MPGwatcher

Basically, I was always taught that neutral was an "if you really want to". It wasn't taught "to be in gear, clutch down", but that neutral wasn't pushed. Literally, just to make it easier for the learner, so they don't have to worry about getting in gear as they work handbrake and revs for setting off. It just sticks. Obviously, if I'm stationary, handbrake is on to counteract. Surely, in a practical sense, in gear and clutch down is the same as neutral, isn't it? Wheels unlocked from engine and vehicle free to move? Because revs are effectively the wheel speed, fuel consumption and revs aren't inherently tied, especially when considering road grade. To maintain constant revs and speed, you're working the accelerator to varying degrees While on a level road feathering the accelerator for max fuel consumption with min change in speed is easy, working out the "best" way to hypermile uphill is not something I've worked out yet. I just rely on the downhill stretches to balance out the uphill acceleration to maintain a (near)-constant road speed.

I have done (unless I'm late). Results weren't as good as I hoped - tried it on the 150mi journey to my parents, I was averaging 65mpg all the way north on the M42/M1, but once I got onto the M18/M180, it tanked to 50mpg no matter what I did. Running 55-60mph the whole journey. On the return journey, the same - 50mpg or less until I hooked South, and suddenly it went back up. Journey average both was, 50-52mpg - barely better than keeping a steady 70. Not part of my car's spec I'm afraid! Sits there idling 😭 I heard years ago that leaving the car in gear clutch down uses little to no fuel, and a (tiny) amount of fuel in neutral.

70mph is at 3200rpm, so I guess 3000 is close to 65mph (34/75, 36/80 etc). While it is right in the power band so performance accelerating between 60-80mph is fine, she can get thirsty. I'm a fairly inexperienced driver (18mo/29), but I get the principles of economical driving - living in Birmingham is giving me road rage though, lots of inconsiderate driving which ruins trying to drive economically (and an absurd number of traffic jams). I was much happier out in semi-rural South Yorkshire! I won't claim to be "good" at economical driving and often find myself with an absent minded lead foot. I feel an economy-focused cruise control should be very simple to programme - falling latch sensor to drop fuel until revs stabilise to maximise fuel efficiency, since it's easy to flex my toe without changing speed, and suddenly boost mpg by like 10, because I've been a hair heavy on the pedal. 35mpg is on a REALLY bad day, with medium-bad traffic, 39 is actually a really common figure for me. Plenty of days I can get lucky with a 42-44mpg run to work

😭 Is it physically incompatible ie mounting or shaft dimensions, or is it just not practical due to how the engine physically runs? So would you recommend 34psi front and 36psi rear to start?

Why higher pressure on the rears? Is it because a higher pressure will lead to less road contact, and therefore the lower pressure on the front drive wheels (and steering wheels) improves grip and control?

As the manual recommends 30.5psi I fill to 31psi at the pump stations (which only do whole numbers anyway). I know there's wiggle room about that for higher pressure to higher fuel efficiency but as I don't know what is safe (to not over-pressurise tyres), I don't go any further than that.

With the rising price of petrol and the amount of motorway miles I do, I'm nervously watching my MPG figure at all times. I drive a naturally-aspirated 1.2 (not sure if it's the 60HP or 70HP model) and even curbing my highway speed and driving carefully, struggle to best 50mpg average at 55mph (on a good bit of road in good weather, I can hit 60-65mpg at 55-60mph but never sustained over v long distance). My average city mpg is usually 30-35mpg with a lot of stop-start, 40-45mpg with good traffic flow, and touching 50mpg if there's a mix of 40mph roads, for an idea of my driving style. I drove about 5000 miles last year and this year might hit over 10,000. I've been toying with "what if I just had a 6th gear" for a while, and looking this morning found a bunch of BRISOKDA articles about gearboxes. Apparently the MkII and later 6-speeds don't actually have a long ratio 6th, just an extra "2.5th" gear which wouldn't be useful to me. Supposedly, the MkI VRS has a long-ratio 6-speed. I know very little about cars - if I could get ahold of a MkI VRS 6-speed gearbox with the long 6th (there seem to be plenty about on eBay, but no information on their ratios), would it work as a drop-in replacement? Is it even compatible with a MkII 1.2? And crucially, would I actually see any benefit, or am I misunderstanding the benefit of a long 6th? Obviously, I'm spending £250 plus labour (no way am I installing this myself) in the hopes of saving maybe £30pcm in fuel, but every little helps I guess. So even if I have got it right, I know I'm not chasing a miracle. Thanks guys.