# Fuel Economy



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I took a road trip on my motorcycle yesterday, roughly 500K round trip. Normally, I travel about 10 clicks over the speed limit of 100Km/h, but yesterday, having left about 90 minutes earlier than usual, I fairly diligently maintained a straight 90K, 10 clicks under the speed limit  I royally pissed off a trucker, who blew his horn violently as he (finally) passed me :lol: I also noticed that a lot of people will follow and refuse to pass  which then results in a fairly long comet's tail, until some of the stragglers finally pull out and the tail breaks up.

But, back to the topic: I am not sure exactly, but I believe that I usually use close to a full tank (20 litres) one way, or two tanks round trip. Yesterday, through travelling a good 15-20K slower, I used only ⅔ tank one way, a saving of about 33%! I was so thrilled, that I stopped at a newly opened coffee and tea shop and bought nearly a half kilo of Ethiopian coffee beans for close to the amount I had saved on fuel :tiphat:

Do you have any tips or tricks to getting the most distance from your fuel buck (euro, etc.)?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Some of these are obvious I suppose:

1) Make sure your tires are properly inflated (you can over-inflate them to get better mileage but you'll have less control)
2) Drive slower but not too slow. Slower speed on the highway will increase fuel economy but below a certain speed (maybe 60-65 kph or so, depends on engine) you'll get worse economy.
3) Look ahead and drive with as few accelerations and braking as possible (when you see a red light, remove foot from accelerator)
4) Maintain your vehicle (air filters, engine checkups, etc.)
5) Draft behind a large truck. Gets great fuel economy but is dangerous and not recommended.

And of course the biggest ones:

Buy an electric vehicle, a plug-in hybrid vehicle, or a hybrid. These may not save money over the life of the vehicle depending on incentives and mileage.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Buy a diesel car with six gears.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> Buy a diesel car with six gears.


And to the devil with those afflicted along the way by your diesel particulates, do you say, Dr Johnson?


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

TurnaboutVox said:


> And to the devil with those afflicted along the way by your diesel particulates, do you say, Dr Johnson?


I knew that I should have refrained from posting in this thread.

Oh well.



revised advice: buy a bicycle. Firstly, your vehicle will emit no controversial fumes. Secondly you will be travelling so slowly that you will not be tempted to try to overtake motorists who are doggedly travelling under the speed limit* (which, if you did it in a car, would involve dropping down at least one gear and whacking the revs up thus using more fuel and pushing more exhaust fumes into the atmosphere).

Now I'll get my coat.

*no offence to the OP but this irritates the flying ****** out of me (to use no harsher language).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Modern passenger car diesel engines used in VW and Fiat vehicles exude pollutants at a lower rate than most gasoline engines. Pay attention, _tv_. The state of Vermont hasn't caught up with that either (annual registration fees are much higher for diesel-powered cars) but that is a bureaucracy; maybe in a decade or so someone will notice.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2015)

So my Skoda that's really a VW is a good boy then?


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Not so fast, Mr. Ukko! It's the fine particulate carcinogens...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11571615/Dirty-diesel-cars-could-be-banished-as-Britain-ordered-to-cut-air-pollution.html


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Shank's pony (explanation maybe required for non UK members?)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Not so fast, Mr. Ukko! It's the fine particulate carcinogens...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-as-Britain-ordered-to-cut-air-pollution.html


.
That article suggests governmental and some other - ignorance of the new car engine designs
[that cursor bug is back - can't put the period where it belongs]


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

cwarchc said:


> Shank's pony (explanation maybe required for non UK members?)


Shank's mare in this neck of the woods.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> *2) Drive slower but not too slow. Slower speed on the highway will increase fuel economy but below a certain speed (maybe 60-65 kph or so, depends on engine) you'll get worse economy.*
> 3) Look ahead and drive with as few accelerations and braking as possible (when you see a red light, remove foot from accelerator)
> 4) Maintain your vehicle (air filters, engine checkups, etc.)


Not the best advice for all cars, some cars do better at higher speeds, learn what your particular car likes as far as economy. The other tips seem to be good.

I did read that medium acceleration was better that a slow gradual acceleration, the rational seemed to be that there was less time spent accelerating and more time spent at cruising speed.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

My dad taught me three golden rules,

- Keep her steady on the road, neither accelerate nor brake unnecessarily as both are fuel wasters. So use cruise control if you can
- Keep tires inflated to maximum
- Use highest quality gas


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

Dr Johnson said:


> I knew that I should have refrained from posting in this thread.
> Oh well.
> 
> revised advice: buy a bicycle.* Firstly, your vehicle will emit no controversial fumes.* Secondly you will be travelling so slowly that you will not be tempted to try to overtake motorists who are doggedly travelling under the speed limit* (which, if you did it in a car, would involve dropping down at least one gear and whacking the revs up thus using more fuel and pushing more exhaust fumes into the atmosphere).
> ...


Not so, your diet will have a lot to do with the obnoxious fumes you emit while traveling. Methane is a serious greenhouse gas.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

dogen said:


> So my Skoda that's really a VW is a good boy then?


If it's a late Skoda, probably, if it's an early one, especially a sports car, you really have something. I'm talking about a Skoda from the 60's.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> ...motorists who are doggedly travelling under the speed limit*
> 
> *no offence to the OP but this irritates the flying ****** out of me (to use no harsher language).


I was travelling only 10K under-and one can pass 

Yes, I can get irritated, too, when I want to travel more quickly, but I am tolerant, within reason. Why is it okay when others exceed the speed limit, often by anywhere from 10-50Km/h, but when someone dares go even just a few K under, then they are subject to angry horns, fingers out the window and worse?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

breakup said:


> Not the best advice for all cars, some cars do better at higher speeds, learn what your particular car likes as far as economy. The other tips seem to be good.


Higher speeds need to be defined. Cars will get better fuel economy at 30 kph than at 5. Cars don't do better at higher highway speeds. Driving at 110 kph will use more fuel than driving at 90. The exact comparisons do depend on the car's engine and other variables. So yes, as we both said, driving at slower speed doesn't _always_ increase fuel economy.



breakup said:


> I did read that medium acceleration was better that a slow gradual acceleration, the rational seemed to be that there was less time spent accelerating and more time spent at cruising speed.


This is true. The best acceleration for higher fuel economy will depend on the car's attributes.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

brotagonist said:


> I was travelling only 10K under-and one can pass
> 
> Yes, I can get irritated, too, when I want to travel more quickly, but I am tolerant, within reason. Why is it okay when others exceed the speed limit, often by anywhere from 10-50Km/h, but when someone dares go even just a few K under, then they are subject to angry horns, fingers out the window and worse?


I wasn't having a go at you personally. I dare say that where you live there are lots of wide straight roads where it is easy for others to overtake slow moving vehicles. In the UK there are many winding and far from wide roads where it is less easy to overtake the slower members of the driving fraternity. I like to travel as fast as the law allows, road conditions permitting, partly because I enjoy driving as fast as the law allows, especially on winding country roads where you have some engagement with the process.

I suspect many others feel the same which is why, fairly or unfairly, people who travel a few miles under the speed limit get abuse. Also, it is easier to overtake a very slow moving vehicle than one travelling a few miles under the limit.

In future I will try to manage my irritation in these circumstances by telling myself that the vehicle trundling at the front of the queue is brotagonist off to buy some extra fine coffee beans.:lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2015)

Oooo hang on. It's a speed LIMIT. It's not a mandatory speed.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

dogen said:


> Oooo hang on. It's a speed LIMIT. It's not a mandatory speed.


Yes. I know.

I made a mistake entering this thread at all. I shall now leave it before doing any lasting damage.

Happy motoring to everyone!

:wave:


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Higher speeds need to be defined. Cars will get better fuel economy at 30 kph than at 5. Cars don't do better at higher highway speeds. Driving at 110 kph will use more fuel than driving at 90. The exact comparisons do depend on the car's engine and other variables. So yes, as we both said, driving at slower speed doesn't _always_ increase fuel economy.
> 
> This is true. The best acceleration for higher fuel economy will depend on the car's attributes.


A few years ago I drove a '91 BMW 535 from the Hbg.Pa. area to Brooklyn NY and on the way back was cruising in the 70 - 80 MPH range and got better Mileage than ever before.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

dogen said:


> Oooo hang on. It's a speed LIMIT. It's not a mandatory speed.


Unfortunately many drivers believe that if there is a posted limit, it is their "right" to travel at that speed or slightly above, just as some feel it is their "right" to travel in the left hand lane (in the US). When I was teaching my daughter to drive we got onto a 4 lane expressway and she immediately moved into the left hand lane and when I scolded her for it (she wasn't passing anyone) she said she liked that lane better. I then explained that the right lane was for traveling and the left lane was for passing and made her get over into the right hand lane. Many highways will have a sign posted occasionally "slower traffic keep to the right", and it is in the Pa. vehicle code that traffic should stay to the right and pass on the left when possible. Of course there are exceptions and the code is not strictly enforced.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

dogen said:


> Oooo hang on. It's a speed LIMIT. It's not a mandatory speed.


Dr J's posts here seem to be prone to misinterpretation. By other Brits even. WTFIGO?


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2015)

Ukko said:


> Dr J's posts here seem to be prone to misinterpretation. By other Brits even. WTFIGO?


Dunno, what's the misinterpretation? My point was a simple statement of fact. If I got "abuse" because I was not driving at the speed limit I would be less than impressed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2015)

Here's a fuel economy tip as per the OP. Aim to drive at about 56mph on motorways to get maximum miles per litre.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

dogen said:


> Dunno, what's the misinterpretation? My point was a simple statement of fact. If I got "abuse" because I was not driving at the speed limit I would be less than impressed.


Your point misses _his_ point. At this point I will abandon the thread, hopefully before the Team misses_ my_ point.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

breakup said:


> Unfortunately many drivers believe that if there is a posted limit, it is their "right" to travel at that speed or slightly above, just as some feel it is their "right" to travel in the left hand lane (in the US). When I was teaching my daughter to drive we got onto a 4 lane expressway and she immediately moved into the left hand lane and when I scolded her for it (she wasn't passing anyone) she said she liked that lane better. I then explained that the right lane was for traveling and the left lane was for passing and made her get over into the right hand lane. Many highways will have a sign posted occasionally "slower traffic keep to the right", and it is in the Pa. vehicle code that traffic should stay to the right and pass on the left when possible. Of course there are exceptions and the code is not strictly enforced.


While pretty much everyone normally (when not on sightseeing or pleasure trips, as I was that day) travels at a slight or even considerable rate over the posted speed limit, strictly speaking, a speed limit indicates the maximum allowed rate of travel (under optimum conditions-impossible to achieve in the real world), so the fastest permitted traffic is going the speed limit and, hence, ought to be permitted to use the left lane. No? Anyone going even faster is breaking the law. Are roads built and laws made to accommodate law-breaking? When I was 14, I flunked my written driver exam, because I had indicated that it was acceptable/necessary to exceed the speed limit in order to pass  That seemed completely logical to me, for how else could one pass?


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2015)

Well I reckon if you know you're going to have to exceed the speed limit in order to overtake then you don't overtake.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2015)

Ukko said:


> Your point misses _his_ point. At this point I will abandon the thread, hopefully before the Team misses_ my_ point.


My point wasn't intended as a response to his point!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> While pretty much everyone normally (when not on sightseeing or pleasure trips, as I was that day) travels at a slight or even considerable rate over the posted speed limit, strictly speaking, a speed limit indicates the maximum allowed rate of travel (under optimum conditions-impossible to achieve in the real world), so the fastest permitted traffic is going the speed limit and, hence, ought to be permitted to use the left lane. No?


That's why there are laws in many U.S. States stating that the left lane is to be used only for passing. Otherwise, those of us with places to go and people to do would have to wait behind self-righteous slowcoaches.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I have always been a fast driver and intend on remaining so. My pet peeve are slow drivers - they are obstructions. Some of these folks drive like they're brain-dead; maybe they are simply afraid to drive. Whatever, they are a pain in the neck.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I have always been a fast driver and intend on remaining so. My pet peeve are slow drivers - they are obstructions. Some of these folks drive like they're brain-dead; maybe they are simply afraid to drive. Whatever, they are a pain in the neck.


Sometimes I feel that way  But there is also much to be said for actually enjoying a trip and taking in the sights 

I should point out, referring back to my road trip, that I was using a scenic secondary highway that is famous for its sights and historic interest. It even has an official designation as such. The main highway (an Autobahn: divided, 4 lanes, 2 in each direction) runs parallel to the scenic one, on the other side of the hills that the scenic highway runs through, so those wishing to make time would clearly choose it.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

brotagonist said:


> Sometimes I feel that way  But there is also much to be said for actually enjoying a trip and taking in the sights
> 
> I should point out, referring back to my road trip, that I was using a scenic secondary highway that is famous for its sights and historic interest. It even has an official designation as such. The main highway (an Autobahn: divided, 4 lanes, 2 in each direction) runs parallel to the scenic one, on the other side of the hills that the scenic highway runs through, so those wishing to make time would clearly choose it.


If you're cruising along to enjoy the sights, you could easily pull over and enjoy the vista till the traffic clears and you could resume your leisurely journey. Yours is not to judge those who are in more of a hurry than you. There is a difference between "making time" on a highway, and hurrying along a more challenging section of road.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

breakup said:


> If you're cruising along to enjoy the sights, you could easily pull over and enjoy the vista till the traffic clears and you could resume your leisurely journey. Yours is not to judge those who are in more of a hurry than you. There is a difference between "making time" on a highway, and hurrying along a more challenging section of road.


On that particular day of travel, that would not have been possible, as there was an unbelievable amount of traffic. Every time a group passed me and I thought that finally there is some peace, there was another cluster right behind me. Where did they come from, so suddenly?  I, too, had an ultimate destination to reach-home-albeit not as rapidly as others. Yours is not to judge how much time I have to get there, while standing on the edge of the road waiting for an endless stream of speeding traffic to pass by in comfort without the need to overtake 

If speeders have the right to use a designated scenic route as a freeway, then surely tourists have the right to stay within the law and use the road for its intended purpose


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

It is interesting how some drivers get very hot under the collar about unimportant things, such as slower road users, but don't get angry about potentially fatal actions which can be seen on pretty much every journey. These include tailgating, excessive speeding, overtaking round bends or in the face of oncoming traffic and generally using the vehicle to intimidate (ie swerve at) vulnerable road users.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Wood said:


> It is interesting how some drivers get very hot under the collar about unimportant things, such as slower road users, but don't get angry about potentially fatal actions which can be seen on pretty much every journey. These include tailgating, excessive speeding, overtaking round bends or in the face of oncoming traffic and generally using the vehicle to intimidate (ie swerve at) vulnerable road users.


Geez, man. Where are you driving? People are generally polite and conservative in my neck of the woods.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Geez, man. Where are you driving? People are generally polite and conservative in my neck of the woods.


The drivers _Wood_ describes can be grouped under one label, a label-that-shall-not-be-expressed-here. Slow drivers on the other hand, may not be gawpers; some of them may be driving as fast as they can while maintaining control of the vehicle. Around here we call them old folks. I have stories.

_Wood_'s description raises a question in my rural Yankee mind, being: What is the range of reactions to such misbehavior in the British Isles and northern Europe?. In the US, those acts can produce Road Rage, where the non-rational areas of the brain take over. The Rager's vehicle may not be his only weapon.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Geez, man. Where are you driving? People are generally polite and conservative in my neck of the woods.


UK. I'm not exaggerating sadly.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Ukko said:


> The drivers _Wood_ describes can be grouped under one label, a label-that-shall-not-be-expressed-here. Slow drivers on the other hand, may not be gawpers; some of them may be driving as fast as they can while maintaining control of the vehicle. Around here we call them old folks. I have stories.
> 
> _Wood_'s description raises a question in my rural Yankee mind, being: What is the range of reactions to such misbehavior in the British Isles and northern Europe?. In the US, those acts can produce Road Rage, where the non-rational areas of the brain take over. The Rager's vehicle may not be his only weapon.


We have road rage too, though weapons are rare, but it is not that unusual for people to carry baseball bats or crossbows in their boots.

In my quiet rural area, the locals are too pleasant and laid back for road rage to be a big issue, though they make up for that with recklessness and stupidity. In the congested parts of England, the road ragers are generally a subset of the w*nk*rs Ukko refers to above. Typically they have the larger vehicle, and the police are unwilling to prosecute them, so it is generally best to avoid eye contact and stay out of their way as far as is possible.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2015)

In Europe (measured by car fatalities per million inhabitants) the four safest countries for driving are the UK, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden).

(source RAC)


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

Wood said:


> It is interesting how some drivers get very hot under the collar about unimportant things, such as slower road users, but don't get angry about potentially fatal actions which can be seen on pretty much every journey. These include tailgating, excessive speeding, overtaking round bends or in the face of oncoming traffic and generally using the vehicle to intimidate (ie swerve at) vulnerable road users.


I read somewhere that when some people get behind the wheel of a car their personality change usually for the worse, in a way it's can be likened to the change when people are anonymously posting on a forum, they post things they would not say face to face.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Wood said:


> We have road rage too, though weapons are rare, but it is not that unusual for people to carry baseball bats or crossbows in their boots.
> 
> In my quiet rural area, the locals are too pleasant and laid back for road rage to be a big issue, though they make up for that with recklessness and stupidity. In the congested parts of England, the road ragers are generally a subset of the w*nk*rs Ukko refers to above. Typically they have the larger vehicle, and the police are unwilling to prosecute them, so it is generally best to avoid eye contact and stay out of their way as far as is possible.


The police don't do much about dangerous driving (they don't do much at all that's actually useful...) but they do provide a sort of visual deterrent against the worst offences. In this neck of the woods, you can always tell when there's a police presence during the school run, because there's nobody driving Range Rovers down the pavement at 50 mph. (They could just wait for the school bus to pass or buy a narrower car that would fit past it, but I guess that would spoil their fun.) The unspoken attitude to pedestrians round here is that if you're too poor to afford a car (why else would you be walking?) you don't deserve to be alive anyway.

Your neighbours seem to work off their aggression vicariously, via their four legged friends. Letting huge dogs run at walkers (especially those with small children) and jump up at them, then following up the attack with verbal abuse if the victim has the temerity to scream or shoo the dog away, isn't really so different from driving aggressively- in either case, a supposedly innocuous thing, whether vehicle or 'pet', is being used as an offensive weapon. As legal weapons go, dogs are better than cars for fuel economy, since they are prolific producers of biofuel!


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The police don't do much about dangerous driving (they don't do much at all that's actually useful...) but they do provide a sort of visual deterrent against the worst offences. In this neck of the woods, you can always tell when there's a police presence during the school run, because there's nobody driving Range Rovers down the pavement at 50 mph. (They could just wait for the school bus to pass or buy a narrower car that would fit past it, but I guess that would spoil their fun.) The unspoken attitude to pedestrians round here is that if you're too poor to afford a car (why else would you be walking?) you don't deserve to be alive anyway.
> 
> Your neighbours seem to work off their aggression vicariously, via their four legged friends. Letting huge dogs run at walkers (especially those with small children) and jump up at them, then following up the attack with verbal abuse if the victim has the temerity to scream or shoo the dog away, isn't really so different from driving aggressively- in either case, a supposedly innocuous thing, whether vehicle or 'pet', is being used as an offensive weapon. As legal weapons go, dogs are better than cars for fuel economy, since they are prolific producers of biofuel!


Absolutely, but given that my record count for dog "biofuel" is 116 in the main dog emptying zone (of about 100 yards) in my village, including some in bags attached to branches, one can only hope that some day this fertiliser would be put to some use. Better than that, my Humanure book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Humanure-Handbook-Guide-Composting-Manure/dp/0964425831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439748846&sr=8-1&keywords=humanure
advises that decaying animal carcasses provide useful compost. How about rounding up all the local dogs, killing them, and sticking them in the compost heap?:devil:


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Ukko said:


> The drivers _Wood_ describes can be grouped under one label, a label-that-shall-not-be-expressed-here. Slow drivers on the other hand, may not be gawpers; some of them may be driving as fast as they can while maintaining control of the vehicle. Around here we call them old folks. I have stories.
> 
> _Wood_'s description raises a question in my rural Yankee mind, being: What is the range of reactions to such misbehavior in the British Isles and northern Europe?. In the US, those acts can produce Road Rage, where the non-rational areas of the brain take over. The Rager's vehicle may not be his only weapon.


I remember the Road Rage of an American bank manager, working in Prague, with whom we were visiting Salzburg in the early nineties. We were returning from Salzburg and we took the quiet German-Austrian border road north towards the Czech Republic. Out of the blue there appeared a fat Bavarian BMW, that overtook our Ford Scorpio and immediately started to brake down right in front of us until we almost came to a standstill... It happened close to Braunau, the birthplace of _Der Führer_. Probably the Bavarian driver thought that we were Czech (the car had Czech license plates) and he clearly wanted to humiliate us. Well, this triggered Road Rage in our ever so friendly & quiet American: He started a road war, driving +200 km on this quiet road, until he had overtaken the fat BMW and braked down right in front of him: just to show who had won WWII.
How glad we were, when we crossed the Czech border!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah! Bank manager, eh? The last time I let rage _take over, _I was not yet a teenager_. _Somewhere along the way, I realized that, after quick reaction was unnecessary, the fore-brain gave me a better chance for 'clearing' the incident.

The operative word is 'chill'.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Wood said:


> Absolutely, but given that my record count for dog "biofuel" is 116 in the main dog emptying zone (of about 100 yards) in my village, including some in bags attached to branches, one can only hope that some day this fertiliser would be put to some use. Better than that, my Humanure book
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Humanure-Handbook-Guide-Composting-Manure/dp/0964425831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439748846&sr=8-1&keywords=humanure
> advises that decaying animal carcasses provide useful compost. How about rounding up all the local dogs, killing them, and sticking them in the compost heap?:devil:


Brilliant suggestion- economical _and_ satisfying! :lol:


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

A trick for good fuel economy : buy a Rangerover from the late nineties. Yes, ofcourse the V8. Live with it for two years or so. Find another fool and sell it again. Every car you will buy next will be a shining example of fuel economy.......


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

At present I'm training my car to better the average of 1 liter - 20 kilometers (sometimes he/she/it reaches 1 - 21 km). Soon we'll be travelling on the German _Autobahn_ again, that we'll be doing with a steady 140 km/h. Mostly I get a 1 - 16km average on the way to the Czech Republic, but on the way back the average is 1 - 20km again (driving down mountain slopes helps to push up).


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

Coming from someone who was once considering being a mechanic, I have a few suggestions for you, or anyone who is reading. As an FYI, my car gets just shy of 30 MPG, and is slightly under 180,000 miles in run time. That's because I take damn good care of it. Anyways, here are things for you to consider:

1. Don't drive like a maniac. Going easier on your gas pedal will lead to better mileage.

2. Proper tire pressure is a big key. Important point: look on the tire itself, not your owner's manual as you change tires
over time, the pressures vary between manufacturer and model will vary. Most car tires though fall in the
30-45 PSI range. Also, check pressure on cold tires as warm tires will show increased PSI, thereby being inaccurate
as to what the pressure should really be.

3. Get tune-ups done timely:

(note: a month is roughly equivalent to 1,000 miles)

spark plugs: 12-18 months,

spark plug wires: 18-24 months,

fuel filter: 30,000-35,000 miles,

air filter: 6-12 months,

PCV valve: 12-18 months,

fuel system flush: 24 months,

transmission fluid change OR flush: roughly every 35,000 miles

note:

a change removes all fluid (in manuals), or what's in the pan/changes trans filter (in automatics), 
whereas a full flush removes all fluid from the cooler, lines, and torque converter (in automatics),

oil change:

varies by habits and vehicle use (daily driver in traffic would be 
6-12 months [for more modern cars], heavy pulling/older cars would be 3-6 months),

coolant change: 18-24 months (a cooler engine is more efficient, and therefore gets better mileage),

temperature pressure regulator: as needed,

temperature pressure sender: as needed,

EGR valve: as needed,

oil system flush: 18-24 months (this removes build-up typically down to 3 microns),

brake fluid change: 12-24 months,

tire rotation: 6-8 months

Hope this will help you, and everyone here get the most use out of your vehicle as possible.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

So who has the worst fuel economy here

I'll start my car gets 11.7 L/100km, or 20.1 Mpg


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

I have a Chevy Volt which is a plug in hybrid. I get between 40 to 50 miles (depending on the weather and driving conditions) on an overnight charge and then it burns gasoline like a regular hybrid vehicle. Since I rarely drive more than 40 miles in a single day I can go for months without having to fill up the tank. The car actually keeps track of how long its been since you last filled up and makes you burn gas if you go too long so that the fuel in the tank doesn't get too stale. That's often the only reason I have to fill the tank.

And yes, I am aware that the overnight charges create carbon emissions as well. Financially I still come out way ahead though. My monthly electric bill only went up maybe $25 or $30 a month after I bought the car which is roughly a quarter what I would have paid for gasoline for a regular vehicle. That alone makes the switch to a plug in hybrid worth it to me.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I drive 40 miles one way just to get to work............... and with all these people saving on carbon emissions some one has got to put some balance back into the environment.. The trees need to breath too


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So who has the worst fuel economy here
> 
> I'll start my car gets 11.7 L/100km, or 20.1 Mpg


I had an HQ Holden wagon and it averaged 19mpg.
We have been on the metric system for about 45 years and it is so easy but the one thing I have never got used to is how fuel consumption is measured i.e. litres/100k I still use mpg, my BMW Coupe 330i has averaged slightly over 30mpg over the last 7 years or so. 
I see an earlier poster suggested regular servicing each month, spark plugs 12-18months, HT leads 18-24 months etc, and this is way off mark and the modern vehicle runs for age without requiring such service intervals.
e.g From memory with long life engine oil you can go 15-20,000 k between changes
Spark Plugs approx 30,000k, HT leads do not need servicing so unless you damage them will last years and years. Air filters about 20,000 on average.
Fuel system flush? I have never had this done if you try and run with a ful or near full tank and don't put water in it all that will be needed is the Filters.
I am not of course talking about a Model T Ford or the older vehicles.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Yeah, the Beemers are not bad, i had a 328i convertible 1999 model, that used to get 8L/100km and with its big tank would do 800km


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Dan Ante said:


> I see an earlier poster suggested regular servicing each month, spark plugs 12-18months, HT leads 18-24 months etc, and this is way off mark and the modern vehicle runs for age without requiring such service intervals.
> e.g From memory with long life engine oil you can go 15-20,000 k between changes
> Spark Plugs approx 30,000k, HT leads do not need servicing so unless you damage them will last years and years. Air filters about 20,000 on average.
> Fuel system flush? I have never had this done if you try and run with a ful or near full tank and don't put water in it all that will be needed is the Filters.
> I am not of course talking about a Model T Ford or the older vehicles.


Agreed. I sold my previous car with ~120,000 miles on it (it was purchased new). I ran 5w-20 conventional oil in it (the specified oil) until the engine oil monitor told me to replace it. The intervals then were usually 7,500-10,000 miles depending on the highway mileage. The spark plus were never changed, the coolant was only replaced once, and the ATF was drained and dropped once or twice. I never cleaned the fuel system and used regular fuel. I changed the air filter every 25k miles or so. All of this was in accordance to the manufacturer recommendations. I never had any problems and the car got 33-36mpg (hand calculated) when I sold it (it was rated for 30mpg highway).

My current car, a mid-size that's almost a full-size car, gets 40-45 mpg (US) highway on 10% Ethanol regular gas (real-world hand calculated mileage, the computer readout runs a little high). The only fuel saving technology of note that it has is a CVT. It's not a hybrid, not a small turbo, not high compression, and it still uses port fuel injection instead of DI. It runs on 5w-30 conventional unlike almost every other newer car. It even still has a spare tire unlike a lot of newer cars. And, yet, it's fuel mileage is right at the top of the class. Oh, and it lacks nothing on the performance end compared to competing cars with base engines. Some people are impressed by sports cars and such, but to me, the combination of performance, comfort, ergonomics, safety, efficiency, and economy in an affordable car is the most impressive form of automotive engineering.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Mine is petrol DI and gets 20mpg, stick with port inject i'd say


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Mine is petrol DI and gets 20mpg, stick with port inject i'd say


I've heard that direct injection really does not improve mileage all that much, but it does leave more deposits behind. If this is the case, it might be useless technology. I'm sure all cars will have it soon, but I'm glad that I was able to avoid it on my last purchase. The other cars with DI get worse mileage anyway! :lol:

What's worse than DI to me are small turbocharged petrol engines. These may do well on government fuel mileage tests, but they seem to get poor real-world mileage. I also don't like the way they drive compared to normally aspirated petrol engine. I've driven small turbos before, but there's just too many drawbacks to them without any advantage IMO.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I have re read my post and the figure for Spark Plug replacement was way off it is more like 100,000k so I still have 30,000 to go


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have a 2015 BMW 228i Coupe, turbo 4; 8 speed ZF Automatic Transmission, AC always on; 0-60 mph in about 5 seconds. I get 28 mpg doing 75% highway, 25% city. If I go over 80 mph consistently on the highway, that combined number will go down to 26. Highway alone is around 35 mpg.

I consider these results to be excellent for a powerul, sporty coupe.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I have a Lexus IS 220d and it averages about 35mpg although it's happier at higher speeds. Fuel consumption for urban driving is pretty shocking.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

2004 VW Jetta 1.8 5 speed stick with turbocharger: (gas engine)

Average city driving with air conditioning on - 25 to 27 mpg. Open road at 72 mph, I get 31 mpg.

I must always use the higher 91 octane fuel because of the turbo - 100% synthetic motor oil. 

154,000 miles so far, original clutch, original disc brakes (I downshift a lot). Car is garaged day/nite except when I am out and about.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Renault Clio 1.5 litre diesel.
Typically around 60 mpg.
That's Ummm not much per 100km.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Is London going to ban diesel cars? I heard something on the radio months ago but no more since.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

France and the UK have said they will ban the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040. The UK reportedly will require all cars to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2050 (not just sales). Norway wants to require all sales be ZEVs by 2025, and India is targeting 2030 for the ZEV requirement. Supposedly China and Germany are also considering 100% ZEV requirements for new car sales. 

Interestingly, France's rational is related to greenhouse gas emissions while the UK points to criteria pollutants (precursors of smog).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Back in the day, the Oldsmobile Toronado was famed for getting maybe 8 mpg. Almost as many years ago I bought an old Mercedes 450SEL from a chancy roadside dealer. I asked what the mileage was, and he said, "If you're concerned about that, this isn't the car for you."


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> France and the UK have said they will ban the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040. The UK reportedly will require all cars to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2050 (not just sales). Norway wants to require all sales be ZEVs by 2025, and India is targeting 2030 for the ZEV requirement. Supposedly China and Germany are also considering 100% ZEV requirements for new car sales.
> 
> Interestingly, France's rational is related to greenhouse gas emissions while the UK points to criteria pollutants (precursors of smog).


And not only smog but cancer _(In other words, IARC's (cancer research) expert panel assessed all the available scientific evidence and decided that exposure to diesel exhaust fumes can, and does, cause cancer in humans - specifically lung cancer (although there's weak evidence they're also linked to bladder cancer)._
It's taken long enough...


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2017)

My Mercedes has only got fake exhaust outlets (for purely visual reasons) but the car actually emits water vapour out through underneath. It has _AdBlue_ in a separate tank alongside the diesel one. As we don't need the first service until 25,000K we won't know what we have to do about this.


----------



## JJF (Aug 25, 2017)

Lexus CT200. The Lexus version of the Prius but light-years beyond the Prius in comfort and features. 42mpg consistently. 
The oil companies seem to have their pricing algorithm perfected so that the price of diesel is marked higher so it cancels out any mpg benefits diesel cars have.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^^ You should have potted plants sticking out the exhaust - watered by the water vapour


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I took a road trip on my motorcycle yesterday... I fairly diligently maintained a straight 90K, 10 clicks under the speed limit  I royally pissed off a trucker, who blew his horn violently as he (finally) passed me :lol:


Not the kind of stuff I would want to do on a motorcycle. The truck is way bigger than me and the bike. In fact, if there is traffic and only one lane traveling in the same direction, I would maintain a couple over the limit unless conditions (rain, fog, ...) warrant going slower.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^^ You should have potted plants sticking out the exhaust - watered by the water vapour


Just returned from the hospital where our closest friends are recouperating ('rehabilitation') after their Honda AWD left the road, hit a ditch and rolled over. He had a 'microsleep' and the car behind tried to warn him what was happening. The wife was asleep in the back, the son in the front passenger seat; helicopter removal, doctor following in second car behind (fortunately!). She has had a brain bleed, has a broken sternum and bone in lower spine broken. If they had a safe car like ours they would have had multiple warnings about _microsleeps_ as the car detects any deviation when you cross out of your lane by even the tiniest margin - the steering wheel rumbles and lights flash. They had just ordered another new Honda the day before. So, paying extra for safety features CAN save your life and health. I wouldn't touch a Honda with a barge pole!!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Our Opel Corsa averages 1:23 (liter to km), which should be 54 mpg.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I wouldn't touch a Honda with a barge pole!!


It sounds like a Honda is the safe way to go then.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> My Mercedes has only got fake exhaust outlets (for purely visual reasons) but the car actually emits water vapour out through underneath. It has _AdBlue_ in a separate tank alongside the diesel one. As we don't need the first service until 25,000K we won't know what we have to do about this.


You should have one of these,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

*Or even the Jag "E" *


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Klassik said:


> I've heard that direct injection really does not improve mileage all that much, but it does leave more deposits behind. If this is the case, it might be useless technology. I'm sure all cars will have it soon, but I'm glad that I was able to avoid it on my last purchase. The other cars with DI get worse mileage anyway! :lol:
> 
> What's worse than DI to me are small turbocharged petrol engines. These may do well on government fuel mileage tests, but they seem to get poor real-world mileage. I also don't like the way they drive compared to normally aspirated petrol engine. I've driven small turbos before, but there's just too many drawbacks to them without any advantage IMO.


Direct injection always works for me.


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

The '85 Century I had was equipped with a two barrel carb. That thing was the biggest gas hog I've ever seen. How bad? I could get on the freeway with a full tank of gas, drive for just a couple minutes, and the tank would be half empty.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

georgedelorean said:


> The '85 Century I had was equipped with a two barrel carb. That thing was the biggest gas hog I've ever seen. How bad? I could get on the freeway with a full tank of gas, drive for just a couple minutes, and the tank would be half empty.


Either you were doing 13,988mph or you had a ruddy big hole in the tank, or perhaps it was only a 1/4 gallon tank :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I once had a '66 T-bird, the kind of car a small-town bank president's wife might drive. Good to get back and forth to the golf course, probably. It had a 351 engine and a 10-gallon tank. Cool-looking, but you didn't want to get too far from a gas station (one with leaded gas, of course).


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> Either you were doing 13,988mph or you had a ruddy big hole in the tank, or perhaps it was only a 1/4 gallon tank :lol:


Or he modded the car with a top fuel dragster engine, which "in a typical run the engine can consume between 45 litres (12 US gal) and 86.1 litres (22.75 US gal) of fuel during warmup, burnout, staging, and the 400 m run."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

It was weird, Dan. Because there weren't any holes discovered during safety inspections. I'm thinking it was either a problem with the jets, or there was a fuel line problem.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

georgedelorean said:


> It was weird, Dan. Because there weren't any holes discovered during safety inspections. I'm thinking it was either a problem with the jets, or there was a fuel line problem.


Well there certainly seems to have been some sort of glitch :tiphat:


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

Highly strange. Have you ever heard of something resembling this?


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Only with Mr Bean


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

georgedelorean said:


> Highly strange. Have you ever heard of something resembling this?


Lived with a RangeRover 4.6 for 3 years. Striking resemblance !


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Jos said:


> Lived with a RangeRover 4.6 for 3 years. Striking resemblance !


I had a toyota Landcruiser tray back that was similar, had a transam Ponty 350v8 fitted and would spin all four wheel - no need for low range in that one and I never bothered checking the economy...........


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I had a toyota Landcruiser tray back that was similar, had a transam Ponty 350v8 fitted and would spin all four wheel -* no need for low range in that one* and I never bothered checking the economy...........


It was the policy of Jaguar in the days of the Mk VII it had to be able to take of in top gear without riding the clutch.


----------

