actualy all car manufacturers should be prosecuted for putting out false information .... the offical fuel consumption figures are a joke, it should be possible for the average motorist to get within (say) 5% of the published figures in normal driving or the figures be withdrawn. Let's hope a post Brexit UK government does something about this ... (but I won't be holding my breath until they do!)
the so called cheat devices are potenially an additional level of criminality ... shareholders and directors should be worried!
Blame the EU NEDC test, not the car makers - they're not allowed to "claim" any figures but must publish the results of the official NEDC test.
The NEDC test is carp - totally unrealistic for real world driving or any of the many variations based on driving pattern - carp EU bureaucrats, we're better off out!
|
|
Single market or not - if we want to continue selling cars into EU we will have to undertake the EU emmisions and consumption tests.
We all know that mpg is heavily reliant on driving style, road conditions, temperature, journey length etc etc. So we should just treat the figures for what they are - obtained under consistent conditions but applicable individually to almost no-one,
Having an alternative testing regime for the UK only could be confusing and an additional cost on the moter industry - although it may act as a small barrier to importers.
I suspect there are far bigger issues surrounding Brexit for this to get very high up thhe priority list.
|
Single market or not - if we want to continue selling cars into EU we will have to undertake the EU emmisions and consumption tests.
We all know that mpg is heavily reliant on driving style, road conditions, temperature, journey length etc etc. So we should just treat the figures for what they are - obtained under consistent conditions but applicable individually to almost no-one,
Having an alternative testing regime for the UK only could be confusing and an additional cost on the moter industry - although it may act as a small barrier to importers.
I suspect there are far bigger issues surrounding Brexit for this to get very high up thhe priority list.
Australia uses the Euro emissions testing standards, although generally implementing them later than the EU - it would make sense for us to do the same post-Brexit
|
|
|
|
Blame the EU NEDC test, not the car makers - they're not allowed to "claim" any figures but must publish the results of the official NEDC test.
I notice that Peugeot are providing what they call "certified calculations of real-world fuel consumption"
http://www.peugeot.co.uk/consumption-calculator/
Presumably it is worded to get around the EU rules?
|
Blame the EU NEDC test, not the car makers - they're not allowed to "claim" any figures but must publish the results of the official NEDC test.
I notice that Peugeot are providing what they call "certified calculations of real-world fuel consumption"
http://www.peugeot.co.uk/consumption-calculator/
Presumably it is worded to get around the EU rules?
If that uses the upcoming WLTP test procedure, that's good - otherwise it's only useful if other car makers use the same procedure.
|
|
I read a very interesting article in (of all things!) top Gear magazine by Paul Horrell about a year ago regarding quoted mpg figures. In it he states that although claimed mpg figures for any particular type of car has dramatically increased over the last 20 or so years, the actual figures have stayed pretty much the same. He uses a variety of sources for the information, including fuel card companies, surveys, and his own meticulous records from many years of running various cars on long term tests. The general theme seemed to be along the lines of that a car, say a mondeo, from 1996, would in average everyday driving, get around 5 percent less mpg than the quoted figures, while a brand new one would be at least 30 percent lower than quoted figures. And that the actual figures for both cars would be very similar to each other, certainly within a couple of percent.
So it would seem thas while car manufacturers would have us believe the cars we drive now are much more economical than ever, the truth is that they just aren't!
|
I read a very interesting article in (of all things!) top Gear magazine by Paul Horrell about a year ago regarding quoted mpg figures. In it he states that although claimed mpg figures for any particular type of car has dramatically increased over the last 20 or so years, the actual figures have stayed pretty much the same. He uses a variety of sources for the information, including fuel card companies, surveys, and his own meticulous records from many years of running various cars on long term tests. The general theme seemed to be along the lines of that a car, say a mondeo, from 1996, would in average everyday driving, get around 5 percent less mpg than the quoted figures, while a brand new one would be at least 30 percent lower than quoted figures. And that the actual figures for both cars would be very similar to each other, certainly within a couple of percent.
So it would seem thas while car manufacturers would have us believe the cars we drive now are much more economical than ever, the truth is that they just aren't!
What you forget is that, most car manufacturers (except a few, such as Mazda) have increased the size (and weight) of their cars for each model over the last three decades, with each new iteration being larger and heavier than the last. Add to that a far greater amount of electronic gadgets and gizmos in cars, which require power (and therefore fuel) to operate.
This trend has, it appears, started to wear off of late, which should give a more reasonable indication of progress on the mpg front, as long as you can compare two cars that are near enough the same size, and (just as important) performance.
Think of it - a mk1 Mondeo is FAR smaller than today's version (not that far off the size of the last Focus inside [forget the boot, though you could compare it to the last Focus with a boot]), which is probably bigger than the Grananda/Scorpio. Today's VW Polo is the size of a mk2 Golf, etc, etc. You're not comparing like with like, especially as many cars now have small petrol turbo engines which are better on performance than the normally asiprated ones they replaced.
If I compare my car, a mk1 Mazda3 TS2 1.6 petrol saloon from 2006 with a similar sized mk3 with a 2ltr petrol engine in it, my car is 2.3 sec slower to 60 and yet, with less gadgets on it, can only manage around the 38mpg mark, the new version 42-43mpg (on the real mpg figures). I would say that's a decent improvement over 10 years - 10% more efficient but 20% better acceleration and CO2 emissions at 70% of the older one.
Quite a lot of the discrepancies are down to the increased usage of diesel cars, and mostly because they are used in the wrong way - for low mileage driving in urban areas, where they don't get a chance to properly warm up, and get clogged up with soot etc which needs to be removed, the only way outside a garage to do so is via the car burning it off by using fuel, and quite often, hence reducing mpg figures considerably. Its noticeable that those BRs who use their diesel cars properly for long trips on faster moving roads and for annual usages over 20k miles get much closer to the quote mpg figures, similar to those owning petrol-engined cars.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 27/03/2017 at 10:33
|
If I compare my car, a mk1 Mazda3 TS2 1.6 petrol saloon from 2006 with a similar sized mk3 with a 2ltr petrol engine in it, my car is 2.3 sec slower to 60 and yet, with less gadgets on it, can only manage around the 38mpg mark, the new version 42-43mpg (on the real mpg figures). I would say that's a decent improvement over 10 years - 10% more efficient but 20% better acceleration and CO2 emissions at 70% of the older one.
Be interesting to see if these latest models last the distance reliably and maintain the performance and economy the way the last of the 'sweet spot' cars have, the new Mazda 3 might well do so, but increasingly we see the latest tech bigged up overcomplicated flavour of the month offerings from the usual suspects self destructing in short order.
|
If I compare my car, a mk1 Mazda3 TS2 1.6 petrol saloon from 2006 with a similar sized mk3 with a 2ltr petrol engine in it, my car is 2.3 sec slower to 60 and yet, with less gadgets on it, can only manage around the 38mpg mark, the new version 42-43mpg (on the real mpg figures). I would say that's a decent improvement over 10 years - 10% more efficient but 20% better acceleration and CO2 emissions at 70% of the older one.
Be interesting to see if these latest models last the distance reliably and maintain the performance and economy the way the last of the 'sweet spot' cars have, the new Mazda 3 might well do so, but increasingly we see the latest tech bigged up overcomplicated flavour of the month offerings from the usual suspects self destructing in short order.
Indeed - its one of the reasons why I've been holding off buying a new car, as many offerings are now full of relatively new tech, and I normally run my cars for about 10 years before changing. The early small turbo petrol engined cars didn't have a very good track record, so I'm waiting until at least the 2nd gen ones have got past 5yo to see how well they do reliability-wise, otherwise its another Mazda or equivalent from A. N. Other make who have stuck to normally-aspirated petrol cars.
One thing to notice is that the Mazdas haven't gone down the road of many other (especially European) makes by adding endless amounts of relatively untried tech in their cars - its one of the things I like about the Japanese makes, that they are cautious about such things and don't add stuff for marketing reasons, as certain other makes do. They may also be keeping a lid on costs (they don't have many options on their cars - unless you want the top 'Sport' models, they are few and far between), which if done right (they're not quite there yet - perhaps too far the other way for my liking) is good for us customers.
|
|
|
|
|
<< What you forget is that, most car manufacturers (except a few, such as Mazda) have increased the size (and weight) of their cars for each model over the last three decades, with each new iteration being larger and heavier than the last. Add to that a far greater amount of electronic gadgets and gizmos in cars, which require power (and therefore fuel) to operate. >>
No, I don't forget that - it is impossible not to notice that many of today's cars are probably more obese than they need to be, because every maker wants a pseudo-Range Rover to offer. The sad thing is that the advances made since the 1960s in electronic ignition, aerodynamics etc. have mostly been cancelled out by this enlargement. But although cars are much heavier now, the effect of that on fuel consumption will be mostly during acceleration - once up to speed the effect will be much less.
As an indication of the 'advances' here are my personal results :
1962 Morris 1100: 3500 miles round western USA (optimum conditions) 44mpg
1978 bog-standard Mini 45mpg
1988 Nissan Prairie (brick shape) 1.8 petrol 39-42
1990 Pug 205 Dturbo 51-55
1990 Pug 205 cabrio 1.6 38-42
1991 Pug 205 Garros cabrio 1.4 44-46
1995 Pug 306 XRDT 54
1996 Fiat Punto 1.2 50-52 this was noticeably economical
1999 Pug 306 HDi turbo 2.0 54-59
2008 Pug 207 HDi 1.6 60-63
Diesels are 20-30% more fuel-efficient than petrols for my style of driving. The first Pug HDi engine slightly better than its predecessor XUD, but the latest generation is noticeably better again. I suggest that much of that may be due to electric PAS which only makes an intermittent demand, instead of a continuous load from an engine-driven pump ?
|
|
Whilst I do not own a vehicle that is covered by the emmisions scandal I am becoming really frustrated at the way people seem to be totally unhappy with the way it is being handled and the voice of the 'The Press' is deafening by it silence on the matter and seesm to have been brow beaten by the vast VW Audi group to let them deal with this. All of this seems a far cry from the outrcry raged against Toyota when they faced a recall a few years ago. It seems 'The Pres' both general and specialist motoring magazine jouralist' appear to be fearful of upsetting the VW/Audi group and being left off the list of the next Porsche/ Buggati Press launch and the owners of the titles are fearful of loosing advertising revenue. Only my thoughts, I am sure they are presenting all of the facts but feel the owners are being left to challenge the might of VW/ Audi on their own. It is amazing that VW have settled the matter with CASH in the USA so quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
