‘I went to court when my car didn’t meet its mileage claims’

John3, but people should be told more strongly in adverts that the EU NEDC test does not give a valid result. The only way to get an idea of mpg is through users websites – like Honest John – or Which? tests. This is what should be publicised.

“Official” fuel consumption is measured under laboratory conditions to a test regime set by the EU. Manufacturers can only quote the figures that produces. The test regime until recently was the NEDC, but is not representative of real life driving. It is being replaced by the WLTP – Light Vehicles Test Procedure – that is much more representative of real life, but the old procedure is still used. Not the manufacturers fault – unless they told you that the “official” mpg would be achieved in practice.

The best place to find typical real life mpgs is on sites like Honest John, or others where owners post their achieved mpgs.

I thought that the manufacturers had pushed for a delay in implementing the new test procedures: https://www.reuters.com/article/eu-autos-idUSL5N0XX2A420150506

Not only do we have being introduced a new, and more realistic, fuel consumption test but, also a real driving emissions test checking what happens on the road rather than just under laboratory conditions. There maybe were valid reasons for delaying the implementation of the RDE and WLTP. Such tests need to be as sound and representative of real life as is possible with standardised tests. We do not want a repeat of the EU’s NEDC test that was never really right, it seems, and has been enforced by the EU for well past the date when it should have been modified or replaced.

A report like this is not necessarily representing the facts. When it says “ We all know by now that pumped-up fuel economy figures are the direct result of carmakers gaming the lab tests. ” I believe this is untrue. The major discrepancy between real life mpg and the published test results were down to the unrepresentative nature of the test regime; any tweaking of the vehicle within the test rules was, from my look into the backround, of much less significance.

I’m just seeking balance because the EU have often been blamed for the delays in our discussions.

I appreciate that manufacturers can only quote the result of official tests but they could make it much clearer that they are not representative of what most drivers will achieve.

I am sure they would if the official figures under-represented the realistic on-the-road performance.

🙂 You might be right there. Perhaps the official test figures could carry the message ‘The average driver does have not a dog in heaven’s chance of achieving these figures’.

The adverts tell us that these figures may not represent real life driving. The core problem lies with the EUs outdated test that never represented real life driving. We should have been criticising that and looking at why they perpetuated the test for so long. Actually, part of the answer to that may be in the time it takes to devise, test, and verify a new test procedure. That was being developed internationally, and evolved as the WLTP.

Given the increasingly outdated test regime, the fact that apparently cars, on average, meet 83% of the artificial figure does not seem too bad an outcome. It will hopefully be well in the 90s under the WLTP.

Many of us who look at new cars would see what am mpg website might tell us about our potential purchase. Honest John for example. Real life information.

As someone who has dabbled in the retailing of motorcycles, I would hope that car dealers provide honest answers to customers’ questions.

With access to service data, including logs from trip computers, websites like Honest John, and the use of demo models, there is no excuse for retailers not knowing typical real world mpg figures.

The main reason for the differences is because the current tests are done under standard conditions that are quite different from how you or I drive. I understand the new tests are still being evaluated. This is explained in posts above. The problem is compounded by the fact that manufacturers can cheat by modifying cars in various ways to produce higher fuel economy. This article by European consumers’ association BEUC explains some of the games: http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2015-016_the_great_fuel_consumption_scam.pdf

The official test figures are the ones that are published.

The degree to which manufacturers can use the flexibility that is given in the badly-constructed EU’s NEDC test regime has a relatively insignificant effect on fuel consumption. It is an outdated test. Cheating means behaving dishonestly. Let’s keep the language factual rather than emotive.

Websites like honest john give average mpgs attained by “normal” drivers on the road. For a Mini One D (2007-13) the average is 56.7 mpg. It maybe your particular car has a problem or you drive it harder than average perhaps..

You had better have a word with BEUC rather than criticising me, Malcolm. They refer to a scam. Of course it is cheating to tape-up the doors of a car or carry out other modifications to improve the fuel economy.

The NEDC test was badly constructed from the word go and lax in its test specifications. The reports I have read and referred to in the past say that these things manufacturers can legitimately do have relatively little significant effect on the outcome of what is an unrepresentative test. It is artificial in its construction and was designed only to show relative differences between vehicles, never to produce meaningful on-the-road results. And that is what it does, but not very well. Anyone wanting meaningful results should use, until the WLTP proves itself, real life data published on a number of websites. Adverts point out the limitations of the only results the EC allow them to publish – the NEDC results.

The EC is the one that should be criticised for perpetuating this poor test for far too long.

You were offering a critique that I think is unfair wavechange. That is why I criticised the use of the word “cheat”. My personal view only, of course.

Still, with WLTP and RDE emissions testing I hope we are entering a more realistic “official” test scenario but for real life mpg I think the average attained by taking the feedback for many drivers will give a better indication. But it will be an average; so many individual factors will affect a personal result.

OED definition of cheat: “Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.”

I am not convinced that the EC deserves all the blame. I have not noticed the manufacturers clamouring for change over the years during which the NEDC test has been in use and as I pointed out before, some manufacturers pushed for a delay in implementing the new tests.

Here’s one link for those not familiar with EU car testing:
http://wltpfacts.eu/what-is-wltp-how-will-it-work/
“The EU automobile industry welcomes the shift to WLTP and has actively contributed to the development of this new test cycle.”
FROM NEDC TO WLTP: WHAT WILL CHANGE? This includes reference to, for example, flexibilities in the NEDC test not transferred to WLTP.

Do you have any further feedback on this?
Would be very interested to know.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

For the UK, as I’ve said before, Honest John’s gives a good guide to the full range of real world mpg figures.

From my various visits to the USA, I guess that their driving conditions encompass a wider range than we’ll see in the UK. Their gallons are smaller too.

I think they also invented YMMV or “your mileage might vary”.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Justin,

A quick look on “Honest John MPG” suggests about 30 – 34 mpg is what you can expect from a 2014-on Golf R in real world use.

If your VW salesperson told you to expect that you’d actually get anything the official test figures, then I’m afraid that was a scam.

From previous discussions here, I believe that EU and UK regulations dictate that manufacturers are only allowed to use the results of the flawed official tests in their advertising and brochures.

That having been said, sales staff in dealerships are allowed (or indeed expected) to tell the unvarnished truth.

I get different mpg according to where I’m going. I get significantly lower mpg on city driving and/or fast motorways, in hilly places, and dual cabbage ways than I do on quiet flat country roads.

Me too, and I assume that this applies to all drivers. I have noticed that in built-up areas the fuel economy is good if I’m not frequently changing speed.

In general, I find that modern cars give much higher mpg than old ones. That said, some emissions controls reduce airborne pollution at the expense of mpg.

In the early 1980’s my first car, a Renault 12, did 23 mpg on my daily commute and could get up to about 33 mpg on longer journeys. Today, my 2006 Nissan Note does about 46 mpg in normal usage, but also gets more on longer journeys.

When I’ve used newer (and usually much larger) hire cars for business trips, I’ve regularly managed over 50 mpg with petrol cars and over 60 with diesel cars.

Another factor that we’ve often discussed here is that the official mpg test predicts unduly high mpg figures in a lot of cases.

That seems to be down to the EU imposing an unrepresentative test and then manufacturers employing “gamesmanship” to raise their scores, by exploiting loop holes in the test procedure.

But other sources, like “Honest John’s” do give more accurate real world mpg figures. For example, my Note is listed as giving between 28 mpg and 74 mpg, with an average of 47 mpg.