Manufacturers Fuel Consumption figures...

Well i thought Id post a topical topic today...

Fuel it will go up.. forever

Now, what gets my goat is this, I have had Numerous cars over the past few years (not all out of choice) and have researched nearlly all before purchase and generally based the purchase on running costs / tax (company cars on occasion) etc.

My eyes normaly alaways go to the Fuel consumption figures, naturally ill take these with a pich of salt, but even then In usually way out on what the car will actually do, even by changing driving style, servicng them etc etc etc... then I found this website, its the data for most modern engines used to produce tax bandings etc.

I was having a jolly read though the website and discovered this.. below is an explanation of how they test new cars fuel economy ... whislt the explanation does go on on the website to explain that this is not representative of real life, why can manufacturers get away with printing it, the rest of thevehicles spec is what you get, so why dont the print real life figures?

Urban cycle
The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20°C to 30°C on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31 mph (50 km/h), average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km). The cycle is shown as Part One in the diagram below.

Extra-urban cycle
This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph (120 km/h), average speed is 39 mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km). The cycle is shown as Part Two in the diagram below.

Combined Fuel Consumption Figure
The combined figure presented is for the urban and the extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.

now im not in the market for a brand new car so its not really an issue, and ive come to expect the worse so anything better is an advantage.

what really grates is the mileage we get paid for bussiness and work travel is paid based on thes figures.. despite the fact they are not representative fo real life... so we have to live real life, pay real life fuel costs but dont get them back.. great..

Again, Im greatful I get any paid fuel expenses and I know I can claim back the extra in tax benifit, but are we all being had by the manufacturers?

thoughts....

Alex

ps.. basis for rant..

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/inf...ing-scheme.asp

With no air resistance whatsoever...
But in all fairness it doesn't take a genius to work out that a 4.0l V8 TVR isn't as frugal as a diesel Fiesta. My company pay 10p/ mile which doesn't cover my costs at all even in a Diesel Focus.

I'd quite like bikes to advertise their consumption though.

I agree you need to take them with a pinch of salt but in all cars I have driven I have had no problem getting at least the stated MPG out of the car through smooth, sensible diving. I still get places quickly but I maintain a steady speed, don't accelerate quickly when unnecessary, etc and I find it quite easy to get 40-50mpg+ out of a car that others say they get more like 30mpg out of.

Obviously if you have to drive for work and you actually LOSE money on having to do that then that is a bit unfair but you need to take that up with your employer, not the guy's that do the spec sheets in the labs.

Cheers,
Matt

Originally Posted by cartwrim

I agree you need to take them with a pinch of salt but in all cars I have driven I have had no problem getting at least the stated MPG out of the car through smooth, sensible diving. I still get places quickly but I maintain a steady speed, don't accelerate quickly when unnecessary, etc and I find it quite easy to get 40-50mpg+ out of a car that others say they get more like 30mpg out of.

Obviously if you have to drive for work and you actually LOSE money on having to do that then that is a bit unfair but you need to take that up with your employer, not the guy's that do the spec sheets in the labs.

Cheers,
Matt

But thats my point, they are releasing unrealistic data....???

if your spec sheet for a new car stated sat nav, leather, never wearoutable tyres, but arrived with a tape dec cloth seats and solid wheels, the data sheet was unrealistic, but the dealers would say.. well this is the real world isnt it.. Ok extreme example but there we go.

Never have I managed to achieve the factory MPG....

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

With no air resistance whatsoever...
But in all fairness it doesn't take a genius to work out that a 4.0l V8 TVR isn't as frugal as a diesel Fiesta. My company pay 10p/ mile which doesn't cover my costs at all even in a Diesel Focus.

I'd quite like bikes to advertise their consumption though.

When I go out and run errands for work I get 24p a mile. What your getting paid, is that just them being nice or is that company miles mate?

Originally Posted by plowsie

When I go out and run errands for work I get 24p a mile. What your getting paid, is that just them being nice or is that company miles mate?

Yes, I get 24p a mile when I use my bike (plus the cost of a new SV every year as a "car allowance"). Ridiculously, I only get 11p a mile when using my 1.3 litre cage.