Mitsubishi responds to real world fuel economy criticism

By Fleet News
|
24 April 2015

Mitsubishi has said that the current test regime for fuel consumption “does the industry no favours”, after an independent test found that the real world figure for the Outlander PHEV differed by 120% to the official figure.

In response to the Which? findings, Mitsubishi said that the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) which manufacturers are required to put every new model through and publish the results is “outdated”.

It pointed out that the NEDC test was created in the 1970s and takes no account of current plug-in hybrid technologies.

Lance Bradley, managing director at Mitsubishi, said: “The current test regime for emissions and fuel consumption is outdated and does the industry no favours.”

Most manufacturers, including Mitsubishi Motors, make clear that the figures are for comparison purposes and are not intended to reflect what customers might actually achieve, as this will depend on many factors, including driving style.

The official NEDC figure for the Outlander PHEV is 148mpg. However, with average UK daily commuting distances the vehicle can achieve considerably more than this, according to Mitsubishi.

It said that the 67.3mpg suggested by Which? is good for a large 4x4 SUV like the Outlander.

It also pointed out that it has “always made real life mpg very clear in its advertising and printed material”.

More articles on:

Mitsubishi

Author: Fleet News

Comments (12)

Login to comment

Comments

r Burr - 24/04/2015 12:27

wow cant believe it, I saw the advert last night and approached my boss today as my current lexus hybrid was due for renewal. Based on your information I am now going to retract my request to have one. Sorry Mitsibishi :-(
- 1
- 4
Darren - 24/04/2015 13:58

From the adverts I have seen, Mitsubishi very proudly state that the fuel economy figures are 148mpg. They do not say that they are 67.3mpg in large letters across their adverts. The info suggesting real world figures may differ are small print info, most potential purchasers would accept that they may be different, but would not expect 120% shortfall. Maybe 20-25% at the worst!
- 2
- 2
Bob the Engineer - 24/04/2015 18:59

It depends on the type of use. Nothing on earth is going to do 148mpg all the time and only an idiot would think it possible to propel a 2 ton SUV with so little fuel indefinitely. I regularly do journeys in my PHEV and get far, far greater than 148mpg. But I also do long journeys that I only get 35mpg. If my usage were all short journeys I could laugh in the face of 148mpg as I would get way beyond that. Unfortunately the OFFICIAL test which they must use and quote is only a few miles long so of course it gives good results for hybrids that can run it on battery. Actually Hybrids have to do the test with a full battery then again with a flat battery (using petrol) then an average is taken. A real world average of 67mpg over varied use is still astonishing! compare to say a Range Rover that does 20mpg all the time regardless. What Mitsuishi is struggling with is people have not grasped the differences between a regular hybrid like a Prius that uses the battery/motor to temporarily store surplus power to temporarily aid the performance of an essentially underpowered engine at times of high need like accelerating fast as a way of trying to be more economical - And a plug in Hybrid like the Outlander that has a much bigger battery and range and works differently, until the battery is used up and then it works like a Prius. A normal hybrid with a small battery/motor will start to average out its mpg figure over just a few miles and be fairly constant like a regular car. A plug-in can do 30 miles using no fuel - infinite mpg, then the rest using quite a lot of fuel. No one can say 148mpg is right or wrong, for some it will be vastly underestimated, for other vastly overestimated. Suppose you do a 60 miles trip, 30 at 0 mpg then 30 at 35mpg, so then you did 70mpg effectively. I think its unfair to hammer Mitsubishi, they are stuck with the test and if thats the numbers it gives why shouldn't they use them like everyone else? (who from the other results are clearly fudging normal cars quite a lot anyway)
- 15
- 0
Polly - 27/04/2015 08:23

I never expected to achieve the quoted 148mpg - particularly on long journeys, but I have done lots of journeys where my consumption is 0mpg. It depends on what your usual journeys are as to whether this car suits you - Mitsubishi themselves have said that if you generally do longer journeys, then the diesel version would be more fuel efficient, and have always stated in their written literature that the 148mpg does not reflect real world economy. I for one am very happy with my Outlander PHEV.
- 3
- 0
Stevie - 29/08/2015 01:09

I also run a phev as most of my journeys are of around 15 miles or so out and back I put £20 of petrol in it three weeks ago and have hardly used any,I have owned many 4x4s and this is by far the most economical one, bring on the snow.
- 1
- 0
Graeme - 30/01/2016 23:39

As usual the testing authorities are way behind. I often wonder what these people get paid for. All this talk of getting 148mpg is of course utter nonsense. And others claiming to get even more than this. What should be quoted is quite simple. With a flat battery what is the mpg for urban, motorway etc. Just as pure petal care are quoted. You can not say it gets 148 miles to the gallon of petrol (mpg) because for most of that you are not using petrol. You are using an alternative fuel. Eg. If I pushed my car for 100 miles and then drove it on petrol for 36 miles and used 1gallon of petrol you would not expect to claim 136 mpg!!! No the mpg is 36.
- 1
- 3
Charles De Mar - 02/02/2016 10:50

The current test result does not stop Mitsubishi (or other hybrid makers) selling the vehicle to fleets with the stated emission figures to lower the BIK either and charging a premium for it. What a con.
- 0
- 1
Busterrabbit - 02/02/2016 12:58

Most Outlander PHEV drivers have one for one reason, low BIK based on emission's. They overlook that once beyond the quite modest electric range it is just a petrol engined SUV, and who would want one of those? It's an electric car with poor range and an even worse "range extender" petrol engine, which is working too hard too often in such a large car, hence the very poor MPG over longer runs. The diesel variants aren't particularly popular so it's certainly not the car itself that's attractive. The main reason for purchase is low CO2, but if the short range works for you there are better electric vehicles out there.
- 0
- 4
- bob the engineer - 02/02/2016 17:55
  
  Actually there are not. Buy a short range electric vehicle and your stuck with a short range vehicle or tedious (and risky) charger hops for longer distance. The PHEV does a reasonable job of the short range electric bit based on many peoples profiles (we can use it all weekend locally purely on electric easily) but also can do the long hauls effortlessly too. I disagree the engine is working too hard, its a modified cycle engine designed for the task and provides adequate power with a battery reserve giving a 'turbo' effect when higher performance is needed, it makes a lot of sense not to fit a more powerful engine that is only called upon to provide all its power briefly as in most cars. There are not better electric cars if you don't have £60,000+ to spend, don't want to sit low down in a little car, need to carry a lot of gear, want to tow and want 4WD - any or all of these factors.
  8
  
  0
Gary - 17/06/2016 14:05

I cant believe that they can get away with the figures they quote and not only that but they have actually gone up. I am lucky to 40mpg no matter how I drive
- 0
- 0
Chris - 06/08/2016 09:56

PHEV will be outed soon for outrageous MPG claims just like VW Diesels were for their emission claims. You don't get something for nothing in this world and the adverts for Misubishi PHEV (and BMW i8) suggests that you do. Test cycles should be outdoors on real roads (hills and motorways included) and should be for at least 300 miles. Let them claim 1.5million MPG for first 20 miles by all means (but tell the truth about longer journeys), but that is not real life. Bob the engineer claims a PHEV can do 30 miles (sic) 'using no fuel' - so electricity is not classed as fuel any more ? where does it come from ? All electric vehicles do is move pollution from vehicle exhaust back to the power station - and makers are allowed to gaily claim 'zero pollution' for their vehicles. As things stand today we have no cost-effective way of storing bulk electricity so it has to be generated in real time - solar power doesn't work overnight (when most people will want to charge their cars) neither does wind, notice how wind tends to drop at night ? that leaves Fossil and nuclear power stations, both of which governments are trying to get rid of to prove how green they are - so we are cutting back on stable, reliable electrical generation methods just when electric cars are coming on-stream - great thinking you guys - and when things get scarce the price goes up, so electricity will soon cost more than petrol mile-for-mile.
- 1
- 1
Alan - 20/02/2017 10:14

The problem is without being charged or travelling over 100 miles on a motorway at anything over 60mph the average fuel consumption is an optimistic 40mpg and often below 30mpg. The 148 mpg and 67 mpg figures also fail take in the cost of electricity. If you only travel within 30 miles from home and can re charge in work it may make sense. It is far less economical than your modern average diesel estate. I wasn't stupid enough to ever believe the 148mpg would be a constant average but I did expect to average over say 50mpg. I have leased one for 2 years sending it back as it dose not make economical sense.
- 0
- 0
John Dudley - 20/12/2020 23:54

Just in case anyone is considering buying a 5 year old used Mitsu PHEV, like I have, I wouldn't pay much heed to the comments on here. If you drive it properly, 23-24 mile return journey costs about £1.20 electricity charged from home (3-4 hours charging on standard 3 pin plug). Fully charged and a run on fast roads over around 80-100 miles you can achieve 60-65 mpg. I do a long run (320 miles return), with just the charge beforehand and still achieve 39mpg - twice what a range rover would achieve and at PETROL prices - not diesel. I couldn't be more pleased with mine - had to mention it - some of these comments just wound me up
- 0
- 0