JRK think you've hit the nail on the head.
Technical 46 mpg
- Thread starter Scd
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical 46 mpg
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,537
- Points
- 276
A. I certainly didn't 'advise' you
B. Why would do you insist on trolling here when my 4-5MPG figure was never intended for anything more than a statement on MY MPG difference, which applies to TA's and probably other cars in the 50MPG braket. Posted in response to a TA vs 1.2 post.
C. The figures still stand, if you can refute them go ahead. You can't simply ignore data and say 'every tank will be different'. Could even be that the cool A/C relaxes you and you drive more sedately. Earlier you said you hadn't seen any data, hard to see what you aren't looking for :bang:
B. Why would do you insist on trolling here when my 4-5MPG figure was never intended for anything more than a statement on MY MPG difference, which applies to TA's and probably other cars in the 50MPG braket. Posted in response to a TA vs 1.2 post.
C. The figures still stand, if you can refute them go ahead. You can't simply ignore data and say 'every tank will be different'. Could even be that the cool A/C relaxes you and you drive more sedately. Earlier you said you hadn't seen any data, hard to see what you aren't looking for :bang:
I filled up on 23/11/12 and then again on 22/1/13 and I still have 3/4 of a tank
Feeling charitable, I took up the invitation. 31.9MPG average, 34MPG last, 41MPG best. 9 MPG between average and best???? Tells me absolutely jack
If every tank returned the same MPG +/- 1-2 then you might have had a point.
Wow, nice attitude on you
Just because feel that A/C costs 4-5mpg doesn't mean that this is what everyone else will find.
Seeing as you appear to be from Western Australia, you might like to consider that living in such a warm climate (I lived there for the first 23 years of my life), your A/C might have to work a touch harder than ours in blighty.
Just ponder that for a moment. Ponder why being an owner of a scan tool, you feel the need to act like one on a forum.
Yours bonzerly
Daniel (formerly of Morley)
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,537
- Points
- 276
Wow, nice attitude on you
Just because feel that A/C costs 4-5mpg doesn't mean that this is what everyone else will find.
Seeing as you appear to be from Western Australia, you might like to consider that living in such a warm climate (I lived there for the first 23 years of my life), your A/C might have to work a touch harder than ours in blighty.
Just ponder that for a moment. Ponder why being an owner of a scan tool, you feel the need to act like one on a forum.
Yours bonzerly
Daniel (formerly of Morley)
Hi Daniel,
If you peruse the thread, you'll find I simply reported MY expected MPG difference when the A/C is off. This was instantly called 'Absolute Rubbish'. I tried repeatedly pointing out that there's no reason why someone driving a different car on the other side of the planet should have the same results. I was told to 'make my mind up'.
MEP asked for data, I did my best to oblige, explain why HE might not have the same experience, to which his response was basically, 'I get a 9MPG difference between tanks, so the A/C makes no measurable difference'. You'll forgive me if I feel a little :bang:
Regards,
Bert (Currently of Morley
)Sometimes, you need a tool when dealing with another.
Last edited:
Small world!
As I said, people's experiences will differ, you are getting 4-5mpg difference, others don't. Personally I'd say it's more like 2 or perhaps 3 at the most.
As I said, people's experiences will differ, you are getting 4-5mpg difference, others don't. Personally I'd say it's more like 2 or perhaps 3 at the most.
I'll chime in and say that I was pretty keen on fuel economy with my 500 Sport, and the a/c was manually turned off most of the time.
Because I made the same trip to/from Auckland numerous times, I know that 6.5L/100km was typical whether or not the a/c was on, but one time I managed a 5.9L/100km. That time, I had the a/c on...
Another time with the a/c off, I drove a little harder and averaged 7.0L/100km. The trip computer was proved to be dead accurate by brim-filling the tank each time I filled up. Therefore, driving only a little faster makes more of a difference than having the a/c on.
With the 5.9L/100km measurement, of course I'm not saying that having a/c on makes it more economical. I'm simply agreeing with MEP that the difference in fuel economy with a/c on was below the measurable limit for me.
I'm happy that jrkitching was able to measure a difference - good on him - and I'm not disputing that. He does have a considerably more economical 1.2 8v (mine was a 1.4 16v, 200cc sounds bugger-all difference but the engine has very different tuning and very different torque characteristics, I know because I've driven both) so I can believe the difference with a/c on vs. a/c off would be more significant.
I'm sure with my V6 Spider, it makes absolutely no difference... driving gently, I can get 9L/100km which is nearly 30mpg... pretty much the same for my Stilo, I've chosen well for fuel economy
-Alex
Because I made the same trip to/from Auckland numerous times, I know that 6.5L/100km was typical whether or not the a/c was on, but one time I managed a 5.9L/100km. That time, I had the a/c on...
Another time with the a/c off, I drove a little harder and averaged 7.0L/100km. The trip computer was proved to be dead accurate by brim-filling the tank each time I filled up. Therefore, driving only a little faster makes more of a difference than having the a/c on.
With the 5.9L/100km measurement, of course I'm not saying that having a/c on makes it more economical. I'm simply agreeing with MEP that the difference in fuel economy with a/c on was below the measurable limit for me.
I'm happy that jrkitching was able to measure a difference - good on him - and I'm not disputing that. He does have a considerably more economical 1.2 8v (mine was a 1.4 16v, 200cc sounds bugger-all difference but the engine has very different tuning and very different torque characteristics, I know because I've driven both) so I can believe the difference with a/c on vs. a/c off would be more significant.
I'm sure with my V6 Spider, it makes absolutely no difference... driving gently, I can get 9L/100km which is nearly 30mpg...
pretty much the same for my Stilo, I've chosen well for fuel economy -Alex
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,537
- Points
- 276
It was pointed out to me that Fiat themselves claim a up to a 25% increase!
http://www2.fiat.co.uk/ecodrive/tr/EcoTips.aspx
No Comment :spin:
http://www2.fiat.co.uk/ecodrive/tr/EcoTips.aspx
No Comment :spin:
No one is saying that you're lying, just that 4-5 mpg isn't what others experience.
It was pointed out to me that Fiat themselves claim a up to a 25% increase!
http://www2.fiat.co.uk/ecodrive/tr/EcoTips.aspx
No Comment :spin:
You'd have to concoct a pretty contrived scenario to see a 25% drop. Then again, you need a pretty contrived scenario to see FIAT's published mpg figures
.If you're cruising at 85mph on the motorway (which of course no one here would ever do
), in typical UK weather, then the difference will probably be too small to worry about. But if you go down the motorway when the temperature in Celcius exceeds your cruising speed (and not even JR drives that slowly), then, yes, a 25% drop just might be possible.
Glad it's not just me on that one!
Roughly speaking, aerodynamic drag increases with the square of the speed. So at 70mph, it's about twice what it would be at 50mph. So, cruising at 60 mph in a 10mph wind, aerodynamic drag into the headwind is twice what it would be going with the wind, so the difference isn't that surprising.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 2,102
- Points
- 358
Then again, you need a pretty contrived scenario to see FIAT's published mpg figures
Or any - the NEDC test isn't a reflection of real life at all.
This amuses me on the wiki entry for it:
So not achievable in many cases, then, as quite a few of the things mentioned there are needed for safety reasons.
