Print

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

[geoffr70]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

[OOMV6]

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon.

That's just a little less than what I get on a long unspirited run

Suprising to me. Is it an auto (either Guffer or Webby)? I know this mpg conversation can go back and forth forever, and has done a few times, but on my recently departed 3.0 MV6 manual it never went that low. On a "long unspirited run" I was getting up to 30mpg. A spirited run (180-200 kmh) was 21-23 and town was around 22-25

[Webby the Bear]

yes mate, its auto

very strange that youd get a lot higher.

[robson]

I have checked my 2.6 auto over many months with very little motorway driving and I get 22mpg.

[dbdb]

**If you look in your handbook near the back there's a consumption table for all the models at set speeds

Can't see that in my manual an you post a scan?  Page 220 has the 'urban' 'extra urban' and 'combined' figures I hope you don't mean them, I would need to buy a laboratory complete with rolling road to repeat those tests (http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp)

[OOMV6]

yes mate, its auto

very strange that youd get a lot higher.

Maybe those members who've had experience from both auto and manual can say whether there is a big difference especially in town. I would expect to see a greater difference in town than on m-way

[dbdb]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

All these anecdotal figures are not that helpful without knowing the weight of your right foot.  What I'm after is a simple test at fixed speed ideally a fixed distance  and repeated in the opposite direction to average out any gradient or wind.  I did such a test years back on my 2.5 with 95 unleaded v 98 super unleaded (I got 10% more mpg on super unleaded and have used it ever since).

[dbdb]

yes mate, its auto

very strange that youd get a lot higher.

Maybe those members who've had experience from both auto and manual can say whether there is a big difference especially in town. I would expect to see a greater difference in town than on m-way

The owners manual does help here, page 220.  It's a bit of a pain to work it out as the figures are quoted in litres per 100km but for the V6 2.6 saloon the manual car is 9.1%, 3.5% and 7% better on 'urban', 'extra-urban' and 'combined' respectively. Not surprising as the manual has 5 gears, the auto only 4.  In fact I think if you have a light foot and change up early you can get much better consumption with a manual than stated for the government tests. Albeit at the expense of the main bearings.

[OOMV6]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

All these anecdotal figures are not that helpful without knowing the weight of your right foot.  What I'm after is a simple test at fixed speed ideally a fixed distance  and repeated in the opposite direction to average out any gradient or wind.  I did such a test years back on my 2.5 with 95 unleaded v 98 super unleaded (I got 10% more mpg on super unleaded and have used it ever since).

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

[Webby the Bear]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

All these anecdotal figures are not that helpful without knowing the weight of your right foot.  What I'm after is a simple test at fixed speed ideally a fixed distance  and repeated in the opposite direction to average out any gradient or wind.  I did such a test years back on my 2.5 with 95 unleaded v 98 super unleaded (I got 10% more mpg on super unleaded and have used it ever since).

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

completely agree 

[dbdb]

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

Not pointless at all but I think you miss the point.  What I want is a repeatable test for my car so I know (a) in the future when something has become wrong with my car and (b) if something is wrong already compared to the same model car opwned by someone else. I am not interested in the figure for two different cars I am happy with my mig.

[OOMV6]

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

Not pointless at all but I think you miss the point.  What I want is a repeatable test for my car so I know (a) in the future when something has become wrong with my car and (b) if something is wrong already compared to the same model car opwned by someone else. I am not interested in the figure for two different cars I am happy with my mig.

I see. Still not convinced by the theory though.

Point (a) - it is only you who will know that, by the fact the consumption changes dramatically. And any noises, rattles, bangs, whistles, drop in performance etc...
Point (b) - I see your point, but think that with all the variables that exist, just in the car (mileage, engine wear, extra weight, tyres, wheels, spoilers, valances, side skirts........), let alone climate (temperature, wind speed / direction) this kind of test is not really applicable to cars that are as old (and potentially worn) as the Omega. Yes, it can give you an idea for sure, as can motoring mags and online info, but from the point of view of knowing if there is something wrong .... you just gotta "feeeeeel it".

That said, if you did want a comparison against another members' car, you will need to give far more details of your car - not just engine size. And also receive the same details back from the other tester. A 2.6 with 180k on the clock is likely to differ in mpg to the same car with 50k on the clock.
Why not get a diagnostic check done and if all ok, note what fuel consumption you are getting and use that as a bench mark.

No offence meant, but I cannot see how such concise tests can be conducted on cars such as the Omega

Apologies for the essay 

[geoffr70]

I've got a 3.0 auto and 3.0 manual. On the way back from picking up MV6 (manual) with my dad, the Elite (auto) and the MV6 returned the same mpg to within 0.1 mpg as indidcated by the magic screen ( I didn't work it out properly just relied on black magic!). Obvioulsy both cars did exactly the same route and distance, and in the same conditions.

Edit to add, mpg was roundabout 33 I believe.

[05omegav6]

I fill it up, then drive around until the light comes on (320ish miles), then fill it up again

Generally about 60 litres and no more than £90 so guess about 26mpg

[spanish_lad]

i thought that getting under 400km from a tank was wrong, but by reading here that seems about average ?