Mpg!

[HarshRider]

renualt 5 1.4 1994/5

mostly drive motorways at the moment. 30 mile commute to work atm.

mpg between 28-34

depends how late i am for work

normally cruise between 80-90 mph on the motorway (thats not me trying to sound cool)

[bikerdude2006fr]

54MPG while nailing it? how are you calculating your MPG?

This Simple as lol

[Gandalf the Yellow]

im not convinced...54mpg is a lot especially if your flooring it.

are you sure its not in KM that you're doing?

steve

[Will Arnold]

peugeot 309 gti (8v)

driving A and B roads mainly.

on a motorway run its usually 40mpg at 60-70

and then country roads its between 25 and 30 mpg depending on the traffic and how the cars driven.

[bikerdude2006fr]

im not convinced...54mpg is a lot especially if your flooring it.

are you sure its not in KM that you're doing?

steve

lol dad who's a mechanic says thats about right... and yeah i'm sure, i did something like 145 miles and used 11.89 litres.... and no its definatly in miles!! english car...

[RobinJI]

speedo's probably just over-reading shit loads

[bikerdude2006fr]

i'll check it against dads car on a journey!! don't think so though....

[Broomer]

Hybrid AX?

[Bigman]

Yeah, or coming up to junctions/traffic lights. Basically I just aim to never use my brakes even in the city. Its amazing how far you can glide in neutral especially on a slight slope.

You realise that most modern engines will actulay use less fuel if you leave it in gear whne running down to a junction? (Thanks Topgear) It makes sence in the fact that the engine does not need the fuel to keep it spinning as when rolling to a junctiuon in gear the wheels are effectively keeping the engine turning and thus the fuel input is reduced (i assume)

I may be completely wrong, but it makes sence in my head.

Adam

[bikerdude2006fr]

Hybrid AX?

No they are just really small, really light really tiny engined cars.... Its pretty normal that i should be getting that mpg....

[Broomer]

No they are just really small, really light really tiny engined cars.... Its pretty normal that i should be getting that mpg....

My cars even smaller, lighter and has a simaler sized engine, and its not normal that i get 54MPG ragging it. doing 80 with 4 people in it...

[bikerdude2006fr]

My cars even smaller, lighter and has a simaler sized engine, and its not normal that i get 54MPG ragging it. doing 80 with 4 people in it...

The AX, ostensible replacement for the Visa, was launched at the Paris Salon in 1986 after six years of research into achieving class leading fuel economy which culminated in the ECO 2000 project.

Xavier Karcher promised at the AX's launch in August 1986 that it would not supercede the 2 CV while the latter continued to sell...

In the event, the Visa soldiered on until 1988 and the 2CV until 1990.

The AX was highly aerodynamic with a Cx of only 0,31 which allowed the 1,0 litre model to achieve a fuel consumption figure of less than 4 litres/100 km (better than 70 mpg) at a constant 90 kph (56 mph).

The AX was launched in six versions - 10E, 10 RE, 11 RE, 11 TRE, 14 TRS and 14 TZS, and one body style - a three door hatchback.

The range was rapidly expanded within a matter of weeks to include the limited edition AX Sport equipped with a twin carburettor, 95 bhp 1,3 litre engine and a top speed in excess of 185 kph (115 mph).

In 1987, the range was further expanded to include a new AX GT with 85 bhp, a lightly revised AX Sport and a range of five door cars.

In 1988, a new 1 360 cm3 diesel engine was made available in the 14 D, 14 RD and 14 TRD (or DTR in anglophone markets).

In 1989, the 14 TZS disappeared from the range and a new five door GT appeared.

In 1990, the range was rebadged to become 10E, 10 RE, 10 Tonic special edition, 11 TGE, 11 TRS, 14 TRS, Sport, GT, 14 D, 14 RD, 14 TRD/DTR.

In 1991, the 14 TZX replaced the 14 TRS while the 14 RD became the 14 TGD.

In 1992, the AX Sport was replaced by the GTi with 100 bhp and 190 kph (119 mph) top speed.

In 1993, the petrol versions were all equipped with new monopoint fuel injection engines (with the exception of the GTi which retained its multipoint engine) and the badging was altered yet again and a number of special editions were launched.

Also in 1993, the GT was replaced by the AX Furio. Models were now defined by engine and trim level - X, SX and VSX.

The AX enjoyed great success in competition and proved very popular in the marketplace too.

In 1998, it was finally replaced by the Saxo although it continues to be built in Malaysia as the Proton Tiara.

More ...

Seems to be doing less than expected

[Broomer]

Yawwn.....

[RobinJI]

..............The AX was highly aerodynamic with a Cx of only 0,31 which allowed the 1,0 litre model to achieve a fuel consumption figure of less than 4 litres/100 km (better than 70 mpg) at a constant 90 kph (56 mph). ..............

Seems to be doing less than expected

No ones saying you couldn't get 54mpg out of an AX, you could, definitely, they're saying to sustain 80 with a full car in an AX you'd be ragging it, and ragging it = bad fuel consumption.

In other words they think you're exaggerating in one way or another.

Also, the Scirocco seems to be doing better than the Audi did with my life. Not that surprising though, disadvantage of the carb and extra 0.2l should be easily counteracted by the 400kg lower weight. haha

[Gandalf the Yellow]

The AX was highly aerodynamic

hehe.

steve

[bikerdude2006fr]

No ones saying you couldn't get 54mpg out of an AX, you could, definitely, they're saying to sustain 80 with a full car in an AX you'd be ragging it, and ragging it = bad fuel consumption.

Well i'm not exaggerating... I did 130 miles like that then filled it back up and worked out the mpg and thats what it came out as... I was sustaining a good 120 - 130 kmph most of the time....

[Matt Burrows]

You realise that most modern engines will actulay use less fuel if you leave it in gear whne running down to a junction? (Thanks Topgear) It makes sence in the fact that the engine does not need the fuel to keep it spinning as when rolling to a junctiuon in gear the wheels are effectively keeping the engine turning and thus the fuel input is reduced (i assume)

I may be completely wrong, but it makes sence in my head.

Adam

You realise that Topgear is a fake program made by clueless idiots, who often like to give strong opinions on subjects without having any decent knowledge or expertise on the said subject?

But joking aside, neutral can do wonders for your economy if you do it in the right way at the right time. You're right in saying many modern cars will use no fuel when in gear with the throttle off. But even then you can still save fuel by using neutral wisely. This is because with a bit of practice, and if you know the road ahead, you can go a surprisingly long way in neutral before you slow down significantly. If the rode is downhill and you have decent momentum you can literally go for miles. You may use no fuel when in gear but you slow down a lot quicker!

Mikes Audi shows 150-200mpg in neutral when doing 20-30mph, and this will only improve when your coasting at higher speeds. So although you are still using fuel it is only a small amount. You can only really use it on quiet roads though, as you will often end up slowing down to 40mph in a national which just pisses people off. Also you can't be in a rush as it is a lot slower!

N.B. I strongly advise you don't use the techniques mentioned above as they are dangerous and highly illegal! You have less control over the car while coasting, if you start to slide then you are basically fooked...

[Greetings]

I may be completely wrong, but it makes sence in my head.

Nah, you're right. It's also much safer to be in gear since the car is more planted. If you try to violently avoid an obstacle in neutral, the car might spin off. When in gear, the chances of that happening are much smaller.

[Gavyn.]

it's no safer because it only works if you declutch. the car is no more planted than in neutral because the wheels are still under no drive.

in an injection car when you put it in nuetral the fuel management system puts more fuel than is needed into the engine, you will still use less fuel than if you just drive normally but it won't be less than if you dip the clutch and leave it in gear.

also do audis not measure your mpg by calculating how far down the accelerater is and what gear the car is in. instead of actually measuring the amount of fuel going into the engine?

[Hendrix]

If I recall, that's how the older ones did it. The new ones with all their fancy electronics do it the new way.

[Gavyn.]

If I recall, that's how the older ones did it. The new ones with all their fancy electronics do it the new way.

judging by what the mechanic said about my dads 06 one it's still the same.

[Hendrix]

judging by what the mechanic said about my dads 06 one it's still the same.

Really?... you would have thought they would have clocked onto it by now.

[Gavyn.]

I thought that aswell. I asked the guy in the audi garage next to my college what the stuff at the bottom of the accelerator pedal was for and he said that.

[Token]

You may use no fuel when in gear but you slow down a lot quicker!

Not necessarily true. If your coasting at 40mph, then putting my van into 5th gear whilst you don't need to accelerate revs my engine at approx 1,200rpm (idle at 900rpm) an actually I dont notice any engine braking at all in comparison to coasting in neutral at 40mph, so I may aswell put it in 5th gear an save the engine theoretically putting any fuel in to keep the engine idling. Sorry for being anal but I'm so into fuel consumption stuff after working in bio-diesel refinery. :$

To G4vyn I'm not to sure what mean by using less fuel if you leave it in gear and dip the clutch, regardless or where your gear stick is placed, if you dip the clutch the engine still has to have fuel in to keep the engine idling. Exactly the same as if you took it out of gear and coasted with the engine idling.

[Gavyn.]

Not necessarily true. If your coasting at 40mph, then putting my van into 5th gear whilst you don't need to accelerate revs my engine at approx 1,200rpm (idle at 900rpm) an actually I dont notice any engine braking at all in comparison to coasting in neutral at 40mph, so I may aswell put it in 5th gear an save the engine theoretically putting any fuel in to keep the engine idling. Sorry for being anal but I'm so into fuel consumption stuff after working in bio-diesel refinery. :$

To G4vyn I'm not to sure what mean by using less fuel if you leave it in gear and dip the clutch, regardless or where your gear stick is placed, if you dip the clutch the engine still has to have fuel in to keep the engine idling. Exactly the same as if you took it out of gear and coasted with the engine idling.

I think i might be speaking crap.