how much would my fuel costs increase by if upgrade to 1.6??

bigadaj

That emissions figure sounds very high for a 1.6, I woudk have thought a figure of 15-160 would be closer for similar cars, but if teh OP won't post the actual cars then it's all speculation really.

yangptangkipperbang

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I don't entirely agree with that,

from the UK govt VCA website:

"The fuel consumption testing scheme

The fuel consumption testing scheme is intended to give potential car buyers comparative information about the relative fuel consumption of different models in standard tests.

IMPORTANT NOTE

The fuel consumption figures quoted in this guide are obtained under specific test conditions, and therefore may not necessarily be achieved under ‘real life’ driving conditions.

How Representative of Real Life Driving are the Standard Tests?

Because of the need to maintain strict comparability of the results achieved by the standard tests, they cannot be fully representative of real-life driving conditions. Firstly, it is not practicable, nor is it viable to test each individual new car. Only one production car is tested as being representative of the model and this may produce a slightly better or worse result than another similar vehicle. Secondly, there are infinite variations in driving styles, as well as road, car and weather conditions, all of which can have a bearing on the results achieved. For these reasons the fuel consumption achieved on the road is unlikely to be the same as the official test results. The purpose of the official fuel consumption test is to provide data that will permit a comparison of the fuel consumption of different cars, rather than to provide an estimate of average, on-the-road, fuel economy.

It is recognised that, for a variety of reasons, the fuel consumption achieved by the majority of motorists is poorer than that suggested by the standard tests, and work is going on with the intention of introducing a new test cycle which will better represent the way in which most people actually use their cars."

The magic word is "comparative"..............

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who are (rightly !) highly cynical about advertised Broadband speeds, Energy prices, railway timekeeping etc, etc, seem to take these mpg figures as what they WILL get if they buy that car - even though these figures are widely and prominently advertised as NOT being representative of real life motoring :huh:

Ultrasonic

I deliberately tried to not get into this above... But, very briefly, in the past many people have achieved approximately the advertised mpgs for their vehicles, myself included, which meant they were not entirely unrepresentative. Your quote reflects the current situation, whereas I was 'not entirely agreeing' that this had 'never' been the case.

For the purpose of this thread though the potentially relevant point is that the gap between real-world and official mpg figures is growing. This means that comparing official mpg figures for vehicles of different ages tends to be misleading.

ferox666

Thanks everyone for the help.

For those who asked, the new vehicle would be a Suzuki Grand Vitara around 6-7yrs old.

I guess if I drive the same and keep weight in boot etc the same, then the difference between the MPG figures is the additional fuel cost. a 50% increase is quite depressing!

mattyprice4004

A Vitara? That's exactly why putting the make and model of both cars in the opening post would be useful - you're going from a (presumably) small and light city car (I'm assuming as you haven't told us what that is either!) to a 4x4 with a 1.6 litre engine.

If we'd have known you were looking at a 1.6 with 4 wheels to drive, not 2, the 199g/KM would have seemed less odd.

thefishdude

dont forget tax will go up by nearly 100 a yyear approx and your car insurance will go up allso

maninthestreet

((199 - 135) / 135) x 100 = 47%.

londonTiger

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I deliberately tried to not get into this above... But, very briefly, in the past many people have achieved approximately the advertised mpgs for their vehicles, myself included, which meant they were not entirely unrepresentative. Your quote reflects the current situation, whereas I was 'not entirely agreeing' that this had 'never' been the case.

For the purpose of this thread though the potentially relevant point is that the gap between real-world and official mpg figures is growing. This means that comparing official mpg figures for vehicles of different ages tends to be misleading.

Let's not forget older cars slowly become inefficient for various reasons too.

getmore4less

ferox666 wrote: »

I currently drive a car with only 1litre (973cc) engine and 135 g/km CO2 emissions. If I switch to a 1.6 with 199 g/km what difference (in % terms) would it make to my fuel costs?

Vehicle 2 apparently average mpg 32.8 mpg the other was 50-odd so does that mean it would increase by around 50%?

hope someone can help, thanks!

ferox666 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the help.

For those who asked, the new vehicle would be a Suzuki Grand Vitara around 6-7yrs old.

I guess if I drive the same and keep weight in boot etc the same, then the difference between the MPG figures is the additional fuel cost. a 50% increase is quite depressing!

based on 32.8 and 50 the increas in fuel will be .........

50/32.8 1.5244 so a 52.44 increase

(now you can do it for any cars you may look at)

It won't just be fuel that makes the costs go up.

perhaps you would be better describing what you are looking for in a new vehicle nd people can come up with suggestions.

space, economy, ground clearance, looks, .......

what mileage type and distance do you do.

good ide a to say what the outgoing and incoming vehicles are when asking questions.