Willdat? Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Get a bike for cheap running (yes rego/gear etc is more expensive) I got 3L per 100 km on my fxr. Gb seems to get 5 Unless it's a Honda C50 bikes are wayyyyyy more expensive in my experience per km. Replacing tyres every 5-10,000km, sprockets/chains etc. My best run on a trip was in a 1NZ-FE powered '08 Corolla wagon. 3.9l/100km Nelson to Oamaru - but then it's down hill... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris r Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I was poking fun for economy. Maintenance costs of bikes are quite high. I did 12000 km on my fxr and in that time used two sets of tires and a set of front forks. Smiles per miles can't beat a bike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostchips Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Drafting behind big trucks can massively increase your fuel economy if you are like a foot behind them but i''m pretty sure they don't like it (plus it's slightly reckless) so i don't recommend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfashark Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You don't need to get that close to reap the benefits - A decent length line-haul rig gets along at a fair pace these days, so slotting in behind one of them at even 4 seconds difference will drop a chunk off your consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I used to get 115 mpg out of a '76 CG125 back in the mid '90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8Pete Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Also, how accurate are your odometers? If your speedo reads 110 when you're actually only doing 100, is it clocking up 10% better l/100km? I noticed the Vantage speedo is bang on compared to those roadside radar doohickeys so my 14.2 avg l/100km is presumably moderately accurate. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorollaGT Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Often the speedo will read faster but the odometer will actually be correct (had people years ago worried about road users on their Hilux's which the speedo was reading quicker than they were actually travelling) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Used to drive an old leaf sprung 4wd Hilux with a wildly inaccurate speedo. At an indicated 150 km/hr the Terratrip gave the actual speed at 132 km/hr. I figure the 15" wheels that had been substituted for the factory 16" ones accounted for a large part of the error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cletus Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 i looked at the fuel average thing in the falcon today it says 11.8l/100 i dont know if thats good or bad from memory it usually is more around 13 something 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h4nd Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Oh yeah, 918, Nurburgring in 6:57, and 11L/100km on gas, and 3.5L/100km equiv on full electric. Magnets! Allegedly a 6.8kwH battery (compared to a Prius 1.4), and will charge the battery on ~2L fuel containing 2x 8.7kWH/L theoretical gives ~38% electrical efficiency to charge. Which is rather good for a piston motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajg193 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Project I'm working on ATM has 35 kWh, expecting the range to be somewhere around 80-100 km, will find out within a month or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrstar Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Wifes 3008 returns 7l/100 with total disregard for economy and short trip running (tank fill calcs), gets down into the 5's with a long trip, still with disregard to any sort of economic driving style. I suspect a modern dieez in something aerodynamic driven gently could return some pretty surprising numbers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spencer Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Just read a article about F1 using jet fired ignition, so cool. They reach 50% thermodynamic efficiency at best. Whos going to retrofit this to their aero civic or subrau XT? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuel Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 ^^ giz link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostchips Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/ferraris-formula-1-jet-ignition So my model T has giant spark plugs that would easily let me screw in some kind of adapter with this style gizmo atop it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8Pete Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 http://blogs.solidworks.com/tech/2016/05/flow-simulation-finding-cost-effective-way-enjoy-florida-keys.html?scid=socialTechBlog_20160518_61713286&adbid=10154177031904770&adbpl=fb&adbpr=12707004769 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Posted May 19, 2016 Author Share Posted May 19, 2016 Haha crackup! This is kind of the flaw with measuring Coefficient of Drag, frontal area is part of the equation. If he's kept the same CD but increased frontal area by a fair bit, then he HAS increased drag. For the Kayak to be "cost neutral" he'd need to have ended up with a lower CD to offset the extra area. Not sure why he's bothered calculating CD anyway because solidworks would have given him the total drag number (which is more meaningful) in order to run his calculation with.His numbers are way off anyway, with a sanity check there's no friggen way a late model BMW has a CD over 0.5It's a nice model of the car though! Wish I knew how to draw stuff that well in Solidworks haha. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8Pete Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Can you Barry the shit of his flawed argument in the comments section? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoeddynz Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 ooooh I like this thread. Hello, my name is Alex Davidson, of Clan Chattan. (we hail from just above Inverness. Then my mums side...Mcmahon. So yeah..I like saving money. Hannah is half Indian. She too likes a bargain. Although her other side is of French blood so put her in a hot hatch and watch the fuel gauge drop?... But we have owned many rotaries and now the V6 Viva. Life's a struggle sometimes.. Anyway. I keep a record of fuel usage. I have a notebook in the Viva and simply record the mileage each time I fill the tank back to the click. It takes i minute to note down and I have a good idea of how things are running. Its fun (I like figures etc) So far with the Viva being carb fed turbo rotary powered I was seeing around 11.3 L/100 (25 UK mpg) on average. With the much faster 2.0 V6 I averaged exactly 9.74 L/100 (29mpg) over 7500 miles Then 50 more ponies added in with the 2.5 V6 and its dropped down to 10.1 L/100 (28mpg) over 5500 miles The figures are all corrected for speedo error. So far in all the cars Ive had the speedos on average read between 5-10% too high, which I guess makes sense for safety and great numbers. I know I can get better by leaning my car out more. Its still too rich. Plus having recently activated the acceleration enrichment on my ECU has bumped consumption up. But it is way nicer to drive for newbies. Hannah and I had just got used to the flat spots in driving it. So I plan on tuning the AE until its just enough 'extra' because those little squirts are tugging at my Kilt and upsetting my moth filled wallet. But boy is it fun. I don't tend to nanny it often and when I have been using it for commuting with the intention to get great mileage I always end up ruining the figures at some point with some spirited driving. I do have to face the fact that my figures will never be amazing because the Viva is shaped like a brick and I can really feel the drag above say 90kph compared to our boring old Sentra. Ahhh...the boring old 1.6 litre NZ new Sentra wagon with its NZ market only carb fed twincam. The carb mouth measures about 40mm. Its tiny! But that bland little white plastic car has seen 5.6 L/100 (50mpg) under the feathery right foot of Mrs Unia. Being a Nissan we have not had to do anything but change the oil and tyres. Proper cheap motoring in a car that cost $1100. But its soooooooo bland, in fact quite nauseating to drive. My next classic will be another Hillman imp but with a BMW bike engine. Fast, fun and cheap to run. Oh yeah- our House returns 12 MPG (23L/100) which aint too bad 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 With the Niva back running on all 4 cylinders & twin carbs ive been doing my best to work out fuel economy, so far I haven't got any open road numbers but around town including towing a hefty trailer i've had an average of ~250km/40l tank or 6.2km/l, not awesome compared to you electron controlled wizards but thats equal to the open road economy obtained before I found the buggered head gasket, really hoping I can get it back to open road economy of 10km/l, its all looking hopeful at least.Also purchased some differential air pressure sensors from ali to hook up to the carbs as a digital manometer so I can sort the balancing a bit better (anyone tried this?) once thats sorted i'll add a tps in an effort to relate fuel use with manifold pressure, throttle position and engine speed, kinda like the vacuum economy gauge on some mid 80's cars, but more complicated! It will be interesting to see how the 3 relate to each other and if its useable. 1 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.