Where is everyone? Virtual hangovers? Fed up of speed camera rants?
Incidentally, measured the fuel economy of my Audi A4 Tdi at 57.9mpg on a recent round trip to the north west of Scotland. Fully laden, crusing at 70-75mph. I used 4.55 litres to a gallon - is that right?
Why doesn't everyone drive a diesel?
Regards
Pat
|
Pat wrote:
>
> Where is everyone? Virtual hangovers? Fed up of speed camera rants?
Hi, Pat
I keep looking in, but's it's quiet. It's also a nice day, so folks may be out and about. I've been cracking on with moving the fishpond in the back garden - took the van to the tip to dispose of about 1/2 ton of rubble, plus old fishpond (what a stink from the mud slime in the bottom).
It's precisely these occasions when then van shows its true worth - and it's diesel, what else?
HAND
Ian
|
|
|
|
Speed cameras or diesels v petrol - its a close run thing for most aired subject on this forum!
|
|
|
I also us 4.55 to the gall. Don't think it's far out.
How much is 'spud' getting out of his new Toyota diesel? Do tell spud. Hope to be joining you around September when it 's due to arrive.
KB.
|
|
|
Yes, Ive seen the light!
Im importing a bmw 320d SE with lots of toys and saving around £5.5k!
|
Glad to see there's someone out there!
I know the diesel/petrol thing has been well-aired here, but I just can't get over the combination of economy and performance that a good turbo diesel can offer. I get 52mpg on a weekly basis, travelling to and from work, bit of weekend running around.
Good luck with the BMW Import-ant (can we call you ant for short?), gets good reviews here. Bet you won't buy a petrol car again!
It IS a lovely day, so I'm off with family for a walk up Bredon Hill.
|
|
|
|
At the 10yr+ end of the market, I'd rather maintain and repair a petrol car. Cruising at 85-90, my mk2 Golf GTI gets 37.5 to the gallon on regular (not super) unleaded. Assuming diesel is 10p more expensive, that's equivalent to 42.5 mpg.
You'd be very lucky to see the same on a comparable diesel (say a ZX td - VW diesels of that epoch were a little primitive, to say the least), cruising at 85-90.
Regards,
Rob F
|
|
|
Because MPG isn't the be all, and end all, of motoring.
I prefer the wail of my well tuned petrol V6 just about to clip the rev limiter at 7,000RPM, and my four cylinder bike doing likewise at 14,500!
Seriously, as a keen motorcyclist who has to plan for diesel spillages on any roundabout, I'm actually glad more vehicles are not diesel.
By the way, when I'm in the mood, not only does the bike give 0-60MPH in around three seconds, 0-100MPH in 10 seconds, and though largely academic, top out at well over twice the UK motorway limit, but it averages nearly 60MPG, too. Put on top of this free parking in most places, jam busting capabilities, fresh air, and the pleaure of a mode of transport that reacts to the slightest rider input, I'd call this 'Cake and eat it!'.
The car has averaged 29.9MPH, over 37,500 miles, which I wouldn't exactly call bad for 200BHP and 2.5 litres, either.
There we are, the two most common subjects in one post!
Now back to DIY.
No bike today. :-(
Enjoy the rest of the weekend
/Steve
|
|
I'm a biker myself, Steve, fact I've just come back from a run. Nothing beats it this weather, but there are two big drawbacks to bikes - the heater don't work and the roof leaks.
|
A flat-twin BMW (or Cossack) will keep your feet warm. Even dry, if you keep moving!
WRT original topic, I think it's because Martyn has told us all off for writing too much and banging on about speeding...
|
|
|
|
|
Surely some mistake here. You will always get 4.55 litres to the gallon. It is a conversion not an exchange rate!?
|
|
|
|
I was going to buy a new A4 Avant - then I drove a couple of 130PDs and I didn't.
|
|
|
No, no mistake Dave, Pat is simply querying whether he(she) is using the right conversion calculation. It's actually 4.546. but who's counting?
KB.
|
|
|
4.55 or 4.546 since most fuel is sold by litres why do we continue to quote mpg. instead of km per litre ???
Phil I
|
Phil Ireland wrote:
>
> 4.55 or 4.546 since most fuel is sold by litres why do we
> continue to quote mpg. instead of km per litre ???
Dead easy to convert l/100km to mpg - Divide 282.5 by the number of litres/100km.
E.g. 7l/100km ---> 282.5 / 7 = 40.4mpg
We still quote mpg because we're used to it and more importantly we measure distance still in miles here as opposed to kilometres. We also don't feel the need to be able to count everything we encounter on our fingers, still, give it time - look at Weights and Measures...
Dan
|
|
|
|
Mpg is retained because most people are familiar with the concept, and the larger figure makes accurate comparisons easier.
10 miles per litre is 45.46 miles per gallon.
If you try to compare 30 mpg to 32 mpg, you end up comparing 6.6 miles per litre to 7.03 miles per litre, which is why manufacturers are tending to reverse the equation and talk about litres per 100 miles or 100 kilometers.
|
|
|
Makes sense . Thanks for that Brian.
Rgds Phil I
|
Sorry everyone
in my very humble opinion youve all got it wrong i drive a gas M5 BMW of 1992 vintage 340BHP serious comfort great handling and equivalent 48 mpg keep your smelly old slow diesels guys
dave :o)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - 4.546 litres to the gall. Or a little easier, 50 litres = 11 gallons
|
|
|
|
Just fed up of speed cameras!
|
|
|
"On a recent round trip to the north west of Scotland. Fully laden, cruising at 70-75mph"
Never mind the consumption, look at the speed! This is *not* a comment on exceeding the NSL, just a genuine request for clarification whether this was achieved on motorways/dual carriageways *en route* to and from Scotland, or *including* travel in the north-west of Scotland? If the latter, where exactly in Scotland did you go that enabled you to achieve such a high average? I'll let someone else ask what speeds you must have achieved en route to keep it up!
PJ
|
Poxy Jock,
Route was as follows:
A435 Evesham to M42
M42 west to M5
M5 to M6
M6 to M74
M8 to Erskine Bridge
A82/A85 (I think) to Oban
Ferry to Mull
Set out at 5am to miss busy period in Birmingham-Manchester area. Few roadworks, etc which meant that for at least 70% of the journey the car was travelling at about 70mph. I didn't intend this to be interpreted as an average speed, just an indication that I wasn't driving in a style likely to win some sort of fuel economy record!
Traffic on Scottish roads allowed good progress, just occasionally getting stuck behind a slower car or lorry on A82/A85.
Hope that clarifies things.
Love to Scotland (if you are, as your name implies) Scottish!
Pat
|
|
|
|
Pat
Much appreciate your detailed response, albeit more west than north-west IMHO - all is now clear, and I greatly envy your visit to Mull - where the silence can indeed be deafening. Not too much 70-75 mph there I imagine!
Still lots of Scottish roads a great treat to drive on, so enjoy it whilst you still can!
PJ
|
|
|
I use 0.22 * litres = gallons
Over a simular route 20 years ago i got 59 mpg in a metro , why bother with a diesel?
|
Pete
Did your Metro have 115bhp? Plenty of torque for safe overtaking? Did it cruise at 70mph at 2,300rpm?
NO! It had an already outdated engine (from the 1950s), agricultural drivechain and no 5th gear (no room for the extra cog in the not-so-durable gearbox).
Not all change is for the better, but this is one example where it is!
Regards
Pat
|
|
|
|
