Fuelly? ?WTF? mpg readings are so low.

[electronumpty]

Hello All.

Over the last year I was using a mobile phone app to track my fuel costs.
I will input the data into Fuelly shortly as I am really confused at the other peoples readings on here and can't figure out if it's me inputting the data incorrectly or everyone on here has a lead foot?

I am now on the look for a replacement car (very short story - not) as my insurance company have just written off my car following an accident and their very bad repair of it.

So I started checking out websites to check owners fuel economy verses manufacturers stated mpg values, so I could get the most fuel efficient car I could get in replacement.

Firstly I compared what other people were getting with their VW Polo Dune (Cross) cars. They seem to be getting worse figures than me (55mpg over a years worth of driving) but were close enough to think I could get a more economical car and save even more money per fill up.

Hmmm. Maybe not so much, according to this site.

After a lot of research (6 car driving tests) I had narrowed it down to the Polo Bluemotion 2 1.4 with AC. Though on Fuelly this is not much better than my Polo Dune. (Cross). Only 5 mpg better!?
Even though the stated mpg of this car is meant to be 80+ mpg

I then checked the 6 other cars on my list (all purportedly less than 100co2 emmisions) in the UK that means no Road Tax. None of them (on here anyway) seem to fair better than my old car.

My Questions.
Am I doing something wrong?
Am I missing something obvious?
Is every car out there (even the electric ones) only capable of 40-60mpg?
Or does everyone on here have really lead feet?

Please help me understand.

Regards
Electro Numpty

[Draigflag]

This is kind of the point of fuelly, it gives a real indication of real world MPG figures as opposed to the government tests in a lab (the car doesnt exceed 40 MPH in the UK tests!)

If you want to acheive 80+ MPG then it is fairly easy, I did it in my old Panda diesel, but like the gov tests, your max speed must be 40, and you must apply whatever fuel saving techniques you know to save fuel, coasting, gentle accelerating, gear skipping etc. Obviously this isnt practical 90% of the time, hence the "realistic" figures you see on fuelly.

[B00ST3D]

This is not the first time I have heard cars from the UK being way overrated by the government testing. Like the Ford Focus that's supposed to get 80+ mpg. Could you do this? Possibly. Will most be able to replicate those figures on a day to day basis? Probably not. Here in the US sometimes cars are a little overrated as far as the testing but nothing like the UK. In the US, we can, with a light foot usually get close to the MPG estimates. But earlier like I said, this isn't the first time I have heard of UK cars getting completely bogus numbers from the manufacturer in regards to MPG.

The best thing is though, you're on fuelly right now and this is the best place to get some real world estimates to how cars actually do on gas. I would say that, if you are careful about the way you drive and you avoid traffic, it's entirely possible to get 10-20% higher than the normal numbers on Fuelly. As an example, I drove mostly highway or back country 45/55mph roads with no traffic and few stops and was getting almost 25% higher than most others with the same car I had (a 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix, 3.1L V6, averaging 26-28mpg!)

And as a closing statement, you will find that most people, even those who use Fuelly, have a slightly heavy foot from time to time and just a bad tank here and there can really skew averages for the worse!

[MMUK]

>... cars from the UK being way overrated by the government testing.

Just to be pedantic, it is the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) which is the problem. The NEDC is very like the old EPA test (prior to 2008) & gives similar results. The new EPA test (from 2008 onwards) was designed to be for more realistic driving scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP-75

A whole new set of driving cycles is going to be introduced in roughly 2014 (I think replacing both the NEDC and the EPA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Light_Test_Procedure

[MMUK]

(As an aside, the CAFE tests are based on the old EPA cycle, not the new 2008 version)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora..._overestimated

[BDC]

The "new" EPA test (2008+) is just the old EPA test minus a certain percentage modifier. There is no new "test."

Plus, the OEMs just overrate their cars anyway (aka Ford, Dodge, Hyundai, Subaru) so the new estimates are even further from the truth than the old estimates were.

I have not heard anything about a new standard being used on this side of the pond. I would be happy to see any change though, because the current system is terrible.

[Draigflag]

In a way I dont want them to change the test cycles. At least they show what you can acheive if you really want too (and you're not in a rush!) but also the emmsions will be higher too no doubt which means our carbon based road tax will be higher! Not good...

[electronumpty]

I've started inputting my historical data and so far my average is 62mpg, which reflects the app I was using.

Maybe I just had a really economical car or maybe I was very good at conserving fuel while driving. The only oddity about that is my wife (who does not care about mpg) drove the same car how she wanted and we still got better figures than a lot of people on here.

Very odd. All of it.

Based on the MPG figures I looked at versus the cost of the car I did some illustrations based on my next car purchase.

Oddly most of the car choices and how thirsty they were did not make any difference. It was the overall cost and cost of depreciation, servicing and parts that made most of the difference to the ownership of a car. So it was spend a lot of money on a "eco" car with all the bells and whistles and have no money for servicing in the first year, or buy a old car with moderate fuel consumption at an 18th of the price and pay road tax and slightly higher fuel costs. Then Have a lot of money left over for repairs, parts or servicing (which I would do myself).

This is why I am buying two cars.

A Fiat Panda 4x4 for winter and a Morris 8 Series E Classic Car made in 1947 for everyday use.

They both will do 40+ mpg they both run on petrol or bio ethanol and the Vintage Car (No Tax or testing required) will only appreciate in value off setting the cost of the tax bought on the Fiat. I hope.

MPG seems to mean nothing and Eco cars are some sort of scam built by the government and car companies to force people to keep buying newer cars.

I assuming the Vintage Cars carbon footprint - which should be 0 (when it comes) will exceed any eco car made today?

[MMUK]

A lot of it is due to people's individual commute. If you have less stop/go traffic, and less lights, and do longer distances, you will get much better mpg than someone who does short trips in the city.

[MMUK]

@BDC:

>The "new" EPA test (2008+) is just the old EPA test minus a

>certain percentage modifier. There is no new "test."

I think the percentage modifier is only for the old cars from before 2008.

From the link that I supplied above:

In 2007, the EPA added three new Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) tests[4] that combine the current city and highway cycles to reflect real world fuel economy more accurately,. Estimates are available for vehicles back to the 1985 model year.[2][5]