MSE's 2011 Petrol/Diesel Cost Diet Challenge: Put your money where your pedal is!

JDPower

anotheruser wrote: »

People suggest it is dangerous as you "do not have full control of the car". You have the power to stop, just not accelerate away from danger.

The only danger I can see is that you wouldn't be able to get away from an incident like an out of control car behind you. However when travelling along, the gear I would have selected would not give enough pull to get away from anything.

From the highway Code:

It can reduce driver control because
• engine braking is eliminated
• vehicle speed downhill will increase quickly
• increased use of the footbrake can reduce its
effectiveness
• steering response will be affected, particularly on
bends and corners
• it may be more difficult to select the appropriate gear
when needed.
The vehicle is also less likely to be heard by other road
users

Exemplar

We are currently getting mid 60's out of our Audi A1 TDi. On a good day driving from Newark to Nottingham on the A46 we can get 82. Yes I know it's not exactly right but I do feel very, very smug.

MrReeMachine

Weird_Nev wrote: »

I've been trying to be good:
1997 BMW 328 estate, with a 2.8l straight six engine! Not the best choice for out and out economy. But it is a hoot to drive.

I average 30Mpg normally, But pushed this up to 35Mpg over the last tank.

I used to have a 99 328i Coupe and couldn't agree more, beautiful car and I found I had very similar consumption figures to yourself too. Best I ever got was 38mpg on a long motorway run, and mine was an auto too! Very reliable car, had it until 150K and in the previous 90K miles the only maintenance issue I had was a new cat which cost around £400.

When my wife was expecting we needed a practical car so I traded it on a 2 year old low mileage 2.2 TDCi Mondeo Ghia X- terrible financial decision! Sure it averaged 48mpg, and wasn't too slow for a diesel either, but the maintenance and servicing costs were horrendous, not to mention the depreciation and build quality.

Last year I traded it in at 120K miles (maintenance costs on the Mondeo were just getting ridiculous) and have now got myself a low mileage 2006 BMW 325i SE Touring - practical and fun too - and the maintenance has been significantly lower, but this car makes good financial sense for two reasons:

The equivalent low mileage diesel BMW was almost £5000 more expensive to buy! That pays for a lot of difference in fuel consumption! Resale value doesn't really factor too much as I tend to drive my cars into the ground before changing them. Second reason, being a heavy drinker of fuel, I tend to think twice before making unnecessary trips that I wouldn't have otherwise worried about in the Diesel Mondeo which has the twofold effect of reducing both fuel usage and mileage on the car.

Weird_Nev wrote: »

It can be remarkably efficient ,35 mpg average over 2,000 miles around france in July (running on 98 RON which makes a big difference on this car).
I also get around 5-8% better economy on Shell 95 compared to Morrisons Ullage, enough to offset the 1p/l price distance.

Couldn't agree more, the BMW really makes use of the extra RON - reckon I get around 3mpg more from super than regular which equates to almost 10%. BMWs are the only cars that I've ever personally experienced that benefit from running super though...

Rich

alastairq

re-coasting?

An essential part of a vehicles stability comes from the drive wheels...and the drive [or over-run] through them.

If using the 'depress the clutch pedal' method..[aside from wear issues when holding a disengaged clutch for long periods of time?]....there is a heightened risk of initiating a skid, if, when the time comes to re-engage the clutch, the engine revs are not set to match the road speed, in that gear.

Done at the wrong time, on a suspect road surface, and the transmission 'jolt' could result in a wheel locking. [and that is aside from the same effects, mechanically, of a rough gear-change?]

With modern cars, whose engines are controlled electronically...I suggest the biggest savings derive from spending as long as possible on the 'over-run'...ie, off-the-gas....but still in gear.[ie, top gear?]

However, I suggest changing down a gear once the revs have got somewhere near tick-over [idle revs]...this avoids entering the area when the ECU starts to pump fuel into the engine again, for idling.

[I am ignoring the expensive types of car, where the electronics virtually do everything the driver ought to do, but doesn't.
Which excludes the common-or-garden Fiestas and Skodas...amongst others.
If you have a BMW, then you've paid for the technology, so let it do the work?]

I am currently achieving an average [no computer, so not entirely a scientific measurement]...45-47 mpg's from a grotty Fiesta zetec that is nearly 15 years old.....

Not quite as good as my last car, but for under £500 what do I expect?

'Reading' the road ahead is most useful.....especially what it does, terrain-wise?

I use downhill bits to boost my speed, which uses less fuel than doing the same on the level.

I also use the lower gears [3rd, usually] when increasing speeds up to my intended maximum [usually around the speed limit if conditions allow, but not compulsory].....making use of the rev range.....but......on a light throttle only.

So, the thing isn't accelerating hard......although that is an option, certainly when overtaking.....but the engine is pulling freely.

Once at my intended speed, it's straight to top gear, no messing, and again, a light throttle only.

Takes less time, and, [I think?] uses less fuel, than if changing up through the gears at much lower revs...thus making the engine work harder [using more throttle] to achieve the same results.

But then, I avoid like the plague any sort of dense urban traffic....my choices!

anotheruser

I'm still not totally convinced.

How can an engine be happy and working with no fuel when slowing down in gear, but not happy when standing out of gear?
By the sounds of it the 1.3 Ford Ka I have been driving doesn't have a fuel shut off anyway. When was this introduced in the main? The other factor I consider is engine wear. It'll be a lot happier idling than working when slowing down, again, especially in the car I am currently driving more of.

JDPower wrote: »

From the highway Code:

It can reduce driver control because
• engine braking is eliminated
• vehicle speed downhill will increase quickly
• increased use of the footbrake can reduce its
effectiveness
• steering response will be affected, particularly on
bends and corners
• it may be more difficult to select the appropriate gear
when needed.
The vehicle is also less likely to be heard by other road
users

1) Yes I agree, which also puts a little more strain on the breaks.
2) I wouldn't suggest quickly, unless you live in Sheffield! But again, the brake will slow you down.
3) Yes, but not that much more.
4) I can't say I notice but I rarely will turn a bend when in neutral. I usually only do it when I'm coming up to traffic lights.
5) Not more difficult as I'll be pulling off from a standing start.

Makes me wonder when the highway code last changed and does it take into affect the modern-isms of newer cars?

While I am not saying driving in neutral is completely right, I don't think it's completely wrong either.

limo888

Hi

I noticed a massive difference when I changed my driving style, when I first started driving my car I used to change up a gear at about 3000 revs, now I change at 2500 revs and noticed a considerable saving, I now on average get an extra quarter of a tank. I do the same route as I used too but am not having to fill up as often just by changing gear 500 revs earlier.

motorguy

Currently averaging 65.5mpg over the last 15,000 miles by careful driving and my long steady commute in my 2012 Golf 1.6 TDI.

My best run, over the 40 mile commute was last thursday when i got 89.4 mpg over the journey from door to door. I know from my brim to brim fills that the trip computer is approx 5% out, but thats still mighty impressive for a "standard" 1.6 TDI.

By contrast my brother has the same engine in his 2012 Leon and is getting mid 40s. Shorter runs and doesnt try to conserve fuel.

VideoEmailSignatureAlan

My tip is that I registered with Lyoness. It's great if you buy Morrison's petrol, as you then buy gift vouchers through Lyoness, and it gives you 2% cash-back and a further 1% loyalty reward which you can use later down the line. When you combine that with Morrison's Miles card which gives you a £5 voucher for every 500 litres, it really adds up.

Puffin74

My husband used to fill up with 'supermarket' diesel and had countless problems of the car suddenly cutting out and not restarting. Our friend, a mechanic, said it was because the injectors were getting clogged up and we should switch to non-supermarket branded diesel and preferably alternate it with the premium diesel. Since having done this (touch wood!) the problem has been solved!

thickbloke

I can save a lot on fuel by travelling at quieter times.

My work can take me all over the North West of England and commuting into or near a city at peak times makes my journey long and tiresome. By setting off earlier and missing the rush hour traffic I can get to my destination quicker with less hassle and stress and save a packet on fuel as well because I am not stopping and starting and sitting in standing traffic.

Granted I have time to kill at the other end but there's lots of paperwork to keep on top of and if it is somewhere nice a walk in the country is a wonderful boost when you have a busy day ahead of you. It does wonders for blood pressure.

At first I thought I would be wasting time I could be using but it is certainly not a waste of time. My 'chill out' time means I am more efficient with my work time. Smelling the flowers once in a while does you good!