Who has had a vehicle and achieved better mileage than advertised? Took the new Colorado for its first decent run. So hit the trip counter and got 8.2l/100km Tauranga back to Gis, 250 odd km. Advertised at 8.9l/100km
sw20,
Oct 20, 7:12am
Go by actual fuel used vs distance travelled. Not by what the car tells you.
morrisman1,
Oct 20, 8:28pm
most people will achieve better than advertised on the open road. The AA used to do an economy challenge, don't know if they still do, but the winner was the one who had the biggest margin over the advertised economy I think. it got won by an SS commodore ute once.
Trip counters are generally pretty good these days, The ECU's have a pretty good understanding of what's going on to meet all the emissions regs etc. If anything they can be more accurate than going fill to fill, unless you take the time to brim the tank to the exact same level that you can see in the filler neck each time and use GPS for your odometer.
bwg11,
Oct 20, 9:14pm
Yes, Wife's Swift Sport is optimistic by 1 litre/100.
marte,
Oct 21, 2:00am
With most Japanese Speedos out by 5-10%. This would affect any other readout on the dash & possibly make you think your car is getting better mileage than it is,
s_nz,
Oct 21, 3:12am
As mentioned above, Dash economy readouts are often quite optimistic. Doing this makes the car seem more economical.
Beyond that, fuel economy is highly dependent on conditions. Anything urban is very bad (for non electric or hybrid vehicles). Hilly is bad.
For general open road driving speed has a very significant influence. Driving 10km/h slower will have a very noticable impact. My lowest ever fuel consumption on a trip was during a holiday weekend where traffic was flowing at 75-80 (and cars stretching as far as I could see so no point in trying to pass anybody).
Windage has a massive impact too.
stevo2,
Oct 21, 4:52am
Our Mazda has a Manufacturers claim of 6.8lt/100km on 95 gas. We are using Gulls 98 fuel and its always sitting between 6.0 and 6.2lt/100km. When we do switch back to Z or Caltex 95, it goes up to 6.4 to 6.5lt/100km. I dont drive slowly either.
smallwoods,
Oct 21, 5:55am
Did a speedo check off GPS and speed was only 2km under dash speed. Even though "open road" it is fairly winding from Tauranga to Gis. Will fuel fill tomorrow and mileage check as well. Travelled at open road speeds, 90 -110km Passed cars and travelled behind others. So just normal driving conditions.
bigfatmat1,
Oct 21, 8:29am
no the inaccuracy is in the speedo only the odo will be correct its a adr requirement that the speedo must read higher than actual speed. If you have a scantool you would notice vehicle speed never matches speedo usually around 6% discrepancy.
bumfacingdown,
Oct 21, 11:21am
Everything factory, rims, tyres etc?
smallwoods,
Oct 21, 7:34pm
Remapped, everything else standard.
tgray,
Oct 21, 7:48pm
I have achieved a lot worse than claimed? C7 Corvette claimes 29 mpg (8.1L p/100k) and I achieved 28.2L p/100k, lol.
bumfacingdown,
Oct 21, 8:56pm
So not comparing apples with apples then
franc123,
Oct 21, 9:43pm
As much as I like having a trip computer in my car, the information it supplies is questionable. The old fashioned method of calculating average fuel consumption is still the most accurate and meaningful.
smallwoods,
Oct 21, 11:15pm
Yes, Colorado to Colorado. Remapped for more torque for towing. Would expect worse fuel economy?
bumfacingdown,
Oct 21, 11:36pm
Not exactly the same so no point in ""Better than advertised?"" because advertised was not chipped, why would you expect worse economy?
clark20,
Oct 22, 9:49am
Mines rated at 12.9, I have got 7.5 for 25km and under 10 for 100km (dash gives 25/100/500 distances)
saxman99,
Oct 22, 7:29pm
I can easily get worse figures! One of mine is claimed to be 10.4l/100kM, on the open road I've had it no better than 14.2 and combined cycle lifetime is 19.1, imagine what it would be like if I pushed it along a bit. ?!
smallwoods,
Oct 22, 7:45pm
Umm, it hasn't been RECHIPPED? All components are OEM.
You do seem to have trouble grasping that. Yes it has been re-MAPPED.
This was done for towing purposes, more grunt should equal more fuel? But not towing has shown better fuel economy.
The cars salesman was quite interested, even back when we got it remapped. Thinks it is a good idea and will pass onto others. A friend did his one at the same time and was staggered by the better towing.
bumfacingdown,
Oct 22, 8:09pm
Yes, of course
franc123,
Oct 22, 9:07pm
Care to elaborate who this salesman works for? No need to name names of individuals or companies, just if it is or is not a Holden agency.
smallwoods,
Oct 22, 9:56pm
Holden Dealer. He has known from the first day I was doing it. Test drove it after the mapping as well. Has been serviced since. No mention of warranty problems at all.
franc123,
Oct 22, 10:37pm
Haha ok. Assuming this vehicle is under 3yrs old rest assured any remapping of any ECU that is not done with Holdens (the company NOT the dealership) approval and with software that is not issued by GM WILL void your drivetrain warranty. If something does malfunction (motor/box/diff(s)) the ECM calibration is the very first thing they will want to know in the event of a claim. If the salesman does not know that then you have to wonder what else you may have been misled on. Good luck.
s_nz,
Oct 23, 1:44am
This varies by what exactly the remap is doing, but generally ECU tuning (remap) of diesel's results in greater efficiency.
In short, modern diesels need to burn extra diesel & scarfice power and torque, in order to keep NOx emissions at the required level. (or inject urea into the exhaust).
Quite easy to change the map to abandon the NOx constraint, improving power, torque & economy all at the same time. This is basically what the VW emissions scandal cars did (when the software detected they were being driven on a road, rather than being tested in a lab). Those cars were known to beat their quoted emissions figures as the quoted numbers were done in a lab in "limp" mode so to speak.
As such getting noticeably better fuel economy out of a remapped diesel isn't a great surprise.
Generally boost pressure, fueling profile etc are also changed. My understanding is the big performance gains come from cranking up the boost pressure.
Should note that remapping requires LVV certification to be road legal as it is not considered a minor engine modification. From LVVTA:
"Note: Minor modifications DO NOT include: . - tuning/re-chipping the ECU of a turbocharged or supercharged engine
Note: Tuning/Re-chipping includes any software or hardware (ECU or piggy-back system) change that is intended to alter the fuelling, boost pressure, or ignition timing from the OE specifications"
Seems that most vendors offering chipping / flashing / remapping services don't mention the above.
As per prior comments, re-mapping for increased power & torque will (assuming the brand notices) void the warranty on affected components. There is no way to avoid that sending more power & torque through a drive-train increases the stress on components.
socram,
Nov 4, 4:17am
Quite simple really.
Published figures are for a mix of driving including around town, meaning the occasional use of first gear and second gear which gobbles up the fuel in any car.
Most economical speed is usually cruising in top gear with a light foot on the right pedal.
However, our last 3 vehicles (autos) have either 9 or 8 speed transmissions and they just won't go into top gear until you are travelling at about 105kph.
Fuel consumption at that speed is remarkably good, but as soon as you come to a standstill and have to move off again, especially uphill, your consumption is stuffed.
Mine varies by about 40% overall, depending on local or long distance.
My (manual 6 speed) Cooper S computer shows initially, a range of well over 1,000kms which is fine, but that is based on the initial usage and the shape of the petrol tank = height of the fuel remaining.
Imagine a tank that is conical, standing on the base. As the level drops, you get more per cm. Turn it upside down, and the opposite is true.
Despite that optimistic trip computer in the Cooper S, I have yet to better 760kms from a tank - which is still impressive, but only possible when doing a series of longer runs, such as from home to Hampton Downs and back, or a long run to Napier and back, without encountering much traffic.
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.