Help me buy a car

[mancityvstoke]

Japanese every time

 

[Stuuuuuu]

I haven't read the thread and barely looked at the title, but Mondeo.

 

[AkanjisAfro]

Used 3 series can't go wrong

 

[sir baconface]

Pumping your specs into autoroader.co.uk springs up some interesting options ...

Number 1 on the list is an 8 year old Range Rover Sport with 94,000 miles
Number 5 on the list is a 4 year old Toyota Pius with 23,000 miles
Number 6 on the list is a 1 year old Citroen Cactus with 3,800 miles

As recommended by the Pope.

 

[117 M34]

70mpg? If you don't mind me asking, what version are you driving? I have the standard 1.6 diesel version and, with careful driving, I can get low to mid fifties mpg out of it.

I'd think it will be the 1.0 ecoboost with those figures.
I've got one too and I don't think you really get that mpg out of it but I'm not one to measure it.

 

[DiscoSteve]

As recommended by the Pope.

deliberate mistake as all leccy car drivers preach religiously how feckin wonderful they are.
until something breaks.
or they get to 100,000 miles.
or (very soon) when the £5K government 'bung' is withdrawn

 

[bluethrunthru]

I'd think it will be the 1.0 ecoboost with those figures.
I've got one too and I don't think you really get that mpg out of it but I'm not one to measure it.

70MPG is having a giraffe - these quoted figures are all shite developed in lab conditions anyway. Thing is we all drive on roads in the real world not a lab. The press, the industry even the sales people know that these figures can't be achieved. As a rule of thumb look at the combined MPG figure they quote and lop a couple off - thats probably about what you will get. If you drive in carpet slippers you may get a bit above it but anybody buying a car based on the manufacturers maximum quoted MPG figures must be seriously gullible.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Japanese every time

I haveone - its a Nissan - Built in Sunderland out of a lot of Renault parts Lol !!

 

[East Level 2]

70MPG is having a giraffe - these quoted figures are all shite developed in lab conditions anyway. Thing is we all drive on roads in the real world not a lab. The press, the industry even the sales people know that these figures can't be achieved. As a rule of thumb look at the combined MPG figure they quote and lop a couple off - thats probably about what you will get. If you drive in carpet slippers you may get a bit above it but anybody buying a car based on the manufacturers maximum quoted MPG figures must be seriously gullible.

I usually assume road driving degrades the lab figures by a similar percentage over most cars.
So a car advertised as 55mpg combined will do roughly 10% more than a car advertised as 50mpg when driven in real conditions.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I usually assume road driving degrades the lab figures by a similar percentage over most cars.
So a car advertised as 55mpg combined will do roughly 10% more than a car advertised as 50mpg when driven in real conditions.

the lab tests go back to 70's oil shortages when manufacturers made all sorts of claims and it was decided they had to be accurate. Obviously BMW would argue their car tested round the Bavarian Alps was at a disadvantage to a Lotus tested on the flat roads of Norfolk. So a set of tests were devised so all the readings were taken in a lab under the same conditions.

Ever since they have all done their best to make things better for themselves. Earlier this year it was Which or What Car reported that they were stripping cars of extraneous weight like spare tyres - taking off wing mirrors to reduce drag- pumping up tyres to ridiculous pressures to reduce rolling resistance - anything that was not actually forbidden in the rules has been employed to beat the system. Don't forget as well as giving the impression of mega MPG that also affected emissions so road tax and even purchase taxes in some countries - all can increase sales you see.

Funny thing is they did it with hybrids so even owners of hybrids complain they don't get the promised running costs