If you have a diesel car, look out.

[Mark Allread]

See my reply to Tim+

[Mark Allread]

See my reply to Tim+

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Thanks for proving you just jump in without any understanding of a point.

I'll try and explain it to you. Total fuel consumed against total miles travelled is totally meaningless without knowing the type of journey.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

And this is the problem. Something which works under test conditions may not work so well or at all in real world use.

[Tim+]

Hmm, I?m still inclined to think that was ?estimated power at the flywheel?. 1.2 Ford engines back then were no balls of fire.

Tim

[Richard]

It was you not understanding tabby's point.

Irrelevant to what tabby was saying.

[Tim+]

According to this site, even my second guess was optimistic (although close to the mark).

Tim

[Vir Campestris]

My son is getting 60 out of a Civic diesel (picked for that reason - he does 40k a year on business at a fixed per-mile rate)

Andy

[news]

My works pug 206 1.4HDI often did over 700 miles per tank and if I could have maintained 70mph I think it would have been close. It was scrapped at 305k miles after I retired

Current fiesta 1.4 eco does slightly better mpg but smaller tank.

AJH

[Steve Walker]

A car suitable for a lot of motorway miles, will generally also be fine around town, but the opposite is often not true. In our house I have the large family car, do all the motorway mileage and most family mileage, but also most town journeys. My wife's small car is fine for her nipping here and there, but very tiring on a motorway drive and useless for a week's shopping for a family of five.

SteveW

[Steve Walker]

Whoops, forgot to add, mpg in my car pretty well matches hers under town conditions and is better on the motorway.

SteveW

[tabbypurr]

No it doesn't.

NT

[tabbypurr]

I haven;t claimed that either. Do you understand anything?

yup. And other factors have reduced it.

NT

[tabbypurr]

go & learn some basic comprehension

[tabbypurr]

Richard got it spot on. You're pretty much just trolling.

At the risk of stating the totally obvious, pretty much every car on the ro ad covers all the usual types of journey. So the figure is always going to be for real world combination of journey types. Sure you can split the figu res up, but it's combined fuel use that actually matters. I thought you'd u nderstand that first time it was said.

NT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Steve, I was referring to MPG. A car which is ideal for munching miles on a long journey isn't likely to be the most economical in fuel in heavy town traffic.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

See that one has gone over your head too.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Seems I need to spell it out to you.

It's true engines have become more efficient. But other changes to cars over the years - bigger, heavier, more friction in the drive train, more toys and so on, have produced nothing like the fuel savings that would have been possible otherwise.

[tabbypurr]

I see you specialise in stating the obvious too.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Neither do I: But then TurNiP is a figment of Daves fevered LeftyMind.

Without ecobollox. most engines would be 15% more fuel efficient.

OTOH electronic injection and better materials and turbos have impproved efficiency by about 20%, from around 20% to maybe nearly 40%.

That is haesd as 'doubling efficiency' by the green PorageMind.

But of course The Green PorageMind only thinks in linear terms. Imn anpother ten years it will be 80%, and ten years after that 160%. You just have to think positively, trust the EU and gaze into crystals.