Unsurprising. The GTR is almost ten years old now and still fundamentally the same car it was when it was launched and designed. There would be few performance cars from that development cycle which still meet emissions current emissions rules. 

I think at this stage its better to try & find who isn't doing it.

Batman: Nissan audited themselves, found the fraud, and self reported as well as recalled vehicles themselves.

Very interesting

It's possible that all car companies do it. Like cheating in sport.

That's something I've heard from industry people. Basically the targets were borderline unachievable, sothe manufacturers were looking at a cheat or get out scenario.

So wondering how BMW in particular are going to come out of it.

GV27:

 

Unsurprising. The GTR is almost ten years old now and still fundamentally the same car it was when it was launched and designed. There would be few performance cars from that development cycle which still meet emissions current emissions rules. 

 

Raises the question - why apply emissions standards to performance cars?

Small % of fleet and not designed to be efficient.

Disclaimer: GTR is my dream car so I may be biased

I've been driving two different make near new vehicles on the same route, similar traffic conditions, same load, driving normally (not trying for maximum fuel economy).

One has claimed combined economy of 8.2l/100km.  Actual has been 7.4 open road, 8.5 around town.  Claimed economy seems about right - at least nothing to complain about.
The other has claimed combined economy of 6.1.  Actual has been 7.5 open road, over 8 around town. It seems to be using at least 25% more than claimed.

Of course this is pretty meaningless, there could be other reasons, but if smells and looks like BS...

Fred99:

 

I've been driving two different make near new vehicles on the same route, similar traffic conditions, same load, driving normally (not trying for maximum fuel economy).

 

One has claimed combined economy of 8.2l/100km.  Actual has been 7.4 open road, 8.5 around town.  Claimed economy seems about right - at least nothing to complain about.
The other has claimed combined economy of 6.1.  Actual has been 7.5 open road, over 8 around town. It seems to be using at least 25% more than claimed.

 

Of course this is pretty meaningless, there could be other reasons, but if smells and looks like BS...

 

For myself, I've found the reported economy (dash) is about .2L/100km better than actual pumped fuel economy, which puts the car over it's advertised economy! Cheeky buggers.

My car has a historic readout for distance, average speed, average economy as well as since-start and since-refuel. I can compare that against my fuel card statement and it seems to be accurate... 

According to fuelsaver.co.nz it should average 8.3l/100km. For daily commute it is worse than that, more like 9.5, which I put down to Auckland traffic being inefficiently slow and stop-start. I can smash the manufacturer's claimed economy out of the park for long motorway trips though getting down to 7.0 for a trip to Mt Ruapehu and back, despite all the windy up and down bits. Sitting on the motorway at steady speed is only around 5.0-6.0 - if only one could actually do that for any distance!

Batman: You are Probably estimating fuel amounts within the errors of the filling pump. How do you know to fill to the exact tank level each time? You can't see inside the tank. But these should average out over a period.

Fuel card statements over time.