I Know We Spoke Before About This, But! Dirty Tricks?

[stompe]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794886/the-great-miles-gallon-car-firms-cost-hundreds-year-using-crafty-tricks-bump-fuel-economy-figures.html

[Red Yaris 54]

This has been well discussed on this forum many times before

All manufacturers now clearly state within their advertising literature and showroom brochures that the stated fuel consumption figures are obtained under controlled laboratory conditions and that the owner may not obtain the stated figures

It is there in black and white.......for ALL to see

To expect to achieve the manufacturers quoted consumption figures is IMHO rather naive

[stompe]

So its easy, Scrap it!

[Grumpy Cabbie]

I like the way they used a Yaris hybrid in the article and then suggested it would only achieve 47 mpg. I know some owners are getting lower than expected mpg's out of them, but that's pushing it too far.

But the article does explain the test cycle to some degree so we can see how unrealistic it is. Even then I can get over the official rating by just being careful. The official rating is only over something like 10 miles too so people who get long term tank averages over 60 mpg are doing well.

This link explains things a bit better than the excitable DailyMail;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

[nnw49]

Obviously, to get best fuel economy, you drive gently... Quite often we've got 65+ mpg out of our mk2 Prius.

Son, who now has it, got 68mpg on a full tank in august on a trip down from Scotland.

It has about 155k miles on the clock....

So..... Prii can do something akin to their quoted figures...

[Cyker]

 

To expect to achieve the manufacturers quoted consumption figures is IMHO rather naive

I'd agree it's naive but it's a totally reasonable expectation too.

It's virtually false advertising they way things are currently done, esp. as they use these values in advertising as if they are typically achievable figures in order to to sell the car.

Another thing I've come to realize is there is no accounting for how easy or difficult it is to get to the higher mpgs in a given car.

From what I've seen here, it is much easier for us Mk1 D4D owners to get into the 60's of mpg than is for the Mk3 HSD despite the D4D being rated at 63mpg and the HSD being rated at 74mpg.

I don't even drive slowly or gently any more and I'm still averaging the low 60's!

It's all well and good saying you can get 100mpg in a car but if that requires a borderline-illegal and road-rage inducing driving style then that shouldn't count!

[Grumpy Cabbie]

I think the manufacturers have upped their dirty tricks in recent years. 5 years ago the figures were always a bit dubious but with the focus on getting below the magic 100g/km and the EU directive for manufacturers to get their range average below 140/km has caused more focused thinking. Do they improve economy quickly on their vehicles at huge expense or disconnect the alternator, remove the a/c system, tape up the gaps and diddle it that way.

What do you think?

But the EU turn a blind eye too and that's the problem. In the US car firms have been fined heavily for diddling their mpg figures;

Ford and Hyundai I believe. http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/124803-epa-orders-ford-to-correct-fuel-economy-for-six-vehicle-models-.html

[Joseph D]

...It's all well and good saying you can get 100mpg in a car but if that requires a borderline illegal and road-rage inducing driving style then that shouldn't count!

Many on this forum, and others, have said time and again that this style of driving will more likely result in worse economy in an HSD. This is just false economy and I agree, it should be discouraged.

However, I think most commenting on the official figures are missing the point.

As long as the figures are arrived at in a controlled and uniform manner across all makes and models, then the use for them is relative.

I think everyone agrees that they do not give a real life use figure, but the are nevertheless useful in comparing cars.

I think it is commonly agreed that the official figure is somewhere like 18% optimistic, and as long as you realise this, it is all good.

[timberwolf]

However, I think most commenting on the official figures are missing the point.

As long as the figures are arrived at in a controlled and uniform manner across all makes and models, then the use for them is relative.

I think everyone agrees that they do not give a real life use figure, but the are nevertheless useful in comparing cars.

I think it is commonly agreed that the official figure is somewhere like 18% optimistic, and as long as you realise this, it is all good.

They only measure the mpg at high ambient air temperatures 20-30 C i.e. for the UK that would be a scorching Summer temperature. The Hybrids (and to a lessor extent other stop/start engine systems) have a much steeper drop off as the ambient temperature drops when compared with ordinary engines. In my opinion, the tests are less useful in comparing hybrid against non-hybrid because of the Hybrids weaknesses regarding things like sensitivity to temperature and distance of journey.

[MEP's Yaris GS]

Being a collector of Classic Fiat Panda's (a story for another day) I really think that manufactures should be made to quote MPG at set speeds. I'm not sure on the exact in's and out's for how the test is completed and over what distance, but know the Classic Panda's hand book quotes MPG at a steady 30MPH (town), 56MPH (eco drive) and 70MPH (motorway). And these are all realistic figures which can be matched or beaten, none of this modern day bull. I still remember the day I done Liverpool to Norwich in a 1.1 Panda Selecta (CVT automatic Petrol) and returned 61MPG on a 56MPH run, which smashed the low 50's figure quoted in the handbook.

[Bibsy]

I don't know why they don't keep the existing advantage of having a legally defined test across all models and manufacturers, but lose the disadvantage of customers thinking they are getting what they are not by the simple expedient of following the lead of the white goods industry. Just band the damn things - you buy a car that is in band A - G, and the figures in the test don't get shown, or at best are tucked away.

Nobody wanders around Comet looking at dishwashers and comparing the annual electricity cost, counting and measuring obsessively and then complaining at the end of the year it cost more they thought it was going to. They just look for an A or B rated machine, and only buy a D or E rated one if it has some other advantage such as size or price.

In fact, they should get rid of the consumption meter in the car entirely and have something that says "you're doing ok/well/fantastically, have a good day".

Well, that's got that out of my system. Ok, I'll come back to reality now.

[timberwolf]

You could drive a Honda or a Nissan, I think they go for the dumbed down pretty displays of sprouting leaves or something.

[Grumpy Cabbie]

You could drive a Honda or a Nissan, I think they go for the dumbed down pretty displays of sprouting leaves or something.

"If you drive really well you grow a small tree on the display". Like wtf? That might work on some airhead Japanese girl in her early 20's but nowhere else. If I had bought an Insight there had better have been an option to turn that nonsense OFF.

:)

[Parts-King]

The standard of driving is THE most important factor, followed by the type of driving you do. No two people drive the same, and whether you like it or not, there has to be a standard way to perform these tests. If, like is being suggested, manufacturers are "fiddling the figures" then they are all fiddling them exactly the same. There has to be a standard way to perform the test, but no one test will satisfy all

People ought to learn how to drive properly before blaming a set of standard test results, the number of times I have been scared out of my wits by a customers driving"............. Only to be told I've been driving 40 years there must be something wrong with the car...........

[PeteB]

...People ought to learn how to drive properly ...

...the number of times I have been scared out of my wits by a customers driving"...

... Only to be told I've been driving 40 years there must be something wrong with the car...

which leads nicely to a hobby horse of mine:

I think it's appallingly wrong that drivers and riders can take a very basic test [*] when they're 17 then potentially drive for 70 or more years without ever being reviewed, refreshed, or even needing to update on changes to traffic laws and rules, nor prove medial and optical competency until at least 70 years of age.

[* relative to all the varying weather, traffic,and other conditions one may experience during a lifetime of driving]

[Grumpy Cabbie]

They don't have to PROVE anything at 70, or 80, or 90, or even 100. That's the problem, they just sign a declaration saying they believe they're fit to drive and renew accordingly.

As a taxi driver I had to pay for my own medical every 3 years. Fine, but shouldn't that apply to drivers aged 75 and every 3 years thereafter? It's not ageist to ask this. As people get old their reactions and sight get much worse and some could be unfit to drive. But others will be totally fine also. We had taxi drivers in their mid 70's and if they pass the medical then why shouldn't they drive? Same applies to all drivers after 75? If they continue to pass the medical well into their 90's then fine, but if they're not fit to drive, then they shouldn't.

At the moment we rely on the judgement of the driver themselves. That's asking for trouble. How many times we do we news reports of accidents where the driver pressed the accelerator instead of the brake and it's always someone in their 80's. Young drivers get a bad press, but drivers over 80 are just as much of a liability - just ask any insurer.

[Ten Ninety]

If I look at a car's 0-60 figures then I want to see the best possible time that can be achieved. I don't want to know what grannying the clutch and never going above 3000rpm will get me, despite the fact that this is how 'most' people will drive.

If I see a car's Nurburgring lap time, I want to know the best possible time achieved in the hands of a professional. I'm not interested in how long it would take an 'average driver' to actually go round, idly looking at the scenery, arguing with the wife and fiddling with the radio.

So, when I look at a car's published mpg, I want the same thing. I want to know what's the best that can be achieved when all the right conditions are met. I do NOT want these figures to be changed in response to this populist nonsense about them being misleading. If I want to know the 'real world' figures then I'll buy a magazine and find out what some cluelessly lead-footed motoring journo can manage to achieve. The information is out there already.

[Sagitar]

They don't have to PROVE anything at 70, or 80, or 90, or even 100. That's the problem, they just sign a declaration saying they believe they're fit to drive and renew accordingly.

As a taxi driver I had to pay for my own medical every 3 years. Fine, but shouldn't that apply to drivers aged 75 and every 3 years thereafter? It's not ageist to ask this. As people get old their reactions and sight get much worse and some could be unfit to drive. But others will be totally fine also. We had taxi drivers in their mid 70's and if they pass the medical then why shouldn't they drive? Same applies to all drivers after 75? If they continue to pass the medical well into their 90's then fine, but if they're not fit to drive, then they shouldn't.

At the moment we rely on the judgement of the driver themselves. That's asking for trouble. How many times we do we news reports of accidents where the driver pressed the accelerator instead of the brake and it's always someone in their 80's. Young drivers get a bad press, but drivers over 80 are just as much of a liability - just ask any insurer.

I am not going to respond to all of this, there are far too many generalisations around a situation that is very complex. I do want to pick up the final comment however. I'm in my mid 80's and my insurance premium has reduced for the last three years. This year I paid £263.90 for comprehensive insurance with all the bells and whistles on my 2013 Plug in Prius. I am too small a statistical population from which to draw conclusions so I looked for some wider data. The latest figures that I found quickly were from 2011 but I doubt the situation has changed much in the meantime. I think the figures are interesting and show clear trends. https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Topics-and-issues/How-insurance-is-priced/Risk-pricing-characteristics/Risk-pricing-and-age/Age-and-motor-insurance