I've got a standard Aus Spec NA and with normal driving get about 600k's per 60 litres so 10 litres per 100k's.. I do get better on the highway. Cheers, Dave.
PM member ZRATED, he runs Perth Zed Performance, and from everything i have heard he is tha shiznit, lol, he will be able to check everything out for you
I'd challenge that in capital city stop start traffic, which most of us have to drive in on a regular basis.
I get around 15 L/100ks. New o2's TT automatic. That's suburban and highway driving. I would describe my driving as "spirited". EDIT: and have a mines ECU, so might be running rich fuel maps.
Well I may not be driving in peak hour traffic everyday but this is the fuel economy I get for my normal driving and when I'm driving down a freeway such as from Sydney to Goulburn I get 9 L/100k's. So I'm sure that the consumption would be a little worse in stop start peak hour.
If your 400 km is out of 50 litres then that's not too bad. If out of 60 litres then it could be better. I've found it difficult to get better than 12-13 litres / 100 kms around town and 9.5 on hwy. At least, that's what my Ausspec gets and it's running smooth - Good O2s, tps etc. I suppose different road conditions, different driving styles, and perhaps different fuels all have an impact. btw Ignore Doug (Red32's) consumption figures, his car's a real fuel miser - I dunno how he does it. If the O2 sensors are stuffed they will definitely affect fuel consumption negatively. Cheers, Peter
Roughly 13 - 14L / 100km I get on average 13 - 14L / 100km and thats city driving, not giving it heaps but not driving miss daisy either. 91, NA Manual.
If you believe the ECUtalk software (and why wouldn't you) If I was to maintain a road speed of 80-85kmph (the most economical speed I have attained in overdrive) and drive on flat roads with no substantial headwind, I return about 7 l/100km, which is about 1000 km per tank. Now If I pumped my tyres up really hard I might do even better . This is also very similar to my 2001 Magna (also 3.0l V6) which had a trip computer where you could see the instant economy figure. You can't really compare car to car, but if you can get 500klm per tank in city cycle or better then you are doing really well, 400-450 would be the average, and below that well, the car either needs some attention, or the driver needs a few kilos taken off their right foot
it all depends on driving habits and traffic conditions. in theory if you drove through a whole tank without even stopping, all highway KMs then 650 is certainly achievable for TT or NA. at the revs TTs do on the highway, they're using less than NAs due to the taller final drive and the fact they're off boost. on the GOR cruise i floored it through most of the final forest leg from and back to apollo bay. with freeway driving thrown in that made up the majority of the kays. managed 570 before i finally filled up and the light didn't come on yet, probably could have done 600+ easily if i kept the engine below 4000rpm at all times but not much fun in that
in these kind of comparisons... in these kind of comparisons is it better to be posting a /100km reading because when i fill my tank for example sometimes it takes 50ltrs on board, other times it will take 60lts. depends if the light comes on or not... I always fill up my tank until the first click of the nozle. then work it out from there using how many km's i drove to how many ltrs it took. If i fill up at the E - i might only have 330 km on the clock but if i drive it until the light is on full time and i think im running on vapour i can get 410+
Yes dead cats could cause increased fuel consumption as they would act as a restrictor in the exhaust, increasing the backpressure and thus reducing the volumetric efficiency of the engine.
I think L/100k is good because it can be used across cars. All new cars give this figure on the windshield so you compare consumption. Easier than I get x km per tank as you need to know how big the tank is then to compare it to another car you need to do some conversions anyhow. 1.) Fill to the first click. Reset tripmeter. 2.) Drive until you need to fill again. 3.) Fill to the first click. 4.) Maths: liters filled/km's traveled x 100 is you L/100km figure.
Gotta drag this thread back up again but, Thought I'd run a little experiment over the weekend. Since I was going to Gympie (200km each way), thought I'd fill up at the first servo (1st click of the bowser auto shutoff), and then fill up in the same manner in Gympie. So off I go, the servo is near the freeway, so I jump on and set the cruiZe for 95, and sat there all the way to Gympie. When I arrived in Gympie, about 196km to the edge of town, I was just nudging at 3/4 of a tank of petrol left. When I pulled up at the main servo in town I filled up to the first shutoff of the bowser and it showed 16.09 litres. Not bad for 201km. That's 8L per 100km. Also bears mentioning that this was done on 98 octane, but 10% ethanol blend (United boost 98), which is not as economical as petrol. I did not use the aircon, but did have the targas off and windows down. That's a theoretical 900 km per tank, and who knows if I had have pumped my tyres up real hard, used V-Power or vortex98, dropped my max speed to 85 (any or all) I would have done better.
That's a nice empirical test you've done there, and astounding economy. I'm lucky if I get 300km out of a tank around town. Think the answer to my problem might be in this picture?? I just can't pick it! My car is running so rich at cruise (~ 11:1) that the [brand new] narrowband o2 sensors are not able to provide useful feedback to correct it.
Pretty impressive Granny-driving-Greg! Fingernail marks in the PSA-side dash must've healed over :zlove: Only point I'd question in this test is 'first click-off' on the bowser may differ each time depending on bowser sensitivity/angle of nozzle to tank etc.???
At 95, you would have done better with you aircon on and targas and windows up. Drag at 95 would have been much worse for fuel economy than the air con would have.
One of two things happened: a) The plugs fouled from all the fuel and it started surging b) The A/F leaned out up to 12:1 and the sudden increase in power made the wheels spin off the dyno.
