i think what the manufactures say about fuel consumption is the absolute minimum that particular car will use. there's a lot that determines fuel consumption including
how heavy ya foot is condition of air filter and injectors driving up hills or in a flat area stopping and starting all the time
holden say the VT uses 12L/100km, but reality is i use 14.8L/100km (according to the computer)
thejazzpianoma,
Jun 3, 7:49pm
I think its important to separate manufacturers claims from actual independent tests like the European driving cycle one. So long as you compare cars based on the same test you at least get a bit of a yard stick you can compare the relative economy of cars with. As mentioned the Euro cycle test is the better one as at least the cars are bought up to highway speeds etc.
Real world fuel economy sites like fuely are another good indicator, ,my only gripe with fuely in particular is the lack of proper distinction between engine sizes which is unbelievably stupid and disappointing. There are plenty of other similar and better sites though.
I agree that everyone's driving style and type of running is different, so everyone's real world results will indeed vary. However I disagree that all manufacturers or tested ratings are always optimistic. Certainly some manufacturers claims are. just look at the trouble Honda and Toyota have got themselves in to over silly claims about their hybrids. (Attempted class action and enforced alterations of economy claims in the states)
However test ratings can often be bettered and so can some manufacters claimed ones. Certainly I have absolutely no trouble getting better fuel economy than what VW rate their MK5 Golf as capable of. I suspect this is because the European test cycle is not ideal in terms of getting the car to settle into FSI mode. Likewise some of the Fiat ratings I have tested are easily exceeded, in particular the combined and city cycle.
smac,
Jun 3, 8:38pm
Those saying cc rating has nothing to do with economy are over simplifying things a little . Ok a lot really. A big engine will still take more fuel/air mixture to fill the cylinder.
However, as indicated above at open road speeds a higher torque engine (which TEND to be bigger capacity but less and less these days) will come into it's own with lower rpm.
Think about this - my 1800cc 4 cylinder is doing 2750rpm at 100kph. That's 2750X4 gulps every minute (11000).
A big lazy 6 is gonna do maybe 1600X6 .only 9600. But they're bigger gulps.so there's a little give and take.
However when accelerating the heavier car will tend to use more to shift the bulk. That's why the smaller higher torque direct injection petrol and equivalent diesels are making huge gains. They're benefiting from being able to push a nice tall final gear at open road speed, but have the lighter weight and smaller capacity to still be OK around town.
Having said all that, if you're in the market for another car, bin any thoughts of fuel economy being the deciding factor, it's not the biggest cost of owning a car. I completely agree with a comment make on this forum a while back - people decide what car they want, then if it's low, will use economy to try and justify that decision. Completely true.
thejazzpianoma,
Jun 3, 8:45pm
What! Its YOU thats over simplifying things. You present an academic argument that apply's only to engines using identical technology, and even then you are making assumptions about the drive train and not taking everything into account. In the real world you are comparing all kinds of different technology at the same time as CC rating's so CC ratings as an accurate guide for economy mean nothing. Just as CC rating does not represent any accurate correlation to power/torque anymore.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
smac,
Jun 3, 8:57pm
Not harsh.just as incomprehensible as usual ;)
Which bit of "don't use cc to judge economy and economy isn't the biggest cost factor of owning a car" don't you like!
I'm not trying to explain how to compare economy between two vehicles, I'm simply explaining how a bigger engine can achieve the same economy as small in certain circumstances, Sorry if that wasn't clear to you, however it was really intended for the OP.
tuttyclan,
Jun 3, 11:48pm
What would the highest $ be for your budget. There are plenty of under 4k cars that get great fuel economy. Personally (for me) a 1600cc manual car would be one of the more economical cars for open road travelling.The differance between a 1300cc and 1600cc, the 1600cc gives the extra power for hill climbing on the open road where as a 1300cc is working hard on hills but is zippy enough for around town.Going up to a 2000cc gives reasonable open road economy and great power but costs more around town.If you are doing all open road driving and little or no town work then a 1600cc or 2000 cc would be my pick.Let me know your budget and I will reccommend a car/s for you.
No they don't they awful cars to drive, to get anywhere you have to ring the living daylights out of the motor. The 1.4 turbo has no torque and in the the Passat it is completely overrated. The TDi' engines are a much nicer engine and make it a very nice car and very relaxed car for driving.
wrong2,
Jun 4, 2:05am
1300 = 325cc per cylinder
1600 is a 400cc cylinder
2 liter has 500cc per cylinder
1600/1300 are close at 100. 2 liter engines will never be as economical. cylinder sucks too much air comparativly
wrong2,
Jun 4, 2:08am
delusional
there are NO 2 liter petrols that will give over 21 km/L like Jazzman says they can
none
most econimcal cars ever have sub liter engines
juddy1,
Jun 4, 2:18am
Also tyre pressure has a bit towards fuel economy.bit more puff gives you more rollability,but not too much to chew through the tyres
wrong2,
Jun 4, 2:23am
thats driver behaviour
not really related to engine differences
guest,
Sep 26, 5:57am
Hi Dee,Thanks for your great message. You echo the meessgas of so many who have experienced amazing health benefits from the Daniel Fast. I am still humbled that God has called so many to this fast for spiritual purposes and then blesses them with more clarity, improved health and a closer relationship with Him. Again, He demonstrates His abundance.Choose Life Now is not the same as the Daniel Fast, although it was a response to those who wanted to continue their journey in health after their fasting time. CLN is for men and women who want to submit all parts of themselves to the Lord, including their physical body and engage the power of God working inside of them as they develop a lifestyle of health. This is an inside out way of living rather than diets being external. I will look into your question and get back to you. Meanwhile, I do encourage you to declare that which the Lord has already given your husband, which is health. I was healed from a disease I had struggled with for more than eight years when I started ordering my body to act in the way God intended it to behave. It took about two weeks, but I was totally healed from the disease. This was a directive from the Lord and completely scriptural. So use the mustard seed faith to accomplish big things using your faith-filled words.Be blessed!
guest,
Sep 28, 3:49pm
Just this morning I was pnariyg about my health. During this past year, I have gained 30 pounds from all the new stresses in my life. The extra pounds are greatly affecting my health, and I need good health because I am a caregiver for my husband and our cat who has a terminal illness. The next thing I know, after my prayers this morning, YOU and this program popped up. What can I say? I do hope you pray for us in your program! I need it!
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.