Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
8806 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1368990 19-Aug-2015 07:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

the thing is the way they test is no where near how people use the cars.

All tested in 20-30 degree temps, and cover a meager 4km for urban, and 7km for the highway (European standard), and its also done in a lab on a dyno so friction may/may not play a part in the reading.

gzt

10872 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1368996 19-Aug-2015 07:43
Send private message

Is it the same figure published on the nz fuel efficiency website or is that different again?

 
 
 
 


8806 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1369012 19-Aug-2015 08:01
Send private message

Fuel Economy

 

The on-road fuel cost of this vehicle is estimated at $2,160 / year based on driving 14,000 km per year (7.7 litres/100km).

from Right Car

energy star says 7.7l/100km as well

2209 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  # 1369024 19-Aug-2015 08:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...


The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.




Handsome Dan Has Spoken.

14086 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1369028 19-Aug-2015 08:54
Send private message

I can't see how a 1.5 liter square box hauling around an AWD system was going to achieve 7.*L/100KM




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

The is no planet B

 

 


2209 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  # 1369029 19-Aug-2015 08:56
Send private message

MikeB4: I can't see how a 1.5 liter square box hauling around an AWD system was going to achieve 7.*L/100KM

They're insanely lightweight and have a low-pressure 1.5L TURBO engine.




Handsome Dan Has Spoken.

28210 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  # 1369036 19-Aug-2015 09:01
Send private message

Ecoboost is very fuel efficient



 
 
 
 


2249 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1369096 19-Aug-2015 10:00
Send private message

Excellent, I am going to sue Mazda as my 2014 Mazda 3 claims to have a 5.6l per 100km petrol rating and my daily drive is seeing me average around 8.5-8.7l per 100km

That is a huge difference

laughing


Maybe I'll get even more if I take a snapshot of the cars fuel monitor as soon as I start it up and rev the motor - it shows 99.9l per 100km as reading for 1 minute.

laughing

/face into desk

997 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1369141 19-Aug-2015 10:22
Send private message

nova:

 The $6000 award was based on the owner's loss of 0.75c per km over 8000km.


Shouldn't that be $60???? I guess they mean 75c per km, but I don't understand the basis for such a high figure (other than that is what the IRD uses). The difference in fuel economy would have only accounted for a few cents per km, the guy traded in after 11,000km, and you would expect his loss to be based on the depreciation of the vehicle when he traded it, rather than how far he had travelled.



Assuming Cost of Petrol $2.00

7.7 L = $15.40
9.4 L = $18.80


7.7L ($15.40) claim of 100km = $0.15 per km
9.4L ($18.80) claim of 100km = $0.18 per km


8000km at $0.15 = $1200
8000km at $0.18 = $1504

The difference is about $304

Am I missing something here? Why is the difference calculated at 75 cents per km?

13206 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 1369152 19-Aug-2015 10:37
Send private message

nzkiwiman: Excellent, I am going to sue Mazda as my 2014 Mazda 3 claims to have a 5.6l per 100km petrol rating and my daily drive is seeing me average around 8.5-8.7l per 100km

That is a huge difference

laughing


Maybe I'll get even more if I take a snapshot of the cars fuel monitor as soon as I start it up and rev the motor - it shows 99.9l per 100km as reading for 1 minute.

laughing

/face into desk


My late father had a Mercedes CL 600 with a 6 litre V12 under the bonnet. When he put his foot down hard, not only did it take off like a scalded cat but the economy meter thing showed "0 mpg"!





2888 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1369195 19-Aug-2015 11:27
Send private message

Handsomedan: It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...


The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.



thats not the point , the dealer said he could get 7.7 km but the judge has ruled that no matter how he drove that car he was never going to get that figure.  If you bought your Subaru and the dealer said you could get 8 km , you bought the car because of that and then you found no matter how you drove you couldnt get under 9 km and then you found out the car is unable to get that 8 km figure , would you still be happy or would you think you have been lied to to get you to buy the car.




Common sense is not as common as you think.


8806 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1370181 19-Aug-2015 11:33
Send private message

nzkiwiman: Excellent, I am going to sue Mazda as my 2014 Mazda 3 claims to have a 5.6l per 100km petrol rating and my daily drive is seeing me average around 8.5-8.7l per 100km

That is a huge difference

laughing


Maybe I'll get even more if I take a snapshot of the cars fuel monitor as soon as I start it up and rev the motor - it shows 99.9l per 100km as reading for 1 minute.

laughing

/face into desk


Thing is though you could probably get close to that if you tried hard

2209 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  # 1370198 19-Aug-2015 12:06
One person supports this post
Send private message

vexxxboy:
Handsomedan: It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...


The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.



thats not the point , the dealer said he could get 7.7 km but the judge has ruled that no matter how he drove that car he was never going to get that figure.  If you bought your Subaru and the dealer said you could get 8 km , you bought the car because of that and then you found no matter how you drove you couldnt get under 9 km and then you found out the car is unable to get that 8 km figure , would you still be happy or would you think you have been lied to to get you to buy the car.


Two things: 

1. I wouldn't be stupid enough to think that a fuel economy figure quoted by a car dealer is going to be absolute or a good reason to buy a car - there has to be a whole lot of reasons to buy a car otherwise you'd go for the cheapest possible alternative, regardless of what the car dealer says...they're not noted as being the most trusted of professionals in the world...just check any survey on the matter

2. I don't drive a Subaru






Handsome Dan Has Spoken.

997 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1370204 19-Aug-2015 12:15
Send private message

Handsomedan:
vexxxboy:
Handsomedan: It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...


The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.



thats not the point , the dealer said he could get 7.7 km but the judge has ruled that no matter how he drove that car he was never going to get that figure.  If you bought your Subaru and the dealer said you could get 8 km , you bought the car because of that and then you found no matter how you drove you couldnt get under 9 km and then you found out the car is unable to get that 8 km figure , would you still be happy or would you think you have been lied to to get you to buy the car.


Two things: 

1. I wouldn't be stupid enough to think that a fuel economy figure quoted by a car dealer is going to be absolute or a good reason to buy a car - there has to be a whole lot of reasons to buy a car otherwise you'd go for the cheapest possible alternative, regardless of what the car dealer says...they're not noted as being the most trusted of professionals in the world...just check any survey on the matter

2. I don't drive a Subaru





I don't think the customer was stupid, he was able to drive the car and return it and get $6000 back eventually. I am sure he bought the case to the court because he investigated the claims made by Ford were not true. This is clearly false-advertising by Ford. If I was Wanganui motors I would claim this from Ford.

And I still don't understand how the claim got settled at $6000 .. surely it is not 75 cents per km loss 

762 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1370246 19-Aug-2015 13:31
Send private message

I believe the issue was that the dealer didn't specify that the fuel figures where not real world ones, and assured him he would get that economy when driving. And when he queried them after a few months driving was told, don't worry the your fuel economy will get better.

 

 

I believe he did a lot of open road driving - I think he did 11,000km in 3 months (could be wrong with that figure)

 

 

As for the $6000 I think that covers past and an estimate of future costs differences.

1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Amazon Studios announces New Zealand as location for its upcoming series based on The Lord of the Rings
Posted 18-Sep-2019 17:24


The Warehouse chooses Elasticsearch service
Posted 18-Sep-2019 13:55


Voyager upgrades core network to 100Gbit
Posted 18-Sep-2019 13:52


Streaming service Acorn TV launches in New Zealand with selection with British shows
Posted 18-Sep-2019 08:55


Bitcoin.com announces partnership with smartphone manufacturer HTC
Posted 16-Sep-2019 21:30


Finalists Announced for Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 16-Sep-2019 19:37


OPPO Showcases New CameraX Capabilities at Google Developer Days China 2019
Posted 15-Sep-2019 12:42


New Zealand PC Market returns to growth
Posted 15-Sep-2019 12:24


Home sensor charity director speaks about the preventable death which drives her to push for healthy homes
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:46


Te ao Maori Minecraft world set to inspire Kiwi students
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:43


Research reveals The Power of Games in New Zealand
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:40


Ring Door View Cam now available in New Zealand
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:38


Vodafone NZ to create X Squad
Posted 10-Sep-2019 10:25


Huawei nova 5T to be available 20th September
Posted 5-Sep-2019 11:55


Kogan.com launches prepay challenger brand Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 3-Sep-2019 11:42



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.