Trying to get that extra MPG

trixyben

On my car which is a mk1 Focus 1.8tddi the tank holds 40 litres roughly, on a full tank i get 500 miles give or take a bit...

I have tried nearly every fuel additive Dipetane, STP, Redex etc etc and none of them make any difference whatsoever...I dont carry anything in the car that adds extra, i dont drive hard, tyres are at correct pressuire, car is well serviced on time everytime...

So just wondering is there any other wonder product that improves mpg? (seen a few online in the States thinking might try 1 or 2), is there any thing else I can do to the car?

Im thinking I might be able to get 50 extra miles or so or am i dreaming

drunkmonkey

You could try removing any spare seats and the spare wheel. Have you thought about loosing some extra weight yourself?

Mycroft H

Take a dump before you leave the house

TURRICAN

you could try acetone starting at 1ml per litre up to a max of 2.5ml per liter.
you have to fing the magic number where you get most economy and power.
this is foe a petrol engine.
its 1.5 max for diesel.
also it has to be pure acetone.
have a read of this ,il be trying it soon.:cool:
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/12755-my-experience-adding-acetone-petrol.html

Voodoomelon

Sounds like you're doing everything you can do. Achieving another 10% on that will be near impossible without wrecking your own, and other drivers heads.

trixyben

trixyben wrote: »

On my car which is a mk1 Focus 1.8tddi the tank holds 40 litres roughly, on a full tank i get 500 miles give or take a bit.............

Im thinking I might be able to get 50 extra miles or so or am i dreaming

You're doing 57mpg, aiming for 62mpg ish.

CiniO

trixyben wrote: »

I dont carry anything in the car that adds extra,

Good you don't carry anything extra, but you can try to carry even less.
It's bit overkill, but you can remove anything which is not needed (spare wheel, floor upholstry, rear seats, maybe passenger seat if not needed, etc).
Generally you could leave pure metal like in rally cars - that would help.

i dont drive hard

Not driving hard is not enough. You can do more.
Look very far ahead and plan everything. Try not to use your brake above 30km/h at all (you can achieve this by planning ahead).

, tyres are at correct pressuire,

Correct pressure is good for safety and tyre wear, but for saving fuel it will be better to have bigger pressure. Generally the bigger the pressure, the less fuel you will use, as traction resistance will be smaller. However this will increase tyre wear, suspension wear and might affect safety, especially if you go much over the recommended value. But you surely can go small bit over (f.e. like instead of recommended 32 go for 35)

[/QUOTE]

SouperComputer

biggest savings dont come in bottles, they come from and

If you google hypermiling you will find out more than you ever needed or wanted to know about saving money on petrol.

String

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Shark-Saving-Device/dp/B004ZML62K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

DrMorphine

DrMorphine wrote: »

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Shark-Saving-Device/dp/B004ZML62K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

An arse biscuit ..



Product Description
Fuel Shark Fuel Saving Device Take a bite out of your gas bill. Save on gas, save the earth. With gas prices higher than ever and on the rise, you need to find ways to fight back. The Fuel Shark will not only pay for itself but will continue to save you money! How does it work? Just plug and save! The Electrical components in your car's electrical system are interconnected with each other. To get superior performance from your car, it must have a clean electrical circuit environment. Many cars develop electrical imbalances over time due to the power demands made by various accessories and normal wear on batteries, spark plugs and other parts. To maintain optimum electrical performance and improve MPG, your car will run better with a stable voltage environment. The Fuel Shark provides just that. It is a multi-purpose Voltage Stabilizer. Fuel Shark's worldwide patent pending design instantly stabilizes your car's electrical system, resulting in better fuel efficiency and overall performance. By stabilizing your car's electrical system, one big benefit is that your engine's spark plugs deliver a strong even spark, resulting in better combustion. This can increase power and MPG, in addition to having cleaner emissions. This revolutionary technology provides consumers with an inexpensive way to save money at the gas pump and help our environment at the same time. Better yet, there are no installation charges. Just plug the Fuel Shark into you car's lighter adapter and the blue light will let you know that the Fuel Shark is working, and reminds you that you are saving money! Will work on any vehicle as long as the vehicle runs on a standard 12 volt system (most vehicles do). Features: Increase gas mileage! Lower emission! Increased horsepower! Longer battery life! Start working instantly! Works on gas & diesel engines! Easy to install! No mechanic required! Includes: 1 x Fuel Shark Gas Saving Device

Jimdagym

The Focus all have a 55 litre tank AFAIK, so your MPG is probably a lot worse than you think.

SouperComputer

DrMorphine wrote: »

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Shark-Saving-Device/dp/B004ZML62K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Pure. Comedic. Gold.

trixyben

Jimdagym wrote: »

The Focus all have a 55 litre tank AFAIK, so your MPG is probably a lot worse than you think.

actually when i think now your probaly right i dont let tank go into red so tank prob 50 litres which makes my mpg worse again...

I cant remove any thing else from car, seats, spare wheel etc as car is used for work and you cant be without a spare wheel really

I do drive smart, coming up to lights, up to stop signs, gear changes etc etc cant think of what else I could do?

The next time you get diesel fill the tank, zero the odo and keep the receipt, the time after that you get diesel fill it again and note the miles covered from the odo. You can repeat that over and over again and determine your diesel consumption quite accurately.

challengemaster

trixyben wrote: »

I cant remove any thing else from car, seats, spare wheel etc as car is used for work and you cant be without a spare wheel really

2 cans of tyre weld and a small compressor will do just as good 99% of the time, and save some weight

lau1247

try to use cruise control if you can on long journey..

even slight change of pressure on the pedal changes the instantaneous MPG.. and nothing is better at keeping same speed than electronic control i would think??

***

if you're carrying speed and going up a slight incline, slowly let the gas pedal off, you'll lose some speed on the way up but you can gain that back when going down hill with ever so slightly pressing of the gas pedal..

GTE

500 miles on about 50 litres, thats around 45mpg.

How much motorway work do you do?
My year 2000 TDI (about same age as your TDDI) gets 58mpg on N roads and 45mpg on one of the motorway based runs I did a while back. I want to swap my 5th gear for a 6th gear cog.

Regarding cruise control: I have a feeling I may be using a bit more fuel since I have had it installed but judging by how inconsistent people can be regarding speed as I pass them going up hill I wonder do most of us without cruise actually take hills slightly more MPG friendly than the cruise controlled.

CiniO

lau1247 wrote: »

try to use cruise control if you can on long journey..

even slight change of pressure on the pedal changes the instantaneous MPG.. and nothing is better at keeping same speed than electronic control i would think??

I don't think you are right.
Cruise control will make sure car keeps the set speed, to on inclines it will open the throttle a lot.
It would be better to let car slow down on incline, and then rebuild the speed on decline.

if you're carrying speed and going up a slight incline, slowly let the gas pedal off, you'll lose some speed on the way up but you can gain that back when going down hill with ever so slightly pressing of the gas pedal..

That's exactly what I mean. In some cases you might not need to press gas at all on decline to accelerate.

trixyben

bbk wrote: »

500 miles on about 50 litres, thats around 45mpg.

How much motorway work do you do?
My year 2000 TDI (about same age as your TDDI) gets 58mpg on N roads and 45mpg on one of the motorway based runs I did a while back. I want to swap my 5th gear for a 6th gear cog.

Regarding cruise control: I have a feeling I may be using a bit more fuel since I have had it installed but judging by how inconsistent people can be regarding speed as I pass them going up hill I wonder do most of us without cruise actually take hills slightly more MPG friendly than the cruise controlled.

My driving includes motorway, national and country roads everyday so hard to calculate mpg for each...

The price of diesel and the cost on a weekly/monthy basis has me crazy looking for a miracle to reduce the bill

CiniO

trixyben wrote: »

My driving includes motorway, national and country roads everyday so hard to calculate mpg for each...

Try not to exceed 80 - 90 km/h and your MPG will raise, especially on motorway you will save a lot comparing to driving at 120km/h.

challengemaster

CiniO wrote: »

Try not to exceed 80 - 90 km/h and your MPG will raise, especially on motorway you will save a lot comparing to driving at 120km/h.

Yeah, but driving at 80km/h everywhere, especially not on a motorway is just stupid and will probably cause hassle for other road users.

CiniO

challengemaster wrote: »

Yeah, but driving at 80km/h everywhere, especially on a motorway is just stupid and will probably cause hassle for other road users.

Why?
All trucks are allowed to drive 80, and limited to 90, so they don't drive over that anyway. Can't see then OP causing any hassle driving together with trucks.

challengemaster

CiniO wrote: »

Why?
All trucks are allowed to drive 80, and limited to 90, so they don't drive over that anyway. Can't see then OP causing any hassle driving together with trucks.

There was meant to be a "not" before the "on" but anywho...

GTE

challengemaster wrote: »

CiniO wrote: »

Try not to exceed 80 - 90 km/h and your MPG will raise, especially on motorway you will save a lot comparing to driving at 120km/h.

Yeah, but driving at 80km/h everywhere, especially on a motorway is just stupid and will probably cause hassle for other road users.

I got 60 not from really taking care on n roads once then consistent 58s after that. If there are savings to be made, it's there.
Slower on the motorway is not a great idea IMO.

Sadly, no additive will really help. Maybe an eco biast remap but could take ages to recoup costs. I thought Dipetane worked but im 50/50

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

Try not to exceed 80 - 90 km/h and your MPG will raise, especially on motorway you will save a lot comparing to driving at 120km/h.

:cool:

CiniO

bbk wrote: »

Slower on the motorway is not a great idea IMO.

Could be different with focus diesel, but I remember I had 1.8 primera, and it was about 8 litres/100km on motorway at 120km/h comparing to about 6.5 litres/100km at 80km/h. That's quite significent difference.

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

:cool:

Lovely worms I know.
Anyway - nowhere in Europe is anything wrong with driving at 80 - 90km/h on motorway together with trucks, so I can't see why would it should be any problem in Ireland.

JP 1800

fill your car with helium ballons, that will take some weight off:D

alexlyons

you said you get 500 miles to a tank and it takes about 40 liters roughly...
what are you basing this on, the fill from the pump?

if you put 40 liters into it, drive 500 miles and refill, then your mpg is 57 or so. regardless of your tank size.

lau1247

CiniO wrote: »

I don't think you are right.
Cruise control will make sure car keeps the set speed, to on inclines it will open the throttle a lot.
It would be better to let car slow down on incline, and then rebuild the speed on decline.

yes it will keep at set speed and open throttle when required.. overall form of control from electronic should be better than human can ever manage it for trying to maintain a certain speed..

human tend to overstep (consume more when overstep) and understep (While the slow down does not take effort, when trying to get back to speed, the momentum has to be build up again thus taking more)..

All I can tell you is when I drove my dad's 520d using cruise control and comparing it to manually driving the car on the same stretch (direction of travel) of motorway on different occassions, the trip computer showed a much better return than I could have ever manage it on my own..

lau1247

OP planning your trip to go in the direction of the wind helps too

senordingdong

Gonna come out and say it but would you consider a hybrid?

MugMugs

DrMorphine wrote: »

http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Shark-Saving-Device/dp/B004ZML62K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Possibly the funniest thing I've read!

jsd1004

Dont brim your tank. Plan your journey and know where your fuel stations are. If your are continually passing stations there is no need to be carrying 40 kg of extra weight in fuel. 40kg is roughly the same as taking out the passenger and rear seats. Consider dumping the spare wheel too and getting a can of foam.

shedweller

jsd1004 wrote: »

Dont brim your tank. Plan your journey and know where your fuel stations are. If your are continually passing stations there is no need to be carrying 40 kg of extra weight in fuel. 40kg is roughly the same as taking out the passenger and rear seats. Consider dumping the spare wheel too and getting a can of foam.

I can confidently say that weight reduction makes no difference to mpg. I removed the back seat for a whole tank and also everything else that wasn't needed. I even didn't use the radio. No improvement.
Not brimming the tank is similarly useless. Plus you wont get an accurate figure on your mpg by not brimming the tank.
I must also point out that to go from 5L/100k to say 3 would require monumental effort and extreme aero mods. You really dont want to go there. Plus you will save only 2 litres per 100km or 200 litres per 10,000km. Granted thats 320 euro or so per 10,000km but you would save that easier elsewhere. If you have already cut costs elsewhere then.........look up the aerocivic.

alias no.9

CiniO wrote: »

Lovely worms I know.
Anyway - nowhere in Europe is anything wrong with driving at 80 - 90km/h on motorway together with trucks, so I can't see why would it should be any problem in Ireland.

The problem is that when you combine hypermiling with Irish lane discipline and a general theres no law against it attitude, you have rolling roadblocks all over the country. The motorway network, one of the few beneficial relics of the bubble years, becomes strangled.

keithclancy

CiniO wrote: »

Lovely worms I know.
Anyway - nowhere in Europe is anything wrong with driving at 80 - 90km/h on motorway together with trucks, so I can't see why would it should be any problem in Ireland.

As long as you don't try overtaking anyone at 91.

Mycroft H

keithclancy wrote: »

As long as you don't try overtaking anyone at 91.

If the passing lane is clear, whats the problem?

I generally cruise fractionally faster then lorries. Saves them from trying to overtake me

Plus my fuel consumption takes a nose dive around 110-120km/h, generally best round 85-90km/h

keithclancy

BX 19 wrote: »

If the passing lane is clear, whats the problem?

I generally cruise fractionally faster then lorries. Saves them from trying to overtake me

Plus my fuel consumption takes a nose dive around 110-120km/h, generally best round 85-90km/h

Nothing, as long as you don't impede anyone elses progress thats fine.

However if theres someone in a car overtaking at 91km/h and myself + 5 - 6 other cars have to slow down from 120 to 91 to match your speed don't expect waves and kisses, your costing us money/time.

CiniO

lau1247 wrote: »

yes it will keep at set speed and open throttle when required.. overall form of control from electronic should be better than human can ever manage it for trying to maintain a certain speed..

human tend to overstep (consume more when overstep) and understep (While the slow down does not take effort, when trying to get back to speed, the momentum has to be build up again thus taking more)..

All I can tell you is when I drove my dad's 520d using cruise control and comparing it to manually driving the car on the same stretch (direction of travel) of motorway on different occassions, the trip computer showed a much better return than I could have ever manage it on my own..

I can't really comment as I never made experiments myself.
But I read many articles that driving with cruise control is way less economical that good driver can achieve, especially on hilly roads.

CiniO

jsd1004 wrote: »

Dont brim your tank. Plan your journey and know where your fuel stations are. If your are continually passing stations there is no need to be carrying 40 kg of extra weight in fuel. 40kg is roughly the same as taking out the passenger and rear seats. Consider dumping the spare wheel too and getting a can of foam.

If you think 40 litres of fuel weights 40kg then you are wrong.
That relation applies to water at 4 degrees, but not to fuel.

keithclancy

CiniO wrote: »

I can't really comment as I never made experiments myself.
But I read many articles that driving with cruise control is way less economical that good driver can achieve, especially on hilly roads.

I've have, Cruise Control is far better simply because your concentration is spent on driving rather than saving fuel, also helps you maintain your average speed which contributes to your overall travel time.

Sure, you could drive without it and possibly save a little, but doing it every day trying to consciously save fuel is very difficult.

Also speeding up and slowing down is not as safe, that guy behind you could be reading the paper for all you know.

CiniO

shedweller wrote: »

I can confidently say that weight reduction makes no difference to mpg. I removed the back seat for a whole tank and also everything else that wasn't needed. I even didn't use the radio. No improvement.
Not brimming the tank is similarly useless. Plus you wont get an accurate figure on your mpg by not brimming the tank.
I must also point out that to go from 5L/100k to say 3 would require monumental effort and extreme aero mods. You really dont want to go there. Plus you will save only 2 litres per 100km or 200 litres per 10,000km. Granted thats 320 euro or so per 10,000km but you would save that easier elsewhere. If you have already cut costs elsewhere then.........look up the aerocivic.

If you counted on some significent differences by removing your back seat and not using your radio, then you surely couldn't achieve it.
But possilby instead of using 8 l/100km you used 7.9 l/100km.
That is a difference.

Also worth nothing is that removing weight makes bigger difference while driving dynamically (f.e city driving all the time accelerating and decelerating) while it makes very little difference when driving steadily f.e. on motorway without any acceleration.
In general, bigger mass required bigger force to accelerate, and this is linear dependency. So if you lower the mass by 10% you will need to 10% less force to accelerate to the same speed.
Mass or rather in that case weight also affects traction resistance, but it's very slight affection.

So in example, if you are driving for 2hours at 100km/h (200km done) steadily without any slowing down or accelerating, it will be very little difference is fuel consumption comparing your vehicle being empty (1000kg) or fully laden (1500kg). It could be maybe 0.5 l/100km difference.
While if you planning to do this 200km in city driving, where you accelerate and slow down all the time, difference between 1500kg laden vehicle or 1000kg empty vehicle will be way bigger, f.e it could be like 3 or 4 litres/100km.

So removing weight makes sense, but especially when driving in the city.

CiniO

keithclancy wrote: »

I've have, Cruise Control is far better simply because your concentration is spent on driving rather than saving fuel, also helps you maintain your average speed which contributes to your overall travel time.

Sure, you could drive without it and possibly save a little, but doing it every day trying to consciously save fuel is very difficult.

Also speeding up and slowing down is not as safe, that guy behind you could be reading the paper for all you know.

That's all right.
But this thread is about how we can save few drops, so avoiding cruise control is one of the ways.

CiniO

BX 19 wrote: »

If the passing lane is clear, whats the problem?

I generally cruise fractionally faster then lorries. Saves them from trying to overtake me

Plus my fuel consumption takes a nose dive around 110-120km/h, generally best round 85-90km/h

Because that's one of the principle of safe driving to keep some speed difference while overtaking.
If you are overtaking a truck at 91km/h while he is doing 90km/h he is quite likely to miss you in his blind spot.

keithclancy

CiniO wrote: »

That's all right.
But this thread is about how we can save few drops, so avoiding cruise control is one of the ways.

Ah right then, let me be clear, using your Cruise Control to accelerate uses more fuel unless you use more throttle than the Cruise Control.

Using it to maintain speed uses less fuel becuase people are not robots.

air

http://www.ecomodder.com
/thread

Mycroft H

CiniO wrote: »

BX 19 wrote: »

If the passing lane is clear, whats the problem?

I generally cruise fractionally faster then lorries. Saves them from trying to overtake me

Plus my fuel consumption takes a nose dive around 110-120km/h, generally best round 85-90km/h

Because that's one of the principle of safe driving to keep some speed difference while overtaking.
If you are overtaking a truck at 91km/h while he is doing 90km/h he is quite likely to miss you in his blind spot.

I'd usually overtake around 100 if there is no traffic for that reason. If there is traffic I'll build my speed up to the speed of the passing lane.

Overtaking at a 1km/h difference is a bit stupid.

creedp

challengemaster wrote: »

2 cans of tyre weld and a small compressor will do just as good 99% of the time, and save some weight

Personally I don't agree with this as I was caught out twice in short succession due to not having a spare tyre. Those cans of tyre weld are pure useless if you get a 'real' puncture. The cost of getting out a mobile unit, especially if they have to replace a tyre will far exceed any savings you will ever achieve from ditching you spare tyre. I bought a space saver instead, still have the foam of course in case I get a slow puncture so it saves thre bother of changing the tyre. Feel a lot more confident now not having to depend on a can of foam on a long trip in the dark.

Also I think the idea that you would remove seats and uphosterly from the car is madness .. did anyone ever measure how much the average driver would save from this carry on! Do without a couple of take-away coffees and doughnuts/ a couple of pints a week would save you far more.

shedweller

creedp wrote: »

Also I think the idea that you would remove seats and uphosterly from the car is madness .. did anyone ever measure how much the average driver would save from this carry on! Do without a couple of take-away coffees and doughnuts/ a couple of pints a week would save you far more.

As i said earlier, i have done it and got no measurable results.

coolbeans

OP doesn't have any accurate idea what mpg they're getting so asking how to improve it is a bit premature in my opinion. Measure your mpg properly as Roverjames outlined and stop wasting your own time as well as everyone else's.