New MG ZS high fuel consumption and frosty glass shattering

tifo

The dealer hasn't been able to fix the problem, they were notified within 1 month and it was looked at several times within 6 months.

It's now 1 year old but can I still reject it under the 6 month rule? If so, they'd only offer to buy it back at market value and the dealer is already offering to do that as it is.

tightauldgit

tifo said:

The dealer hasn't been able to fix the problem, they were notified within 1 month and it was looked at several times within 6 months.

It's now 1 year old but can I still reject it under the 6 month rule? If so, they'd only offer to buy it back at market value and the dealer is already offering to do that as it is.

As far as I can see there hasn't been a problem identified to fix as yet. MPG figures are indicative and not a guarantee so much depends on the specifics of driving style and situation. It's pretty clear that the car is doing lots of short stop start journeys which are going to murder your mpg figures. But that might just be a fact of the car and the journey type - it doesn't mean there is necessarily a fault with the car. 

I think you would probably need to take the car to another garage and them have investigate and give you a report. If they find a fault then yes you can probably pursue something with the dealer/manufacturer but if it's just the way the car is then I think all you can do is sell it and replace with something that suits you better. 

Goudy

There are many in the same boat as you, they bought their cars based on WLTP figures but were never going to replicate the sort of driving that those figures were produced under.

The WLTP speed for their low speed test is 35 mph, that's over three times higher what you are averaging in total based on your earlier images, you can see why your figures are so bad.

I don't get much more on my commute monday to friday but I do a few long trips at the weekends that evens my mpg out.

I have been tempted to get something that would suit my commute better, but I can't plug in at home for an EV.
I've had a couple of loaner hybrids that are miles better for my stop start commute but they aren't really any better on the longer trips than I get with my current car, so can't justfiy the extra cost of one at the moment.

I tend to tickle my car around the city, I won't accelerate hard and I tend to think well ahead to anticipate traffic, junctions and corners.
I try to take my foot off the gas well in advance of any corners or junctions as my gearbox tends to hold the higher gears on the overrun pretty well so I carry some speed and stay off the brakes as much as I can.

Driving like this to stay off the brake takes some mental effort to start with but it does get more natural after a while.
It doesn't hold anyone up, in fact you tend to get through junctions etc much smoother and faster by just allowing the car to slow to the correct speed it's self.
I often notice cars behind might start to close up a bit but then disappear as they brake for the same corner that I don't.

You will probably have to put this car down as a bad choice and plan on when will be a good time to move it on.
It's fairly certain most have made bad car choices at one time of another, most of them will have learned from them the next time they are in a showroom full of shine metal and plastic.

CoastingHatbox

Goudy said:

The WLTP speed for their low speed test is 35 mph, that's over three times higher what you are averaging in total based on your earlier images, you can see why your figures are so bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Vehicles_Test_Procedure#WLTC_driving_cycles

35.1 mph is the maximum speed in the WLTP test.

11.75 mph is the average speed of the test.

The low speed test is 10 minutes (589 seconds) and involves accelerating from stand still four times.

The real world figure should not be that far off the WLTP figure.

I can average 30mpg in urban driving (London) with a 2.0 litre Mini Clubman. A 1.6 litre Nissan Qashqai we used to own was much better than this MG ZS, in terms of fuel economy.

tifo

CoastingHatbox said:

The real world figure should not be that far off the WLTP figure.

I can average 30mpg in urban driving (London) with a 2.0 litre Mini Clubman. A 1.6 litre Nissan Qashqai we used to own was much better than this MG ZS, in terms of fuel economy.

We have a BMW 2.0 twin turbo xdrive (current shape) in the family and that gives miles better mileage than my car, it's almost like a diesel and it's a heavy car too. So something like what i'm getting from mine is surprising and disappointing. I think the reason people buy smaller engine cars is that they're wanting to drive local, otherwise they'd buy a larger car for motorway driving.

photome

tifo said:

CoastingHatbox said:

The real world figure should not be that far off the WLTP figure.

I can average 30mpg in urban driving (London) with a 2.0 litre Mini Clubman. A 1.6 litre Nissan Qashqai we used to own was much better than this MG ZS, in terms of fuel economy.

We have a BMW 2.0 twin turbo xdrive (current shape) in the family and that gives miles better mileage than my car, it's almost like a diesel and it's a heavy car too. So something like what i'm getting from mine is surprising and disappointing. I think the reason people buy smaller engine cars is that they're wanting to drive local, otherwise they'd buy a larger car for motorway driving.

you bought a smaller engine car in a relatively large car,  having said that you can get larger cars with similarly small engines. your MPG is poor but it really could be down to your driving distances

on another note i had the MG HS 1.5 Auto on loan for a week and can honestly say I would never buy one ,as the auto box is horrendous, when pulling out I never knew at what point it was actually going to move. the kit inside it  was great as it was top of the range

tifo

photome said:

on another note i had the MG HS 1.5 Auto on loan for a week and can honestly say I would never buy one ,as the auto box is horrendous, when pulling out I never knew at what point it was actually going to move. the kit inside it  was great as it was top of the range

Yes, the kit inside mine is great as it's top of the range but the quality and other issues i'm having just don't make it worth.

lordmountararat

As already mentioned, check that the computer is not set for US gallons. US gallons are approx 20% smaller than imperial gallons. (3.78 litres to a US gallon; 4.54 litres to a UK  gallon).

[Deleted User]

I think the problem is pretty much answered above in some comments but just wanted to re-iterate something that really stood out - the 9-10 mph average speed.

If you drove the car for 20 mins at 30 mph then parked up and left the engine running at idle for 40 mins that would be an average speed of 10mph - same as OP. Nobody can expect good fuel consumption with that kind of driving. Same as driving at 20mph for 30 mins and then leaving the engine idling for 30 mins as well. Whichever way you represent it, just terrible for fuel consumption.

Clearly, the OP does incredibly slow journeys with massive amounts of engine idle time, I don't think any car would get much better economy. I'd seriously considered swapping for a push bike if my car only ever did 9mph on average, it would be much quicker and massively cheaper. Ok, a bit extreme but definitely a hybrid for that type of driving.

But something else that is worth noting and mentioned by @Goudy is the unsuitability of small turbo engines - you can get economy or power, but not both and they need to be driven very gently or cruised to get economy from them - explained in more detail by this guy that knows a lot more than I ever will about engines. But the stop/start many times journeys requiring a lot of boost to get moving are not economical on a small turbo petrol engine.

Also look up LSPI - often the early death of downsized petrol turbos. LSPI suggests that low revs / high load are not good for them - referring to the @tifo overriding the gearbox and changing up at 3k revs - not good - let the gearbox choose the higher revs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aO2vC_iMTI 

Herzlos

Yeah an average of 9mph means it's either crawling along or spending more than half of the journey time not moving, and likely most of the rest of the time accelerating or braking, which will be horrific for fuel economy on any combustion engine.