What cars should be on my short list?

[BT63]

The EU 'driving cycle' used to give mpg figures favours vehicles which are optimised for driving gently, at low speed and light engine loads. Hence the major downsizing or downright 'undersizing' of engines and the high mpg claims in the last decade.

Over 90% of the fuel economy test is performed at speeds below 45mph (including significant time stationary, hence downsized small-displacement engines and stop-start systems flattering economy figures) with only around 4-5% of the driving at 60-65mph and 4-5% at 70-75mph.
In my experience, idling in traffic (dealt with by stop-start systems) or driving above 50mph (not of major concern in the EU test) are where fuel consumption really takes a hit, with mpg at 75mph being about two-thirds the mpg at 50mph .

The whole test lasts about 20 minutes so batteries don't need a long run time to greatly flatter the mpg, especially as the test is conducted with gentle accelerations and better-than-perfect conditions.
Car manufacturers often bolt a turbo onto those undersized engines to make on paper performance look respectable, but in the real world the car depends upon the turbo to accelerate normally or for motorway driving where the engine is under higher load. As a result of turbo-dependency the fuel consumption is often far worse than expected.

[bungeejumper]

Car manufacturers often bolt a turbo onto those undersized engines to make on paper performance look respectable, but in the real world the car depends upon the turbo to accelerate normally or for motorway driving where the engine is under higher load. As a result of turbo-dependency the fuel consumption is often far worse than expected.

Hmmm, it's my understanding that a turbo will generally improve fuel consumption, not reduce it. Counter-intuitive, I know, but I guess it's because the fuel mix is more attentively monitored and adjusted?

One thing a turbo does, however, is to introduce a new level of cost and complexity to a car that might otherwise have been simple. Turbos do seem to have a habit of failing somewhere after the 100K-120K mark (which was where my Ford's unit gave up the ghost), and the dealer-servicing replacement cost can be £1,200 to £1,500 even on a small car. That's always assuming that the turbo hasn't filled the combustion chamber with fan-blade shrapnel, of course.

On my car, the trusty 1.6 petrol unit of the last 20 years is being increasingly replaced with a turbo'd 1.2 that delivers similar performance, but personally I wouldn't give it house room.

BJ

[Sobraon]

If we are focusing purely on efficiency then from the reviews I have read the Mitsubishi PHEV will consumeno petrol for journeys up to 25 miles with AC/Heating on and will squeeze 30 with no AC/Heating*.

On mixed higher range driving it will return 47 mpg from Petrol/Electric mix.

I'm not a Mitsubishi fan boy but this seems pretty good for such a large vehicle given that the OP seems to be in the run up to retirement (see comment about AVC). I think this warrants my suggestion that Clariman includes this in the list of potential vehicles to review.


(*: http://www.whatcar.com/news/mitsubishi- ... rm-review/)

[BT63]

.....Hmmm, it's my understanding that a turbo will generally improve fuel consumption, not reduce it. Counter-intuitive, I know, but I guess it's because the fuel mix is more attentively monitored and adjusted?

Hybrids aren't generally using the downsized turbocharged engines. The cost difference of a 1.0T vs a 1.6 n/a nowadays is only a few hundred to several hundred Pounds which won't take too many miles to recoup the extra cost if the little turbo engines are as efficient as claimed.
But have a look at the 'Real mpg' figures on Honest John's database and you'll see the 'old tech' 1.6-litre-engined Ford Focus achieves better mpg than any of the 1.0-litre Ecoboost engines, with the Ecoboost falling appallingly short of claimed mpg.
The 1.6 105PS appears to have real-world 45.4mpg while the 1.0 Ecoboost engines which replaced it appears to have 41.0-43.3mpg.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-2014

Even Toyota and Mazda mostly use naturally aspirated petrol engines but they still manage very respectable mpg figures in lab tests which are closer to real-world figures than the undersized turbocharged engines of other manufacturers.

The next bombshell to drop in the emissions market will be the 'shocking discovery' that the latest generation of direct injection turbo-petrol engines actually emit far more NOx and soot than modern diesels.

[BT63]

.....On my car, the trusty 1.6 petrol unit of the last 20 years is being increasingly replaced with a turbo'd 1.2 that delivers similar performance, but personally I wouldn't give it house room.....

I'm a believer that a car should have an engine of sufficient size to cruise without needing its turbo. A turbo should be for occasional faster accelerations (slip roads that join busy fast roads, overtaking, or just a bit of keen driving if you fancy it).
I think significantly undersizing an engine and then compensating with a turbo is where the problems arise.
In the better-than-ideal lab test, the tiny engines are designed to be bordering on lugging all the time without spooling their turbo in order to attain the most impressive economy figures, but in the less-than-ideal real world if they're driven the same way as in the lab tests they will be lugging most of the time, therefore have to be driven in a gear lower and the turbo fully spooled.

Hands up anyone who has a manual car with an upshift indicator on their instrument panel. Hands up those who usually ignore it and drive in a gear lower.

Empty the car of all people and junk except the driver, switch off lights, wipers, radio, aircon, blowers, drive along a smooth flat straight road with no headwind, and put an egg between your shoe and the accelerator so you don't accelerate too harshly, and shift up a gear as soon as the nag-indicator says. Then you'll have half a chance of coming close to lab figures.

[richlist]

That's all well and good but it's missing the fact that many (perhaps most) people now acquire a vehicle in the same way as a mobile phone. Gone are the days when the majority paid for their car in cash or on hire purchase.

Nowadays many cars are ' bought' on 1,2 or 3 year contract hire with small, often non existent deposits. They are paid for monthly and never kept more than one or two years.

Why should they bother about engine durability.......it's a throw away society.

[DrFfybes]

.....

Hands up anyone who has a manual car with an upshift indicator on their instrument panel. Hands up those who usually ignore it and drive in a gear lower..

I have, but I don't ignore it.

Well, I assume the tacho turning red is an upshift indicator

Paul

[Watis]

.....

Hands up anyone who has a manual car with an upshift indicator on their instrument panel. Hands up those who usually ignore it and drive in a gear lower..

I have, but I don't ignore it.

Well, I assume the tacho turning red is an upshift indicator

Paul

On my diesel powered car, the upshift indicator comes on at 2,000 rpm - regardless of whether one is cruising gently down the road or accelerating up a steep slope. So it's completely useless!

Watis

[BT63]

Hmmm, it's my understanding that a turbo will generally improve fuel consumption, not reduce it. Counter-intuitive, I know, but I guess it's because the fuel mix is more attentively monitored and adjusted?

I read the following and thought of you

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indus ... ions-tests

[bungeejumper]

I read the following and thought of you

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indus ... ions-tests

Gosh, I remember that, right back in the 1970s, Renault brought out an experimental 1.8 version of the Renault 5 which had a 1.8 engine instead of the usual 1.3 or 997 engine. And that, in between providing an absolute blast of fun (this was, after all, a 650 kg car), it did more miles per gallon and was generally better behaved, smoother and probably longer-lived.

I've often wondered why they didn't go into production with it. Mind you, Renault had some shocking workforce probs at that time, so maybe it just wasn't the moment to risk something new.

BJ

[DrFfybes]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indus ... ions-tests

I liked the last paragraph....
<i>In the future, downsizing might come in the form of increased hybridisation, rather than the shedding of cubic centimetres. Sudeep Kaippalli, Frost & Sullivan analyst, told Reuters "Downsizing will mean you take a smaller engine and add an electric motor to it."</i>

Pretty much like Toyota did with the Prius, and Ferrari (except for the "smaller engine" bit).

Paul

[Gaggsy]

I was very tempted to replace my 2013 Skoda Superb with the new model. Mine was a great car and I'd got a great deal when I bought it new - it was a cancelled order because the potential buyer decided they wanted park-assist, it coincided with one of their "we'll pay the VAT" promos and also the small-ish local dealer was being swallowed up by a larger dealer. Everything lined up to get me a £27k car for £19k. Perfect!

Going to the new dealer was a horrible experience though and although the new Superb seems to be another solid choice, I just couldn't get the deal I wanted. Then I had a brainwave. for less than what I would be paying for a new Skoda, let's see what I can get that's a year old with less than my annual mileage on it.

I ended up getting a year-old Mercedes E220 SE Bluetec with 9,500 on the clock for £22k. This car is £35k new. I'm so glad I made the decision. It really is a class above. It's comfortable, easy to drive and feels safe. This may not be important to many but it also improved my kudos at work - stupid but unfortunately a fact of life when some people do judge you by the car you drive. I bought it through Mercedes Approved but I noticed prices were maybe £1k lower if bought privately (I didn't fancy the hassle).

The Skoda was a great car and a solid sensible choice. The Mercedes is too and the only obstacle I had to buying one - price - disappeared when I did the maths.

[BT63]

......This may not be important to many but it also improved my kudos at work - stupid but unfortunately a fact of life when some people do judge you by the car you drive.....

I can appreciate that if you're lunching clients your company will be viewed more favourably if you have a posh car - but not too posh or they'll think you get paid far too much commission.

But I prefer to be underestimated. I like fairly modern cars that blend in with the crowd and which don't get a second glance, but which have reasonable spec levels and a good turn of pace when I want or need it.

[richlist]

Yes I agree, a Lamborghini will always blend in very well in Knightsbridge or e Savoy.