|
By:
zzzzzzzzzz .... how interesting
|
|
By:
Sounds like they have been economical with the truth and you were fuelish to believe them.
|
|
By:
Quite why anyone still does not realise that quoted MPG's are achieved under ideal/laboratory conditions and bear no relation to reality, given all the publicity on the subject. There are dozens of sites that will give "real" numbers. Here's just one.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/real-mpg/ |
|
By:
call him Jim on CC
|
|
By:
Yes I know all of that, and James did research on that site, and others, so was never expecting anything like 61 mpg
but what I'm talking about is extremes! A huge difference between 61, and reality of 32 to 40! Oh, and go back to sleep lumpon, and sorry to have disturbed you! |
|
By:
Has he approached the seller to check if he had similar problems?
|
|
By:
This is what happens when you don't embrace diversity. I believe the Hyundai "Tucnogenderspecific" 2017 has great economy.
|
|
By:
hitler died in bunker
|
|
By:
I've just bought a 17 plate Tucson. For the size of the vehicle I've fond it to be pretty good on fuel. Cost me £34 in diesel from York down to the south coast. As these manufacturers tests, they pull all kinds of tricks. Remove one of the wing mirrors, duct tape all the seams on the bonnet so the car is more aero dynamic...........you'll never get the stated fuel economy
![]() |
|
By:
Has he approached the seller to check if he had similar problems?
No because it was the main dealer's demonstrator, and you have now given me food for thought! If the computer hasn't been zeroed, it will still be working on all of the short, and heavy town traffic usage, so would take very many miles, to start to be showing true normal use consumption! |