Fuel economy figures and wishful Euro thinking
 

Currently I own an Accent GSi 1300 manual, 2005. I'm getting around 42mpg UK with premium petrol plus octane booster, along with 40psi tyres and a few aero mods & LEDs all round but here's the thing..
if you look in one place it's supposed to average 47, according to the manufacturer it'll do 44. If you believe others real life MPG is 36 and my 3 year average before the OB was 38.6/38.8..
And another thing, co2 per mile is 145 for mine, yet with the Getz with the identical engine and transmission and worse aero - that's rated at 125! and cheaper to tax..
I have the strong suspicion we're getting shafted over both mpg & co2/m by Hyundai.
I *know* we are by Citroen - my parents recently replaced a c3 1.6hdi diesel with a practically identical car rated at 80mpg imp *average*, the previous car rated at 70, managed 58mpg so the new one let's say 65mpg should be ok.. it barely managed 50mpg.. the dealer claimed 78mpg, but wouldn't tell how they managed it..
Anyone else run into this sort of blatant misreporting and wildly variable figures for the same vehicle?
80mpg is simply cloud cuckoo land especially when you compare the flatulent lump that is the C3 with something like the Centurion..
Then there's these Euro codes, mines apparently Euro 3 but the kappa engine which is basically the same is Euro 4. They're both 12v, both MPFI, both just a Cat and two lambda sensors.. they really can't be that different..

In lots of engines the difference between emissions standards is calibration. One of the cars here in Australia lasted through a few variations of standards by going from

DOHC Dual VVTi
DOHC Dual independent VVTi (software only)
DOHC Dual independent VVTi with slightly more squish area and a new inlet manifold

That was enough to take it from Euro 3 to Euro 5

From the Alpha to the Kappa engine thats true, but the Epsilon engine is as far as I can tell identical to mine in architecture, doesn't have VVTI, yet it rates as 4 rather than 3. Seems somewhat arbitrary to me. It's. even possible to get the Epsilon with the now ancient 8v head, which still seems to classify as E4.
The mpg thing really annoys me though, 60mpg to 51-52mpg (80mpg is just ridiculous) doesn't sound like much but it's £600 in fuel over 5 years at the mileage they do. Although to be fair they're of the opinion that 1100rpm everywhere equals good eco driving.. that's one unhappy Citroen diesel most of the time..
The point is it seems all to be wishful thinking and guesswork if the real life figures aren't what they want.

It may eventually sound quite awkward, but 2 valves per cylinder might eventually not be so bad in real-world city driving. Matching it with a gearing suitable to make better use of the narrow useful RPM band also on highway is another matter...

I find this site very useful for getting an idea on real world fuel economy for euro cars.

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overv...75&powerunit=2

The average fuel consumption for your car is 6.74 l/100 km or 41.91 mpg (UK) so you are a bit below the average.

The Getz are indeed giving worse fuel consumption. 7.44 l/100 km or 37.97 mpg (UK)

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overv...90&powerunit=2

The 1.1 Getz is a good bit better at 44.91 mpg (UK). That's a full 18 % better than the 1.3 engine Getz.

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overv...72&powerunit=2

I have driven the 1.1 Getz and could comfortably average high forties and even low 50's on long trips.

Just a side note, higher octain gasoline is harder to burn. Don't use it for the best economy unless your car was designed with so much timing advance and compression to require it.

Both the Humbers I've had and the Accent run noticeably better on the 98 octane fuel, so that's what I put in it, although I could probably fiddle with the timing a bit to help I'm not really skilled enough or have tools to do it..
The Renault Safrane not so much but I had sump heater and wai on that.. could get 29mpg in winter out of that car with a slushbox as well, when it was rated at 22mpg in summer!

What Humbers did you have? Real ones or Sceptres?

I'm getting 41.8-42mpg out of it at the moment and I wouldn't be surprised at 47+ when the cat has been replaced.. but this is my point. I've now got 4 different figures for my car, including yours, one of which is cloud cuckoo land, and two of which can best be described as claimed, ie 44 & 47. I have managed to get 44mpg out of it on precisely one tank and I've driven the best part of 20k. As you say with the Getz, the 1300 is poorer mpg but yet if you look at UK road tax its lower co2 & lower road tax.. by £20! They make it up as they go along..

I drove a super snipe once, a series car, and I wouldn't touch one.. steering by guesswork(tm), scared me witless. I'd be very curious to try a Series Hawk - just because 80hp in a car the size of a Snipe or Imperial seems painfully low, the same as a Sceptre I'm fact and 3 less gears to boot.
I had three sceptres one with the H120 engine and that was really quick (would have been nice if someone told me.. 3000rpm od top in a sceptre is 60mph, but it's 85mph in a Sceptre H120!), it didn't really do crumple zones, although I hate to think what it'd do to a modern car in a collision - saw a Scenic hit by a Landrover once, only at 30mph - scenic looked like it'd be hit by a couple of land mines!
they did do 6 sceptre v8 mules with the 289cui Ford, but when Chrysler bought them out they were kyboshed. shame because the 318 would have probably fitted.. and that would have put the cat among the pidgeons.
But for something with the aerodynamics of a small stately home which wasn't exactly light, it still averaged 37mpg.. and survived spitting its oil plug out at 70mph..