Miles per tank

WhiteWalls

I have a 1.4 d4d 2005 corolla and on a full tank of diesel I can do 600 miles if I drive it properly. Is that considered good? This would be close to 80e in diesel however

djimi

43mpg. It really depends on the type of driving youre doing; motorway mileage will differ quite a bit from city driving/short trips etc.

WhiteWalls

djimi wrote: »

43mpg. It really depends on the type of driving youre doing; motorway mileage will differ quite a bit from city driving/short trips etc.

Thanks, how did u calculate that?

bear1

55 litre tank in the Corolla.
If you are getting 600 miles to a tank then divide the 600 by the amount of litres.
600/55l = 10.9 miles per litre of fuel.
To get the gallon amount then multiply the 10.9 by 3.79 which comes to ~41.3mpg.
Did I calculate correctly?

vandriver

bear1 wrote: »

55 litre tank in the Corolla.
If you are getting 600 miles to a tank then divide the 600 by the amount of litres.
600/55l = 10.9 miles per litre of fuel.
To get the gallon amount then multiply the 10.9 by 3.79 which comes to ~41.3mpg.
Did I calculate correctly?

No!Multiply by 4.545 (did you use US gallons?) giving a much more respectable 49.5 mpg

bear1

vandriver wrote: »

No!Multiply by 4.545 (did you use US gallons?) giving a much more respectable 49.5 mpg

Yes you are correct, I used the US one by mistake

Cleveland Hot Pocket

I get 325-400 miles per tank in my fiesta (1.8d, 40 litre tank) , about 220 miles in my 300zx, perhaps 300-320 in my GMC (but that has a 20 gallon tank).
The carina when it runs gets nearly 500 miles to a tank. The auld shkoda used to get 575-625 miles on one tank.


Miles per tank is not a good measurement for comparison though as cars have different sized tanks. MPG is best.

Alan_007_

I'd get between 350 to 450 miles in my 1.25 fiesta (40 ltr tank). It really depends on the type of driving (town vs journey) you do and how you drive it though.

Alan_007_

I'd get between 350 to 450 miles in my 1.25 fiesta (40 ltr tank). It really depends on the type of driving (town vs journey) you do and how you drive it though.

bear1

I can't even get 800km from a tank from a 60l diesel S40

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Alan_007_ wrote: »

I'd get between 350 to 450 miles in my 1.25 fiesta (40 ltr tank). It really depends on the type of driving (town vs journey) you do and how you drive it though.

Totally off topic, is yours a mark 4 1.25?
Would be interesting if (in a totally scientific test :P) the 1.25 was doing better economy than the 1.8D!

dgt

About 800 miles per brimmed tank, 406 d-turbo. 70 litre tank and approx 6litres in the filler tube

None of this euros per tank sh*te

Alan_007_

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Totally off topic, is yours a mark 4 1.25?
Would be interesting if (in a totally scientific test :P) the 1.25 was doing better economy than the 1.8D!

Yup 2000 mk4 facelift. It would alright, I would've always assumed the 1.8D would have much better economy.

Francie Barrett

My record is 820 miles from a 70l tank. Did that in a poverty spec VW Passat (older 1.9 TDI engine, 90BHP).

Surprisingly enough, my new Passat (new 2.0 TDI engine 138BHP) falls short of that mark - 760 miles was all I could get from it from the same 70l tank.

mullingar

I can get 1200km between fills in my 3.0 Petrol Auto.

cocoman

Approx 1000 km from a 1.6 diesel focus - think its about a 50 l tank.

plasmin

700 miles for 2010 Passat 2.0L (110 HP) 70l tank. I think I should get better mileage, my driving is smooth so would like opinions on how can I improve mileage.

plasmin

700 miles for 2010 Passat 2.0L 70l tank

Starscream25

About 300 miles on 17.5 litres ninja 250 motorbike

jca

mullingar wrote: »

I can get 1200km between fills in my 3.0 Petrol Auto.

Big tank:pac:

mullingar

jca wrote: »

Big tank:pac:

2x tanks;)

Petrol 80L & LPG 65L.

Sam Kade

It beats me how some people never grasped basic maths

evolutionqy7

Tops 830 per tank. 60 euros to fill up.

Jesus.

500-odd per tank.

Some of the figures quoted here seem a bit fanciful tbh.

Cee-Jay-Cee

600-650kms in my Legacy 2.0i (64l tank)

plasmin

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Tops 830 per tank. 60 euros to fill up.

How do you get such a detailed analysis? Thanks

oldon

700-750km in on opel vectra 1.6 55g tank mostly motorway driving. When filled to the neck.

evolutionqy7

cais wrote: »

How do you get such a detailed analysis? Thanks

I use Fulio app on my phone to track fill ups. I just enter the odometer readings and how much I filled up, it gives me the rest.

Jude13

I have an LR/Discovery 3

86.3 litre tank. I get I get 348 miles out of it (560km).
348/86.3l = 4.03 miles per litre of fuel.
4.03 by 4.545 which comes to ~17.95mpg.

Pretty bad.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jude13 wrote: »

I have an LR/Discovery 3

86.3 litre tank. I get I get 348 miles out of it (560km).
348/86.3l = 4.03 miles per litre of fuel.
4.03 by 4.545 which comes to ~17.95mpg.

Pretty bad.

I assume that's the petrol one?
I get pretty similar MPG out of my GMC, which is a 5.7v8.

Jude13

Yup. Petrol V8 aswell, thats nearly all motorway although not very long journeys. I miss my old toyota, it had two tanks.

bear1

Sam Kade wrote: »

It beats me how some people never grasped basic maths

Well contributed post there. Well done.

ToxicPaddy

2001 A6 1.8T.

70l tank, filled to the brim for a run across the UK, got 460 miles when the light came on for a refill. Mostly motorway driving but some normal A-roads. So this calculates to around 30mpg.

Was pleasantly surprised tbh as I changed tyres lately and its definitely improved my mpg as was struggling to get 26-28mpg on the older model of tyres.

simplybam

cais wrote: »

700 miles for 2010 Passat 2.0L (110 HP) 70l tank. I think I should get better mileage, my driving is smooth so would like opinions on how can I improve mileage.

One of the main things is to use your brakes less. Use the engine to slow down (i.e. take the foot off the gas and/or shift down). That saves fuel and your brakes as well, as a free add-on.

On the original topic.
2001 Mercedes E200 Kompressor; I get about 18mpg around town and 33 on motorways.

toastedpickles

6/700 miles saab 9-5


driving sensibly that is :pac: 3/400 otherwise

tossy

simplybam wrote: »

On the original topic.

The Original topic was actually someone asking about the economy of a specific make and model of car, it seems to have turned into a thread where people just post up random economy figures from random cars. With a hint of reverse mickey waving i.e who can get the least

jca

tossy wrote: »

The Original topic was actually someone asking about the economy of a specific make and model of car, it seems to have turned into a thread where people just post up random economy figures from random cars. With a hint of reverse mickey waving i.e who can get the least

And who has the biggest engine. ...

Jesus.

simplybam wrote: »

One of the main things is to use your brakes less. Use the engine to slow down (i.e. take the foot off the gas and/or shift down). That saves fuel and your brakes as well, as a free add-on.

There was a discussion on this a while back and Renegade Mechanic explained how coasting in gear is actually more economical than "free-wheeling". I've been doing it ever since.

However, I was wondering if it produces more wear and tear on the engine? You know, going down a gradient even if in an appropriate gear works the engine somewhat compared to free-wheeling down in which its just turning over?

Would it be a case of saving a couple of cent at the pumps but ultimately lessening the life of the motor even if only by a small bit?

HandsomeDan

Jesus. wrote: »

There was a discussion on this a while back and Renegade Mechanic explained how coasting in gear is actually more economical than "free-wheeling". I've been doing it ever since.

It depends on the rate you're slowing at. In some instances coasting out of gear is more efficient.

Some new cars actually come with a coast out of gear facility for this reason.

Jesus.

HandsomeDan wrote: »

It depends on the rate you're slowing at. In some instances coasting out of gear is more efficient.

Oh I know that but what I'm asking is, does coasting in gear put any strain on the engine, even if in the correct gear?

DHFrame

HandsomeDan wrote: »

It depends on the rate you're slowing at. In some instances coasting out of gear is more efficient.

Some new cars actually come with a coast out of gear facility for this reason.

Interesting. Which cars have this technology on them?

Almost all vehicles show a fuel pull of zero when coasting while in gear. Zero, as in there is no fuel injected at all. Yes, the engine is turning over, the pistons are going up and down, the water pump, alternator and a/c compressor are working, so technically you can say the engine is running, sort of. But it's not consuming any fuel. And that goes for automatic or manuals.

When you coast you are using fuel - To keep the engine alive and running, not stalling.

Okay, eventually, at the bottom of the hill or as you creep up to the traffic light, the engine finally will slow to idle rpm—at which point the fuel injection will wake up and start adding fuel to keep the engine from stalling.

Take what your trip computer is telling you with a pinch of salt as it doesn't take these kind of scenarios into account. It should be calculated by how much fuel is taken vs miles completed.

HandsomeDan

Jesus. wrote: »

Oh I know that but what I'm asking is, does coasting in gear put any strain on the engine, even if in the correct gear?

Nothing abnormal about coasting in gear, so I'd imagine the engine/ transmission is designed with it in mind.

Madlad designs engines ask him

HandsomeDan

DHFrame wrote: »

Interesting. Which cars have this technology on them?

Almost all vehicles show a fuel pull of zero when coasting while in gear. Zero, as in there is no fuel injected at all. Yes, the engine is turning over, the pistons are going up and down, the water pump, alternator and a/c compressor are working, so technically you can say the engine is running, sort of. But it's not consuming any fuel. And that goes for automatic or manuals.

When you coast you are using fuel - To keep the engine alive and running, not stalling.

Okay, eventually, at the bottom of the hill or as you creep up to the traffic light, the engine finally will slow to idle rpm—at which point the fuel injection will wake up and start adding fuel to keep the engine from stalling.

Take what your trip computer is telling you with a pinch of salt as it doesn't take these kind of scenarios into account. It should be calculated by how much fuel is taken vs miles completed.

Cayenne among other Porches come with an auto coast function.

You are correct that costing in gear use no fuel, but it does consume kinetic energy i.e. If you wish to slow more slowly than engine braking will allow, then a computer controlled out of gear coast is going to be more efficient.

Jesus.

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Madlad designs engines ask him

Well Mad Lad, are you reading this?

DHFrame

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Cayenne among other Porches come with an auto coast function.

You are correct that costing in gear use no fuel, but it does consume kinetic energy i.e. If you wish to slow more slowly than engine braking will allow, then a computer controlled out of gear coast is going to be more efficient.

Ah, I see, so if you end up wanting to move slower/below than idle rpm will allow etc than your engine will start to use fuel again to stay running. Interesting. Thanks.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Jesus. wrote: »

Well Mad Lad, are you reading this?

Fast charging as we speak no doubt :P

Sam Kade

bear1 wrote: »

Well contributed post there. Well done.

Do you think that it's ok to spend 13-14 years in school learning maths and still not be able to do simple calculations?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Sam Kade wrote: »

Do you think that it's ok to spend 13-14 years in school learning maths and still not be able to do simple calculations?

Calculations of what? Where is it evident on this thread?

Actually hold on, what has someone's education got to do with motoring?

Valetta

Sam Kade wrote: »

Do you think that it's ok to spend 13-14 years in school learning maths and still not be able to do simple calculations?

One man's simple is another man's complicated.

Don't be so arrogant.

bear1

Sam Kade wrote: »

Do you think that it's ok to spend 13-14 years in school learning maths and still not be able to do simple calculations?

What's the big deal in asking how to calculate MPG?
You came onto this thread, didn't bother even trying to help out and just criticized those that could not do it.
Someone's mathematical skills are of no importance to you or this thread.
Come off your high horse

Sam Kade

bear1 wrote: »

What's the big deal in asking how to calculate MPG?
You came onto this thread, didn't bother even trying to help out and just criticized those that could not do it.
Someone's mathematical skills are of no importance to you or this thread.
Come off your high horse

Calm down, I was only stating the obvious.