Toyota Corolla 2000 to 2002. 1.6 ltr. VVTi 48 mpg.
Toyota Corolla 2002 to date. 1.6 ltr. VVTi 40 mpg.
Anybody got any ideas why the mpg is so much lower in the current car - with the same engine?
|
|
I should think that it is something to do with the newer engine bieng tuned for better emmisions. Unfortunately something has to give and in this case it is probably fuel consumption.
|
|
How about the weights of each car? I would expect the newer one to have more equipment and even if not, will probably weigh more, aswell as what Marcos said
|
|
|
Marcos - burning more fuel is a strange way to improve emissions. My guess is that the newer model has more hardware such as airbags or other crash protection added to it.
To me it seems a shame that most of the engine developments since the 60s to improve fuel efficiency have been cancelled out by other legislation of one sort of another. In 1964 we drove 3500 miles in 4 weeks round the western States in (believe me!) a red Morris 1100 LHD. Average consumption 44mpg, and the total fuel bill was $57.
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt whether you will find 2 cars that do the same mpg.I think the loss of roughly 1.8 miles to the litre is nothing to worry about.But as far as what the manufacturer has given for mpg it isn`t something they are likely to write in concrete.As they can only approximate.I have mentioned this before it will depend on Weather.Road conditions.and many other factors I would have thought in warm weather you probably do closer to the 48 mpg than in cold?
|
Yes but... Aren't the mpg figures all done on a rolling road, under a controlled environment - to an official set of paramenters - to make them comparable? 1.8 miles per litre might seem to be 'nothing to worry about', but 10mpg is! doing 25,000 miles a year, the differences would add up to an extra £500 in fuel costs. And as has been mentioned, burning more fuel (about 140 gallons over 25k miles) must create more pollution.
Weights are difficult to pin down. Toyota say the car weighs 'between x and y' depending on the specification. The new cars range is about 40kgs higher, but this wouldn't create the difference - would it?
Gearing? Not thought of that one. Don't know how to check it out either...
|
|
The figures given as I mentioned are not a precise measurement.You did say controlled environment.to an official set of paramenters.Ok they are.But that won`t say the engine in the british environment ie varying temp/some frost/extreme wet conditions plus hill climbing sudden braking plus what has been said before regarding weight which in the case of safety is a must for your own good.all must say the given MPG for the car will not be the same for every car.No (2) people drive the same.No (2) cars drive the same.Going back to what I said official figures are not written in stone.I would be surprised if any manufacturer gave a warranty on the mpg they have advised? could be wrong but doubt it
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Gearing?
|
The answer is simple - my 3 door 1.4s old shape is 165kg lighter than the new T2 1.4 3door - probably as a result of:
a. trying to meet crash regs
b. improving the 'quality' of the car
When I test drove the new T2 1.4 I immediately noticed that the car accelerated slower than mine, despite the official figures stating near identical performance....
|
|
|
|
