What's wrong with your fuel economy

[XTV]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/20/mitsubishi-nissan-kei-fuel-economy-cheat/

[Dicko1]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/20/m...economy-cheat/

I still cant see the issue. Factory figures compared to vehicles that drive on dirt roads, tow, stop/start, creep in city traffic, flogged on highways, not in peak tune, various tyre pressures, user pedal control, altitude heights et.cetc. will vary enormously. Has anyone on here really bought a car based on fuel consumption and accepted the factory figures as gospel?

[craka]

I still cant see the issue. Factory figures compared to vehicles that drive on dirt roads, tow, stop/start, creep in city traffic, flogged on highways, not in peak tune, various tyre pressures, user pedal control, altitude heights et.cetc. will vary enormously. Has anyone on here really bought a car based on fuel consumption and accepted the factory figures as gospel?

Nope definitely not. Use it only as a rough guage. Kind of think this might of came out of the bag due to the previous manufacturer no doing the work any more.

[rotare]

I still cant see the issue. Factory figures compared to vehicles that drive on dirt roads, tow, stop/start, creep in city traffic, flogged on highways, not in peak tune, various tyre pressures, user pedal control, altitude heights et.cetc. will vary enormously. Has anyone on here really bought a car based on fuel consumption and accepted the factory figures as gospel?

But isn't that why they provide factory stated consumption figures, because there are so many variables.... therefore by testing vehicles under supposedly controlled conditions and with standard criteria the benchmark is all the same, so a potential purchaser can fairly compare one car to another?

Not advocating that factory consumption figures are correct, just pointing out the intended logic behind providing them as they do.

[Dicko1]

The theory is great..the reality is not. Every manufacturer dress,s up their fuel figures. Notice how most tests done by magazines and testers always say..."Although we didnt achieve factory supplied figures. In fact we used considerably more". Or words to that effect. So what is the point of them, really? Smart people know that they are not reliable.

[KiwiNTPajero]

But isn't that why they provide factory stated consumption figures, because there are so many variables.... therefore by testing vehicles under supposedly controlled conditions and with standard criteria the benchmark is all the same, so a potential purchaser can fairly compare one car to another?

Not advocating that factory consumption figures are correct, just pointing out the intended logic behind providing them as they do.

yes thats what they are for,but probably no one actually gets thse figures in real life

[Hill]

Shares are down 50% on news of more damaging fuel consumption knowledge going back 25 years.

Are there any honest vehicle manufacturers left?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-2...ction=business

I'm sure it will go back more than 25 years. I owned several Sigmas and it was rare for any of them to pass a petrol station!!!!

Hill

[grhyso]

yes thats what they are for,but probably no one actually gets thse figures in real life

While my Pajero was stock I averaged 0.5-1l/100km better fuel economy than MM advertise just driving to and from work, the beach, shops and generally around town. I lived 20 minutes from perth cbd and drove 40 minutes to the airport for work.

Everyone's situation is different and the current format in my eyes does a reasonable job. Other people may not get factory figures but at least generally they can say in their situation one car will use more fuel than the other. Its certainly better than manufacturers being able to use what ever they wanted, I imagine you'd get fuel figures of a car rolling down a hill at about 70km/h no throttle, pajero's averaging 5L/100km would be the advertised figure.

[vladguan]

While my Pajero was stock I averaged 0.5-1l/100km better fuel economy than MM advertise just driving to and from work, the beach, shops and generally around town. I lived 20 minutes from perth cbd and drove 40 minutes to the airport for work.

Everyone's situation is different and the current format in my eyes does a reasonable job. Other people may not get factory figures but at least generally they can say in their situation one car will use more fuel than the other. Its certainly better than manufacturers being able to use what ever they wanted, I imagine you'd get fuel figures of a car rolling down a hill at about 70km/h no throttle, pajero's averaging 5L/100km would be the advertised figure.

Mine is 8.5L/100kms to and from work so better than factory figures. It goes up to 10L/100 kms if I have to go through the city twice (drop off / pick up daughter from school).

Last week did 2800kms from Adelaide, to Mt Gambier, Port Fairy, Warrnambool, great ocean road, Torquay, Geelong, Melbourne (Geelong to More lone averaged 8), St Andrews Beach (while there, visited Frankston Beach, Puffing Billy and Philip Island), MMelbourne, Ballarat, Grampian, Nhill, Bordertown, Murray Bridge, home with whole family and 100kgs of stuff totalling 2.5 tonnes and averaged 8.8. Brother's VE 3.6V6 Calais V used more 98RON considering it had 6 speed auto and weighing less and was always behind me.

[ReefMaster]

When I bought my NT Exceed new in December 2010 , I did see fuel economy around the 9.0L/ 100klm . When it was a few weeks old , I drove to Cairns from Melbourne and it averaged 10.8L per 100klm over the 6700klm travelled in the 1.5 weeks (at the pump).
A few years later , when the car was paid off - the mods began .
AT tyres increased it to 11.4 L per 100klm .

The roof rack , awning and roof lights added another 1 L per 100klm .

The lift kit , ARB deluxe bar , winch , bash plates and front 9inch LED then added another 1.5 Lt per 100klm .

Finally after the camping equipment, food, beer and fridge and 3 passengers are in the car with swags on the roof racks (covered in a tarp) - this makes the car weigh around 3000kg++.

The car was using around 14.3litres per 100klm .

Around Tom Groggin region ( High Country) trails , the Pajero used 24L per 100klm. Around Licola High Country region (minus 3 passengers and roof luggage and less booze and food) 19.5L/100klm . The highway drive cycle to Valencia Creek was 12.9L/100klm .(2650Kg)

I would hate to know what it would be like to tow a caravan .
Please let me know about your fuel economy .

[Dave3006]

Reef I cant comment on roof rack load on the Pajero but on my CRD JK Wrangler Unlimited as soon as I put the Rhino roof basket on I went from low 10lts / 100km to mid 11s. Load the roof rack and it was to mid twelves.

Take it off and tow my trailer weigh in in at about 1000kg loaded and economy was 11.4lts/100km on multiple trips up and down the Hunter Valley.

In short drag sucks.

My recent highway run with two blokes and a weekend of camping gear, seats folded down, so likely 400kg of gear and I returned 9.8lt/100km.

[tomwithannl]

Mitsubishi Motors overstated fuel economy on eight more models

Includes Pajero.

http://www.carsifu.my/news/mitsubishi-motors-overstated-fuel-economy-on-eight-more-models-says-nikkei

Tom

[Whitey]

Fuel scandal - Mitsubishi ordered to stop selling Pajero

Mitsubishi Motors has been told to stop selling eight more models after it was found they overstated fuel efficiency.

The investigation by the transport ministry comes after the firm admitted in April to falsifying the fuel efficiency of two of its models, along with two cars produced for Nissan.

The admission led to a suspension of sales of the vehicles, prompting a sharp drop in the firm's market value.
Nissan subsequently bought a controlling stake in the company.

The latest models affected by the fuel efficiency scandal include variants of the Pajero, Outlander and RVR SUV cars.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37218510

I'm not the best person to post this as i have the sh*ts with MM / Dealer over my ongoing DPF problems. This is just one more level that makes my skeptical about the integrity of their engineering and willingness to cover things up rather than do things properly. But that's just me being cranky.

What are your thoughts?

[nj swb]

Moved to Mitsubishi News, as it's not specific to 4-1 Pajero.

Story mentions "variants" of models - would be good to learn more. I guess it will come through in good time.

Edit:have merged a few threads, will clean up in due course.

[geopaj]

What do I think??? - I think it's *+% discusting that multi-national cooperations think its okay to behave like this and get a slap on the wrist.

What would the consequences be, for example, If I was caught to be actively deceiving a govt department (ie ATO or Centrelink) for financial gain??

Feels like one rule for the 'plebs' and another for big multi-nationals.