Big engines, quote your MPG here

Cionád

kodute wrote: »

Anything 2 liters or under has no business in this thread!

But since we are all at it... 99 2.0D Corolla 40mpg on commute, best ever recorded 50mpg.

I'll jump on the bandwagon...

98 Almera 2.0D
48mpg on commute in summertime,
46mpg in winter,
highest recorded = 53mpg,
lowest recorded = 40mpg.

Flooring it makes little difference as there is no extra power

Most likely moving to a 2.3 petrol Volvo 940(see sig) that has 29mpg in March

1948Wolseley

Just to add my €0.02:

'00 Nissan Maxima 2.0 auto: averaged about 24.5 mpg with 90% town driving up until recently. That's now dropped to 23.9 mpg due to the cold weather, a sticky brake caliper (anyone know where I can get one of those?) and the lights, wipers, heated seat and aircon being on almost continuously.

E39MSport

re: sticky caliper. If you're any good at DIY, you can get a caliper repair kit from main dealer. Then it's about 90 mins work to overhaul a caliper. It makes a huge difference to the brake performance on older cars.

BeardyGit

'98 Landrover Discovery 300TDi, 2.5 TD - About 27-28MPG combined, but up to 32 on a longer run @ 80KPH.

ToxicPaddy

A6 - 1.8T

Get about 28-32 mpg on the open road, 21-24mpg around Dublin.

rowanh

The biggest engine i have had in a car is a 2.3t volvo 940, it was also the worst for fuel consumtion, the odometer didnt work so i couldnt tell exactly but i was guessing i was getting 15mpg based incomparisson to the car i had before, i had a skyline after it and i got about 20mpg avg in that, i have an 1.8l mx5 at the moment and i get 30mpg, i think its the best i have gotten in any car other than maybe my first which was a 1L polo.

squod

squod wrote: »

In before someone quotes me 60mpg for his/her Audi or VAG TDi. I do not believe!

oh I`m sure its possible on a long run driving handy. Ive a 2.2dti Vectra thats not even common rail and doesnt have a 6th gear and Ive gotten over 60mpg on a long run from Wicklow to Dublin up the N11 and M50 no traffic and doing 50/55 miles per hour. Normally everyday driving I get mid to late 40s. Its NEVER done below 30mpg even with bad traffic!!

I had a petrol Volvo 240 estate 1994 and it would do 28mpg no matter what way you drove it. Also had a 2.0 dti vectra that got slightly better MPG than the 2.2

ShevY

97 BMW 328i

average 28MPG

99 fiesta 1.25zetec-s - probably less than the bmw

CrowdedHouse

09 BMW 330D

Computer saying 49 - 53 mpg

Most trips are cross country about 100 km,I consider myself a fairly gentle driver.

Voodoomelon

Wow, thats very impressive.

tuxy

How accurate are computer reading compared to fill drive and fill again calculations you can do yourself?

Rovi

tuxy wrote: »

How accurate are computer reading compared to fill drive and fill again calculations you can do yourself?

Mine is optimistic by about 1 MPG (5% or thereabouts): the computer is claiming a rolling average of 22 MPG, fuel pumped divided into distance covered gives 21 MPG.

Green Hornet

tuxy wrote: »

How accurate are computer reading compared to fill drive and fill again calculations you can do yourself?

Not that accurate at all. Generally out by about 5%. Usually on the optimistic side too.

Marlow

VW Caravelle TDI (2.5 102bhp) = 30 mpg
E39 BMW M5 (4.9 V8), mixed driving = 18-20 mpg
E39 BMW 525tds, mixed driving = 33 mpg

/M

grudgebringer

Confab wrote: »

Yer car is broke. Best bring it to a garage.

It deffo is not well....

But I checked some 'older' cars too, it is now registering 11.3 litres per 100km (I've switched over the guage to Metric ) So that now figures at 26.4 mpg ... so I will keep it Metric, my car computer seems to prefer the metric values, and if they are true, so do I

I am gonna get the throttle body cleaned out and maybe replace the O2 sensor and fuel filter in the next few months ... it still is way too thirsty (But I guess its a 10 year old 2.0 Automatic brick of a 9-3 so consumption will never be good )

Rob987

987 Boxster S
3.2 litre

Urban - about 24mpg
Extra Urban - have achieved up to 34mpg

Voodoomelon

Thats another great figure.
If it wasn't for motor tax in this country, I could see a lot more people driving larger engined cars because the consumption really isn't that much less once you're doing mixed driving.

Marlow

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Thats another great figure.
If it wasn't for motor tax in this country, I could see a lot more people driving larger engined cars because the consumption really isn't that much less once you're doing mixed driving.

Honestly, if you do enough milage, motor-tax is the least cost factor in the total cost of ownership mix.

I pay nearly 1000 eur for the Caravelle (same was the 525tds, that I just sold) and 1566 eur for the M5 and it's the least of my concerns.

I'd also nearly say, that people who do a lot of milage and have the opportunity often will opt for a nicer car/bigger engine, because life simply is too short to spend it in a banger.

Just my 2c.

/M

Cionád

rowanh wrote: »

The biggest engine i have had in a car is a 2.3t volvo 940, it was also the worst for fuel consumtion, the odometer didnt work so i couldnt tell exactly but i was guessing i was getting 15mpg based incomparisson to the car i had before,

:eek: Was there something wrong with it?

I'd be running the 2.3 LPT - Jeremy Clarkson calls it a turbo... :pac:

Flyer1

Got 48MPG recently on a trip in a 1.6 DOHC VTEC driving like a granny.

Combined driving between town and journeys is about 39mpg. Hit VTEC and I need shares in Topaz tho

Marlow

Flyer1 wrote: »

Hit VTEC and I need shares in Topaz tho

Sorry ? I think you must misunderstood the concept of your VTEC so. It's about using less fuel (well and more performance/RPM). But trust me, if you didn't have the VTEC, you'd be using more fuel.

Read this: http://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/vvt.htm

You'd be glad, you have that Vtec technology in your car.

/M

JHMEG

Marlow wrote: »

Sorry ? I think you must misunderstood the concept of your VTEC so. It's about using less fuel (well and more performance/RPM). But trust me, if you didn't have the VTEC, you'd be using more fuel.

Read this: http://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/vvt.htm

You'd be glad, you have that Vtec technology in your car.

/M

VTEC implies you have your foot to the floor. Foot to the floor = mucho gas.

VTEC allows the engine to breath at higher RPM while maintaining driveability at lower RPM. The reason for higher RPM is that by spinning faster you burn more fuel. You burn more fuel you get more power.

Accord Coupé 2.0 Auto. Heavy lump, loaded with every toy = Averaged 27mpg, and was like driving a whale.

E39MSport

Marlow wrote: »

Sorry ? I think you must misunderstood the concept of your VTEC so. It's about using less fuel (well and more performance/RPM). But trust me, if you didn't have the VTEC, you'd be using more fuel.

Read this: http://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/vvt.htm

You'd be glad, you have that Vtec technology in your car.

/M

From memory of my h22a, vtec is variable valve timing and electronic lift control not vvti. This uses oil pressure to engage a different cam profile thereby giving longer bore travel meaning more air and more fuel yielding much more power and consumption. You're right though, he like me is probably delighted he has vtec technology.

JHMEG

Lexus LS400. Had it for a week. Averaged 17mpg for me.

JHMEG

E39MSport wrote: »

This uses oil pressure to engage a different cam profile thereby giving longer bore travel meaning more air and more fuel yielding much more power and consumption.

Does not affect bore travel. That'd be variable displacement. Instead it affects the operation of the valves only.

dcr22B

2001 BMW 318Ci 1.9 - roughly 420 miles on a tank - 35 MPG approximately

2004 VW Golf Sportline 1.4 - roughly 450 miles on a tank - 40 MPG approximately

Used to have a heavy right foot but economic conditions have changed my driving habits.

Marlow

JHMEG wrote: »

Accord Couple 2.0 Auto. Heavy lump, loaded with every toy = Averaged 27mpg, and was like driving a whale.

27 MPG for a Honda Accord is actually good. They aren't exactly known for a good milage.

E39MSport wrote: »

From memory of my h22a, vtec is variable valve timing and electronic lift control not vvti.

Vtec is Honda, VVT-i is Toyota, VVC is Rover (MGF, also Lotus Elise 111s, Caterham Seven K-series) and Vanos is BMW. They are all flavours of variable valve technology.

Their purpose is higher RPM, thus more power and also re-using unburned petrol fumes from the previous burning cycle. In a MGF 1.8 VVC, that means on average 2 mpg more than a regular 1.8, just to give an example, no matter how you drive it.

/M

Donnelly117

Voodoomelon wrote: »

They're both great figures.

Out of interest, what would your average 2004 1.4 litre Astra or Golf get?

i reckon i get around 40 from my astra 2003 1.4

namoosh

Isuzu Trooper 3.0 TD mix urban/rural driving, some towing, never falls below 30mpg.:pac:

E39MSport

I used to get about 30 out of my prelude in most driving conditions. Made a beautiful noise over 4800 rpm. Loved it.

tossy

2.8 supercharged i average around 35-ish on the motorway if on cruise control,around towns or spirited driving forget about it.

My best was London to Carlow on one tank,and that was pushing it on all the way up the M4,but on crusie all the time.

JHMEG

Marlow wrote: »

re-using unburned petrol fumes from the previous burning cycle.

That's not a function of variable valve lift/timing. That's more a function of, or should I say facilitated by, the EGR valve as found in a lot of modern cars.

Marlow

JHMEG wrote: »

That's not a function of variable valve lift/timing. That's more a function of, or should I say facilitated by, the EGR valve as found in a lot of modern cars.

If you read the article (to which i posted a link), you'd see at the very bottom:

EGR (Exhaust gas recirculation) is a commonly adopted technique to reduce emission and improve fuel efficiency. However, it is VVT that really exploit the full potential of EGR.

This is coined on ANY VVT technology, be it Vtec, VVT-i, VVC, Vanos, etc.

/M

JHMEG

Marlow wrote: »

If you read the article (to which i posted a link), you'd see at the very bottom:

This is coined on ANY VVT technology, be it Vtec, VVT-i, VVC, Vanos, etc.

/M

For a home mechanic I've done quite a bit of work on vtec engines, specificially on setting valve clearances etc (quite a difficult job on the dohc valvetrains). From experience I'm not aware of how such a system exploits EGR.

EDIT: just read the article. Possible alright that other systems do.

Marlow

JHMEG wrote: »

For a home mechanic I've done quite a bit of work on vtec engines, specificially on setting valve clearances etc (quite a difficult job on the dohc valvetrains). From experience I'm not aware of how such a system exploits EGR.

It's all explained in that article. You just get better results out of EGR because of the valve opening overlap. And in case of the MGF, I've personally seen the difference, because a friend on mine replaced his 1.8 (non-VVC, '99) with a 1.8 VVC ('99) and it was noticable. Majorly. But if you check around, that's the general experience people have.

/M

E39MSport

JHMEG wrote: »

For a home mechanic I've done quite a bit of work on vtec engines, specificially on setting valve clearances etc (quite a difficult job on the dohc valvetrains). From experience I'm not aware of how such a system exploits EGR.

EDIT: just read the article. Possible alright that other systems do.

Me too (not claiming to be home mechanic - just diy head), totally screwed it up - VERY tricky. Had to hobble to a certain main stealer garage in Terenure who did a good job of the clearances but put 100k on my motor.

darragh o meara

My last Focus RS, 17 to the gallon if I'm lucky
My STI Impreza about the same (Both 2litre turbo)

My rally car 10 to the gallon on stage and about 13 on road sections(2litre 16 v )
If your lucky enough to have the money for a WRC car its 1 litre per mile and between 3-5 sterling per litre of juice

blackbox

5.4 litre Porsche 928: 19-22 mpg.

1.6 litre Passat: 36-42 mpg

more smiles per gallon in the 928!

TestTransmission

Octavia VRS 1.8 T

Average is about 29.8..most days its around 24 though.

Pdfile

Marlow wrote: »

If you read the article (to which i posted a link), you'd see at the very bottom:



This is coined on ANY VVT technology, be it Vtec, VVT-i, VVC, Vanos, etc.

/M

i had this said to me by several different mechanics...

though my 1.6 vtec does rubbish mpg, honestly... with no traffic its roughly 20-30, with traffic ( stop and go rubbish, not the stand still ) ... :mad:

dwsl280

BMW 530D M Sport

37 MPG Motorway
33 MPG City

Landyaddict

1980 Land Rover 109" 2.25 petrol 4 speed 90 litre tank Max speed 60 MPH (motorway)

mile per gallon: About 22 no load 19 pulling load

1960 Land rover 88" 2.25 Petrol 4 speed

Miles per gallon: none at the moment ( been restored)

sk8board

I notice a number of people say "on the motorway with cruise control on, I can get mpg up to x"

surely it'd be higher if you switched the cruise control off.

The CC can't predict the humps and hollows of irish roads, acceletate down the hill and drift up it... I'm far from a hyper-miler but I can beat my cruise control's mpg on any day with normal driving

Gone Drinking

1l VW Polo

20 squid a week

Suck it

Pdfile

sk8board wrote: »

I notice a number of people say "on the motorway with cruise control on, I can get mpg up to x"

surely it'd be higher if you switched the cruise control off.

The CC can't predict the humps and hollows of irish roads, acceletate down the hill and drift up it... I'm far from a hyper-miler but I can beat my cruise control's mpg on any day with normal driving

if your going to be doing hyper miles youer going to prep your car for it and do everything in your power to maximize mpg.

this thread is as far as i can see your miles of a a said period of time ( being your normal daily mpg )

stealthyspeeder

sk8board wrote: »

I notice a number of people say "on the motorway with cruise control on, I can get mpg up to x"

surely it'd be higher if you switched the cruise control off.

The CC can't predict the humps and hollows of irish roads, acceletate down the hill and drift up it... I'm far from a hyper-miler but I can beat my cruise control's mpg on any day with normal driving

I most certainly cant!

My cruise control only uses the bare minimum throttle to keep the speed constant, it uses nothin when going down hill etc.

Also with bigger engine cars, the temptation always is to put the foot down. With cruise control you just sit back - Iknow this isnt a technical point, its more of a real world point. For example, If I was driving the whole way along M1, I would often feel the urge to accelerate to pass a veichle quicker or see a bit of open road and floor it! With the cruie control, I just sit back and relax!

Rovi

sk8board wrote: »

I notice a number of people say "on the motorway with cruise control on, I can get mpg up to x"

surely it'd be higher if you switched the cruise control off.

The CC can't predict the humps and hollows of irish roads, acceletate down the hill and drift up it... I'm far from a hyper-miler but I can beat my cruise control's mpg on any day with normal driving

I can well believe it; the cruise control on mine accelerates harder than I do when getting back up to speed after a tollbooth or the like.
Well, most of the time anyway.

cadaliac

E39MSport wrote: »

Me too (not claiming to be home mechanic - just diy head), totally screwed it up - VERY tricky. Had to hobble to a certain main stealer garage in Terenure who did a good job of the clearances but put 100k on my motor.

WTF?
What do you mean by this?

cadaliac

I had a 1976 Cadillac Coupe De Ville - 500 cubic inches, (8.2l) V8.
It averaged 8 mpg but the carb needed to be rebuilt. When it was, the mpg doubled!! Wahoooo....16mpg.!!
The mpg was also in US gallons.

When you mashed the pedal, you could actually see the fuel gauge move on long slow inclines on the freeway.

The carb had primary and secondary butterfly valves. You could put your whole fist into one of the primary valves in the open position.

Eoin

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

I most certainly cant!
My cruise control only uses the bare minimum throttle to keep the speed constant, it uses nothin when going down hill etc.

If you're not using cruise control, you probably let the car speed up a bit going downhill and slow down a little going uphill, so might not be more efficient in that regard.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

Also with bigger engine cars, the temptation always is to put the foot down. With cruise control you just sit back - Iknow this isnt a technical point, its more of a real world point. For example, If I was driving the whole way along M1, I would often feel the urge to accelerate to pass a veichle quicker or see a bit of open road and floor it! With the cruie control, I just sit back and relax!

Yeah, I think this is very valid. I've not had cruise control in my car long enough to compare it with manual driving, so I might give it a go. But I think on the long stretches it would be more efficient.