[SwissTJ]

These may be of interest.

http://www.dickensvauxhall.co.uk/news-blog/

 

[UKtekkie]

Thanks TJ - Great reports and nice parking video.

By the way, that mud splatter pattern looks very familiar...

 

[SwissTJ]

Bit of a giveaway, huh?

 

[1900sr]

Bit of a giveaway, huh?

That, and the reports being written by someone called TJ.

Interesting to read, and helps confirm that I made a mistake buying the 1.0 petrol.

 

[UKtekkie]

Interesting to read, and helps confirm that I made a mistake buying the 1.0 petrol.

Sorry to hear your disappointed but why do you say that SR? Is it because of the fuel economy or because you think your 1.0 is underpowered?

I test drove a 1.0 and felt it was pretty good but reading reviews and comments for the Astra and other similar cars with 1.0 litre 3 cylinder engines cars I got the impression that it's quite hard getting anywhere near to the quoted fuel economy figures, perhaps because it's critical that you always change to the optimal gear very efficiently, but probably just because the standard tests aren't really representative of real world conditions especially with smaller engines. It's not Vauxhall's fault, of course, it's mandatory that they quote these figures.

 

[1900sr]

It's just the fuel economy, the car drives fine. In the past I've always managed to get the combined figures as an average from my cars. My last car was a Citroen C5 2.2 diesel that I got 43mpg from, before that a MIni Cooper 1.6 petrol, again 43mpg. Before these I had an Alfa 156 diesel, Volvo V40 diesel, Saab 9-3 both petrol and diesel and all were pretty much on the money with mpg. So to find myself getting 45mpg out of a car that has official figures of 65 is a bit of a shock. Interestingly the salesman at my dealer has a diesel SRi (I think the 136 same as TJ) and at 1000 miles he was averaging 62mpg with a similar commute to mine, against official figures of 72, so down on book but not too badly. I think I should've gone diesel to get the sort of economy I was looking for. I don't know why the official figures are no longer as accurate as I've found them to be in the past, maybe the changes in technology are rendering the test invalid, or maybe the manufacturers are finding ways to skew the figures, but to be falling short on the urban figure as an average is very poor given the journeys that I do.

Even on the A1 with the cruise set to 60 the instant didn't really go over 60mpg, and the average for the run including a bit of uncongested town driving and the A17 was still only 46.6mpg.

 

[SwissTJ]

Fuel Consumption - from Q2 2016, and in addition to the official fuel consumption and CO2 information, WLTP fuel consumption figures will be published, starting with the new Astra. This procedure has broad industry acceptance and has been developed to be more representative of what customers will experience in use. I believe Peugeot will also begin publishing their WLTP results.

This more modern standard "Worldwide Harmonized Light Duty Vehicles Test Procedure" (WLTP) is still conducted in laboratory conditions but is more consistent with fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in real-life road traffic.

 

[1900sr]

It will be interesting to see what those figures are for the 1.0 TJ. I'd really like to see my car put through the current test to see how it does, but I know that's not going to happen.

I do think allowing the manufacturer's to do the tests themselves is not ideal, and wonder how much prep work is done on the example to be tested. It seems to me to be a bit like the famous story of the Jaguar E-type with it's top speed of 150mph.

 

[SwissTJ]

The figures are good for comparing like for like - for example, you can set Astra against the equivalent Focus and see how they compare. If Focus is 10% worse on the G'ment figs, that will usually translate to the same difference in real world driving.

We'll be interested to see the new figures, too!

 

[UKtekkie]

I think all testing is done under conditions which don't invoke the Turbo, therefore any time the Turbo is used the efficiency will fall significantly below the quoted figures.

I guess a 1.0 Turbo engine is going to use the Turbo more than a 1.4 Turbo, under similar driving conditions, so its real-world fuel efficiency will be further away from the quoted test figure than the 1.4's would be. (64mpg quoted for 1.0 Turbo compared with 51mpg for combined figure with 17" wheels).

I agree your real-life results are disappointing. I was initially attracted to the 3-cylinder 1.0T engine after seeing the claimed figures but after reading this forum, talking to friends and searching the Internet I decided the fuel economy of a 1.4T isn't as far off the fuel economy of a 1.0 as the quoted figures suggest. My mileage is pretty low too, so for the small cost increase, and extra Vehicle Excise Duty, I persuaded myself to get the 1.4 Turbo.

I'd have hoped the Stop/Start mode would help but I guess it depends a lot on the congestion you face. My daily commute isn't too bad and doesn't have too many long stops as I go against the flow and drive out of town for work.

Thanks for all your posts SR - they helped persuade me to get the 1.4.

 

[1900sr]

The figures are good for comparing like for like - for example, you can set Astra against the equivalent Focus and see how they compare. If Focus is 10% worse on the G'ment figs, that will usually translate to the same difference in real world driving.

We'll be interested to see the new figures, too!

I'm not so sure they're much use for that, certainly not comparing different engines in the same model. On your 2000 mile report you were seeing 61mpg approx, which is about 85% of the test figure, and my dealer at 1000 miles was seeing 62mpg, so very similar. I'm seeing 45 mpg rather than 64, which is approximately 70% of the test figure (If I ignore the computer and work it out myself on miles covered and fuel used then my average drops slightly to 43mpg or 67%) . So that would suggest the real world difference on the 1.0 petrol is a lot bigger than on the 1.6 diesel. Now it could be argued that my driving style and routes could be a factor, but considering that I've always managed to get decent figures from my older cars and nothing has changed I'd say it's not me.

For anyone who's interested, this describes the current test cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle