I know when you sell a car on here TM automatically adds in its fuel consumption based on prior information. I have purchased a car, from the north island (I am South based) never saw the car in person. The km/l advertised was 6L/100km, as all the others of the same model are advertised, but when I drive it there is zero chance of getting anything less than 11L/100km and when I google search the stats for this I get numbers around what I am driving it at never what it was advertised at. I expected it to be a little bit optimistic for consumption but this is so far out its crazy. Anything I can do here? Genuine question, dont have a go at me please.
kazbanz,
Feb 2, 3:31am
Send an e mail directly to Just in there Ardern complaining. The fuel economy rating for all post 2000 cars was created by this gubbiment. Just like the car safety rating system its totally screwed up. If you want a better indicator then use the AA economy rating system
tygertung,
Feb 2, 3:34am
What model car is it please?
3tomany,
Feb 2, 3:44am
The new safety rating system is a complete shambles. There is so much confusion around it that the whole thing has become useless as a guide. The only rating quoted should be the original ancap given at time of manufacture.
kazbanz,
Feb 2, 3:51am
I agree with you wholeheartedly in principle. Except that using ANCAP alone means that vehicles not tested by ANCAP then are as bad off as currently. For Jap imports JNCAP ratings should be used. FAR more accurate than a system that give a 1 star rating to a vehicle brand new to the market with multi air bags etc
intrade,
Feb 2, 4:32am
fuel consumption have never been accurate. it was common knowhow that the figures where generated in a lab with no seats no wind resistance . Therefore they would never match plus somone who can drive well could get 25% less fuel consumption then somone who had no clue on how to drive saving fuel. That same issue was on emissions on tailpipe. everyone did know the emissions where never going to be accurate. We used to have the biggest problems with asian cars passing emission tests in the 1990s Then of course came vw who made blue motion or what ever and claimed it was the cleanest. well it was in the lab. No one else could meet there emissions . But then came out why almost no one could meet it. Because it was B$ just like fuel consumption done with magic wand smoke and mirrors. Everyone did know the emissions cheat onlz the knothead in california claimed it was frawd . of what it technicall was . but what is all the rest then? Anyhow That is about as accurate as your fuel consumption figures will be. Some cheat more some less and then is the human and enviroment factor . You wont get the same fuel consumption if you live on top of mount ruapehu as when you live in dunedin where its mostly flat.
intrade,
Feb 2, 4:38am
savety rating is another can of worms. its quite similar to the fuel consumption and emission. because there is no international standard . and ancap is a new fresh design each time like a 4 star from 2000 is not the same as a 4 star from 2019. its about as bad as the other 2 . Toss a coun as to how we go and alter the rating to suit who p[ays us the most?
3tomany,
Feb 2, 5:05am
Agree 100%
franc123,
Feb 2, 5:16am
New car buyers who bought from an official dealership can and have had their cars taken back and been refunded less some age and kms depreciation because of real world economy that has been well above what has been claimed, and has been proven to be so, with no technical or operator fault with the car being to blame. There was a DT case floating about a couple of years back which proved conclusively that the car concerned could not get within 2L/100km of the claimed figure no matter how it was driven.
saxman99,
Feb 2, 5:18am
It’s likely the number quoted by the manufacturer and therefore complete fantasy. It is the lowest possible figure gained by driving like an absolute nana, in the best possible conditions for the optimum time at 3 in the morning. If you’re getting about what everyone else is then that’s about as good as you can expect.
If it makes you feel better I have a car here which carries a manufacturer claim of 11L/100km which I laughed about when I read it; the reality is I get 14 in the best possible conditions and 19 as an average.
alowishes,
Feb 2, 5:18am
Dunedin is NOT ‘mostly flat’!
Try Christchurch.
bill-robinson,
Feb 2, 6:44am
nobody can give accurate milage numbers except you, in your chosen car driving how you do. others are best guess
tygertung,
Feb 2, 7:03am
Does the car have a live readout of fuel consumption avaliable? It may be possible to monitor the fuel consumption readout, and if it is reading high, to modify the throttle setting and/or what what gear you have selected in the gearbox to reduce the fuel consumption.
If drivers insist on driving up steep hills at 100 km/h because that is the maximum permissible speed, the fuel consumption would be higher than driving up at a sensible speed.
sellontrademe,
Feb 2, 7:52am
The vehicle is a Mercedes CLA250, less than 13000kms on the clock, I never thought that the actual consumption would be nearly double the promised consumption. It is almost an identical model to my last car which drove at its promised consumption so its not that its wildly different to what I am used to. Thanks for the tips its greatly appreciated.
franc123,
Feb 2, 8:13am
This car is still under factory warranty? You bought it used and from a dealer, or agency?
saxman99,
Feb 2, 10:01am
Did you reset the average fuel consumption reading when you bought the car? If you did, and you haven’t had it very long, and you’ve mostly driven round town it will seem to read high for a while.
sellontrademe,
Feb 2, 10:03am
No I have not and I live rurally so majority of my travel is uninterrupted and not full of stops and starts
vtecintegra,
Feb 2, 11:37am
My car is rated 9.2l/100km combined and I saw ~8l/100km from Wellington to Taupo (so more uphill than down) 7.1l/100km from Taupo to Wellington (more downhill than up)
saxman99,
Feb 2, 11:43am
Reset it. What you are seeing is what the first owner got, probably averaged over the entire 13000k. If he lived in town and had a heavy foot it’ll be high.
bigfatmat1,
Feb 2, 11:43am
You could try reset trip a an b this should clear out previous driving and drive it round a bit. Thats if you are using the cars readout as some cars calculate over total trip b distance if the kms are high it takes a while to come down. But I'm only guessing as I dunno what car you have or how you get your figures.
vtecintegra,
Feb 2, 11:44am
I'd verify it manually too, reset the trip computer, fill up the car, drive it until the fuel light is on then take not of how much fuel the car takes.
tygertung,
Feb 2, 11:56am
You are not alone in seeing worse than expected fuel economy:
Seeing that it is a 2L turbo you may find that you will need to be really gentle with the throttle or it will suck through the gas like nobodies business.
sellontrademe,
Feb 2, 12:16pm
It has two numbers to follow - an overall until I reset it or one that starts form zero each day, this is the one that is really high
sellontrademe,
Feb 4, 2:59am
CONFESSION TIME! so, yes I am blonde, cars advertised on TM have L/100km, my new car shows km/L so my really high numbers are really good, not bad. Thanks for all the expertise advice but its actually not too far off the advertised consumption. (skulks off to the corner feeling like an idiot)
strobo,
Feb 4, 3:25am
Dunners is not mostly "flat" . facts first please ;-)
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.