datman Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 My VW golf diesel 150hp 270ft/lb will return 60mpg on long trips and 45mpg around town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 ROMAFLOL As opposed to ROMFAFLOL Rolling on my A$$ F-ing Laughing Out Loud. Rolling on my Fat A$$ F-ing Laughing Out Loud. Not standard acronymisims, but you get the idea, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 My VW golf diesel 150hp 270ft/lb will return 60mpg on long trips and 45mpg around town. Oy! I went to Essing Diesel Tuning with Frank 280ZX and watched them tweak his M3 to 188HP and 325ft-lbs (2L Turbodiesel) and that thing got BETTER fuel economy on the way back to Utrecht that we did going out. Something in excess of 40mpg as I could best figure. The BMW has a little 'fuel economy' meter that displays the fuel consumption rate, and at 253 kph it was registering something equivalent to roughly 36.4mpg! I took a snappy while hurtling along at over 2X the maximum speed limit here stateside thinkging "he's getting great gas mileage for cutting the travel time in half" and realizing if I could do it in the USA my travel time cross country would be cut massively! And so would my fuel consumption! "But diesels are bad" in CA...so is speed.... I digress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Riiiiight. Ambiguous use of the 'F' word - would that jut be a serious LOL, or is a friend required? (No reply expected). The acronym was "ROMAFLOL" Not "ROMA,F,LOL" That would require a partner or friend of some sort.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TeamNissan Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 If you need to do that to a car to save on gas ??? Then you dont deserve a car because you are too poor ! Take the bus ! Wow....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datman Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Yep some diesels here in the UK are faster than petrol versions, BMW 330 twin turbo diesel with an ecu ramap 360hp 490ft/lb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizm0Zed Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 edit, nevermind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Wow....... What ? If you really need to do that to save on gas dont you think your priority should be else were ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
280zx 2by2 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 dam honda ricers and theie 95 mpg, shet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woldson Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Wow can't believe there is 4 pages of this.....ummmm.....stuff. I'll have to watch this for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONGO510 Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I won't believe his #'s until its been in a wind tunnel. All of those rough edges induce drag. His improvements could very well be caused by driving differently without realizing it. If that had been an aircraft it would likely no longer fly. For what its worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91_4x4runner Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I don't mean to drag a thread up from the dead, but could it have been more effective if he have the front wheel wells open to the rear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirLaughsALot Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Those stock cars get over 70mpg if driven correctly...by themselves. I got 55mpg going from the bay area to LA in a 15 year old integra, 80 is no biggie. Americans, we are so naive, we think these are good fuel economy numbers, pathetic. Go to any part of Western Europe and realize that most of their diesels are making well over 70mpg driven regularly, and if economically driven, can touch the 100mpg marker. VW Lupo is a great example of this, and even it is a bit heavy. I believe that the weight this guy added to his civic eg6 offset whatever aerodynamics stuff he added to the car. Covering the wheel wells and lowering the stance would have most likely resulted in better results. Did he talk about suspension anywhere? Thats one of the most important parts of aerodynamics. If your civic is a foot off the ground, of course it has to deal with all that extra air than if it was only 5 inches. Spring rate will affect it a bit as well, with weight distribution shifting the body in either direction and possibly causing uplift under hard acceleration. I consider this rice, im sorry. If I had the time and money id show you guys how it should have been done, but that'll be another day. Hope he's happy with 80mpg, I definitely am not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Go to any part of Western Europe and realize that most of their diesels are making well over 70mpg driven regularly, and if economically driven, can touch the 100mpg marker. VW Lupo is a great example of this, and even it is a bit heavy. My BMW 320D in Spain got maybe 40 in normal driving. The VW Jetta (a 2008) got worse. Matter of fact, when driving spiritedly the thing got 25mpg equivalent. I think this is a bit of over-egging the pudding unless you are talking about some 1.2L Deathtrap driven at no more than 50KPH in top gear downhill... I'm hoping Spain, France, Portugal, The Netherlands and Germany still counts as 'western europe'...it's getting dangerously close to 'central europe'.... 4500KM in three weeks, thrice this summer for a total of almost 15,000 km driving. Does this qualify me to comment? Franks Essing-Tuned Diesel M3 got better fuel mileage than the stock 320D I was driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirLaughsALot Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I totally agree with the 2008 VW Jetta TDI, I was so disappointed when I drove that car on a test drive. I own a 2005 Dodge Ram 3500 5.9L Cummins 600 Turbo Diesel that gets 25mpg mixed driving, 17mpg while towing an overloaded 27ft 5th wheel, and when I drove that POS I was expecting something a bit more european in numbers. I had previously driven the R32 which was torqueless, the GTI which I really liked, and then drove that Jetta which was utter crap IMO. Fuel economy for my test drives was as follows: R32-27mpg, GTI-35mpg, Jetta-26mpg. For being a diesel it definitely sucks, and I would never use that car as a benchmark for fuel economy, as I would never use a large coupe or sedan. Just throwing that out there, sorry if it offends anyone, but I really dont care. The fact is that diesel is a much more efficient fuel, just by the way it ignites in an engine, period. If Honda had made their I3 Insight Gasoline/Electric Vehicle instead a diesel, then I am guessing, besides the added weight, the car would still be quite a bit more economical. That was definitely a radical for not only its time, but even now. Minimalist features are the only way we can get these crazy numbers without completely rethinking the automobile and throwing in new technologies. Weight is the factor here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 No doubt diesels are more efficient, but the "most get 80 to 100 MPG" claim is a bit over the top, and misrepresents the facts of the matter. Diesel Mini gets 65+ and if you slow it down even better. And it's a car I fit in comfortably... So it's decent, and possible to get 80mpg, just not at elevated speeds! The old honda Civic VX (?) I think routinely got 65+ on petrol back in the early 90's... And in the late 70's early 80's I was competing in mileage competitions with a VW Ghia that was getting over 52mpg in the contests, and close to high 40's in normal driving... And that was air cooled, 1934 technology! Literally! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 The old honda Civic VX (?) I think routinely got 65+ on petrol back in the early 90's... But even that 90's civic wouldn't pass today's safety standards. Seems like they're requiring cars to become stiffer and stiffer with ever compliant crumple zones. We need more econo-boxes to feature more aluminum and carbon fiber if we want to see 60+mpg out of a realistic practical car again. Cars like the smart are a joke imo. I'm talking about a regular old vehicle that blends in with everything else just fine that still gets amazing gas mileage. So now we just need the prices of carbon fiber to come down a bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirLaughsALot Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 But even that 90's civic wouldn't pass today's safety standards. Seems like they're requiring cars to become stiffer and stiffer with ever compliant crumple zones. We need more econo-boxes to feature more aluminum and carbon fiber if we want to see 60+mpg out of a realistic practical car again. Cars like the smart are a joke imo. I'm talking about a regular old vehicle that blends in with everything else just fine that still gets amazing gas mileage. So now we just need the prices of carbon fiber to come down a bit... As unrealistic as this sounds, what we need to do is lighten these cars. Not only with material weight, but with design as well. We need to alter the way the average driver thinks, and therefore make a much more strict and precise drivers training. In the United States, you can get your license by failing how many easy to do tasks? What im trying to say is that if we changed the drivers, we wouldnt need all of this heavyweight safety crap added to our cars, and in the long run, all that weight being added is endangering us more than if the car was lightweight and agile. Imagine using the materials of today with the 80s-90s design mix of safety and protection. We could have cars easily breaking the ton or less category. Automakers need to start investing a bit more in suspension as well, but thats a whole other topic. I have a car that I like, just find what you want, its that easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 How about simply relaxing safety standards? At what point do you get diminishing returns? I would argue that I'm just as confident driving a 1968 VW Beetle as I am driving an early 90's Civic! The safety 'weight' is a moot argument, really. The 'weight penalty' is not appreciably more now than 10 or 15 years ago. What you DO have is electric everything, Windows, A/C, Seats... I mean, when was the last time you can remember a car, with roll-up windows and no A/C? The VX is no more because the emissions regulations changed, more than the 'weight increased due to increased safety requirements'... I have said it before, I'll say it again: a 2003 Air Cooled VW Beetle would suit me just fine (as sold in Mexico that year)... I walked on the lot, and for just over $6300 I could get one with EFI, Velour Interior, and A/C! What other car, on the face of the planet, in 2003 could you walk into a dealer's showroom and buy for $6300 and KNOW this vehicle and chassis was going to last for the next 35 years? I mean, we are talking a design for the vehicle that was done in 1934 for gawd's sakes, and in 2003 was still in production with a proven reliability track record that provided the basic needs of commuter traffic and decent emissions! Sure, only about 34mpg, but it's also $6300! Would it meet crash standards? No. But I can drive a 68 Beetle on the roads without being restricted. The same basic car. It should be my choice. If the emissions are compliant, I should be able to insure myself as required, and drive what I want. But we are digressing away from the Aero Content of this thread, now...aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I just happened to snag the October 2008 Top Gear Issue on the flight to Singapore yesterday, and it had a 'buyers guide' of all the cars available in europe... The highest manufacturer's claim in those numbers was 68.9mpg. And that may be Imperial Gallons... Those were the little 1.4L Citroens, a 1.4L Skoda, and curiously the Mini Diesel Clubman Estate...which got better mileage for some reason than the normal Diesel Cooper which registered something like 65. So the '100mpg' claim is pretty much shot in the hiney. Close to 70, yes. Driven conservatively you might eke out 85... But 100? Not in a currently available production diesel, and if we are going by 'common' mileage figures, it was more 'common' to be in the 50's than anywhere else. Even large cars like BMW 7's were in the mid 40's. The BMW 180's did well, but not as good as the Citroen and Skoda. Then again, who wants to buy a Citroen or Skoda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.