Fuel consumption

I have the i20 fluid and after about 25000 kilos i get 6.7l/100kilos mixed driving occasional aircon use included. I don't know what carmag has against hyundai.
 
Sinbad said:
The purpose of the long distance test isn't to provide a calibrated fuel consumption figure ;) It's just something they report on as a by-the-way.
Click to expand...

And I suspect the guy who got told to drive the Hyundai wanted something faster, and he's hammering the poor little i20 to death trying to squeeze every last little bit of performance out of it.
 
Colin62 said:
And I suspect the guy who got told to drive the Hyundai wanted something faster, and he's hammering the poor little i20 to death trying to squeeze every last little bit of performance out of it.
Click to expand...
Those i20's are so k@k slow that I wouldn't be surprised.
 
The OEM claimed figures and real life figures is normally vastly diffrent.
According to the OEM I should get around 13L/100km but in real life I get closer to 19L/100km.
I tried to granny it and only got it down to 16l/100km, go figure.
 
skyhawk said:
Based on carmag's +/-20000km test


Toyota Auris HSD XR (73kw/142nm) 6.64/100km

Opel Corsa 1.4T sport (110kw/220nm) 6.67/100km

VW Jetta 2.0tdi highline (103kw/320nm) 6.12/100km

Isuzu KB300 DTEQ lx 4x4 DC (130kw/380nm) 9.67/100km

Toyota 86 High (140kw/204nm) 9.58/100km

Audi A7 sportback 3.0 bitdi quattro (235kw/650nm) 8.86/100km

VW gOLF 1.4 tSI comfortline dsg (90kw/200nm) 8.3l/100km

Honda civic tourer (104kw/174nm) 8.99/100km

Hyundai i20 1.4 fluid (74kw/133nm) 9.1/100km

VW Amarok 2.0 bitdi highline (132kn/420nm) 4 motion at 9.78/100

How is a lighter and less powerful engined car like the i20 use more fuel than a bakkie which is way heavier and more powerful ?
Click to expand...

Simple really.

Isuzu is 130kw @ 3100kg : Power to weight = 0.0255084066

Hyundai is 74kw @ 1520 kg : 0.0296135044

So they are actually very close in power to weight ratio and therefore work required to move either object. Now at Diesel vs Petrol to the mix and it makes perfect sense that the numbers would be very close.
 
Colin62 said:
And I suspect the guy who got told to drive the Hyundai wanted something faster, and he's hammering the poor little i20 to death trying to squeeze every last little bit of performance out of it.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that often the reality of why "little" cars with weaker engines end up being less economical than their siblings with higher performance numbers.

You simply push the weaker car so much harder to achieve the same thing that the perceived savings are negated.

Years ago I drove an Audi A6 4.2 V8 for a while. When using it on the open road it easily averaged the same or better than my little Opel Corsa 1.4, because it was basically idling at 120-140km/h.

Just never ever use it in town. :)
 
My first car was a Ford Escort 1100, 1972 model, and as pap as anything. My dad had a 280se Merc at the time, and he got better consumption than I did, although when I drove the Merc, the consumption went up a bit (especially when he wasn't in the car with me).
 
supersunbird said:
Hahahahaha, how did everyone miss this nugget of fail?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with it? Km per litre is not a measure of fuel consumption, because the fuel consumption is the fixed factor, it's a measure of fuel efficiency. Or don't you understand measures?
 
Claymore said:
What's wrong with it? Km per litre is not a measure of fuel consumption, because the fuel consumption is the fixed factor, it's a measure of fuel efficiency. Or don't you understand measures?
Click to expand...

The more KM you can travel on a litre, the better the fuel consumption. You'd have to be thick as ice cream not to get that.
 
Claymore said:
What's wrong with it? Km per litre is not a measure of fuel consumption, because the fuel consumption is the fixed factor, it's a measure of fuel efficiency. Or don't you understand measures?
Click to expand...

I don't get it either. The old way was to say how far you could travel per litre of petrol used by the vehicle. The standard most stick to is the inverse per 100km i.e. litrs spent per 100km traveled. Both are exactly the same measure just inverse and for a preset km and I usually convert between the two.

I suspect the reason is that expressing it as the inverse/100km, car manufactures get to say its the avg efficiency where as the traditional way is an expression of distance achievable <-- which bites with advertising vs claims of actual performance. It seems silly but yes this makes a difference in mindset. So instead of 30km/l on ultra efficient vehicles this is like 3.33l/100km ;)
 
Ho3n3r said:
The more KM you can travel on a litre, the better the fuel consumption. You'd have to be thick as ice cream not to get that.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you just reminded me I need to make ice cream before the strawberries go pap.
 
Personally I prefer l/100km - if I'm planning a trip, I know how far it is to the nearest 100km, and it's a simple thing to then calculate that if I'm getting 7 l/100k, and I have a trip of 800km to do that I'll need 56l of fuel to do it. Much easier than trying to divide in your head (well for me it is).
 
skyhawk said:
Based on carmag's +/-20000km test


Toyota Auris HSD XR (73kw/142nm) 6.64/100km

Opel Corsa 1.4T sport (110kw/220nm) 6.67/100km

VW Jetta 2.0tdi highline (103kw/320nm) 6.12/100km

Isuzu KB300 DTEQ lx 4x4 DC (130kw/380nm) 9.67/100km

Toyota 86 High (140kw/204nm) 9.58/100km

Audi A7 sportback 3.0 bitdi quattro (235kw/650nm) 8.86/100km

VW gOLF 1.4 tSI comfortline dsg (90kw/200nm) 8.3l/100km

Honda civic tourer (104kw/174nm) 8.99/100km

Hyundai i20 1.4 fluid (74kw/133nm) 9.1/100km

VW Amarok 2.0 bitdi highline (132kn/420nm) 4 motion at 9.78/100
Click to expand...

This is the reason why Toyota was so reluctant to introduce a small turbo petrol engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X