[freddyford]

I appreciate there has been discussion about the fuel consumption of the Ecosport and the variations experienced but it appears there is a new way of working the prospected fuel consumption of a new vehicle.
The advert for the new Peugeot has perhaps been seen by several but I have only come across it today in a magazine. It appears to be a competitor for the Ecosport and a few others being named the All New Peugeot Rifter. The car shown has a 1.2L engine with fuel figures of Combined 37.5 -42.6 worked out by the WLTP test going on about other tests. My point is that we have complained about the figures given by the manufacturers and the difference in real life. I have an automatic which is returning just under 37 mpg. This is very mixed driving, given the Peugeot figures I feel quite happy, one assumes and there are members that understand this jiggery pokery when it comes to fuel consumptions this WLTP is a new test which is long overdue given the farce of the old way of working it out.
An advert in the same mag for a ST Line 1.0L Eco>boost engine gives the fuel figures as Combined 42.6 mpg which appears to be a more realistic figure for a manual gearbox. However Ford do not publish how they arrived at the figure.
Looking at the ad more closely the Peugeot looks amazingly like a customised Peugeot Partner.

 

[colinJYD]

Agree Freddy that UK official government fuel consumption figures are way out, and a new system that gives real driving figures has been needed.

The AA have said recently....."The chances are you've never heard of the WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (old test) or the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) – the test procedure it has replaced – but this is a significant change, and one that should result in more realistic, more achievable official fuel consumption figures for new cars.

The gap between the fuel economy you get in the real world and the official figures that car manufacturers must quote in their brochures has been getting wider and wider.

Back in 2001 the average gap was a relatively small 8% but by 2014 this had grown to as much as 40%.

Some difference is to be expected as a laboratory test can never accurately reflect the range of driving styles, road and weather conditions experienced in the real world, but the gap had become so wide that manufacturers have been accused of misleading claims."

True figures....
On this website we have been using the combined urban cycle figure minus 9 MPG for an SUV, so the figures are more realistic for real road driving.

I wonder if they will do away with the NEDC in the UK if we leave the EU, he he? (Brexit) >

 

[Bobbyecosport]

Hi, I love the fuel consumption on my eco. My C-Max on quarter of a tank would do 85 miles, that petrol. My eco, I filled it up, and at min not quite used quarter of a tank, and miles done is 130 good difference, I well happy with my diesel.