"assuming the computer is accurate"
- indeed; my Golf IV 1.9 110TDi was practically spot on, 97 Passat 110TDi was approx 5% optomistic, whereas current Golf V 1.9Tdi Se is 10% out.
Annoys me intensely when journalists report on amazing mpgs from the computer over a short distance (or even worse, just parrot-phrase the std cycle figures)
Having said that, even at 10% sunny-side, 58.5mpg isn't bad (- though I suspect a pre- EuroIV TDi would have been better still).
|
|
Well I kept it for another day as I had to do another 120 mile trip and mindful of all that has been said I drove this time very gently. I KNOW BY THE FUEL GUAGE/RANGE/COMPUTER that this is one very economical car. Now I know the new BMWs are good and everyone has tales of VAG Tdis with PD and non PD doing fantastic miles per gallon (I've had 90, 110, 115, 130 and 150 versions) but nothing I have had is as good. Today I average high 60s driving at 65-70 mph on a quiet motorway. For a big car like that its amazing! Now I'm thinking about the new 1.6 Tdi Bluemotion seeing as scrappage has been extended.
|
>>Now I'm thinking about the new 1.6 Tdi Bluemotion seeing as scrappage has been extended.
>>
I assume the radio did not work and perhaps that improved the fuel figures:-)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8278679.stm
|
|
|
|
Considering Lexus can get mid 40s mpg out of an automatic petrol 4x4, id say thats not all that astounding relative to its spec. If it was a Toureg, that would be noteworthy.
|
I used the Golf for work this morning on the longer commute for the first time. 35 miles on congested motorways at 50-75 mph, ground to a halt a couple of times and sat there for a bit, and then a couple of miles of urban stop start at the end. Opened the taps hard once joining the M3, otherwise I just drove normally, keeping the engine around its 1800-2500 rpm "sweet spot", and keeping up with the flow of traffic - no more, no less.
When I pulled into the station car park, the computer was showing 61.3 mpg. This is a nearly 7 year old car with 92,000 miles, and an engine designed nearly a decade ago (and with 20 bhp more than the Passat). OK, it's in a lighter car, and refinement is not a patch on the new common rail stuff, but a decade of progress??
|
|
|
Considering Lexus can get mid 40s mpg out of an automatic petrol 4x4,
The hybrid Stu??
Also I'd love to see someone get anywhere near that in the type of real world driving that the OP did.
|
|
A friend's dad has one of the Lexus hybrid 4x4s. It's a horrible car in many ways (appalling ride, which really surprised me) but they get 39 mpg with mostly town use. An impressive technical feat given the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
If 35mpg was achieved that would be something! The combined figure for the Lexus hybrids is around 35, and that can't be expected in real life. Downhill with a following wind maybe:)
|
|
I'll ask whether this is measured or on the computer - I didn't question it while I was getting a lift.
|
|
|
The combined figure for the Lexus hybrids is around 35 and that can't be expected in real life.
According to the Lexus website the official figures are urban 42.8, combined 44.8, extra urban 47.1.
Edited by Focus {P} on 29/09/2009 at 09:38
|
|
As someone else pointed out recently, computer can speak with forked tongue, and if it is telling you something unbelieveable, be suspicious. Easy enough to check the old fashioned way: fill the tank to the brim and zero the trip-ometer. Run to almost empty and fill to the brim again, noting the amount of fuel used and trip mileage. mpg = miles covered/(litres of fuel x 0.22). Do this over a long period and you'll have an accurate real-life average mpg for your car.
|
|
|
|
I read a few tests on the latest RX Hybrid and it was noted that on test they were getting low 40's mpg which is pretty close to the official. Im sure on that basis that a well run-in example would easily manage that.
|
I read a few tests on the latest RX Hybrid and it was noted that on test they were getting low 40's mpg which is pretty close to the official.
Yes the Lexus is pretty good, getting to like them a lot of late. Ive just driven the mother in law up to Gatwick airport in a Lexus LS600 hybrid. Amazing car with all the gadets onboard and a resonable 42mpg. Not bad for a 5.0 litre V8.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, FocusP, that is so, for the RX 4x4 hybrid. My figures were for the rwd GS 450 hybrid: 35.8 combined. 44.8 is remarkable for 2 tonne 4x4. But, I don't belieeeve it.
Edited by nortones2 on 29/09/2009 at 13:37
|
But, I don't belieeeve it.<<
So your implying that the testers who have claimed to acheive near the combined are lying? For what reason? Do you need HJ to test it :-)
|
|
The figures for the test cycle are so close, with the urban almost the same as the extra-urban, that it seemed odd to me. Since then I have checked , and Autocar, in August, got 21mpg and estimated a real world average of 29mpg. More like for 2 tonnes! I also feel HJ ought to settle this:)
|
The figures for the test cycle are so close with the urban almost the same as the extra-urban that it seemed odd to me.
That would tie in with the general supposition that hybrids are most efficient around town, where they make the most of the electric motor, and not so good at high steady speeds on the motorway where the electrics make little difference.
EDIT: sorry, pretty much same as what GordonM has already said below
Edited by Focus {P} on 29/09/2009 at 19:49
|
There is a larger than usual discrepancy between the claimed figures and roadtests for hybrids. Two tests (rather than recycled press releases, uncritically reprinting the 44.8mpg NEDC as fact) have commented that their results are: Autocar 21 with 29mpg estimated in normal use, and Auto Express 28mpg in their brief test. NEDC, from which the fuel consumption figures are derived, has not been calibrated for hybrids. The test is, SFAIK, usually carried out by the mfr, on a chassis dynanometer, with 5 cycles (4 urban, plus 1 up to 60mph) over 11km total. Mpg calculated from emissions. Not terribly reliable it seems.....
Edited by nortones2 on 29/09/2009 at 22:06
|
Mpg calculated from emissions.
Thought that was odd, but it's specified in directive 93/116/EC:
www.supertech.lv/01993L0116-19940102-en.pdf
"4.3. Fuel consumptions are calculated according to point 7 by the carbon
balance method using the measured emissions of CO2 and the other
carbon related emissions (CO and HC). The results will be rounded
to the first decimal place."
Formulae specifying how the mpg is calculated in 7.2.
|
|
I've no reason to not believe my friends who have one, and they are claiming 39 - probably better than my Accord could manage in the same circumstances.
I'd guess that having no central diff would help enormously in terms of drive chain losses, and I would expect a hybrid to have most gain over a conventional transmission in town where regenerative braking and stop-start offer most benefit.
I cannot believe I'm defending the urban use of a large 4x4. NowWheels kill me now! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
