Sign in to follow this  
Creosote

Poor Consumption Auris Sport, Is This Normal?

Recommended Posts

Recently purchased a 2013 Auris 1600cc petrol Sport (7,000 mile ex demonstraor).

The salesman said we should expect 45mpg, and all my own research led me to believe that 40mpg was a minimum, and 45 would be good, so we chose the car on that basis.

But after two tankfulls of fuel (filled to brim, mileage logged, the refilled to brim etc) its doing 35mpg.

I have a 2.5 litre Lexus and thats doing almost the same!

Driving has been on a mix of Motorway, dual carriageway and some town driving, with just a driver, no passengers, and the car has been carefully driven, while its a Sport model we got it as it had some nice extras and looked the best, not so it could be thrashed like a boy racer!

Is this the norm for this car? Or could there be an issue of some sort that could cause this?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU combined consumption range for the Auris 1.6 is between 45.6 and 47.9 - but EU consumption figures are obtained in laboratory conditions, so not really applicable to the real world. Car dealers are only supposed to quote the official EU consumption figures - so this could well be where the salesperson's 45mpg comes from.

The Honest John Real MPG section provides more realistic figures as to what consumption actual owners are acheiving - see

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/toyota/auris-2013/16-valvematic

The Sport is mechanically identical to the other 1.6's - just differences in trim and equipment.

Two other things to consider:

1). really at 7000 miles I would say the car is only just loosening up, and

2). the colder weather will have an effect on consumption - and will bring the consumption down, compared to the warmer weather of the other three seasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine over 4 tank fulls 37.4, 37.9, 38.6, 39.4 I was hoping for over 40 as the old Alfa was doing 40mpg and it was a 10 year old 1.8.

So not overly impressed with the consumption so far, going to check tyre pressures and few other bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different generations though. Creosote's is a second generation (2013), Loudandproud205's a first generation (2011 facelift) - so not directly comparable. The Real MPG details for the 2011 model is as follows - http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/toyota/auris-and-auris-hsd/16-v-matic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its beginning to sound like the consumption we are getting may be pretty much what the car really does, which is incredibly dissapointing. In todays world of economical cars, 35mpg for a 1.6litre car is pretty poor, especially compared what the competitors such as the Ford Focus achieve. We knew the Auris would do slightly less mpg, and thats fine, as we like Toyotas, and the actual car itself, so a few mpg loss for that is worth it, but we were expecting a few mpg less, not 15 or so!

This has immediately upped our petrol bill per annum by £550 on today's fuel prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to HJ's Real MPG, The Focus is actually worse - http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-2011.

The average mpg for the petrol Focus 1.6 varies from 38.3 to 40.1 mpg.

Don't see where you get a difference of 15mpg between what the salesperson told you (45mpg) and what you're currently getting (35mpg).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I bought my car (petrol, 1.4L), dealer said that it's best consumption is 50.5 mpg; usually I get 50 in summer time, 55 (the best consumption on straight and slow roads at low rpm - maximum 2800 in 5th gear) and 48 mpg in winter time. Anyway, winter time, loading, tyres pressure and different driving style and condition affect fuel consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to HJ's Real MPG, The Focus is actually worse - http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-2011.

The average mpg for the petrol Focus 1.6 varies from 38.3 to 40.1 mpg.

Don't see where you get a difference of 15mpg between what the salesperson told you (45mpg) and what you're currently getting (35mpg).

Excuse me, I meant compared to the 1.4 or the Focus 1 litre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2011 1.6 , according to the cars computer averages around 40 mpg on normal city driving ,and on a long run to the highlands it reached 49mpg....... I had about 7000 miles on the clock at that time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to HJ's Real MPG, The Focus is actually worse - http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-2011.

The average mpg for the petrol Focus 1.6 varies from 38.3 to 40.1 mpg.

Don't see where you get a difference of 15mpg between what the salesperson told you (45mpg) and what you're currently getting (35mpg).

Excuse me, I meant compared to the 1.4 or the Focus 1 litre.

Ford don't do a 1.4 version of the current Focus.

The 1.0 litre (whether 100bhp or 125bhp) has a Real MPG average of 40.6 or 41.6 - not substantially better than the Auris 1.6 Real MPG average of 40.

The 100bhp version of the Ford engine in terms of power is more comparable to the Auris 1.33 (98bhp) which has a Real MPG average of 46.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't rely on the computer readout as being 100% accurate, as most cars are around 10% optimistic. Brim to brim is the only fail safe way to caculate.

Never believe the manufacture quoted figures, as no car manages to achieve these in the real world. Even the much hyped various Hybrid versions don't get anywhere near the claimed mpg in day to day driving, and most car testers reckon a diesel variant of the same model is more economical (and cheaper).

I have the new Auris Sports Tourer 1.6 (CVT) on order so expect my MPG will be even worse than creosotes - such is life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having owned several 1.6 petrols, I would still agree that 35 MPG overall is pretty poor. My Fiat Bravo managed 37 in the Winter & 41 in the Summer. My Stilo managed 38 in the cold months & 43 in the warmer spells, so for a supposedly superior, more modern hatch to only achieve 35 MPG is disappointing. I'm not dissing the Auris in general as I like them, but the realworld MPG is not as good as most owners will be expecting. I was considering a 1.6 petrol model for my next car, but not on this evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in mpg between the hybrid and the 1.4 diesel (the only diesel Auris available in the UK) for owners who have contributed to Real MPG, is less than 2mpg - admittedly in favour of the diesel. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/toyota/auris-2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards Real MPG figures for petrol 1.6 cars, the following makes interesting reading:

Vauxhall Astra 1.6 16V - average 36.7

Hyundai i30 (2007-2012)* - average 40.8

Kia Cee'd (2010-2012)* - average 38.2

Chevrolet Cruze saloon - average 33.6

Mazda 3 - average 37.5

Nissan Qashqai - average 38.9

Citroen C4 - average 38.9

Peugeot 308 Vti - average 38.7

Renault Megane - average 36.5

Toyota Auris (2013) - average 40.0

* info not available for 2012-on models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having own the auris sports for a year now, I only managed to get 45mpg at some point but this is during a long trip via motorway but will drop to 40-42 mpg due to heavy right foot..I do mostly town driving in which london road is not so nice coz everything is limited. But do manage to get as off now between 30-35mpg. Trying hard to get the advertised mpg but with no luck cant do it. Or maybe yet as mentioned on the previous comment that im on my 8000+ miles maybe things are just loosening up. But apart from that, i dont have any problems at it at the moment. I hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the feedback.

My initial concern was there may be something wrong with the car causing what I perceive as poor mpg, but it is looking more and more like thats just what the car does.

Regardless of anything its nuts that my 6 year old 2.5 litre Lexus with 85k on the clock is doing 32-33, nearly a litre larger engine, a heavier car, and let's face it, Lexus arent known for economy!

Her Nissan 1300cc was doing almost 50mpg, same journeys, roads etc, and while that is a slightly smaller engine and lighter car, it had 80k miles on it.

Its really dissapointing, I dont blame anyone except maybe ourselves for not doing good enough research before purchase, but I fear although we've only had the Auris 3 week's its days are numbered. For the latest model of what is supposed to be an economical car, its ridiculous that its real world consumption is only 2-3 mpg better than a 2.5 car, she may as well have a Lexus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the comparative figures I provided at post 14 of other 1.6 petrol engines cars in the C-category, the Auris fairs quite well, and is certainly not the poorest. Perhaps if economy is such a priority, the choice of a 1.6 petrol, regardless of manufacturer, was not the best one to make.

Considering a smaller engine in the same size car may also not be the answer - as, in the case of the Focus, the 1.0 litre Ecoboost engine is proving not to be appreciably more economical in the real world than a 1.6 (both versions of the 1.0 litre Ecoboost Focus only averaging 40-41mpg).

Presumably the Nissan you mention is quite an old car, as it has been a while since Nissan sold a 1.3 engined car in the UK - as far as I'm aware, the 1.3 K11 Micra being the last (1993-2000). 1.2 and 1.4 units have been used since. The smallest engine in the final generation Sunny (1991-1995) and the two generations of Almera were 1.4 or 1.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the comparative figures I provided at post 14 of other 1.6 petrol engines cars in the C-category, the Auris fairs quite well, and is certainly not the poorest. Perhaps if economy is such a priority, the choice of a 1.6 petrol, regardless of manufacturer, was not the best one to make.

Fuel consumption is important, there is a difference between it being "SUCH" a priority, to it being reasonable and decent relevant to the engine size. What other non-relevant cars achieve is not a factor. 35mpg is lousy in today's world. The car is not heavy, its certainly not quick or powerful by any definition, and as I have pointed out its consumption is only marginally better than a 2.5 litre much heavier (and older) car made by the same manufacturer. We had the choice between this and the 1.4 diesel version, both ex-demonstrators, and both the same price. My own researches and enquiries with Toyota led me to believe there would be a smallish difference in economy which we were prepared for in favour of a better equipped car. Now I am finding out the diesel will do almost 60mpg real world, against 35-40mpg real world for the 1.6 petrol.

I do accept it is my responsibility and mistake to:

- Not to have known of the existence of Honest John's website.

- To have believed and trusted the main dealer.

- That I/we were won over by a nicer looking and spec'd car.

But we really only chose the petrol as we thought the difference in consumption would be small.

We did discuss my wife's driving profile with the salesman at length, and her mileage and type of driving does suit a diesel, and we also made sure he was aware that consumption was important to us.

I came here to seek information, and experiences, and thank you, I have got that information, its been a bit of an eye-opener! Ive always been a Toyota fan, in the last 17 years, 16 of them I have had Lexus, and part of my liking for the company is that they have always come across as honest and decent. But having been told that we would see little difference between the petrol and diesel I now realise was an untruth, as such I am taking it up with the dealership for having sold the car under false pretences, and will be insisting on a full refund.

Whichever way you cut it, its still nuts thats a 1.6 gutless smallish car does only a couple of miles less mpg than a 2.5 litre built like a tank with more power, more weight, and a load more smoothness and refinement. Now I am wondering why anyone would buy a 1600cc petrol Toyota, or almost any manufacturer for that matter when they can enjoy the extra power and refinement of a 2.5 litre for a couple of 2mpg!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at the comparative figures I provided at post 14 of other 1.6 petrol engines cars in the C-category, the Auris fairs quite well, and is certainly not the poorest. Perhaps if economy is such a priority, the choice of a 1.6 petrol, regardless of manufacturer, was not the best one to make.

Considering a smaller engine in the same size car may also not be the answer - as, in the case of the Focus, the 1.0 litre Ecoboost engine is proving not to be appreciably more economical in the real world than a 1.6 (both versions of the 1.0 litre Ecoboost Focus only averaging 40-41mpg).

Presumably the Nissan you mention is quite an old car, as it has been a while since Nissan sold a 1.3 engined car in the UK - as far as I'm aware, the 1.3 K11 Micra being the last (1993-2000). 1.2 and 1.4 units have been used since. The smallest engine in the final generation Sunny (1991-1995) and the two generations of Almera were 1.4 or 1.5.

I can confirm that the second generation Almera had either a 1.5 or 1.8 petrol engine. I bought the bigger of the two, because the 1.5 was completely gutless & used more fuel ! That 1.8 engine gave high 30's MPG in the Winter & easy 40's in the Summer.

But I have to agree with Post 18 that we really haven't improved on real world fuel consumption as much as we'd all like to think. Emissions have come down for sure, but there still aren't that many cars around that deliver average MPG figures over 55 on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you bought the Auris under the Toyota Approved Used programme, and depending on how recently you bought it, you may be able to use the Vehicles Exchange Plan to change - see http://usedcars.toyota.co.uk/approvedbenefits.aspx?wflw=se_na_ap_vi&idx=0

As I said earlier, dealers and manufacturers are only supposed to use the official EU fuel consumption figures to provide comparisons. However as these figures are obtained under laboratory conditions, they don't represent what owners can expect to achieve in real life. There doesn't seem to be any desire from the EU to change the way that this data is both compiled and used.

Earlier this year Audi had a complaint against them upheld, as they used figures from the EU tests when advertising the Audi A3 TDI, without qualifying the figures were obtained in EU tests and may not represent the consumption an owner could achieve - http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/3/Volkswagen-Group-UK-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_210019.aspx.

Now most manufacturers provide some clarification within advertising around the EU testing regime and real life consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern cars don't do as well for fuel consumption as you might have hoped because they are larger & heavier than the generations that they replaced due to increased safety & emissions equipment requirements.

This is obvious if you compare something like a Mini (the 3rd BMW generation is going to be even bigger again), a current Ford Fiesta is pretty much the same size as the original Focus etc.

& certainly the UK/EU testing regime gives figures that you won't see in real life unless you are a hyper-miler etc. but the US's isn't much better either. At best they are indication between cars under the same conditions & there are plenty of indications that at least some of the manufacturers knowing the test regimes design the car's set up to perform at their best under those very specific conditions (& at least in the US several have been sued/fined for overstating).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Creosote.

I too fell foul of the dreaded Eu cycle a few years ago. I had a Lexus IS 2.5, the same as yours I believe and managed a comfortable 32 mpg which matched the Lexus advertised figures at the time ( pre-EU cycle days ), so I was satisfied.( Great car by the way ) Then the price of petrol all but tripled and my wife wanted a smaller, lighter car, so I bought an Audi A3 Sportback 1.4 petrol with an advertised 50 mpg figure according to the salesman. It managed 42 mpg ( not too bad really but certainly not as advertised). I took it back and complained, to no avail, then was advised by Honest John about this stupid Eu cycle nonsense. Hence the Advertising standards complaint and subsequent change to advertising practice.

What I find as a rule of thumb is to look at the Eu urban figure and use that as a much more realistic guide as what is achievable in the real world in the absence of any other information. Even Honest John's website has to be used with care since he tends to aggregate a number of slightly different models to derive his figures. For example, wheel size matters quite a bit, the bigger, the higher the fuel consumption. This is not taken into account.. This works well enough for petrol/diesel cars but not it seems for hybrids where 70/75% of Eu urban seems to be the norm, as I've found to my cost.

Hope this helps for when you try for another car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just got an Auris Touring sport hybrid, and confused about fuel consumption.

When the car was delivered I filled it with petrol.

The car has a 45 litre (10 gallon) fuel tank.

The digital display tells me I have done average 52.3 mpg

That means a range of around 500 miles, which is what I expected when I chose the car (never expected to get the theoretical 70 mpg in the brochure, and Honest John says about 50 mpg).

Based on the miles covered, and remaining range I may just about make it to 400 miles before I need to fill up - and low fuel lamp just come on.

I know these computers use some approximation, but it seems a massive difference between the brochure fuel tank size, reported mpg, and range. If I have used 10 gallons over 400 miles, that is only 40 mpg, and 20% less than the digital readout reports for average fuel consumption. Will be very disappointed if only 400 miles range / 40 mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just got an Auris Touring sport hybrid, and confused about fuel consumption.

When the car was delivered I filled it with petrol.

The car has a 45 litre (10 gallon) fuel tank.

The digital display tells me I have done average 52.3 mpg

That means a range of around 500 miles, which is what I expected when I chose the car (never expected to get the theoretical 70 mpg in the brochure, and Honest John says about 50 mpg).

Based on the miles covered, and remaining range I may just about make it to 400 miles before I need to fill up - and low fuel lamp just come on.

I know these computers use some approximation, but it seems a massive difference between the brochure fuel tank size, reported mpg, and range. If I have used 10 gallons over 400 miles, that is only 40 mpg, and 20% less than the digital readout reports for average fuel consumption. Will be very disappointed if only 400 miles range / 40 mpg.

Toyota seems to hold a lot fuel in reserve around 10 litres seems to be an average left when he flow fuel light comes on. I bet you will only be able to fill to the high 30's when you fill the car up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filled up, 403 miles covered since first fill. Digital read out saying 52.3 mpg

Put in 39.09 litres, so I make that only 46.75 mpg. A big difference between that and what I expected, and a big difference between that and the readout. Will have to keep monitoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this