuel prices to go sky high, but using the methods which I have learned over 47 years of driving in 3 European countries, my car returns a regular 37mpg “round the houses” and a creditable 45 mpg on long trips via motorways.

avatar

carl myhill

We have a skoda octavia greenline with a claimed average of 64mpg. When the car was new we could beat this on a long drive (we have kids and rarely go much over 70 and enjoy driving for economy rather than thrills). These days, nearly 3 years later we struggle to get 55mpg on a long run.

My question is, given that we’re all discussing this. What can we do about it? I have bought a product with a claimed performance that it is not meeting. Surely it is not fit for the purpose that it was sold for, right?

avatar

AQ

Carl, achieving 55mpg on a run with an Octavia isn’t bad going, even if you have had better than this in the past. As discussed earlier on this topic, it is the Government which forces car manufacturers to publicise the results of the three sets of MPG tests, together with CO2 test results – all achieved in strictly controlled “laboratory” type conditions. The tests themselves are specified by the Government. The purpose was to “force” manufactureers to up their game on producing cars which would be more economical and less polluting, so had to be tested in identical conditions, which precludes real roads because of all the variables that would affect the results. The manufacturers have made significant progress in improving economy and reducing CO2 emitions, but have also exploited the potential to tweak various techniques to improve the figures. Apart from increasingly more efficient engines, lowering the suspension a little, fitting “stop/start”, fitting narrower wheels, adding spoilers and other aerodynamic tweaks, electric power steering – are all used in various combinations on different models. However, the changes to gear ratios probably have the biggest influence, after engine improvements. Final gearing is getting taller and taller, producing some spectacular results in the official tests and they will continue to experiment to beat the oppositions’ results. This might look good in their advertising, but bears no relation to real life results. I know a few people who have bought “greenline”, “blue motion”, and other “eco” versions of cars and have found that they are using more fuel than before – quite simply because much of the time they are in too high a gear – fine for steady speeds, but in urban conditions, you have to use lower gears and resist just pushing on the throttle to keep up with the traffic. Few people seem to achieve the manufacturers’ figures and only by driving gently can you get close – no bad thing to try, but difficult to maintain in everyday driving conditions.

As for claiming that the vehicle is not fit for purpose because you cannot match their figures – well you already know how far you would get with that, especially more than 3 years after purchase – nice idea though.

Back to top

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked

Tired of typing your name and email? Why not register.

Register or Log in

Browse by Category

Consumer Rights

777 Conversations

9663 Participants

27978 Comments

Energy & Home

659 Conversations

7297 Participants

25402 Comments

Money

827 Conversations

6315 Participants

16446 Comments

Technology

781 Conversations

7676 Participants

20182 Comments

Transport & Travel

603 Conversations

4841 Participants

13568 Comments