Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

Just drove 400 miles, managed 43mpg taking it easy. Not exactly brilliant but not back for a 2.8 six pot which has a longtime (20,000 mile) average of 29.5 mpg in my ownership. However, all that meant is that the trip cost about the same as it did at Christmas, what with the increased price of petrol.

This hypermiling caper is quite interesting, but it does take a long time to get anywhere. Not sure I'd be able to eek much more out without dropping the speed to 40mph, which I think starts to get a bit dangerous on motorways. Best keeping pace with the slower trucks as a minimum.

I'm not sure if this is of any interest to anyone whatsoever. I suppose my point is that even a seemingly inefficient motor can get decent results in the right circumstances. My other car is a 1.3 litre with a longtime average mpg of 47. Both are 'bangers', 14 and 16 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just drove 400 miles, managed 43mpg taking it easy. Not exactly brilliant but not back for a 2.8 six pot which has a longtime (20,000 mile) average of 29.5 mpg in my ownership. However, all that meant is that the trip cost about the same as it did at Christmas, what with the increased price of petrol.

This hypermiling caper is quite interesting, but it does take a long time to get anywhere. Not sure I'd be able to eek much more out without dropping the speed to 40mph, which I think starts to get a bit dangerous on motorways. Best keeping pace with the slower trucks as a minimum.

I'm not sure if this is of any interest to anyone whatsoever. I suppose my point is that even a seemingly inefficient motor can get decent results in the right circumstances. My other car is a 1.3 litre with a longtime average mpg of 47. Both are 'bangers', 14 and 16 years old.

What's the 1.3 with 47? Pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the 1.3 with 47? Pretty impressive.

'97 Corolla 3 door, the newer shape (frog eye). Rakes of them about, don't rust like many Jap cars. I should say it is driven pretty slowly, it will go under 40mpg if you push it. The mpg we get is probably as good as it gets, there wil be others with these cars with 40mpg average. The handbook says 35mpg average, but that's too pessimistic. Still, it's done 15k miles for the 47 average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, ive upped my average from 36-39 to 42-45. Guess it all depends on the engine and gearing. I get the same mpg from a 2.4 at the moment as i did from the 1.0 i had previously. The difference is the 1.0 ALWAYS got 38mpg regardless of if it was city driving or motorway, whereas the 2.4 gets 45+ on the motorway or around 30mpg in town. Not much town driving atm though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good goıng.

Drıvıng a 2002 ford 2lıtre dıesel Estate gettıng 49.25 mpg drıvıng lıke mıss daısy, the other's a 1.3 petrol 16v 11 1999, gettıng 48 mpg also drıvıng gently.

hmm, seems like 40s mpg is achievable with pretty much anything if driven gently. I read the Honest John column in the motoring section of the Telegraph on Saturday, and more often than not there's a Q about some new car whose realworld mpg is nowhere near the rating used for tax purposes. Many new car sales have been on the back of improving efficiency and in a lot of instances it seems to be an illusion. Today's letter was from someone with a Fiat 500 'TwinAir', rated at 70mpg from the EU tests (with ECO mode engaged, it is one of the only non hybrids in the 0% tax bracket) but the writer was getting 30mpg about town. HJ replied to say he did a 610 mile trip in a TwinAir and averaged 48.3 mpg. A massive hole in your calcs when you are weighing up the pros and cons, and no real improvement on yours and mine. Nuts.

I guess the other consideration is safety. Most modern cars are much heavier, partly due to increasing protection. Must kill economy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently changed job role from a field based role (where travelling to office 2 days a week was paid for) to an office based role.

I only go to the office 3 days a week, but now i pay for the fuel. The office is 90 miles away!

When I changed role I negotiated a 25% pay rise (and the year before I had had a 12% pay rise) to cover the cost of fuel.

Im driving a new Renault Laguna Coupe - 2.0l diesel. I used to get 43 mpg consistently...but since I am paying for the fuel, I drive VERY conseratively. And now get 60mpg!!

What a difference...

Still have a couple of motorbikes for my speed thrill, but now the Laguna only ever does 65ish mph!

Wee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently changed job role from a field based role (where travelling to office 2 days a week was paid for) to an office based role.

I only go to the office 3 days a week, but now i pay for the fuel. The office is 90 miles away!

When I changed role I negotiated a 25% pay rise (and the year before I had had a 12% pay rise) to cover the cost of fuel.

Im driving a new Renault Laguna Coupe - 2.0l diesel. I used to get 43 mpg consistently...but since I am paying for the fuel, I drive VERY conseratively. And now get 60mpg!!

What a difference...

Still have a couple of motorbikes for my speed thrill, but now the Laguna only ever does 65ish mph!

Wee

60, wow. Petrol can't touch that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60, wow. Petrol can't touch that.

It can. Toyota Yaris 1.3 VVT I borrow sometimes the 6 speed MMT automatic version (which uses actuators on a sequential box) can get 57mpg real with 75% of the time on the motorway. I've managed to get 63mpg out of it once on the motorway drafting a lorry infront of me sitting at 56mph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can. Toyota Yaris 1.3 VVT I borrow sometimes the 6 speed MMT automatic version (which uses actuators on a sequential box) can get 57mpg real with 75% of the time on the motorway. I've managed to get 63mpg out of it once on the motorway drafting a lorry infront of me sitting at 56mph

I have just been in Poland for 2 weeks and hired a 1.5dci Renault Clio tourer. A lot of stop start driving around Warsaw and then up to Mazury lakes for a week. 1100km in total. I measured fuel consumption which worked out at 57mpg. Not bad for real driving conditions and car with 3 people in it and luggage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My other car is a 1.3 litre with a longtime average mpg of 47. Both are 'bangers', 14 and 16 years old.

I'm running a 16 year old car that gets 50 mpg - that's averaged over a year. It's a 1.7 diesel astravan.

Sadly, i'm going to have to scrap it this year, as rust has caught up with it. I bought it about 5 years ago for £340, and I expect to get about £150-200 for it scrap value. 5 years motoring for less than £200 depreciation doesn't seem bad to me. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60, wow. Petrol can't touch that.

Oh yes it can. My Toyota Prius does 60mpg no probs.

Automatic, family sized car as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And take the aerial down, plus tape up some of the body ducts which are largely cosmetic around the car to reduce drag as well.

Hard core is tapping down the windscreen wipers to aid air flow as well. :D

Thats nowt. I take an enema before each journey to minimize body weight :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats nowt. I take an enema before each journey to minimize body weight :P

There are signs at Narita airport in Japan that ask you to use the bathrooms in the airport before boarding aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can. Toyota Yaris 1.3 VVT I borrow sometimes the 6 speed MMT automatic version (which uses actuators on a sequential box) can get 57mpg real with 75% of the time on the motorway. I've managed to get 63mpg out of it once on the motorway drafting a lorry infront of me sitting at 56mph

ok, I stand corrected!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running a 16 year old car that gets 50 mpg - that's averaged over a year. It's a 1.7 diesel astravan.

Sadly, i'm going to have to scrap it this year, as rust has caught up with it. I bought it about 5 years ago for £340, and I expect to get about £150-200 for it scrap value. 5 years motoring for less than £200 depreciation doesn't seem bad to me. :D

seems reasonable. :P

I'm in major league depreciation by comparison- both of mine cost about £1,600.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently changed job role from a field based role (where travelling to office 2 days a week was paid for) to an office based role.

I only go to the office 3 days a week, but now i pay for the fuel. The office is 90 miles away!

When I changed role I negotiated a 25% pay rise (and the year before I had had a 12% pay rise) to cover the cost of fuel.

Im driving a new Renault Laguna Coupe - 2.0l diesel. I used to get 43 mpg consistently...but since I am paying for the fuel, I drive VERY conseratively. And now get 60mpg!!

What a difference...

Still have a couple of motorbikes for my speed thrill, but now the Laguna only ever does 65ish mph!

Wee

Have you tried the Laguna on biofuels, I can get biofuel which was a good 15-20 pence cheaper per litre however this is usually offset by higher fuel consumption.

I've can do London and back on just over half a tank full, thats a round trip, plus some East London pottering about (about 500 miles). Doesn't look so good compared with yours. My last trip I set off in the middle of the night, so use cruise control on the M1 and hang behind slow lorries, but the town/city driving in my C5 really kills the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried the Laguna on biofuels, I can get biofuel which was a good 15-20 pence cheaper per litre however this is usually offset by higher fuel consumption.

I've can do London and back on just over half a tank full, thats a round trip, plus some East London pottering about (about 500 miles). Doesn't look so good compared with yours. My last trip I set off in the middle of the night, so use cruise control on the M1 and hang behind slow lorries, but the town/city driving in my C5 really kills the economy.

Um cruise control is actually very bad for MPG even if you live in Beijing (Beijing is flat s a pancake). Add in any inclines and MPG drops badly with cruise control! Unless very very well designed (and they aren't) I read something long winded about it once, which I remember vaguely as it merely keeps you at a constant speed, which can be heavy on the throttle. Whereas the person doing the driving might change down a cog or accept the fluctation in speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not really saving money till you are moving the wing mirrors back to reduce the drag co-efficient. Hardcore.

...avoid opening the windows, saves fuel. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um cruise control is actually very bad for MPG even if you live in Beijing (Beijing is flat s a pancake). Add in any inclines and MPG drops badly with cruise control! Unless very very well designed (and they aren't) I read something long winded about it once, which I remember vaguely as it merely keeps you at a constant speed, which can be heavy on the throttle. Whereas the person doing the driving might change down a cog or accept the fluctation in speed.

I think you are probably right about CC. The computer is having to constantly adjust the throttle to maintain a constant speed. I did tend to knock it off on steep inclines though. If the car has a turbo, then the extra fuel consumption will be significant.

Curiously the acceleration is also far better through the cruise control too. Accelerate using the CC paddle and the C5 takes off like a space rocket, far faster than using the pedal.unsure.gif

I spoke to an owner of an identical car at the docks in Portsmouth waiting for the ferry and he confirmed the same phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are probably right about CC. The computer is having to constantly adjust the throttle to maintain a constant speed. I did tend to knock it off on steep inclines though. If the car has a turbo, then the extra fuel consumption will be significant.

Curiously the acceleration is also far better through the cruise control too. Accelerate using the CC paddle and the C5 takes off like a space rocket, far faster than using the pedal.unsure.gif

I spoke to an owner of an identical car at the docks in Portsmouth waiting for the ferry and he confirmed the same phenomenon.

The Golf TDi 2.0L pulls better in cruise control.

It's a knife edge between the CC being more or less efficient than the driver in my opinion. Mrs Posh gets consistently higher fuel economy at higher speeds without the use of CC so no point her using it. I admit my pedal work isn't great and bad habits lead me to bellow on the accelerator and at higher speeds (80mph real) I return 52mpg without and 55-58mpg with CC set to 86mph (80mph). When i'm not in a hurry I can achieve better than CC at lower speeds so I take over.

edit: to say Mrs Posh returns very nearly 60mpg with the needle on 90mph (83mph) and I don't know how she does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats nowt. I take an enema before each journey to minimize body weight :P

take the back and passenger seats out

wife and kids can sit on the carpet , tell your wife she can practice her yoga down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take the back and passenger seats out

wife and kids can sit on the carpet , tell your wife she can practice her yoga down there.

I'd go one step further and forgo the wife and kids in the first place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.