10 minutes ago, bigjohn said:

 

I had a 61 Moggy Minor 948 that used to do late 40's on a run and a 76 Datsun 100A could easily do over 50mpg

Both terrible cars by any modern standard- death traps with woeful build quality and neolithic performance handling etc

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, JCP said:

Both terrible cars by any modern standard- death traps with woeful build quality and neolithic performance handling etc

 

 

Moggy Minor 0-60(if you were lucky) in 30 seconds! Actually proved very reliable but I had restored it with many new bits - used to drive all over northern England in it. The 61 version had very thick metal indeed - especially compared to a later 68 version that I also restored later.

 

Datsun 100A was amazingly reliabe and kind of nippy for it's time  - BUT, bodywork was very thin and rust prone, if you listened carefully I'm sure you could hear the rust munching away after you parked up

 

Ford Zodac IV was comfy and refined but had a drink problem (19mpg on a run if you really tried)

Edited 15 February, 20179 yr by bigjohn
addition

I remember the Datsun 100a well ( cherry)?lots of extras for it's time and great quality compared to most a friend bought one and then went on to a 240z,so it appears cars have become more powerful but economy hasn't really improved in real terms only in the manufactures figures which fifty years ago weren't even thought about from what I can remember.

 

I'm getting around an average of 37mpg from mine. Car has done 6000 miles and a lot of mixed driving conditions. This is comparable with the 1.2 Tsi I had previously so more than pleased!

The Yeti's shape really hurts economy.

 

We have a 1.2TSi Yeti and a 1.2TSi Octavia. On my commute which includes motorway the Octavia is at least 10mpg better.

 

Lee

Just filled up today for the first time since I got my new Yeti. Brim to brim I got 32mpg over 270 miles (in 33 days) all short <10 mile journies.

My first full tankfull lasted 450 miles (very close to empty) @ 37.5mpg which was 15% city, 15% A road with the remainder motorway at 70mph.

1 minute ago, goosander said:

My first full tankfull lasted 450 miles (very close to empty) @ 37.5mpg which was 15% city, 15% A road with the remainder motorway at 70mph.

It's porky and blunt remember 

7 minutes ago, goosander said:

My first full tankfull lasted 450 miles (very close to empty) @ 37.5mpg which was 15% city, 15% A road with the remainder motorway at 70mph.

That seems about right according to the reports in "Honest John" web pages. 

I'm going to be filling up tomorrow after having done 402 miles so far with 30 miles left on the tank range display. Thats with an average of 37.2mpg. Mostly A and B roads and country lanes. 

 

Thats my second tank, my L&K has now done about 760 miles. Pretty happy with fuel economy so far. 

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 19:17, Awayoffski said:

 

This is in a Fabia & a Twin Charger but the 72 mph @ 2,400 rpm gives better economy than 60 mph.

 

 

 

Just sounds to me like the twin charger is running on the supercharger at 60mph and the turbo at 72mph. It is an anomaly and not relevant unless the Yeti has a twin charger fitted. The ones sold her in Aus have the turbo only.

Actually that is right, running on Turbo under 3,500 rpm with Supercharger on demand / command, ie if needed to produce more power.

That is how VW managed to get them to give a surprisingly good economy in normal running.

The fuel being used less even though the vehicle is going faster forward into the wind which might well use more fuel, 

if all things were equal.

Normally when taking off or driving slower, Supercharger to 2,400 and then Super & Turbo to 3,500 and only Turbo when accelerating.

 

The point is that not all laws of science apply all the time, horses for courses, and fuel and map can sometimes make a difference, as 'Coasting can'.

Then there is the thing that all journeys are not uphill and sometimes there must be a tail wind.

 

VW did a nice Twincharger in a SUV in Australia until recently, they might still do.

Edited 22 February, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

The faster you go the more fuel needed.

T&S relate to engine downsizing for city idling economy/CO2 emission and the combination was to bridge the lag.

23 hours ago, Awayoffski said:

 

The point is that not all laws of science apply all the time,

 

 

Surely that is only true after a substantial number of beers.

 

A supercharger is powered by the engine, excellent at low revs but overall less efficient. A turbo is driven by the 'free energy' of the exhaust gases which makes it less responsive at low revs but overall makes it more efficient.

 

The first 2500 miles in my 1.4L&K averaged around 34mpg (real consumption, not relying on maxidot).

The car has now done 7400 miles and the average since new is 39.4mpg. This includes a little bit of towing, a fair number of short local journeys over the winter, and two holidays of two weeks on Mull with around 1200 miles each trip. Oh, and some on-track use as a motorsport safety car (when i can see 7 or 8 mpg on maxidot!).

So, overall, I reckon just under 40mpg since new is pretty good for a car with all the aerodynamics of a house brick!

 

The Yeti is far more economical at 45 - 50 mph especially if you know how to use momentum and anticipate road conditions to drive economically.  But 90% of drivers fail to do so.

I find best compromise between economy and speed on motorways is to drive at around 60mph. Any slower and the journey seems never ending. Take it over 70mph and the mpg drops right off to the low to mid 30's on maxidot and a big drop in brim to brim figures.

I should mention that these speeds quoted are off a GPS device that I use, not the indicated speed on the car's optimistic instruments,  so at my 60mph the car's speedo is showing around 64mph, my 70 is 76mph on the car's speedo.

 

But at the end of the day, it's your choice. Driver faster and overcoming wind resistance uses more fuel. Drive slower and you use less, but it's not as much fun. Simple!