Bostin, whilst it is an incredible achiement, it makes you a very sad man- just like me.
I do a lot of miles and have reduced quick accelerating and abrupt braking, but find it hard to poodle along at 55, I find it boring and hence concentrate less, so I've only managed 600 ish ina 2.2 dci,but I do carry heavy loads,a nd cruise at 80ish.
Out of interest did you have the radio, lights,wipers and or air conditioning on, if so how much further might you have done ??
Talk about sad -who else makes up words using the registration no's, changing no's to letter, 7's to T, 3 to an E, 4 to an H, ETC, i get really excited when I come up with a 7 letter word
|
"it makes you a very sad man- just like me"
I think he's really funny I've enjoyed this thread. I was genuinely well made up for him this morning when I read that he hit 1020.
|
Two filthy diseasal tdi Golfs in this household, a MK3 estate and a MK4 hatch.
The MK3 does 45 - 50 MPG does longer journeys usually with 4 adults and driven briskly
MK4 does short journeys and does 40 - 45 MPG, however in the past I have driven with economy in mind and acheived 58 MPG on one tank, I nearly died of boredom, all long journeys and very little time spent in traffic.
A Passat that does 80 MPG, I don't think so, 3 cyl Lupo tdi maybe, Passat no way Pedro ;o)
|
According to my car's handbook, it does indeed say that for the most economical >> driving, you should start the car and drive off imeediately but I just wanted to ask >> people's thoughts on this...
Interesting that they say "for the most economical driving", BUT for the most mechanically sympathic driving and engine longevity it's best to allow at least 15 to 30 seconds on the first start of the day to allow the oil to circulate properly, plus it helps reduce pollution levels from the exhaust when the car is set in motion.
|
|
|
"A Passat that does 80 MPG, I don't think so, 3 cyl Lupo tdi maybe, Passat no way Pedro ;o"
I'm as surprised as anyone believe me! The 80 mpg is only achievable one way though - gradient favours it.
Haven't gone out of my way to achieve the above figures. Car still full of the usual clobber - CDs, bottles of water, baby clutter etc. Keep up to 60 mph where limits allow etc but don't exceed 60.
The only things that I'm doing significantly differently are anticipating slowing down areas (foot off throttle and keep in gear), downhill gradients (coasting out of gear) and slowing my rate of acceleration.
My time of travel and types of road are probably also a factor - try leave for work at 6:30am arrive by 7:30-7:45. Leave work at 4:30 arrive 5:45.
IMHO the weather is also a big factor - rain seems to really knock the mpg. Not sure that it's to do with the reduced efficiency of the road itself, the denser air (does the rain itself act as friction?!?!?!!), and people generally faffing around etc ;-)
As a result of this, and a need to blow a few cobwebs away, this tank is showing 'only' 65 mpg after 450 miles :-(.
When the weather improves I'll be aiming for 1050 miles next - I fear utter geekness is slowly overcoming me....
|
How about a thread for minimum miles on a tank ?
start with 80 litres of unleaded taking a 4.2 litre Nissan Patrol Auto about 260 miles in suburban driving. It also has an LPG conversion, but that's much worse economy wise . The figure here ( 80 / 260 ) refers only to driving on unleaded .
|
The figure here ( 80 / 260 ) refers only to driving onunleaded .
14.75 MPG, oh dear :o(
|
|
|
|
The VAG TDI and PD diesels esp. the lower powered, non-DPF, should command a higher price if the fuel situation continues its trend! Our 99 edition 110 pre-PD Passat would manage there and back to Kent, from Lancashire on one tank (over 600 miles) with some over, @ 60 mpg, brimmed. Not as good as Bostin though. In the current Honda 2 litre Civic S, 35 mpg over 320 miles, keeping at or around 75 indicated, with the very occasional sprint. Pathetic economy: 42% better in the diesel, and at a more spirited though vigilant, pace.
Edited by nortones2 on 29/05/2008 at 21:49
|
|
|
|
I managed to scrape 640 miles from a full to the brim 60 litre tank in my 306 1.9TD a few years ago during a week of steady motorway driving not exceeding 70mph. Was running on vapour by that point I must say!
As the 306 is terminally ill, I have just purchased a 2001 Focus 1.8 TDCi (115) which is supposed to return 51 mpg on the combined cycle as opposed to the 306's 43mpg so I'll be interested to see how many mpg I can squeeze out of this when I pick it up on Saturday!
Will keep you posted.....!
Martin
|
When we had a VW Sharan 1.9 tdi 110 bhp non pd, I could easily get 55 mpg out of it on a run but you had to have economy on your mind. I find the cars in general are getting cleaner but are doing less to the gallon.
I have driven mk1 and mk 3 Ford focus on the same run and the old one did 44 mpg the new one 36 mpg (10k on the clock ) same for a number of other cars.
|
|
Run my car until the fuel is down to the last teaspoonful just to see how far it will go? No way Pedro! I prefer to leave the inevitable sediment at the bottom of the tank undisturbed.
|
Run my car until the fuel is down to the last teaspoonful just to see how far it will go? No way Pedro! I prefer to leave the inevitable sediment at the bottom of the tank undisturbed.>>
Good point.
On another thread about the concerns over the reliability of modern diesels, 'Injection Doc' made the comment - "The most common cause of CR failures is caused by those that allow the fuel tank to run very low before refill.( this causes air to enter the HP pump shortning its life ) I never run below 1/4 tank."
So, maybe not a good idea to run your tank to empty?
|
|
|
|
Golf 150bhp PD - returning 50 to 55mpg actual. Thats based on 600 miles a week commuting. I never let the tank get that low...
Hopefully I'll get another 2 years at least out of it (2004, 132K to be reached today)
The Shogun is another matter, but 30mpg is still well in excess of what I expected from it!
|
585 miles from a petrol 2.0 litre Cavalier. (London to the north of Scotland) My ex boss got home from Spain in his Audi 100 1.8 Petrol on one tank. That must have been well over 700.
Of course this was before catalysts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
