MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I'm curious about which cars return the best mpg. I assumed a Smart Car would be high up the list, and the official figures seem good. However, a quick look around the Internet shows nearly every owner complaining about much worse fuel economy than they were expecting. I suppose that's the same for all cars, although from what I've read on here, it seems that bigger cars such as BMW and Audi diesels often get close to the official figures. The VW Up looks like it might do okay in the real world.
Obviously there are a lot of variables including type of driving, speed, driving style, weather conditions etc. Most of my journeys are on A and B roads, with some driving into town to park up.
My current vehicle does 33mpg if driven steadily. I probably wouldn't want to sell it, but if bought something economical as a second car (but doing the majority of driving in it) I've calculated that it would take loads of miles to recoup the outlay, even if the new car returned 60mpg. I've been thinking about this for ages, but haven't really looked into it.
The Mazda MX-5 is the first car I've noticed in years, but it's not really going to be any cheaper to run than my current vehicle. The other thing to consider might be a motorbike (I have a full license) but I always had the impression that they'd cost more to run in terms of maintenance etc.
Anyway, just curious about real world figures, and pointers on economical (but fun/quirky) cars to think about. It's strange that most cars don't look obviously aerodynamic, but perhaps it's not possible to tell how aerodynamic something is by shape alone.
You'll struggle to make up depreciation losses/insurance/maintenance on any second vehicle just by getting better mpg than running a single car.
MPG its self is not a good indicator of frugality.
nor is tax banding or insurance.
look into the repair bill/depreciation and initial price to get a true idea.
i find MPG and tax to be minimal on total cost of my car - but i dont do mega miles.
The issue with smarts I think is the small turbocharged engine. Similar to the Ford ecoboost engines or the small VW TFSI ones, if you use the turbo boost it's effectively a bigger engine but with a less free-flowing exhaust. Therefore the discrepancy between different driving styles is huge.
How close you can get to the published fuel economy stats seems to depend (besides the obvious driving techniques) on how badly the manufacturers cheat during the tests. This has got worse over the years which is why the discrepancies are greater.
Citroen Cactus? High mpg through light weight and small engines.
I have a Berlingo which claims about 53mpg combined, I manage about 46mpg. Most official fuel consumption figures you can knock about 10% off for real world figures.
From a frugality perspective it's almost always going to be cheaper to run your current car in to the ground, then get a new one.
Once you commit to this approach you'll find that your current car becomes indestructible!
From a frugality perspective it's almost always going to be cheaper to run your current car in to the ground, then get a new one.
Yes and then choose frugal when you get that new one 🙂
[quote=molgrips ]How close you can get to the published fuel economy stats seems to depend (besides the obvious driving techniques) on how badly the manufacturers cheat during the tests. This has got worse over the years which is why the discrepancies are greater.
I suspect it's also the case that a lot of the cars specifically aimed at people who want a "frugal" car are designed in order to cheat the tests - much more so than other cars where people pay a lot less attention to the official figures.
Most modern, small diesels in small-ish cars should be doing 60mpg+ on a steady run, probably higher.
Petrol not quite as high, but some pretty impressive figures.
A car like the new Civic with the 1.6 CDTi is supposed to do something like 74mpg combined, but I would be amazed if it actually did that; even mid-sixties would impress me, as it's quite a large car.
My old Ibiza diesel will do 55mpg without trying, 58mpg with a little care and I regularly get over 60mpg trundling to work and back. It's currently dropping a bit as the weather is getting colder (and traffic seems worse). And the performance is pretty good, so it doesn't really feel like a compromise. Doing 400 miles commuting a week means fuel economy is pretty important to me.
My Wife has got the new Ibiza; the 2.0TDi FR, which has more power and is faster than mine (0-60 in about 8 and a bit, I think) but is also supposed to be more economical. I can get decent fuel economy out of it, but not as good as mine. I think she averaged 53-55mpg on her 12 mile commute, but that's quite stop starty and she doesn't really try to drive it economically.
The problem with making cars aerodynamic is all the compromise of practical stuff they need to accomodate.
More manufacturers though are adding features that make their cars more slippery. Going back to the new Civic.....they've put small fences on the rear corner of the car to separate the air flow in a controlled position and improve the aerodynamics. It's a similar thing that Audi A2 has, but on the A2 it's integrated into the rear light cluster.
Some are, some aren't, I think. I can get pretty close to the figures in the Prius, in summertime at least, without taking the piss in any way.
My Wife has got the new Ibiza;
New engine will be quite tight for 20k miles ish, probably. It'll get better with time.
I think she averaged 53-55mpg on her 12 mile commute, but that's quite stop starty and she doesn't really try to drive it economically.
Given those caveats that's actually pretty impressive.
Our brand new Qashqai 1.5 diesel is returning 43 mpg average and not even run in yet. Not bad for a decent sized relatively tall crossover. Previous Volvo V50 2.0D averaged 37 mpg long term, which is nothing special. The new Qashqai is actually quite fun to drive too. Not fast, but handles well, very comfortable and great for bike trips.
For frugality I've been quite surprised by my 2002 diesel Mondeo. Ok so it's massively uncool but it returns about 52mpg for normal use (or 60mpg if you drive it gently which i rarely do). I got it for a song with 130K miles on the clock - it now has about 155K and I haven't had to spend a penny on anything bar the usual tyres and wiper blades etc. At some point the DMF will go and that'll probably be curtains for it, but it's been great so far.
Wasn't particularly aiming at your Pious with that comment - I did understand that the figures for that are fairly realistic (provided you understand what the figures mean and where the advantages of that system actually are). More so particularly small engined cars where people end up pushing them a lot harder than happens in the testing - with a bigger more powerful car you don't have to make it work so hard to "make progress".
My Wife has got the new Ibiza; the 2.0TDi FR, which has more power and is faster than mine (0-60 in about 8 and a bit, I think) but is also supposed to be more economical. I can get decent fuel economy out of it, but not as good as mine. I think she averaged 53-55mpg on her 12 mile commute, but that's quite stop starty and she doesn't really try to drive it economically.
I don't know HTF you can achieve figures like that! You must be driving with 10% throttle the whole time. It's just not possible if you use anything like the power available. How you achieve 55 mpg on a stop-start 12 mile commute is way beyond me.
As above, MPG is not a good indicator of a frugal or cheap car.
We have 02 Yaris D4D. Just about to do 100,000miles. It averages mid 50's mpg, costs £35 a year in tax. So far it has needed servicing (cheap), tyres (rears only once), two wheel bearings and some windscreen wipers.
It cost £7k in 2002 as ex demonstrator, and still is worth £1k...
Yes, I was surprised at how long it would take to recoup the costs. My annual mileage is currently relatively low at maybe 15,000 - 20,000 miles. If I'm putting, say, £3,000 of fuel in it a year, a car which returns 60+mpg would use £1,500 of fuel. Then there's the costs of running a second car including purchase, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance, although probably no VED on a frugal car. My current car will cost more to maintain, but it's not going to lose any more value, and it's paid for long ago. Plus, I'd still be running my current car and making some journeys in it, so it would take even longer for a second car to make sense. Does this sound right, or am I missing something...?
[quote=moshimonster ]Our brand new Qashqai 1.5 diesel is returning 43 mpg average and not even run in yet. Not bad for a decent sized relatively tall crossover.
Not so great compared with something more conventionally shaped with the same amount of or more interior space. Like a Mondeo estate - have never averaged that poor figures on a tank with mine, not even when carrying roof loads at speed, more usually get over 50, despite not trying that hard or going that slow.
Not doing anywhere near as well as matt for frugality, though not bad for a big car given how little I paid for it.
I don't know HTF you can achieve figures like that! You must be driving with 10% throttle the whole time. It's just not possible if you use anything like the power available. How you achieve 55 mpg on a stop-start 12 mile commute is way beyond me.
The answer is in your statement: Don't use all the power - Ever. That's how it's done. Along with sticking to speed limits (I do 65 on the motorway) and planning ahead so you don't stop at junctions or use the brakes much.
Not long ago I was averaging 42mpg in a 1.6 petrol focus estate. I've got something like 50,000 miles worth of fuel records for that car and I can trace the average up and down and tell you exactly what caused te rise or fall.
You just need to put some thought into it. 🙂
Old Peugeout 206 - 12 years old 1.4 hdi diesel gets about 60 mpg and £35 [s]tax[/s] VED
Driven like a grandmother - then again it barely accelerates so there is little choice 😉
My annual mileage is currently relatively low at maybe 15,000 - 20,000 mile
300 - 400 miles a week is quite a lot isn't it?
moshimonster - MemberI don't know HTF you can achieve figures like that! You must be driving with 10% throttle the whole time. It's just not possible if you use anything like the power available. How you achieve 55 mpg on a stop-start 12 mile commute is way beyond me.
Erm, when I am in the car with her it actually surprises me how lead footed she is with it, to be honest.
When I say stop-start, it's a mix of dual carriageway/A-road with plenty of roundabouts and traffic lights thrown in (the stop-start bit). It's not traffic the whole way.
On a commute into work, do you really need to 'use anything like the power available', given that much of it is though 30 & 50 limits, or you are coming up to the next roundabout/set of traffic lights and off the throttle anyway.
I'm sure if she tried, she could get it down to 40mpg and get to work 30seconds quicker....?
My commute is quite different to hers; 40 miles each way with longer stretches of steady driving, although the traffic can be horrendous for the last 12 miles or so. I am disappointed if I don't get 60mpg (real, not from the trip computer) over a tank. But, that's driving carefully in a small car with a fairly powerful engine.
Does this sound right, or am I missing something...?
The only thing you are missing is the smell of a brand new car. It reminds you how nasty your old one was! There comes a point when your old car is just not nice to drive anymore. That's what happened with our Volvo V50. It was really nice when brand new in 2005, but 9 years and 130K miles later it was a bit tired to say the least. Also starting to cost a fair bit in annual maintenance to keep it alive. So we bit the bullet and bought a new car to replace it and yes it is a LOT nicer to drive.
People seem willing to pay an awful lot for that smell.
buy a car that does 21mpg and ride your bike more.
HTH
2014 VW Passat 2.0 Bluemotion here -
Regularly do 500 miles per week, mix of commute and Dad taxi duties.
I usually get 50mpg combined out of a tank - these are real figures from my fuel spreadsheet (which I have to do for company car/fuel card reasons - not because I'm a geek with no life)
best I've had out of a tank was 53mpg, but that did include a lot of motorway stuff.
I'm confident I could get 55-56mpg out of a tank, if driven sensibly, and road conditions allowed.
I'm very suspicious of these people quoting amazing MPG figures for 'normal' cars...
PeterPoddy - MemberThe answer is in your statement: Don't use all the power - Ever. That's how it's done. Along with sticking to speed limits (I do 65 on the motorway) and planning ahead so you don't stop at junctions or use the brakes much.
Most of it is this.....planning ahead.
On the way home from work, the amount of people who sit in the outside lane of the A14, 10ft from the car in front constantly accelerating to 70, braking to 40, accelerating to 60, braking to 40, accelerating back to 70......etc.
Meanwhile I sit in the inside lane and can fairly easily regulate my speed to about +/-5mph by jusdging what's going on ahead. You get to the A1 12 miles up the road and the cars in the outside lane are maybe 100 yards further ahead, but will have used loads more fuel.
Same on the approach to roundabouts, people hooning it up to them and braking at the last minute before hooning it off again, only to get stopped at the traffic lights or the queue 1/2 a mile ahead.
And people accelerating up slip roads from the main carriageway only to have to brake for traffic lights or a roundabout.
The answer is in your statement: Don't use all the power - Ever. That's how it's done. Along with sticking to speed limits (I do 65 on the motorway) and planning ahead so you don't stop at junctions or use the brakes much.
Haven't got the patience for any of that, but on the odd occasion that I have tried to optimise fuel consumption out of curiosity, it hasn't actually made much difference - maybe +5 mpg average. I know how to do it, just can't get the figures people seem to quote while maintaining adequate progress. But then again I still find people are in my way when I'm driving seriously slow. The rate of acceleration (or lack of) that many people seem to think is acceptable never ceases to amaze me.
My current vehicle does 33mpg if driven steadily. I probably wouldn't want to sell it, but if bought something economical as a second car (but doing the majority of driving in it) I've calculated that it would take loads of miles to recoup the outlay, even if the new car returned 60mpg. I've been thinking about this for ages, but haven't really looked into it.
Depends a lot on what you buy and what milage you can transfer to the second car. I don't own a car but used to do everything - work and domestic is a Merc Sprinter. With a roof rack like a giant aeolian harp I can get 450 miles out of a tank of fuel. Since starting to run sprinters a tank of fuel has gone up from around £60 to around £120 so i decided to get a second cheaper to run motor for the days when the sprinter isn't earning a living.
Its difficult to know in retrospect when you could/would have been driving the cheaper motor- how many days I could have set out and decided not to take the big van - so its difficult to predict how much saving you can make. I decided to buy a cheap astra van at a point when I knew I had a lot of high milage / low load requirement work in prospect. Journey for journey the astra uses pretty much exactly half the fuel (approx 60mpg) so I keep the receipts for both vans separated and looking back I know that every £1 spent in the astra is a £1 saved if I've driven the sprinter. It turns out, averaged over a year I'm driving the astra about 2/3rds of the time so in the first year I saved the cost of purchase (£1300), and while I'm doubling up on tax and insurance, taking miles off the sprinter also saves on servicing and repairs as like for like brakes, tyres etc are half the price on the astra too. In fact the sprinter went for 2 years without wearing anything out at all.
All in all the savings aren't startling (although its difficult to quantify what repairs and replacements I've not had to pay for on the sprinter) and the benefits wouldn't stack up if I paid more than peanuts for the 2nd van. If the astra kicked the bucket tomorrow I wound't have great financial incentive to replace it. But its been a convenience to have a second vehicle that is pretty much free to own.
Same on the approach to roundabouts, people hooning it up to them and braking at the last minute before hooning it off again, only to get stopped at the traffic lights or the queue 1/2 a mile ahead.
Sometimes it's just fun to hoon around though.
Our 10 year old Octavia 1.9 tdi still returns mid 50s per gallon. Also got a 1.2tsi Fabia which gets mid40s.
Most efficient car I have driven recently was a BMW 320d. Couple of colleagues have had 1.5 diesel Clios as hire cars and have had high 60s in real world hire car driving, seems to be tbe best anecdotal I have heard.
freeagent - MemberI'm very suspicious of these people quoting amazing MPG figures for 'normal' cars...
Are you suspicious, or do you just think they are lying?
I'd have said an average of 50mpg from a large car like a Passat is not too bad. Depends on your commute though and what your 'dad taxi' duties involve.
People seem willing to pay an awful lot for that smell.
Sure do. All depends on your means I guess. But it's hard to beat a new car if you can afford one. Personally I always buy new if the car is under £25K and used above that point. I'm sure Bill Gates has a higher threshold 😉
You must be driving with 10% throttle the whole time.
What's wrong with that? I probably stay between 10 and 20%, at least that's how it looks when I plot a graph of throttle input with VCDS 🙂 I could post one up if you like...?
I know how to do it, just can't get the figures people seem to quote while maintaining adequate progress.
I don't think you do - and it depends what you define as adequate progress. When I drove from Preston to Cardiff in light traffic for a few weeks I'd get 65mpg from the non bluemotion 2.0 Passat, 8 years old and auto, with the amazing technique of putting cruise control on 70 and leaving it there.
moshimonster - MemberSometimes it's just fun to hoon around though.
Indeed it is, but a lot of people seem to do it all the time, and I don't think they are doing it for fun; it just seems to be how they drive.
I don't drive everywhere like a saint, but I don't really get the urge on my commute to give it the beans very often (a-roads and large roundabouts aren't the same as a nice bit of twisty country road) and that is when most of my driving miles are done.
Worst I've had out of my car was several years ago when we went camping in Cornwall with the car loaded with camping gear and 2 bikes on the roof. 80 mph most of the way, saw it down to 46mpg.
Some food for thought here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/11146868/Smallest-cars-worse-for-fuel-economy.html
I'm so dull that I keep an Excel spreadsheet and I know that I get 45mpg in my new Mini Cooper on average - closer to 50mpg on longer/holiday runs.
I'm very suspicious of these people quoting amazing MPG figures for 'normal' cars...
A lot depends on how you drive and where you live. I live in the sticks, from the front door no matter which direction I head in I've got between 15 and 200 miles of uniteruptued national speed limit driving to get anywhere I typically drive to. Almost no traffic lights, almost no roundabouts, the times of day I travel means I'm rarely in rush hour traffic or traffic jams even when I am driving in urban conditions. I don't have to try and eek the best MPG out of my car I just don't drive in circumstances where I could get a bad figure.
my cars do 42mpg when in good fettle no matter how they are driven. - 1.9 straight diesel - aero dynamic as a brick - mk2 berlingo and partner
although the MAF went phut on our trip to torridon in one of them and it went into a limp mode where it would only do 55mph/limited to 3000 rpm and it gave near 55mpg-new maf was 25 quid and a 7mm socket saw it fitted.
one is 10 years old the others 9 - one has 84k and the other 97k. other than consumables(brakes - i change oil and filters every 7-8k (costs 40 quid for that lot and takes 40 mins or so) ive had a pair of springs (recalled) and 1 lower arm and a steering UJ . Oh and an alternator i killed driving through water that was deeper than expected - fried the voltage regulator diode pack - that cost me 25 quid as well..
compared to the service on my parents car recently that was just oil and filters - that was 500 quid.
1.9 straight diesel
NA diesel is probably the least susceptible to driving style, and possibly the most efficient.
I'm currently running a 320td and it returns a real 53mpg for my commute of motorway & reasonably clear A-road. I've been quite pleased with it. I'm sure a smaller car (106 etc.) would do better but the spartan spec would grate. The BMW feels like a proper car. And it's comfy for my gangly proportions 🙂
There's a fairly sharp diminishing return once you go above about 40-50mpg as well. If you convert it to pence per mile, each extra mpg is a smaller percentage improvement, of a smaller cost per mile. Based on £1.30 per litre, going from 20 to 25 is worth 6p per mile. From 40 to 50 is only 3p. If you're doing mega miles that might be important I guess, but for normal people it's getting into trivial values. If I really, really concentrated on it and got an extra 5mpg I could save £3 per week. Pfft. If I went back to my old X5 that struggled to do 20mpg it'd cost me an extra £50 per week. That's why I don't have an X5 any more !
Not so great compared with something more conventionally shaped with the same amount of or more interior space. Like a Mondeo estate
Mondeo Estate 1.6 TDCI stop/start 50.8 mpg (66 mpg claimed) v Qashqai 1.5 Dci 55.1 mpg (74 mpg claimed). So I think not actually in this case. Yes, the Mondeo does have a bigger interior, but we don't need it to be bigger and Mondeo estates are a long car to park. We had one actually for a while. Very good but very dull too.
thats why i have them molgrips agri diesel FTW.
the only way i would change before they are broken beyond repair is if i suddenly had to drive every day 50-100 miles + for my work ..... and in which case firstly id be looking for a new job but id have something a bit more refined and quiet in the cab.
I don't think you do - and it depends what you define as adequate progress.
I do honestly, I just can't stand driving like that.
Thanks.
Freeagent's figures are pretty close to the official figures (54mpg combined, 62mpg extra-urban, 44mpg urban).
I do ride my bike, but because I need my car for most journeys, the bike riding is an extra activity. I'd prefer to buy a new bike rather than a car - hopefully there's still plenty of life in my current car. If I did buy a second car then it might make more sense to buy an older car like some of those mentioned.
I'm very suspicious of these people quoting amazing MPG figures for 'normal' cars...
Me too, not because they are lying. Just because I know I wouldn't be able to get anywhere near by driving at a pace that I was comfortable with.
[quote=moshimonster ]Mondeo Estate 1.6 TDCI stop/start 50.8 mpg (66 mpg claimed) v Qashqai 1.5 Dci 55.1 mpg (74 mpg claimed).
Eh? You were claiming 43mpg real world up there (and suggesting it wasn't bad for a car like a Qashqai), and I pointed out I've never had that poor real world economy on a tank in my Mondeo.
Very good but very dull too.
A Qashqai is exciting? 😯
The older VW Lupo was badged 3L, as it was built to do 100km on 3 litres of fuel, or, on old money, 94mpg. Its funny how things have gone backwards with modern and heavier cars. The UP! doesnt get anywhere near that.
Eh? You were claiming 43mpg real world up there (and suggesting it wasn't bad for a car like a Qashqai), and I pointed out I've never had that poor real world economy on a tank in my Mondeo.
That's what I said [b]I[/b] was getting out of it and that's not bad for my obviously lead footed driving style. It's also only 300 miles old, so I'm sure it will get better. It's already miles better than our Volvo V50 was (conventional estate form).
A Qashqai is exciting?
No, but it is fun to drive unlike a Mondeo which is just competent but dull on every level. It's hard to explain unless you've owned both like I have.
I have other more exciting cars too, much more exciting. But the Qashqai is actually a good drive. Surprising I know, but it just is. I'm talking about the new one.
The older VW Lupo was badged 3L, as it was built to do 100km on 3 litres of fuel, or, on old money, 94mpg. Its funny how things have gone backwards with modern and heavier cars. The UP! doesnt get anywhere near that.
Bet it's safer and more refined though.
are my figures amongst the unrealistic ones?
Should I be annoyed or not?
My wife has a BMW 1 series 116 Efficient Dynamics and her average mpg over 33k is 62mpg - she regularly gets over 70mpg on single trips and on fast motorway speeds with a full car to Scotland I managed 60.8mpg over 523 miles.
I am not in the slightest claiming a new BMW is a cheap option, but with 5 years free servicing and low mpg it definitely keeps variable costs low.
Got a 13 plate Skoda Estate Greenline - over the last 15,000 miles it has averaged 60mpg (real MPG) - mixed driving... I can fairly easily get 65mpg on a steady, 70mph drive...... very very happy with that....
You mentioned a VW Up! in your OP. I have a Seat Mii Sport which has the same underpinnings and it's pretty bloody good. I do a 50 mile urban/motorway journey each way and I'm getting a week out of a 35 litre tank if I drive sensibly which is around 65MPG. If I'm less sensible that drops to me sticking in another tenner on Friday so maybe 55mpg. I like it, it's pretty comfy, has the toys I need (the SatNav entertaiment thing is great) and it is surprisingly quiet and refined. Had I gone for the ecomotive I'm sure I'd be getting the 70 odd they claim but I felt I wanted more poke on the motorway. 20 quid tax and 0% finance was the clincher.
rickmeister - Member
The older VW Lupo was badged 3L, as it was built to do 100km on 3 litres of fuel, or, on old money, 94mpg. Its funny how things have gone backwards with modern and heavier cars. The UP! doesnt get anywhere near that.
Did it achieve that fuel economy though in real life driving?
94mpg is very impressive, if it could actually do it!
[quote=moshimonster ]That's what I said I was getting out of it and that's not bad for my obviously lead footed driving style.
Fairly pointless giving the consumption figures you get on a thread about frugality in that case, when plenty of us have bigger cars which are more frugal than yours. Given you don't need the space of a Mondeo, then I'm sure an Almera (a Qashqai is just one of those jacked up isn't it?) would be more frugal.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics, driven in traffic at rush hour ie lots of stop start with the air con on.
Driven sensibly dont ever really get below 60mpg. Drive it very hard and never below 40mpg.
Also have a Toyota Aygo 1.0 crap thing, and it does way less mpg than the big, fast, heavy BMW. 😆
Did it achieve that fuel economy though in real life driving?
94mpg is very impressive, if it could actually do it!
We had a Lupo 1.0L for a little while. Fun little car actually. I don't remember what the fuel consumption actually was, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near that!
[quote=moshimonster ]But it's hard to beat a new car if you can afford one.
Well you're missing out on a lot of coke and hookers, but if a new car beats that for you, it's your choice I guess.
[quote=moshimonster ]Sometimes it's just fun to hoon around though.
I can think of plenty of things which are more fun and cheaper.
Just because I know I wouldn't be able to get anywhere near by driving at a pace that I was comfortable with.
70mph too slow? As I said, cruise on 70 and leave it there, provided motorway is quiet enough. Which it usually is outside of rush hour.
Of course that only applies to long motorway trips not rush hour commuting.
I do honestly
You said earlier you couldn't imagine how people get the figures they've stated, so you clearly don't 🙂
Fairly pointless giving the consumption figures you get on a thread about frugality in that case. Given you don't need the space of a Mondeo, then I'm sure an Almera (a Qashqai is just one of those jacked up isn't it?) would be more frugal.
That's why I quoted the Honest John (and manufacturer claimed) mpg figures to show that your statement about a Mondeo having better consumption than a Qashqai was incorrect.
So I should buy an Almera? A car Nissan haven't sold in the UK since 2006. It was actually replaced in effect by the Qashqai a couple of years later.
3l Lupo
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=323571
Seems they get a little better economy to some modern Bluemotion edition VWs, which are larger and faster.
You said earlier you couldn't imagine how people get the figures they've stated, so you clearly don't
The bit I can't believe is the lengths some people are prepared to go to. I'm not trying to be critical, I simply cannot get anywhere near myself and I don't even have to drive in traffic at all.
The bit I can't believe is the lengths some people are prepared to go to.
You don't know what lengths he goes to. You don't know his cars or his route. Seems to be that you are assuming he's driving incredibly slowly, but he doesn't have to be. There are all sorts of fairly random factors that can influence it.
My Prius for example gets 58-60 on open windy country roads, but going from my sister's old house to my parents, about 10 miles I'd always get close to 80mpg. Becaues it involved a steep uphill and a very long gradual descent, and this allows the car to get fantastic economy. Of course it was worse on the way there, but I could take a different route. I know of asymmetric routes that give better fuel economy (and are no further) than going the same way there and back.
Other things like having well-sighted roundabouts and junctions allows you to back off slightly to hit the roundabout clear - in other situations you have to practically stop because you cannot see very far, even if there's no traffic. Use of brakes is a bigger drain on fuel economy than driving more slowly.
You don't know what lengths he goes to.
It was a general comment, not aimed at any particular "economy" conscious driver.
Well you're missing out on a lot of coke and hookers, but if a new car beats that for you, it's your choice I guess.
That's a pointless comment. I can afford a new car once in a while, but I've still got enough in the bank for other stuff. I'm certainly not depriving myself of anything to do it.
913 miles round trip in the old 1.9 A4 estate 66.2mpg, it was over 70mpg on the way up(av 65mph) but i thrashed it a bit(av 75 mph) on the way back so it dropped down..
700 miles last week in this years Seat Leon 1.6d with stop start was 68mpg.
Both cars average well over 50mpg in general use.
Hypothetically, if you didn't know how to drive very economically without going slowly, you wouldn't know that you didn't know - would you?
Ok so I am splitting hairs now but this is STW after all 🙂
That is rather good...How does reality compare to the readout? (Our Galaxy is 15% ish out, Touran was 10% ish out)
[quote=moshimonster ]That's why I quoted the Honest John (and manufacturer claimed) mpg figures to show that your statement about a Mondeo having better consumption than a Qashqai was incorrect.
Where did I say that? Can't be bothered looking up consumption figures, but I know that your 43mpg is pretty rubbish even for a big car, which is what I pointed out. Though it's clear from your other comments that you can't be bothered driving economically, despite your "fast" driving probably making very little difference to journey times, so I'm still not sure what useful contribution you're making here.
The thing is, it's really not that much of a chore to drive smoothly and anticipate to avoid needing to brake and accelerate hard - I'd suggest that a lot of it is just good driving. Doubtless you'd be upset being behind me that I don't floor it out of junctions, though I actually make quite good progress most of the time.
[quote=moshimonster ]I can afford a new car once in a while, but I've still got enough in the bank for other stuff. I'm certainly not depriving myself of anything to do it.
So you can afford a new car [b]and[/b] coke and hookers? You must be doing a lot better than most of us then. Though I'm a bit confused why you kept your previous car (not a modern Mondeo, which you've also apparently owned) for 9 years in that case.
and yet we are still talking economy.
life time pence per mile - all bills inclusive is the only meaningful number when it comes to a cars frugality.
Well some of us are, t-r, which IMHO precludes buying new, as that new car smell makes quite a big difference to the pence per mile.
Some times frugality all goes out the window though - both the cars on my drive in total cost less than the land rover owes me in parts so far .... and its still just a chassis/engine/gearbox - but it will be fun !
Isn't the difference between 55mpg and 40mpg about(from memory of rough calc) about £500 a per 10k miles?
Alone this would seem worth the effort although Im willing to admit that I'm getting old and no longer see the attraction in driving with unnecessary speed.
would take me a number of years of saving 500 quid a year to buy a car that i would trust that does 55mpg and it would have to be totally trouble free for a number of years beyond that.
and with all the electrics , ecus , turbos , variable timing etc etc - cars aint getting any more reliable atm - we have passed that peak.
Where did I say that? Can't be bothered looking up consumption figures, but I know that your 43mpg is pretty rubbish even for a big car, which is what I pointed out.
You said I'd be better off with a more conventional estate - like a Mondeo. But in reality I wouldn't (you see I could be bothered to look up consumption figures). 43 mpg may be rubbish for you eco driver types, but it's actually quite good for me, in fact a PB and as I said the engine is not even run in and I'm sure it will get significantly better - maybe even hit 50 mpg. Certainly better than my Mondeo or Volvo ever was. I was just pointing that out too.
and with all the electrics , ecus , turbos , variable timing etc etc - cars aint getting any more reliable atm - we have passed that peak.
You'd have to show some stats for that!
so I'm still not sure what useful contribution you're making here.
Only what I said in my original post and that I'm amazed at what people can actually achieve in cars I've owned myself.
[quote=moshimonster ]You said I'd be better off with a more conventional estate - like a Mondeo.
Try again...
43 mpg may be rubbish for you eco driver types, but it's actually quite good for me, in fact a PB and as I said the engine is not even run in and I'm sure it will get significantly better - maybe even hit 50 mpg. Certainly better than my Mondeo or Volvo ever was. I was just pointing that out too.
Still not seeing how that is "not bad for a decent sized relatively tall crossover". Maybe "not bad for a decent sized relatively tall crossover for somebody with a heavy right foot and no idea how to drive economically". As it was, by quoting that figure you gave no useful information on how frugal it actually is - though as discussed, with a purchase price of £20k one of those is never going to be as frugal as my £4k Mondeo. I'm also intrigued by your expectation of significantly better economy as it gets older.
BTW when did you have a Mondeo, you haven't clarified.
@funkyduncThat is rather good...How does reality compare to the readout? (Our Galaxy is 15% ish out, Touran was 10% ish out)
I would say my BMW >5% out. When I did my trip to scotland and re-filled at the other end, the mpg worked out pretty much correct
our galaxy 2.0 tdci does about 36 mpg combined. The onboard 'puter says 43mpg though!
so - are the mpg's above measured or via flaky computer? (bit like the weighing scale method for weighing bikes on here.............)