ClubCJ - The CJ Lancer Club

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... 1810b055aa

This is not good.

meh, they all do it and my fuel consumption is way worse than advertised, but when i give it a boot-full, don't really car

I do agree the testing and stuff need to change, currently they are tested in labs under idea condition with no load and usually just the driver.

I'm still not getting any where near the expected fuel usage... and as I type this this story is on the TV news LOL

Whats your usage in your vrx on the highway/freeway? When I'm on the freeway (I tend to do about 200+ k's on the freeway/highway unbroken) the multi-info display says about 7.5l/100ks on 91 and 7l/100ks on premium 98, which is pretty good IMO. I haven't checked if the multi-info display is actually accurate though, I got about 600ks off ~45l last time I did a big day trip. If I cruise at 100km/h its obviously a bit better again over 110km/h.

Don't get me wrong it goes way down when I drive on the HWY, I've seen it as low at 6.8 with regular ULP. Hoping to get between 600-700 out of the tank on the trip to Adelaide in a few weeks.

It's just short trips around town its a struggle to get it below 10.

But this story is about another motor company lying and for Mitsy its meant a drop on the share market today.

If i add my tripmeter to my estimated range, city driving, i should get about 650 km range. About 120 km of that was before Merlin's tune. It will be interesting of the manually calculated fuel economy when I fill up. Hopefully fuel prices come back down. It jumped 30 cents a couple of weeks ago and has stayed there.

Yeah they can take some time to get back down, here in QLD its still all over the place, anywhere from 130 to just on $1 in the SE alone.

Hope it's done in Adelaide on a couple of weeks while we're there.

Actually when you think of it, even if I do get a total of 650 KM out of the tank around the city, the fuel economy isn't outstanding. It would make it roughly 9.08 L/100 KM. That is actually better than the 9.6 L/100 KM urban cycle, but considering there is a bit of a grey zone as to what 'urban' and 'extra urban' refers to, it is probably about right. The combined cycle is meant to be 7.2 L/100 KM.

Technically if we were to get the listed fuel economy, it should have a range of 1000 KM (5.9 L/100 KM) on the highway. This is the claim for the updated 4B11 that came out around 2012 or whenever it was. I doubt too many Lancers have managed that though! The larger 2.4 L however, even in the CF since it hasn't changed since 2007 and should really be an embarrassment to Mitsubishi. They have a listing of 12.2 L/100 KM for urban on the 2016 Mitsubishi Lancer GSR CF Auto MY16 Hatch. Considering the power figures aren't astonishing considering, it's pretty bad. To put into perspective how bad that actually is, my old 3.0 L V6 TF Magna NEVER used that much around the city! The official stats for that is 6.6 L extra urban and 10.5 L urban. Of course, that again is unrealistic, I was getting around 12 L urban. However, considering the car was 1998, had more power and torque, and was pushing a car a couple of hundred kilograms heavier... The economy figures of my Lancer were just 'good enough' for me, if they were any worse I probably wouldn't have bought it.

I can see why Mitsubishi felt they needed to lie about the fuel economy figures. I think they just got complacent, and from this news I think we'll see some more efficient engines starting to come in on other models shortly (not the Lancer though). When you consider the Mazda 3 2.5 L has noticeably more power and torque, and uses much less fuel (4.2 L /100 KM less urban cycle), they do need to improve.

This was only known to affect Asia-specific models...
Perhaps a wider-spread case will come to light, but so far it has nothing to do with any vehicle sold in Australia.

I think they are mostly/entirely kei cars, and most of them were rebadged and sold as Nissans, and it was Nissan that got suspicious that the fuel economy figures were BS.

Personally I don't really care, isn't it kind of expected that companies exaggerate their product? However it has big legal implications with government grants and the fact they were mearly supplying them to Nissan... But Mitsu Motors has been circling the drain for a while now.

This all reminds me of the Top Gear guys getting huge distances the few times they didn't economy runs.

With my 4B12 I'm lucky to get 500km around town before the low fuel warning comes on, 1000km would be a dream but I should top 700km on the open road when averaging 100-110 all day.

I agree they need to change the way cars are tested for distance as it's been known for decades they don't come close to real world tests.

This makes me laugh when I think I am doing well to get 400km per tank of e85 with my Evo9. And that is pretty good going for an evo on ethanol.

Over half that driving of mine is going up to Belair, which is basically up hill all the way from here (apart from the very beginning). The thing is, it's downhill on the way back, so it kind of 'balances' out to around 8.8 L/100 km on the readout when I get home. It's difficult to compare vehicles economy due to driving styles, traffic, distance and time driven (important for comparison, since the engine and the O2 sensors need to warm, before which the car is purposefully run rich), the incline/declines/slow down areas of the route, air temperature and pressure differences etc, even the surface of the road and the tyres used.

The readout is more a guide to economical driving than actually being a fuel usage record. Having it reset every 4 hours, not having an instantaneous/average readout, and the economy bar kind of gives that away.

on my old 2009 es lancer country driving I got 700-800kms to a tank think it was using 95 at the time.

I'll be doing 1300 kms over 2 days in July (900 in 1 day, 400 the next) so I'll see how I go then. It will basically be jump on the freeway, then highways all the way north to Exmouth. We will probably stop a few times the first day, I'll see how many kms I can get off a tank in that case

Manually calculating the fuel economy would be much safer. How difficult is it to divide the fuel used by the distance in 100 km units? For example if you used 45 L for 630 km driving, you divide 45 by 6.32 (6.30 units of 100 km), and you get 7.12 L/100 km.