Yes................................
if your engine has to drive the air-con unit you will use more fuel, a fact!
if your engine has to drive the air-con unit you will use more fuel, a fact!
Technical fuel consumption
- Thread starter andy thrill
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical fuel consumption
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 46,073
- Points
- 7,134
Re: Yes................................
Indeed, having air con on knackers the economy on any small engined car, although not such an issue on larger cars [coz already fooked...]
The clutch engages the aircon compressor, which reduces power available to the engine - this in turn means you put your foot down more to get the same performance, therefore increasing fuel consumption. However, if it is cold out, the aircon will not engage anyway.
Indeed, having air con on knackers the economy on any small engined car, although not such an issue on larger cars [coz already fooked...]
The clutch engages the aircon compressor, which reduces power available to the engine - this in turn means you put your foot down more to get the same performance, therefore increasing fuel consumption. However, if it is cold out, the aircon will not engage anyway.
So does that mean this isnt causing the problem then?
My old mans saab 95 2.3 turbo has its air con on constantly and still returns around 32 - 36 mpg so is there another way to run the air con unit?
My old mans saab 95 2.3 turbo has its air con on constantly and still returns around 32 - 36 mpg so is there another way to run the air con unit?
Fair enough TC, the age of the engine etc... not cutting edge etc... all fair and valid points but doesnt answer how the majority of 1.6 owners get 34/35 even 40mpg on journeys?!
I too owned the same engine in my 1.6 Bravo and got the same 35/36 mpg...
Somethings not adding up!
I too owned the same engine in my 1.6 Bravo and got the same 35/36 mpg...
Somethings not adding up!
The Stilo..........................
weighs considerably more than the Bravo.......................................
weighs considerably more than the Bravo.......................................
Yet the consumption is the same!!!
Fantastic! My point exactly!
Fantastic! My point exactly!
How can you get 26 - 28 mpg from a 1.6 engine? The 2.4 Abarth is the worst car I have ever owned from an mpg point of view and get approx 28-30mpg combined. The Alfa 2.0 TS I had previously managed more mpg. Having owned a couple of 1.6 cars in the past I would expect mid to late 30's unless you drive like a Chav boy all day long.
Take you car to a different dealer and moan.
Take you car to a different dealer and moan.
Ai...............................
we must all be drivin like Chav Boys innit???
we must all be drivin like Chav Boys innit???
old engine, fair enough, if by that you mean the low end part of the engine with the 8valve head (yup, had that engine in our tempra 1.6sx). that Managed 35mpg as well average.
as I recall only the 2ltr Sedicivalvole model had a 16v head on it on the entire range
as I recall only the 2ltr Sedicivalvole model had a 16v head on it on the entire range
Re: Ai...............................
Well no, most of us get mid to late 30s which is quoted and expected. And yes I drive hard.
twincamms said:
Well no, most of us get mid to late 30s which is quoted and expected. And yes I drive hard.
Re: Ai...............................
My 1.6 Brava has returned less than 30 mpg since I've had it. It averages around 24 to 25 mpg. The fuel economy is terrible. I don't drive everywhere like a lunatic either. Even on long motorway journeys it doesn't get over 30 mpg.
My 1.6 Brava has returned less than 30 mpg since I've had it. It averages around 24 to 25 mpg. The fuel economy is terrible. I don't drive everywhere like a lunatic either. Even on long motorway journeys it doesn't get over 30 mpg.
Blimey that is just turd and I was thinking about swapping to Diesel since moving jobs and driving 550miles a week 30mpg just isn't that good.
I'll have to ask my bro, he had a Brava which is bought a couple of years ago. I'd guess it was a 1.6.
I'll have to ask my bro, he had a Brava which is bought a couple of years ago. I'd guess it was a 1.6.
Thank you.........................
for your words of support Steve!
for your words of support Steve!
James M
Established member
This is a bit of De ja vu isn't it, another economy thread in the Stilo section??? Never.
TC, I still think its a bit funny you getting such p*** poor consumption, at least when compared to everyone else, why not try another dealer?
TC, I still think its a bit funny you getting such p*** poor consumption, at least when compared to everyone else, why not try another dealer?
Talking of the aircon and fuel economy, one thing i have never been sure of on the stilo is exactly when the aircon is working rather than just the normal car heater like on most cars. How do you know when its the aircon ?
On my focus it had a AC button and i could feel the power loss whenever i had it on, because if i pulled out at a junction i always had to allow for the lack of power and the fuel economy was awfull with it on.
With the stilo, there's just an on/off button for the whole heater, which is the aircon, or is it all one thing ?
On my focus it had a AC button and i could feel the power loss whenever i had it on, because if i pulled out at a junction i always had to allow for the lack of power and the fuel economy was awfull with it on.
With the stilo, there's just an on/off button for the whole heater, which is the aircon, or is it all one thing ?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 46,073
- Points
- 7,134
It is climate control, so either on or off!
However, you can see if the condensor is on by looking for the icicle symbol - this can be turned off manually, but this will also take off the full-auto mode as well.
However, you can see if the condensor is on by looking for the icicle symbol - this can be turned off manually, but this will also take off the full-auto mode as well.
Had a race with a Rover 414 today, i was going to pass him and he decided to be a gimp, so i followed his lead. Now i didn't pass him, but he couldn't pull away from me, and he was truely going for it.
So 1.2 Stilo might suck, but it can keep up with a what 104bhp Rover 414. If i wanted a sporty 1.6 i'd buy one with at least 120bhp! My car is perfectly adequate for its needs. I get a swish looking car, i get good economy. I'd rather have a sheep in wolf's clothing, than a lame wolf in wolfs clothing!
So 1.2 Stilo might suck, but it can keep up with a what 104bhp Rover 414. If i wanted a sporty 1.6 i'd buy one with at least 120bhp!
My car is perfectly adequate for its needs. I get a swish looking car, i get good economy. I'd rather have a sheep in wolf's clothing, than a lame wolf in wolfs clothing! StiloBoy said:Had a race with a Rover 414 today, i was going to pass him and he decided to be a gimp, so i followed his lead. Now i didn't pass him, but he couldn't pull away from me, and he was truely going for it.
So 1.2 Stilo might suck, but it can keep up with a what 104bhp Rover 414. If i wanted a sporty 1.6 i'd buy one with at least 120bhp!
Was this a mk1 or a mk2 414? if it was a mk1 i'd have to doubt it was stuggling as its just as light as its mk2 214 sister. if it was the mk2 400, then thats very heavy and the 1.4 doesnt have the torque to pull it as quick as it did in the mk1.
Ive had one remember
so I can say from experence they are quicker then that of my 1.2 brava. May well of been the driver not understanding its power is at 4500 rpm (and the K lovs revs, it will pull all the way to its rev limiter, unlike the little superfire 1.2 does, which seems to stop pulling at 6000 rpm)
It was a MK1. But what are you saying, MK1 would struggle 'cos its lighter, MK2 would struggle 'cos its heavier? I think you need a kip!
Guy was spanking it, seeing as its so cold out even with a warm motor you can see exhaust as he floored it. Only reason i think he stayed ahead is 'cos his gearing seemed a bit lower, or he was using the torque more, as he was changing gear a bit sooner than me.
Guy was spanking it, seeing as its so cold out even with a warm motor you can see exhaust as he floored it. Only reason i think he stayed ahead is 'cos his gearing seemed a bit lower, or he was using the torque more, as he was changing gear a bit sooner than me.
Cheers Stu, So if im ever gonna do some speed testing im going to need it off completely to get a proper result. Being an Abarth i don't feel like there's any lack of power with it on, not like the focus, but im going to give it bit of stick when i get it back from the bodyshop just to see if there's a difference, and i'll do some mpg testing too.Stuart DemonD said:
