Beat my MPG

[gullyg]

Just for info.

Similar situation as the original post, three weeks of mainly SWMBO driving to work and constant interrupted regens.

However I drove the car this weekend on a long-ish run and gave it an Italian tune up.

18.7mpg.

[Gerrycan]

 

CORRECTION of data - the continental metric (where I live) confused my eyes when I did the conversions.

Note the corrected values in green text

 

3063 km using 133.55 litres fuel: 4.36 l/100 km or 53.95 mpg.  

Often averaging ~ 70 km/hr (43.5 mph) on visual trip output on roads limited to 110kmh max.   Ordinary fuel from supermarkets.  Not too bad.  

 

Sorry about my data illiteracy.

 

American gallons are smaller than British (imperial) gallons which are mainly used in this forum.

Unless your online converter specifically says which gallon measurement it is using then it will probably be the US measurement as they 'own' the internet.

So 4.36L/100 equals 64.789206 mpg (UK). Exceptional figures but maybe possible with a gentle scenery viewing cruise.

Do you confirm the car's trip reporting consumption by recording actual fuel consumption somewhere? Tuning boxes in general are known to cause exaggerated consumption claims.

 

Out of curiosity I looked up your Tunit unit on the web and noticed with interest they claimed improved economy and emissions BUT only compared to competitor's chip and tuning box upgrades. In other words they make no claims for improvements on the manufacturer's figures.

[johnbkidd]

Thanks Gerrycan

I stand corrected - and again unobservant.  Here are the corrected figures, now in UK miles.

 

FINAL CORRECTION of data - the continental metric (where I live) confused my eyes when I did the conversions.  As has my unseeing default to US measures in Google!

Note the corrected values in green text with UK mileage conversion.

 

How about this... ~ New car in May 2015 now with 30,000 kms on clock.  

On a recent trip with tank top-to-top over 3,063 kms along French/Spanish/Portuguese non-toll roads (often in Spain on the original yet quite new dual carriageways with little traffic and often with cruise control active). Running on new Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 tyres.

Trip data 

3063 km using 133.55 litres fuel: 4.36 l/100 km or 64.79 (UK) mpg.  

Often averaging ~ 70 km/hr (43.5 UK mph) on visual trip output on roads limited to 110kmh max.   Ordinary fuel from supermarkets.  Not too bad.  

 

Yet, from new (May 2015 - 6km on clock and almost zero fuel) over all journeys long and short - 

Total 32,601 km (20,257 UK miles) average = 54.27 (UK) mpg

With an early France to UK round trip of 3,652 kms at 37.99 (UK) mpg (often prudently fast [130 kmh] on French motorways).

 

The measures are from tank top-to-top over several fills (14 sets so far) not the in-built Skoda computer readings.

As for Tunit - I have used their units for several years and 'think' they provide some advantage over a bare engine system.  But, do they pay for themselves - who knows?

Thanks Gerrycan for your attention to my detail. 

[FlyingGecko]

...

. Plus I only have the Air Con going if I'm doing more than 60MPH, mostly jus have windows open.

 

...

 

 

 

 

Not aimed at davitc specifically, but driving with the windows open has a negative effect on the airflow around the car and consequently also adversely affects fuel consumption.

 

But I'll leave it to others more in need of something to do to work out which has the lesser effect on consumption - aircon on, or windows open. Must be at least a hundred yards per tankful difference.

[davitc]

Not aimed at davitc specifically, but driving with the windows open has a negative effect on the airflow around the car and consequently also adversely affects fuel consumption.

 

But I'll leave it to others more in need of something to do to work out which has the lesser effect on consumption - aircon on, or windows open. Must be at least a hundred yards per tankful difference.

 

Yep always close them around 60MPH because not only of wind drag but also the noise :-) . The issue I have with Air Con is in stop start traffic (which I spend a lot of time in) the engine does not seem to switch off so for that reason I put my windows up when doing 50/60+ and only use aircon if really need to anyway.

 

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/ac-vs-open-windows/

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2639599/Dont-bother-air-conditioning-just-wind-window-Cars-ALWAYS-fuel-efficient-AC-switched-research-reveals.html

Edited 26 July, 2016 by davitc

[Gabbo]

If you turn on the "eco tips" in the maxidot one of these is "AirCon enabled - close Windows".

I think it activates above 80kph/50mph if I remember correctly.

[FlyingGecko]

Yep, as I guessed, at least a hundred yards per tankful difference.

 

 

 

But...

 

 

how about the efficiencies inherent in automatic climate control compared with manual air conditioning running continuously...  or continually.

[Gerrycan]

I think you will find that air conditioner systems fitted in modern cars are far more efficient than those used the Mythbuster's vehicles or even in those associated with the Mail's article.

 

The more recent advances in vehicle A/C efficiency are largely unpublicised as they are not actually reflected in the Official Fuel Consumption figures.

 

Having said that there is no doubt that the effect on consumption is much more apparent at low speeds than at high speeds. In stop/start city traffic I'd say it adds about 2.5L/100 to consumption on a hot day.

I'd estimate that if I was travelling over 75kph where it is uncomfortable to have the windows closed then I get better economy using the A/C.

 

Having now found the eco-tips mentioned by Gabbo I'll be able to confirm that when our summer comes around. We are having a 'proper' winter in Adelaide at the moment with day time temperatures barely exceeding 13 degrees

Edited 26 July, 2016 by Gerrycan

[FlyingGecko]

I think you will find that air conditioner systems fitted in modern cars are far more efficient than those used the Mythbuster's vehicles or even in those associated with the Mail's article.

 

The more recent advances in vehicle A/C efficiency are largely unpublicised as they are not actually reflected in the Official Fuel Consumption figures.

 

 

 

Having said that there is no doubt that the effect on consumption is much more apparent at low speeds that at high speeds and in stop/start city traffic I'd say it adds about 2.5L/100 to consumption on a hot day.

...

 

I think this too.

 

 

I wouldn't expect it to drink that much fuel, but then again your definition of "hot day" probably differs from ours up here!

[SkodaVRS1963]

I think you will find that air conditioner systems fitted in modern cars are far more efficient than those used the Mythbuster's vehicles or even in those associated with the Mail's article.

 

 

My wife's first car was a Ford Puma; there was a **very** noticeable effect on acceleration when you switched the air-con on.

 

You're right, modern cars have become much more efficient.