Manual Turbo Intercooler estate MPG...what to realistically

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by AllHailKingVolvo

I wish I had taken pics, it would have made for some amusing viewing for all!

I was thinking more along the lines of small claims court for the money you were out in terms of train fares, lost earnings from tonights gig and so on Phil.

I find it hard to believe he knew nothing about red blocks, even with basic "under bonnet knowledge" it's fairly obvious something isn't right if various hoses, pipes and tubes are blcoked off with screws, bolts and similar. Even allowing that, it doesn't excuse the fact it sounded like a metal bucket of spanners inside a washing machine, marked its territory like the winner at Crufts and looked like the Crufts loser had been eating the inside!

[aardvarkash10]

Originally Posted by tofufi

Are you using US or UK gallons down under?

UK.

The factory information posted above was closer to the truth. Remembering, those figures are the result of testing done under optimum conditions, so real world you could typically take another 10% off.

Like I said, fuel economy is not the best reason for buying or owning a car that has been around a quarter century or longer. The real world difference between 22 and 28 mpg ( or even wider) is pretty small in the total cost of vehicle ownership

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by aardvarkash10

UK.

The factory information posted above was closer to the truth. Remembering, those figures are the result of testing done under optimum conditions, so real world you could typically take another 10% off.

Like I said, fuel economy is not the best reason for buying or owning a car that has been around a quarter century or longer. The real world difference between 22 and 28 mpg ( or even wider) is pretty small in the total cost of vehicle ownership

The other thing often forgotten about the official tests Ash is they are done with a car straight off the production line. In other words, the engine is still tight, not yet run in properly and so frictional losses are at their highest in the life of the engine. Also compression will be lower as the bores/rings/pistons won't have yet found their "best" seal reducing efficiency further.

As such, it could reasonably be argued that in the real world you could add 10% to those economy figures. I've had many cars that have regularly given better figures on average than the official tests say they're capable of giving. I've also had many cars that struggle to reach the worst economy figures, even with nothing wrong, no leaks and so on.

What i'm saying is that, just like the independent website you linked to, the "official" figures are no more than a guide. To paraphrase the disclaimer that used to appear at the bottom of the fuel consumption figures, it isn't a guarantee of a particular cars performance or economy and many other factors influence the economy a particular owner will get such as driving style, altitude, fuel quality, servicing and so on.

As for the difference between 22 and 28mpg, when petrol is £1.43/L, or about (rough barely awake mental arithmetic) £6.50/gall on a 140 mile round trip, the latter would cost £32.50, the former (22mpg) would cost about £43 for the same journey. Then it begins to add up fairly quickly!

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The other thing often forgotten about the official tests Ash is they are done with a car straight off the production line.

Sorry, but no they're not. From memory, cars used in the current EU emissions and fuel consumption tests must have done a minimum/maximum of 1000/10000 km- but it's been 3-4 years since I did emissions testing so don't take the number as gospel

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by tofufi

Sorry, but no they're not. From memory, cars used in the current EU emissions and fuel consumption tests must have done a minimum/maximum of 1000/10000 km- but it's been 3-4 years since I did emissions testing so don't take the number as gospel

They may be now Jim but i'm fairly sure when the 7/9xx were made, they were straight off the production line. However, there was so much of a "black art" cloaking fuel consumption testing back then with much less rigorous emissions testing that it is difficult to be sure. There were even rumours that the car "straight off the production line" was "diverted" through the rolling road tuning to give the best economy figures possible.

True, false, i don't really know for sure but it was all pre-Dieselgate so who knows what tricks the manufacturers pulled 25-30 years ago to get "reasonable" economy figures?

[TonyS9]

Originally Posted by 360beast

Also in a manual you say down hill at idle is better than leaving it in gear with no acceleration is better? Surely not as in gear the wheels are driving the engine, on my fabia if I went downhill in neutral the mpg readout would be about 80+mpg where as in gear it would go to infinite.

I said a slight hill. In neutral with warm transmission you will coast a long way.

If you coast with partially open throttle you will get alot less instant mpg. This is where the mgt system is a bit crap and I can see it on the meter. The mgt is still injecting fuel and running the engine, and not lean/closed loop mode like idle, so its quite rich.
If the hill is steep enough and you close the throttle you will get fuel cut (assuming you start above 2000rpm), but it will slow the car alot more than neutral. In my experience maintaining momentum is much more valuable than infinite mpg against 100-200mpg (ie the fuel use is much the same 0 or very little, but alot of momentum is preserved).

Alot of the time fuel cut just doesn't happen, its very conservative and I can't see why. Modern engines are more often in fuel cut. The LH2.4 has to be above 2000rpm when the throttle is closed for it to happen, and there doesn't seem to be a reason for that. Maybe its a MAP system verses MAF system benefit (faster response).

[aardvarkash10]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

As for the difference between 22 and 28mpg, when petrol is £1.43/L, or about (rough barely awake mental arithmetic) £6.50/gall on a 140 mile round trip, the latter would cost £32.50, the former (22mpg) would cost about £43 for the same journey. Then it begins to add up fairly quickly!

Yeah, but compared to total cost of ownership, its not big. Servicing, insurance, storage, and opportunity costs all make even a 25% difference in fuel consumption pale into insignificance.

I've no idea what property costs are where you are, but here in Auckland we just cracked the $1m NZD average house price. If we assume a car takes up about 20m2 and the average house in NZ atm is about 160m2, the garage is around 1/8 of the building, and represents about the same % of land coverage. So each car is occupying about 80k worth of my home. Interest rates at 5% make that a $4000 a year cost.

^both convoluted and simplistic, but you get the picture I'm sure. Fuel, as a part of vehicle ownership and operation, is cheap.

Enough o/t - Merry Christmas everyone - its p*ssing down over here with some flooding and stuff going on. Not the blissful summer Christmas we tell all you northern hemisphere types about, there will be no cricket on the beach tomorrow!

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by 360beast

Everyone says "you won't see 30mpg put of a 360" well in my 1984 360 GLE carb I managed 39mpg on a journey to Bicester and back, again calculated fill up to fill up.

It's a fairly accurate statement if you're talking about injected 360's. Carbed cars are better on longer runs once warmed up due to the economy cams/carbs and taller final drive ratio. My GLS has a 3.27 ratio diff and the GLT a 3.64 which makes it a bit buzzy on the motorway. The GLS ought to make a decent motorway cruiser once I reassemble it!!

[360beast]

Originally Posted by SteveP

It's a fairly accurate statement if you're talking about injected 360's. Carbed cars are better on longer runs once warmed up due to the economy cams/carbs and taller final drive ratio. My GLS has a 3.27 ratio diff and the GLT a 3.64 which makes it a bit buzzy on the motorway. The GLS ought to make a decent motorway cruiser once I reassemble it!!

How is that coming along anyway? Still playing with the fuel tank?

[TonyS9]

Well I had the 360 GLE (87 high compression) aswell (and 10 other 300 models) and it never did more than about 28, but then I would do 70/80 on the motorway in those days.

Did you keep the speed low?