|
We ought to have a survey of real life fuel consumptions. I used a hire company focus 1.8 recentley and was shocked at its fuel consumption, it only just got over 30 mpg! nowhere near its official figure.
|
We ought to have a survey of real life fuel consumptions. I used a hire company focus 1.8 recentley and was shocked at its fuel consumption, it only just got over 30 mpg! nowhere near its official figure.
>>
fuel consumption is due to many factors, not just manufacturers figures which should be taken with a pinch of salt.The largest influence is how you drive, combined with traffic conditions , weather ,type of road ie motorway / urban ect
chris
|
|
|
|
The official figures were never meant to be taken as achievable. They just serve as a means of comparison. When looking for a new car I compare the official figures of my present car against the figures of the prospective purchase. I also read what motoring magazines achieve with their long-term test cars.
|
Godfrey - in theory, comparing official EU figures should give one a meaningful comparison, which might help to decide on a model of car. But it would be almost meaningless to compare the results from a boy-racer and grandma, especially allowing for length of trip, type of road, degree of congestion, and weather conditions (to name a few parameters).
However it ought also to be meaningful to compare results of different cars with same driver. I find I get a few percent better than the 'Euro-average', mostly with moderate driving on long trips. What I would like to know is whether these official figures represent real miles or those indicated on the odometer.
|
|
Andrew official mpg figures are done on a rolling road test rig which takes the driver and other variables out of the equation. Now I know I will never achieve the best figures quoted, but what I can do is use them as intended, as a relative car to car comparison. So this tells me whether I am likely to do worse or better car to car.
|
|
The trouble is some of the manufacturers figures seem to be more relative than others. I drive a lot of different cars and have found some cars figures are similar to the official figures, some are miles out - especially Ford (except Mondeo 2.0 it did 40!)
|
For the past 8 or 9 years, I've kept a detailed log on Excel spreadsheets of petrol consumption on every car I've had, mostly Alfasuds, Sprints,33s and an Alfa75 with a couple of Celicas. This means brimming the tank and noting the mileage on every fill-up.(I know, I know, it's all a bit sad).
Almost all of them have averaged around 30 mpg, the only exceptions being in very cold weather, a succession af short trips, hammering down the M6 at 3am when it fell to about 25mpg. Worst ever was 22mpg in a Sprint when daily journey was only 4 miles. Longer, more leisurely journeys would push it up to about 38 mpg. I've never compared the official figures, but I reckon the consistency must be to do with my driving style. I don't generally hang about (75-85 on M-ways), but nor am I a tearaway (at my age??).
|
Interesting comments so far - only one Civic 1.6 driver so far.
Filling the tank isn't sad Alfa fan - I've done it without fail for 43 years so far. Its often a pointer to something wrong.
I have been doing the same 90 mile return commute for six years in three cars. I have always managed to achieve manufacturers average figures before. The Honda is nearly 10 mpg below. Inanswer to how do I drive - legally, almost constantly at 4,000 rpm rarely up to the red.>> For the past 8 or 9 years, I've kept a detailedlog on Excel spreadsheets of petrol consumption on every car I've had, mostly Alfasuds, Sprints,33s and an Alfa75 with a couple of Celicas. This means brimming the tank and noting the mileage on every fill-up.(I know, I know, it's all a bit sad). Almost all of them have averaged around 30 mpg, the only exceptions being in very cold weather, a succession af short trips, hammering down the M6 at 3am when it fell to about 25mpg. Worst ever was 22mpg in a Sprint when daily journey was only 4 miles. Longer, more leisurely journeys would push it up to about 38 mpg. I've never compared the official figures, but I reckon the consistency must be to do with my driving style. I don't generally hang about (75-85 on M-ways), but nor am I a tearaway (at my age??).
|
|
At 4000 rpm you are into the VTEC region which I think may account for your poor figures. Try easing back to 3700 rpm and see what happens.
|
A logical suggestion godfrey H. This week I tried not to exceed 3700rpm. My 400 mile tankful changed from 37 to 36 mpg!. Funnily enough it has never varied from 36 or 37 mpg per tankful, even when I've been cruising at over 4000 revs.
I'm going to hurry next week and see what happens!
I'm not loosing sleep over it, but the official figures into the mid forties are very misleading when I could achieve them in a Clio and an old Primera.
|
|
Interesting, I did a high speed trip of 420 miles and my consumption was below 40 mpg, as compared to my usual motoring which is a mix of 60 mph and 70 mph roads together with some urban trips, which gives me around 40 mpg. A change of 37 mpg to 36 mpg however, could be just experimental error!
|
The plot thickens! I've just had a run down to London and Norfolk from Edinburgh and the comsumption has changed from 36 to 43 mpg! over three tankfuls. My speeds and roads, mainly motorways were pretty much the same as my weekly commute to Stirling.
Only three things have changed.
One I passed through 10,000 miles. has the engine management computer done some clever thing? - unlikely
2 I didn't use Esso petrol. I always have before, not out of preference but convenience.
3. Most of my fuel was bought in England. (highly suspect)
I'm going to keep to BP for a few weeks but I don't really believe it!
|
|
Owned a few civics in my time, the most economical was my old 1992 1.5 lsi (non vtec)it regularly achieved and still does 50+ mpg.Then I had the 1.5 vtec e, nearly as good as the 1.5lsi but the performance was terrible.Then along came the 1.6 vtec se.which gives about the same mpg results as yours with a bit more power than the 1.5 vtec e but less power than the old 1.5 civic
Overall my best civic was the 1992 model!
|
|
|
|
Alfafan, I belong to your boat as well.
Over the last 20 months I have kept very details reports of my Mondeo 1.8LX (1998). The figures are something like this, 27K miles, Average 37.37MPG. Best 41.09, Worst 33.33.
Interestingly, our Fiesta 1.1(1994), the corresponding figures are 33K (over 3 years), Average 37.77, Best 42.49, Worst 29.46.
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more. In my case I have driven 3 mondeo TDCis - one for five months from May- November, one for a month in september whilst mine was off the road, and my current one since November. The fuel economy was one main reason I chose the car- so I drive as carefully as poss within the need to make reasonable progress. The first was good for 46 mpg, exactly as expected from the manufacturers figures. The second was even better - never got less than 49 whilst I had it ( 3 tankfulls ) . The current one will only do 40- and today when I filled up ( it was cold last week) it has only done 37mpg. The journeys are the same- business use- so the only possible variable is the weather conditions. But all the cars have apparently the same performance so I am at a total loss to explain such a big difference.
|
If, and only if, a 1.4 civic = 37mpg, a 3L car should be half of that = 18.5mpg.
Should I consider the Nissan 3.0 very efficient if it get at best 32mpg at 80mpg on motorway, at worse 22mpg in town or rallying?
Or am I luck that I got a good car?
|
My car before the Civic was a Nissan Primera 1600 which returned 39-40 mpg consistently over the same journey and speed as my Civic, hence my disapointment as I partly justified replacing the Primera expecting to use less petrol.
However a recent road test report of a new automatic Primera gave an mpg in the low twenties. The Civic couild do with a sixth gear to cut the revs down to 3,000 at 70, like the Primera
|
Is your car running-in still?
Thing is the 1.6 Primera is actually quite light by mid-size car standard and the new Civic has put on a lot of weight. I guess the kerb-weight of both cars are very similar.
Nissan are generally quite light. My 3.0 Nissan QX, which is an exec size car, only weigh around 1350kg compare to my friend's 1700kg 2.0 Ford Scorpio, and I am only using about 10% more fuel than him despite being a lot quicker.
I agree with you about having longer overdrive. At 60mph cruise, the QX engine is just below 2000rpm (50km/h per 1000rpm) and that is very relax as well as giving 40mpg. Even at 78-80mph cruise (at 2500rpm, I know it is sad but I watch the tacho rather than speedo on motorway) I get around 32mpg.
|
brock, I drove an '02 1.6se company car last year, motorway commuting mainly. really liked the car. It returned somewhere between 36-40mpg, with similar driving style to yourself. However, I did find that easing back to 3500rpm on the motorway payed dividends at the pumps - even a small difference in cruising speed dramatically reduces the consumption (power required to overcome drag forces proportional to speed cubed?)
As mentioned above, I would have liked a sixth gear for cruising, as I found the engine noise intrusive. My '96 1.5LSi is quieter.
|
|
I borrowed er-indoors's new Punto 1.2 16V HLX for my horrendous commute. Including two frozen starts and a 20 minute traffic jam it showed 49.1 on its trip computer!
|
|
|
|
Engine noise I can live with (half deaf). Road noise is unacceptable. Any suggestions for quieter tyres than the Bridgestones fitted?
|
Brock I have just fitted Continental Premium Contacts. I am VERY
pleased with the reduction in road noise.
|
I remember a report last year in some car mag recommending Continentals, but I have lost it (the report - not the plot!). Good to hear of a practical recommendation. My Bridgestones appear to be about half worn at 12,000 but I will definitely replace with Continentals in due course.
Meanwhile, the mpg has reverted to 37 per tankful. Hard motorway driving seems to be more economical than gentle suburban driving. Will have to live with it as generally I'm delighted with the Civic, except that petrol consumption is 15-20% down on what I would have expected to achieve.
|
I've got a Peugeot 307 90 HDI which came with Continental tyres. The fronts lasted 17000 miles and I expect the rears not to give more than 30000 at present rates of wear.
As to consumption I get about 45 MPG on mostly steady 5th gear running - nothing like the quoted figures.
I should add, I don't thrash my car.
|
|
|
|
I have driven 3 mondeo TDCis
>>the only possible variable is the weather conditions. But all the cars have apparently the same performance so I am at a total loss to explain such a big difference.
Winter diesel.
The anti-waxing additives added to fuel in the UK seem to be dropping the average economy of my Octavia SDi to below 50mpg! They did the same last winter, once all threat of freezing goes away they stop adding the additives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
