Fuel Consumption figures

Buy a copy of Autocar. They give real world results for most cars in the back of every copy. But don't put them on their website. They have their own test which tends to be more representative than 'official' figures. However, they don't give the consumption at a steady 70 in their summary - you'd need to read each and every test for that. ;-)

Sure is, for new cars at least:

Usual caveats about 'official' figures apply. I seem to recall they do publish the test method on the site which might be of interest.

Mathew

(ignore the 'sure is' bit, I think someone said it on the TV whilst I was typing and it somehow got through to the keyboard - it wasn't in reference to your last comment!)

I didn't know that one, thanks.

Doesn't seem to go back all that far though. Late 1990's on only

It does say 'new car fuel consumption figures' though.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Even that may be misleading though. For the RX8 they got 27mpg on their touring route. Most owners seem to be getting a fair bit less than that, with some averaging high teens; closer to the AutoCar test figure of

12mpg than to their touring figure.

You need to read it and compare to other cars you may have experience of consumption wise. It's just that they take every car over the same longish route and at as near as possible the same speeds. Of course it's not infallible, but rather a better comparison than the official combined one. They instigated it after finding the official figures so unreliable.

Of course if you have a sports car which loves to rev and you make use of this at every occasion - like you might well with the super smooth RX8, not a car you'd buy for economy - it will do less even on a similar route.

The simple reason is that actual fuel consumption is not measured. It's calculated based on the CO2 emissions! And there are many ways in which manufacturers can fiddle the results. I can't remember where I first read this, but the story is told nicely in this article:

- note particularlywhat they point out in the second part! And for the original poster, the figures you see quoted will usually be a reasonable comparison guide between cars; but they will do much better on a motorway run (my Merc does better on a run at 80mph than on my

30mph average speed daily commute!)

In message , Chris Bolus writes

Umm, not in the case of AutoCar's independent figures. You're thinking of the official figures.

Fair enough but what I need to see are some figures for things like 8 year old Honda Accords at motorway/extra-urban speeds. he combined figure tells me nothing based on my commuting which is 39 miles motorway and 1 mile standing still in Bristol centre.

Malc ( snipped-for-privacy@lightindigooverthere.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Isn't in the handbook?

Given that I don't, and never have, owned one, I dunno. I'm looking toi buy a new car so I need to know what the fuel consumptions like.

However I did find this place eventually

As I read it back, yes, you're right. But it still makes interesting reading!

In message , Malc writes

Thing is, driving style has such a massive effect on fuel consumption that looking at someone else's figures doesn't really tell you what consumption you will get. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. All you can do is compare the figures and come to the conclusion that Car A is probably better than Car B.

And that's all I need.

Absolutely. But the official combined figure is not reliable. You only need to look at the figures for things like the Prius to realise this. Its official figure is something like 65 mpg, while the real world one more like 45.

Hence Autocar devising their own. It can't be 100% accurate since it's conducted on real roads where things like traffic conditions and even the weather might have a small effect. But it's far more use for comparison between different cars than the official figures.

Incidentally, Autocar tested most of the 'high economy' vehicles this week

- including hybrids like the Prius. A small diesel (also Toyota) won in all the tests - and was more satisfactory to drive on the open road than the Prius. At half the price...

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Yep. It's particularly unreliable when comparing cars based on different technologies, hence the misleading Pius figures. I'm not convinced that it compares petrol and diesel engined vehicles all that usefully either, for much the same reasons; their fuel consumption rates respond differently to changing driving conditions.

It is better, although it suffers the same problem that all combined figures have; you can't break down how much each kind of route contributed to the overall figure. I don't care if a car has spectacularly good fuel consumption during urban use, because I do very little of that kind of driving.

But we all knew that already... The real advantage of hybrid power seems to be in big, powerful, expensive cars. The Lexus hybrids make more sense than the Prius because they are less thirsty alternatives to the same thing with a V8 rather than a more spacious alternative to a smaller car with a diesel.

Not according to:

..and I think I'd be inclined to believe the latter...

Mathew

Scrap that... didn't read Part Two!

Mathew