Hello All,
Long time no post - good to see some of the old regulars are still, er, regulars! Hope all are well!
Having been self employed for a while now I am being tempted by an attractive offer to head back into the corporate world. I don?t yet have firm details (budget, allowance in lieu of car etc) though it seems like I am going to be looking for a new car at some point and I am a little out of touch on specs etc, more on that later perhaps.
In the meantime the petrol v diesel conundrum, with petrol having lower BiK rates relative to the CO2 figure, how realistic are combined MPG figures, particularly regarding some of the contemporary quite efficient lowish CO2 petrol cars?
My Mondeo has averaged about 1.5mpg less than its official combined figure, on that basis - a couple of options because I am not sure on budget yet - a Golf GT DSG?s combined figure is 47.1 MPG, could I realistically expect to average, say, 45 MPG? And a 325i?s combined figure is 39.2 MPG, could I realistically expect to average, say, 37 MPG?
By the way I have not ruled out a diesel by any means.
And am I the only one who think the Golf Mk V is much better looking than the Mk VI?
And can you turn stop/start off?
And ...
Thanks!
|
Hey !
;-)
If it's been a while since you had an automotive treat, why not say to hang with the details and have a bit of what you fancy ?........
325 sounds like a bit of a hoot. 330 would hoot louder !
|
Thanks Humph, been down to zummerzet lately?
Reckon someone must have an opinion on combined v actual MPG.
Regards.
|
Reckon someone must have an opinion on combined v actual MPG.
I thought the combined is usually a bit optimistic for most people's driving and the urban a bit pessimistic - somewhere in between the 2?
Edited by Focus {P} on 25/09/2009 at 10:13
|
|
|
Welcome back, Cheddar.
My experience of recent cars is mostly anecdotal from contributions I've read here - and is mostly related to diesels. A couple of examples that I don't have to look up:
- Citroen C4 Picasso 1.6D EGS (GMAC's): Combined ~51, actual ~37
- Toyota Verso 2.2D 140 manual (mine): Combined ~44, actual ~41
These are both Euro IV diesels, the Citroen with a DPF, the Toyota without. I can only speculate why one comes close to its Combined figure and the other doesn't. By way of contrast, my Euro III Volvo S60 roughly matched its Combined figure (~43) when it used to do quite a lot of town miles; now it lives on the motorway, it does better than 47.
Guesswork time: diesel still makes sense in a heavy car that will be used for long journeys (why would you bother with a big car otherwise?) where the extra grunt of the diesel means it has to work less hard. You hear the occasional report of 35 mpg from a 535i but I doubt many would achieve that.
In a smaller, lighter car (by which I mean Golf size or below) I suspect there's generally less benefit from the diesel - although I still fancy a Volvo C30 with the D5 engine when it's time to retire the S60.
Not a complete answer, I know, but maybe others can help to complete the picture.
|
I get very close to the combined figure in the CC3, which is a two litre diesel.
Same applied to my previous 1.8 litre diesel Focus hatch.
I reckon drivers in the North East will generally get a bit better economy than elsewhere in the country because of the lower traffic volumes.
Edited by ifithelps on 25/09/2009 at 10:36
|
Golf V is much better looking that the VI.
Get the BMW. Its a no brainer unless you were doing a great deal of heavily trafficked urban and city centre driving.
|
"What Car?" did an exercise in August where they took a fairly representative sample of cars and compared the official figures against their own "real world" test which was created by a third-party expert for them.
The results were very interesting. You can see them here:
tinyurl.com/ye25vya
Check out the fact that the Focus 1.6 Diesel underachieves the official target by 15%, and that is merely about average.
We are being sold a complete pup with these official figures, especially in the case of the electric cars, as the results table that I have liked to shows.
|
>> Check out the fact that the Focus 1.6 Diesel underachieves the official target by 15% and that is merely about average.>>
Thanks, great info!
Strange that the C4 Picasso, same engine as the above mentioned Focus, exceeds it official figure, as I say strange. Also the Focus ST exceeds its official figure.
Not enough 6 cyl petrol cars in there though ;-).
|
|
|
|
|
|
For long distance driving or congested roads I would go for a diesel everytime.
I love the fact I can fill up my S60 and not have to think about a fuel stop for 700 miles.
If I were to do more A road driving with the need to actually drive rather than move with the herd, I would go for a six cylinder petrol or turbo five.
|
For work I drive a 57 plate Megan 1.9 CDi 130bhp. Combined this month (2000 miles) is 54mpg, but the majority was m-way at 58mpg. Town gets 50mpg.
SWMBO drives Espace (06 plate) 2.2 CDi 150bhp - combined 39mpg, m-way recently nudged 42, and around town drops to 36.
So I think both are pretty close to stated offcial figures - possibly Megan slightly better, but I'm a much gentler driver now with 6 points!
Although we love the Espace think will replace soon with petrol Scenic as no longer need all that space. Sensible choice?
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this helps or not, but this is my mpg experience.....
TDCi 130 Mondeo - combined 47, mine 40
BMW 530d combined 40, mine 40.
That said, I could be tempted by a petrol Golf these days if it had the same "ooompf" as my 530d.
Edited by Chips with everything on 25/09/2009 at 21:52
|
Thanks.
My TDCi 130 official 47.9 has averaged 46.5 over 139k miles.
I need to see what budget I will have, whether an allowance is an option etc.
|
|
|
|
"....a Golf GT DSG?s combined figure is 47.1 MPG."
I should think you could indeed get that: that's what my Octavia vRS (CR 170) averages. Mine's a manual but DSG is supposed not to carry a penalty in terms of consumption. Generally I can get around 52 mpg on a long run and 42 in town: it's done 7000 miles and still getting faster and more economical, as diesels do for the first 10,000 miles or so.
|
DSG is supposed not to carry a penalty in terms of consumption
That's what we're told is theoretically the case, but some of the quoted MPG figures for DSG cars tell a rather different story. I can't recall which vehicles I checked (a year or two back), but some DSG cars were listed as having lower MPG and higher emissions than the equivalent manual.
|
|
Sorry Avant, NW, I was talking 1.4 TFSi DSG which has lower CO2 and better mpg than the manual.
|
|
|
|
