Real Life Motorway Mpg 1.6tdi V 2.0tdi

[monkeyhanger]

It keeps all the figures, and you could compare anything to anything else yes, but why would you? I don't think you're using the figures correctly, or even trying to.

What figures aren't I using correctly? If I take a 2011 A3 2.0TDI (non bluemotion or whatever Audi called it) that has got an official mpg combined of 55mpg and was tested with the NEDL method, i'd easily achieve 50mpg with everyday driving, the test gives results within 10% of reality. I then take a 2013 model of the 8V platform, it has stop start included, and is subject to the same test as the 2011 model. It achieves 67mpg combined on the test, but gives 51mpg with everyday driving. Audi boast of 20% gains (without disclaimers), you are 24% from reality. The dealership made a big point of how much fuel you will be saving - will you be disappointed by reality? It really is a poor test. If a GCSE Science student devised such a poorly thought out comparison test they would likely fail.

Imagine buying a 30cm ruler that was only 22.8cm long, or your 1L bottle of Fairy claimed to wash 25% more dishes than the old formulation, but only because it classes a 75% cleaned dish as being called clean.

 

[veeeight]

Since 2010 we've had these "proper" NEDL tests and people trusted them to represent reality because they were official and were close to reality before stop-start was used to enhance the resultant mpg test result.

Make your mind up. You are contradicting yourself again.

On the one hand you cite "unrealistic figures" (post #27), yet in post #39 you say they were "close to reality".

 

[monkeyhanger]

That doesn't make the NEDC test incorrect or invalid. It does it's job just fine.

The manufacturers chose to misrepresent the figures for their own gains, that's their own undoing, not the NEDC.

And if people were/are gullible enough to believe magic claims of improved economy overnight, that's their prerogative. Caveat Emptor and all that.

I don't think gullibility comes into it at all. People had VAG cars in the past and their actual mpg wasn't far off the published figure, then they buy a new 2013 model and still expect actual mpg to be close to the published figure, except it is no-where near. Are they stupid for believing what Audi told them when everything Audi told them in the past was true? I never expected 20% more mpg, but then I did know about the testing regime, I doubt many salespeople did who were selling these cars and quoting 20% gains in fuel economy to "gullible" customers as a major selling point. There isn't a very high expectation of consumers to see through unachievable claims from a "reputable" company in the eyes of trading standards etc. There is the expectation that the company making those claims is pretty much telling the truth (with a small and acceptable variation - in this case driving style) and that most customers will realise those expectations.

 

[monkeyhanger]

Make your mind up. You are contradicting yourself again.

On the one hand you cite "unrealistic figures" (post #27), yet in post #39 you say they were "close to reality".

Pre stop-start, NEDL official combined figures were close to reality, for cars with stop-start, the same test gives unrealistic figures compared to reality. Read it again, in context.

Post 39: Since 2010 we've had these "proper" NEDL tests and people trusted them to represent reality because they were official and were close to reality before stop-start was used to enhance the resultant mpg test result.

 

[cemerson]

What figures aren't I using correctly?

I think you've answered your own question... without knowing it though!

If I take a 2011 A3 2.0TDI (non bluemotion or whatever Audi called it) that has got an official mpg combined of 55mpg and was tested with the NEDL method, i'd easily achieve 50mpg with everyday driving, the test gives results within 10% of reality. I then take a 2013 model of the 8V platform, it has stop start included, and is subject to the same test as the 2011 model. It achieves 67mpg combined on the test, but gives 51mpg with everyday driving. Audi boast of 20% gains (without disclaimers), you are 24% from reality. The dealership made a big point of how much fuel you will be saving - will you be disappointed by reality? It really is a poor test. If a GCSE Science student devised such a poorly thought out comparison test they would likely fail

Why on earth would you even try and compare these 2 models? Anyone with an ounce of knowledge, or who does their research, will realise that stop/start will skew these figures and make them useless when compared to a model without stop/start. And anyone who doesn't do their research before buying such a high valued product will suffer the consequences of that! The information is there and clear to anyone who wants to find it.

 

[veeeight]

I don't think gullibility comes into it at all.

As with anything and everything, Caveat Emptor.

There is the expectation that the company making those claims is pretty much telling the truth

Indeed. And Audi (and others) have been found wanting by the ASA and brought to task.

 

[veeeight]

How many other ways can you understand this:


"The NEDC isn’t a predictor of real-world driving performance and has never claimed to be."


YOU are choosing to relate it to real-world mpg. And repeatedly whinging about it, despite knowing the context.

 

[veeeight]

Pre stop-start, NEDL official combined figures were close to reality

If this were true, then Audi would never have been challenged.

 

[monkeyhanger]

How many other ways can you understand this:


"The NEDC isn’t a predictor of real-world driving performance and has never claimed to be."


YOU are choosing to relate it to real-world mpg. And repeatedly whinging about it, despite knowing the context.

I am not disputing the NEDC test as a predictor of real world mpg, I agree with that point, you seem to be trying to hammer home that one point and completely ignoring the fact that Audi (and others) used those figures without a disclaimer, completely misrepresenting what those figures truly represented. I was making this point in agreement with Cuke2u's observations. The NEDC's test is a poor test in that they could've made it a lot closer to reality than it currently is, hopefully the next one won't be designed by a bunch of 13 year old physics drop-outs. I doubt that will happen though. Can you imagine going from officially having a 67mpg 2.0TDI184 A3 to officially having a 53mpg one with a fairer test representative of the real world? Would they ever correct the tests so that on paper the newest model actually looks far worse on paper than the old one for mpg? I doubt it.

 

[monkeyhanger]

If this were true, then Audi would never have been challenged.

Do we even have any stats on that? I'm aware of the Trading Standards taking VW, Audi and Toyota to task last year, it was also on Watchdog, the German, French and Dutch courts took it up. MPG was never as contentious in the past as it is now. When someone is thinking about trading in their trusty 2009 model in for a 2013 model and is swayed to do so on the lie that they'll save £40 a month on their fuel bill, it's a big issue.

 

[veeeight]

and completely ignoring the fact that Audi (and others) used those figures without a disclaimer, completely misrepresenting what those figures truly represented.

Actually, I haven't completely ignored it at all. I addressed this more than once in this thread.

The fact that Audi and others chose to misrepresent the figures, has no bearing on the validity of the NEDC as a comparative test.

The fault lies squarely with Audi who chose to peddle such a line, not the test.

 

[Pulp84]

So does all this debate basically mean that the DIS on my Dad's new 2.0 TDI 150 Sport tells lies?

It said he managed 68 mpg on a 40 mile run - it's only got 80 miles on the clock!

Seems optimistic....

 

[cemerson]

This is about the official figures in the brochure, not the DIS. DIS is likely to be slightly wrong, but not that far out.

 

[cemerson]

And 68mpg is perfectly gettable, I've had that before on A roads with a bit of traffic.

 

[veeeight]

The DIS is out by about 2 to 3 mpg on my particular car.

It reads optimistically, of course

 

[monkeyhanger]

So does all this debate basically mean that the DIS on my Dad's new 2.0 TDI 150 Sport tells lies?

It said he managed 68 mpg on a 40 mile run - it's only got 80 miles on the clock!

Seems optimistic....

The new MQB VAG car MFD mpg readings seem to be a lot closer to actual (brim method) mpg than they used to be. On 6 previous VW TDIs from new, they've been around 9% optimistic, my MK7 GTD is around 4%/2mpg optimistic over a whole tank vs brim method. I bet your Dad drove like a nun to get that though (constant 55-60mph on that whole journey). Perhaps it's not the percentage out, but the actual mpg. If all the MQB VAGs are around 2mpg optimistic then it reads a lot closer to reality % wise for a TDI which gets more mpg.

I wouldn't baby that engine on running in though - your Dad will be going through a litre of oil every 1000 miles if he does. I'm not saying thrash it, but putting motorway miles on a car when it is running in will do no favours, it needs some variety when running in to avoid glazing the bores. I once picked up a MK5 Golf 140TDI from a broker dealership and then drove it on a 700 mile round trip to my parents house. It spent most of it's first 1000 miles sitting at 2000 revs at 70mph - it drank oil the whole time I had it. No other TDI I had has ever needed a drop of oil between services, except that one with the motorway run-in.

 

[tinbumtudz]

Anyway, back to the thread topic.......

I've got a 1.6 8v saloon, it's got just over 100 miles on the clock and it's averaging about 59mpg so far on my daily 15 mile run to work and back. I borrowed a 2l tdi sportback a couple of months ago and that managed about 53mpg on the same journey. The 2l had 30k on the clock, so was well run in.

So in summary, so far so good.

 

[veeeight]

2 to 3 mpg out, on a S3, can be 10%

 

[tinbumtudz]

Anyway, back to the thread topic.......

I've got a 1.6 8v saloon, it's got just over 100 miles on the clock and it's averaging about 59mpg so far on my daily 15 mile run to work and back. I borrowed a 2l tdi sportback a couple of months ago and that managed about 53mpg on the same journey. The 2l had 30k on the clock, so was well run in.

So in summary, so far so good.

Now 2000 miles in and long term average is 65.5 mpg. Best I had was 80, worst 46. It's extremely economical.