It is more realistic only because the EPA apply a 'correction factor' to adjust the test result closer to real-world numbers. he test that it starts from has no air resistance, no air conditioning or heater, a very slow acceleration rate, and a very low 'top speed' number. Then they manipulate the result. They have been applying a 22% fudge factor for many years, but in 2008 they came up with additional correction factors (to produced what they call new fuel ratings). The issue is that the final published number goes through so many adjustments that it loses any credibility as a test result, instead being a sort of poll of what the EPA thinks the number should probably be.

Regardless of how it's arrived at, EPA figure is closer to real world than the ECE R101 result and therefore does a job better of informing consumers. That's all both figures are are intended to do. They not deigned to keep engineers happy!

All I can say is that its lots in translation somewhere as I had expected and been informed that my e70 would consume less diesel than my e53, for my type of driving, mostly around town and on b roads it most certainly does not. the salesman said it would be better the bumph suggests it does yet in the real world, for me it does not even with plastic wings and bonnet!
On a positive note the camel interior looks nice, the auto tailgate is a must and the sat nav and new idrive and apart from a ridiculous gap at the top of the glove box where I can see the hinge system the interior is a nice and comfortable place to be. So some plus points there!

As I said first up, car makers are getting better at cheating the official fuel test (ECE R101) which is the figure that your salesman would have quoted. This is not just a BMW thing.

Yes I agree. Its very concerning. I am in no doubt technology has moved on but it does make you wonder if in actual fact what is happening is car makers are just now able to make their engines emmitt low c02 at the tested levels with emmissions at untested rev ranges being of no importance. i have no idea what the c02 test involves but it does make you question what is happening.
My other interest is how they make their engines cleaner. If a car burns deisel then my logic says that no matter how you ignite the fuel it must give off the same waste gas, so in my mind a litre of deisel burnt in a X5 will give the same waste product as a litre of deisel burnt in a 1980s ford escort diesel. If that is true does the cleaning up bit just come from the exhaust?

You are right. If you burn a litre of diesel you give off the same amount of CO2 no matter what. The difference is that a modern turbo diesel makes far more power and torque from each litre of diesel it burns than a 1980s diesel. In addition modern diesels reduce emissions of particulate matter, NOx and other bad stuff via DPFs, urea injection etc

My E53 3.0d 184 pk : 11.2 l/100km
My E70 3.0d 235 pk : 11.6 l/100km

Actually, my 2005 Ford Focus has consistently gotten better than it's EPA rating.

In our 8 months of Honda Civic ownership, we could never get anything near what the EPA suggested. If you drive normally, not crazy or mad in anyway, you will get 32 US mpg (7,4 l/100km) tops. In suburban driving, it averaged more like 26 US mpg (9,0 l/100km). I think the window sticker said 30/40 which is laughable, compounded by the fact that the 5-speed auto was geared to be absolutely useless.

I think the all-time record for useless gearing for cheating the EPA is the Chevy Impala, which run 130km/h @ 2000rpm in 4th gear and had a first gear that stretched to 90km/h. :confused:

What's been your experience with Fords?