MPG not as described

pstuart

smjxm09 wrote: »

My Mondeo has the new Euro 5 engine with the powershift semi-automatic gearbox (CO2 149g/km) Only on the second tank of fuel now.

Same unit, played with the computer today which showed my average speed as 18mph!

So tight engine and low speeds in traffic = initial 33mpg.

smjxm09

pstuart wrote: »

Same unit, played with the computer today which showed my average speed as 18mph!

So tight engine and low speeds in traffic = initial 33mpg.

Mine was 25mph

marlot

Marv02 wrote: »

1) Tire Pressure. - Check that ALL your tires are equally under the same load, as a matter of fact, read the side of each tire and it should tell you what pressure they are supposed to be at. Go to a petrol station and fill those bad-boys back up. (believe in me when I say that it makes a HUGE difference)

That is really dangerous advice. The figure on the sidewall of the tyre is its maximum pressure. This will only be used if the tyre is running at its maximum rated load - this is incredibly unlikely to be the case.

Get the pressure for your car from its handbook.

skiddlydiddly

I dunno, Marv is right about it making a huge difference.It will certainly hugely increase your chances of understeering/oversteering off the road into a hedge or ploughing into the back of someone the 1st emergency stop you do.

bigjl

I tend to set my tyre pressures at the higher end of the recommended pressures, for high speed driving or load usually, doing so on my Mondeo improved economy and made the car much more responsive.

Though inflating them to the maximum indicated on the sidewalls is a bit off, though works well on Mountain Bikes when only used on tarmac paths. Maybe the poster made an error when typing or is a cyclist.

Hammyman

Hintza wrote: »

It is all horses for courses though isn't it.

How else do I tow something weighing 2+ tonnes in field and elsewhere?

If its a horsebox, with a car.

I was at Wales WRC Rally yesterday at the Sweet Lamb stage. Disabled parking was in with the 4x4's on a grass and mud bank. There was a steep ramp up to it and the parking attendant said I could go round the side to another access point to get it. I just drove up the ramp. I drove over all the grass and the mud, pointed the nose of the car down the hill then reversed into place.

All around me there were people in 4x4s worth 10 times plus what my FWD car was (Range Rovers, Tuaregs etc) who were having all kinds of problems partly due to having road tyres and partly due to the fact they simply didn't have a clue.

One person parked in front of me, requiring me to reverse up the hill a bit to get around them and asked if it was OK as they'd be a while. I replied that I'd had the best off road driver training the Army could provide so no problem .

Yesterday certainly proved that a bloke with proper off road driver training driving a standard 7 year old 146000 mile Ford Mondeo can do better off road than a clueless halfwit with 4wd, diff locks, variable transmission and all the toys a £50k+ 4x4 comes with.

In fact the only vehicles I saw universally having no problems whatsoever were Land Rover Defenders and Toyota 4x4 pickups. It would appear the people buying them are actually buying them because they need a 4x4 in their lives - one universal constant in those vehicles being the use of off road knobblies and not low profile road tyres.

Hintza

Hammyman wrote: »

- one universal constant in those vehicles being the use of off road knobblies

Whew that's lucky .....I have the Scorpion A/Ts on mine....;)

pawnbroker_2

zotar wrote: »

Hi all

I am new to all this- so hello!

After a really awful year, which included our first baby passing away- we thought we would treat ourselves to a car to chear us up. I have been after a small 4x4 for some time for various things I do and settled on a Suzuki Grand Vitara. It is a petrol model that was described as doing and average of 31 MPG and up to 37 MPG on a long steady run.

After two weeks of having it it has averaged 24 MPG and even only motorway driving at a steady 70MPH it only did 24 MPG.

This is nowhere near what it is meant to do- and I know it depends on the driving, but this was us trying to be as careful as possible.

Had I known it was this thirsty I woulod not have gone near it and bought a more frugal model. This is worse than a Range Rover!

I have contacted the dealer who is going to test it- but I have told them I don't want the car and am happy to swap it and purchase a more economical even it that means paying more.

Any idea what rights I have here- I think it is basically not as described.

Any help would be good to save another thing happening in a bad year!

I think the petrol models are really bad.


However are you sure the mlieage is that low.

The reason I ask is that I have recently bought a Grand Vitara SZ5 Diesel

My concern grew when the AVG MPG counter hovered around 28-30.

Having had a previous DDIS Vitara that showed 37.8 almost conststently for 25,000 miles. Sometimes it got to 40 on motorways.

I monitored manually the fuel consumption of my current vehicle and the first test showed 46 mpg (mainly motorawy driving) thesecond showed 40.6

I shall continue to monitor before going to the main dealer.

There is litle doubt in my mind that the computer working out avg mpg is wrong by about 25%.

I think with the electronic indicators the instant fuel consmption and avg mpg are coming from the same feed.

My average mpg will change when I am parked at traffic lights or if I accelerate it drops down visibly.

I am judging the consumption by when I put fuel in, not what the console says. I wait for the empty light to come and then fill up.