EPA is for economical driving, and maybe you are not good at Automation. These regularly hit that MPG at economy challenges.
Maybe Automation uses close to real life conditions for calculations, unlike EPA and similar tests that use idealized laboratory testing conditions?
Equa do independent testing of MPG, they do real world testing where they drive cars along real roads, they also test emissions etc the same way (mixture of road types for combined result). These results are in imperial gallons, not US gallons. They do have ratings for US cars, but the results tables are less featured. Diesel is king of the SUV MPG charts (if you exclude electrification), which is unsurprising. 55.1mpg (45.9 US mpg) The Citroen Cactus is the king of Petrol SUV results 46.9mpg (39.1 US mpg) If you need a 4x4 SUV, you still got plenty of options 46.2mpg (38.5mpg US) is pretty impressive for real world results for a petrol engine with 4wd I must say. The T/F column is whether they have tested that exact spec, or if it has been forecast based upon similar trim levels that have been tested. So for the cactus results, they tested For petrol non-SUV's Overall charts
Ah, that would make sense, didn't think about that. Less than 1mpg lost for the overhead of having that ability is still pretty good though.
Nice to see that the Panamera become more sportier over the years since the vehicle was introduced. Then again, the Porsche crossovers (Macan and Cayenne) did also become sporty over time as well.
The EPA is probably getting cheated still. Unfortunately, I believe that every single manufacturer in the world could get busted simultaneously and the EPA/environmental lobby in general would still not realize that they, not the manufacturers, are the problem here. After all, they decreed that cars had become orders of magnitude more efficient (and much safer at the same time); if the manufacturers can't figure out how to make it work that's their problem. Beyond that, it's probably all the same technology that makes them awful to drive. Bland (but aerodynamic) styling, electronic throttle (lag and rev-hang), new-generation autotragic transmissions, eco-turbos, etc. etc. etc.
Having driven a large (for UK standards) 10 year old SUV lacking much in way of modern tech to 30mpg. It's very possible. Out of a Toyota RAV4 I got to 40 real world. EPA is probably being cheated, but you can legitimately achieve *better* than the advertised.
Which is most people, since they actually teach how to drive in the UK. I do wish that we had to do skid pan training over here like they do in some countries. Might also give some people more confidence to drive at safe speeds when it snows, rather than always having *those* people who drive at like 2mph along a straight and flat gritted road.
That's easy. Avoid stopping and accelerating, let off the gas when approaching a red light or a pedestrian crossing, just tap the gas gently when you need to accelerate, turn engine off when stopped at a red light. In other words, the exact opposite of how you like to drive. I have looked up our new Audi on Equa, turns out it emits whopping 220 g CO2/km instead of promised 120. There's no way to measure it at home, so I can't check how true it is. The fuel economy can, and it's even worse than Equa data (9.8* vs 8.5 l/100 km), but Equa may display combined fuel economy. *urban driving, eco mode on, start stop off, ac on
I second this. I've absolutely gotten 30MPG out of my Mustang, and that's with a massive (by Euro standards, anyway) anchient, heavy, 12-valve V6.
Oh, it's his real car? I thought it was a randomly chosen one, and a Prius would fit the Democrats more.
