Fiat 500, Ford Fiesta biggest discrepancy real world MPG vs. official ratings in UK
 

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1472738970

A company called Emissions Analytics published a database of MPG results using onboard equipment to measure mileage over four hours of real-world driving.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...age-tests-show

A couple of notes:

1. Since this is UK data, the fuel consumption ratings they're taking to task are the famously optimistic (unrealistic, some would argue) Euro ratings. They're significantly more optimistic than current US EPA ratings for the same vehicles.

2. The Fiat 500 is sold in Europe with a 2-cyl engine, which is probably the model in question here.

But the Fiesta is likely the same 1.0L turbo that is available in North America.

Oh, and the only 2 cars that matched their ratings in on-road driving? The 4.7L Aston Martin Vantage & 3.7L Nissan 370Z.

This strikes me as another facet in the large and unlovely turd of a scandal that is VW's dieselgate fiasco.

VW got caught and is currently being very publicly flogged by the media for designing a workaround in the vehicles' programming that when it detects a situation that suggests it is being emissions tested, it will work in such a way as to pass emissions. The rest of the time it is powerful and responsive and emits gases like 1984 Bhopal.

I have long suspected that the manufacturers are, to a certain degree, ALL designing to the mileage tests. I don't think it's a part of a conspiracy industry-wide to do so, it's just that they...do. Kind of like teachers whose feet are being held to the fire of mandated testing, they teach the kids how to fare well on the test while inadvertently forgetting to teach more relevant skills like how to assess problems, apply solutions, research, etc.

In other words, they (the manufacturers) are satisfying their own needs by building cars that excel at the test while being crap in the real world.

I believe the solution is to make economy as fun and sexy as it can possibly be. Yes, I understand that is a bit of a contradiction. But pitch the offerings to the public that way and then DON'T TEST THEM. Or at least, don't offer the government test results.

Offer the public's test results instead! Forget what it whistles up on a standardized program on a rolling road, here's how it does when driven by a nervous teen getting some practice miles in on the way to school, and then Dad takes it to the office. Here's the average mileage posted by hundreds of users, please note these are exclusively Grocery Store Run Ratings. Post Office Run Ratings will be different, your mileage may vary.

I understand the standardized tests ideally provide a consistent result that can then be used to compare between models, but if we're going to complain about how big the discrepancy is between the test and the real world, why then are we not providing real world results?

Hmm. I think I changed my own subject. And I don't have a really good answer for that last question. Any takers?

Sorry, bit of a rant.

New test procedure:
1. Manufacturers send representative vehicles to a test facility.
2. Every jury pool within a 3 hour drive sends one or two members to test drive cars according to a scripted procedure for a day.

Bam! Real world-ish results.

I think the Mirage has a pretty big discrepancy here in the USA.

Didn't matter how hard I beat on it, I couldn't get it down to its EPA rating ...

There's a way to drive a GTDI engine. It is much different than a "regular" gasoline engine. Once you figure this out you can get good mileage - I strongly believe that's why many people cant't get good mileage out of the ecoboost engines.

By the way,
Keep in mind that 1 imperial gallon is equivalent to approximately 1.2 U.S. liquid gallons.
So, 70 UK mpg = about 58 US mpg.

Miller88, how should one drive the turbo'd gas injected engines? I'm curious.