In your experience which car manufacturer lies the most? Published v actual MPG

It was on the radio this morning that stated fuel figures are typically 20% higher than actuals. So, how does your car score?

Ford Smax 1.8 TDCI
Published combined MPG = 45.6
Actual MPG = 40
Massive Fib Score (MFS) = Published/Actual = 14%

I’d agree with your findings on the S-Max there. Goes up considerably on a long run at sensible speed with cruise control on, but still not as per manufacturer stated!

BMW publish consumption figure of 30.2 mpg as the average for my 530D Auto Estate

I’ve had 31.5 over the past 4000 miles.

Pointless exercise, depends where you live and how you drive

What Dunc said. My TT get’s nowhere near the stated economy figures because of the type of drive that I have. Traffic just ruins it. If I get a genuinely decent run at 70, it’s better, but still not near stated.

…And air temp, air pressure, wind, road surface, tyres, your weight etc etc.

But I also think the current rolling road test is beyond flawed!

My Mercedes C Class coupe has done 35,000mls. Have never reset the fuel computer and it has read 53.3mpg for the last 6mths. Average speed is 36mph and it doesn’t get driven lightly.

On a motorway trip above legal speed limits but not being stupid it averages 55-60mpg.

I think its average is supposed to be 48mpg

peugeot partner 1.9D –
published – 40mpg on the nose.
Actual – brim to brim consistantly 38 when i use tescos fuel and 42 when i use ANYOTHER fuel. – old school engine not really effected by driving style other than if doing loads of idling – which i avoid as much as possible.

Citroen berlingo with the same engine published is 42mpg and oddly it has 1more BHP on the book. does 37 on tesco and 40mpg on all the rest – i put this down to it being a heavier base vehicle with the extra seats/glass/sliding doors etc – they weigh a fair bit and the fact the wife uses it into the city for work quite often.

The land rover with its 200TDI engine does 32mpg brim to brim unless im playing offroad with it in which case it can go right down to next to **** all.

My old frontera 2.2DTI also did 32mpg consistantly – book on that was 28.

The manufacturer figures are from government prescribed tests, they HAVE to publish those figures and no others even if they wanted to.

It’s not the manufacturers who are lying, it’s the tests that aren’t necessarily representative of typical driving.

At best they provide a constant for comparison between models.

Fill yer boots[/url]

I don’t believe they lie as such – they just do their fuel consumption tests under ideal repeatable conditions so at the very least they allow you to compare figures from different manufacturers.

In the real world it depends on how you drive. When I got my car trip B was showing 32mpg after 30k miles or so. I reset it and 15k miles later its now showing 42 mpg (Parkers says it should be 43).

C-max 1.6 petrol

“extra urban”
Published 51 (i think)
Actual 40-42 on the motorway at an indicated 70.

I do have the right-foot of an arthritic nun though, most people claim <35 from the same car!

It will actually do >51 if you have to sit in the slow lane at ~55 for some reason (traffic, space saver spare tyre, a long stint on single carriageway roads with little braking). So I don’t think the test is necessarily wrong, it’s just not kept up with average motorway speeds, car’s in the 70’s probably didn’t do more than 60.

Depends too much on the roads, your driving style, tyres and weather for this to be of any use. My previous Mk3 Mondeo fully loaded up would do over 60mpg on the way down to Spain in the summer, higher than the official figures but around town around 35mpg, lower than official.
My motorbike gets nowhere near any official figures and that has bugger all to do with anything else other than my hand on the throttle.

BMW 120d. Supposed to do 65mpg on the motorway, used to do 45 (and that was loafing along at 60-ish.

Vauxhall Insignia diesel: Supposed to do 75mpg on the motorway, and provided you were prepared to gnaw your own bollocks off through boredom would easily achieve this.

Volvo V60: Book value is 65mpg. I can get about 55 on a long run, which is bearable considering it’s brand new.

Indeed, there’s been a lot of allowable “optimising” for the tests which has let published figures get better while real-world has stayed pretty similar. Things like picking gear ratios to keep the engine at peak efficiency at the prescribed test speeds.

To be fair though, if you accelerated as slowly as the tests, plenty of forward planning to avoid slowing down (only to accelerate again) and live somewhere where it’s 20 degrees all the time you’d have a good chance of getting close. Most people drive like idiots though, gassing it only to brake for another set of lights just down the road.

Use them to compare between cars, not as a realistic guide to what an “average” driver will do.

Stats here:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/

Quite happy with my 1.2 105 petrol Skoda Roomster which gets close to 50mpg if I’m driving sensibly – not bad for a petrol engine.

2012 Golf GTI DSG

Claimed 38.2
Actual 35.8

That’s not bad at all, but journeys consist of cruising along at 40 mph in traffic when it’ll do 40+ mpg, interspersed with some ‘fun’ moments when you’ll get low 20s. Still, it’s on a “combined” cycle, and that’s combined.

I know driving style makes a lot of difference but no matter how I drive, the on board trip computer reckons mpg is 10% better than the fuel pump says it is.

Ford focus 1.6 econetic 14 plate at 35000 miles.

I’m very happy about the MPG that my 2.0 golf GTD gets, 8) but as for the emissions, who knows… 😯

Kia Ceed3 (1.6petrol) parkers says 44mpg and I reckon we get 41 or 43 on a long journey so not too bad

the bigger lie is the 124bhp, it’s got all the overtaking ability of my cargo bike

My 40 mpg figure has been pretty consistent over the last 2 years +/- 1 mpg [sad]I keep a spreadsheet[/sad] no matter what the driving conditions, fuel supplier or where I am. The only time I see a dramatic improvement is when I do a 1000+ mile holiday run. The trip computer reading is comically inaccurate with figures always in excess of 48mpg.

simon_g – Member
To be fair though, if you accelerated as slowly as the tests

…you would have somebody slam into the back of you.

0-45 mph in 45 seconds!

Pointless exercise, depends where you live and how you drive

that.

and whether you put 98, 99 or 95 octane in car, and what the car prefers.
and the weather conditions (fog ftw for moar powah and economy). and the altitude.

I have measured 7% difference between the out and return of the same journey (Frankfurt to Alps and back), in winter, with a/c off both ways (that drinks quite a bit of 98 octane). Both petrol stations being BP group. That’s a Leon Cupra 1.8 20VT 180PS.

Vauxhall Insignia Euro 6 rental car. I cannot believe for one minute that it came anywhere close to published figures (might have receipt somewhere, and #miles on the rental car doc). If I have to rag the tits off it to go up a hill in 2nd, and just laugh my ass off when the shift light comes on 15mph earlier than you can even think about changing up to 3rd, then the tune on that must be to pass test like great grandma driving. And with WOT to just sustain speed on an incline? Maybe I’m just too used to turbo boost coming along to save the day? (PS afaict every single other model in the range is now turbo charged with overboost).

tlr has it. Universal answer ,no lying involved , just euroc***

Rockhopper – Member
I don’t believe they lie as such – they just do their fuel consumption tests under ideal repeatable conditions so at the very least they allow you to compare figures from different manufacturers.

I agree, think most of us see variation in consumption for any number of variable, influential parameters. IME air temp has a significant effect on consumption.

Thus I’ve never really bothered doing the comparison. In my decision process for car selection, I have higher ranking priorities, than fuel figures. But they are still considered.

Edit:
Reading other people’s posts I’ve just realised I don’t have a clue what either of my cars indicate for mpg. I’ve set the info display to not show me any mpg info.
😯

Without getting involved with the “typical driving styles/road surface/traffic” argument up there I’d say the most accurate manufacturer submission to actual use was/has been, in my case, BMW. Almost exact expectation, almost exact in real life. Car(s) 535d sport tourings and M3 conv. Worst Merc A-Class then a B-Class. Current Volvo not far away from expected MPG but by -5MPG out. My Audi has been better than expected +6MPG. And not forgetting my old Kangoo Van, that was pretty much bang on too IIRC.

A mix of petrol and diesel cars there..

IME the biggest factor in how far how out it will be is how recently the model was submitted for test. Nothing else.

Dacia Lodgy TCE: Claimed “mixte” 5.9l/100. Actual over a full year: 5.8l/100 but that’s off the computer which records the same fuel use as brim-brim but over records distance by about 3%. I drive gently in a congestion free area.

Worst cars I’ve owed: a T2 which did 20mpg standard and 25mpg with a Nikki twin choke and rolling road set up (long journeys at 90kmh), an Audi GT which I sold almost immediately when I realised 20mpg was normal and parts were 2-3 times the price of the Fiat bits I was used to buying. A Peugeot 605 SVI was remarkably good using less than 10l/100 overall.

An old Cooper S did 150 miles a litre, of oil.

I think Ford claimed 46mpg for mine, the trip says 56mpg but in reality it’s low 50s. Assuming the odo is accurate, I’m just not going there tbh. Big lazy engine so it can just rumble around more or less at idle, like a bilge pump. Very like a bilge pump.

I know driving style makes a lot of difference but no matter how I drive, the on board trip computer reckons mpg is 10% better than the fuel pump says it is.

Oddly, I’ve a ford 1.6 and find it fairly realistic.

I’ve a suspicion it calibrates off the tank level, so if you fill it to the brim then it’s got to get through the volume of the filler hose before it get’s from 100% to 99%. I seemed to get worse mpg on the screen whilst poor* and only filling the tank half way and put it down to the computer thinking it was a 10 gallon tank when in reality it was 10.5 if you filled it until the pump clicked.

*Would also have been a different commute and ASDA petrol though.

“…you would have somebody slam into the back of you.

0-45 mph in 45 seconds!”

I can confirm this doesnt happen……

all three of my cars are slower than the tide.

think the citroen and pug are 0-60 in 19 seconds if you boot it.

and land rover – doesnt go much about 55 unless you hate it.

The Honest John site reflects my experience with my car exactly, Kia Sorento I get 32mpg and the stated combined is about 40mpg, 20% off. The difference between driving really carefully vs not is less than I thought it would be too – only a few mpg I find. Probaby the fact that it is an auto doesn’t help this.

I have a spreadsheet which analyses the differences between the official VCA figures and Honest John’s real world numbers, for 200 cars. (part of my work…)

Current biggest difference is:
Fiesta 1.6 diesel
claimed: 76 mpg
real: 53 mpg

that’s a 47% difference

trail_rat – Member

“…you would have somebody slam into the back of you.

0-45 mph in 45 seconds!”

I can confirm this doesnt happen……

all three of my cars are slower than the tide.

think the citroen and pug are 0-60 in 19 seconds if you boot it.

and land rover – doesnt go much about 55 unless you hate it.

You seem to have misinterpreted my hyperbole as a serious remark, but anyway even in your 19 seconds to 60 cars I doubt you would take half a kilometer to get to 45 MPH. And even if you do, nobody else does.

Passat says 48 combined, I usually beat 50. It says 56 extra urban, which is about right for country roads but on motorways I can get 63.

The Prius says 56/61/65 and in mixed driving I can get 58, urban can be 54-56 typically, less on some routes. Never beaten 62 on a motorway run though.

It’s allegedly BMW.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/64123/real-world-and-official-fuel-economy-gap-grows

Mine-

Skoda Fabia 1.6TDI
Claimed – 67.3mpg
Actual- usually around 60 as we mostly drive country roads now. Motorway runs can easily get 70mpg though.

Skoda Fabia VRS 1.4 TSI

Claimed- 45.6mpg
Actual- 40ish on a tootle to work, 30ish if I’m being a chav.

My Peugeot 307 is showing the same distance for trip A and trip B (so they were reset at the same time) and two wildly different mpg figures! Something is not quite right!

Maserati.

That should scupper their advertising on here!

“My Peugeot 307 is showing the same distance for trip A and trip B (so they were reset at the same time) and two wildly different mpg figures! Something is not quite right!”

Its french …. the computers on strike. 😉

Peugeot 207, by the stats on Fuelly based on how much I fill up and how far I drive, 51mpg for the normal commute.

Long motorway trips it will do 60mpg easily.

The dodgy trip computer is way off and is always 5 to 10mpg higher than the real figures. I’ve never, ever seen the Peugeot published max of 74mpg.