Gap between official fuel consumption and real world fuel consumption widens

[FROSTYBALLS]

See http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/64123/real-world-and-official-fuel-economy-gap-grows?_mout=1&utm_campaign=autoexpress_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

[Cyker]

Up to a 42% discrepancy?! 

That renders those tests literally meaningless!!

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

27 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Up to a 42% discrepancy?! 

That renders those tests literally meanngless!!

The tests were originally never intended to reflect real world fuel consumption, but to provide a testing regime for a standard comparison between cars.

[Cyker]

But they've clearly failed at that since they're clearly non-representative if they can have that large a discrepancy. I mean, what are they even measuring at that point? Because it isn't the fuel consumption of the car in any meaningful way. Perhaps the cleverness of the engineers in cheating...?

I really hope the new system has taken this kind of ridiculous cheating into account...

Heck, with a 42% discrepancy, I bet I could get more accurate and consistent results by giving the top 10 most active members of this forum the car being tested with a full tank of fuel, letting you all you use them until the fuel runs out, then recording how far you went on it!

...

 

Smeg, I should totally patent that idea...!

(I'll totally cut you guys in )

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

The cycle was first introduced in the 1970's and hasn't been updated since 1997. Given the fact that the last update was 20 years ago, it isn't surprising that it is no longer representative.

[Cyker]

Ha, good point!