Honest John - Our Cars

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Tue 29 Oct 2013 09:12
Honest John - Our Cars - Happy Blue!

I have just been reading a couple of the long term tests on the HJ fleet.

The drivers have both been moaning about the poor economy of the cars compared to the published EC figures. I think this is nonsense for two reasons: -

1. The cars are barely run in (in the case of a diesel Qashqai it has only done 3,600 miles in four months) so the engine has not had time to bed in; and

2. All users of this site know that no-one can acheive the EC figures during normal driving; hence the reason for Real MPG pages here.

Do these people not read the information placed on their own website???

Rant over

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 10:41
Honest John - Our Cars - brum

So its OK to get wedgied by the manufacturers??

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 10:54
Honest John - Our Cars - daveyjp
Just read the tale of woe of getting a puncture when you have no spare. Good old Kwikfit really know how to royally shaft a motorist.

£257 for a tyre you can buy online and get fitted for £148.49, but a can of goo means you can't benefit from such deals.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 11:01
Honest John - Our Cars - skidpan

So its OK to get wedgied by the manufacturers??

When will people realise that the figures are not the manufacturers figures, they are the official EU figures and by law they are the only figures a manufacturer can quote.

When I buy a car I look at the Official Combined figure and take 25% off it, normally we can just beat that in day to day use. On a long holiday run we can just about match the official combined figure on a good day i.e. no headwind and no holdups.

What people do not realise is should the manufacturers start quoting figures that are more "Real World" the CO2 values for that car would increase as would the annual RFL. I for one is very happy paying £30 a year on a car that if the "Real World" figures were used would cost me well over £100 a year.

Its a matter of being realistic when you buy. Anyone who seriously thinks a family sized 1600 diesel 5 door hatch will do 85 mpg needs testing for mental stability as soon as possible.

Another thing, since all manufacturers are bound by the same rules all the official figures are pretty much out by the same amount for all makes. So if you buy a VW that you are daft enough to think will do 85 mpg instead of a Ford that "should" do 85 mpg don't be dissapointed when it only does 60 mpg because the Ford would do pretty much 60 mpg as well.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 11:48
Honest John - Our Cars - craig-pd130

@ Skidpan -- hear, hear.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 12:23
Honest John - Our Cars - brum

When will people realise that the figures are not the manufacturers figures, they are the official EU figures and by law they are the only figures a manufacturer can quote.

In other words.....its OK to get wedgied......by the manufacturer.....with a little help from the EU.

Edited by brum on 29/10/2013 at 12:24

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 12:46
Honest John - Our Cars - Collos25

Nobody is getting wedgied exept people who do not understand the written word.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 13:05
Honest John - Our Cars - thunderbird

Nobody is getting wedgied exept people who do not understand the written word.

Exactly. If you read the brochure, web sites and show room data it clearly tells you that the figures are not obtained in the real world and should only be used for comparison purposes. (They are also used to determine company car tax rates and annual RFL).

But some people (most?) are totally gullible and believe what they want to believe. But as was said above, if you are stupid enough to think a family hatch will do 85 mpg then you need serious help.

Me and the Mrs have owned 3 family hatches from 3 different manufacturers with similary powered 1600 diesels over the past 8 or 9 years. All have had "official" figures of about 60 to 63 mpg, all have done between 47 and 50 mpg in the real world.

Do I feel "wedgied", certainly not because I knew before I bought that the quoted figures were not going to be achieved.

And if I bought a new car today to replace our existing Ceed would I expect to get the extra 14 mpg that the "oficial" figures suggest I should obtain. Of course I wouldn't, I realise that Kia along with all makes are now optimising gear ratios and fitting features like stop/start that make a huge difference on the tests but sod all (if any) in the real world.

But instead of paying £105 a year RFL I would be paying £0 a year so lets not change the rules.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 12:55
Honest John - Our Cars - alan1302

What do you want the manufacturer to do as they have to give the offical EU figures?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 14:24
Honest John - Our Cars - brum

What do you want the manufacturer to do as they have to give the offical EU figures?

1. State clearly and in a prominent way that these are not real world figures (some manufacturers state in small print, others dont bother at all).

2. Stop promoting car swith adverts that clearly tout these fantasy mpg figures leaving joe public thinking they are real.

3. Stop fiddling the system and manipulating the tests as if it were a game. Its sharp practice at best.

4. Start also publishing real world figures e.g. reference to whatcar real mpg figures. Although they must publish the EU tat, I'm sure there is no law against publishing or refering to independent reviews.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 29 Oct 2013 14:41
Honest John - Our Cars - skidpan

1. State clearly and in a prominent way that these are not real world figures (some manufacturers state in small print, others dont bother at all).

2. Stop promoting car swith adverts that clearly tout these fantasy mpg figures leaving joe public thinking they are real.

3. Stop fiddling the system and manipulating the tests as if it were a game. Its sharp practice at best.

4. Start also publishing real world figures e.g. reference to whatcar real mpg figures. Although they must publish the EU tat, I'm sure there is no law against publishing or refering to independent reviews.

Point by point

1 Like most of the detail its in the small print already. Just read the brochure thoroughly.

2 How would you stop manufacturers using figures that they are required to use by law.

3 All manufacturers have learned how best to produce a car that magically achieves the CO2 to give a £0 rating. I do not see it as fiddling, its simply interpreting the rules. It happens in all walks of life.

4 The law prevents manufacturers from quoting any figure other than the EU Official one.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 30 Oct 2013 09:45
Honest John - Our Cars - thunderbird

We must also remember that Honest Johns figures are only as good or "Honest" as the people who input the figures, the guidelines clearly say they should be averages and should be calculated (not taken from the fuel confuser) but there have been instances where posters have been on the forum and said what a wonderful MPG figure they got by driving at 40 mph downhill for 50 miles with a following wind and they would be updating their real MPG to reflect this. What is to stop manufacturers bombarding the site with made up figures to make their cars look great.

Take my car, as of last week it appeared there were 3 figures, all were in a 1.5 mpg range, looked to me that we were all doing about the same. Now the figures have changed and the range includes a figure that I have only ever achieved on a 250 mile holiday trip, not got anywhere near it in normal motoring. It is also a possibilty that the new figure is taken from the fuel confuser since it is a liar, it over reads by about 9%.

Take my last car, had it 5 years and logged every gallon, averaged 47.9 mpg. Honest Johns average for the car is 49.5 mpg so not far out, if my commute had been longer and we did fewer shopping runs maybe we would have matched it. But the top figure submitted was 56 mpg and on several holiday trips we never gat near that, probably 53 mpg was our best ever and that was driving sensibly. But again the dash fuel confuser lied, it would say 56 mpg on a holiday run thus I suspect that is exactly the figure the person has posted.

Edited by thunderbird on 30/10/2013 at 09:52

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 30 Oct 2013 10:40
Honest John - Our Cars - madf

My fuel computer reads 9% better than reality.

I treat most mpg claims by motorists as rubbish unless they use Fuelly or record everything and do a calculation.

Anyone but anyone who relies on advertising to tell them facts is a muppet and deserves to be stiffed... and will be.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 30 Oct 2013 15:37
Honest John - Our Cars - concrete

A lot of argument over a subject that has been forensically examined on this forum previously. For years HJ has consistently stated that we take no notice whatsoever of the published fuel consuption figures from manufacturers. They are based upon unreal conditions to produce lower CO2 emissions for that vehicle. However they all tell the same lie so we can get an indication of fuel economy per vehicle. That is it, that is all there is on the subject. It is not an EU conspiracy or a manufacturers ploy to cheat us, it is the system. So pay your money and make your choice. Cheers Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link