1.6i fuel consumption

[noxibox]

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.

Larger gaps are going to increase the length of the line of cars. Somewhere downstream that is quite likely to have side-effects unless the road is infinitely long with no entry points. Perhaps it does not cause any problems on a long motorway, but cars do have to come in from somewhere.

What would be preferable is travelling at a steady slow speed, but as close as possible to the vehicle in front. More impact risk, but keeps the fuel consumption down, the traffic flowing smoothly and increases the number of vehicles that can get onto the road.

and pull off 10-20 seconds later

That's no better. People who lack the motor skills to pull away near simultaneously with the person in front of them probably shouldn't be allowed to drive. Same for people who don't pull away from traffic lights as briskly as their car can manage. Well actually this is fine when there are no cars waiting behind you, but a big deal during heavy traffic periods.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Krikey, what am I doing wrong? I never get over 500km off my 1.4i velo's tank

Stop driving it so hard. The ones I've rented (mostly fairly new and still tight, so not as frugal as I they can be) have given me a good 7l/100km, which is 14.3 km/l i.e. 700km on the Golf's 50l tank. For what it's worth, I got around the same on my old 1.6 carb-fed Citi. But then, the 1.6 carb-fed has an amazing torque spred, can cope really well in the low rev range. This is all driving in Jo'burg, btw.

The trick with any car is to find it's sweet spot. That spot where torque, power and consumption come together, i.e. where the engine is most efficient. Tip, this is usually (unless you drive a tazz) in the lower half of the usable rev range.

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

They're actually the same as the 1.6i found in the new Golfs and the 1.4i and 1.6i from the Polos.

 

[hj2k_x]

Stop driving it so hard. The ones I've rented (mostly fairly new and still tight, so not as frugal as I they can be) have given me a good 7l/100km, which is 14.3 km/l i.e. 700km on the Golf's 50l tank. For what it's worth, I got around the same on my old 1.6 carb-fed Citi. But then, the 1.6 carb-fed has an amazing torque spred, can cope really well in the low rev range. This is all driving in Jo'burg, btw.

The trick with any car is to find it's sweet spot. That spot where torque, power and consumption come together, i.e. where the engine is most efficient. Tip, this is usually (unless you drive a tazz) in the lower half of the usable rev range.
.

Thing is, I have tried nursing it and not driving it too hard but it makes almost no difference. The best I have ever got off a whole tank is just over 600km and that was long distance...

 

[koffiejunkie]

What would be super sweet is the Velo with the Polo's 1.4 3-cylinder turbo-diesel.

 

[hj2k_x]

What would be super sweet is the Velo with the Polo's 1.4 3-cylinder turbo-diesel.

And some aircon

 

[koffiejunkie]

Thing is, I have tried nursing it and not driving it too hard but it makes almost no difference. The best I have ever got off a whole tank is just over 600km and that was long distance...

How much do you weigh? kidding

Have it checked out, the roads you drive on surely play a roll (lots of ups/downs, etc), but you should at least see a difference in consumption if you alter your style. I've driven enough golfs (many different engines) to know you should be able to get better from a 1.4i.

 

[hj2k_x]

How much do you weigh? kidding

Have it checked out, the roads you drive on surely play a roll (lots of ups/downs, etc), but you should at least see a difference in consumption if you alter your style. I've driven enough golfs (many different engines) to know you should be able to get better from a 1.4i.

Hehe, no I don't think it's a weight issue...

But there are a lot of ups and downs...a lot. I guess that could be the issue then.

 

[FacELesS.]

4 gears?

2002 model; 5 gears + reverse.

The car did have some problems with it's fuel mixture which was fixed, but still I expected a much better fuel consumption from such a small car.