I have a question.
Do the official mpg figures reflect real world experience more closely for some cars (or engines) than for others?
I find that with both my vehicles, the quoted combined figure is remarkably close to what I get in the real world. However, I hear of plenty of drivers who find that they get nothing like the quoted combined figure. This could be due to the way I drive, or the conditions I drive in, of course. (And I sort of get the impression that people with Honda Accord diesel engines don't usually get the mileage they expect, but people with VAG diesels do.)
The most obvious way of testing this is when a driver who regularly keeps a record of fuel consumption changes cars. In most cases the driving style and conditions will remain unchanged, so any large discrepancy would be attributable to the difference between the engines.
|
I have no trouble in matching or beating the official fuel figures for pretty much the whole Toyota range and i'm not a particularly slow or gentle driver. The only one i have trouble with is the 1.0 yaris which really does need working hard to get it to do anything.
As for my runaround cars i used to get 52mpg out of my pug 205 STDT and out of the current rover 100 1.5 diesel i easily hit 60mpg everytime.
|
My hypothesis is that engines that thrive on revs (ie. the Hondas VTEC, Toyotas VVTIs, and BMWs Valvetronics, etc) will deliver near official or better figures IF driven gently.
However, the because of the very nature of these engines, you get a thrill/great peformance out of reving the engine hard and consumption suffers as a result.
|
|
I have always got mpg which was pretty much around the official figures for the cars I have driven, except for the C5 2.2 HDI Automatic, from which I get around 35 mpg, combined, when the official figure is about 39 mpg.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, I've always been pretty much right on the official figures Petrol or Diesel car, depending on how I drive. I'm usually a pretty hard driver, and so I tend to get closer on powerful cars than on ones I have to work hard. Never been more than 2-3mpg out overall though
|
I think the offical "combined" fuel consumption figures are generally unrealistic for a lot of modern cars since the type of driving done on this countries congested roads would be classed as urban as its all stop start stuff.
Lots and lots of people on forums are posting about buying diesels expecting 50mpg and moaning when they get 35mpg on the school run and doing the shopping.
That said, when I looked at getting the Mondeo TDCi 130 I worked on getting 40MPG as I don't do much motorway driving. I've actually averaged 45mpg on my normal runs and after a recent long motorway run I got 53MPG over than tank of 400 motorway and 240 normal miles which I was well pleased with. The C5 2.2HDi I had would struggle to do 40MPG unless there was motorway work involved.
Driving style plays a part - I've lent my Dad my Mondeo and he's only got 36MPG out of it but he's all revs and drives quite agressively under the auspices of "making progress". I'm a bit more laid back these days which I'm sure helps fuel consumption.
|
I have conflicting experiences of this. I had no problems beating the figures on my old Isuzu diesel Cavalier, no matter what my driving style. However, I invariably fall below the claimed 47.9 for my Mondeo TDCi. Not that it bothers me greatly and it still delivers a creditable average around the 45 mark, with air con going, over a mixed range of driving.
Splodgeface
|
|
I currently get 35MPG in an Isuzu TD engine(not thrashing it or taking it easy) although I have treated with Forte today so we shall see.
|
|
|
|
![2023 Lexus NX 450h+ 2.5 Takumi 5dr E-CVT [Sunroof]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/766838aa75da61476a31e80710cbee1f/095d77bf4413ea6d27d5c31cccfbc145.jpg)
