Jump to content


Photo

Mpg Figures...


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 FOCA

FOCA

    Feet on the table

  • True Ford Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,866 posts
  • Name: FOCA
  • Ford Model: Mondeo Mk3 Sleeper 194 flb.p.t.
  • Year: Non
  • Location: Scotland
Contributor

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:17 PM

very interesting read foca.

Thanks! The Autoexpress was a bit of an eye- opener! i always used to close my windows thinking leaving them open would have a disasterous effect on the drag, abd the MPG (i just leave them open when i want now), and i had my AC removed,  i thought it would help the MPG, all round, not just accelerating/ round town (the AC system is 11kgs on the Mondeo, there is a pulley that always turns with the engine, so the AC delete is more than just switching the AC off)

 

The A.X. article is simplified, and they did not try different tyres (or wirths/ profiles) they tested at a constant 60, 70 and 80, but not at 30 40 or 50,  they bundled the overall findings together, without seperating round town/ hill course/ motorway croising (eg round town the AC had a massive negative impact on MPG, but on the motorway at a constant speed, putting the AC on made hardly any difference to the MPG)  a heavy weight in the car had a big negative impact on MPG when accelerating, and on the hill course so it depends on the conditions - the results were over-simplified (dumbed down)

 

Another surprising thing was when coasting up to junctions etc if you put the car into neutral the engine uses fuel to keep ticking over - if the car is in gear it uses no fuel as the ECU cuts the fuel supply - (this is when you are slowing down, coming up to an obstacle, going downhill etc )  - saw this on top gear. :)  

 

There must be an optimum speed for maximum MPG -  it differs between cars but on most cars is probably between 45 - 65 mph on flat ground (depending on gearing etc) - but driving too slowly car rouin your MPG too

 

If im stopped at traffic lights that i know are going to be at red for a while, i stop the engine,  (or stuck in a traffic jam etc)            



Have something to contribute?

Sign in or register to start a topic...

Sign up to FOC Premium Membership To Remove These Ads

#32 johnson293

johnson293

    Settling In Well

  • Members via FB
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Name: Marc
  • Ford Model: Focus Titanium 1.8 TDCi 115
  • Year: 2009
  • Location: Tyne and Wear

Posted 19 June 2013 - 08:27 PM

Little update on my Focus.... Dad had it today, fitting my rear parking sensor kit, and checked the air filter.

 

Apparently it is very dirty, and actually had quite a few leaves stuck in it too.

 

So it looks like it hasn't been changed since the last service about 2-3 years ago, at least!

 

So, going to get a replacement filter and put that in, which will hopefully add to/help the fuel economy. Not going to the expense of a K&N filter though, as have read a few differing opinions of those - some suggesting that in letting more air in, they also let more debris into the engine too.



#33 mixmasterlooney

mixmasterlooney

    The Sexecutioner

  • FOC Supporters
  • 1,689 posts
  • Name: Kurt
  • Ford Model: Focus Zetec S
  • Year: 2010
  • Location: Greater London
Contributor

Posted 19 June 2013 - 09:38 PM

FOCA I disagree with the idea that shell fuel may be a way of paying more, like i said i have calculated it from my own driving, been doing so for the last two years. as with anything you can always shop around, that means fuel stations too, not all shell stations are same of course and it will vary depending on distant for people to decide if it's actually worth doing or not.

 

Let me drop some calculations as an example using the 3p difference that johnson has seen between the shell gas station and Tesco's gas station.

 

I will use my local gas station prices, REAL world prices

 

Say you fill up twice a month with 45 litres, that's what a full tank or just under?

 

Shell £1.48 per litre

 

Texaco £1.45 Per litre

 

Shell: £1.48 x 45 = £66.60 With two fill ups per months for a year you would have spend £1598.40

 

Texaco: £1.45 x 45 = 65.25 With two fill ups per month for a year you would have spend £1566.00

 

The difference is £32.40 a year spend on shell fuels, Now completely ignoring that i have said you can do more miles on shell fuel and only think of the difference with cost, i can tell you that, shell would give more than £32.40 in vouchers within 12 months for this amount of points earned.

 

Therefore over time shell fuel will be cheaper assuming points are collected.

 

Plus the added benefit of more miles done per gallon (Of course this is questionable, we all drive differently) Also sometimes shell is cheaper than others.

 

I also disagree on the subject of low resistant tyres having less grip. I don't know where you got this from but if you do some research you will find that top brand low resistant tyres such as goodyear, michelin, continental, dunlop etc have the highest rated grip (based on the current lettering system) in wet, dry and braking. Visit www.mytyres.co.uk filter tyres based on low resistant. You will no doubt find these brands making tyres scoring A's and B's on grip, at extremely competitive prices.

 

Low resistant tyres also wear slow therefore lasting longer

 

www.mytyres.co.uk provides very reliable trusted info, although you can find the same info else where. Good website and prices highly recommended.

 

I would never suggest thinner tyres for better fuel economy, it's a fine line between saving money and your safety or your family.

 

On the subject of engines, engines are machined... these machine generate wear on the cutting part.... There will be a difference between the first engine machined on a new blade to the last engine machined on that same blade. Some of us will get engines at the top end some will get engines at the low end of the satisfactory margin.

 

Thank you for sharing the link FOCA, i wasn't aware at all that coasting uses more gas than being in gear... of course it makes sense



#34 mjt

mjt

    Feet Under The Table

  • Budding Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Ford Model: 03 Focus Mk1.5 Estate 1.8 TDCi Ghia

Posted 19 June 2013 - 09:52 PM

On the subject of engines, engines are machined... these machine generate wear on the cutting part.... There will be a difference between the first engine machined on a new blade to the last engine machined on that same blade. Some of us will get engines at the top end some will get engines at the low end of the satisfactory margin

 

There may be considerably less difference than you imply. I would imagine that modern n-c machines will be programmed to take account of cutter wear. The various components will also be measured and matched to give almost identical fitting clearances so there should be little difference in performance of a batch of new engines.



#35 artscot79

artscot79

    Ford Enthusiast

  • True Ford Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,344 posts
  • Name: arthur
  • Ford Model: focus mk2 ti-vct
  • Year: 2006
  • Location: Fife

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:28 PM

Sadly independant scientific tests have proven the shell fuel to be correct regardless of what people think supermarket fuel contains a higher percentage of cleaner and as a result does not burn as clean this robs tge engine of power so you use more fuel cleaner burning fuel optimises the engines power so you use less.

Over all the cars ive owned all were better on shell its all ive used for years i get better mpg thats simply fact the engine is far happier my mate also does vehicle recovery and poor running cars especially diesels using supermarket fuel have been better with premium fuels my old mans citreon runs on shell after he was unhappy with the performance using asda fuel after a few tanks of shell he was happy fifth gears test proved it works as has independant tests also older low resistance tyres wear quicker and do provide less grip newer designs with better materials are as good as standard however theres thousands of complaints that they require replacement far too soon and given the cost therefore are a false economy when new they seem fine but dive off the cliff once worn and lets be honest if they worked as good as stated all manufacturets would have them fitted as standard and they dont simple marketing really a good way to eek money out the motorist buy more expensive tyres in the hope it saves you a few pounds worth of fuel

#36 theduke

theduke

    Hairy Member

  • Budding Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Name: James
  • Ford Model: Focus Mk 2.5 Zetec
  • Year: 2009
  • Location: RhonddaCynonTaff

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:48 PM

im getting 32mpg overall 1.6 zetec 100 although mostly pottering about around down and a couple of dual carriageways did notice it getting much better on a motorway run.

 

On the subject of supermarket fuel my punto evo which i had prior to the focus would literally shudder when stationary on tesco/sainsbury fuel the mrs used to fill up in either for the weekly shop now i go to the esso down the road the day before shopping day it did get marginally better mpg but more importantly stopped juddering



#37 artscot79

artscot79

    Ford Enthusiast

  • True Ford Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,344 posts
  • Name: arthur
  • Ford Model: focus mk2 ti-vct
  • Year: 2006
  • Location: Fife

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:33 AM

Thats the issue my recovery mate gets a lot and changing from supermarket fuel always sorts it petrol and diesels my sisters pug was the same she used bp fuel and problem sorted so those who say its the same it just isnt

#38 jeebowhite

jeebowhite

    Resident Loon

  • Super Mod
  • 17,786 posts
  • Name: James
  • Ford Model: Sea Grey Mondeo MKIV 1.8TDCi 140ps Zetec
  • Year: 2007
  • Location: Kent
Contributor

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:40 AM

Johnson, changing the air filter makes a cracking difference
driving combo of country roads and motorway the last few weeks averages 41mpg,changed air filter yesterday whilst on lunch and got 46mpg on the way home.

#39 FOCA

FOCA

    Feet on the table

  • True Ford Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,866 posts
  • Name: FOCA
  • Ford Model: Mondeo Mk3 Sleeper 194 flb.p.t.
  • Year: Non
  • Location: Scotland
Contributor

Posted 22 June 2013 - 12:27 AM

 I .
 
I
I disagree on the subject of low resistant tyres having less grip. I don't know where you got this from but if you do some research you will find that top brand low resistant tyres such as goodyear, michelin, continental, dunlop etc have the highest rated grip (based on the current lettering system) in wet, dry and braking. Visit www.mytyres.co.uk filter tyres based on low resistant. You will no doubt find these brands making tyres scoring A's and B's on grip, at extremely competitive prices.


FOCA -
I presume you mean "low rolling resistance" tyres by "low resistant"?
 
Everything else being equal, the more grip a tyre has the more drag - so more grip = more drag / less grip = lower drag
 
Tyre manufacturers are developing ways of improving the economy (lowering the rolling resistance) such as stiffer sidewalls, and different materials such as increasing the amount of silica in the compound, this reduces drag but makes the tyre hard (and less grippy) at low tempratures (eg - under 7 degress C) making them unsuitable for winter use
 
The tyre has to be a compromise between wet/ dry/ cold temp grip and rolling resistance - "ultimate" eco/ fuel saving tyres do not have a lot of grip, "ultimate" sports/ performance tyres have a lot of grip, but have a high rolling resistance so are not good for economy    
 

Low resistant (meaning low rolling resistance/ eco) tyres also wear slow therefore lasting longer


FOCA - Exactly - because they havev a harder compound and less grip

I would never suggest thinner tyres for better fuel economy, it's a fine line between saving money and your safety or your family.


FOCA - Its >narrower< tyres (not "thinner") narrower tyres are less liable to aquaplane in the wet and better grip/ traction in snow and mud, often modern cars have tyres that are too big /wide  for the car (in my opinion), the wider tyres increase the rolling resistance, the larger wheels are heavier so have a bigger rotating mass this larger mass has to be accelerared/ de-celerated thus reducing economy (and performance) it also increases the unsprung weight-  as and example i run 16" 205/55 tyres on my Mondeo - these are narrower than the (18") ones on the ST-TDCI and are a lot lighter (17.4 vs 22kgs) the narrower, lighter wheels & tyres, help the economy AND the performance, the traction off the line is reduced, and the ultimate grip - but the tyres have a more progressive breakaway (more controllable on the limit)
 
Narrow tyres (same width as the Prius "eco" tyres) are fitted as standard to the new Toyota GT86 (for better handling! :lol: )          

Thank you for sharing the link FOCA, i wasn't aware at all that coasting uses more gas than being in gear... of course it makes sense


FOCA - No worries - As far as im aware  i am the only one on the forum with a "seriously" eco-modded car (eco+ performance hybrid) that runs on sustainable fuel (veg oil) - i am learning all the time about hypermiling techniques/ modifications - the tyre facts i learnt many years ago, when i was a race engineer - not from google/ online but from actual practical experience (i would not consider myself a "tyre expert" though but i can tell the difference between BS (there is far too much online) and actual facts mostly :lol:  )  

#40 blue flash

blue flash

    Feet Under The Table

  • Budding Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Ford Model: focus ghia
  • Year: 2005
  • Location: Swansea

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:57 AM

Well said foca.i've said for years that cars are running on tyres that are to wide. Why does a focus (for example) need to run on 205 tyres.



#41 mixmasterlooney

mixmasterlooney

    The Sexecutioner

  • FOC Supporters
  • 1,689 posts
  • Name: Kurt
  • Ford Model: Focus Zetec S
  • Year: 2010
  • Location: Greater London
Contributor

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:32 PM

What about the dramatic increase in braking distance? 

 

Tyre deformation under load with narrower tyres?

 

Wider tyres spread the load and improve many things, for a car and weight the size of a Ford Focus, i think 205's are spot on.

 

is this not a worthy point to ad in on the topic of narrower tyres? it's been left out in your post and i believe better stopping power is more important than saving a couple of quid.

 

Decide between the cons and pros of eco tyres and narrower tyres. You only have to be let down by a tyre once and it will change your life.



#42 FOCA

FOCA

    Feet on the table

  • True Ford Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,866 posts
  • Name: FOCA
  • Ford Model: Mondeo Mk3 Sleeper 194 flb.p.t.
  • Year: Non
  • Location: Scotland
Contributor

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:29 AM

What about the dramatic increase in braking distance? 

 

Tyre deformation under load with narrower tyres?

 

Wider tyres spread the load and improve many things, for a car and weight the size of a Ford Focus, i think 205's are spot on.

 

is this not a worthy point to ad in on the topic of narrower tyres? it's been left out in your post and i believe better stopping power is more important than saving a couple of quid.

 

Decide between the cons and pros of eco tyres and narrower tyres. You only have to be let down by a tyre once and it will change your life.

I think we have covered most of these points -

 

There are many factors that determine braking distance, a narrower tyre has less tendency to aquaplane in standing water, so in these conditions braking distances will be shorter, making narrower tyres safer for you and your family

 

as well as better grip in snow, mud and ice (when you really need grip)   

 

Tyre deformation is more to do with the design/ construction of the tyre/  sidewall stiffness and other factors rather than tyre wirth

 

The point is to choose a tyre width/ wheel size that is appropriate for the weight / size/ power output of the car,  and many modern cars (even small light ones with small engines) seem to be fitted with wider and wider tyres, almost as an appearance of "fashion"  thing

 

Making the tyres bigger/ wider than nessesary does not make the car better or safer, wider tyres can give a harsher, noisier ride, "white line" in the wet (+ the previously mentioned tendency to aquaplane and reduced grip in snow/ ice and mud) - so how does that "improve many things"   

 

This is only one small factor in the overall MPG equasion, though



#43 blue flash

blue flash

    Feet Under The Table

  • Budding Enthusiast
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Ford Model: focus ghia
  • Year: 2005
  • Location: Swansea

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:54 AM

I'm not saying to compromise no safety or anything else. Surely the technology these tyre company's have today cars should be able to run around on narrower tyres..anybody ever thought the tyre company's and "in" with the fuel companys,so wider tyres keeps the mpg down.



#44 johnson293

johnson293

    Settling In Well

  • Members via FB
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Name: Marc
  • Ford Model: Focus Titanium 1.8 TDCi 115
  • Year: 2009
  • Location: Tyne and Wear

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:23 PM

Well, will be close to refuelling tomorrow and the car looks like its now averaging approx 47-48mpg (both on the trip computer and mathematically) for my weekly commute mileage, which is getting nearer to what I'd hoped for (50mpg) when I bought the car.

 

Changed the air filter on Friday of last week (just a standard filter from EuroCarParts), and will be fuelling with shell again this week, so see how it goes for a full week with a new air filter, but the small changes are making a difference for me.

 

Will also check the tyre pressures, and make sure they are kept right, too.

 

Cheers again for everyones advice.



#45 jeebowhite

jeebowhite

    Resident Loon

  • Super Mod
  • 17,786 posts
  • Name: James
  • Ford Model: Sea Grey Mondeo MKIV 1.8TDCi 140ps Zetec
  • Year: 2007
  • Location: Kent
Contributor

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:05 PM

I would say a nice clean air filter will probably give you about 4 - 6 MPG (based purely on my own figures) boost (really depends on how dirty your last one was!)



Have something to contribute?

Sign in or register to start a topic...


Not what you're looking for?

Register now, we have a huge community of enthusiasts to answer any questions you might have



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users