Fuel Economy. I recently bought a new car the fuel advisory sticker claimed a combined cycle of 76 km100l but so far i have got

Page 1 / 2
pestri, Feb 21, 3:52pm
I recently bought a new car. the fuel advisory sticker claimed a combined cycle of 7.6 km/100L but so far I have got nothing like this with the cars computer advising 9.8 av/100km over the first 1700km, which has consisted of several 100km trips and one of 750-800kmas well as town running

I did not expect 100% accuracy, and I am a reasonably fuel efficient driverbutthe discrepancy between claimed and actual is huge. How are these things calculated ! What are others experiencing in this matter!
splinter67, Feb 21, 3:57pm
What sort of car! and I think you mean 7.6l per 100k the other way your not an economical driver lol
pestri, Feb 21, 4:04pm
Yes, quite, and its actuallyclaimed to be 7.4l/100 km but not returning that , car type is not material at this stage I just want to know how the rate is calculated. website is quite contradictory:

http://www.eeca.govt.nz/standards-and-ratings/vehicle-fuel-economy-labels/faq

" The fuel economy star rating is based on independent testing of the vehicle when new. Vehicles in New Zealand are tested to either the European (typically for new cars),AND

The fuel consumption information is provided by the manufacturers and/or importers of vehicles."
theram1, Feb 21, 4:07pm
Around town, stop start driving will effect the figures, compared to steady open road driving.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 21, 4:54pm
What is the make/model/year/engine of the vehicle!

If they use the same data or team that does the likes of the governments fuel saver and rightcar websites there are bound to be some absolutely absurd errors in their data.They really need a proper kick in the pants because people are making expensive buying decisions based on some figures that are not even close to being correct on those websites.

It could be that there is something wrong with the vehicle and as mentioned above driving style and conditions do play a big factor.

However if you post the details of the vehicle we can probably give you a good idea of what sort of economy you should be getting. I find "real world" websites like fuely can give you a good indication too, so long as you read them properly and take factors like transmission type, fuel etc into account.
purple666, Feb 21, 5:14pm
That last sentence holds the key.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 21, 7:01pm
Yip, even the "independent" Japanese test is an absolute joke, the cars are not even taken up to highway speed. Completely irrelevant for NZ conditions.

Also. the likes of Honda and Toyota have had their share of litigation and government action over absurd fuel economy claims of late.
mm12345, Feb 21, 8:05pm
I think you'll find that the recent fuss was about Hyundai and Kia (not Japanese makers) getting sprung in the USA for what they claim were "honest mistakes" and "human error".Tui.They lost class-action lawsuits, US EPA helped in catching them.It hardly made the news here.
I have absolutely no idea if any "adjustment" was made in NZ to the NZ "Rightcar" ratings for these vehicles, or if the Korean cars sold here use the old Japanese Standard, the new one, the Euro one - or they just make something up .They cite "Hyundai" as source for their data (FFS!).

Rightcar lists a Hyundai Accent 2012 1.6 auto petrol at 6.4 litres per 100km.That's about 37 miles per (US) gallon.
When tested to US EPA standard, combined (city/highway), the same car only manages 31mpg (US).It did actually manage 37 mpg (US) on the highway, but it's obviously going to do less than that on any genuine "combined" test - about 7.6l/100km according to EPA.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 21, 8:37pm
No those ones would be additional to the cases (there are probably quite a few).

I was referring to the Honda Civic hybrid class action settlement and the Toyota Prius fuel economy claims that a U.S Government department (I forget which one) made them withdraw and adjust.

I would be blown over backwards if rightcar bothered to make any adjustments. They had some absolutely absurd claims on there originally, it ticked me off so much I sent a screen capture video to my MP about it. They amended the few that I pointed out only to reinstate them later on when they did some website changes.

I can't be bothered to flick through and see what state of affairs things are in now. Pretty much I got the impression that there was no remotely car savy person checking the details for blatant errors.

Wish I had kept my video but I chucked it out years ago.
thejazzpianoma, Feb 21, 8:48pm
O.K so I am bored and had a quick look at one I remembered.
Yip. its as stupid as ever. Apparently the original first generation Prius does 3.1l/100km which would be about twice as economical as they really are (or even the official rating).

This one in particular used to really irk me because they paraded it around in their 10 most economical cars link on the main page, and I shudder to think how many people parted with serious money to buy one because of it.

Like I said above, they clearly don't have anyone remotely car savy checking the figures for obvious errors and even when they are pointed out to them (I emailed them directly as well) they are too lazy to do anything about it.

It smells of another gravy train sham to me where we all pay through the nose via the government for a lot of over priced useless nonsense.
clark20, Feb 22, 1:04am
smac, Feb 22, 2:15am
You have come on here to ask advice, because you do not have the knowledge on why your actual (well, as reported by the car I suspect) consumption is different from some rating for the car.

Yet somehow you have the knowledge to know that the make, model, engine type etc is not material to the answer!

Just humour them, and give the requested detail (if you want some serious responses).

Also, what fuel do you use! What ratio of urban to rural driving! How many passengers! What is your average speed!
msigg, Feb 22, 2:41am
Thats an interesting site , Clark20.
vtecintegra, Feb 22, 3:13am
Modern Volkswagens (actually small capacity petrol turbos in general) are some of the biggest exaggerations.
pestri, Feb 22, 2:04pm
Not material to the question,and I'd rather not get intoa pissing competition among the cognoscenti about the relative merits of one brand over another
thunderbolt, Feb 22, 2:13pm
By providing more details about the vehicle, the informed folk of the TMMB can offer opinions on how close your fuel consumption figures are to what you can expect for said vehicle.
But I suspect you are more interested in the method of calculation than actually saving money on running costs if possible.
smac, Feb 22, 2:27pm
I'm not talking about anything to do with one brand versus another, I'm just talking about YOUR car. It's VERY material to the question, as are the other points I mentioned. Some models are known to have dodgy economy figures, some vehicles will give better or worse economy depending on how you use them, some will give worse economy dependent on the fuel you are using.

SO you can either offer up the info, and perhaps get some useful info from the people here, or not. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
sharchew, Feb 22, 2:27pm
It all depends on how lead footed you are
wrong2, Feb 22, 2:32pm
thinking your a good driver for economy is very different to the reality for many people

ive been able to better the Factory rated fuel consumption for all the cars ive owned
grb235, Feb 22, 2:42pm
It is worthwhile to make a note of what type of fuel you are using.

With Gull I get 600k per full tank (Toyota Camry Wagon) and a very unhappy, lumpy engine.

With BP I get 670K per full tank and a sweeter, smoother engine.

Z and Mobil is in between, haven't tried Caltex.
wrong2, Feb 22, 2:51pm
i dunno about gull 91, but their 98 is a blended fuel & is inferior to z mobil bp ect
ralphdog1, Feb 22, 3:58pm
Given the behavior of some round here your concern re a pissing contest is valid.
However those Numpties don't matter, you can just ignore them.
If you stop being a secret squirrel there is a real chance that someone else with you make & model will light up and say "I have one and I am getting xkm/100l"
Then you will have some helpful facts and will know if you have a vehicle problem or you have been screwed over by lies.
Whatever it is, it can't be that embarrassing can it!
pestri, Feb 22, 4:19pm
Nup, don't want to know what MY car does, I want to know the methodology behind calculating the figure on the sticker advisory.
pestri, Feb 22, 4:20pm
And I got 30mpg out of my Falcon and similar with the V6 Maxima,. so!
pestri, Feb 22, 4:20pm
At this point, that is my question