08-05-2015, 08:39 AM
(07-05-2015, 10:45 PM)toseland Wrote:(07-05-2015, 09:26 PM)Toms306 Wrote: You mean old inefficient cars Dum....there are plenty of modern fast cars that are also reasonably economical.
We'll see when people buy them 208s I guess, I will be very surprised if they get much above 70mpg in the real world...
Still not economical enough for you toms!
Nothing ever will be.
(07-05-2015, 11:24 PM)RetroPug Wrote:(07-05-2015, 03:28 PM)Toms306 Wrote: Seems like a pointless test tbh, I bet it doesn't top 70mpg tank average in real world driving.
Another point actually, name another possible test that would actually make it possible to make objective comparisons? As in, a test that a manufacturer could carry out to see how their powertrain is performing. Simply getting a large number of people to "just drive the car" doesn't give you correlated nor consistent results.
Why not? Given a large enough group and several tanks of fuel it would work well. I bet if we did a poll on here of daily driver HDi's like that most would be 50-55mpg. Maybe ~10% with a lead foot and town driving would be below, maybe ~10% would be above. That's a much more useful test imo, even if it is a slightly less accurate.
MPG doesn't vary as much as people say, I haven't got above 50mph so far on this tank, used about half in over a month and am no better off than when I was doing loads of miles at 80mph because it's still well mixed... The only thing that I can see making a difference is people that do a massive commute say once a month and then solely town the rest of the time. My mixed has been the same over the tank give or take 1mpg for 6 months now...