Fuel prices have been increasing steadily and rose at their fastest rate in April since 2000 by 5.44 pence per litre for Unleaded. These huge increases are driving up the total cost of ownership for a motorist, combined with new congestion charges, rises in road tax and insurance premiums.
In order to offset rising prices, the need for fuel efficiency has become one of the most important considerations for motorists when buying a replacement new or used car. This is why hybrid vehicles have gained in popularity due to efficiencies gained in miles per gallon (i.e. MPG) from using an electric engine at slow speeds or idling when MPG is low and an efficient combustion engine for higher speeds when the MPG is high.
Fuel effiecient Ford
Car manufacturers have also made new petrol and diesel cars much more fuel efficient, with smaller engines and lighter cars that extend the effective range by hundreds of miles on less fuel, leading to a better MPG.
In a recent study by Euro Car Parts, they created a uniform driving distance test to see how much the top ten most purchased cars in 2018 would travel the furthest on a tank of petrol, purchased at the same price of £1.28 per litre. It found that the Ford Focus (5th most purchased car) came top with a stunning 1,112 miles on a tank of fuel costing £66.75, with an MPG of 97.2 miles and a cost per mile (i.e. CPM) of an amazing 5.9 pence.
The Ford Fiesta, which was the most purchased car in the UK in 2018 managed to achieve 821 miles on a tank of fuel costing £53.76, with an MPG of 88.8 miles and CPM of 6.4 pence. VW Polo (6th most purchased car) came top for the least amount of fuel bought to fill up at £51.20, delivering an MPG of 91.2 miles and CPM of 6.4 pence.
|Top 10 Cars Sold in UK 2018 by Driving Distance on Full Tank of Petrol [Source: Euro Garages]|
|#||Model||Distance (Miles)||Tank Size (Litres)||Cost To Fill (£)||Miles Per UK Gallon||Cost Per Mile (£)|
|4||BMW 3 Series||1014.42||60||£76.80||76.8||7.5|
Not a natural skill
By contrast, the Vauxhall Corsa (3rd most purchased car) delivered a shocking 606.28 miles on a full tank costing £57.60, with an MPG of 61.2 miles and CPM of 9.5 pence. And perhaps most ironic of all, the smallest car by height is the MINI Hatch (7th most purchased car) it delivered 639.3 miles on a full tank costing £56.32, with an MPG of 61.2 miles and CPM of 8.8 pence, so clearly size of car does not determine fuel efficiency, but perhaps the MINI is heavier than its rivals, we’re not sure.
Commenting on the research, Chris Barella, Vice President of Sales at Euro Car Parts said: “Trying to travel on only one tank of petrol can actually be harder than it sounds. Driving efficiently doesn’t always come naturally!
“However, when purchasing a motor, it’s worth considering which cars are the most fuel efficient. The overall savings you could make could go towards the cost of a whole car after a few years!
“Not only is driving efficiently good for our pockets – it’s also better for the environment.”
Achieving an optimum level of fuel efficiency is extremely beneficial to saving money running your car as this test demonstrates, but if we all did this we would be driving at 60 MPH on the motorway. Under real-world driving conditions, we all change our driving habits and fuel efficiency based on when we need it. If we’re running late to pick up the kids, for example, we might go a little bit more urgently than normal and saving money on fuel is not on your mind.
It is recommended when considering buying a new or used car, sit down and calculate the total cost of ownership, not only the finance but also running costs.
Here is a good free calculator: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-1633412/Calculator-True-cost-running-car.html
You might be really surprised as the results could show a more expensive car is actually better overall than the cheapest, which could be a false economy. Vauxhall Corsa, the cheapest of the top 10 cars purchased in the UK proves this.
As ever PetrolPrices is here to help members to save money on fuel. In our estimates, if you always go to the cheapest places wherever you are by using our alerts, app and website the average person will save over £200 a year.
What do you think about these results from Euro Car Parts? Are you a proud Ford Focus owner and can confirm it’s amazing fuel economy or are you an embarrassed MINI driver? Let us know in the comments below.
Fascinating that these all appear to be standard fuel vehicles – where are the hybrids in all this?
They don’y understand.
It’s the top ten most purchased cars in 2018….
No mention of engine size or shape of fuel
Are these the manufacturers figures? If so none will get close.
Sorry but my Ford focus Mk3 eco doe’s
Wow no electric cars appear in this survey, am I surprised, no chance, when they do people might start buying them.
It’s the top ten most purchased cars in 2018….
They are far too dirty on emissions to warrant being in there. Work out the CO2 emissions for producing the batteries and the emissions from power stations producing the power to charge those batteries and you’ll realise that they are WAY MORE polluting that a diesel car!
The reality of electric cars and CO2 pollution!
Taking the example of a Tesla Model 3.
Fully charging a Tesla model 3 battery takes 80kWh of electricity (assuming the charger is 100% efficient, which of course it’snt).
Each kWh generated currently produces 238g of CO2. So charging the car from flat to fully charged actually generates 19,040 g of CO2 at the power stations.
The quoted range of a Tesla model 3 is 220 miles or 352km, so if we divide 19,040 by 352, we get the CO2 per km figure of 54.09 g/km.
However, to produce the battery for the Tesla model 3, it is estimated that around 14 tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This in mining and processing the lithium, etc. The battery life expectancy is approximately 8-10 years, so taking 10 as the example, that is 1.4 tons of CO2 per year on top of the charging.
Let’s assume 12,000 miles or 19,200 km per year. That’s 54.54 charges x 19,040g = 1,038,441 grams of CO2. Plus the 1.4 tons of CO2 for the battery ( 1,422,040g) and we get a total of 2,460,841g. Divide by 19,200km and we get the true figure of 128g/km. It’s actually 21g/km dirtier in terms of CO2 than my diesel hybrid at 107g/km, although I do recognise that diesels produce other pollutants too.
Hardly the “zero emissions” that we are all being told! And that’s just the start. We’re not taking into account the heavy metal pollution from used batteries or the amount of CO2 used in recycling them!
What’s worse is that the majority of the CO2 pollution is UP FRONT in making the batteries!!!!
The stats for power station emissions were taken from a live snapshot on May 3rd,
Very interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. Certainly opened my eyes to the costs of electric cars, proving it’s not just what comes out of the exhaust pipe that is causing the pollution!!.
You are talking out of your rear exhaust
I think you need to do a bit of studying and then you might realise how silly your words are! Far to many studies done to prove you wrong on all levels
1. C02 will continue to reduce since more energy is produced via renewable sources
2. What is the amount of pollution when producing a combustion engine and car
3. How do you think fuel is made ? Do you really believe no energy is burnt for distillation of diesel of petrol?
4. Hybrid cars…. A part from pertrol engine what is the other engine they use lol
Your comparisons are just p**s poor with no critical look at how are oil based field made and how much co2 they create during production
And a lot of the power used to charge EV s is taken from renewable sourced which no petrol or diesel is
I see no mention of Jaguar. I have a XE 180 R-Sport 2L diesel, VED band B, exempt ULEZ charge, 63 mpg. But of course this is the demonised fuel. Mostly water from exhust.
It’s the top ten most purchased cars in 2018….
That’s because diesel produces NOx . And I’d repeatedly said here this was not one of the ten most purchased cars in 2018.
Diesel Level 6 has NO emissions, mpg 74 best vehicle in class Mokka!
Euro 6 diesel engines still produce emissions, as do petrol and hybrid, just less of them (presuming you ignore the diesel scandal to which still more OEMs are being discovered)
Michael King, NOx is NOT considered to be a greenhouse gas and does not negatively affect global warming. In fact, if you read the scientific articles regarding global warming, you will find that NOx, actually REDUCES the global warming, so driving a diesel actually combats the effect of driving a petrol vehicle which produces far more CO2!!!! Diesel cars are therefore WAY more clean on greenhouse gases than petrol cars! You are totally missing the point on climate change, and so are the governments who demonise diesels!
But you don’t have to worry about greenhouse gas because you will have died from the carsogenic diesel emissions which ate lethal !!
I would never drive a lung blackening diesel…
Same here. Jaguar Xe 180 portfolio diesel. Extremely efficient car and clean.
All rather meaningless. Real world running costs and mpg is what matters. What about depreciation, maintenance, finance, reliability, comfort and driving enjoyment?
Why do people bother with these faux statistics?
It appeals to the unworldly. The figures are for small diesel engines, many of which become very costly to repair when they become older. What has been created is a situation whereby people buy new cars which will become have a shorter life due to high repair costs when they become older. This is done in the name of environmentalism.
IMO, environmentalism is being driven by the wrong people.
In reality, this is a Western European mentality thing about trashing older cars, phones, tv’s, washing machines, etc. We throw away very good stuff and buy new rather than repair. We live in the UK, but also have a house in Greece, where a 20 year old car (e.g. Peugeot 406 1.8 with 170,000 miles on the clock) in good condition can easily fetch €2500, whereas in the UK, it would be less than £500. Today, I have just bought a Citroen C4 from 2006 in Greece and it cost me €4500. In the UK a similar model, age and mileage would have only been around £1750 because of our “It’s too old, so throw it away” mentality!!! We really are pretty damned stupid in north western Europe and obviously have money to burn!
Addiction to salting roads reduces car life in Northern Europe. We tend to cover more miles than ever these days which also reduces car life. Because of this, a new car is a way to express wealth.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some great new cars on sale and advances in safety and tech are great. It’s just that they are targeted at very current issues and the long game is forgotten.
Like you, gohunter, one of the cars is an early 1990s Volvo. I decided many years ago that the definite direction things were going in was very uncertain. I knew lots of people were going to waste lots of money in pseudo-environmentalism. As I don’t know exactly where is is leading, I decided an older reliable car was the most environmentally responsible and cost effective way forward. I still view the populist environmental movement as a method for greater taxation whilst depleting resources at a greater rate.
Totally agree with you. I have noticed a steady decline in repair shops as new items become cheaper & cheaper so not cost effective to repair. I despair of our throwaway Society, on one hand the young are gung ho for saving the environment and the other they are buying the latest phone/gadget/fashion item., and what happens to all those discarded items. What happened to buying for life? That would be the biggest effort in saving our planet. My parents bought things for life TVs, sofas, carpets, even shoes….that should be the next movement to saving our precious planet…..making things last for life!
97 mpg from a petrol Focus, really?
Leon B. Must have a 97 mile long track somewhere to get anywhere near 97 MPG with a FORD. maybe it would be a little more believable if it was a typo and they mean Kilometres not miles.
You may have hit the nail on the head there Pennywise , the true figures will be kilometres not miles.
And the track must be facing down hill all the way.
My Ford Focus diesel is giving me 38mpg – oh well
It must be the way you drive it, my 7 year old 1.6 Focus has done 55.0mpg since I bought it at 3years old. Driving in a 40 limit at about 40mph in 5th gear the fuel meter stays at 90+ .
On the other hand my partners 18 month old 1.0 turbo petrol does no better that the mid 40s mpg, in general running around.
That’s bad my disco gives 30-32 mpg
Also the new JLR diesels give out no nox so why demonise?
My motability car, a Toyota Verso 7 seat diesel was doing, at best, 41.6 mpg until I purchased one of the oft advertised “ecoOBD2” gadgets which plugs into the OBD2 socket just behind the bottom of the dash. All I had to do was to press the reset button and drive at least 200 km. The mpg reading from the onboard comp has now risen to 52.2 mpg. Granted, I do try to drive as economically as possible but I’m not complaining. I don’t need to rush anywhere so I can happily pootle along at just about 56 mph. I’m keeping pace with truck speeds on motorways and dual carriageways and I’m within the national speed limit on most of the A class roads and slower as indicated. I usually set the cruise control to the various speeds that signs indicate and only vary that if the conditions change. Likewise, the auto stop/start engine control turns the engine off at lights etc. though the engine tends to restart after about 1 minute so I turn off and restart manually if say, the lights change before I get to them.
A very smooth track and someone with very light right fooy
It was downhill all the way!!!!!
Wish my one would do that MPG.
The article is nothing but titillation since it provides no details of the test involved, where the fuel was purchased, whether different fuel blends favour different cars, what size engines were in each test mule etc
Reading the original study, this is based on those oh so reliable old EU mpg figures, not even the newer supposedly more accurate one. They have taken the best mpg figure for each model, and multiplied it by the capacity of the fuel tank. No realism of any sorts. A complete waste of time reading it as the results bear no resemblance to reality.
Without any detail of how the comparison tests were carried out and the exact models used, the results of such tests are potentially misleading.
With these MPG the Fiesta would not pay to get into London.
My Hyundai Ioniq PHEV does true 65 MPG on petrol so beat that Fords.
I bet Fiesta would be 53 MPG in real world on summers day without air con.
900 miles+ out of a full tank of fuel for a non-plug-in hybrid? IMHO – NO WAY. You only have to look at the Real MPG figures on Honest John’s website to show these figures can’t be real world, and those closest are the underpowered, slow diesel engined cars that aren’t popular apart from for learner and newly qualified drivers. Even then, you probably have to tippy-toe around and have just the driver and no passengers or other load in the car. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these ‘tests’ were carried out on rolling roads.
Well, I can get nearly that on a long slow journey in my Saab turbo…but it does have a 18 gallon tank!
I’m impressed by all results. I have a Honda CRV 2014 model. Only average around 32 mpg.
These figures will be for a flat area, what about hilly areas as were I live that will knock the figures quite a bit.
These figures seem to be for flat areas, factoring in hills as where I live will knock the fuel efficiency quite a bit.
i am really skeptical about these figures?! Over a thousand miles on a single tank?! if its really true, then y bother with hybrids, diesels and electric vehicles?!
can someone verify if the makes and models on the list really delivers that sort of mileage, i’d be surprised u get HALF of the mileage that the vehicle actually travel.
obviously the method of calculation is realistic actual driving conditions, not the on board computer or the spec sheet from manufacturere.
i usually use the below methodology to calculate
1) fill up fuel tank to the max, (let the pump stop on its own).
2) press the trip to reset to 000
3) drive until the low fuel indicator appears, give or take another 30 miles after that (when the light is lit constantly)
4) fill up to the max again until the pump stops on its own, then round it off to nearest litre.
5) look at the trip meter and see how many miles covered
6) do the maths for Miles per Litre then convert to MPG…
after a few rounds you should see a relistic average of mileage per full tank to evaluate if it does what it say on the tin.
Very few cars can achieve 90 Mpg in the real world of driving. Are these tests done in the lab ?? With no passengers or luggage and no wind resistance?
Ia lab at 20 deg C will be more efficiency for an engine than at 10deg C
These figures are totally unrepresentative of what cars can actually achieve. There is no mention of diesel or petrol. No mention of engine size or model. The weight is not mentioned either!!
They weren’t driving to work in rush hour traffic when they achieved those MPG’s.
Just saw some pigs flying. No way in normal use could they give these figures so more hype not to be believed.
Why only small cars most families have bigger cars???
At what speed were the cars going to achieve such figures ? Was any town driving involved ? The figures need to be realistic to real driving and not at a constant speed around a race track as I suspect this was how these figures were obtained. My Skoda estate can do a good 60 plus per gallon per month to cover all types of driving. Now get these cars mentioned above to give figures for a month’s proper driving and let’s see where they really fit on the chart.
Visit http://www.fuelly.com for real world consumption data.
The European figures currently used are not constant speed but procedures are clearly inadequate.
The WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Proceedure) will replace European standards and hopefully there will be less doctoring vehicles and fudging results.
A couple of corrections: “effiecient” in the heading and the right hand column should be headed pence, not £
What nonsense. Shame on you for publishing such trash. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I will stick with my Jazz which does 55 mpg in genuine real world conditions.
I have a 2014 Honda Civic 1.6 diesel which has averaged 54mpg from new in all driving conditions. The manufacturer figures stated over 80mpg could be achieved but there is no way this is possible unless on a rolling road with no wind resistance, hills and traffic.
A family member’s Jazz DSi does mid to high 40s mpg which is a little above 350 miles from a tank. I suspect the CVT transmission reduces economy by selecting lower ratios going uphill or if travelling above 65mph. Perhaps the manual is better in that respect but it just isn’t suited for motorway travel. It is best in largely urban conditions where the light weight and small tyres keep mechanical drag low.
Lack of diesel DPF stuff means reliability is good and repair costs are low. IMO, small petrol seems best for local running but diesel is still better in the only place it truly makes sense; motorway driving.
I have replaced my 9 yr old fiesta for a 2yr old fiesta ecoboost and am reaping the rewards. More miles approx 20/30 to a tank definitely a tiger in the tank !
These look more like fantasy rather than fantastic figures.
Why is there a category for the lowest cost to fill a tank? Surely that’s just the smallest tank?
We have two 1 series BMWs. Mine is a 140M but my wife’s Is a 1.6d. Both 2018. My wife’s 1.6d just covered 410 miles from Northern Highlands to Lancashire. At 60/70 road legal speeds it returned 76.8 mph in eco-pro mode
Whilst that’s impressive, just to point out, the only way to be sure of that is by filling and then refilling to the brim. I had a 2001 3-series and the computer was consistently optimistic about its fuel economy to the tune of 25% when compared to the figures obtained this way. The main dealer told me there was nothing wrong with the car / computer when I asked them to investigate.
I am struggling to believe these figures as well, I have three brothers who have had Ford Focus and Fiestas, -whereas I have a large 2.5ltr 3.5 ton high top van and still get a better MPG -, having travelled with them in their own cars I can safely say 1 of them is sensible. My Mum has a Vauxhall Astra and that manages 36MPG on a good run ( if dad drives it tends to be about 25MPG ) so call me sceptical, I have a friend who has a Toyota Yaris Hybrid although not run in (4000 miles on the clock) it only gets about 65 – 70MPG and that has Shell optimum fuel – never had anything else as he lives next door to the Shell garage.
About time that Petrol Prices.com got back to just doing what it says on the tin and stopped sending out these click-bait articles.
All we want is a site that let’s us simply know the cheapest forecourts in the area.
Don’t go over thinking it, just return to what the principle of the site started as.
“VW Polo (6th most purchased car) came top for the least amount of fuel bought to fill up” – wow, it won the smallest fuel tank award.
Don’t trust an article that doesn’t mention the engine types or specific models, and says “Cost Per Mile (£)” with 5.9 being the cheapest.
With electric cars the range is probably at the very bottom of the list (an embarrassing 70-150 miles on a full charge for most electrics).
The cost to recharge would be around 24 quid on a rapid charger (which could take up to 2 hours!). Or you can spend 8-12 hours recharging on a normal socket!
All in all the vital stats for electrics are too embarrassing to even mention here!
This is just like some of the BBC’s articles – not enough detail to take seriously and fuel costs are only part of the cost of ownership. As cars are now full of plastic and weigh more than they ever did in the past (due to the sheer weight of materials) the environmental impact of manufacture and disposal is a massive factor in climate impact that goes totally ignored.
The standard of driving makes a huge difference to fuel consumption
interesting, but no details of engine size and fuel type… which are pretty critical really!
No mention of made of engine size.
I don’t know where they got the figures for the focus as I have a 2017 Petrol model and I only get 38mpg. And I’ve never heard of anyone getting anywhere near the figure of 97mpg..
I don’t need a big car or a status symbol so I’m more than happy with my Suzuki Alto doing 70 mpg
I could believe the stats from the Polo. I bought a 1.0TSI 95BHP Polo last year and drive down from London to Plymouth and used about than 2.5 gallons for the journey by driving at exactly the perfect speed and braking very little, switching off all aircon, etc. It is not very real and not repeatable, but I was trying to see what is possible. Most of the time, I need to be somewhere, or it is raining, or it is night, or it is too hot or too cold, etc, so that is not repeatable in most cases.
I always do at least one trip in each of my cars, just to see what it is capable of. The MPG meter was showing up to about 87MPG at one point. It is a boring journey, seriously, but from an experimental standpoint, it is interesting (well, it is, for me).
I would like to know which engines and drivetrains they used for the experiments (and I might do some more research on this).
What a pointless table. Ranking a 3 series higher than a Polo, due it’s 50% bigger tank, is stupid. MPG is the only useful ranking. Secondly, how about some specifics on the models? Focus ST? Golf GTi? BMW M3?
Well I have just bought a Fiesta TitaniumX petrol Automatic but I am not able to quite achieve 40 MPG and costing nearly £200 car road tax.
So much for petrol being better than diesel !
Very disappointing especially as my five year old Fiesta Titanium TDCI does 60mpg with nil £ for road tax
An electric or hybrid is currently not a Ford option
I get 58 mpg average with my Focus (65 reg) driven fairly hard.
This ‘study’ is as meaningless as the official government fuel figure. It does not set out what speeds, terrain, traffic conditions, weather and climate conditions, tyre pressures, rates of acceleration and deceleration, weight of car as operated.. I get a comparable MPG from a MG ZTT diesel to my Wifes Skoda Fabia 1.2 petrol which for a 1.2 is awful. The great big MG returns around 46mpg and the Skoda around 49mpg. I drive economically, slowing down in gear when I see the lights are red or approaching junction with cars in the way. Acceleration is gentle and changing gear early, I play the game of increasing the range figure on the computer when driving, but I do not dawdle cruising at around the 60ish on A and B roads if possible and slightly above 70ish on dual and motorways.
Have you thought About factoring in being stopped in traffic or being made to crawl along at 20mph, emergency braking change in weather conditions, all aw factors in the usage.
Sadly as large “Bricks” of SUVs continue to gain in popularity so does the overall fuel efficiency plummet. What is frustrating to me is people being swayed by the advertisers as car companies make a load more money off these bricks and the inside dimensions are no bigger than a regular car, it’s just higher up. If you want to save fuel avoid SUVs!
surveys can be done to produce any result the survey requester wants I just ignore ALL surveys My little Suzuki averages over 65 mpg and it is always driven hard not p***y footed at all
Oh ,so you don’t stick to the rules of the road your self then? I seem to remember someone having a pop at others for driving hard.
I have a BMW 2 series automatic diesel tourer using the eco pro, will get me to Callender Scotland from Totnes Devon with a quarter of a tank left which I feel is great mileage.
Which model of the cars does this apply to?
Don’t know where they get these MPG figures come from? I have a 2016 Fiesta (I have always had Fiat’s before now, wish had stuck to them) Anyway the MPG which is suggested in my Fiesta is rubbish, ie – Motorway driving (so no gear changes or hills) on my own with nothing else (no extra weight) in the car only me at 13 st and travelling at a constant 50 mph (M6 road works cameras) the trip metre read only 34 mpg, was a good job i was sitting down at the time. so to honest the figures for a Fiesta MPG that are put about are c**p.
Don’t think I will be buying a Ford again.
My 8yr old Auris petrol hybrid gives 54/56 mpg average, computer (and full tank to full tank checks) on long runs. 70/75 indicated motorway speeds on cruise. But an easy 65 mpg on our diesel Bippa van! The Auris rolls very gently around town 80% electric, so I’m trying to do my bit for low pollution.