Which saves more petrol??

A

Aharon

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
10,595
Reaction score
516
Which would be more economical - manual car with cruise control installed...

N1 - 100-120km/h no robotos - 32km with cruise control
Urban - plenty robotos - 16km

I am guessing urban still beats the highway but your views are appreciated...
 
This is a rather unusual way to pose a question. :erm:

Driving neither urban nor highway is going to save you any petrol...
 
Aharon said:
Which would be more economical - manual car with cruise control installed...

N1 - 100-120km/h no robotos - 32km with cruise control
Urban - plenty robotos - 16km

I am guessing urban still beats the highway but your views are appreciated...
Click to expand...

I think if you drive 100 on the highway you would have the best fuel consumption, going over 100km/h start using more petrol which might end up that you have the same fuel consumption you would have on the shorter distance on urban consumption.

Try measuring what you fuel consumption is in urban times the km = cost then compare the fuel consumption @ 100km/h times distance. Think this would give the best idea of what you are looking at....
 
Dryad said:
I think if you drive 100 on the highway you would have the best fuel consumption, going over 100km/h start using more petrol which might end up that you have the same fuel consumption you would have on the shorter distance on urban consumption.

Try measuring what you fuel consumption is in urban times the km = cost then compare the fuel consumption @ 100km/h times distance. Think this would give the best idea of what you are looking at....
Click to expand...

Thanks mate - will try - don't have an onboard computer unfortunately - hence my post :)
 
Fill your tank up to full.
Then travel the required distance on the highway...once complete, fill the tank up again and record the number of liters used.
Repeat the above, but drive in an urban area. Fill up the tank and record the number of liters used.

Compare the liters to determine which is better...

Try the above, with say 50-100km instead of a larger 500km distance.
 
In my experience the driving on the freeway with less stops is more economical, but it is only marginally longer than the stop start route.
 
Aharon said:
Which would be more economical - manual car with cruise control installed...

N1 - 100-120km/h no robotos - 32km with cruise control
Urban - plenty robotos - 16km

I am guessing urban still beats the highway but your views are appreciated...
Click to expand...
In this case, urban should be able to beat highway. If using a completely hypothetical example of a car using 4 L/100 km highway and 6.5 L/100 km urban, any distance less than 26 km would make the highway more economical. Is there any congestion on either route?
 
dj_jyno said:
In this case, urban should be able to beat highway. If using a completely hypothetical example of a car using 4 L/100 km highway and 6.5 L/100 km urban, any distance less than 26 km would make the highway more economical. Is there any congestion on either route?
Click to expand...

Valid point.
Also, using the petrol tank trick is inaccurate. The petrol attendants don't all fill the tank to the same level.

It comes down to how you drive in the urban environment. If you accelerate quickly from a robot, you can push your consumption to 25 litres/ 100km. If you pull away slowly you can get it down to 15. If you drive rustig, you can get your fuel consumption down nicely. Same goes for the highway.

Then, coming to cruise control, it's a nasty fuel chomper if the road isn't level. Cruise control attempts to keep your speed constant. If you had cruise control on 120, and you hit ie van Reenen's, you'd go up it at 120. It wouldn't be light on fuel ;)
 
froot said:
Valid point.
Also, using the petrol tank trick is inaccurate. The petrol attendants don't all fill the tank to the same level.

It comes down to how you drive in the urban environment. If you accelerate quickly from a robot, you can push your consumption to 25 litres/ 100km. If you pull away slowly you can get it down to 15. If you drive rustig, you can get your fuel consumption down nicely. Same goes for the highway.

Then, coming to cruise control, it's a nasty fuel chomper if the road isn't level. Cruise control attempts to keep your speed constant. If you had cruise control on 120, and you hit ie van Reenen's, you'd go up it at 120. It wouldn't be light on fuel ;)
Click to expand...

This is true. I filled up my tank from empty a couple months back. Cost me about R750. A few weeks later I filled up again after a price increase expecting it to be about R800. The tank only cost me R680. :) Both times the onboard display showed about 30km DTE (distance till empty)


Also, regarding the OP. It depends mainly what speed you will be driving on the highway and what car you have. Smaller engine sizes will be most fuel efficient at around 80km/hr. However, I doubt that any car will make a saving on twice the km no matter how you drive.
 
i average 10.5L/100km in urban, and 7.2L/100km on the highway. So urban would win. no ways i ever get close to 14.4L/100km in urban.. if i drive heavy footed i can get it to 12.5L/100km
 
i would lean towards highway. a large part of fuel efficiency is momentum and keeping it.
 
dj_jyno said:
In this case, urban should be able to beat highway. If using a completely hypothetical example of a car using 4 L/100 km highway and 6.5 L/100 km urban, any distance less than 26 km would make the highway more economical. Is there any congestion on either route?
Click to expand...

+1. At double the distance your car would have to use half on the highway than an urban cycle to match it. It could depend on a lot of other factors though, like congestion on both routes, the average speed on both routes and of course the car you are driving.
 
2007 Audi A6 3.2 FSi Quattro.
70L tank.

Town driving I am lucky to see 400km. Average is around 380km.

Freeway at 135km/h full up with 2 adults, 3 kids and a loaded boot I see just under 1,000kms on a single tank. Kid you not.
Car sits at just under 2,000rpm at this speed. Almost idling.
 
yeah my e39 525 was like that long distance just under a 1000km
 
Yeah i get it down to 6.2 on the highway in favourable conditions with the merc, 1100km was my best. City around 10 but then it's easy on the pedal.
 
Time wise, Highway should be faster, depending on traffic. You also need to remember, that with traffic, it could take 30-45min to do a km. That tends to stuff up most economy ruins. :(
 
Aharon said:
Even though its double distance?
Click to expand...

From my experience yeah. My Audi does about 11 - 12 l/100 urban, but it is amazing when it comes to highway driving, I get about 7 l/100. I can even get it down to about 6. For a 2.0T thats impressive IMO. I often have to drive to clients and normally choose the highway route even though it is further. I may not be saving petrol, but it feels like it at least :p
 
It all depends on what car you have. My urban and freeway fuel consumption doesn't vary too much. 3.0 turbo diesel suv, Urban = 9.5 l/100km, Freeway 8.7 l/100km. So in your case I would take urban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X