Print

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

[Webby the Bear]

Probably best to filter out the Omega A results by specifying manufacture date 1995-2003 on the left, and then you can tweak for gearbox type, engine size (if you know your bhp/PS number) to narrow it down further.

Cheers mate.

Think I figured out how to use it

First 2.5V6 I came to was doing (after a bit of coversion with litres and kilometres) 29MPG. Very different to mine

[Webby the Bear]

best reported is 31mpg and and worst is 24mpg. but it doesnt say what sort of driving is being done (i.e. town or long runs) so bit difficult to work out whether i'm getting poor results in comparison

[Abiton]

You can dial down to individual cars and what they do w.r.t. town/motorway etc. driving if the individual users have filled in that info. 

[Webby the Bear]

Parkers says fuel consumption is 25mpg and on the ''LT'' model of my car 24mpg (not sure what LT stands for  ). This is how they work it out though....

Official mpg figures are decided through two different tests. The first is done on a rolling road with a cold engine and is meant to simulate city driving with a number stops at 31mph. The other test is done at 75mph to replicate motorway driving. There are separate figures for each categroy and an average from the two is taken for the combined average.
 
The problem is these tests are controlled and done in a way of getting the best figures possible from the car.


So. round town I'm now wondering if 19mpg would actually be correct 

[Abiton]

Yep, big discrepancies between real world and official figures, and getting bigger year on year:

http://www.theicct.org/fuel-consumption-discrepancies

Quick quote for those who don't follow links:
"Based upon analyses of more than 28,000 user entries of the German fuel consumption database spritmonitor.de and more than 1,200 vehicle models tested by Europe’s largest automobile club ADAC, the ICCT found that the gap between type-approval and “real-world” fuel consumption / CO2 values increased from about 8% in 2001 to 21% today, with a particularly strong increase since 2007. Potential reasons for this development include: (i) increasing use of existing tolerances and loopholes in the determination of road load, vehicle weight, laboratory test temperatures, and transmission shifting schedules for type-approval; (ii) inability of the current test cycle, the NEDC, to represent real-world driving conditions; and (iii) increasing market share of vehicles equipped with air conditioning systems."

I don't think many Omega owners will do much better than 19 if they only drive around town like you. Edit: What's your average journey distance?

[Webby the Bear]

Yep, big discrepancies between real world and official figures, and getting bigger year on year:

http://www.theicct.org/fuel-consumption-discrepancies

Quick quote for those who don't follow links:
"Based upon analyses of more than 28,000 user entries of the German fuel consumption database spritmonitor.de and more than 1,200 vehicle models tested by Europe’s largest automobile club ADAC, the ICCT found that the gap between type-approval and “real-world” fuel consumption / CO2 values increased from about 8% in 2001 to 21% today, with a particularly strong increase since 2007. Potential reasons for this development include: (i) increasing use of existing tolerances and loopholes in the determination of road load, vehicle weight, laboratory test temperatures, and transmission shifting schedules for type-approval; (ii) inability of the current test cycle, the NEDC, to represent real-world driving conditions; and (iii) increasing market share of vehicles equipped with air conditioning systems."

I don't think many Omega owners will do much better than 19 if they only drive around town like you. Edit: What's your average journey distance?

So basically mate loopholes in the checking  , incorrect conditions and not taking in to account the AC will affect it   

This week is an unusual week as I've used the car t get to school but usually the old girl will do on average four or five trips of 2-5 miles each. Basically she pretty much always arrives at the destination having only just got up to temp  and they're town miles so lots of braking too.

[Entwood]

Around town you'll hardly ever get into top gear, plus a 2 ton car takes a lot of stopping and starting, so 19 mpg is quite rasonable IMHO

[cem_devecioglu]

Yep, big discrepancies between real world and official figures, and getting bigger year on year:

http://www.theicct.org/fuel-consumption-discrepancies

Quick quote for those who don't follow links:
"Based upon analyses of more than 28,000 user entries of the German fuel consumption database spritmonitor.de and more than 1,200 vehicle models tested by Europe’s largest automobile club ADAC, the ICCT found that the gap between type-approval and “real-world” fuel consumption / CO2 values increased from about 8% in 2001 to 21% today, with a particularly strong increase since 2007. Potential reasons for this development include: (i) increasing use of existing tolerances and loopholes in the determination of road load, vehicle weight, laboratory test temperatures, and transmission shifting schedules for type-approval; (ii) inability of the current test cycle, the NEDC, to represent real-world driving conditions; and (iii) increasing market share of vehicles equipped with air conditioning systems."

I don't think many Omega owners will do much better than 19 if they only drive around town like you. Edit: What's your average journey distance?

So basically mate loopholes in the checking  , incorrect conditions and not taking in to account the AC will affect it   

This week is an unusual week as I've used the car t get to school but usually the old girl will do on average four or five trips of 2-5 miles each. Basically she pretty much always arrives at the destination having only just got up to temp  and they're town miles so lots of braking too.

phew.. you will reach the destination with a cold engine.. whatever you do your avgs will be bad..
 
when mine was auto on a 11-12 mile journey (and there were few lights that stop me)  avg was around 24-25 mpg (thats not a rush hour consumption)

[Webby the Bear]

That's right Cem. Wondering if it's actually normal. 

My old man's informed me that we actually have some exhaust emission test results from our last MOT (October) so going to check them too to see if anything's noticeably wrong

[cem_devecioglu]

That's right Cem. Wondering if it's actually normal. 

My old man's informed me that we actually have some exhaust emission test results from our last MOT (October) so going to check them too to see if anything's noticeably wrong

Webby even if you purchase new thermostat, CTS, lambda sensors and MAF your avg will be better, say %10..  but most of the time you will reach your destination with a cold engine, so not worth it imo.. Unless you make long distances..

[henryd]

My old 2.5 Elite estate never bettered 27-28 on a run and about 21-23 around the houses,I agree with what Entwood says though,the reading on the gauge is from a different sensor to the one that controls the fueling,get it back on a Tech 2 and see what temp the Ecu is seeing,same goes for inlet air temp sensor as that can affect it too although not as much

[Kevin Wood]

I don't think there's any mileage in replacing more parts unless you have proven them to be faulty, nor will exhaust emissions tell you anything as you are looking at the mixture after the cat, so if the engine doesn't burn the fuel the cat will. In addition, it could be running with a normal mixture at idle but be rich or lean on the move, and you can't measure exhaust gas while moving!

I would suggest calculating the actual fuel consumption over a couple of tanks of petrol, by brimming the tank then keeping a record of fuel used against miles travelled. This will eliminate any inaccuracies in the MID fuel consumption figures.

I think you risk throwing a lot of money at a problem that doesn't exist otherwise. A quick look at the live data on a Tech 2 will tell you if all the engine sensors are giving plausible readings and if the operating temperature is reasonable.

[Webby the Bear]

I don't think there's any mileage in replacing more parts unless you have proven them to be faulty, nor will exhaust emissions tell you anything as you are looking at the mixture after the cat, so if the engine doesn't burn the fuel the cat will. In addition, it could be running with a normal mixture at idle but be rich or lean on the move, and you can't measure exhaust gas while moving!

I would suggest calculating the actual fuel consumption over a couple of tanks of petrol, by brimming the tank then keeping a record of fuel used against miles travelled. This will eliminate any inaccuracies in the MID fuel consumption figures.

I think you risk throwing a lot of money at a problem that doesn't exist otherwise. A quick look at the live data on a Tech 2 will tell you if all the engine sensors are giving plausible readings and if the operating temperature is reasonable.

Ok, thanks for that Kev 

[Webby the Bear]

Ps, tonight I got home and thought I'd take advantage of the darkness and checked for voltage sparks (arcing) and I chucked on a few revs and found no exhaust smoke in the engine bay.

As that's the case is it worth checking for exhaust leaks between manifold and O2 sensors as I thought I would have seen the smoke rise up through the engine bay?

 

[Abiton]

Ps, tonight I got home and thought I'd take advantage of the darkness and checked for voltage sparks (arcing) and I chucked on a few revs and found no exhaust smoke in the engine bay.

As that's the case is it worth checking for exhaust leaks between manifold and O2 sensors as I thought I would have seen the smoke rise up through the engine bay?

 

Your problem with this approach is with the highlighted words.  Unless your engine is in really bad shape and burning a lot of oil, or coolant, or very excessive fuelling, there isn't anything to see in exhaust gases, especially up at that end of the system.  Only visible portion is condensed water, which only tends to show at the cool end of the system, when the system is cold, and when the air outside is cold.