How true are car manufacturer specs, who keeps an eye over compliance? Are there ever any consequences if a manufacturer lies?
This question comes from a bit of observation about manufacturer claims and actual real-life results.
You get a claim of 5.4L/100km fuel consumption, but the best consumption the testers at CAR magazine can get is 9.9L for the car. That is a huge difference.
That figure of 9.9L means that the tested compact SUV with a small 1000cc 3-cylinder Turbo ''Ecoboost'' engine is just 1.7L per 100km lighter on fuel than my bigger and heavier SUV with a 2.5L 5-cylinder Turbo engine.
I get a feeling if this 2.5L engine was put in that small SUV it would not even known the car was there and its fuel consumption might have been lower than with the 1000cc engine, and much more fun to boot ;D
Another example.
Ford Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost claims 92KW.
VW Polo 1.0 TSi claims just 70KW.
That is a huge difference in such small cars, yet the VW is only 0.3 seconds slower to 100km/h :???:
I do not believe manufacturers claims at all anymore. I've read of many of these 3-cylinder turbo engines that failed dramatically with huge repair costs.
Is a 1.6L naturally aspirated engine with the same power as a 1.0L turbo engine not better, cheaper, lighter on fuel, and 100 times more reliable? Why then the hype with these lawnmower sized engines?
New cars with manual gearboxes are getting less and less. Since all these things ( small turbocharged engines) are done to boost economy and reduce emissions, I feel many manufacturers of auto-only cars should give the option of a manual gearbox as well. Especially since 99% of cars with a manual gearboxes are using less fuel than the same car in auto option.
I am sure I would have been able to crack less than 10L per 100km if only my car had a 6-speed manual box.
This question comes from a bit of observation about manufacturer claims and actual real-life results.
You get a claim of 5.4L/100km fuel consumption, but the best consumption the testers at CAR magazine can get is 9.9L for the car. That is a huge difference.
That figure of 9.9L means that the tested compact SUV with a small 1000cc 3-cylinder Turbo ''Ecoboost'' engine is just 1.7L per 100km lighter on fuel than my bigger and heavier SUV with a 2.5L 5-cylinder Turbo engine.
I get a feeling if this 2.5L engine was put in that small SUV it would not even known the car was there and its fuel consumption might have been lower than with the 1000cc engine, and much more fun to boot ;D
Another example.
Ford Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost claims 92KW.
VW Polo 1.0 TSi claims just 70KW.
That is a huge difference in such small cars, yet the VW is only 0.3 seconds slower to 100km/h :???:
I do not believe manufacturers claims at all anymore. I've read of many of these 3-cylinder turbo engines that failed dramatically with huge repair costs.
Is a 1.6L naturally aspirated engine with the same power as a 1.0L turbo engine not better, cheaper, lighter on fuel, and 100 times more reliable? Why then the hype with these lawnmower sized engines?
New cars with manual gearboxes are getting less and less. Since all these things ( small turbocharged engines) are done to boost economy and reduce emissions, I feel many manufacturers of auto-only cars should give the option of a manual gearbox as well. Especially since 99% of cars with a manual gearboxes are using less fuel than the same car in auto option.
I am sure I would have been able to crack less than 10L per 100km if only my car had a 6-speed manual box.
