Fuel Economy Figures and Actuals - Sale of Goods Act

NatWestCustomer

Is anyone aware of anyone having tested the argument that the fact that the manufacturers fuel economy figures are never reflective of what we achieve on the road is a breach of the Sale of Goods Act (description)?

I know that there is always a footnote re the conditions under which they are tested but this seems to be arguably insufficient to me in a consumer transaction.

The context is that I bought a new car and chose it because of its efficiency figures. Now it's brand new and I'm a realist on the old manufacturer testing numbers versus real life but I'm getting 37.3 on a car that's extra urban is supposed to be 67.3 (my commute is mainly motorway). I've had it for less than a month.

Any thoughts welcome.

Regards

phill99

Maybe it's your driving style that's the problem and not the car.

OddballJamie

Tape up any panel gaps, remove extra weight such as carpets, stereo, seats, alternator, excess fuel, etc. Then drive only downhill.
Problem solved.

bodgerx

NatWestCustomer wrote: »

Is anyone aware of anyone having tested the argument that the fact that the manufacturers fuel economy figures are never reflective of what we achieve on the road is a breach of the Sale of Goods Act (description)?

I know that there is always a footnote re the conditions under which they are tested but this seems to be arguably insufficient to me in a consumer transaction.

The context is that I bought a new car and chose it because of its efficiency figures. Now it's brand new and I'm a realist on the old manufacturer testing numbers versus real life but I'm getting 37.3 on a car that's extra urban is supposed to be 67.3 (my commute is mainly motorway). I've had it for less than a month.

Any thoughts welcome.

Regards

No chance. Unless there is an actual fault with the car. The figures are only a guide, and this is clearly stated. They are more of a comparison tool so that different cars can be compared rather than a cast iron prediction of what you actually get.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/faqs-fuel-consumptio.asp

Is that 67.3 figure the combined, urban or extra urban?

What car is it?

Mobeer

Normally in the brochure and other adverts it will be clearly stated that the economy figures are from test results and may not reflect real driving. This follows a ASA ruling where such a notice did not appear.

Can you prove (ideally with evidence in writing) that for example a sales person promised that you would achieve these figures?

Jamie_Carter

Fuel consumption figures can be used as a comparison between different vehicles. They are carried out in very controlled conditions, which are difficult to replicate through normal driving. But if one says 30mpg, and another says 60mpg, then it is likely that the one that is 60mpg will still do double the mpg of the other one, when driven in the same way and on the same journey.

If you accelerate harder, or go up and down hills, then this will all have an impact on your consumption.

I can drive my car at 70mph on a level motorway, and it will achieve the quoted 51 mpg. But as soon as there is a slight incline this will drop down to about 25mpg. And with a slight down hill section it will do 70-80mpg.

2010

It`s pretty obvious that the figures manufacturers use are sheer fantasy designed to sell their cars.
But as pointed out, at least they all have to use the same system to gain those figures.

As regards driving styles, I was taught to go up and down the gears in order but I recently watched a program on how to change your driving habits to improve fuel consumption.
One of the things that was said is to select the gear when slowing down ie: it`s OK to drop from say 4th to second etc.
Gentle on the accelerator and the brakes, sticking to no more than 65mph.
I decided to adopt this style of driving about six months ago.

It has made no difference whatsoever to my fuel consumption!
Maybe I`ve always drove in the most fuel efficient way all the time without knowing it.

Anyone who say they`re getting what the manufacturers say are fooling themselves.

torbrex

NatWestCustomer wrote: »

The context is that I bought a new car and chose it because of its efficiency figures. Now it's brand new and I'm a realist on the old manufacturer testing numbers versus real life but I'm getting 37.3 on a car that's extra urban is supposed to be 67.3 (my commute is mainly motorway). I've had it for less than a month.

Any thoughts welcome.

Regards

I bought a secondhand car but I still checked the test numbers for the new model of the same car and was quite pleasantly surprised when I found that I was getting 4mpg more on average for the 'extra urban' that was stated in the brochure in spite of the car being over a year old.

Netwizard

If its brand new, the engine will take a while to losen up anyway but buying a brand new car based purely on its fuel consumption is a crazy idea. You will lose far more in depriciation than you will ever save in fuel unless you keep it a very very long time.

FreddieFrugal

Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure that a car needs to be broken in over time and it needs a few thousand miles before reaching peak engine efficiency.

Read that in several places and generally found that to be the case.

Engine efficiency is affected by all the things all ready mentioned e.g driving style and hills, but also temperature, wind speed/direction and other factors beyond control.

I've found in my car that its most efficient at 60 and held at 60, going up hills as well, more efficient than allowing car to slow and then needing more fuel to pull itself up. There's also obviously a sweet spot for the revs and keeping it around the 2100 mark (my car alone not necessarily yours) even if that means keeping car in a lower gear generally proves to be more efficient because its keeping the car working at peak torque. Only use high gears when you're unlikely to need to slow down.

Obviously once you've got car to the speed you need ease off accelerator. I've gotten pretty good now at finding just the right pressure to keep car moving at that speed but keep at max mpg. Use trip computer to check. In fact I usually have current (not average) mpg up on the screen constantly - not staring at it obviously.

I've got 59.5 mpg at the moment which includes one DPF regeneration, the fuel used during MoT testing, 430 miles of mixed motorway/town driving.
Official figures are 64mpg for combined.

But on my commute trip - 18 mile one way - country roads, I get high 60s close to 70 averages.

The lowest average I've got as been low 50s when driving in winter. But even driving through centre of Glasgow for instance it stayed above 50.

Driving style is important. You can't get near the official mpg if you're trying to also get near the official 0-60 time.

Also think about it this way - if they did a simple test of mpg out on the roads for each and every car produced there would be SO many variables - wind, traffic, driver - that you could never use those figures as a comparison tool. That's why I find What Car's tests so laughable, they're not more reasonable at all, if anything they're giving a skewed picture - same with public contribution databases like Honest John's - they're interesting to look at - but not comparable at all between brands or individual cars.

Yes the scientific method may produce huge numbers that are not achievable in all situations, but at least it gives you an idea of which car should be the most economical.

CO2 emissions are also calculated in similar lab conditions and your road tax is based on those figures...if it were based on real world tests then your car tax band would almost certainly be higher!

FreddieFrugal

NatWestCustomer wrote: »

67.3

Could be a Nissan Juke or a Kia Picanto or a Golf GTD or an Alfa MiTo or a SEAT Leon FR possibly more.


Also just saying in my case I've found it harder to get good mpg on motorways. Wide open space subject to strong winds, long inclines and worst of all, the overwhelming urge to get ahead of the person in front of you. Probably caused by how long and uninterestong a motorway journey can be.

I know that I could be getting high 60 - 70s if I pootled along at 60mph but I can't bare to do it. So I'm stuck with getting about 61mpg going at 70. Dropping whenever someone in front is going too slow.

I'd probably do better with cruise control - but while my twitchy toe is in command high motorway mpg is out of my grasp