My cars mpg, sound right?

Conmaicne Mara

So I filled her to the brim one day and the clock was telling me I'd done 99,647km.

Today I was a bit between pumps so had to fill a little earlier than I'd have wanted and put in 48.82 litres of petrol.

Clock says 100,330km.

Just wondering if my sums are right here...

100,330km - 99,647km = 683km.

683km to miles = 425miles (rounded up).

48.82 litres to (UK)gallons = 10.74gallons

425miles / 10.74gallons = 39.57mpg?

1.6 petrol Avensis.

Interesting when I filled her to the brim the trip computer told me my range was 636km, it's conservative

Nonoperational

Looks good, andgood mpg too.

langdang

I know a lad with a 1.6 avensis and he'd be incredibly happy with that! What year avensis?

MuppetCheck

Sounds good for the car.

CiniO

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

So I filled her to the brim one day and the clock was telling me I'd done 99,647km.

Today I was a bit between pumps so had to fill a little earlier than I'd have wanted and put in 48.82 litres of petrol.

Clock says 100,330km.

Just wondering if my sums are right here...

I think much easier would be to count it like that:

100,330km - 99,647km = 683km

fuel consumption = 48.82 / 6.83 = 7.15

7.15 l/100km is your result.

If you really want to have it in MPG (for whatever reason), google is your friend
Comes up as 39.5MPG

But using l/100km is so much easier when you fill up litres and have odometres in km.

ofcork

I get 40s on the motorway and mid 20s in town so id say it would average out similiar,ive a 1.6 avensis as well.

my my my

you wanna be gettin 7 miles to the euro

Conmaicne Mara

My brain still works in mph and mpg lol that's why I did it that way.

The car is 2005 reg. I was happy with that mpg, as I'd expected something in the 34/35mpg region going on what I'd heard. That's mostly R & N road driving with some small bit of city driving, no motorway.

Conmaicne Mara

Checked it again there last week.

Started out with 113751km, drove until 114520km and put in 49.61 litres of petrol.

43mpg ish I think? Off top of my head car is telling me 6.3 litres/100.

ironclaw

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Checked it again there last week.

Started out with 113751km, drove until 114520km and put in 49.61 litres of petrol.

43mpg ish I think? Off top of my head car is telling me 6.3 litres/100.

Most cars have an A and B odemeter if you press the dial in the dash. I just reset my A when I go from empty to full. Saves a few digits on the calculator

Either way, 40MPG+ is decent for any car.

Conmaicne Mara

I know the button yeah, I just noted the numbers down as I had pen & paper handy. I heard of much lower mpg before buying so I'm happy, will check her again after another while.

Jesus.

CiniO wrote: »

I think much easier would be to count it like that:
100,330km - 99,647km = 683kmfuel consumption = 48.82 / 6.83 = 7.157.15 l/100km is your result.If you really want to have it in MPG (for whatever reason), google is your friend
Comes up as 39.5MPG
But using l/100km is so much easier when you fill up litres and have odometres in km.

Don't be so arrogant. Just because you prefer to do it in L per KM, doesn't mean everyone else does too. I'll always use MPG till my dying day and so will a lot of other people.

So stop trying to convert people. You're like a Jehovah's Witness!

djimi

The mpg vs l/100km discussion has come up before. Neither is more correct or any easier than the other; its entirely down to what you prefer.

dh0011

i have an avensis which spends almost all its life at 60 mph. Get about 40/41 mpg she is 03 with about 120000 miles on her.

L'prof

I prefer using mpg too. It's just out of habit really. If I were to use l & km though, I think I'd use km/l instead of l/km. It's probably partially out of habit too as I prefer to see the numbers increasing the more efficient my car is burning fuel. 13.8 km/l just seems odd though!

Jesus.

dh0011 wrote: »

i have an avensis which spends almost all its life at 60 mph. Get about 40/41 mpg she is 03 with about 120000 miles on her.

Yourself and the OP are doing well there. I have a 1.6 Laguna and I thought I was getting 41 as well but in reality I was driving like an eejit, obsessing about getting a good return. When I relax and drive normally, I get around 36 MPG - which is a bit thirsty but its better than free-wheeling every chance I get!

dh0011

I have a light right foot but dont do anything especially odd to gain mpg. I keep her serviced and use dipetane every time i fill up the car.

dr.fuzzenstein

Jesus. wrote: »

Don't be so arrogant. Just because you prefer to do it in L per KM, doesn't mean everyone else does too. I'll always use MPG till my dying day and so will a lot of other people.

So stop trying to convert people. You're like a Jehovah's Witness!

He has a point though.
The OP took liters and converted them into gallons, the km into miles, then worked out his MPG.
Sooooooo much bother!
Work out you l/100 km and stick it into an online converter if you really want MPG and not too much hassle.
Or just tell the trip computer which one you want, all worked out at a touch of a button.
MPG is of course good for people who like to deal with arbitrary, nonsensical medieval measurements, btw my car does about 49.8 MPG.

dh0011

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He has a point though.
The OP took liters and converted them into gallons, the km into miles, then worked out his MPG.
Sooooooo much bother!
Work out you l/100 km and stick it into an online converter if you really want MPG and not too much hassle.
Or just tell the trip computer which one you want, all worked out at a touch of a button.
MPG is of course good for people who like to deal with arbitrary, nonsensical medieval measurements, btw my car does about 49.8 MPG.

Speaking as a statistician, people like you give people like me a good laugh. If you are so keen on leaving behind "medieval measurements" then I assume today when talking about temperature you used Kelvins instead of Celsius, when measuring angles you use radians instead of degrees, and pascals instead of bar or psi when filling up your tyres....

mullingar

I filled the tank in my car yesterday morning, did 40 miles random miles running a few errands and then did a return trip today Mullingar to Wexford via Dublin totalling 290 miles with cruise set to 80mph for as much of the way as possible. Refilled it a little earlier, €53.

A normal petrol car to do that same trip on €53 would need to do 40mpg, but it was in a 15 year old 3.0 auto Lexus Go LPG

Jesus.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

MPG is of course good for people who like to deal with arbitrary, nonsensical medieval measurements.

More arrogance from the L/km Nazis!!

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He has a point though.
The OP took liters and converted them into gallons, the km into miles, then worked out his MPG.
Sooooooo much bother!
Work out you l/100 km and stick it into an online converter if you really want MPG and not too much hassle.
Or just tell the trip computer which one you want, all worked out at a touch of a button.
MPG is of course good for people who like to deal with arbitrary, nonsensical medieval measurements, btw my car does about 49.8 MPG.

:P

And dh0011, Celsius is a scientific measurement, related to the boiling and freezing of water,compared to other measurements, which is someone throwing darts at a thermometer to determine 0 and 100.
Angles in degrees is just fine, if there was an imperial measurement system for angles, I'm sure 45 would be 6 and a quarter and 5 8ths and 90 would 127 over the moon with pasta and people would argue till their blue in the face it was better.
I actually DO use PSI for my tires (though 2.5 bar does me fine) because 36.26 is right but 36.25 or .27 is just wrong.

dh0011

Speaking as a scientist we dont use celcius, we use Kelvin. Your statement about throwing darts at a thermometer shows that you dont realise that the SI unit of temperature is the Kelvin. Also, you obviously dont know what absolute zero is.

Since you dont know your arse from your elbow on angles, I will point out that when you are using degrees and are measuring quantities smaller than one degree, you use minutes and seconds. This is backward to any scientist.

Renegade Mechanic

Jesus. wrote: »

Yourself and the OP are doing well there. I have a 1.6 Laguna and I thought I was getting 41 as well but in reality I was driving like an eejit, obsessing about getting a good return. When I relax and drive normally, I get around 36 MPG - which is a bit thirsty but its better than free-wheeling every chance I get!

Poor fella ive a 03 one that gets 47 all day! Mind you air con is taking its toll! Shouldn't you be able to convert water to fuel though?

ofcork

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I know the button yeah, I just noted the numbers down as I had pen & paper handy. I heard of much lower mpg before buying so I'm happy, will check her again after another while.

Do you find the dash readout comes up with some crazy mpg,sometimes after i fill mine the reading could go up to 50 or 60 mpg and drops down after a while.

dr.fuzzenstein

dh0011 wrote: »

Speaking as a scientist we dont use celcius, we use Kelvin. Your statement about throwing darts at a thermometer shows that you dont realise that the SI unit of temperature is the Kelvin. Also, you obviously dont know what absolute zero is.

Since you dont know your arse from your elbow on angles, I will point out that when you are using degrees and are measuring quantities smaller than one degree, you use minutes and seconds. This is backward to any scientist.

If you use Kelvin as a scientist, you must work in a specialized field. I very rarely need to know the temperature above absolute zero (i.e. it can't get any colder), as a human being Celsius is the best frame of reference.
As for my dart reference (which you clearly misconstrued) I was talking about Fahrenheit and Reaumur.
Now the one field I might need to know the temperature in Kelvin and angles to less than one degree might be astronomy or astrophysics? I could be way off, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jesus.

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Poor fella ive a 03 one that gets 47 all day! Mind you air con is taking its toll! Shouldn't you be able to convert water to fuel though?

47! Bloody hell! Its a petrol, right?

I daren't put on the A-Con. I'd be down to 30mpg!

Conmaicne Mara

ofcork wrote: »

Do you find the dash readout comes up with some crazy mpg,sometimes after i fill mine the reading could go up to 50 or 60 mpg and drops down after a while.

I know I've seen some odd stuff on the dash, can't remember specifics though, mostly when I got the car first though and not so much lately. I think that's why I wanted to record the distances and the litres input rather than rely on the computer.

Conmaicne Mara

Jesus. wrote: »

Yourself and the OP are doing well there. I have a 1.6 Laguna and I thought I was getting 41 as well but in reality I was driving like an eejit, obsessing about getting a good return. When I relax and drive normally, I get around 36 MPG - which is a bit thirsty but its better than free-wheeling every chance I get!

I haven't gone looking for ways of driving to economise on fuel consumption by altering my driving. Most of my journeys this time of year involve being stuck behind or over taking tourists anyway, so carefully laid plans would go to shít very fast considering it's all R & N road driving.

nightster1

Jesus. wrote: »

47! Bloody hell! Its a petrol, right?

I daren't put on the A-Con. I'd be down to 30mpg!

use a bit of air con, you'll be dead long enough!

Renegade Mechanic

Jesus. wrote: »

47! Bloody hell! Its a petrol, right?

I daren't put on the A-Con. I'd be down to 30mpg!

Yeah my mate with a diesel one hates me I have ac off, tyres put to 36/33, A1 spec 5w30 oil along with full service and cleaning the throttle pot every service. Nothing in the boot and straight tracking. After that its down to driving style. I do about 50mls per day. Around 10 in towns, 20 on 50mph roads and 20 on motorways. Thats there and back home again. I accelerate relaxedly to just under 3k rpm before changing gear. This meand the next gear usually starts at just over 2k rpm. Low revs can be just as bad as high but in towns I sometimt actually change at 2k as Im only making my wat to 30mph after all. I keep it to 60mph on the motorways. The difference between 60 and 75 is enormous! I do not "draft", if I meet someone I overtake them. Though off the motorway, Ill happily hang a few car lengths behind others. Its rarely below 45mph anyway. The biggest difference i think is looking ahead and using "Overrun". Use the gears to slow down if safe to do so. You'll use no fuel whatsoever as the wheels are now turning the engine. "Coasting" on the other hand does as nothing is turning the engine when the gearbox is disconnected from it and it must use fuel to keep itself ticking over. Proper use of Overrun is the single biggest improvement to fuel consumption anyone can make. And all modern cars have it. Sorry for the massive speal but you never know it might help save a few bob!:)

ba_barabus

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Poor fella ive a 03 one that gets 47 all day! Mind you air con is taking its toll! Shouldn't you be able to convert water to fuel though?

I used to be able to eek 47mpg out of a 99 Lean burn Avensis.

Such a cheap car to run.

mb1725

:rolleyes: I can't get used to Jesus driving a French car! :rolleyes:

ba_barabus

mb1725 wrote: »

:rolleyes: I can't get used to Jesus driving a French car! :rolleyes:

A Laguna at that. God help him

Renegade Mechanic

mb1725 wrote: »

:rolleyes: I can't get used to Jesus driving a French car! :rolleyes:

I know. If his french car goes wrong, could he say he got "crucified" at the dealer?

Renegade Mechanic

ba_barabus wrote: »

A Laguna at that. **God help him**

The lean burn Toyota's were fantastic. And yeah.... Even though I drive one myself I just can't defend them. Ive been luck with mine but by god they are capable of destroying marriages aren't they?

And DAT PUN!!!

ba_barabus

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The lean burn Toyota's were fantastic. And yeah.... Even though I drive one myself I just can't defend them. Ive been luck with mine but by god they are capable of destroying marriages aren't they?

And DAT PUN!!!

I love my puns

The lean burns were great. A friend had a Laguna from hell. We used to be most worried when there was no warning lights on as then we didn't know what WAS wrong.

Still though, I'd entertain a late 06/07 model on the driveway.

Renegade Mechanic

ba_barabus wrote: »

I love my puns

The lean burns were great. A friend had a Laguna from hell. We used to be most worried when there was no warning lights on as then we didn't know what WAS wrong.

Still though, I'd entertain a late 06/07 model on the driveway.

Heh heh heh thats the truth:)... They are a handsome devil of a car alright.
Thou shalt not be tempted!

Ronnie Beck

Jesus.

nightster1 wrote: »

use a bit of air con, you'll be dead long enough!

Not a'tall. Last time I died I only stayed dead for three days.

Jesus.

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Yeah my mate with a diesel one hates me I have ac off, tyres put to 36/33, A1 spec 5w30 oil along with full service and cleaning the throttle pot every service. Nothing in the boot and straight tracking. After that its down to driving style. I do about 50mls per day. Around 10 in towns, 20 on 50mph roads and 20 on motorways. Thats there and back home again. I accelerate relaxedly to just under 3k rpm before changing gear. This meand the next gear usually starts at just over 2k rpm. Low revs can be just as bad as high but in towns I sometimt actually change at 2k as Im only making my wat to 30mph after all. I keep it to 60mph on the motorways. The difference between 60 and 75 is enormous! I do not "draft", if I meet someone I overtake them. Though off the motorway, Ill happily hang a few car lengths behind others. Its rarely below 45mph anyway. The biggest difference i think is looking ahead and using "Overrun". Use the gears to slow down if safe to do so. You'll use no fuel whatsoever as the wheels are now turning the engine. "Coasting" on the other hand does as nothing is turning the engine when the gearbox is disconnected from it and it must use fuel to keep itself ticking over. Proper use of Overrun is the single biggest improvement to fuel consumption anyone can make. And all modern cars have it. Sorry for the massive speal but you never know it might help save a few bob!:)

Cheers mate. Some useful titbits there.

I never knew that changing down would actually be more economical than coasting. I'll have to try that one.

Just as a matter of interest, do you find the 1.6 very thrashy on the motorway? I'm near 3,000 revs at 60mph so anything above that and she's crying out for mercy. Its a pity there isn't a 6th gear in it.

Jesus.

ba_barabus wrote: »

A Laguna at that. God help him

Barabbus, they let you go and strung me up in your place. If you're now driving a better motor than me an' all then I'll be well pissed off.

ba_barabus

Jesus. wrote: »

Barabbus, they let you go and strung me up in your place. If you're now driving a better motor than me an' all then I'll be well pissed off.

I've a very tidy and well minded E46 coupe.

Although some scoff at its 4 cylinders.

Jesus.

ba_barabus wrote: »

I've a very tidy and well minded E46 coupe.

Although some scoff at its 4 cylinders.

I bet she has plenty of poke for our roads.

What displacement is it?

ba_barabus

Jesus. wrote: »

I bet she has plenty of poke for our roads.

What displacement is it?

It's on 2L but I find its plenty enough power for back roads. Others rightly snd wrongly think its underpowered. it could do with kore power but its actualky bery cheap to run snd easy on juice if driven right. It has a decent spec too, not m sport but nicely finished with climate control, aluminium dash inserts and a sunroof.

Renegade Mechanic

Jesus. wrote: »

Cheers mate. Some useful titbits there.

I never knew that changing down would actually be more economical than coasting. I'll have to try that one.

Just as a matter of interest, do you find the 1.6 very thrashy on the motorway? I'm near 3,000 revs at 60mph so anything above that and she's crying out for mercy. Its a pity there isn't a 6th gear in it.

Yeah they really miss that extra gear. And they do scream a bit when you whip em . But at 2800 to 3000 those engines are at their easiest in terms of how hard they have to work to push the car vs how fast theyre going. It helps that the Laguna has one of the better drag resistance ratings out there. (almost as good as a corvette i think!! Though ill have to check, heh) Even with the ac on full I can clear 40. Its a necessary sacrifice right now!

Renegade Mechanic

ba_barabus wrote: »

It's on 2L but I find its plenty enough power for back roads. Others rightly snd wrongly think its underpowered. it could do with kore power but its actualky bery cheap to run snd easy on juice if driven right. It has a decent spec too, not m sport but nicely finished with climate control, aluminium dash inserts and a sunroof.

Oh yeah... Jesus will definitely beat you up!

Leonard Hofstadter

Jesus. wrote: »

Cheers mate. Some useful titbits there.

I never knew that changing down would actually be more economical than coasting. I'll have to try that one.

Just as a matter of interest, do you find the 1.6 very thrashy on the motorway? I'm near 3,000 revs at 60mph so anything above that and she's crying out for mercy. Its a pity there isn't a 6th gear in it.

Yes they're very loud and underpowered on a motorway. 3800 rpm at a speedo indicated 130 kph (so just over 120 in reality) isn't very nice! 5th gear in one of them feels more like a 4 and a half gear if you know what I mean.

The 1.8 runs at 3400 rpm at a speedo indicated 130, which makes it a much better companion at those speeds, especially as it is somewhat more powerful as well.

Jesus.

captainspeed wrote: »

Yes they're very loud and underpowered on a motorway. 3800 rpm at a speedo indicated 130 kph (so just over 120 in reality) isn't very nice! 5th gear in one of them feels more like a 4 and a half gear if you know what I mean..

5th gear in my yoke actually works slightly harder than fourth in my missus' diesel Rio. :eek:

To be honest, I think the 2.0 liter would be the one for this car. Although I shudder to think what the mpg would be!

Renegade Mechanic

The thought has often crossed my mind to see if it would be possible to alter the diesel box and drives to fit the petrol car. I wonder would she have enough torque to maintain 120kph @ 2000rpm?:D

Jesus.

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The thought has often crossed my mind to see if it would be possible to alter the diesel box and drives to fit the petrol car. I wonder would she have enough torque to maintain 120kph @ 2000rpm?:D

Dunno mate.

But in relation to what I said about the 2 liter, I've heard guys say in the past that sometimes a bigger engine in a fairly large car might work out to be just as economical as a smaller one. Having more power to pull a heavy body around would mean that the engine doesn't have to work that hard and therefore would burn less fuel than the overworked small engine.

I wonder has anyone ever experienced this in two identical cars with a larger and smaller engine?