My trip to Scotland

[Alex M Grieve]

Following recent posts about fuel consumption (or economy) I decided to keep a closer eye on my data on a recent trip to Scotland.

Total mileage covered was 1292 miles and brim to brim calculations showed that took 29.1 gallons of diesel, and average of 44.4 mpg (S 320 CDI, W 220).

The motorway sections gave best economy (average 66 mph, 44.5 mpg). Local driving around Stirlingshire for a day and around the Isle of Skye for a couple of days reduced the average speed, but economy remained fair. The overall picture (49 mph, 42.2 mpg) offered an average mpg of LESS than the brim to brim figure, so I guess the dashboard computer was a bit pessimistic, which seems to differ from the experience of others.

 

[television]

These people that boast of 44 mpg should be shot or banned from posting such things here

Thats not bad is it and makes for fairly cheap travel

 

[Alex M Grieve]

These people that boast of 44 mpg should be shot or banned from posting such things here

Thats not bad is it and makes for fairly cheap travel

Aye, the MacThrifties are not everyone's cup of tea, but at least I don't hold up the traffic.

 

[100%Bitch]

Tractors always were economical.

 

[television]

Tractors always were economical.

Not for the ones following

 

[rf065]

On my recent trip to Cornwall, I also found the trip computer showing less mpg than the brim to brim figure.

My journey was 550 miles each way, computer showing 40.5 mpg, actual brim to brim figure was 42.8

I would have got higher figures than that but the average was dragged down between junctions 15 to 18 on the M5 at Bristol where there are bridge repairs. A seven mile tail back took one and a half hours to get through at only 20+mpg.

As well as noticing the dashboard computer is pessimistic, it's nice to know that driving at 80mph is more economical than stop start driving on congested roads, on that basis, we really should be building more motorways to relieve congestion and reduce CO2 levels. Why are the green brigade against this?

Russ

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Tractors always were economical.

Make mental note - "best avoid Norfolk then"

 

[st4]

Alex you were not far from me. Being a thrify man I'll raise you this.

And I held up not too many people in the process of being mean

 

[rf065]

Your average speed is to slow, try this..................

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh242/rf065/501mpg.jpg


Russ

 

[st4]

Your average speed is to slow, try this..................

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh242/rf065/501mpg.jpg


Russ

I had to cross edinburgh and that dipped it. I drove from Helensburgh to my mates in Edinburgh going via Stirling (its faster than going by Glasgow). I sat at 60 on mway and 50 on the A roads.

 

[rf065]

I had to cross edinburgh and that dipped it. I drove from Helensburgh to my mates in Edinburgh going via Stirling (its faster than going by Glasgow). I sat at 60 on mway and 50 on the A roads.

Best I've ever managed was 59.1 on the A77 heading for Ayr, It's OK when the traffic is light, I wouldn't recommend it in the rush hour though.

Russ

 

[st4]

Best I've ever managed was 59.1 on the A77 heading for Ayr, It's OK when the traffic is light, I wouldn't recommend it in the rush hour though.

Russ

Ayr gets a big congested it has to be said, I've been caught there on saturdays.

I can't get mine above 53mpg. I know a 209 will be a bit lighter but hoped I could get 60mpg from mine, as I drove like a granny to get that.

 

[rf065]

I reckon mine could get into the 60's, but being an auto & having 245 section tyres on the rear makes it very difficult, plus it's very boring driving like that for any length of time.

Russ

 

[st4]

I reckon mine could get into the 60's, but being an auto & having 245 section tyres on the rear makes it very difficult, plus it's very boring driving like that for any length of time.

Russ

There is someone on here who got 63mpg from his 220cdi E so it must be do-able. But we have lots of hills up here which make it harder for really good MPG.

I consoled myself with burst for economy that fuel was hard to get hold of, (the strike was on) so it was a must do, amazingly there were lots of others doing 60 on the M9 to save fuel. Today I did the same trip at the full speed limit and got 43.3. Not bad for a two ton car I guess.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Some interesting responses here. Clearly, the 220 CDIs have it in terms of higher mpg, but the average speeds were very conservative and I guess my motorway section (330 miles, 66mph, 44.5 mpg) would have been rather different if I had kept the S Class to cruise at 60 mph (averaging around 50).

I think it serves to illustrate, amongst other things, that the fuel economy of large cars, with or without the most powerful engines, with or without manual gearboxes, can be very different from the "official figures".

As the place to achieve this performance is just into the high point of the torque curve (2,000 rpm) I continue to be perplexed that many motoring "gurus" still eulogise about bhp and don't even mention torque.

If you drove a petrol car (especially a B*W) at the engine speeds required to produce peak bhp, you could safely ignore the offical economy (and CO2) figures. You could not have both at the same time.

Yet a diesel with automatic gears - admittedly with very high gearing - can exceed the official fuel consumption figures (and therefore undercut the official CO2 production) in everyday motoring. But it is on these things that VED is set.

If Gordon wants us to adopt greener driving behaviours, surely there needs to be a smarter way of rewarding such phenomena.

Just try averaging 66 mph in a mark one mini, or a 2CV! Smaller cars, ideal for use in congested cities (and TESCO car parks), but an environmental disaster - and that is without any mention of NCAP, casualties and resultant NHS costs. :-|

 

[st4]

Some interesting responses here. Clearly, the 220 CDIs have it in terms of higher mpg, but the average speeds were very conservative and I guess my motorway section (330 miles, 66mph, 44.5 mpg) would have been rather different if I had kept the S Class to cruise at 60 mph (averaging around 50).

I think it serves to illustrate, amongst other things, that the fuel economy of large cars, with or without the most powerful engines, with or without manual gearboxes, can be very different from the "official figures".

As the place to achieve this performance is just into the high point of the torque curve (2,000 rpm) I continue to be perplexed that many motoring "gurus" still eulogise about bhp and don't even mention torque.

If you drove a petrol car (especially a B*W) at the engine speeds required to produce peak bhp, you could safely ignore the offical economy (and CO2) figures. You could not have both at the same time.

Yet a diesel with automatic gears - admittedly with very high gearing - can exceed the official fuel consumption figures (and therefore undercut the official CO2 production) in everyday motoring. But it is on these things that VED is set.

If Gordon wants us to adopt greener driving behaviours, surely there needs to be a smarter way of rewarding such phenomena.

Just try averaging 66 mph in a mark one mini, or a 2CV! Smaller cars, ideal for use in congested cities (and TESCO car parks), but an environmental disaster - and that is without any mention of NCAP, casualties and resultant NHS costs. :-|

Fine, but I'm highly sceptical about this CO2 and even if we all drove V8 petrol range rovers evo magazine worked out the global temps wouldn't rise, as Co2 from other sources, like volcanoes massively eclipses what man produces.

I do therefore agree, but for very different reasons, that CO2 based VED taxing is wrong. I'd tax cars by a flat rate of £100 car and that money would be purely for the roads, not for methadone addicts.

My BMW petrol engined cars were actually economical for what they were, and even my 3.0i could crack 30mpg when driven gently, combined it was 24mpg or something. For any car the best cruising speed MPG wise is slowest speed in the highest gear, thats c. 45mph in my E220cdi, in your S class it will be nearer 50.

With any diesel the trick lies in keeping the car below 2k revs, and on country roads keeping forward momentum. You've done that as your car @ 70mph will be doing 2k rpm or so @ 70. My car its nearer 2.3k and I am down to 40mpg, at 60 its 47mpg.

The government if it wanted could improve UK PLC's carbon foot print (if it genuinely buys the man made CO2 climate change b*lls) by improving our roads, improving their surfaces so there is less rolling resistance, improving country roads so they're straighter and wider so traffic can flow at speeds that equate to lowest speed in highest gear.

But do not worry, greener driving is rewarded, at the petrol pumps. It needn't do a thing as fuel won't get cheaper, and people will drive more economically given the chance. Petrol is so clever at rewarding green driving that its used more in cities, due to stop start. So fuel duty acts as a congestion charge, CO2 tax, the works

 

[SQ_W211]

My 230K W208 CLK gave me around 41mpg while going to North wales through hills and country roads. not bad for car with Boot full of Luggage and 4 down!!!!!

I feel petrol is not that far behind diesels.....