Barge economy

[macp]

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

[Fox-]

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

[macp]

Fox- said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

Thankyou for that

[Chris_w666]

Engine size is largely irrelevant compared to the quality of engineering and the various stresses the engine is under.

[Mr E]

2.5. Italian. Slightly tired. Low twenties. In this cold, very low twenties.

[Fox-]

macp said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

Thankyou for that

What was wrong with my reply? You asked 'dont you think' and no, I don't think that engines of 2.5 litres have the same fuel consumption as engines of 5.0 litres. One of the reason I chose the 3 litre 5 Series was because it was noticeably more economical than the 3.5 and 4.4.

What I've noticed with barges is that, generally, fuel consumption is linked to cylinder count not engine size. So if a car has 2 V6's and 2 V8's in the range, you'll probably find you get similar consumption out of the two similar engines.

But a 5.0 is going to drink noticebaly more than a 2.5.

[Or888t]

Fox- said:

macp said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

Thankyou for that

What was wrong with my reply? You asked 'dont you think' and no, I don't think that engines of 2.5 litres have the same fuel consumption as engines of 5.0 litres. One of the reason I chose the 3 litre 5 Series was because it was noticeably more economical than the 3.5 and 4.4.

What I've noticed with barges is that, generally, fuel consumption is linked to cylinder count not engine size. So if a car has 2 V6's and 2 V8's in the range, you'll probably find you get similar consumption out of the two similar engines.

But a 5.0 is going to drink noticebaly more than a 2.5.

Well said.

[macp]

Fox- said:

macp said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

Thankyou for that

What was wrong with my reply? You asked 'dont you think' and no, I don't think that engines of 2.5 litres have the same fuel consumption as engines of 5.0 litres. One of the reason I chose the 3 litre 5 Series was because it was noticeably more economical than the 3.5 and 4.4.

What I've noticed with barges is that, generally, fuel consumption is linked to cylinder count not engine size. So if a car has 2 V6's and 2 V8's in the range, you'll probably find you get similar consumption out of the two similar engines.

But a 5.0 is going to drink noticebaly more than a 2.5.

Firstly I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to post.Your comment was simply 'no I dont think' you never offered any elaboration as you have now.Dont you think if you are going to respond to a thread whether you think it is ridiculous or not why not respond with your thoughts as you have now rather than making the smart comment as you did.However this is PH and you take the rough with the smooth.

Edited by macp on Wednesday 24th November 09:09

[300bhp/ton]

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

[LuS1fer]

Consumption is also related to use so, for example, a Subaru WRX driven at the same speeds as a 5.7 litre Corvette will drink the same or more because it's trying harder. It's not just the fuel costs though as an American engine will not only give you 24-35mpg driven conservatively but can be serviced using nothing more than oil and filters and your own wit and guile....and cost less to tax.

[300bhp/ton]

Or888t said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

Thankyou for that

What was wrong with my reply? You asked 'dont you think' and no, I don't think that engines of 2.5 litres have the same fuel consumption as engines of 5.0 litres. One of the reason I chose the 3 litre 5 Series was because it was noticeably more economical than the 3.5 and 4.4.

What I've noticed with barges is that, generally, fuel consumption is linked to cylinder count not engine size. So if a car has 2 V6's and 2 V8's in the range, you'll probably find you get similar consumption out of the two similar engines.

But a 5.0 is going to drink noticebaly more than a 2.5.

Well said.

It is well, said, but I also know what the OP is saying/asking.

Some model ranges there can be very little difference in fuel consumption. Using my own car as an example, the 3.8 V6 is hardly any more economical than the 5.7 V8.

[macp]

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

Fair comment I was generalising but yeah I see your point.I have read posts from PH`rs with an E46 325i who also own a 540i E39 and are seeing similar mpg.

[LuS1fer]

macp said:

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

Fair comment I was generalising but yeah I see your point.I have read posts from PH`rs with an E46 325i who also own a 540i E39 and are seeing similar mpg.

But doubtless far higher insurance and servicing costs.

[macp]

Or888t said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

Fox- said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

No, I don't think.

Thankyou for that

What was wrong with my reply? You asked 'dont you think' and no, I don't think that engines of 2.5 litres have the same fuel consumption as engines of 5.0 litres. One of the reason I chose the 3 litre 5 Series was because it was noticeably more economical than the 3.5 and 4.4.

What I've noticed with barges is that, generally, fuel consumption is linked to cylinder count not engine size. So if a car has 2 V6's and 2 V8's in the range, you'll probably find you get similar consumption out of the two similar engines.

But a 5.0 is going to drink noticebaly more than a 2.5.

Well said.

Yes sorry all said & done I agree it was well said.

[300bhp/ton]

macp said:

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

Fair comment I was generalising but yeah I see your point.I have read posts from PH`rs with an E46 325i who also own a 540i E39 and are seeing similar mpg.

Driving style, roads and what you consider "similar" would all be important.

At one point I used to average 28mpg in a 1.8i MGF, 27mpg in a VVC MGF and even managed to get a 1.1 Rover 200 to also average 28mpg. Yet a 3.5 carb V8 would do 24mpg on the same roads.

But this could be misleading as on a longer more sensible run the 1.8i MGF would do 37-42mpg while the V8 remained at 24-26mpg.

[macp]

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

Fair comment I was generalising but yeah I see your point.I have read posts from PH`rs with an E46 325i who also own a 540i E39 and are seeing similar mpg.

Driving style, roads and what you consider "similar" would all be important.

At one point I used to average 28mpg in a 1.8i MGF, 27mpg in a VVC MGF and even managed to get a 1.1 Rover 200 to also average 28mpg. Yet a 3.5 carb V8 would do 24mpg on the same roads.

But this could be misleading as on a longer more sensible run the 1.8i MGF would do 37-42mpg while the V8 remained at 24-26mpg.

Now you see I find that interesting

[Efbe]

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

i'd say type and make of engine rather than car is more important. obviously weight of the car will affect as well.

[uuf361]

Guess it depends on how they're driven too - the same person driving 2 cars with different engine sizes would be a good comparison.

Out of my 2.5 I have been getting roughly 38mpg over the last 14K miles, not sure I'd do quite as well out a bigger car with a bigger engine an mine isn't exactly straining most of the time.

[Fox-]

macp said:

300bhp/ton said:

macp said:

So maintenance costs aside it seems from reading various threads that anything from a 2.5 to 5.0 has pretty similar fuel consumption dont you think ?

Erm, sort of stating the obvious, but type, make and model of car might have some bearing on it.....

Fair comment I was generalising but yeah I see your point.I have read posts from PH`rs with an E46 325i who also own a 540i E39 and are seeing similar mpg.

People claim all sorts on the internet - some things quite honestly - but in reality we have to take it all with a pinch of salt as there are many variables. Because they once put cruise control to 67mph for 300 miles and got 34mpg in a 540i, the same as they get when they hammer along at 80mph in a 325i, that to some people makes the fuel economy the same.

Just look at the combined figures for the two, the E39 540i is 22.7mpg the E46 325i is something like 32. Now we all know that the figures are just that, figures, but they are hardly going to be spot on for one and misleading for the other! i suspect even if the figures are optimistic the difference between the two cars is reasonably correct.

[mattmoxon]

Not so much a barge (well some people might consider it to be so) I get ~20mpg day to day out of the Mustang, a 4.6L V8 auto weighing around 1550kg. Out of the ST I had before the most I could get staying off the turbo was 26mpg. Driving the same as I do now around 24mpg. 2.5l turbo with around 1400kg to lug.
Motorways at 70mph 30mpg and 34mpg respectively.