Print

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

[FRE07962128]

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!

That will stir it!
 

[psychnurse]

Bless the iorn lady  

[TheBoy]

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!
 

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!
 

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?!!!! lol  

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

[yatesDELTA]

to sum up gordon brown without using a few naughty wordsi would say: EVIL!!!!!

[TheBoy]

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

[TheBoy]

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

[Martin_1962]

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!

That will stir it!
 

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?

[FRE07962128]

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!
 

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!
 

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?!!!! lol  

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?!!

[TheBoy]

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!
 

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!
 

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?!!!! lol  

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?!!

I think he's single handedly screw all UK citizens over for at least the next 10-15yrs with his incompitence, useless fat idiot.

[Dazzler]

Whats all this Politics got to do with the economy of a 2.0 Vs a 2.5 then....lol...

[FRE07962128]

Whats all this Politics got to do with the economy of a 2.0 Vs a 2.5 then....lol...

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....

Bloody hell, why am I laughing???  

[amigov6]

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 & 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!!!!!!!!!!

[Marks DTM Calib]

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  )

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.

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.

[JamesV6CDX]

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  )

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.

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

[philhoward]

Whats all this Politics got to do with the economy of a 2.0 Vs a 2.5 then....lol...

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?