Discussion
Does anyone on here have a Lupo 3L ? Im trying to find out just how economical they are at autobahn speeds (130kph)? Also, is it reving its nuts off at that speed?
I reeeealy fancy one, after reading the sales gumph that VW produced on them im looked. They really went to town on the details to make the car as fuel efficient as possible.
All the small tweaks are in here
http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_218.p...
I reeeealy fancy one, after reading the sales gumph that VW produced on them im looked. They really went to town on the details to make the car as fuel efficient as possible.
All the small tweaks are in here
http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_218.p...
Edited by Lord on Monday 16th November 09:29
I don't, but I agree that they are a brilliant little thing! Europe only though weren't they? And yes, the attention to detail is great. Really like the cars that came out of the Piech era. This, the Phaeton, The Veyron. There's something to be admired about obsessive attention to detail no matter how large or small the car.
Its the metric version of mpg. Liters per 100km. The aim was to make a car that can achieve 3l of fuel for 100km traveled.
There is a anecdote that Renault got wind of VW plan to make a 3L lupo and thats how the Clio V6 came about!
I think PHer cptsideways has a 3L, i hope he spots this post so i can pick his brain
There is a anecdote that Renault got wind of VW plan to make a 3L lupo and thats how the Clio V6 came about!
I think PHer cptsideways has a 3L, i hope he spots this post so i can pick his brain
louiebaby said:
Lord said:
There is a anecdote that Renault got wind of VW plan to make a 3L lupo and thats how the Clio V6 came about!
I always thought it was the other way round. VW heard about plans for a 3 litre Clio, and decided to try and get a Lupo out first.Worth a read, it is a little curio car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo...
3l/100km = 94 UK MPG
830kg
Different bodywork from the normal Lupo for improved aerodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo...
3l/100km = 94 UK MPG
830kg
Different bodywork from the normal Lupo for improved aerodynamics.
LeoZwalf said:
Worth a read, it is a little curio car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo...
3l/100km = 94 UK MPG
830kg
Different bodywork from the normal Lupo for improved aerodynamics.
Favourite bits:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo...
3l/100km = 94 UK MPG
830kg
Different bodywork from the normal Lupo for improved aerodynamics.
In 2001, a Japanese economy driver, Dr Miyano, used it to set a new world record for the most frugal circumnavigation of Britain in a standard diesel production car, with an average fuel economy figure of 119.48 mpg. In November 2003, Gerhard Plattner covered a distance of 2,910 miles through 20 European countries in a standard Lupo 3L TDI. He achieved his aim of completing this journey - which started in Oslo, Norway and finished in The Hague in The Netherlands - with just 100 euros worth of fuel. In fact, all he required was 90.94 euros, which corresponds to an average consumption of 2.78 litres per 100 km (101.6 mpg).
According to the Lupo 3L instruction manual, the 3L engine also runs on Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME) without any changes to the engine.
Does that mean you can run it on basically biodiesel some people make themselves for about 30-40p/l? That would be only a couple of pence per mile in fuel surely
Interesting that it "freewheels", I always thought that it was more economical to let a car roll in gear with your foot off the throttle (i.e the wheels turn the engine and no fuel is injected) than knock it into neutral or dip the clutch and coast (as a small amount of fuel will be burned to keep the engine idling). Although I suppose coasting is easier on the flat or a very very slight downhill incline with less mechanical friction to overcome.
Triumph Man said:
Interesting that it "freewheels", I always thought that it was more economical to let a car roll in gear with your foot off the throttle (i.e the wheels turn the engine and no fuel is injected) than knock it into neutral or dip the clutch and coast (as a small amount of fuel will be burned to keep the engine idling). Although I suppose coasting is easier on the flat or a very very slight downhill incline with less mechanical friction to overcome.
I assume they tested it to see, or maybe they just did it "because they could" Perhaps it's because the car is so light, frugal engined and aerodynamic with low rolling resistance it's a special case.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff