Manufacturer mpg Vs Reality

thescouselander

i got given a hire car for work today figures as follows:


Make: Skoda
Model: Fabia
Engine size 1.2 HTP (3 Cylinder)
Fuel: Petrol
Year/Reg: 06
Manufacturer Combined mpg 47.1
My actual results on a round trip of 180 miles - 36 MPG



Pretty rubbish really for what is supposed to be an economical car.

alun4

Maybe this should be a new thread! I've had a Merc Vito since 05. I would reliably get 31mpg around town/commuting to work. Long journeys ... say to France from South Wales would give 35 mpg (70mph over here and 80 mph in France). Euro 4 engine. Changed vehicle in september 2010. Same vehicle, transmission (auto). Only real difference is the wheel size .... was 16" steel now 17" alloy. Same trim etc. My new vito has now done 6000 miles. 31mpg is down to 25mpg and my 35mpg is down to 27.8mpg.
My driving style has not changed and for indication South Wales via M25 and back in my Citreon C5 Estate (1.6 litre) returns 59.5 mpg. Mercedes don't want to know! Rant over!!

Flyboy152

Which kind of goes to proof the point that collating this data like this is a waste of time.

Flyboy152

thescouselander wrote: »

i got given a hire car for work today figures as follows:


Make: Skoda
Model: Fabia
Engine size 1.2 HTP (3 Cylinder)
Fuel: Petrol
Year/Reg: 06
Manufacturer Combined mpg 47.1
My actual results on a round trip of 180 miles - 36 MPG



Pretty rubbish really for what is supposed to be an economical car.

In the interests of accuracy:

1. What speed was the head/tail/side wind?
2. How many times did you stop?
3. What fuel did you use and how full was the tank?
4. What was the angle of any hills you climbed or descended?
5. What was in the boot and how much do you weigh?
6. What distance did you travel at sixty/thirty/twenty miles per hour?
7. What was the outside temperature?

tonynw

Good for Performance and Economy.

Make Seat
Model Ibiza Ecomotive
Engine size 1400 3 cylinder
Fuel Diesel
Year/Reg 2010
Manufacturer Combined mpg 74
My actual results.........mpg 68-76 depending on journeys

Have had 79.4 under ideal conditions on the motorway doing 65 mph in 4th gear

tonynw

thescouselander

Flyboy152 wrote: »

In the interests of accuracy:

1. What speed was the head/tail/side wind?
2. How many times did you stop?
3. What fuel did you use and how full was the tank?
4. What was the angle of any hills you climbed or descended?
5. What was in the boot and how much do you weigh?
6. What distance did you travel at sixty/thirty/twenty miles per hour?
7. What was the outside temperature?

I'm not sure I can answer any of that accurately. All I can say for certain is I travelled 90 miles starting at 7 am and made the return journey at around 2 pm - I suppose you could check the weather for these times. The tank was full (presumably with bog standard unleaded) when I started. Car was pretty much empty and I only weigh 82 kg.

The driving was on A roads and motorway and I didn't stop much. Most of the journey was done at between 50 and 70 mph or there abouts. Interestingly on the motorway 70mph was almost flat out and I did notice the mpg reading dropping significantly at higher speeds.

Flyboy152

thescouselander wrote: »

I'm not sure I can answer any of that accurately. All I can say for certain is I travelled 90 miles starting at 7 am and made the return journey at around 2 pm - I suppose you could check the weather for these times. The tank was full (presumably with bog standard unleaded) when I started. Car was pretty much empty and I only weigh 82 kg.

The driving was on A roads and motorway and I didn't stop much. Most of the journey was done at between 50 and 70 mph or there abouts. Interestingly on the motorway 70mph was almost flat out and I did notice the mpg reading dropping significantly at higher speeds.

. Thanks scouselander, I was just pointing out the futility in assuming that such data would have any meaning in real life and that every single variable is different, on every single journey.

That said, your experience when driving at seventy miles per hour, goes to prove that the slower you drive the better your fuel consumption. The average speed of the test on extra urban driving is fifty-six miles per hour.

thescouselander

Flyboy152 wrote: »

. Thanks scouselander, I was just pointing out the futility in assuming that such data would have any meaning in real life and that every single variable is different, on every single journey.

That said, your experience when driving at seventy miles per hour, goes to prove that the slower you drive the better your fuel consumption. The average speed of the test on extra urban driving is fifty-six miles per hour.

There's a bit more info too. My satnav estimates the amount of fuel used based on driving speed and other factors. I have the satnav calibrated to my A4 which I mentioned earlier - the satnav is usually within 1 or 2 MPG when compared with the trip computer.

If I look at the stats for todays journey the estimated MPG for my A4 would have been just over 40 mpg. So even though the fuel consumption for my A4 is worse than the Skoda on paper it would seem the A4 is much better for that particular type of journey in practise.

taker920

Make: Audi
Model: RS6
Engine size: 5.0T
Fuel: Petrol
Year/Reg: 2009
Manufacturer Combined mpg: 20
My actual results: 15

Flyboy152

thescouselander wrote: »

There's a bit more info too. My satnav estimates the amount of fuel used based on driving speed and other factors. I have the satnav calibrated to my A4 which I mentioned earlier - the satnav is usually within 1 or 2 MPG when compared with the trip computer.

If I look at the stats for todays journey the estimated MPG for my A4 would have been just over 40 mpg. So even though the fuel consumption for my A4 is worse than the Skoda on paper it would seem the A4 is much better for that particular type of journey in practise.

But how on Earth can your satellite navigation take into account weight, environment, tyres, fuel, road surface etc.?