Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: philhoward on 15 June 2008, 09:24:51
-
Perhaps I should have asked this question before looking for one..
I bought a 2.0 (16v) to be more economical, but although being an Auto I get 30mpg on the daily commute - best ever has only been 32 on a run to Scotland. Have to confess was hoping for a little bit more - yet i hear of 2.5's doing 34-35mpg!
I don't gun it anywhere, although my gearbox does "slip" on 4th lockup when warm, meaning i do about c.2300rpm vs c.2000rpm at 50-55mph (which is most of by journey - plus crawling through towns).
Given the price of petrol, it might be cheaper to "upgrade" to a V6 at this rate..anyone got "real" mpg figures?
-
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.
-
Thats what i suspected - although i have know the smallest engine in some cars being less economical than the next step up. Usually when it comes around a tax break...
-
Depending on how you drive 2.0 should be a tad more economical, though often not much in it.
Slipping box will kill mpg
-
Depending on how you drive 2.0 should be a tad more economical, though often not much in it.
Slipping box will kill mpg
being a tad less economical is well worth it for the sound of the V6 though :y
-
Depending on how you drive 2.0 should be a tad more economical, though often not much in it.
Slipping box will kill mpg
being a tad less economical is well worth it for the sound of the V6 though :y
I agree. But if you hoof it everywhere, the v6 is thirsty, esp in 3.0l form
-
Agreed - I do miss the V6 soundtrack and if there was only an mpg or 2 in it, i'd suffer...but probably be too tempted to gun it! £70 a week on fuel is a crippler as it is..
Need to get the soldering iron out and get cracking on the LPG wiring pretty quickly..but the other 3 cars have been neglected recently with the Mig's isues of late. I need at least two cars on the road at all times..
-
Agreed - I do miss the V6 soundtrack and if there was only an mpg or 2 in it, i'd suffer...but probably be too tempted to gun it! £70 a week on fuel is a crippler as it is..
Need to get the soldering iron out and get cracking on the LPG wiring pretty quickly..but the other 3 cars have been neglected recently with the Mig's isues of late. I need at least two cars on the road at all times..
I wish my fuel bill was only £70 a week :'(
-
My engine of choice is a 3.0 V6 - which I find overall to be better on fuel than the 2.0, unless you drive like a grandad...
I've said it many times, the 2.0 is not economical.
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..
-
As a general rule of thumb a manual can be up to 10% more fuel efficient
-
As a general rule of thumb a manual can be up to 10% more fuel efficient
Unless its mine which is about 30% less fuel efficient :(
-
As a general rule of thumb a manual can be up to 10% more fuel efficient
Unless its mine which is about 30% less fuel efficient :(
That'll be down to pressing the "slurp" peddle too hard ::)
-
ive gone from 20 quid a day to about 70 a week now in my 2.5. shes running :y
-
I find my 3.0 v6 very economical. average of about 30mpg, even 37mpg on some motorway runs at **mph. It seems to give the old 2.0 laguna a run for its money on fuel economy. :y :y :y
-
I find my 3.0 v6 very economical. average of about 30mpg, even 37mpg on some motorway runs at **mph. It seems to give the old 2.0 laguna a run for its money on fuel economy. :y :y :y
That's only cos it's now it's timed up correctly ;D
-
couldnt agree more mate :y :y 20 quid a week savings noticed :y :y :y which is very welcomed 8-) and such a better drive too, what more could a man ask for :y
-
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.
I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4. Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.
I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice. It is affordable (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y
-
You speed deamon Lizzie!! A woman after my own heart! So paranoid about getting caught, but the car just asks to be driven :y
-
You speed deamon Lizzie!! A woman after my own heart! So paranoid about getting caught, but the car just asks to be driven :y
I know, that is my problem....always has been! :P :P Should not really do it but I just love SPEED, and like today I put cruise on for 80 mph, but kept on having idiots just sit in the outside/middle lanes doing 65, and so I get impatient and just put my foot down. I leave them in the dust, and then cannot stop, even using 'sport' mode to full advantage. :) :) Before I know it I am pushing 130 and don't want to stop excellarating ;D :y, but the fear of being caught (never had a ticket in 37 years, and 1 million miles motoring) is just too great :'(. I then, sadly have to ease back to 90-100 mph and I 'am walking'! :'( :'(
-
:) :) :) :) Something in the mig that just turns ordinary folk into speed animals!!! Gotta just love it :y :y
Every time I put my foot down on the a49 bypass by us (100-1**) i see a police car coming towards me! Does nothing for my already present paranioa I can tell you! ;) ;) ;)
-
I get low 20s even when driving carefully - very odd
-
When the last fuel crisis was on, 2001 iirc, I could get near 40mpg out of a 2.0L manual estate, driving very carefully and max 55mph, normally only got mid 20's. It certainly showed how carefull driving can make a big difference. :)
-
Careful driving really matters.. if you drive in sports style
everywhere consumption can increase up to % 30-40
last year after the vacation tried to follow a new M3 for half an hour ;D
on the highway with flying speeds ,average consumption was nearly 20 liters /100 km :o ( %300 increase)
-
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..
I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.
Kevin
-
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.
I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4. Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.
I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice. It is affordable (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y
Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl ;D ;D ;D (http://emoticons4u.com/trans/fahr15.gif)
-
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.
I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4. Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.
I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice. It is affordable (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y
Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl ;D ;D ;D
Seems there is another side to her................. :-X
-
my 3.0 MV6 manual is more economical than Jimbobs 3.0 auto and they are both considerably more economical than my 2.2 auto!
was definately worth the change!
-
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.
I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4. Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.
I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice. It is affordable (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y
Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl ;D ;D ;D
Seems there is another side to her................. :-X
Too right matey, the rumours are true. ;D ;D ;D
-
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..
I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.
Kevin
Until you get lockup, autos are always at a disadvantage, and the longer gears add to that. If an engine is underpowered, you're also (relatively) thrashing the nuts off it all the time...
-
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..
I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.
Kevin
Until you get lockup, autos are always at a disadvantage, and the longer gears add to that. If an engine is underpowered, you're also (relatively) thrashing the nuts off it all the time...
Agreed ...small engines for heavy cars must work harder (higher rpms) to produce the same power and loose more energy by the total friction they face..
-
2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.
I agree Dazzler :y I have just completed a round 250 mile trip to Thatcham (Berkshire) and back to Ashford (Kent) using the M20, M26, M25, M4 and A4. Often travelling at 90-100, and on one long (emptyish) stretch of M20 at 130 mph. I averaged 65 mph for the total journey, and my 2.5 V6 was 'well used' but still returned 32mpg overall.
I certainly would always go for either a 2.5/6 or 3.0/2 out of choice. It is affordable (my 1.6GL Toyota Estate was averaging 25 mpg when on a similar (maximum 120 mph) run. :y
Lizzie ZooooooooooooM, you naughty girl ;D ;D ;D
Seems there is another side to her................. :-X
Too right matey, the rumours are true. ;D ;D ;D
You horrible pair Skruntie and Mike! :P Can't a girl enjoy a bit of speed once in a while (alright, every day!)? :-? :-? It is not just the men who enjoy motoring you know! Bring on the F1 girls! ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..
I reckon an auto could lose you more economy with a smaller engine. It spends more of its' time heavily loaded and on the torque converter where a bigger engine will remain locked up and have enough grunt to pull you along. That's my theory anyway. Be interesting to see what you find.
Kevin
Until you get lockup, autos are always at a disadvantage, and the longer gears add to that. If an engine is underpowered, you're also (relatively) thrashing the nuts off it all the time...
Agreed ...small engines for heavy cars must work harder (higher rpms) to produce the same power and loose more energy by the total friction they face..
Yes, and once you also 'load on' the a/c - c/c then a smaller engine uses juice at an even faster rate! :'( :'(
-
You horrible pair Skruntie and Mike! :P Can't a girl enjoy a bit of speed once in a while (alright, every day!)? :-? :-? It is not just the men who enjoy motoring you know! Bring on the F1 girls! ;D ;D ;D ;)
No chance of that, theres not time during a pit stop for females to have a wee to.....
-
You horrible pair Skruntie and Mike! :P Can't a girl enjoy a bit of speed once in a while (alright, every day!)? :-? :-? It is not just the men who enjoy motoring you know! Bring on the F1 girls! ;D ;D ;D ;)
No chance of that, theres not time during a pit stop for females to have a wee to.....
or reapply makeup, and brush hair...
-
The extra mirrors would do nothing for the aerodynamics package.
-
You horrible pair Skruntie and Mike! :P Can't a girl enjoy a bit of speed once in a while (alright, every day!)? :-? :-? It is not just the men who enjoy motoring you know! Bring on the F1 girls! ;D ;D ;D ;)
No chance of that, theres not time during a pit stop for females to have a wee to.....
or reapply makeup, and brush hair...
[/highlight]
Now, now boys!! Just because I am a lone female on here at the moment Mark and The Boy; you just wait till Debs, Marie, and Maria (if no others!) see this blatant peice of sexism! You'll be sorry! ;D ;D ;D ;)
Anyway, what is wrong with applying a bit of make up and brushing your hair when driving at speed? What is the vanity mirror for in cars if this is so wrong? ::) ::) We have to look our best for you all, even in a car wreck! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* ;)
-
Yes, and once you also 'load on' the a/c - c/c then a smaller engine uses juice at an even faster rate! :'( :'(
Not totally in agreement here.
What you have to consider is that a set of amount of energy is required to accelerate the vehicle weight, overcome wind resistance and operate the ancillaries and this is very much engine independent (excluding slight weight differences between the different power plants).
This amount of energy will relate to a set amount of fuel, the quantity will only vary based on the efficiency of the engine at the particular operating point.
And as we all know, more cc gives a flatter torque curve which gives a wider operating range and hence why the fuel consumption of the two aforementioned power plants will be similar despite the tendency to boot the V6 a little more (it is capable of using more fuel at peek operating conditions :y)
-
You horrible pair Skruntie and Mike! :P Can't a girl enjoy a bit of speed once in a while (alright, every day!)? :-? :-? It is not just the men who enjoy motoring you know! Bring on the F1 girls! ;D ;D ;D ;)
No chance of that, theres not time during a pit stop for females to have a wee to.....
or reapply makeup, and brush hair...
[/highlight]
Now, now boys!! Just because I am a lone female on here at the moment Mark and The Boy; you just wait till Debs, Marie, and Maria (if no others!) see this blatant peice of sexism! You'll be sorry! ;D ;D ;D ;)
Anyway, what is wrong with applying a bit of make up and brushing your hair when driving at speed? What is the vanity mirror for in cars if this is so wrong? ::) ::) We have to look our best for you all, even in a car wreck! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* ;)
Us men call it a rear view mirror Lizzie. ::) ;D
-
You horrible pair Skruntie and Mike! :P Can't a girl enjoy a bit of speed once in a while (alright, every day!)? :-? :-? It is not just the men who enjoy motoring you know! Bring on the F1 girls! ;D ;D ;D ;)
No chance of that, theres not time during a pit stop for females to have a wee to.....
or reapply makeup, and brush hair...
[/highlight]
Now, now boys!! Just because I am a lone female on here at the moment Mark and The Boy; you just wait till Debs, Marie, and Maria (if no others!) see this blatant peice of sexism! You'll be sorry! ;D ;D ;D ;)
Anyway, what is wrong with applying a bit of make up and brushing your hair when driving at speed? What is the vanity mirror for in cars if this is so wrong? ::) ::) We have to look our best for you all, even in a car wreck! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* ;)
Us men call it a rear view mirror Lizzie. ::) ;D
Ah....that's what it is called! :o :o :o :o The last time I knew that was during my test in 1971! I thought it was in an awkward place for checking your appearance!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
That's right LJay! This is a very real weakness in their portfolio of abilities, the poor soles! That is why if woman are in charge more gets done.
Still they (well most!) are very good at doing singular tasks, like THAT one thank God!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
That's right LJay! This is a very real weakness in their portfolio of abilities, the poor soles! That is why if woman are in charge more gets done.
Still they (well most!) are very good at doing singular tasks, like THAT one thank God!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because us blokes do jobs properly, which takes 100% concentration, rather than several half-arsed jobs at once ;)
-
Yes, and once you also 'load on' the a/c - c/c then a smaller engine uses juice at an even faster rate! :'( :'(
Not totally in agreement here.
What you have to consider is that a set of amount of energy is required to accelerate the vehicle weight, overcome wind resistance and operate the ancillaries and this is very much engine independent (excluding slight weight differences between the different power plants).
This amount of energy will relate to a set amount of fuel, the quantity will only vary based on the efficiency of the engine at the particular operating point.
And as we all know, more cc gives a flatter torque curve which gives a wider operating range and hence why the fuel consumption of the two aforementioned power plants will be similar despite the tendency to boot the V6 a little more (it is capable of using more fuel at peek operating conditions :y)
I think I know what you are getting at Mark, but I would argue my point in a simpler way:
In the USA we hired a Volvo (2.0ltr) and when we used the a/c the fuel needle fell dramatically fast, but when a/c turned off it did not.
Then we hired a 5.5ltr Ford Crown Prince Victoria, and using the a/c or not made absolutely no difference to fuel consumption.
I have found exactly the same situation with 2ltrs V. 3ltrs in the UK; in the former the fuel needle drops fast with a/c on, but in the 3 ltr it made little difference.
The moral of the fact is that the bigger capacity of the engine the smaller the a/c drain of power represents on the overall power output of the engine. Thus on a big 3.0 ltr engine a/c may represent, say 10% power output drain, but on a 1.6 ltr engine it represents 18%. Thus petrol consumption will be greater on the 1.6 when the a/c is on as oppossed to the 3ltr. :y
-
And we all know what happens when women are in charge...
what was her name? Thatcher??
(joking, i actually think she was good but as most dont...)
a 2.5TD is more economical anyways. Atleast i hope so
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
That's right LJay! This is a very real weakness in their portfolio of abilities, the poor soles! That is why if woman are in charge more gets done.
Still they (well most!) are very good at doing singular tasks, like THAT one thank God!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because us blokes do jobs properly, which takes 100% concentration, rather than several half-arsed jobs at once ;)
What, like Gordon Brown running the country?!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
And we all know what happens when women are in charge...
what was her name? Thatcher??
(joking, i actually think she was good but as most dont...)
a 2.5TD is more economical anyways. Atleast i hope so
Well done YatesDelta; so do I, and I lived through her reign with pride and she is still my heroine! :y :y :y :y :y
That will stir it!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Bless the iorn lady :y :y :y :y
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
That's right LJay! This is a very real weakness in their portfolio of abilities, the poor soles! That is why if woman are in charge more gets done.
Still they (well most!) are very good at doing singular tasks, like THAT one thank God!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because us blokes do jobs properly, which takes 100% concentration, rather than several half-arsed jobs at once ;)
What, like Gordon Brown running the country?!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because that fat gay useless fat useless gay idiot starts a million and one things, doesn't finish any of them, and generally buggers things up. Useless fat useless idiotting fat useless idiot
-
to sum up gordon brown without using a few naughty wordsi would say: EVIL!!!!!
-
And we all know what happens when women are in charge...
what was her name? Thatcher??
(joking, i actually think she was good but as most dont...)
a 2.5TD is more economical anyways. Atleast i hope so
Forgetting that she lost the plot towards the end of her reign, I admired her :y
-
to sum up gordon brown without using a few naughty wordsi would say: EVIL!!!!!
useless short fat useless pointless wet drip of a useless fat pointless stupid fat *^*&)
No, I need swear words for fatty
-
And we all know what happens when women are in charge...
what was her name? Thatcher??
(joking, i actually think she was good but as most dont...)
a 2.5TD is more economical anyways. Atleast i hope so
Well done YatesDelta; so do I, and I lived through her reign with pride and she is still my heroine! :y :y :y :y :y
That will stir it!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
I hate women only short lists - something Labour brought in - Maggie got there on her own - and on her own merit. With the WOSL you think "They were given it"
If Labour are so pro women why is their PM male?
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
That's right LJay! This is a very real weakness in their portfolio of abilities, the poor soles! That is why if woman are in charge more gets done.
Still they (well most!) are very good at doing singular tasks, like THAT one thank God!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because us blokes do jobs properly, which takes 100% concentration, rather than several half-arsed jobs at once ;)
What, like Gordon Brown running the country?!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because that fat gay useless fat useless gay idiot starts a million and one things, doesn't finish any of them, and generally buggers things up. Useless fat useless idiotting fat useless idiot
[/highlight]
You don't like him then?!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
Finding it harder to feed the kids, text etc. now i have a clutch to contend with!
Lizzie, the fellas are just jealous cos they can't multi task!
;D
That's right LJay! This is a very real weakness in their portfolio of abilities, the poor soles! That is why if woman are in charge more gets done.
Still they (well most!) are very good at doing singular tasks, like THAT one thank God!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because us blokes do jobs properly, which takes 100% concentration, rather than several half-arsed jobs at once ;)
What, like Gordon Brown running the country?!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Thats because that fat gay useless fat useless gay idiot starts a million and one things, doesn't finish any of them, and generally buggers things up. Useless fat useless idiotting fat useless idiot
[/highlight]
You don't like him then?!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
I think he's single handedly screw all UK citizens over for at least the next 10-15yrs with his incompitence, useless fat idiot.
-
Whats all this Politics got to do with the economy of a 2.0 Vs a 2.5 then....lol... ;D ;D
-
Whats all this Politics got to do with the economy of a 2.0 Vs a 2.5 then....lol... ;D ;D
That's what it is all about....politics....as you are putting your last cash into your fuel tank and you still need to pay the bills for gas, electric, food, etc.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Bloody hell, why am I laughing??? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Blokes can multi task. I can boil kettle & make coffee, text on my phone, talk on works phone, roll a smoke(yes i do so what?) look down to my right at the girls legs in the car next to me mmmmm :P & that's in the truck!
Regarding Mig mpg, i've been told the 2.5 manual can beat a 2.0 auto hands down. Power to weight ratio me thinks. My downfall is'nt high speed but acceleration. I love 2nd & 3rd gear in mine, takes you to 90 as quick as a quick thing with 2 gears left & the duccie kit really adds to the growl even if some of you do'nt like 'em!
Zeroed fuel trip on leaving last years Lakes meet, took it fairly easy on way back to Immingham....35.2mpg on arrival home.
Not bad for a biggun!!!!!!!!!! :D
-
Yes, and once you also 'load on' the a/c - c/c then a smaller engine uses juice at an even faster rate! :'( :'(
Not totally in agreement here.
What you have to consider is that a set of amount of energy is required to accelerate the vehicle weight, overcome wind resistance and operate the ancillaries and this is very much engine independent (excluding slight weight differences between the different power plants).
This amount of energy will relate to a set amount of fuel, the quantity will only vary based on the efficiency of the engine at the particular operating point.
And as we all know, more cc gives a flatter torque curve which gives a wider operating range and hence why the fuel consumption of the two aforementioned power plants will be similar despite the tendency to boot the V6 a little more (it is capable of using more fuel at peek operating conditions :y)
I think I know what you are getting at Mark, but I would argue my point in a simpler way:
In the USA we hired a Volvo (2.0ltr) and when we used the a/c the fuel needle fell dramatically fast, but when a/c turned off it did not.
Then we hired a 5.5ltr Ford Crown Prince Victoria, and using the a/c or not made absolutely no difference to fuel consumption.
I have found exactly the same situation with 2ltrs V. 3ltrs in the UK; in the former the fuel needle drops fast with a/c on, but in the 3 ltr it made little difference.
The moral of the fact is that the bigger capacity of the engine the smaller the a/c drain of power represents on the overall power output of the engine. Thus on a big 3.0 ltr engine a/c may represent, say 10% power output drain, but on a 1.6 ltr engine it represents 18%. Thus petrol consumption will be greater on the 1.6 when the a/c is on as oppossed to the 3ltr. :y
Think your over looking the rules of energy use....
....it requires the same amount of energy to push a car forward (of the same type/weight) and if you turn the aircon on it adds an additional constant load.
Now the fact you have a fairly light weight car in the form of a Volvo means that fuel consumption increases with aircon on might be noticeable.....when compared to a heavy weight with a great iron V8 in becuse the percentage of pwoer being consumed by the aircon might be smaller on the bigheavy V8 car (not a good comparison at all as they should really be the same type of car!).
To meet those energy needs we are burning fuel and this requirement will be pretty constant between say a 2.5V6 and 2.0 petrol Omega with or without aircon. The only difference is that because the V6 will tend to have a wider and flatter torque curve that you are more likelty to be running at a sweet spot in the pwoer delivery curve.
-
Yes, and once you also 'load on' the a/c - c/c then a smaller engine uses juice at an even faster rate! :'( :'(
Not totally in agreement here.
What you have to consider is that a set of amount of energy is required to accelerate the vehicle weight, overcome wind resistance and operate the ancillaries and this is very much engine independent (excluding slight weight differences between the different power plants).
This amount of energy will relate to a set amount of fuel, the quantity will only vary based on the efficiency of the engine at the particular operating point.
And as we all know, more cc gives a flatter torque curve which gives a wider operating range and hence why the fuel consumption of the two aforementioned power plants will be similar despite the tendency to boot the V6 a little more (it is capable of using more fuel at peek operating conditions :y)
I think I know what you are getting at Mark, but I would argue my point in a simpler way:
In the USA we hired a Volvo (2.0ltr) and when we used the a/c the fuel needle fell dramatically fast, but when a/c turned off it did not.
Then we hired a 5.5ltr Ford Crown Prince Victoria, and using the a/c or not made absolutely no difference to fuel consumption.
I have found exactly the same situation with 2ltrs V. 3ltrs in the UK; in the former the fuel needle drops fast with a/c on, but in the 3 ltr it made little difference.
The moral of the fact is that the bigger capacity of the engine the smaller the a/c drain of power represents on the overall power output of the engine. Thus on a big 3.0 ltr engine a/c may represent, say 10% power output drain, but on a 1.6 ltr engine it represents 18%. Thus petrol consumption will be greater on the 1.6 when the a/c is on as oppossed to the 3ltr. :y
Think your over looking the rules of energy use....
....it requires the same amount of energy to push a car forward (of the same type/weight) and if you turn the aircon on it adds an additional constant load.
Now the fact you have a fairly light weight car in the form of a Volvo means that fuel consumption increases with aircon on might be noticeable.....when compared to a heavy weight with a great iron V8 in becuse the percentage of pwoer being consumed by the aircon might be smaller on the bigheavy V8 car (not a good comparison at all as they should really be the same type of car!).
To meet those energy needs we are burning fuel and this requirement will be pretty constant between say a 2.5V6 and 2.0 petrol Omega with or without aircon. The only difference is that because the V6 will tend to have a wider and flatter torque curve that you are more likelty to be running at a sweet spot in the pwoer delivery curve.
so in simpleton's terms - how much more fuel does aircon use ;D
-
Whats all this Politics got to do with the economy of a 2.0 Vs a 2.5 then....lol... ;D ;D
Wish I knew...it was a sensible question about 4 pages ago!
To answer another one - allegedly, aircon uses less extra fuel than having the window open due to aerodynamic drag.
I suppose i should have asked - is the 2.5 gearing more suited to daily commuting rather than a constant motorway run? I know that in some cars the smallest engine is over-geared resulting in you needing more "gas" to keep the constant speed. Basically is the 2.5 optimally geared and the 2.0 geared too high?
-
Yes, and once you also 'load on' the a/c - c/c then a smaller engine uses juice at an even faster rate! :'( :'(
Not totally in agreement here.
What you have to consider is that a set of amount of energy is required to accelerate the vehicle weight, overcome wind resistance and operate the ancillaries and this is very much engine independent (excluding slight weight differences between the different power plants).
This amount of energy will relate to a set amount of fuel, the quantity will only vary based on the efficiency of the engine at the particular operating point.
And as we all know, more cc gives a flatter torque curve which gives a wider operating range and hence why the fuel consumption of the two aforementioned power plants will be similar despite the tendency to boot the V6 a little more (it is capable of using more fuel at peek operating conditions :y)
I think I know what you are getting at Mark, but I would argue my point in a simpler way:
In the USA we hired a Volvo (2.0ltr) and when we used the a/c the fuel needle fell dramatically fast, but when a/c turned off it did not.
Then we hired a 5.5ltr Ford Crown Prince Victoria, and using the a/c or not made absolutely no difference to fuel consumption.
I have found exactly the same situation with 2ltrs V. 3ltrs in the UK; in the former the fuel needle drops fast with a/c on, but in the 3 ltr it made little difference.
The moral of the fact is that the bigger capacity of the engine the smaller the a/c drain of power represents on the overall power output of the engine. Thus on a big 3.0 ltr engine a/c may represent, say 10% power output drain, but on a 1.6 ltr engine it represents 18%. Thus petrol consumption will be greater on the 1.6 when the a/c is on as oppossed to the 3ltr. :y
Think your over looking the rules of energy use....
....it requires the same amount of energy to push a car forward (of the same type/weight) and if you turn the aircon on it adds an additional constant load.
Now the fact you have a fairly light weight car in the form of a Volvo means that fuel consumption increases with aircon on might be noticeable.....when compared to a heavy weight with a great iron V8 in becuse the percentage of pwoer being consumed by the aircon might be smaller on the bigheavy V8 car (not a good comparison at all as they should really be the same type of car!).
To meet those energy needs we are burning fuel and this requirement will be pretty constant between say a 2.5V6 and 2.0 petrol Omega with or without aircon. The only difference is that because the V6 will tend to have a wider and flatter torque curve that you are more likelty to be running at a sweet spot in the pwoer delivery curve.
But surely Mark that is the point the greater power to weight ratio the easier it is for the engine to cope with the (constant and universal) loading of the a/c. :-/ :-/
I do understand what you are saying though; the principle of relativity (Newton I believe). But is it not a fact that it is far more efficient / economical to fit an engine that provides more than enough power to push the machine (plane, car, train, etc) forward against the resistance of air, tar mac, metal, etc) than fitting an under-powered unit? Therefore a 3 ltr in the same car as a 2 ltr must be more effecient and therefore superior in coping with the loadings. :-/ :-/ :-/