Fuel consumption CT200H

[Las Palmas]

Update to CT200H probably Luxury or something like that, bought as Sport, but no F on it anywhere.

Reason for buying the hybrid was partly low consumption and low pollution levels plus the good reputation for reliability. What I know now is that Lexus is no more honest than VW when claiming how much fuel it uses. The old VW we replaced had a claimed 5L/100km. That was not true except when driving 80km/h on flat road for at least 50km. When driving (like I use to) it was around 6L/100km. Pollution on the old diesel was definitely not good; whenever going uphill at reasonable speed a thick black smoke came out and before going to get approval for driving it another year I needed first to clean the exhaust system by going high revolution at least 5km and not go to the examination before no more black smoke came out.

The CT we have claim 3.8L/100km and that is utter bulls..t. When driving very slow on flat road I can get it down to 6.2L/100km with AC on and without AC I get it to 6L/100km; driving 80km/h for 50km. What is worse is that the new Corolla, same engine size 1.8L, claim 3.1L/100km in city and 3.4 mixed; ant it is with the new way of informing how much fuel is used. It seems that Lexus/Toyota is no better than most other when it comes to telling the truth. With regard to pollution it is far better than the old diesel Golf as no black smoke is coming from the exhaust, but as it is using much more fuel as Lexus claim it is not polluting as little as is claimed. Simple fact: use more gasoline = more pollution.

I still find that the Lexus CT200H 2016 we have is a formidable car, and after having learned many of the qualities it has, I am in no way unhappy with it. Never had that many positive things to tell about any of the cars we previously have had. MarkLevinson audio, auto door lock/unlock, seat with memory for 3 persons. AC is common on most cars, as is cruise control and rear camera, so that is not something special, but the music in here is first class.

What is not good is that all factories are not telling the truth about how much the car uses and pollutes. That of course is not just Lexus/Toyota. The standard of messuring should be updated to how people drive and not how the cars can use least fuel. Driving so slow that the car is running on Battery as much as possible is not normal driving.

Nobody I know, can get a car like the one we have, drive 100km on only 3.8L gasoline. I doubt that anyone can get the new Corolla hybrid to drive 100km in city without using more than 3.1L.

Honesty is rare among used-cars salespersonal, that is widely known, but it should not be from car factories.

[royoftherovers]

John, All Manufacturers adhere to Legislative requirements as regards fuel consumption figures.

[ColinBarber]

9 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

John, All Manufacturers adhere to Legislative requirements as regards fuel consumption figures.

Well, most do...

[Las Palmas]

42 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Well, most do...

Somewhere i read that since recently there are new ways to state consume which should be more in tune with how cars actually are driven instead of the data where cars are driven extremely slowly, without AC, without light, without anything that would need power. But that may be something coming (or maybe not coming only wished). Honesty is not valued highly.

Maybe the car factories are the ones telling how to find out consume as they have lobbyists that can influence those that make the rules.

I find it criminal not to tell things like they are.

[NemesisUK]

Manufacturer's fuel consumption figures were always meant to be a simple tool to show how different models compared. It wasn't meant to be a real world figure attainable by the average motorist. Tests were conducted on rolling roads inside a climate controlled room with a computer program applying the throttle etc. All manufacturers tested their model in exactly the same way. In fact I think they had to submit vehicles to an independent testing body.

A couple of years ago the way these tests were conducted was changed to randomly selected samples from production being fitted with recording equipment and being done on the open roads. The results from these new tests were very much more in accordance with real world figures.

But the bottom line is everyday fuel consumption is easily affected by many factors beyond the control of the manufacturer, not least the way it is driven!

[Las Palmas]

14 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

A couple of years ago the way these tests were conducted was changed to randomly selected samples from production being fitted with recording equipment and being done on the open roads. The results from these new tests were very much more in accordance with real world figures.

So that the new Corolla 2021 (test must be made after latest regulation) shall be able to drive 100km using only 3.1L should be possible inside a computer-generated engine control system and without being actually driven is the new and better way?

[Zotto]

New consumption  standard tests WLTP are nearer to real use, even if still optimistic. The best way to have an idea of real mpg is giving a look to sites like spritmonitor or fuelly and know own driving style and habits.

[Las Palmas]

6 minutes ago, Zotto said:

New consumption  standard tests WLTP are nearer to real use, even if still optimistic. The best way to have an idea of real mpg is giving a look to sites like spritmonitor or fuelly and know own driving style and habits.

When Toyota claim 3.1L/100km for the 2021 Corolla it is optimistic. I would call it fraud.

Not that Lexus or Toyota are much different from the rest, but somebody should start telling the persons making the test rules that data should be according to actual driving, following the law and traffic-rules and not something computer-calculated impossible to acchieve in real life.

Or do we just say: That is the way it is, and let them cheat us?

[royoftherovers]

That`s the way it is John and it appears that only you do not know that the figures are not to be believed.

[Las Palmas]

18 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

That`s the way it is John and it appears that only you do not know that the figures are not to be believed.

It is not that I do not know the figures are not to be believed. I am just surprised that everybody think this is OK. I do not.

[royoftherovers]

17 minutes ago, Las Palmas said:

It is not that I do not know the figures are not to be believed. I am just surprised that everybody think this is OK. I do not.

I believe that there has been a fairly recent case in Germany where a purchaser sued successfully for false description of fuel consumption figures. You may know more about this John ? 

There has not been a successful case within UK to my knowledge, nor will there be as the figures are merely illustrative of what might be achieved given certain conditions. 

[Zotto]

Actually the problem is that figures come from tests, SAME for all brands and strictly regulated, that are not possiblein real life. They are just a way to compare different vehicles  used in same testing conditions. That's all.

 

[Las Palmas]

39 minutes ago, Zotto said:

Actually the problem is that figures come from tests, SAME for all brands and strictly regulated, that are not possiblein real life. They are just a way to compare different vehicles  used in same testing conditions. That's all.

 

Pretty stupid or not?

Nobody seems to care. That is depressing. They are allowed to bull...t us.

Hope the German John told about win the case and we can get some better data.

[NemesisUK]

Given what I said in the last line of my post above, what sort of tolerance would you allow in the manufacturer's figures?

[royoftherovers]

6 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Given what I said in the last line of my post above, what sort of tolerance would you allow in the manufacturer's figures?

Who are you asking Peter ?

🤣🤣If you quoted the Sequential Number shown it would be most useful

[ColinBarber]

6 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

When Toyota claim 3.1L/100km for the 2021 Corolla it is optimistic. I would call it fraud.

Not that Lexus or Toyota are much different from the rest, but somebody should start telling the persons making the test rules that data should be according to actual driving, following the law and traffic-rules and not something computer-calculated impossible to acchieve in real life.

Or do we just say: That is the way it is, and let them cheat us?

I think Toyota are very transparent on their UK website:

[Zotto]

Besides, official papers say that CT200h makes 4,1 l/100 km, NOT 3,1 !!!!!!

[ColinBarber]

5 minutes ago, Zotto said:

Besides, official papers say that CT200h makes 4,1 l/100 km, NOT 3,1 !!!!!!

They have some additional figures on the European website, which aren't clear what they are but I assume are from one of the different test phases (e.g. city/low) but the 4.5 l/100 km is the official combined figure that should be used.

[Gsf grey solihull]

When driving ct 44mpg on short journeys and close to 50 on motorway but only limited use ,I’m happy with these figures. Strangely enough I never pay attention to mpg when driving the Gsf😂😂😂😂😂

[Sherra]

I live in a geographical bowl so when I return home my Battery is usually well charged however when I leave home I cannot make much use of said charge as the Battery is cold and I have to go uphill whichever direction I go. This means that my fuel consumption is not as stated it's something I just have to accept.

[BoutTime]

It's definitely situational. Our school run is a 28 mile round trip through town and across rolling countryside with lots of hills. On a cold winters morning I'll get about 53mpg. But on a warm summers afternoon with no A/C I'll get high 60s every time. The best I've managed is 72mpg on the same route which I've also managed on a trip back from Poole to Wiltshire (2 adults, 2 kids onboard). I can usually get 60+mpg on a long motorway trip especially with 50mph stretches included. My car currently shows 72.3mpg as being my highest achieved. I've driven it in Eco mode since getting it 18 months ago. I've just recently bewitched back to normal mode.

[Las Palmas]

On 4/9/2021 at 7:25 PM, Gsf grey solihull said:

When driving ct 44mpg on short journeys and close to 50 on motorway but only limited use ,I’m happy with these figures.  😂😂😂😂😂

That is more or less same as us when driving with AC on and follow traffic. And happy with it.

Why factories (all of them) are permitted to bull...t us is what I do not like. The morons that permit that way of testing should be handed another job. Cleaning beaches when oil is spilled and other meaningful jobs like that.

I rarely drive faster than 100km/h on motorway and 50 - 60 on small roads and in town. I hate to get fines and being booked by police since I retired, so should not have elevated use of fuel. That I have polluted enough with the big-engine cars I used to drive as fast I thought I could get away with, and usually was lucky was one of the reasons for a hybrid. If it is right that the extra load of a Battery and electric motor really helps on reducing fuel consumption or only gives the little engine more power when using the electric engine as a booster I do not know.

That Toyota on their web page tell us indirectly that they are not telling the truth in the ads for cars is not really admirably. Should they instead tell what they know?

Toyota here told us that the CT, we have, should be able to drive 100km and use only 3.8L.

Probably it is a good thing for us that Toyota show so very low consumption and pollution and get away with it. If real use data were shown we would have to pay more in taxes. Now we only pay pollution-tax for the manufactured data and yes: we must be happy with that.

[Las Palmas]

Now we have had the car long enough to know more about how much it does consume.

On short tours and mostly around in the city with hills up and down it is a bit more than 7L/100km if following the traffic flow.

If not feeling too ashamed about delaying other traffic, and occasionally having somebody honking the horn at us, it can get down to a bit more than 6L.

On longer trips on highway and mostly flat areas no problem getting it down to around 5L which is as good as a Golf 2.0tdi DSG but far more comfortable.

Having a card to BP we have been using their fuel until lately when I read somewhere in this forum, that Shell has something in their gasoline that cleans the engine, so tried that. Do not know if it is correct or just a coincidence but it seems that the engine (gasoline) is making less noise. Will continue with Shell a while to see if it is correct or not, but one thing is true: the gasoline from Shell smell very different to the BP gasoline (both 98 octane).

[Las Palmas]

Update:

When we bought the car we had a card from BP with benefits and always filled up there.

Computer in car told that we use 6.5 – 6.7 L/100km with that. Engine now and then started sounding a bit rough (a few times only, really).

Read somewhere, maybe here on the forum that Shell put more additives in their petrol and why not find out if there is something about that.

First thing: Petrol from Shell stink a lot more like gasoline. Now after having used Shell 4 fillings computer tell consume as 6.1 – 6-2. Engine no longer sound rough, but that could be coincidence.

About the computer in the car: It sure is telling something not correct. When filling and seeing how much gasoline we put on and calculate consumption, the real number is 5 – 7% higher. Do not think that both BP and Shell are filling in less than the counter shows.

[Barry A]

Just about every car we have had in the last 20 years, the on board computer (OBC) has registered a higher mpg than the reality!  I have come to the conclusion that if the OBC is reading something like an average mpg of say 60 mpg since I last filled up, I can expect to get a reading of around 56 mpg when I do the calculations the old fashioned way - ie. taking the number of miles covered and dividing that figure by the number of gallons consumed (having first converted the number of litres to gallons (Ltrs x 11 divided by 50)