[Wingstorm]

Appreciate it if you can get fuel consumption km/litre for the cars you
reviewed and will review. I think a lot of people will be interested to
know it. I think you have great website, certainly more objective than ahem
thestar motoring !

keep up the good work!

[Chips]

We can provide manufacturer's figures which are honest and real but
unless they are taken with an open mind, they could also cause
unhappiness with some owners sometimes. This is because manufacturers
conduct testing on test tracks or in accordance with certain industry-
accepted test cycles (eg Japanese 10-15 or EU urban cycle). These test
methods may or may not replicate the driving conditions of every owner;
some may do better although most may not achieve the same figures because
they would be driving in conditions with other traffic and that impacts
fuel consumption quite seriously.

Furthermore, when the manufacturers test, they do so with cars that are
properly tuned (not necessarily for best economy) and this too may differ
from an actual vehicle in use. They may have clean air filters, fresh oil
and the best pressures in the tyres since their objective is to get the
best figure. For European tests, I think they also run at a constant
speed which would be hard for an owner to achieve on a daily basis.

They are not cheating and as reputable companies, they would not try to
present figures that are not true to the public. However, it is in their
interest to present the best possible figures.

The figures do not necessarily have no value because they can be used to
compare relative fuel efficiency of cars. For example, if two cars are
tested using a test cycle like the Japanese 10-15, then you can see which
one is more economical.

Long ago, when I was in Asian Auto, we tested fuel consumption by
disconnecting the fuel hose to the carburettor and connecting a hose from
a 1-litre can which was held by hand and ran the car till the fuel ran
out. We had to find a place where we could safely drive at a constant
speed and drive in the same manner with every car tested. I used two
places - Shah Alam (the land before the mosque was built) and Bangi
(which is now entirely covered with factories).

It was possible to use that method with carburettors but with modern
EFI/computerised fuel delivery systems, it is not possible at all so no
one does that method anymore.

Some publications use the full tank method - top up the tank, drive some
distance and then full it full again. I find this method to be not
accurate enough because you can never be sure if the tank is 100% full
(and how do you define 'full'?) and that the second time you refill, you
reach the same mark. Depending on the air pocket inside, the level may be
higher or lower.

I understand this issue, having taken part in economy runs in the 1980s
and they used the full tank method and sometimes we would have to rock
the car for up to half an hour to make sure the tank took its full
volume! Later on, the organisers bought some suction machine to extract
fuel and even then, it was never foolproof.

The enormous variations in fuel consumption can be seen when we test cars
which have on-board computers (Volvos, Skoda Octavia) that give average
and real-time consumption information. We could sometimes provide the
data in our reports but then again, if we take the average figure shown,
it too may not be representative of real-world driving because while we
have the car, we would be driving it hard and in many different
conditions.

The point I am trying to make is that test methods have to be consistent
in order to be meaningful and they have to be representative of real-
world driving conditions. In the 1980s, I remember being challenged by
one motorist with a Mitsubishi Lancer who said that we were lying with
our figure as he could never achieve it. We did achieve it using our
method (as mentioned earlier) and I was prepared to prove it to him that
we could do it with his car - but on condition that he sent the car for
servicing and tuning to the correct spec. He refused to do it so we
ignored him.

I know that you will say that magazines like Autocar UK and Road & Track
can offer lots of performance data. They are larger organisations with
lots of mall cWe can provide manufacturer's figures which are honest and real but
unless they are taken with an open mind, they could also cause
unhappiness with some owners sometimes. This is because manufacturers
conduct testing on test tracks or in accordance with certain industry-
accepted test cycles (eg Japanese 10-15 or EU urban cycle). These test
methods may or may not replicate the driving conditions of every owner;
some may do better although most may not achieve the same figures because
they would be driving in conditions with other traffic and that impacts
fuel consumption quite seriously.

Furthermore, when the manufacturers test, they do so with cars that are
properly tuned (not necessarily for best economy) and this too may differ
from an actual vehicle in use. They may have clean air filters, fresh oil
and the best pressures in the tyres since their objective is to get the
best figure. For European tests, I think they also run at a constant
speed which would be hard for an owner to achieve on a daily basis.

They are not cheating and as reputable companies, they would not try to
present figures that are not true to the public. However, it is in their
interest to present the best possible figures.

The figures do not ne

[Wingstorm]

Thanks for the long reply. I understand that it is difficult to verify
everything what the manufacturer states, it is time-consuming and you don't
have the manpower. So please put manufacturer claims of fuel consumption,
top speed etc. In addition, you can devote a permanent section which
explains the various methods the manufacturer uses to come out the figures,
something like a dictionary of sort.
Another thing, for the numbers that are actually achieved by your team,
you could put them side by side with the standard data presented by the
manufacturer in your feature car section.
Final suggestion/request , put a link to the review that your team has
made on the car on the feature new cars section. The articles show too many
irrelevant articles.
keep up the good work

[Chips]

Thanks for your feedback. But can you explain this part a bit more:

>>Final suggestion/request , put a link to the review that your team has
made on the car on the feature new cars section. The articles show too
many irrelevant articles.<<

[willow2003]

I found this from Taiwan government page, it was tested in the lab,
don't ask me why X#$% :-)


Model CC KG CITY Highway Average (KM/Little)
-------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Altis 1.8 1,299 12.3 18.1 14.3
Toyota Vios 1.5 1,166 14.6 19.7 16.5
Hyundai Elantra 1.8 1,466 10.3 15.9 12.2
Honda JAZZ 1.3 1,185 16.2 20.8 18.0
Hyundai ATOS 1.0 999 13.3 19.8 15.6
BMW318 2.0 1,538 10.6 16.1 12.5
Satria GTI 1.8 1,258 11.5 17.1 13.2
Nissan Xtrail 2.5 1,682 10.4 15.0 12.1
Nissan Xtrail 2.0 1,562 9.6 15.3 11.6
Honda Civic 1.7 1,317 13.4 18.7 15.4
KIA RIO 1.3 1,183 12.5 18.2 14.5
Nissan Cefiro 2.0 1,631 8.8 13.5 10.4
Nissan Sentra 1.8 1,383 10.5 16.2 12.5
Toyota Camry 2.2 1,590 10.0 15.8 12.0
KIA Sephia 1.5 1,292 10.5 17.1 12.7

[Wingstorm]

thanks willow for the info!

[Wingstorm]

for example if you go to the new cars that are listed and then you
want to find a review of the car by autoworld.

http://www.autoworld....NC.SDN&AT=Sale

so you have to look for articles,
http://www.autoworld...ID=RT.AM.VHC.NC

you get lots of other hits when the one you probably interested in will be
Proton Waja 1.6 - A Significant Achievement (29/8/2000)

I think it is alright for you to put the articles in the articles. But I
would think it will be more useful for you to put the test-drive review etc
on the review section. This way it is alot easy for people to find it

[tracky]

so..
wat is the FC of ATOS original figure?