So is my Charade, but its a 1.0 engine, they are all gutless unless the car weighs 500kg.
|
You don't buy a 1.0 3 cylinder car to blast along at 70-80 mph for hours on end day after day! At 70-80mph the little 3 cylinder is working at 3,500-4,000 revs, it tops out at just over 90 so driving at the top end will never be economical. Our smart only ever did 45ish mpg on a 70+ motorway run.
Look at Top Gear and the Prius v M3 'test' where the Prius managed jut 17mpg when driven flat out - less than the following M3.
Where the Aygo comes into it's own is round town where achieving less than 45mpg is very difficult.r day
Edited by daveyjp on 24/06/2008 at 21:35
|
You don't buy a 1.0 3 cylinder car to blast along at 70-80 mph for hours on end day after day! At 70-80mph the little 3 cylinder is working at 3 500-4 000 revs it tops out at just over 90 so driving at the top end will never be economical.
Why not? My car is an 899cc Fiat Seicento, and it gets great fuel consumption at 70mph. I always thought a small engine worked hard would beat a big engine becuase they are most efficient at high load.
Our smart only ever did 45ish mpg on a 70+ motorway run.
That is shocking!
|
|
|
My Daihatsu only turns over at 2800 rpm at 70 mph - thats hardly high is it? Ive done a steady 80 mph run and still got low 50's.
It is down to the individual gearing, not engine size.
|
On a 70 mph motorway cruise, my BMW 523i would get 39 mpg. My 1.2 Clio gets er... 41 mpg, which is slightly better but not really worth the cost of buying the newer car or the loss in refinement.
However driven gently on an A-road the BMW would struggle to see 29 mpg - but the Clio will get north of 50 mpg.
Clio is running 3,500 rpm at 70 mph though, which probably explains it.
|
|
The bloke down the road has just put a for sale sticker on his Prius, it's only done around 10k miles. Wonder if he watched Top Gear the other day and has decided to go for the super eco M3 !
|
P3t3r,
Does the AUGUST 2008 issue tell you who won Wimbledon too.
Talk about inflation! Is it the Christmas issue next week?
|
56mpg around town
about 65mpg long journeys.
about 70mpg motorways at 70.
Yaris 1.4 D4d
(with aircon off . worth 5%)
2800rpm at 70
Edited by madf on 25/06/2008 at 10:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> I would imagine the Aygo is low geared hence poor high speed economy. Same engine >> as mine I think too. >> No I don't think so I think it's the opposite.
Its the gearing in top thats important for m'way work - and I think you'll find its low geared in 5th - probably mid to low 20s per 1000rpm...
My old Fabia - the 1.9TDi was geared at 29mph/1000rpm and was an excellent m'way cruiser - the new one, 1.4TDi is about 26mph/1000rpm and is nowhere near as good...
As the other poster said the Aygo/C1 is not built as a motorway car, nor are most Superminis/City Cars unless you get the bigger engined ones...
|
Agree with B308, top gear consumption is important on long runs.
I bought a 1.8 (Mondeo) after my 1.6 (Civic) and get more mpg on 70mph road.
However will/may have to pay more road tax in future even though I am saving fuel, because of the way the CO2 emissions are calculated. I am sure around town the 1.8 would use more fuel, but I do not drive around town too often.
IF we taxed on the actual amount of CO2 we actually emit rather than govt test figures, I might then save money. I expect this will come when they install the pay as you drive satellite system for all cars in the future.
|
Mmm, that'd take some calculations - CO2 emmissions based on engine size, car size and distance/type of mileage travelled...
A small car / small engine would still come out on top, though...
Are they also going to check speed as well, faster you go, the higher emmissions?
|
|
|
>If we [were] taxed on the actual amount of CO2 we actually emit...
We are! Well, if you assume that most people who buy fuel (and pay the tax on the volume they buy) end up burning it, not just putting it on the mantelpiece, we pay tax in proportion to our emissions. For most people, this has far more influence on the amount of tax they pay than the nuances of VED banding.
|
we pay tax in proportion to our emissions.
Sshh! You'll be giving the government ideas, and before you know it the tax on baked beans (my favourite source of roughage) will have gone up.
|
|
|
|
|
As the other poster said the Aygo/C1 is not built as a motorway car nor are most Superminis/City Cars unless you get the bigger engined ones...
My 899cc Seicento wasn't built for motorways either, and also has low gearing. It must rev at least as high (probably higher) as the Augo. My car gets approx 40mpg in stop-start traffic, and 40-46mpg with a mix of roads.
|
My Charade is quite capable on the motorway at 70 and can maintain its speed without downchanges. Its comfortable, stable and quiet.
This idea that you need a large powerful car to do motorway journeys is just silly.
Modern city cars are often quite capable for cruising at the legal limit. Those that arent are behind the times.
|
Agree with you stu. Alas some people feel the need to justify why they need lots of power to cruise on a motorway in the UK, maybe it's because they want to speed and/or bully other road users who get in their way !
Perhaps the power hungry may consider a powerful car is necessary if they drive on the autobahns and want to gobble up the miles quickly whilst at the same time burning their/(someone elses) cash quickly and creating huge amounts of pollution in the process.
When the oil runs out sooner rather than later, as a result of the fuel wasters, it'll be the wasters who'll be shouting for more fuel, too late by then. Less speed now means more fuel for the future.
Edited by MikeTorque on 26/06/2008 at 16:24
|
|
Praise be!
|
Recent experience of a Citroen C1 shows that 55mpg is easily achievable on mixed driving. However bear in mind that cars are much heavier than those of even five years ago. So P3t3r's Fiat will be a lot lighter than the C1 and so should be more economical.
Take the C1 engine and put it into a supermini from the 1970's - say a Fiat 127 - and if it doesn't get 60mpg arond town I will be amazed. However, over 50mph, the aerodynamics take over so city cars are not as economical at higher speeds as you would expect them to be.
|
|
Modern cars are now starting to embrace weight loss as a means of improving economy so it may well swing back the other way now.
|
Modern cars are now starting to embrace weight loss as a means of improving economy
My splendid missus has just shed 2 stone and tonight is 'weigh-in' night down at 'Slimming World'. She'll have to remember to tell them that not only does she look even more glorious and feel better ..... but the 'Focus' does more mpg as well ;-)
|
|
Take the C1 engine and put it into a supermini from the 1970's - say a Fiat 127 - and if it doesn't get 60mpg arond town I will be amazed.
Often wondered what the Mini would have been like with a decent small diesel like the old PUG 1.5?
|
|
|
|
|
2001 Volvo S60 2.0T manual (130,000 miles)
Town use: 28 mpg
Motorway (gentle): 35 mpg
Motorway (normal 80-85 cruise): 34 mpg
Typical average over a tankful (99% on rush hour M3/M25): 33 mpg
Manufacturer's combined figure: 31.7 mpg
----------
2004 Renault Grand Scenic 1.9dCi (Euro III) manual (54,000 miles)
Town use: 38 mpg
Motorway (gentle): 57 mpg (brim to brim confirmed over an 80 mile round trip).
Motorway (normal 80-85 cruise): 46 mpg
Typical average over a tankful 43 mpg (does a LOT more town/short run work than the Volvo)
Manufacturer's combined figure: 48.7 mpg
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 26/06/2008 at 16:55
|
|
|
I personally have a love of small, clever cars, even cars like Caterhams which prove you dont need a whole lot of power to go quickly.
Cars like the Elise will most likely take over from heavier, larger supercars as they offer just as much real world pace without huge fuel bills and emissions.
Power figures are for bar room bragging, the preserve of folk with self-confidence issues.
Theres nothing clever about 15 mpg.
|
Power figures are for bar room bragging, the preserve of folk with self-confidence issues.
Theres nothing clever about 15 mpg.
Yes, no doubt the new bar room brag will centre on issues of like frugal fuel use, lightness & smallness...
|
|
Already is by the look of this forum...
|
|
I dunno, bigger is better is very much a part of the male psych and it will be a long time before people attitudes change.
|
"Take the C1 engine and put it into a supermini from the 1970's - say a Fiat 127"
I squeezed myself into a colleague's Fiat 126 yesterday - not been in one since 1987. All I will say is today's small cars are massive!
Even though I only sat in it I felt extremely vulnerable. No airbags and loads of sharp metal edges on display.
|
|
>>Power figures are for bar room bragging, the preserve of folk with self-confidence issues.
Theres nothing clever about 15 mpg.
Is it the bar room bragging that's the problem or the fact that some people like large and powerful cars, which the last time I looked is still legal?
Why does liking the sound and feel of a big V8 mean that person has a problem with their self-confidence?
|
To answer the original question _ NO
The 2.0D Vectra I had in 1997 would do 70mpg
The 1.9 Octavia I have now will at a stretch do 60mpg.
Also if you want to do 70mph economically aerodynamics matter more than weight, in stop start weight matters more than aerodynamics. I would guess the Aygo has the drag coefficient of a brick.
I am also with Mike Torque. Mineral based fuel supply is limited, vegetable based fuels will mean we cannot afford to eat (bulk cereal prices are rising because of vegetable based fuel crops and this is why the aid agencies cannot afford to buy enough food to feed those starving in Africa)
We should limit what we use now to make it last longer - but it won't happen just as we are over-fishing because we can (the same issue that killed off the dodo) and we not thinking about what our children and grandchildren will do.
If you need the sound of a big V8 put a recording in the stereo, what is the point of one on our congested roads.
|
|
|
Why does liking the sound and feel of a big V8 mean that person has a problem with their self-confidence?
I don't understand this. Is there a difference between the sound of a small engine with a large exhuast, and a big V8? They seem to sound very similar to me. I also wouldn't want a noisey engine. I personally think small engines (with normal exhausts) can sound great when revved, and at low revs they are nice and quiet. Big V8's sound horrible in IMHO and anyway, what is the point of listening to an engine? They're not musical devices, they're designed to make the car move!
|
|
A big V8 has a lovely sound, but the reason I think it is appealing ( esp a 60's muscle car ) is that the sound is associated with power, even if outright pace isnt huge.
|
I had a car on hire yesterday, to take me from Heathrow back home in the East Midlands. It was a new (mk2.5) Focus 1.6. I was a little heavier with my right foot on the accelerator, and cruised at a faster speed than I would usually, but even so I was shocked by how poor the fuel efficiency reported by the trip computer was. Averaged 33mpg (according to trip computer - which I guess was likely to be overreading) over around 150 miles, mostly on the motorway. The car had done 7800 miles.
In contrast, my mk1 Focus (which I believe has the same engine? Certainly the same headline figures, i.e. 1.6 litres and ~100BHP) has done an average of 40mpg since I took ownership of it 60,000 miles ago. This is a calculated figure.
I know the new car is heavier. Interestingly, it also seemed to be geared somewhat lower. 70mph was reached at 3200rpm in 5th, compared to about 2800 or 2900 in my older car. Reaffirmed my plans not to replace my car until I have no choice!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
