|
It`s taken them long enough to work that one out, though its surprising how many believe what the manufacturers say regarding MPG
|
|
But, but, but....
hasn't Skidpan got a new-fangled Leon with a small petrol engine, and getting over 45mpg overall ?
|
But, but, but....
hasn't Skidpan got a new-fangled Leon with a small petrol engine, and getting over 45mpg overall ?
Is that with wind behind,or downhill ;)
|
hasn't Skidpan got a new-fangled Leon with a small petrol engine, and getting over 45mpg overall
Leon 1.4 TSi 140 PS.
After 10,000 miles the average is a genuine, corrected 45 mpg. Seen as much as 53 mpg on a run to the coast but one fill up when it was pretty much all town use dropped to 39 mpg. The dash is a liar, says over 50 mpg all the time, if I believed that I would be even happier.
The thing flies when asked, its way fatser than my 143 PS BMW 118D, yet when you factor in the difference in feul cost/litre its very nearly as economical.
b***** brilliant in my opinion.
|
|
I would have thought for a 1.4, fuel economy would have been better than that,after all the Rover K series did about the same if driven properly.
they dont seem to me to be improving that much imo, even though they make out motor is more economical.
Maybe they`ve reached the limit or nearing the limit,after all you can only burn so much fuel in so much air
|
|
The dogs in the street know that a big car with a small engine is less economical that the same car with a big lazy engine that isn't working hard all the time, is higher geared and that can get up to cruising speed quickly.
Yesteryear's experience of Capri 1.6L versus 2.0 L the 2,0 L was more economical.
Volvo 240 DL 2.1 litre versus 245 estate the 2.3 L 245 was much more economical.
Edited by focussed on 08/10/2014 at 23:38
|
|
But I believe a mk3 Mondeo 2.5 V6 was far more thristy than the 2.0 and 1.8 .
|
|
|
|
I would have thought for a 1.4, fuel economy would have been better than that,after all the Rover K series did about the same if driven properly.
My Pug 205 GR 1.4 was doing 42-47 mpg twenty years ago, and my current 1.4 does about the same; and fifty years ago my BMC 1100 would do 44 on long journeys. Admittedly those cars are probably lighter than Skidpan's Leon. Most of the advances of modern technology have been cancelled out by incremental obesity for various reasons.
|
I would have thought for a 1.4, fuel economy would have been better than that,after all the Rover K series did about the same if driven properly.
My Pug 205 GR 1.4 was doing 42-47 mpg twenty years ago, and my current 1.4 does about the same; and fifty years ago my BMC 1100 would do 44 on long journeys. Admittedly those cars are probably lighter than Skidpan's Leon. Most of the advances of modern technology have been cancelled out by incremental obesity for various reasons.
I agree BMC engines were probably the most economical,I had 2 Austin 1100`s and 1 1300 but changed to Ford in later years and found them to be the worst for economy
But as said economy hasn`t in my opinion improved that much over the years even though some call new engines exceptional (imo far from it )
|
|
|
|
|
|
It`s taken them long enough to work that one out, though its surprising how many believe what the manufacturers say regarding MPG
The manufacturers don't say anything. They give out the facts they have from the legal testing they have to do.
|
It`s taken them long enough to work that one out, though its surprising how many believe what the manufacturers say regarding MPG
The manufacturers don't say anything. They give out the facts they have from the legal testing they have to do.
Thanks for the correction,but not sure they are facts whoever says so, but thats imo
|
I would have thought for a 1.4, fuel economy would have been better than that,after all the Rover K series did about the same if driven properly.
Just remember that the Rover 1.4 engine had about 100 bhp and 100 lb's of torque. The Seat has 140 PS and 185 lbs of torque.
The Rover weighed much less than the Seat and had much less kit.
The Rover had a 0-60 time of about 11.5 seconds. The Seat has a 0-60 time of 8.2 seconds.
It a minor miracle its a good as the Rover.
As a comparison the last petrol car I had was a Ford Puma. Over 6 years it averaged about 32 mpg, Would just manage 38 mpg on a run. It only had 125 PS and about the same torque. Nowhere near as quick as the Seat but much lighter.
Quite happy with the progress myself.
Problem is many people look back at old cars and remember them through rose coloured spectacles. I had 2 Golf GTi Mk2's. Both were great cars but were nowhere near as quick as the Seat, had no kit and only did about 30 mpg average.
|
|
<< As a comparison the last petrol car I had was a Ford Puma. Over 6 years it averaged about 32 mpg, Would just manage 38 mpg on a run. It only had 125 PS and about the same torque.
Quite happy with the progress myself. >>
Progress always looks good from a poor starting point, Skidpan. As Bolt and I said above, our cars were getting well over 40mpg decades ago. 'Managed' engines make better economy possible, but they also offer more acceleration, so the drivers that exploit that may not see the benefits.
|
|
|
|
It`s taken them long enough to work that one out, though its surprising how many believe what the manufacturers say regarding MPG
The manufacturers don't say anything. They give out the facts they have from the legal testing they have to do.
Thanks for the correction,but not sure they are facts whoever says so, but thats imo
Why do you not belive the tests are accurate?
The whole point of the testing done is to give every car the same test and then only allow the manufactuerers to use those figures so no cheating can be done.
|
|
Why do you not belive the tests are accurate?
Is that not obvious, because majority of the time most people want to know real world economy and want to get approximately the same as whats specified.
Not get into a car and find out its 15/20 miles to the gallon worse off which is a complaint by a lot of people, and, as I mentioned, fuel economy imo has not improved a great deal over the years (the above figures are a generalisation as not all motors are the same)
I am not so sure no cheating can be done,I don`t trust them and would rather rely on what other peoples experience is of any motors economy
Only my opinion
|
Progress always looks good from a poor starting point,
The Puma was an excellent car as any motoring enthusiast would know.
So why you would suggest it was a poor starting point is beyond me.
|
|
<< So why you would suggest it was a poor starting point is beyond me. >>
Skidpan, you are being obtuse and over-sensitive. 32 mpg is a poor starting point, that is all. I didn't criticise your Puma, did I ?
|
|
The fact is that there is ample evidence in the press and forums such as this that official fuel consumption figures are rarely anywhere near real world comparisons. Anyone buying a car without doing the simplest of research into the facts and figures get what they deserve. The figures quoted and how they are obtained by manufactures are laid down by law and all the official literature clearly states this. Every car produced and every driver is different therefore the result of any test whether in the real world or in laboratory conditions will have variations, to think otherwise is delusional. People are becoming obsessed with figures which are often unrealistic in the hope they will save pence when they spend thousands on changing a vehicle and failing to include the cost of depreciation. Madness.
|
|
|
|
Why do you not belive the tests are accurate?
Is that not obvious, because majority of the time most people want to know real -world economy and want to get approximately the same as whats specified.
-Not get into a car and find out its 15/20 miles to the gallon worse off which is a -complaint by a lot of people, and, as I mentioned, fuel economy imo has not ---improved a great deal over the years (the above figures are a generalisation as not -all motors are the same)
-
-I am not so sure no cheating can be done,I don`t trust them and would rather rely -on what other peoples experience is of any motors economy
-
-Only my opinion
People want to know what real life economy is like? I agree, I think that the tests should be made more realistic than they are but in no way does that not mean that the tests are not accurate.
Like I say why don't you believe the legal tests that have to be done are accurate? How can they be 'cheated' when they are all done under the same conditions?
You say they should show what the realistic figures would be but then would you not think they would be a cheat and not accurate as well?
|
|
I didnt say I dont believe they are accurate, but I am sceptical, I cannot prove either way.
I am saying they are not representative of the real world roads which we all know.
If real world testing was carried out their could be cheating anything is possible, I couldnt say,but if they proved more accurate readings than rolling road and far fewer complaints because drivers are getting the economy they paid for, it might sell more cars
Biggest problem with current system is not many know how it works, or dont understand even when its explained to them,but some salesmen dont have a clue! I did say some...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
