HOCGB
Community => General Chat => Topic started by: Chocolat on March 10, 2018, 11:38:47
-
Hi,
New member, but not the first Hyundai I have had.
What is considered to be the normal run-in period for a new car before it all settles down and you can expect to see what it is capable of?
Have picked up a new i30 1.6 CRDI (manual) and so far am very disappointed with the fuel consumption which no motorways has fluctuated between 54mpg and as low as 46 mpg driving at a constant 70mph and without the a/c or heated seats being on.
This seems really low for a car advertised as being extremely efficient. My previous cars have always averaged on the motorway what the car company claims the official mpg average of the car should be, give or take a few mpgs (my last car was doing mid-60 mpg with an official average mpg of 65).
Whilst I would think 74mpg is probably optimistic anyway, I think being 20-30mpg down on this is far outside what you would expect to get based on what they say it should do, being even less than the urban figure they quote. It also seems a lot lower than what other owners are getting.
I have noticed the temperate gauge never gets up to 90c, hovering instead between 80-85c. Is it running a bit too cold so the engine is using more fuel?
Any advice would be welcome.
Thanks
-
I didn't consider my 2014 crdi i30 fully 'run in' until around 15,000 miles. Incidentally, that's around the time my consumption calcs started showing 62mpg consistently.
-
Wow.
You must be driving downhill all the time..
My mpg on a run was 45 to 49 . Ridiculous compared to the official figures.
And mine had 50k on it.
-
I didn't consider my 2014 crdi i30 fully 'run in' until around 15,000 miles. Incidentally, that's around the time my consumption calcs started showing 62mpg consistently.
Thanks, I'm going to speak with the dealer anyway as I noticed a thread in the i30 section about low running temperatures and see if may also be part of the issue.
It's a bit frustrating coming from a car that did mid-60's on a run to this when, in theory at least, I should be getting more :( (or at least about the same)
-
Officially, cars don't need running in, haven't for decades - but I still do the first 1,000 miles gently and then the next 1,000 miles using all parts of the rpm range but only on part-throttle.
Both my previous Santa Fe 2.2 CRDi and my present VW Touareg 3.0 TDI seem to benefit from the occasional "drove-it-like-you-stole-it" using the full rpm range, full throttle and manual mode on the transmission - aka "Italian Tune-Up"
-
Hi I have owned two I30CRDi's one we did 100,000K and the one we still own has 75K on it. Our current one I reset every few months and get 51mpg, the one we recently sold with 100K was my wife's and she does lots of running kids around and some motorway and that would average 47mpg.
With real patience and careful driving I could get 55-58mpg which was around 480-520mls per tank of diesel. The best I ever has on a long holiday run was 580mls from a tank full.
i30Sean
-
Hi Chocolat. According to Honest John's columns on real MPG figures, reader have submitted the following:-
Real consumption of 49.8 - 55.0 giving average of 52.4. These figures are 71% of the manufacturer's estimate of 74.3 which is a fair bit out. The way all manufacturers arrive at their published figures is not very fair and certainly misleading. You should get better after 10,000 miles or so...but 74.3??? Don't think so I'm afraid.
-
Hi Chocolat. According to Honest John's columns on real MPG figures, reader have submitted the following:-
Real consumption of 49.8 - 55.0 giving average of 52.4. These figures are 71% of the manufacturer's estimate of 74.3 which is a fair bit out. The way all manufacturers arrive at their published figures is not very fair and certainly misleading. You should get better after 10,000 miles or so...but 74.3??? Don't think so I'm afraid.
The car manufacturers HAVE to test using the EU NEDC test procedure, that's where the problem lies
-
Hi Chocolat. According to Honest John's columns on real MPG figures, reader have submitted the following:-
Real consumption of 49.8 - 55.0 giving average of 52.4. These figures are 71% of the manufacturer's estimate of 74.3 which is a fair bit out. The way all manufacturers arrive at their published figures is not very fair and certainly misleading. You should get better after 10,000 miles or so...but 74.3??? Don't think so I'm afraid.
The car manufacturers HAVE to test using the EU NEDC test procedure, that's where the problem lies
The main issue with the NEDC figures is that comparitives between this and what cars do on the road vary massively.
Some of my other cars have previously got to within 10-15% of the claimed average over the period I have had the cars (and on a motorway run are normally pretty close to the claimed average), and others are 30% out. There is no consistency in how you can judge what a car will do on the road, as opposed to the test across the manufacturers. They may was well not publish the figures as they really can't be relied upon in any way.
-
My current Santa Fe has improved quite a bit on economy now it has covered 18k. The first 15k it was thirstier on the road than the car it replaced.
-
Hi Chocolat. According to Honest John's columns on real MPG figures, reader have submitted the following:-
Real consumption of 49.8 - 55.0 giving average of 52.4. These figures are 71% of the manufacturer's estimate of 74.3 which is a fair bit out. The way all manufacturers arrive at their published figures is not very fair and certainly misleading. You should get better after 10,000 miles or so...but 74.3??? Don't think so I'm afraid.
The car manufacturers HAVE to test using the EU NEDC test procedure, that's where the problem lies
The main issue with the NEDC figures is that comparitives between this and what cars do on the road vary massively.
Some of my other cars have previously got to within 10-15% of the claimed average over the period I have had the cars (and on a motorway run are normally pretty close to the claimed average), and others are 30% out. There is no consistency in how you can judge what a car will do on the road, as opposed to the test across the manufacturers. They may was well not publish the figures as they really can't be relied upon in any way.
Each Euro generation seems to have progressively widened the gap between NEDC figures and real world figures.
-
MPG is always a thorny subject. The figures stated by manufacturers are obtained using the same methodology and are intended to be used as a comparison one car to another. As long as the testing is carried out to the same standard I dont see what more can be done. I cannot see how everyday driving can be accurately simulated as we all drive in different ways. A heavy right foot and lots of short journeys is always going to result in higher consumption than a light foot and lots of motorway driving.
A flawed system is better than no system.
-
I didn't consider my 2014 crdi i30 fully 'run in' until around 15,000 miles. Incidentally, that's around the time my consumption calcs started showing 62mpg consistently.
I have 12600 miles on mine, an 16 plate se nav, i would imagine its run in already, did you notice any changes upto 15k? Please explain mate, thanks.
-
MPG is always a thorny subject. The figures stated by manufacturers are obtained using the same methodology and are intended to be used as a comparison one car to another. As long as the testing is carried out to the same standard I dont see what more can be done. I cannot see how everyday driving can be accurately simulated as we all drive in different ways. A heavy right foot and lots of short journeys is always going to result in higher consumption than a light foot and lots of motorway driving.
A flawed system is better than no system.
Generally agree, however when driving at a constant speed it is easy to measure consumption and its this where I have the issue as it is miles away from anything Hyundai says is achievable, but is also a lot further out than any car I have had before.
So is a flawed system better than no system? Well, not really when the system is generally misleading!
-
Hi chocolat
Driving at a constant speed on a flat smooth surface and in a straight line with still air and consistent humidity and temperature would no doubt result in consumption figures closer to those quoted by any manufacturer. For example any gradient, so matter how slight would obviously require more fuel to maintain a constant speed, you only have to select cruise control and watch the consumption display to see that.
Don't misunderstand me, I can't achieve any where near the consumption figures quoted by any manufacturer but at least their figures allowed me to make a judgment one with another when it came to choosing a car.
-
Hi chocolat
Driving at a constant speed on a flat smooth surface and in a straight line with still air and consistent humidity and temperature would no doubt result in consumption figures closer to those quoted by any manufacturer. For example any gradient, so matter how slight would obviously require more fuel to maintain a constant speed, you only have to select cruise control and watch the consumption display to see that.
Don't misunderstand me, I can't achieve any where near the consumption figures quoted by any manufacturer but at least their figures allowed me to make a judgment one with another when it came to choosing a car.
The only car that came close was my BMW, which did around 65mpg on the motorway, against an average combined of 65mpg. SO that was pretty good!
Where I think the test figures are misleading, is the i30 is claimed to do 74mpg on average, yet I am struggling to get mid 50's on the motorway. The differences between claimed mpg amongst the manufacturers and what their cars will then actually do seems to be the inconsistent part which makes the judgement call harder.
If you could say that cars will only be at most within 10% of the figures, then that's fair enough as you will have a comparison to look at, but with the i30 being over 30% out in the real world, you'd have to question the validity of the tests.
-
Having spent part of my working life in an aviation test laboratory I can fully appreciate that the results obtained from testing do not reflect reality. All one could say is that they reflected a degree 'goodness' for comparative purposes.
Test procedures require all the variables to be eliminated to prevent one manufacturer from testing his product in the most favourable way.
I have no more to say on the matter which will no doubt satisfy many.