MPG and your reasons!!!
Discussion
Fastdruid said:
No, people self-justify their decisions so while I'm sure there are some out there that really do, there are lots of justifications out there that people "prefer the torque" when they bought it for the MPG (and VED and BIK). Which buying is totally fine.
Completely agree.I bought my car because I wanted it. I dropped 15 mpg changing to it, at a time when my commute went up by 6k a year..
I bought diesel as that was what 99% of the cars for sale were. There was only 1 petrol model in the spec and colour trim I wanted. By the time my old car sold. So was that car.
Still, I like the diesel. Does everything I need and can get remapped for better power gains.
I bought diesel as that was what 99% of the cars for sale were. There was only 1 petrol model in the spec and colour trim I wanted. By the time my old car sold. So was that car.
Still, I like the diesel. Does everything I need and can get remapped for better power gains.
Fastdruid said:
No, people self-justify their decisions so while I'm sure there are some out there that really do, there are lots of justifications out there that people "prefer the torque" when they bought it for the MPG (and VED and BIK). Which buying is totally fine. (with a proviso that as Daemon points out there are cars for which the petrol version is absolutely shockingly awful and the diesel is the preferred version, although even then in the case of the Juke that's arguably just the poor base petrol 1.6 engine, the 1.6T sounds on paper a far better bet than the 1.5TD).
Hey, is this the first post we've agreed on?? 
BIL had a 1.6T in a Juke. Fast but couldnt go round corners very well.
Edited by daemon on Wednesday 27th August 14:38
Fastdruid said:
Still, I will soon have the ultimate comparison, after being given Diesel cars as courtesy cars with the same torque as mine (obviously less than the 2000hp I'm used to) while mine is in the body shop today I'm expecting a Nissan Micra. Will I curse a 1.2 petrol more than a 2.0TDCI140? Will I be able to cope with a redline lower than the 60500rpm my 2000hp superbeast revs to to make it's power from only 320Nm? Will I cope with only 110Nm?
And the results are in. It's god awful slow (~5s slower to 60 than my 2000hp turbo nutter beast), absolutely tiny, noisy, stupidly light steering, uncomfortable, laughably spec'd (not even AC), missing two cylinders and initially sounded like it's got an electric motor rather than a petrol engine but while slow, it's not that slow and it's absolutely fine to drive, has a powerband wider than a knats c**k with no utter Oh and currently averaging 48mpg.
Well I managed 21.17MPG on my last tank. Pretty much 50/50 split between urban and sensible long run. Part of the urban was countryside hoon. Pretty impressive considering there was a disconnected vac line which was causing the car to over fuel by 15% and also knocked out my lambda sensor as a result!
Stuck in what should be my last ever full tank of V Power today. All set for the LPG conversion next week. Lets see how the figures compare once its been done.
Stuck in what should be my last ever full tank of V Power today. All set for the LPG conversion next week. Lets see how the figures compare once its been done.
Had a 2001 V70 2.4 petrol a year or so ago (the 140bhp version) and averaged about 26mpg.
Now upgraded to a 2006 V70 D5 (185bhp) and achieve just over 42mpg. Combine that with the fact that it's immeasurably faster than the petrol and it's a no brainer for me.
And yes, I'll admit it - I bought it only to save money so I can spend it on the wife, my son and the house (not to mention a newly purchased cat). Would love a T5 or similar, but it would cost me roughly £130 a month extra and sadly I'm not the typical PH goateed Company Director.
Now upgraded to a 2006 V70 D5 (185bhp) and achieve just over 42mpg. Combine that with the fact that it's immeasurably faster than the petrol and it's a no brainer for me.
And yes, I'll admit it - I bought it only to save money so I can spend it on the wife, my son and the house (not to mention a newly purchased cat). Would love a T5 or similar, but it would cost me roughly £130 a month extra and sadly I'm not the typical PH goateed Company Director.
Fastdruid said:
And the results are in. It's god awful slow (~5s slower to 60 than my 2000hp turbo nutter beast), absolutely tiny, noisy, stupidly light steering, uncomfortable, laughably spec'd (not even AC), missing two cylinders and initially sounded like it's got an electric motor rather than a petrol engine but while slow, it's not that slow and it's absolutely fine to drive, has a powerband wider than a knats c**k with no utter nothingfewer below 1500rpm and in that respect 10 billion times better than the two Diesels I've had so far this year.
Oh and currently averaging 48mpg.
The first points aside, do you not think 48 mpg is utterly sOh and currently averaging 48mpg.
t for a small, fairly slow car? Especially given that mine will do that knocking about town, and could more or less fit a Micra in its boot. 
On your other point about diesels and their power band, I take back some of my earlier comments: I have got an Astra on demo at the moment, well, I say demo, I drove it yesterday and it's now on the road not being driven again until they come and fetch it, it's rubbish, nothing-nothing-nothing-whoosh-nothing.
It's a completely old school rattly noisy thing, not particularly economical either, and in a different league entirely to my VAG 170 TDi, which although no rocket ship, is smooth for a diesel, quiet and has power all through the rev range, although I will admit it's not fast below 1500 rpm. It's useable though.
Pan Pan said:
Exactly this - It sounds like your car does exactly what you bought it for. If fuel economy was a requirement, I am guessing it would not be your first choice.
People mostly buy cars which suit `their' particular set requirements. criticizing people for using a car type, just because it is not what `some' here would have bought for `their' requirements, does seem a bit odd.
Indeed if I actually needed the economy I'd have bought something a little less fuel hungry. My previous car (Focus ST) was barely any better it averaged 22mpg day to day and around 34/35 on a run (if I could keep my foot off the gas). I could eek 25-26mpg day to day but I had to drive like I was driving miss daisy and keep well off the turbo - which was rather boring.People mostly buy cars which suit `their' particular set requirements. criticizing people for using a car type, just because it is not what `some' here would have bought for `their' requirements, does seem a bit odd.
Interestingly if you disregard the modifications I have done the Mustangs average running costs are around the same (if not slightly better) than the Focus ST.
Super Slo Mo said:
Fastdruid said:
And the results are in. It's god awful slow (~5s slower to 60 than my 2000hp turbo nutter beast), absolutely tiny, noisy, stupidly light steering, uncomfortable, laughably spec'd (not even AC), missing two cylinders and initially sounded like it's got an electric motor rather than a petrol engine but while slow, it's not that slow and it's absolutely fine to drive, has a powerband wider than a knats c**k with no utter nothingfewer below 1500rpm and in that respect 10 billion times better than the two Diesels I've had so far this year.
Oh and currently averaging 48mpg.
The first points aside, do you not think 48 mpg is utterly sOh and currently averaging 48mpg.
t for a small, fairly slow car? Especially given that mine will do that knocking about town, and could more or less fit a Micra in its boot. On your other point about diesels and their power band, I take back some of my earlier comments: I have got an Astra on demo at the moment, well, I say demo, I drove it yesterday and it's now on the road not being driven again until they come and fetch it, it's rubbish, nothing-nothing-nothing-whoosh-nothing.
It's a completely old school rattly noisy thing, not particularly economical either, and in a different league entirely to my VAG 170 TDi, which although no rocket ship, is smooth for a diesel, quiet and has power all through the rev range, although I will admit it's not fast below 1500 rpm. It's useable though.
Its s pity they are so bad dynamically because in other respects they, and Insignias are not bad looking cars
PanzerCommander said:
Pan Pan said:
Exactly this - It sounds like your car does exactly what you bought it for. If fuel economy was a requirement, I am guessing it would not be your first choice.
People mostly buy cars which suit `their' particular set requirements. criticizing people for using a car type, just because it is not what `some' here would have bought for `their' requirements, does seem a bit odd.
Indeed if I actually needed the economy I'd have bought something a little less fuel hungry. My previous car (Focus ST) was barely any better it averaged 22mpg day to day and around 34/35 on a run (if I could keep my foot off the gas). I could eek 25-26mpg day to day but I had to drive like I was driving miss daisy and keep well off the turbo - which was rather boring.People mostly buy cars which suit `their' particular set requirements. criticizing people for using a car type, just because it is not what `some' here would have bought for `their' requirements, does seem a bit odd.
Interestingly if you disregard the modifications I have done the Mustangs average running costs are around the same (if not slightly better) than the Focus ST.
there and back several times over in the Passat for a fraction of the price, in smooth, quiet, convenient comfort, does affect the choice, as posted elsewhere its just a case of horses for courses.
Pan Pan said:
The petrol Astra`s I have been give as courtesy cars, are astoundingly bad, absolutely gutless, and they drink fuel like an ocean liner but for absolutely no return in terms of performance.
Its s pity they are so bad dynamically because in other respects they, and Insignias are not bad looking cars
To be fair to it, the 1.6 diesel isn't too bad in terms of performance, although it's not in the VAG's 2.0 league for power, economy or smoothness. Or power delivery for that matter.Its s pity they are so bad dynamically because in other respects they, and Insignias are not bad looking cars
The bigger issue for me is that it's an ergonomic mess, it's the first car I've driven where I wanted to punch the centre console, it's so illogical on first use. For comparison, I've also been using an Auris for a week, it's really good from an ergonomic perspective, I figured everything out within 10 minutes whilst also driving (I know, shoot me
). I actually like the Auris, I don't know why people slate them for being dull, it's easily the equal of most things in its class in most respects, perhaps doesn't have the handling finess of a Focus, but it's fine for normal use, and is a nice motorway car. Super Slo Mo said:
Pan Pan said:
The petrol Astra`s I have been give as courtesy cars, are astoundingly bad, absolutely gutless, and they drink fuel like an ocean liner but for absolutely no return in terms of performance.
Its s pity they are so bad dynamically because in other respects they, and Insignias are not bad looking cars
To be fair to it, the 1.6 diesel isn't too bad in terms of performance, although it's not in the VAG's 2.0 league for power, economy or smoothness. Or power delivery for that matter.Its s pity they are so bad dynamically because in other respects they, and Insignias are not bad looking cars
The bigger issue for me is that it's an ergonomic mess, it's the first car I've driven where I wanted to punch the centre console, it's so illogical on first use. For comparison, I've also been using an Auris for a week, it's really good from an ergonomic perspective, I figured everything out within 10 minutes whilst also driving (I know, shoot me
). I actually like the Auris, I don't know why people slate them for being dull, it's easily the equal of most things in its class in most respects, perhaps doesn't have the handling finess of a Focus, but it's fine for normal use, and is a nice motorway car. The ones I used were all petrol, and dire to drive, but I did wonder if a diesel would be better. Perhaps the fact they are so bad is why they seem to end up being hire / courtesy cars? not many others would actually want to buy one?
Super Slo Mo said:
Fastdruid said:
And the results are in. It's god awful slow (~5s slower to 60 than my 2000hp turbo nutter beast), absolutely tiny, noisy, stupidly light steering, uncomfortable, laughably spec'd (not even AC), missing two cylinders and initially sounded like it's got an electric motor rather than a petrol engine but while slow, it's not that slow and it's absolutely fine to drive, has a powerband wider than a knats c**k with no utter nothingfewer below 1500rpm and in that respect 10 billion times better than the two Diesels I've had so far this year.
Oh and currently averaging 48mpg.
The first points aside, do you not think 48 mpg is utterly sOh and currently averaging 48mpg.
t for a small, fairly slow car? Especially given that mine will do that knocking about town, and could more or less fit a Micra in its boot. It puts the 26mpg mine does into perspective. all the toys, comfy, 700Kg heavier, 1m longer (and I think that is pretty much just the boot, there is none in the micra), 40cm wider (and 8mm shorter!)
Super Slo Mo said:
On your other point about diesels and their power band, I take back some of my earlier comments: I have got an Astra on demo at the moment, well, I say demo, I drove it yesterday and it's now on the road not being driven again until they come and fetch it, it's rubbish, fewer-fewer-fewer-whoosh-fewer.
I have corrected this in line with the declaration that there cannot be nothing from xRIEx.Classic apples and pears!
If I drive my V8 monster at 6th at a constant 55mph, it gets better mpg than my wife's eurobox doing 0-30 sprints in 1st gear uphill and with an anchor in the boot.
In seriousness, I think there are some conditions in which more powerful cars use barely any less fuel than little efficiency freak cars. I think my Cayman S uses about the same amount of fuel as my wife's 1.2 crapbox when driven similarly along country roads. The small engine has to work so much harder to make progress that it becomes very inefficient. It'd be interesting to compare them at a motorway cruise, too, as I think the Pork is pretty frugal at a constant 70mph.
If I drive my V8 monster at 6th at a constant 55mph, it gets better mpg than my wife's eurobox doing 0-30 sprints in 1st gear uphill and with an anchor in the boot.
In seriousness, I think there are some conditions in which more powerful cars use barely any less fuel than little efficiency freak cars. I think my Cayman S uses about the same amount of fuel as my wife's 1.2 crapbox when driven similarly along country roads. The small engine has to work so much harder to make progress that it becomes very inefficient. It'd be interesting to compare them at a motorway cruise, too, as I think the Pork is pretty frugal at a constant 70mph.
My daily round-trip commute is 105 miles - 90% of which is a dull slog down the M1 at 70mph on cruise control.
My previous Audi S4 saw a brim-to-brim average of 29-30mpg. Not too bad, but the small fuel tank meant a visit to Mr Shell every 3 days.
I now have an A6 Avant BiTDI. Pretty much the same performance, but seeing 46-47mpg in the same service. Generally, I can go just over a week between fills. The fact that it's not even doing 1,400rpm at 70mph surely helps.
My previous Audi S4 saw a brim-to-brim average of 29-30mpg. Not too bad, but the small fuel tank meant a visit to Mr Shell every 3 days.
I now have an A6 Avant BiTDI. Pretty much the same performance, but seeing 46-47mpg in the same service. Generally, I can go just over a week between fills. The fact that it's not even doing 1,400rpm at 70mph surely helps.
Edited by legless on Thursday 28th August 09:55
ORD said:
Classic apples and pears!
If I drive my V8 monster at 6th at a constant 55mph, it gets better mpg than my wife's eurobox doing 0-30 sprints in 1st gear uphill and with an anchor in the boot.
Ha! 29 mpg in the 550i is very easily achievable while still making good progress. It just annoys me that I can do the same journey at pretty much the same speeds in the Mazda (in less comfort) and not see any saving.If I drive my V8 monster at 6th at a constant 55mph, it gets better mpg than my wife's eurobox doing 0-30 sprints in 1st gear uphill and with an anchor in the boot.
Fastdruid said:
Claimed urban mpg is 46 so it's not bad seeing I wasn't driving for economy and still managed to better the claimed mpg.
It puts the 26mpg mine does into perspective. all the toys, comfy, 700Kg heavier, 1m longer (and I think that is pretty much just the boot, there is none in the micra), 40cm wider (and 8mm shorter!)178hp1922hp and 200Nm more. All for 22mpg worse (all of £42 a month more in fuel costs for me), bargain.
Bargain indeed. It puts the 26mpg mine does into perspective. all the toys, comfy, 700Kg heavier, 1m longer (and I think that is pretty much just the boot, there is none in the micra), 40cm wider (and 8mm shorter!)
In fairness, it's probably not fair to compare power delivery between cars anyway, I've been out in the wife's 1.4 Polo this morning, and while it's nippy enough and capable of 45 mph (indicated) around town, it has very little acceleration below 2,000 rpm.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff