1.6i fuel consumption

Highflyer_GP said:
It's usually quoted in l/100km, I have no idea why people use the retarded notation of km/l.
Click to expand...

Agreed. "km/l" does not measure fuel consumption, it measures fuel efficiency. "l/100km" measures fuel consumption - i.e. how much fuel was consumed for a given distance. Knowing the fuel consumption in km/l is not helpful, because the fuel consumption will be one litre.
 
supersunbird said:
My Uno 1.1 gets uses 7.4l/100km in town

My 1.6 Bantam gets around 9.8l/100km in town

My mothers 1.4 Citroen C3 diesel gets 5.4l/100km according to her onboard computer
Click to expand...

5.4l/100km mean like 800km per tank? That is a lot better than my velo gets :(
 
Got 650km so far this week, with a little less than a quarter tank still left. Not bad for a 2.0i I think :D
 
HenryJ said:
Krikey, what am I doing wrong? I never get over 500km off my 1.4i velo's tank :(
Click to expand...

Try to keep your car rolling along in 2nd gear in traffic, that helps a lot. Keep a big enough following distance if you have to, so that in the event that the car in front stops, you can still keep moving. By the time you reach him, he would have started moving again.

Stop-start-stop traffic probably consumes more fuel than driving flat out (not to mention the toll it takes on your engine and brakes). I've noticed that my on-board computer gives a figure of 80-99 l/100km when taking off in 1st gear. Now imagine doing that every 10 seconds.
 
Highflyer_GP said:
Try to keep your car rolling along in 2nd gear in traffic, that helps a lot. Keep a big enough following distance if you have to, so that in the event that the car in front stops, you can still keep moving. By the time you reach him, he would have started moving again.

Stop-start-stop traffic probably consumes more fuel than driving flat out (not to mention the toll it takes on your engine and brakes). I've noticed that my on-board computer gives a figure of 80-99 l/100km when taking off in 1st gear. Now imagine doing that every 10 seconds.
Click to expand...

I find that however I drive, my consumption never really changes at all. If i thrash it for a while or drive like a granny or freewheel and stuff. It's all very odd...
 
I am also rather dissapointed with my citi 1.4i's consumption at around 10l/100km.
 
How much does pulling away slowly and leaving large gaps in front you add to the traffic snarl downstream?

FacELesS. said:
I am also rather dissapointed with my citi 1.4i's consumption at around 10l/100km.
Click to expand...
That car has an even more archaic engine than the one they put in the real Golf.
 
2l Renault Scenic averages 9l/100km but have been able to get it down to 8.2. This is my daily trip to work and back in Durban with the odd visit to see clients.
 
noxibox said:
How much does pulling away slowly and leaving large gaps in front you add to the traffic snarl downstream?


That car has an even more archaic engine than the one they put in the real Golf.
Click to expand...

I guess that is the problem then :( Nearly R1/km now. :mad:
 
noxibox said:
How much does pulling away slowly and leaving large gaps in front you add to the traffic snarl downstream?
Click to expand...
Depends on what one would define as a large gap. Does it make a difference if you stop 10cm behind a car and pull off 10-20 seconds later; compared to if you keep your car in motion with a 5-10 meter gap between you? If so, evidence would be nice.

I can think of many other reasons that would create a jam downstream. Personally I hate driving behind morons who brake for every little thing, even when there is no reason to. All it does is create a chain reaction. That, and the idiot hogging the fast lane at 40km/h 10km down the road, is probably a greater contribution to congestion.

Now consider the alternative. Everybody maintains a safer following distance, keeping their vehicles in motion, saving fuel, reducing the risk of bumper bashings and wear on their engines - would people be happier with this even if it creates an extra 500m (ballpark figure) of slow moving traffic as opposed to 500m less of motionless traffic? I know I would.
 
Claymore said:
Agreed. "km/l" does not measure fuel consumption, it measures fuel efficiency. "l/100km" measures fuel consumption - i.e. how much fuel was consumed for a given distance. Knowing the fuel consumption in km/l is not helpful, because the fuel consumption will be one litre.
Click to expand...

I prefer thinking in terms of km/l - it gives me an idea of how far I can go with the estimated amount of petrol in the tank. (ie. my car's 50l tank is half, so there's roughly 25l left, and at 10km/l it means I'm good for another 250km)

l/100km is handy from a statistical point of view - but not very pratictical.. :)
 
Paulr said:
I prefer thinking in terms of km/l - it gives me an idea of how far I can go with the estimated amount of petrol in the tank. (ie. my car's 50l tank is half, so there's roughly 25l left, and at 10km/l it means I'm good for another 250km)

l/100km is handy from a statistical point of view - but not very pratictical.. :)
Click to expand...

No you're missing the point. Fuel consumption is how many litres you're consuming i.e. you are consuming x litres per 100 km, or x litres per 10 km, etc.

km/l is meaningless if you're talking about consumption - you don't consume kilometres. As Claymore correctly pointed out, this is fuel efficiency i.e. how many kilometres can you get out of one litre.

The thread is titled "consumption", so any references to km/l is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X