Interesting article in the weekend press where the fuel economy of a 1.1 litre petrol Citroen C1 was compared with a 1.4HDI diesel C1 on a complete lap of the M25 at 50 mph (traffic & cameras permitting).
Contrary to expectations the the diesel car achieved 82.7 mpg at a cost of £6.37, whilst the petrol engined motor returned a remarkable 85.5 mpg at a cost of £6.10.
So the most economical car tested to date is a petrol, which has beaten not only diesel but all current hybrids as well.!!!!
|
That's a nice practical example.Not.
How about an impractical one - like driving into town, stop starting and parking...?
Imo the weekend press is as reliable on these issues as a paper umbrella in a thunderstorm..
madf
|
|
Obviously if you imagined that a circuit of the M25 was completed without constant stopping & starting, then I suggest you get out more.!!!!
|
Erm... my first car was a 1.0 Micra. Now I acknowledge that engines have probably been refined a bit since then but I didn't even get half that figure - mainly because I had to drive the thing like I stole it just to keep up with the rest of the traffic.
I'd suggest a more realistic test would be to put an 18 year old in each car in London and tell them that the first to get to Edinburgh's Grassmarket (and retain a clean licence in the process) gets a week of free beer. Then check the MPG values.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
|
However the test was done, it's still a remarkable figure for the petrol. The diesel is where I'd expect it to be.
|
Perhaps the diesel was towing the petrol version...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the diesel would have been a lot more relaxed to drive - I bet there would have been a lot less gear changing needed in the 1.4HDi
Whatever the case and conditions, IMO to get 80+ mpg from a 1.1 is very impressive indeed. 80mpg from the diesel is around what you'd expect anyway.
|
>I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the diesel would have >been a lot more relaxed to drive - I bet there would have been a >lot less gear changing needed in the 1.4HDi
Why do you say that? Most diesels I have driven have a fairly narrow power band compared to their petrol equivalents and so require more stick-shifting to keep them moving.
No data on the time of day for the test, of course. 5pm on a wet Friday February evening would be very different to lunchtime in early August.
|
>I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the diesel would have >been a lot more relaxed to drive - I bet there would have been a >lot less gear changing needed in the 1.4HDi Why do you say that? Most diesels I have driven have a fairly narrow power band compared to their petrol equivalents and so require more stick-shifting to keep them moving.
They might have a narrower power band but they also have a lot more pulling power at low revs. Our Xantia 1.9 TD will happily chug along in 4th gear at 30 mph and yet will easily run up to 80 mph in the same gear.
|
|
|
|
"put an 18 year old in each car"
Assuming you could find an 18-year old that would be seen driving a diesel C1... :-)
|
|
|
|
|
That's a nice practical example.Not. How about an impractical one - like driving into town, stop starting and parking...? Imo the weekend press is as reliable on these issues as a paper umbrella in a thunderstorm..
Agree !!
I read this article and just knew this would apear as a discussion thread in about a microsecond !
Firstly, the diesel does have a considerably bigger engine and one would assume the pulling power of the diesel once rolling or with passengers would be considerably better than the 1.0 petrol. After all the very much smaller petrol engine was only a few MPG better.
But to get down to brass tacks a bit more, okay the feather light and tiny C1 has good fuel-cons. Most of the serious diesel car drivers I know drive much bigger heavier diesel variants which still trounce their petrol equivalents on MPG both around town and on motorways, perhaps the round-town MPG most markedly.
Putting a diesel in a car such as this probably (as someone stated later on) is a very marginal proposition, but in the bigger heavier mile-munching cars myself and my colleagues drive high mileages in, I would say they still reign supreme.
|
|
|
|
|
Diesels in small cars have always been a bit of a marginal proposition due to the extra weight of the engine. I expect the C1 is probably the smallest diesel on the market at the moment.
|
Well thats a waste of £12.47 and yet another answer to a question that no-one cared enough to ask in the first place.
Oh right, they were out to disprove a myth..presumably that diesels are more economical that petrols. Great, now they just have to convince the Government that that their taxation methods are flawed and that hundreds of thousands of motorists were duped.
|
That's no test at all, considering how quickly traffic conditions can change. If they were to put one or the other round three times thy would get that sort of variation in the mileage figures.
|
According to the Citroen UK site, the petrol engine is 1 litre and not 1.1 litre. Also, the HDI unit is a lower powered engine than the one in the C2 & C3. The official fuel consumption figures are not that much different, with the exception of the extra urban figures, where the HDI does quite a bit better.
I would imagine, therefore, that the HDI would return better figures at 70 mph on a motorway and also be more relaxed at that speed.
|
|
|
>>>>That's no test at all, considering how quickly traffic conditions can change>>>
The test must have some credence as both vehicles were driven in tandem and faced the same traffic conditions en route.
|
< >
Would probably have even more if both petrol and diesel engines had been the same capacity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Would probably have even more if both petrol and diesel engines had been the same capacity
No,as diesels generally produce less powwer(but more torque)than an equivalent sized petrol engine,hence the use of turbos.I would think the engines in the test would have similar power outputs.
|
|
|
|
>>>>That's no test at all, considering how quickly traffic conditions can change>>> The test must have some credence as both vehicles were driven in tandem and faced the same traffic conditions en route.
>>
If they were driven in tandem, unless the lead car was swopped frequently, it wouldn't be a valid test.
Not that I think it has a great deal of validity anyway...........
|
|
|
It is normal for an identical following vehicle to use more fuel, as the driver keeps adjusting his speed to conform with the leading one.
|
|
The engine as used in the C1/107/Aygo is a 998cc 3 cylinder VVTi toyota engine and quoted MPG figures for it are 61.4 on a run so they did very well to achieve those figures
|
they should have done two laps and swapped drivers. Then it would be a fair comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone got a link to the story? I'm struggling to believe that a petrol C1 achieved 85 mpg under any conditions, apart from maybe freewheeling down a very long hill.
|
>>> Anyone got a link to this story????>>>
h*************.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750-1794324,00.html
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you can take Dude's word for it.
|
|
Link still not working for whatever reason, but at least you know where to direct your searches.!!!
|
For some unknown reason, the Times is blocked on this site.
|
The diesel C1 is a little slower than the petrol as standard, but wait until someone chips it!. I don't know if the diesel C1/107/Aygo has an intercooler.
Now, extra mpg and extra oomph while driving a low revving engine? Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
For some unknown reason, the Times is blocked on this site.
Because it's the competition.
|
>>Because it's the competition.<<
And? I'm here - not at some journalist who writes for the Times' site. I'm hardly going to leave simply because there's another site and I doubt anyone else is either.
Besides, anyone who only discovers the existence of The Times on here must have led a very sheltered life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you can take Dude's word for it.
I wanted to read the article to see if there was any background info that might explain the figures. (BTW To get to the article just type "Making a monkey of the diesel myth" into google.)
Having read the article, I can't see any obvious flaw in what they've done, except the rather short distance (116 miles).
Interesting to see what the mpg reports are from owners.
|
|
|
|
|
A lap of the M25 at 80mpg won't have used a lot of fuel, so the calculations will be flawed based upon refilling the tank.
Also, the diesel will take longer to run in properly.
I wonder what would happen if 2 typical C1/107/Aygo purchasers drove the same route in a petrol and a diesel?
|
I quote from the article.."averaged 49mph for the 116 miles we travelled round the M25. "
So I reiterate that this test may be good for long journeys but has NO relevance to stop start motoring in town - especially anywhere near London - where if you can average 20mph you are driving at 3am.. :-)
So as usual, journalists and reality.. etc..
madf
|
When I go to work in a morning I drive just 3 miles which in my diesel gives me about 40mpg. Now a 1 litre petrol will probably be just coming off the choke, how many petrols do 40mpg on the choke?
Now I know some people drive further to work but the point is valid, it's how we use cars in real life not trying to prove the exception. Another point is that sat in traffic the diesel will be using a very small fuel to air mixture whereas the petrol will be about 1 to 15, unless it's still on the choke...
As ever statistics used to tell whatever you want them too!
Steve.
|
As ever statistics used to tell whatever you want them too! Steve.
>>
Don't blame the stats, blame the people using them.
Stats never prove anything, they just provide information to analyse and interpret, as is seen fit. The skill is in the analysis and interpretation. Proper analysis of stats should take into account all relevant factors.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting article in the weekend press where the fuel economy of a 1.1 litre petrol Citroen C1 was compared with a 1.4HDI diesel C1 on a complete lap of the M25 at 50 mph (traffic & cameras permitting). Contrary to expectations the the diesel car achieved 82.7 mpg at a cost of £6.37, whilst the petrol engined motor returned a remarkable 85.5 mpg at a cost of £6.10. So the most economical car tested to date is a petrol, which has beaten not only diesel but all current hybrids as well.!!!!
V interesting!! A few comments - some made already
Mileage of cars used is an issue - diesels take much longer to bed in and from my own experience it does show in the fuel consumption - up to at least 10k miles
Should have repeated the test and swapped drivers to remove the driver factor - and refilled after 232 miles.
Were they filled at same pump? - a v small difference in forecourt slope at the pump could be equiv to a 0.4l difference.
By way of comparison, I took at 15k mile C2 HDi to Cornwall and back sticking to 60 - 65 mph. 540 miles at 77mpg - not far off the 82 mpg, and I was going faster and there are some big hills to pull up!
|
Actual fuel economy is only half the story. What Car? magazine gives a running cost of my 2 litre petrol Focus of 41.9 p/mile compared to a similar spec 1.8TDCi of 40.1 p/mile. I'd need a bigger difference than that to persuade me to buy a diesel.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
How has What Car? arrived at those figures? Insurance on both is broadly the same, as is servicing, and the TDCi has stronger residuals as well.
|
How has What Car? arrived at those figures? Insurance on both is broadly the same, as is servicing, and the TDCi has stronger residuals as well.
OK, I?ll have a go, using What Car? data from the September 2005 edition plus I've assumed fuel prices of petrol @ 89.9p/l and diesel @ 92.9p/l, comparing 2.0 petrol and 1.8 TDCi diesel 5-door Ghia hatches. Depreciation is based on What Car? target prices of £14075 on the road for the petrol and £14532 for the diesel. Fuel consumption is assumed to be the official combined figure of 39.8 mpg petrol and 54.3 mpg diesel and. 12000 miles per year.
Costs for 3 years, 36000 miles:-
(a) 2.0 petrol
Service £773
Insurance £393 x 3 = £1179
Depreciation £14075 x 61% = £8585.75
Fuel 36000/39.8 = 904.52 galls = 4111.47 litres @ 89.9 p/l = £3696.21
Total £14233.96 / 36000 = 39.5 p/mile
What Car? say 41.9 p/mile
(b) 1.8 TDCi diesel
Service £729
Insurance £345 x 3 = £1035
Depreciation £14532 x 58% = £8428.56
Fuel 36000/54.3 = 662.98 galls = 3013.56 litres @ 92.9 p/l = £2799.60
Total £12992.16 / 36000 = 36.1 p/mile
What Car? say 40.1 p/mile
I think that What Car? include finance charges so this is probably where some of the differences come from. The remaining differences probably come from the assumed fuel prices.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
