Car makers that lie about their cars . . . WHY !

Frenchdayz

The BMW 316 being a 1.9 WHY ?
The new Merc 6.2 engine labelled as a 6.3 WHY ?
Someone please explain !

Senna

how is it lies?? its a model, not an explanation.
really is that the biggest problem in your life??

colm_mcm

the only time I saw a blatant lie on a badge, was the Saab 93 1.8 - which was actually a 2.0

cabrwab

Thanks it does kinda annoy me too OP.
Especially when i recently saw a c63 amg pointed it out to a mate and i said sweeet, with a 6.2l engine nice. But written on the side it says 6.3L my mate was confused, i was accused of being a nerd!

The new 3series is strange as it was always easier when you saw a 316 you knew that it was a 1.6 car right!
Guess just leave it too annoy

walshy123

i wouldnt call it a lie!! its a model, they dont say it relates to engine size. historically it may have. as the years went by these models became established. but different size engines were in demand and so they kept the name and changed the engine size

FX Meister

i hate the way my vw golf is a car and not actually a game of golf. Its so misleading

cabrwab

check out the side of the new c63 amg it clearly states in big letters actually 6.3L, me thinks they are telling porkies!

On top gear when they reviewed it they were making fun of this fact, and seen one in the flesh is a bit wierd.

Heres a link to a pic of said badge

http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.motorauthority.com/images/Mercedes/C/C63_AMG/White/Mercedes_C63_AMG_White_MotorAuthority_001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/plugins/iimage-gallery.php%3Fidpost%3D3571%26idg%3D1%26idi%3D1&h=806&w=1200&sz=257&hl=en&start=40&tbnid=IQhg5Ds1Vn8tpM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dc63%2Bamg%26start%3D36%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Stevie Dakota

The real lie is average fuel consumption, you can take 10mpg of any average consumption figures quoted by a manufacturer, I don't know how they get away with it.

peasant

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

The real lie is average fuel consumption, you can take 10mpg of any average consumption figures quoted by a manufacturer, I don't know how they get away with it.

Because the average fuel consumption is measured on a machine according to EU directive suchandsuch and has nothing to do with real life driving.

It does however allow you to compare the relative fuel consumption for different cars before deciding which to buy. The values may be wrong in comparison to real life figures, but at least they are consistently wrong for all cars across the board

daveharnett

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

The real lie is average fuel consumption, you can take 10mpg of any average consumption figures quoted by a manufacturer, I don't know how they get away with it.

Well, at least accurate dynos have stopped big manufacturers from lying about performance figures!

-Chris-

They do the test as per this link:
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp

It may not be too accurate compared to real-life experience, but as Peasant says, at least all cars are tested in the same way and therefore comparable.

From what that link says, the biggest omission is air friction - if the testing's done on a dyno then you're removing a GIANT component of fuel efficiency. I wonder how they compensate for that...

L-M

colm_mcm wrote: »

the only time I saw a blatant lie on a badge, was the Saab 93 1.8 - which was actually a 2.0

Wasn't it the 1.8 was a 1.8, but the 1.8T was a 2.0 with the power of a 1.8 turbo? Annoys me too...
I won five euro yesterday on a bet with a fella as we were looking at a cl63 and i told him it was a 6.2, of course i wasn't believed but the tax disc proved all:D 6208 cc:D

daveharnett

Limerick-man wrote: »

Wasn't it the 1.8 was a 1.8, but the 1.8T was a 2.0 with the power of a 1.8 turbo? Annoys me too...
I won five euro yesterday on a bet with a fella as we were looking at a cl63 and i told him it was a 6.2, of course i wasn't believed but the tax disc proved all:D 6208 cc:D

Woah, hang on. 6208cc->6.3 is not misleading, it's just rounding up!

biggus

On the Merc they are hoping to evolve thoughts of the famous 300SEL 6.3, perhaps the next c63 will be a 6750 cc and they call it a C6.9 after the 450 SEL 6.9. but then again its more likely to be a 1,3 hybrid to be eco friendly and call it a C-Hy.3

Del2005

daveharnett wrote: »

Woah, hang on. 6208cc->6.3 is not misleading, it's just rounding up!

My maths teacher at school taught me that to round up it has to be higher then 5, so that would be come 6.21 not 6.3.

zAbbo

cabrwab wrote: »

check out the side of the new c63 amg it clearly states in big letters actually 6.3L, me thinks they are telling porkies!

On top gear when they reviewed it they were making fun of this fact, and seen one in the flesh is a bit wierd.

Heres a link to a pic of said badge

http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.motorauthority.com/images/Mercedes/C/C63_AMG/White/Mercedes_C63_AMG_White_MotorAuthority_001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/plugins/iimage-gallery.php%3Fidpost%3D3571%26idg%3D1%26idi%3D1&h=806&w=1200&sz=257&hl=en&start=40&tbnid=IQhg5Ds1Vn8tpM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dc63%2Bamg%26start%3D36%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Maybe I'm missing something, but that image shows 6.3 and not 6.3L

Frenchdayz

The point is its a 6208cc car and they label it as a 6300cc, can anyone explain why BMW have made the 316i a 1.9 because i looked like a complete thick telling someone their 1.9 BMW was a 1.6 ! The MPG is all lies too (they probably do their MPG test in a vacuum or something !), anyone checked if their car CO2 emmissions are correct ?

Frenchdayz

Do they give you BHP at the engine or at the wheel ?

Zonda999

Frenchdayz wrote: »

The point is its a 6208cc car and they label it as a 6300cc, can anyone explain why BMW have made the 316i a 1.9 because i looked like a complete thick telling someone their 1.9 BMW was a 1.6 ! The MPG is all lies too (they probably do their MPG test in a vacuum or something !), anyone checked if their car CO2 emmissions are correct ?

Interesting thing about emissions is that they are only true if you drive it within the speed limits.E.g, a lambo murcielago emitts about 400g of co2/km, which is pretty high.However, if you drive it like a lambo is supposed to be driven, well over 100mph, the co2 emissions would be in the region of 1000g/km:D

Anan1

Frenchdayz wrote: »

can anyone explain why BMW have made the 316i a 1.9 because i looked like a complete thick telling someone their 1.9 BMW was a 1.6 !

In all fairness, BMW have been doing this since the early 80s - it's something any car enthusiast would be well aware of.;)

Ferris

Anan1 wrote: »

In all fairness, BMW have been doing this since the early 80s - it's something any car enthusiast would be well aware of.;)

Big time, and they're still at it

523 = 2.5L
123d = 2.0L T/T
3/535d = 3.0L T/T
1/3/535i = 3.0L T/T

Its hardly a major conspiricy though!

zAbbo

Frenchdayz wrote: »

The point is its a 6208cc car and they label it as a 6300cc, can anyone explain why BMW have made the 316i a 1.9 because i looked like a complete thick telling someone their 1.9 BMW was a 1.6 ! The MPG is all lies too (they probably do their MPG test in a vacuum or something !), anyone checked if their car CO2 emmissions are correct ?

Where do they lavel it as a 6300cc?

All I'm seeing is a model number, I think in insurance terms, a 6208cc engine would be insured as a 6300cc

unkel

zAbbo wrote: »

in insurance terms, a 6208cc engine would be insured as a 6300cc

There would be a huge difference insuring a 6.2l or a 6.3l AMG Mercedes

As for BMW, they're getting worse with the model numbers. A previous 740 had a 4.4l V8. The coming 740 has only a 3.0l 6-pot :eek:

Marcus.Aurelius

unkel wrote: »

As for BMW, they're getting worse with the model numbers. A previous 740 had a 4.4l V8. The coming 740 has only a 3.0l 6-pot :eek:

That's a bit, blatant to be honest. I would prefer if they stuck to the engine sizes when describing their machines.

740 should be 4.0 V8 7 series

How hard can it be?

Then again, a 740 badge looks more impressive than a 730, at least for those who don't know any better

Balfa

Frenchdayz wrote: »

The point is its a 6208cc car and they label it as a 6300cc, can anyone explain why BMW have made the 316i a 1.9 because i looked like a complete thick telling someone their 1.9 BMW was a 1.6 ! The MPG is all lies too (they probably do their MPG test in a vacuum or something !), anyone checked if their car CO2 emmissions are correct ?

Would you prefer they have three different models all called 120d? ranging in power from from 120hp to 201hp?

In fact, to make sure they're not lying, they should really call all three models 11995d, because apparently you have to be accurate in your model names to the nearest millilitre :rolleyes:

or 11995164d, because it'd be immoral not to include the number of valves and the number of power windows in the model name, too.

Ferris

Balfa wrote: »

or 11995164d, because it'd be immoral not to include the number of valves and the number of power windows in the model name, too.

It might well make the arse of the 1-series look a bit better:)

L-M

Look like it's already been thought of

MCMLXXXIII

...which is why US-based car companies name their engines. They can change the specifications and keep the same name.

Esamples: GM Northstar, Ford Cologne, Chrysler Hemi

The Ford Cologne engine, over time, has been 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 and 4.0 litres, with 4 cylinders, and eventually tunring into a V6 over time.
And even though the Cologne changed over time, the Northstar has many different versions out at the same time, depending on which badge is on the car...so you never really know what you are going to get.

No, blatant 6.3 badges when it's a 6.2 isn't right...but at least you have some idea of what you are getting.

Also, for our mathamaticians out there, the Chrysler Hemi is 5654cc, which is rounded to say 5.7L.

Stevie Dakota

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

The Ford Cologne engine, over time, has been 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 and 4.0 litres

I imagine a 4.0 litre Ford Cologne would go like stink.

Frenchdayz

Balfa wrote: »

Would you prefer they have three different models all called 120d? ranging in power from from 120hp to 201hp?

In fact, to make sure they're not lying, they should really call all three models 11995d, because apparently you have to be accurate in your model names to the nearest millilitre :rolleyes:

or 11995164d, because it'd be immoral not to include the number of valves and the number of power windows in the model name, too.

No,:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: just the size of the engine i can roughly guess that a 2.0 has around 120bhp if its a four cylinder with no turbos. No need for anything else and its fair enought o round it off aslong as its not to make the car seem "bigger" than it is ! If they had on the badge how many electric windows there were on the car i.e. 4, then made 3 i would wonder why, wouldnt you ?

Frenchdayz

Also, for our mathamaticians out there, the Chrysler Hemi is 5654cc, which is rounded to say 5.7L.

Why ? why arent they happy with 5.6L ? I would be prouder of making a car with 300bhp from a 3.0L than lying about it being a 3.2L or anything else. I think the car makers are trying to out do themselves in engine size because they think thats what we do, real people dont sit in a bar saying "ohh ive got a 5.2L hah i win because you've only got a pewny 5.0L" they settle these things on tracks or talk about more important things like 0-60 times and BHP.