Billy W: No data to illustrate, but consider...
Audi TT 2.0 TFSI: Urban 26.4 mpg, extra-urban 47.1, combined 36.7. Pretty impressive for a 200 bhp car.
BMW 320d: 46.3, 67.3, 57.6. Amazing for a 177 bhp car (and dream on)
My fuel consumption is the same or higher for the same style of driving in the same traffic conditions. Heavier modern cars but more \'officially\' economical engines.
BTW, Honda Jazz: anecdotal (but believable) evidence of 50 mpg from a petrol engine. Now that is genuinely impressive.
|
Depends where you live.
Dont compare other peoples experiences in similar cars with your own. Unless they drive like you and I think crucially live in a geographically similar area to you then you\'ll alway get a massive disparity.
The same car driven round somewhere flat like Milton Keynes or Lincolnshire (say) is going to give you much different results to driving round the Pennines.
Here in a fairly hilly part of west yorks, a mix of urban/rural driving is going to give you:-
1.0-1.2-1.4 High thirties
1.6 litre - low thirties
1.8 litre - High twenties
2.0 litre - Mid twenties
2.5 litre - Low twenties
3.0 > - High teens
On a run
1.0-1.2-1.4 Mid fourties
1.6 litre - Low fourties
1.8 litre - High Thirties
2.0 litre - Low thirties
2.5 litre - 30 ish
3.0 > - Mid/late 20\'s
Use your own experience based on rough engine size regardless of what the manufacturers state and you can be pretty accurate. I have not been surprised either way with my own cars economy or lack there of.
|
Driving my 2l Hyundai Coupe gently for the past couple of tankfuls , I got 34.8 and 34.5 mpg.
The combined official consumption is 35 mpg. I think that is the closest I've had to official figures- so maybe not always unrealistic.
IIRC the combined figure for my Passat diesel was ~54mpg and I only ever saw 44 on the same commute.
Edited by Glaikit Wee Scunner {P} on 06/03/2008 at 12:54
|
I did some crude testing just this week using the computer on my Legacy (3.0) on my weekly 120 mile trip to the office. This normally takes around 2hours 15 minutes. It is all motorway or dual carriageway less perhaps 2 miles.
This week, demonstrating foolish enthusiasm, I left at 5 am instead of 6 and had a dream run taking 1 hour 40 minutes and the computer showed 27.0 mpg. I was driving just a little bit faster than I normally would and was able to comfortably maintain that speed for much longer periods than usual purely down to lack of traffic and much shorter queues at most junctions.
On the way back leaving at 5pm I arrived home two hours 35 minutes later due to the usual rush hour congestion and the last 55 miles on a busy but mainly freeflowing M4 and the computer indicated 27.8mpg.
I've done the same journey for 5 years starting in a Passat TDi PD 115bhp that easily averaged 50+ mpg, then a well worn Mondeo 2.0 petrol with 35mpg no problem and after that a Picasso HDi that stuck resolutely in the very low 40s.
|
I would guess that the trip computer in my Primera is only about 90percent accurate on average consumption. I wouldn't bet that the measurement of distance is any more accurate.
Are those two inaccuracies related? - I wouldn't bet on it.
So the measurement of MPG using your car's own instrumentation is probably incorrect.
I would however guess that the display of fuel pumped into your tank is reasonably accurate - especially if summed over at least 10 fills.
I did consider using my SatNav to record distance and compare against the trip meter - but so far I haven't checked.
I do think modern cars are less and less relevant to UK motoring; they're mostly tuned too highly - a lower-rpm max-power and broader spread of power could provide better economy for UK use.
|
The real life fuel consumption over 2000 miles of mixed use in my MINI Clubman D is 52.8 mpg, according to the computer read-out, which would give a range of around 450 miles. I don't go to big cities but drive briskly and don't seek to maximise economy. I always use BP Ultimate and have noticed an improvement of 0.7 mpg over the last 500 miles, since running-in, as the engine loosens.
The nominal figures are:
Urban: 57.6 mpg
Extra-urban: 62.8 mpg
Combined: 68.9 mpg
Range: 605 miles
|
My BMW 320d just had its 7th birthday and over this period the mpg has aggregated at over 50 mpg. A few years back I got from Bracknell to Inverness plus a bit of local touring, then back to Fort William - 800 miles. The highest ever (just as an academic exercise) was 840, but 700+ was routine. Nowadays less (less motorway commuting).
|
|
|
|
Traffic conditions and journey duration are the killers.
My old Passat 130 diesel's best ever tankful (measured brim to brim) was 50.5mpg, which was a holiday in Wales, quiet roads and a m/way trip at each end.
Worst ever tankful was 37mpg, which was mostly my 3.5-mile commute to work and short local trips in winter.
Best journey was a dead-of-night drive from Manchester to Gatwick, the average speed (calculated on time & distance) was 69mph door to door, and the trip computer said 57mpg (computer was 5% optimistic).
|
Its difficult for manufacturers because peoples driving styles are so different. Even on the same cycle, in the same traffic person A and B could get wildly differing results.
I get around 20% better economy out of my Alfa than the published figures (23.8 combined vs my 28mpg). I drive a mixture of roads, with some stop/start, some motorway and some flowing A and B roads.
I can also average less then 20 if I boot it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mad Maxy: I averaged 36 MPG brim-to-brim over 35,000 miles in my then-new 200 bhp 1996 Rover 620Ti. (Worst I got was 18 MPG for a tankfull driving flat out on the autobahns - 140 MPH)
I averaged mid-50s MPG in my then-new 1991 2.0 turbo diesel Montego.
Edited by Billy Whizz on 06/03/2008 at 16:32
|
Oz, very impressive.
BW, similarly impressive.
Here's what I consider to be an example of the silliness of official consumption figures. BMW 335i, combined figure of 31 mpg. That's fantastic for a 300 bhp car. But fantasy it is because real-world consumption, even with a light right foot in the best conditions, will be much less - unless you're a dedicated mimser.
As I said at the start, the official league tables reflect how test figures can be created in labs in order to show up well against competitors - and to appease the green lobby.
Edited by Mad Maxy on 07/03/2008 at 10:35
|
@MM --
to give an idea, a friend has just got a new M3.
Over the last couple of weeks he was doing mostly urban stop-start driving, and he rang me to say that he'd calculated the consumption: 13mpg :-D
|
|
The official urban figure is 15.8. That's exclusively urban, your friend's was 'mostly'. I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
|
The Mondeo's combined figure is 47.9 mpg. I achieved that once on a gentle 400 mile round trip, but on my daily commute I was getting 42-46 mpg depending on traffic conditions, cruising at 80-85 where possible, and keeping up with the flow of traffic at other times.
The Scenic's combined figure is supposed to be 47.1. It can do over 50 if you drive like an old granny on the motorway, but we're getting more like 40-42. In fairness, although it gets 4 50 mile motorway runs a week, it also does a lot more town work than the Mondeo.
Based on experience with these and other cars, I find taking the combined figure and knocking off 10% is a good "worst case" guide.
Cheers
DP
|
Based on experience with these and other cars I find taking the combined figure and knocking off 10% is a good "worst case" guide.
Agreed, I tend to get just under the combined figure, unless I try to drive economically or give the old bus a bit of stick.
|
Fuel consumption is higher during the winter months compared with the summer months so that needs to be taking into account, due to winter fuel additives and additional cold engine friction etc.
I get around 53 mpg average in the winter including plenty of urban driving & hills, motorway is 64 mpg, A/B roads 70+mpg in a Focus 1.6 TDCi, which is easily inline with the official quoted figures, I use BP Ultimate & get between 640 & 700 miles per tank full, and I expect the fuel efficiency of the next generate engines/cars to be an improvement.
|
|
I'm averaging 55mpg in my Colt 1.1 (petrol) and getting over 600 miles to the tank; although I've had 60+ on longer summer trips. The official figures and trip computer are pessimistic if anything.
|
|
|
Mike Torque, are your fuel consumption figures brim to brim, or are they spot readings?
The figures you have quoted seem too good to be true on a Focus. On my wife's Focus TDCI, on short runs, we couldn't get better than 40 mpg. ( brim to brim and done with a calculator )
The best ever mpg on my Passat was 51 mpg, driving very slowly. The new Golf is doing 44 mpg on short runs.
|
|
My estate car is usually full of heavy, work related kit. I leave the "climate control" on permanently and I don't linger. However, I suppose because I have to drive fairly long distances regularly it gets about as varied a mix of roads as possible. Generally speaking it gets pretty close to, if not better than the manufacturers consumption figures. And before you ask, no I don't rely on the cars computer to tell me, I work out the consumption on a brim to brim basis as a function of mileage. It has all to do with the mix of driving.
|
Interesting debate about impact of geography on mpg.
I run a 160k 110TDI Passat doing approx 20k a year. Just shifted my commute from a 38 mile round trip which involved a significant change in levels (i.e. sustained boot over a hill for say 2-3 mins) to a 92 mile round trip on much flater roads. Whilst I've deliberately taken to driving more economically to counter act the increased mileage, the geography is definitely a huge contributing factor. For info I was previously averaging 47 mpg for the 38 mile round trip, now averaging 67mpg.....
70mpg one way, 65mpg on way back - explained a little by increased traffic on return leg and home being at a higher level than work.
Max mileage out of a tank was 939 miles on way back from France last year.
Bost
|
|
Depends on the petrol for me. The Honda is absolutely shocking on Sainsburys own, but gets another 10% on Texaco homebrew. Bit like most Sainsburys stuff really, over-priced and distinctly mediocre.
|
@ bostin -- you're right, hills do play a big part on diesel economy, if you get a flat stretch the engine can settle into a sweet spot balancing speed and mpg.
My Passat 130 used to be happiest at 2700rpm in 6th (about 85mph). The instantaneous fuel consumption at this speed would be between 50 and 60mpg depending on wind, gradient etc.
It was more economical at this speed than at 70 / 75.
|
|
I measure brim to brim. A generally drive using a light throttle to accelerate and change up asap & change down as late as possible, no junk in the car/boot adding extra weight to the car, I look well ahead & lift off the throttle well in advance of anticipated stops, roundabouts etc. and only brake when I have to, the anticipation & deceleration without using the brakes is a big saver of fuel and the turbo helps by reducing the engine braking improves fuel economy.
|
I calculate mpg over periods of a month at a time. I don't ever make a concious effort to drive economically, but I've never yet got my consumption to be anywhere near as bad as the official combined figure of 32.5 mpg. And for anyone wanting to comment on my forum name, please note it was originally "L'escargot by name but not by nature".
I admit to accelerating moderately (apart from when overtaking), and to rarely exceeding 3000 RPM. Other than that I just enjoy the modest power of my 2 litre petrol Focus.
|
To those of you quoting the car computer's consumption figures, don't - they're often nonsense!
For example, my BMW 320D (quoted combined consumption 50mpg) has always read around 51mpg on the trip computer with my usual driving (mostly fast dual carraigeway, some urban). Every time I have calculated the actual consumption (by filling the tank and measuring the mileage till the next fill up) it has been 41mpg. The trip computer is out by 20%.
I notice also that the "instant" economy guage on my car points at infinate mpg when sitting at traffic lights, rather than zero which it should be pointing at!
Martin
|
|
On my last car the computer mpg was accurate when I checked it mannually - but the current one is about 5/6% optimistic - once you have worked out how accurate/inaccurate it is its easier to use it rather than doing it manually.
Edited by b308 on 16/03/2008 at 10:57
|
|
My Lexus IS220d's computer seems to be pretty much bang on for accuracy, I tend to get 42-44mpg on a tank. I see lower consumption with Esso over BP. I can get 50mpg during the weekly commute and then short trips at the weekend/evenings hammer the mpg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
