Target Reached 70mpg!

AdrianHi

Belnahua wrote: »

This is a good read on additives....

http://www.carbibles.com/additives.html

Looks like a good site in general and has some interesting information discrediting oil additives, which from my amateur knowledge of engine oils I'd agree with.
Let's not allow this to mislead anyone into thinking the at least some fuel additives are not affective. Premium fuels like BP Ultimate Diesel diesel have different additives from standard diesel which makes them a "better" fuel. Worth noting that all diesel fuel from the refineries needs other additives to meet EN590.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

JohnX wrote: »

this ones no slouch with a blistering 130bhp, far more powerful than most other diesel engines!

A blistering 130bhp eh? Wow, I'm impressed. Oh wait, no I'm not.

alanrowell

scbk wrote: »

If you want higher mpg & lower running costs head for 2 wheels

Filling up every 150 miles, replacing tyres every 6000 miles...

meester

kaya wrote: »

im amazed at how many people believe that the manufacturers MPG indicators are a good unbiased represenation of fuel economy, has anybody contacted a manufacturer yet to find out how accurate those gimmicks really are? My friend has a corvette Z06 (505 hp, 193mph v8), on occasion the economy meter reads "average 76mpg"
is there anybody here who believes that is possible as well?

Your fuel economy meter will typicall show 'instananeous' and 'average'. Average is from last reset, 'instaneous' is right now.

I had sustained (for a minute) >100mpg in my 2.2 tonne 2.5-litre turbocharged Volvo, e.g., going downhill on the M25 Eastbound there's a nice spot near the M23.

Also simply easing down to a stop, I get >100mpg by using the residual forward momentum from the car.

My usual mpg was about 23mpg I now get 28mpg+ by driving extremely carefully. The 30.7mpg quote combined figure is just a joke.

Anyway, increasing from 60mpg to 70mpg is not a big increase, it's far less significant than 23mpg to 28mpg in terms of percentage improvement.

Mpg figures are misleading, litres per 100km are better.

goldspanners

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

A blistering 130bhp eh? Wow, I'm impressed. Oh wait, no I'm not.

my vans 130 bhp!
blisters all over me.

FlameCloud

My 35.6 mpg was achieved in a 245bhp Leon- so it can be done! It even bettered it today, 36.8mpg! Its almost as if it knows that petrols getting expensive. This was with V-Power mind.

in2deep_2

Fuel additives really do increase your MPG....honestly they do........usually by 250ml...the same as the fluid in the blummin bottle.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conor_3

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

A blistering 130bhp eh? Wow, I'm impressed. Oh wait, no I'm not.

BHP isn't everything. Look at the torque figures - they're the more relevent ones.

Conor_3

AdrianHi wrote: »

On a 7.8mpg articulated lorry your looking at an improvement up to 8.19mpg.

Its snake oil. It always has been snake oil, it always will be. As I said, if that was the kind of improvement you'd get, every haulier would be using it. Eddie Stobart would have massive tanks of the stuff at their depots.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Conor wrote: »

BHP isn't everything. Look at the torque figures - they're the more relevent ones.

Given the choice between the two, I'd settle for BHP every time. Torque is for people who enjoy driving on motorways. Power is for people who enjoy driving.