Motorists misled by fuel consumption by up to 25%January 11th, 2013 • 11 Comments
If you have a car, or thinking of buying a new one, chances are, you’re being misled about how much fuel the vehicle will consume. According to research, some cars (including Mercedes, Range Rover and Lexus) give as little as 71% of the advertised mileage per gallon.
If drivers are expecting over 70mpg, as many manufacturers claim, it is likely that you are getting less than three-quarters of the mpg you paid for, which in fuel money, is collectively costing UK drivers up to £4.4bn a year extra.
On average, cars achieve only 88% of their official figures according to Honest John, which results in drivers spending around 2p extra per litre at the pumps. As if petrol didn’t cost enough in the first place!
The worst-performing car was the Mercedes Benz B-Class (2005-12), which is reported to achieve 71% of its official fuel economy rating, with the Range Rover Evoque and Lexus CT200h coming close behind.
Elsewhere, the Land Rover Defender is actually giving drivers better value on fuel consumption than advertised, as well as the Jaguar S-Type, Nissan Micra (2003-10) and the Mercedes-Benz E-Class (2002-2009).
Honest John says: “The official figures, which could be said to mislead consumers, are the only figures car manufacturers are allowed by EC law to publicise. Rather than attack the EC figures, we prefer to offer realistic figures achieved by real motorists to be used alongside official guidelines. Consumers will be now able to compare official figures with user experience, helping them to make better informed decisions about their next purchase.”
misled by up to 25%
give as little as 71% of that advertised
cars achieve only 88% of their official mpg
I know my maths is shit, but I`m lost already.
” realistic figures achieved by real motorists” in other words figures achieved by people who can’t be bothered to drive efficiently. I can exceed my quoted 68mpg on my 320d if I try, some of the time I cant be bothered and drive a little more aggressively. But I know how to get the numbers I was quoted and I know if I don’t drive like that I won’t
todays shock news, constantly accelerating and braking results in poor mpg!!!
Surely it comes down to how and where you drive.
I chauffeured a Bank boss around in his “S” type Jag a few years ago and he was amazed to find I got 29mpg out if it; on the exact same route he only ever managed 24mpg.
My Mitsubishi Grandis regularly returns an average of 29mpg (book says 26 mpg), despite living in a hilly area and doing mostly short 1-2 mile trips during the rush hour.
(Once a day it does a 5 mile/stop/5 mile/stop/5 mile trip between three primary schools).
Some figures are wildly out though, I used to drive a Toyota Previa; and no matter how light footed I was, even driving at 50 mph on the motorway; I could NEVER match the claimed mpg
There are so many variables that go into the mpg you will get that you cannot really pay too much attention to the advertised figures. Style of driving, incline/decline on roads, number of passengers, items in the boot, weather, etc will all play a part in determining your mpg.
There will be a massive spread in mpg’s for different drivers and obviously the manufacturers will be getting their figures from fairly optimal conditions and conservative driving.
Anyone who expects to get the same mpg’s with different conditions or without conservative driving is an idiot.
“the manufacturers will be getting their figures from fairly optimal conditions and conservative driving.”
ie. on a rolling road with no flowing air for the car to resist.
I’m sure most Range Rover Evoque drivers are shit scared of fuel prices.
I drive a vw bluemotion passat – a breed of eco-car that sells itself on efficiency…
if I sit on a motorway at 60… I’d expect to see 70 – 75 mpg return.
if I can’t be bothered and get fed up of being overtaken by coaches… I’ll sit at about 80… and I’ll drop to 60ish. the listed figure is 68.
what it means to me is that the expected mpg is an ideal figure…what the car might achieve if driven correctly in ideal conditions…. I never thought people took them so serious….
That’s nothing compared to mobile phones misleading over standby claims. How does 2 weeks claimed suddenly becomes 2 days actual? Do they lock it and the transmitter inside a metal box? Lying bastards
@ Captain Wank
Again, it comes down to local conditions. I mistakenly bought a Vodaphone contract a few years ago and found that at home the battery barely lasted 2 days (less if I made a call!!).
Yet the SAME PHONE lasted nearly two weeks between charges in Moscow.
My current phone lasts between 1 and 3 weeks, depending where in the UK I am – oh how I laugh at smart phone owners!!!!!
“Motorists misled by fuel consumption by up to 25%”
“some cars (including Mercedes, Range Rover and Lexus) give as little as 71% of the advertised mileage per gallon.”
So, up to 29% then?
Another piss-poor article. Thanks, guys!
People who say “Vodaphone” should be raped by angry Russians then eaten by polar bears.
I mean, how fucking hard is it? The logo is everywhere; adverts, branding on handsets, emails. Captain cretin, you are a total fucking waste of skin and oxygen. Wanker.