Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Debs.]

72 litre iirc.


Ive got a tank of vpower in.....and its going like shit off a shovel 

 .....only up to the posted speed limit; of course!

[Auto Addict]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

[TheBoy]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

[Lazydocker]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...

Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better

That's my excuse anyway

[TheBoy]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...

Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better

That's my excuse anyway

I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible

Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...

[Lazydocker]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...

Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better

That's my excuse anyway

I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible

Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...

And me Always seem to get decent (for the size/weight) economy Although I have noticed that the 3.2 is slightly less economical than the 3.0

[tunnie]

I used to easily crack 400 miles from my 2.2 when running on petrol, LPG (74L worth) gets me 370 ish

[TheBoy]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...

Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better

That's my excuse anyway

I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible

Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...

And me Always seem to get decent (for the size/weight) economy Although I have noticed that the 3.2 is slightly less economical than the 3.0

Yes, my 3.2 (at 59k) isn't as economical as my MV6 was at 88k.  Hard to tell how it compares to the MV6 currently (176k), I reckon about the same (on LPG, my current averages are 19.48mpg for MV6 and 19.80mpg for Elite, though latter is only over a couple of tanks, and last fill included 30+ miles on petrol)

[ninjapirate]

well ive done the same trip in same traffic a few times now, and doing 65-70mph is no more economical then doing 80-90 with some higher blasts, (on my driveway, its a replica of the m3). 31mpg best, 29mpg worse, reseting at exact same place.

[Auto Addict]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

I've got more aggressive lately, I now drive it at 47mph.

[henryd]

im convinced my 2.2 ISNT as good on fuel at motorway cruising then my 2.5 was, i sware that would get a good 38mpg with cruise on, i can barely get 32mpg out the 2.2. and thats using the same roads. it doesnt have the torque around 60-65mph in 5th to accelerate more up hills, could be cus it needs cleaning out tho, will get onto that this week.

My 2.2 used to give me 300+ miles on a tank, I have yet to reach 300 miles in my 2.6 with similar driving.

Blimey AA, I always used to get 350+ from a tank from my 3.0l MV6 on petrol

ITs because you drive everywhere at 45mph, on the middle lane

I have a theory, which goes against all the government guidelines, but seems to work...

Watching the Inst. Consumption under gentle and hard acceleration there isn't a huge difference in the figure shown, but under hard acceleration it's for a shorter duration so average consumption shows up as better

That's my excuse anyway

I thought the advanced intrstors (and hypermilers) were now suggesting that you need to get up to speed as soon as possible

Probably explains why I seem to achieve decent MPG compared to many other OOFers...

And me Always seem to get decent (for the size/weight) economy Although I have noticed that the 3.2 is slightly less economical than the 3.0

probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed

[Lazydocker]

probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed

Possibly. Although more likely that it's lower mileage with a Full Vauxhall Service History I'm just starting to get on top of it all now... The oil doesn't look like boiled plimsolls for a start

That and the fact that the suspension is quite a bit newer and tighter than my saloon was so I might be having a bit of fun at the moment

[Kevin Wood]

probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed

Possibly. Although more likely that it's lower mileage with a Full Vauxhall Service History I'm just starting to get on top of it all now... The oil doesn't look like boiled plimsolls for a start

That and the fact that the suspension is quite a bit newer and tighter than my saloon was so I might be having a bit of fun at the moment

The 3.2 has lower compression than the 3.0 and no EGR. I wouldn't be surprised if that shaved a little off the fuel economy.

[Lazydocker]

probably due to the extra weight of the estate,when I weighed mine on a bridge it was 1870 kg with half a tank of fuel,your's will be a bit more with the lpg installed

Possibly. Although more likely that it's lower mileage with a Full Vauxhall Service History I'm just starting to get on top of it all now... The oil doesn't look like boiled plimsolls for a start

That and the fact that the suspension is quite a bit newer and tighter than my saloon was so I might be having a bit of fun at the moment

The 3.2 has lower compression than the 3.0 and no EGR. I wouldn't be surprised if that shaved a little off the fuel economy.

To be fair, I knew what to expect and didn't buy it for it's economy

Mind you, running it on petrol did make me cry a little

Still... Back to running around in a nice comfy V6, enjoying the horses, for focus running costs