RPM, a popular motoring show here in South Africa has some great car review segments. You should really check them out on their YouTube channel, RPMTV.
What is great about the show, compared to the now-cancelled Top Gear (which I love), is that they review cars aimed at the general public. They also provide sound motoring advice and insight into real-world practicality of the cars they review.
What is of particular value to me is the last shot after every car review, where the stats of the tested model are given. We see the typical manufacturer specifications for speed, torque, emissions etc, but crucially also the "price as tested" and the "economy as tested".
So often the list price leaves out accessories that some would find critical in vehicle, and the price soon blows up to get the car you really want.
And the same can be said for the manufacturer quoted fuel economy. Typically any quoted fuel economy can be increased by another 2l per 100 km, to see what you will actually get in real world conditions.
I saw this in last night's review of the Hyundai Veloster Turbo. Where the quoted economy per 100km was 7, but what the show achieved was closer to 10. And let me not heap the praise at one car show - you can find this same sort of statistics in car magazines everywhere.
Which brings us back to VW. They produce cars that optimise driving modes for different conditions, be it sport, comfort or economy. And they are not alone in this. These modes help adapt the car to the driver's proffered driving style and best use of the car.
Is it then such a stretch to think that they would create another driving mode called "Test"?
Surely we should lay the blame at inadequate testing methods that repeatedly mislead the public and are never questioned?
Comments