At last - real world mpg figures...

[Mercy1]

I know this is an old chestnut, but manufacturers have been getting away for far too long with monstrous mpg claims.
I see that WhatCar are now compiling a real world table of fuel returns, and hopefully buyers will get a far more realistic expectation of what they can expect.

First knockdowns in the table:
Focus Estate diesel 67.3 - Real World 43.1!!
BMW X1 - Offical 62.8, Real 50.8
VW Polo - Official 47.9, Real 34.2
VW Up - Official 60.1, Real 47.1

If buyers use these new figures then they will have a far better chance of matching them and less reason to complain!

(Interesting to note that the two Mercedes cars listed are not THAT far off the official figures - unless you consider that 7 mpg is too much!!)

 

[Bellow]

Autocar have in their full tests been publishing three figures for years.
The average figure obtained over the entire test.
The best figure - achieved on a road route driven with the aim of extracting the best economy.
The track figure - obtained during acceleration, top speed, and handling tests when the car is driven hard.

If anyone cannot peruse the Autocar figures for their current car and compare with their own returns then use that information to make sense of the three figures for an intended car then more fool them.

As ever, the information is out there - if looked for it will be found.

 

[Sp!ke]

I've always been able to meet or exceed manufacturer mpg claims if I try hard enough.

Even in my little Smart I can beat the stupidly high official figures if I work at it and without even trying I get 70mpg brim to brim.

I do think the figures often quoted are 'best case', assuming you are actually trying to hypermile rather than real world hasty rush hour commute numbers.

Its the delta between the two thats is key.

 

[Troon]

I know this is an old chestnut, but manufacturers have been getting away for far too long with monstrous mpg claims.

Yes, it is an old chestnut, but the manufacturers are mostly innocent here. The test is a standardized one, and they have little influence over the end result, short of making engines that are deliberately sub-optimal when driven gently.

The gap between real world and published is getting bigger as engines get better and more advanced. They have the capability to run really economically and return great figures on the test drive cycle. If you know how to get the best from them, you can achieve very close to these figures in the real world, but it's a driving style that won't match the rest of the traffic.

The trouble is, due to customer demand, these new engines also have the potential to tear the road up. If you drive them like that, the laws of physics take over and you burn a lot of fuel.

Our C-MAX is a good example: it's a heavy car with a tiny engine: a 1560cc diesel putting out up to 109PS. Combined figure is 57.6mpg with an extra-urban of 68.9mpg. I can better both of those: I managed 74mpg on the computer from Lichfield to Coventry, but that took a lot of care. In normal "school run" use, we see mid-30s; long fully-laden high speed jaunts get 45-47mpg.