Thrifty Scots find out the RX-8 is thirsty!!
10-26-2005, 06:35 PM
#1
Shifty Bastard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrifty Scots find out the RX-8 is thirsty!!
The following is from Scotsman.com.
Wed 26 Oct 2005
Car-makers' mpg claims 'miles out'
ALASTAIR DALTON
TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
DRIVERS are spending hundreds of pounds a year more than expected on petrol because official figures underestimate vehicle fuel consumption, according to new research.
Some cars were found to use up to 28 per cent more fuel than manufacturers' figures showed, according to tests by Auto Express magazine. The discrepancy could add up to £570 a year to average fuel bills, the magazine found.
However, government and consumer groups said the official figures were designed to enable car buyers to compare the performance of different models by being based on strict tests that would not reflect everyone's driving.
Auto Express said it had checked consumption figures produced by car manufacturers, which are based on the government-approved tests. They cover a mix of driving in town, in the country and on motorways, and appear in new car sales brochures and handbooks.
The magazine found the Ford Focus, Britain's best-selling car, only managed 42.5 miles per gallon on the open road (extra urban) - 23.3 per cent less than the 55.4mpg official figure. The model tested, the 1.6Ti-VCT LX, would cost £2,187 in fuel over a 20,000 annual mileage, or £240 more than the official figure.
The biggest discrepancy among cars tested was the Mazda RX-8 Hi-power coupe, which achieved only 13mpg in town - 28.2 per cent less than the official 18.1mpg. Its annual fuel bill would be £4,131 - £574 more than expected.
David Johns, the editor-in-chief of Auto Express, said: "The official test is carried out on a mechanical rolling road and bears no comparison to real-life driving on UK roads.
"Our test team discovered that, on average, cars are around 17-20 per cent less economical than the official claims. This discrepancy could end up costing drivers hundreds of pounds more than they'd bargained for."
George Marshall-Thornhill, a senior motoring researcher at Which? magazine, said a disclaimer should be attached to official figures because they were only useful in comparing models rather than as a guide to performance.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said the tests were carried out under controlled conditions based on Europe-wide standards so the results could be accurately compared. She said: "They cannot be fully representative of actual fuel consumption because of variations caused by driving styles, weather conditions, loading and use of equipment such as air conditioning."
Wed 26 Oct 2005
Car-makers' mpg claims 'miles out'
ALASTAIR DALTON
TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
DRIVERS are spending hundreds of pounds a year more than expected on petrol because official figures underestimate vehicle fuel consumption, according to new research.
Some cars were found to use up to 28 per cent more fuel than manufacturers' figures showed, according to tests by Auto Express magazine. The discrepancy could add up to £570 a year to average fuel bills, the magazine found.
However, government and consumer groups said the official figures were designed to enable car buyers to compare the performance of different models by being based on strict tests that would not reflect everyone's driving.
Auto Express said it had checked consumption figures produced by car manufacturers, which are based on the government-approved tests. They cover a mix of driving in town, in the country and on motorways, and appear in new car sales brochures and handbooks.
The magazine found the Ford Focus, Britain's best-selling car, only managed 42.5 miles per gallon on the open road (extra urban) - 23.3 per cent less than the 55.4mpg official figure. The model tested, the 1.6Ti-VCT LX, would cost £2,187 in fuel over a 20,000 annual mileage, or £240 more than the official figure.
The biggest discrepancy among cars tested was the Mazda RX-8 Hi-power coupe, which achieved only 13mpg in town - 28.2 per cent less than the official 18.1mpg. Its annual fuel bill would be £4,131 - £574 more than expected.
David Johns, the editor-in-chief of Auto Express, said: "The official test is carried out on a mechanical rolling road and bears no comparison to real-life driving on UK roads.
"Our test team discovered that, on average, cars are around 17-20 per cent less economical than the official claims. This discrepancy could end up costing drivers hundreds of pounds more than they'd bargained for."
George Marshall-Thornhill, a senior motoring researcher at Which? magazine, said a disclaimer should be attached to official figures because they were only useful in comparing models rather than as a guide to performance.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said the tests were carried out under controlled conditions based on Europe-wide standards so the results could be accurately compared. She said: "They cannot be fully representative of actual fuel consumption because of variations caused by driving styles, weather conditions, loading and use of equipment such as air conditioning."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pelleilee
New Member Forum
6
09-29-2019 10:07 AM
