First time car buyer: advice needed

UrBaN963 said:
Because I drove one for the day and used half a tank of fuel going JHB, PTA North, JHB.

What that turbo is designed to do and theoretically can do in a closed testing environment, does not translate into real-world driving. It's quite a small range of power (nothing below 3200 RPM if memory serves), so you're always at higher revs if you're trying to go anywhere. Once cruising it's decent, but for city driving - not efficient at all (in my experience anyway.)
Click to expand...

Half a tank of fuel is not a measure.

L/100km is.
 
Lupus said:
A turbo doesn't save fuel? What is supposed to save fuel is the smaller engine, that the turbo is supposed to enhance, but if you've got to hammer it anyway it won't be very fuel efficient.
Click to expand...

A turbo saves fuel to achieve the same power as a larger capacity engine from a smaller one.

So in regards to power delivered per litre it does save fuel.

You don't need to necessarily hammer it, and changing at say 4500rpm should still give you the perfect middle ground.

****

Note I haven't driven said Renault. But I wouldn't blame the turbo vs no turbo on making it heavy on fuel and maybe just a **** engine which was my point.

Urban was quick to say he would never have a small engine turbo because it's heavy on fuel. Yet a Polo 1.2 or 1.4 TFSI is amazing in fuel economy for having that turbo.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Half a tank of fuel is not a measure.

L/100km is.
Click to expand...
No, for anyone not as pedantic as you, that is a measure. It has a 45 litre tank and a claimed 818KM range. Anyone driving a non-sportscar would expect to use less than half a tank of fuel going JHB-PTA-JHB. This is not unreasonable man, think.
 
SauRoNZA said:
A turbo saves fuel to achieve the same power as a larger capacity engine from a smaller one.

So in regards to power delivered per litre it does save fuel.

You don't need to necessarily hammer it, and changing at say 4500rpm should still give you the perfect middle ground.

****

Note I haven't driven said Renault. But I wouldn't blame the turbo vs no turbo on making it heavy on fuel and maybe just a **** engine which was my point.

Urban was quick to say he would never have a small engine turbo because it's heavy on fuel. Yet a Polo 1.2 or 1.4 TFSI is amazing in fuel economy for having that turbo.
Click to expand...
Those both have bigger engines. This is a 1l engine, but geared and tuned for the turbo. Thus when the turbo isn't in effect, the engine itself makes very little power. I'm not saying it's a kak car, I'm saying I wouldn't buy one as to get anywhere, the fuel-saving intent of the turbo isn't realised.
 
UrBaN963 said:
No, for anyone not as pedantic as you, that is a measure. It has a 45 litre tank and a claimed 818KM range. Anyone driving a non-sportscar would expect to use less than half a tank of fuel going JHB-PTA-JHB. This is not unreasonable man, think.
Click to expand...

But you haven't even stated a distance covered. You don't even seem to know what it was that you covered and only a loose estimate.
 
SauRoNZA said:
A turbo saves fuel to achieve the same power as a larger capacity engine from a smaller one.

So in regards to power delivered per litre it does save fuel.

You don't need to necessarily hammer it, and changing at say 4500rpm should still give you the perfect middle ground.

****

Note I haven't driven said Renault. But I wouldn't blame the turbo vs no turbo on making it heavy on fuel and maybe just a **** engine which was my point.

Urban was quick to say he would never have a small engine turbo because it's heavy on fuel. Yet a Polo 1.2 or 1.4 TFSI is amazing in fuel economy for having that turbo.
Click to expand...

Having a smaller car and having driven a few smaller ones, they are brilliant in city driving, but as soon as you take them on to the highway for anything over 40km round trip they start to slip up a bit. The turbo does help them on overtaking, does help them feel like bigger cars but you've still got to push the motor a bit harder to get them to kick in before you're overtaking that truck :-).
 
UrBaN963 said:
Those both have bigger engines. This is a 1l engine, but geared and tuned for the turbo. Thus when the turbo isn't in effect, the engine itself makes very little power. I'm not saying it's a kak car, I'm saying I wouldn't buy one as to get anywhere, the fuel-saving intent of the turbo isn't realised.
Click to expand...

I've driven the Clio, and it is incredibly frugal, in all modes of driving...
 
SauRoNZA said:
But you haven't even stated a distance covered. You don't even seem to know what it was that you covered and only a loose estimate.
Click to expand...
Krikey you're an obtuse fk when you want to be :D

I've drawn you a picture, hope this helps.

trip.JPG
 
SauRoNZA said:
But you haven't even stated a distance covered. You don't even seem to know what it was that you covered and only a loose estimate.
Click to expand...

That I do agree with, considering how large Johannesburg is, it could be on the R21, Ben Schoeman, Western Bypass etc. They can be 60km to 72km.
 
UrBaN963 said:
Those both have bigger engines. This is a 1l engine, but geared and tuned for the turbo. Thus when the turbo isn't in effect, the engine itself makes very little power. I'm not saying it's a kak car, I'm saying I wouldn't buy one as to get anywhere, the fuel-saving intent of the turbo isn't realised.
Click to expand...

But you don't even know that with concrete numbers.

It's rated to have most of it's torque from just under 2000rpm and a combined cycle of 5.5 l/100.

So all things considered real world if that jumps up to 6.5 l/100 it's pretty damn economical and hardly a fuel burner.

But the 88kw version does seem like the more logical choice which won't work quite as hard to achieve slightly better fuel economy.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Okay so you know what distance you covered. But you actually have no clue how many litres were in the car and how many were left when you got out.

So still means nothing.
Click to expand...
Well given that I filled the tank before I left JHB, and arrived back with it on half a tank, I think the answer is relatively clear, no? Sure, I didn't refill the tank to get an exact measurement, because I figured I would be discussing this with logical humans, didn't anticipate talking to you about it. You really are making this far more complex than necessary. If you asked someone in JHB whether they thought half a tank of fuel to PTA and back in a normal car is good, they'd laugh at you. Because it isn't.
 
UrBaN963 said:
Not in my experience, but I'm glad it was for you.
Click to expand...

As always, yes experience will differ..

But I drove one, and it was a vehicle that did MANY long distance freeway trips and it was frugal as fsck on fuel... I think over its lifetime it was under 5.5l/100km
 
ToxicBunny said:
As always, yes experience will differ..

But I drove one, and it was a vehicle that did MANY long distance freeway trips and it was frugal as fsck on fuel... I think over its lifetime it was under 5.5l/100km
Click to expand...
That's really good then. Do you know which engine it was?
 
UrBaN963 said:
Well given that I filled the tank before I left JHB, and arrived back with it on half a tank, I think the answer is relatively clear, no? Sure, I didn't refill the tank to get an exact measurement, because I figured I would be discussing this with logical humans, didn't anticipate talking to you about it. You really are making this far more complex than necessary. If you asked someone in JHB whether they thought half a tank of fuel to PTA and back in a normal car is good, they'd laugh at you. Because it isn't.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, I can always look at my car... it burns through the first half a tank in 200kms. and the last half in 400kms (according to the fuel gauge that is), so they're not the greatest way of measuring really.
 
I would give my vote to the Corsa as well. Wife had one for three years.

The 1.0T Cosmo was great, plenty of power, and I never really felt the turbo lag on it - it kicks in pretty low in the rev range, so no massive sudden rush as long as you drive decently. It was also very frugal, easily managed to get 17km/l (around 6l/100km) even with town driving.
It also came with the front and rear parking sensors as well as apple car play.
 
UrBaN963 said:
Well given that I filled the tank before I left JHB, and arrived back with it on half a tank, I think the answer is relatively clear, no? Sure, I didn't refill the tank to get an exact measurement, because I figured I would be discussing this with logical humans, didn't anticipate talking to you about it. You really are making this far more complex than necessary. If you asked someone in JHB whether they thought half a tank of fuel to PTA and back in a normal car is good, they'd laugh at you. Because it isn't.
Click to expand...

No it’s not clear.

A fuel gauge is unfortunately not an accurate measure. You would need multiple fuel ups to achieve accuracy.

Resetting the onboard computer is a much more logical option. So what did that say about your fuel economy?

And you are the one completely devoid of logic here. You have no concrete numbers for anything but amazingly draw conclusions for it.

For all we know on this Renault the reserve only kicks it when it reaches zero on the gauge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X