lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
So all that research and you bought a proton arena! What's next a felicia pickup.
The 335d is the biggest spec diesel engine with two turbos on it!I didn't really want to get into this thread because there are certain contrarians that will argue one thing one week, then argue the opposite the next.
Andy Numpty said 'large' TD BMW.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/bmw/3-series-f30-2012/335d
Gosh, said Numpty, 74% sure is a lot better than 71%
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/fiat/500-2007/09-twinair-105
If you do the maths, a 500 105 will cost you 1.68l/100km more than advertised. In CO2 that's a .35 tons per 10,000km
The 335d will cost you a staggering 2.2l/100km more than advertised. In CO2 that's an even more staggering .57 tons.
What's even worse is that a small city car doing short trips is always going to struggle 'real world' vs a big diesel that's much more likely to be doing long journeys. Like for like that delta will only get worse.
Numpties don't realise that MPG is a measure of diminishing returns, can't understand basic math, nor do they ever acknowledge that diesels put out much more CO2 than petrols - they just like to argue.
Certain Numpties seem to think 70mpg official, 50mpg real world, OMG that's 20mpg! A V8 Range Rover uses 20mpg! A Fiat 500 uses a whole Range Rover's worth of fuel more than it should! In fact Numpties, it's costing the owner the same as a 20mpg car getting 18mpg. 'Only 2mpg off, that's pretty good' mused Numpty.
The number of faults listed on Honest John for the 3 Series is pretty staggering for a 'premium' car costing what it does.
The really funny thing is that of course, diesels only match their ratings when driven extremely gently. That EE video also describes every turbo diesel in existence, while petrols may add fuel under boost (say going from 14.7 to 16:1), it's nowhere near the level of diesel (going from around 100:1 to 25:1). My diesel gets it's best economy in gridlock, pity it drops like a rock if keeping up with regular traffic.
Overall, downsizing works 100%. UFI was such a 'disaster' I went on to two even more drastically 'downsized' engines:
Fiat 500 TA= 875cc/ton (incidentally, ever wonder why the odd capacity? - it's actually the thermodynamically 'ideal' cylinder size). I get 50-70MPG. Inspired by this discussion I drove it like I stole it for 50km in the hills, couldn't get it below 50mpg. You'd have to be truly reckless or live in a place with no speed limits to do worse. Best I've seen is 70MPG (suburban)- tank averages are in the 60 range. If anything the HJ real world figures sing the praises of the TA105- same economy as a 1.2 with 30% more power for free - I only wish the 105 had been sold here.
Renault 1.6 petrol= 0.666cc/ton. Worst peak hour city commute was under 30mpg - seriously impressive for 2.4 tons and a .45Cd. Lifetime average was 35mpg, 99% city/cbd use. Much better than anything that heavy should do - certainly better than the 2.3 petrol (24mpg!) and 2.4 diesel that I drove prior.
Renault 1.6 diesel= 760cc/ ton, best ever cbd commute of 60mpg. Not bad for 2.1 tons! Tank averages 38-42mpg. Way better than the 2.5 and 2.4 (28mpg) diesels before it.
I've been on drives with enough 'enthusiast' Numpties to know not to care what MPG they get. They nail the throttle in a straight line and slow to walking speed at the slightest hint of a corner. Non-enthusiast Numpties can't anticipate three feet ahead of their bumpers, leave their cars idling for hours on end (literally saw a guy idling for 2 hours in a car park the other day) and never so much as check tyre pressures. Why should I care what the Numpties get?
If I'm researching a car I'll look at the top 1 or 2 cars I find on fuel reporting sites - that's what I can expect to get.
Ok so 35g/km of CO2 over and above what is claimed. That not only would push the twinair up several tax brackets in countries all over Europe, it doesn't meet the figures that most larger modern diesel can manage.If you do the maths, a 500 105 will cost you 1.68l/100km more than advertised. In CO2 that's a .35 tons per 10,000km
So a car with more than three times the displacement of the twinair produces a staggering 57g/km extra in fuel. given that the BMW has a stated CO2 output of about 177g/km this equates to a difference of 32% above the claimed figures in a car that weighs as much as a house and isn't designed to be the most fuel-efficient car in the world (when you're paying upward of £40K you don't bother too much with the cost of fuel) versus a car claiming to be ultra fuel efficient and having a supposedly super frugal petrol sipping engine, producing 35% more Co2....The 335d will cost you a staggering 2.2l/100km more than advertised. In CO2 that's an even more staggering .57 tons.
Plenty of diesels do very well around town they have low down torque perfect for stop start driving, new stop-start technologies use no fuel when stationary on both petrol and diesel engines. so like for like in town a diesel will also use a lot less fuel. on long runs and motorways, low geared cars like the twinair start to sruggle and economy figures creap up as the gearing is set more towards low speeds in urban areas. A big 2.0l german diesel will do 80mph all day every day at around 2000rpm.What's even worse is that a small city car doing short trips is always going to struggle 'real world' vs a big diesel that's much more likely to be doing long journeys. Like for like that delta will only get worse.
Utter nonsence, its not a question of maths its a question of chemistry.Numpties don't realise that MPG is a measure of diminishing returns, can't understand basic math, nor do they ever acknowledge that diesels put out much more CO2 than petrols - they just like to argue.
Certain Numpties seem to think 70mpg official, 50mpg real world, OMG that's 20mpg! A V8 Range Rover uses 20mpg! A Fiat 500 uses a whole Range Rover's worth of fuel more than it should! In fact Numpties, it's costing the owner the same as a 20mpg car getting 18mpg. 'Only 2mpg off, that's pretty good' mused Numpty.
as the old saying goes, lots of more to go wrong, having said that We've had 4 BMW minis over the years and as yet have had nothing go wrong with them thats needed them to go back for any major repairs. There was a cosmetic issue with a texture used on the sterring wheel buttons but they replaced them without any quibble whatsoever. They will bend over backwards to do what ever they can for you and on one occasion one of the minis was in for service they lent me a 2 seires cabriolet to spend the day, with a full tank of fuel.The number of faults listed on Honest John for the 3 Series is pretty staggering for a 'premium' car costing what it does.
No idea what maths you are working too hear or what you are trying to say. Diesel and petrol cars add fuel with and without boost. when a diesel is floored then yes it will dmp a but of extra fuel in as will a petrol, however when on the normal 30mph run the diesel needs significantly less fuel, to keep it ticking over and running at a regular speed, versus a petrol car that still needs to match its fuel to the volume of air, reguardless of speed, run a petrol car too lean and damage the engine with excess heat, as indicated in the intial video these small petrol engines need extra fuel adding to prevent over heating and knock. Diesel engines run considerable cooler and do not suffer the same problems.The really funny thing is that of course, diesels only match their ratings when driven extremely gently. That EE video also describes every turbo diesel in existence, while petrols may add fuel under boost (say going from 14.7 to 16:1), it's nowhere near the level of diesel (going from around 100:1 to 25:1). My diesel gets it's best economy in gridlock, pity it drops like a rock if keeping up with regular traffic.
Depends on who you ask.Fiat 500 TA= 875cc/ton (incidentally, ever wonder why the odd capacity? - it's actually the thermodynamically 'ideal' cylinder size). I get 50-70MPG. Inspired by this discussion I drove it like I stole it for 50km in the hills, couldn't get it below 50mpg. You'd have to be truly reckless or live in a place with no speed limits to do worse. Best I've seen is 70MPG (suburban)- tank averages are in the 60 range. If anything the HJ real world figures sing the praises of the TA105- same economy as a 1.2 with 30% more power for free - I only wish the 105 had been sold here.
do you have a 2.5 and a 2.4 engne as well to compare yourself?Renault 1.6 diesel= 760cc/ ton, best ever cbd commute of 60mpg. Not bad for 2.1 tons! Tank averages 38-42mpg. Way better than the 2.5 and 2.4 (28mpg) diesels before it.
I've been on drives with enough 'enthusiast' Numpties to know not to care what MPG they get. They nail the throttle in a straight line and slow to walking speed at the slightest hint of a corner. Non-enthusiast Numpties can't anticipate three feet ahead of their bumpers, leave their cars idling for hours on end (literally saw a guy idling for 2 hours in a car park the other day) and never so much as check tyre pressures. Why should I care what the Numpties get?
So all that research and you bought a proton arena! What's next a felicia pickup.
The 335d is the biggest spec diesel engine with two turbos on it!
A fairer comparison would be the 320d and surprise surprise https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/bmw/3-series-f30-2012/320d it gets 85% of the promised KPM. Mine is doing 98% of the promised extra urban figure...
Diesels do fine when driven hard, on the occasion that I put my foot down and have a spirited drive, I struggle to get it to do less than 50mpg. The great thing about diesels like a 330d or 335d is that you will still end up with 40ish mpg even if you drive like a loon.
I would suggest that a van which will be stopping frequently, is probably not the best example to use.
do you have a 2.5 and a 2.4 engne as well to compare yourself?
Interesting that My 1.6 multijet punto has essentially the same engine as my considerably lighter and less boosted 120 hp engine, and that only just averages 60mpg with a quoted figure of 62mpg, your van however has a quoted figue of 46.3mpg and you apparently manage 30% better than the experts can achieve in a laboratory setting with the absolutle best conditions.
As enthusiasts are all numpties and non-enthusiasts are also all numpties, this means, by your own standard you consider yourself and everyone else to be a numpty.
That said, there isn't a guy here saying he is leaving his car idling for 2 hours neither is anyone talking about nailing the throttle.
Given that Maxi is getting 70mpg from his 3 series and I get 60mpg from a 2litre diesel golf and 60mpg from an older 1.6 diesel punto. I would say we're pretty good at reading the road ahead and managing corners without event.
My VW has done 50k on its current and only set of brake pads, and is still going, so I can say hand on heart that the brakes are used very little.
So stop complaining guys. The Euro 5 TA was already a great little engine and the Euro 6 is even greater!
Well, then it's time for real data. You may know that the 500 has the possibility to continuously log fuel consumption data to an USB stick to be analysed by FIAT's EcoDrive software. It is not too difficult to write your own software to analyse the data yourself. (You can find several examples on the internet.) So I did.This is literally a whole thread about the pitfalls of small turbo petrol engines and how they don’t and can’t achieve the claimed MPG figures in real world use, you’ve even proved this yourself with data you posted yourself, expanding on your data to include all TA engined cars up till 2018 and there was no discernible improvement in fuel economy....
Both cars appear to accelerate equally fast, but the difference in fuel consumption is huge. It proves that FIAT managed to get rid of the extremely low air/fuel ratios at high engine loads by using a water-cooled exhaust manifold on the Euro 6 engine.
I looked at a Mini before buying my 500, but I couldn't deal with the creaky plastic interior. Creaking armrests would drive me crazy, I tried the $55K+ coupe/cabrio thing as well and it had the same creaks. Dealer seemed really nice though
The NEDC test doesn't represent 'ideal' conditions - in fact it represents arbitrary conditions. If it did it would be impossible to beat:
I used have one and averaged 125% of it's claimed MPG.
HJ says your Punto is only good for 50mpg, hardly better than the 44mpg of the Twinair that keeps triggering you (and that actually puts them equal terms of energy use and CO2). My 60mpg TA is 15% more efficient than your 60mpg diesel Punto.
That makes it only 10g CO2 over claimed.
You constantly go on about how great diesels are but when I say I get good economy from mine you suddenly doubt it? I average 6.7/100km tank to tank, but I regularly see as high as 8's and even 9's for single trips. For the average to work out I have to see trips in the 5's and even some times 4's. I get 70mpg cruising in 6th at 74km/h (minimum speed in top), sadly most of my driving is in 4th.
Diesels still use fuel mixtures to control heat (or NOx), except heat is less of an issue. The Stoichiometric ratio for petrol is 14.7:1.
A diesel engine has to burn 15% less than a petrol to match it's CO2 output, that is basic chemistry. So to match a 60mpg petrol a diesel has to be getting near 70mpg. To better a 60mpg petrol by 50% as you claim you'd have to have a small diesel car averaging 90mpg. That's the reality of diesel.
If you follow the link I left you can do your own research, honest John might be a commercial website, that doesn’t mean the information is incorrect.
AndyRKett said:One minute your are saying my smaller, lighter and much more slippery punto could only get 50mpg because that’s what a website with a known and rather dubious history of accuracy reports
What’s interesting from your amazing 10 seconds of data....
Is that if you put your foot down in either car, despite the increase in speed, neither seem to see any increase in the amount of fuel consumed.... actually it looks like the fuel use goes down despite burying the throttle
So yeah, great way to prove your point with tip top accuracy
The accuracy is surprisingly good. If the logged fuel flow in litres per hour is integrated over a long period with multiple refuelings, then it is within a few percent of the real litres.So yeah, great way to prove your point with tip top accuracy
The reason for showing these 10 seconds is that here the accelerations match surprisingly well. Otherwise you would have complained about that.What’s interesting from your amazing 10 seconds of data....
Is that if you put your foot down in either car, despite the increase in speed, neither seem to see any increase in the amount of fuel consumed....
Such a Mini fan and doesn't even know Mini made a Coupe/ Cabrio thing:
You're obviously not a car guy if you don't understand the value of owning a 'beater'. The surprise is how many looks and comments the Proton gets.
why are you now comparing a punto to the twinair, I was comparing your claim that you similarly engined van to my punto can some how magically 60mpg on a run with much more power, and weight and the aerodynamics of a shed, yet you claim that a much smaller lighter, more aerodynamic and less powerful car is incapable of achieving this on a regular basis. I'm not getting over the claimed MPG figures for the car, yet you scoff at what I say then claim your van with 400KG in the back can get highter than the claimed figures44MPG petrol matches 50MPG from a thermodynamic efficiency point of view (assuming the same car- I think the Punto has the aerodynamic advantage). 60MPG from my TA beats 60MPG from a diesel.
No, you need to look it up. 1 litre of open petrol/ diesel burning in open air produces exactly the same Co2 as burning it in an engine. Unless you have an engine with some kind of Co2 trap, which we all know doesn't exist. The only reason you get more power out of a litre of diesel is because one litre of diesel contains 15% more power (energy) and therefore there's 15% more Co2. Therefore if you get a real world 60MPG petrol car you're using 15% less energy/Co2 than a 60MPG diesel.
For the sake of simple numbers:
~50MPG petrol = ~60MPG diesel.
~60MPG petrol = ~70MPG diesel.
So a 60MPG diesel isn't really that impressive, since plenty of petrols can get 50MPG.
Plus, call me crazy, but I prefer not having my car fill with diesel fumes every time it stops, which makes me even happier with my 69MPG diesel equivalent TA.
The reason for showing these 10 seconds is that here the accelerations match surprisingly well. Otherwise you would have complained about that.
The figure below shows the same accelerations, but now for a longer time and in this case the logged fuel flow in litres per hour is shown.
As you see, the fuel flow definitely increases when the speed increases. There is nothing wrong with this data! When accelerating to 160 km/h (100 mph) the Euro 5 TA even exceeds 30 litres per hour!
The first graph was l/100km, the second is l/h. Don't you get the difference?Whats really weird about this new graph you've posted, supposedly from the same data as before, is that your new data shows an increase in fuel consumption from 17ishL/h to 20L/h with acceleration from 5 - 15 seconds, when your previous graph showed an almost completely flat 15L/h for the same car over the same period.... yet you claim its accurate?
Very lame! I did my best to provide a honest comparison. At least I contributed to this discussion by providing data. That can't be said about you.and besides all of that, these are different cars driven at different times, we don't know on what roads, in what conditions, on hills or inclines, at what altitude or with how much weight in the car. wind direction, the list goes on.
You are right. In my country the 1.4 16v disappeared ingloriously when the TA was introduced.wasn't the twinair more of a replacement to the 1.4 16v? hence the 85 and 105 hp comapred to the 1.4's 100-ish hp? Only it was meant to be better on fuel, lower on emissions but similar performance.