|
My father's Audi 100 sadly got in the accident from the back after a little lorry had brake failure smash at 20mph thankful it did not happen at 56mph.
When the car was taken away to the sc***yard, I thought about the older cars how great they were, because they had very big fuel tanks the Audi 100 is 80 litres (+1 overfill) it did over 700 miles from 1.8 petrol engine injectors I think. It was an amazing trip from my home to Scotland when we went on holiday in 1997 my father only filled up once in a week!
Now I see most modern cars have very limited fuel tanks than what I see back in the 1990s. My car is a Toyota Argyo 1.0 vtti 2017 it has 35 litres with a range under 280 miles is pathiec.
Is that something to do with emissions to reduce the weight of the cars to downsize the tank?
Fiat 500 is 28 litres, Panda 35 while the old for an example Citroen AX 43 litres, the Peugeot 205 it has 47 litres!
|
|
Perhaps designers felt that with engines becoming more efficient, tanks could be made smaller without reducing range too much. Peugeot 205s had a tank holding a nominal 50 litres fitted under the back seat - which sets a practical limit on capacity in a fairly small (certainly by today's standards) car. And except in spa***ly populated areas it is never impossibly far to a filling station, tho sometimes quite a lot further now than it used to be !
|
|
Weight and its effect on fuel consumption as per the standardised tests.
|
|
The OP is comparing tank sizes between a large estate and a variety of city cars. An Aygo is hardly likely to be used for a family holiday.
An A6 is probably the closest to the 100. The quoted 700 miles would equate to around 40mpg in the 100. The current A6 Avant has a tank capacity of 63L which to travel 700 would require a figure of 50mpg. I think that's not impossible given more efficient engines, even the 2.0TFSI.
|
|
|
|
The WLTP test has to be carried out with the fuel tank at least 90% full. A large tank will therefore increase the fuel consumption in the tests.
|
|
Our 2017 Skoda Superb 1.4TSi had a 65 litre tank and on a typical Scottish trip (we do 2 a year) it would average about 53 mpg giving a theoretical range of 750 miles. We never ran it past 700 miles but as in the OP's post we only had to tank up once during the week.
Just a few things to consider. The performance of the 1.4 TSi would be way better than the 1.8 Audi (no doubt the same engine fitted to the Golf GTi - great engine but only 112 bhp compared to 148 bhp in the 1.4 TSi) and I would also suspect that the Superb was way heavier than the Audi 100.
So with less fuel on board we had a bigger range and better performance, that is progress.
|
|
The reasons for smaller fuel tanks has already been covered - weight, emissions, better mpg etc.
But I really don't understand the need for a 700 miles range, save for those with cast iron bladders allowing 10-15 hours in the driving seat without moving. Perhaps they wear nappies and are fed and watered via a tube.
|
The reasons for smaller fuel tanks has already been covered - weight, emissions, better mpg etc.
But I really don't understand the need for a 700 miles range, save for those with cast iron bladders allowing 10-15 hours in the driving seat without moving. Perhaps they wear nappies and are fed and watered via a tube.
Unlike most EVs, drivers of IC cars can stop for a comfort break without having to refuel the car every time.
A 700+ mile range enables visting remote areas on holiday where fuel is scarce/expensive and returning home to where you normally refuel.
|
|
We had a 2.2 5 cylinder Audi 100 estate from new, bit of a whale, but boy was it good. and yes west midlands to the french alps on a tankfull and refuel at a supermarket before setting off back home. Comfort stops on the N roads. sample route Dunkirk lille maubeuge reims gray besancon over into switzerland then geneva up to chamonix. no tolls relaxed driving and some nice food both ways.
|
My father's Audi 100 sadly got in the accident from the back after a little lorry had brake failure smash at 20mph thankful it did not happen at 56mph.
When the car was taken away to the sc***yard, I thought about the older cars how great they were, because they had very big fuel tanks the Audi 100 is 80 litres (+1 overfill) it did over 700 miles from 1.8 petrol engine injectors I think. It was an amazing trip from my home to Scotland when we went on holiday in 1997 my father only filled up once in a week!
Now I see most modern cars have very limited fuel tanks than what I see back in the 1990s. My car is a Toyota Argyo 1.0 vtti 2017 it has 35 litres with a range under 280 miles is pathiec.
Is that something to do with emissions to reduce the weight of the cars to downsize the tank?
Fiat 500 is 28 litres, Panda 35 while the old for an example Citroen AX 43 litres, the Peugeot 205 it has 47 litres!
Truly bizarre to start a thread complaining about how small the fuel tanks are on city cars relative to a large (for its day) family/executive car?.
Even the comparison to the 205 and AX isn't valid because both were classed as supermini's. Todays equivalents are the 208 (44 litres) and C3 (45 litres)
|
|
Audi 100 also had much larger engines fitted including a V8 by the end. That wouldn’t do 700 miles between fills.
|
|
|
|
<< Even the comparison to the 205 and AX isn't valid because both were classed as superminis. Today's equivalents are the 208 (44 litres) and C3 (45 litres) >>
You say 'equivalents'. Just now I have both a 205 and a 207 ; although one claims to be a development of the other, they are not really equivalent. My 207 replaced a 306 and has an almost identical footprint. Which just goes to illustrate the inexorable expansion in an ostensibly similar series of cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it's nice to have a car that feels like it's always ready to go without having to stop only because the car needs to refill.
v8s can have long ranges as well. The Chevrolet Suburban with the smaller 5.3 v8 has a 31 US gallon fuel tank, equates to 25.81 in UK gallons, giving a theoretical range of 680 miles.
It is also helpful if you are driving in shifts with another person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some moons ago I had a 1990 Passat estate 1.6td that had a huge tank - over 75 litres. i remember one journey from Yorkshire to Interlaken Switzerland without having to fill up - well over 800 miles. That's some weight of fuel though.....
At the same time we had a 1984 Polo 1.0 that had a rather small tank and it wasn't that economical (md 30's mpg) where you were looking to fill up at not much over 200 miles.
Edited by Big John on 14/11/2023 at 22:52
|
<< Even the comparison to the 205 and AX isn't valid because both were classed as superminis. Today's equivalents are the 208 (44 litres) and C3 (45 litres) >>
You say 'equivalents'. Just now I have both a 205 and a 207 ; although one claims to be a development of the other, they are not really equivalent. My 207 replaced a 306 and has an almost identical footprint. Which just goes to illustrate the inexorable expansion in an ostensibly similar series of cars.
They are directly equivalent in term of what class/category of car they are.
All cars are bigger now than they used to be and the fact that your 207 is the same size as a 306 is neither here or there. The 207 is classed as a supermini (as was the 206, the 205 and the 104 before that) whereas the 306 is from the next segment up in size.
City cars came into being because supermini's were getting so big.
|
|
<< All cars are bigger now than they used to be .... The 207 is classed as a supermini (as was the 206, the 205 and the 104 before that) whereas the 306 is from the next segment up in size. >>
So all you are saying is that the classifications have suffered creep, not the cars themselves. Semantics. :-)
|
|
Fuel is probably more expensive (in real terms?) these days, and the pain of filling up a big tank would be greater;
|
|
|
|
.... I thought about the older cars how great they were, because they had very big fuel tanks the Audi 100 is 80 litres
Now I see most modern cars have very limited fuel tanks ......
Not if they are the modern equivalent. The Audi 100 was the large but exceptionally sleek (Cd 0.3) top-of-the-range saloon, designed to effortlessly cross Europe at high speed. Its modern equivalent is the even sleeker A8 (Cd 0.26) which has a fuel tank capacity of 'around 90 litres' - according to my handbook.
|
<< All cars are bigger now than they used to be .... The 207 is classed as a supermini (as was the 206, the 205 and the 104 before that) whereas the 306 is from the next segment up in size. >>
So all you are saying is that the classifications have suffered creep, not the cars themselves. Semantics. :-)
I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing about, so possibly semantics there?. But not within my point regarding what the OP is complaining about, which is this:
Would one reasonably expect a car designed as a 2nd car and/or urban runabout (i.e, a city car) to have a bigger fuel tank than one aimed at being an only car (which includes pretty much every other class of car, including a supermini)?.
|
|
<< I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing about, so possibly semantics there?.>>
My main point is that if there are to be classes of car depending on size, it makes little sense to call the 207 a supermini while the 306 - with the same footprint - is in the next higher class ! Cars like Peugeot's 2-series are stuck by definition in the supermini class while their buyers are expected to demand something bigger when the next model arrives. That's the source of size drift, which has got us to where we are now, with cars outgrowing the narrow road system we live in.
|
|
|
|
.... I thought about the older cars how great they were, because they had very big fuel tanks the Audi 100 is 80 litres
Now I see most modern cars have very limited fuel tanks ......
Not if they are the modern equivalent. The Audi 100 was the large but exceptionally sleek (Cd 0.3) top-of-the-range saloon, designed to effortlessly cross Europe at high speed. Its modern equivalent is the even sleeker A8 (Cd 0.26) which has a fuel tank capacity of 'around 90 litres' - according to my handbook.
The modern equivalent to the 100 is the A6 not the A8. And according to this website, the current one has a 63 litre tank.
But it doesn't really make any sense for a huge fuel tank unless you live somewhere where filling stations are few and far between. It isn't a good idea for anyone to be driving without a break for long periods. Concentration lapses and you drink less than you should to avoid needing a toilet. These days I wouldn't want to drive more than 150 miles without stopping, (not that my bladder would allow it even if i was inclined!).
|
Concentration lapses and you drink less than you should to avoid needing a toilet. These days I wouldn't want to drive more than 150 miles without stopping, (not that my bladder would allow it even if i was inclined!).
Some people are able to drive for long periods without a comfort break. It doesn't mean it's a good idea though. If you don't need the toilet for hours your body isn't working properly. Probably storing up health problems for later. Also, sitting for hours is terrible for the back, it was never designed to be in that static position for a long time, it likes to move.
|
|
|
|
.... I thought about the older cars how great they were, because they had very big fuel tanks the Audi 100 is 80 litres
Now I see most modern cars have very limited fuel tanks ......
Not if they are the modern equivalent. The Audi 100 was the large but exceptionally sleek (Cd 0.3) top-of-the-range saloon, designed to effortlessly cross Europe at high speed. Its modern equivalent is the even sleeker A8 (Cd 0.26) which has a fuel tank capacity of 'around 90 litres' - according to my handbook.
Most people would think the A6 is the modern evolution of the 100 - so 73 litres
|
|
The longest I've ever driven without a break was three hours and I was much younger then (mid 20s). I wouldn't do it now, increasing years mean various limbs need a stretch after two hours. When I had the Megane diesel it would to approx 700 miles on a tank but this was purely theoretical for me. It was useful once when the French were blocking the fuel depots, I left Portsmouth with a full tank and was able to easily make it my my destination about 400 miles away no problem. We were on holiday for two weeks and luckily the strikes were over for our return. I think that was in 2008.
Oddly in 2010 the French were up to it again but I had the current Focus petrol with a range of about 380. We passed many stations where the diesel was dry but petrol still for sale, if limited to twenty litres. So overall no worse off.
|
The longest I've ever driven without a break was three hours and I was much younger then (mid 20s). I wouldn't do it now, increasing years mean various limbs need a stretch after two hours.
I'm with you there I try to limit myself to 1hr 30 without a break these days before at least walking / stretching my legs and try to limit myself to around 300ish miles per day.
However I still prefer a great range as motorway services are horrible and expensive places to stop and fill up with fuel in the UK and abroad. I now have nice places loaded in my satnav to stop off at home or abroad but these tend to be nice walks/cafes / restaurants or even a particular shop etc.
Edited by Big John on 15/11/2023 at 21:08
|
|
Yes that's a good point I had forgotten about. With the Megane diesel we used to avoid the big, crowded and expensive service stations and stop at those basic ones called 'aires'. No fuel but picnic tables and toilets - if a bit basic and requiring strong knees ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Not if they are the modern equivalent. The Audi 100 was the large but exceptionally sleek (Cd 0.3) top-of-the-range saloon, .....
Most people would think the A6 is the modern evolution of the 100
The A6 might be nearer in size, but over the past thirty years cars have got bigger, from bottom to top of the range of most manufacturers. The 100 was Audi's luxurious top of the range flagship. The A8 is its larger modern equivalent. The lesser Audi 90, like the modern A6, was for the 'executive' market.
|
longest I've ever driven without a break
Yesterday I drove for 5 hours with 2 loo breaks.
As my car can drive itself (speeding & braking + steering on motorways) I could occasionally stretch my hands and legs while seating, and that helped as I have no body ache this morning.
In fact this was the first time I properly tested autonomous driving (Kia Sportage hybrid).
Edited by movilogo on 16/11/2023 at 12:19
|
|
|
Not if they are the modern equivalent. The Audi 100 was the large but exceptionally sleek (Cd 0.3) top-of-the-range saloon, .....
Most people would think the A6 is the modern evolution of the 100
The A6 might be nearer in size, but over the past thirty years cars have got bigger, from bottom to top of the range of most manufacturers. The 100 was Audi's luxurious top of the range flagship. The A8 is its larger modern equivalent. The lesser Audi 90, like the modern A6, was for the 'executive' market.
The Audi V8 was different to the 100/200/5000 although they shared the same bodyshell - the 100/200/5000 became the A6 and the V8 became the A8 which extended Audi's range of sizes.
|
The A6 might be nearer in size, but over the past thirty years cars have got bigger, from bottom to top of the range of most manufacturers. The 100 was Audi's luxurious top of the range flagship. The A8 is its larger modern equivalent. The lesser Audi 90, like the modern A6, was for the 'executive' market.
If you think the A8 is the modern equivalent to the 100, you must also think the 100's period rivals included the BMW 7 Series and Merc S Class.
Which clearly was not the case!. The 100's period German rivals on introduction were the (E28) 5 Series and the (W123) E Class.
Also, the 200 was the top of the range Audi, not the 100.
|
|
The A6 might be nearer in size, but over the past thirty years cars have got bigger, from bottom to top of the range of most manufacturers. The 100 was Audi's luxurious top of the range flagship. The A8 is its larger modern equivalent. The lesser Audi 90, like the modern A6, was for the 'executive' market.
If you think the A8 is the modern equivalent to the 100, you must also think the 100's period rivals included the BMW 7 Series and Merc S Class.
Which clearly was not the case!. The 100's period German rivals on introduction were the (E28) 5 Series and the (W123) E Class.
Also, the 200 was the top of the range Audi, not the 100.
Fair comment. I wasn't considering rivalry (although the later turbo 5cyl quattros were probably a performance match for the early 6cyl BMW 7 series) but merely pointing out how Audi's 'top of the range' model has grown - and has a bigger fuel tank. (The 200 was really much the same car as the 100).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
