The older VW Lupo was badged 3L, as it was built to do 100km on 3 litres of fuel, or, on old money, 94mpg. Its funny how things have gone backwards with modern and heavier cars. The UP! doesnt get anywhere near that.
Eh? You were claiming 43mpg real world up there (and suggesting it wasn't bad for a car like a Qashqai), and I pointed out I've never had that poor real world economy on a tank in my Mondeo.
That's what I said [b]I[/b] was getting out of it and that's not bad for my obviously lead footed driving style. It's also only 300 miles old, so I'm sure it will get better. It's already miles better than our Volvo V50 was (conventional estate form).
A Qashqai is exciting?
No, but it is fun to drive unlike a Mondeo which is just competent but dull on every level. It's hard to explain unless you've owned both like I have.
I have other more exciting cars too, much more exciting. But the Qashqai is actually a good drive. Surprising I know, but it just is. I'm talking about the new one.
The older VW Lupo was badged 3L, as it was built to do 100km on 3 litres of fuel, or, on old money, 94mpg. Its funny how things have gone backwards with modern and heavier cars. The UP! doesnt get anywhere near that.
Bet it's safer and more refined though.
are my figures amongst the unrealistic ones?
Should I be annoyed or not?
My wife has a BMW 1 series 116 Efficient Dynamics and her average mpg over 33k is 62mpg - she regularly gets over 70mpg on single trips and on fast motorway speeds with a full car to Scotland I managed 60.8mpg over 523 miles.
I am not in the slightest claiming a new BMW is a cheap option, but with 5 years free servicing and low mpg it definitely keeps variable costs low.
Got a 13 plate Skoda Estate Greenline - over the last 15,000 miles it has averaged 60mpg (real MPG) - mixed driving... I can fairly easily get 65mpg on a steady, 70mph drive...... very very happy with that....
You mentioned a VW Up! in your OP. I have a Seat Mii Sport which has the same underpinnings and it's pretty bloody good. I do a 50 mile urban/motorway journey each way and I'm getting a week out of a 35 litre tank if I drive sensibly which is around 65MPG. If I'm less sensible that drops to me sticking in another tenner on Friday so maybe 55mpg. I like it, it's pretty comfy, has the toys I need (the SatNav entertaiment thing is great) and it is surprisingly quiet and refined. Had I gone for the ecomotive I'm sure I'd be getting the 70 odd they claim but I felt I wanted more poke on the motorway. 20 quid tax and 0% finance was the clincher.
rickmeister - Member
The older VW Lupo was badged 3L, as it was built to do 100km on 3 litres of fuel, or, on old money, 94mpg. Its funny how things have gone backwards with modern and heavier cars. The UP! doesnt get anywhere near that.
Did it achieve that fuel economy though in real life driving?
94mpg is very impressive, if it could actually do it!
[quote=moshimonster ]That's what I said I was getting out of it and that's not bad for my obviously lead footed driving style.
Fairly pointless giving the consumption figures you get on a thread about frugality in that case, when plenty of us have bigger cars which are more frugal than yours. Given you don't need the space of a Mondeo, then I'm sure an Almera (a Qashqai is just one of those jacked up isn't it?) would be more frugal.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics, driven in traffic at rush hour ie lots of stop start with the air con on.
Driven sensibly dont ever really get below 60mpg. Drive it very hard and never below 40mpg.
Also have a Toyota Aygo 1.0 crap thing, and it does way less mpg than the big, fast, heavy BMW. 😆
Did it achieve that fuel economy though in real life driving?
94mpg is very impressive, if it could actually do it!
We had a Lupo 1.0L for a little while. Fun little car actually. I don't remember what the fuel consumption actually was, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near that!
[quote=moshimonster ]But it's hard to beat a new car if you can afford one.
Well you're missing out on a lot of coke and hookers, but if a new car beats that for you, it's your choice I guess.
[quote=moshimonster ]Sometimes it's just fun to hoon around though.
I can think of plenty of things which are more fun and cheaper.
Just because I know I wouldn't be able to get anywhere near by driving at a pace that I was comfortable with.
70mph too slow? As I said, cruise on 70 and leave it there, provided motorway is quiet enough. Which it usually is outside of rush hour.
Of course that only applies to long motorway trips not rush hour commuting.
I do honestly
You said earlier you couldn't imagine how people get the figures they've stated, so you clearly don't 🙂
Fairly pointless giving the consumption figures you get on a thread about frugality in that case. Given you don't need the space of a Mondeo, then I'm sure an Almera (a Qashqai is just one of those jacked up isn't it?) would be more frugal.
That's why I quoted the Honest John (and manufacturer claimed) mpg figures to show that your statement about a Mondeo having better consumption than a Qashqai was incorrect.
So I should buy an Almera? A car Nissan haven't sold in the UK since 2006. It was actually replaced in effect by the Qashqai a couple of years later.
3l Lupo
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=323571
Seems they get a little better economy to some modern Bluemotion edition VWs, which are larger and faster.
You said earlier you couldn't imagine how people get the figures they've stated, so you clearly don't
The bit I can't believe is the lengths some people are prepared to go to. I'm not trying to be critical, I simply cannot get anywhere near myself and I don't even have to drive in traffic at all.
The bit I can't believe is the lengths some people are prepared to go to.
You don't know what lengths he goes to. You don't know his cars or his route. Seems to be that you are assuming he's driving incredibly slowly, but he doesn't have to be. There are all sorts of fairly random factors that can influence it.
My Prius for example gets 58-60 on open windy country roads, but going from my sister's old house to my parents, about 10 miles I'd always get close to 80mpg. Becaues it involved a steep uphill and a very long gradual descent, and this allows the car to get fantastic economy. Of course it was worse on the way there, but I could take a different route. I know of asymmetric routes that give better fuel economy (and are no further) than going the same way there and back.
Other things like having well-sighted roundabouts and junctions allows you to back off slightly to hit the roundabout clear - in other situations you have to practically stop because you cannot see very far, even if there's no traffic. Use of brakes is a bigger drain on fuel economy than driving more slowly.
You don't know what lengths he goes to.
It was a general comment, not aimed at any particular "economy" conscious driver.
Well you're missing out on a lot of coke and hookers, but if a new car beats that for you, it's your choice I guess.
That's a pointless comment. I can afford a new car once in a while, but I've still got enough in the bank for other stuff. I'm certainly not depriving myself of anything to do it.
913 miles round trip in the old 1.9 A4 estate 66.2mpg, it was over 70mpg on the way up(av 65mph) but i thrashed it a bit(av 75 mph) on the way back so it dropped down..
700 miles last week in this years Seat Leon 1.6d with stop start was 68mpg.
Both cars average well over 50mpg in general use.
Hypothetically, if you didn't know how to drive very economically without going slowly, you wouldn't know that you didn't know - would you?
Ok so I am splitting hairs now but this is STW after all 🙂
That is rather good...How does reality compare to the readout? (Our Galaxy is 15% ish out, Touran was 10% ish out)
[quote=moshimonster ]That's why I quoted the Honest John (and manufacturer claimed) mpg figures to show that your statement about a Mondeo having better consumption than a Qashqai was incorrect.
Where did I say that? Can't be bothered looking up consumption figures, but I know that your 43mpg is pretty rubbish even for a big car, which is what I pointed out. Though it's clear from your other comments that you can't be bothered driving economically, despite your "fast" driving probably making very little difference to journey times, so I'm still not sure what useful contribution you're making here.
The thing is, it's really not that much of a chore to drive smoothly and anticipate to avoid needing to brake and accelerate hard - I'd suggest that a lot of it is just good driving. Doubtless you'd be upset being behind me that I don't floor it out of junctions, though I actually make quite good progress most of the time.
[quote=moshimonster ]I can afford a new car once in a while, but I've still got enough in the bank for other stuff. I'm certainly not depriving myself of anything to do it.
So you can afford a new car [b]and[/b] coke and hookers? You must be doing a lot better than most of us then. Though I'm a bit confused why you kept your previous car (not a modern Mondeo, which you've also apparently owned) for 9 years in that case.
and yet we are still talking economy.
life time pence per mile - all bills inclusive is the only meaningful number when it comes to a cars frugality.
Well some of us are, t-r, which IMHO precludes buying new, as that new car smell makes quite a big difference to the pence per mile.
Some times frugality all goes out the window though - both the cars on my drive in total cost less than the land rover owes me in parts so far .... and its still just a chassis/engine/gearbox - but it will be fun !
Isn't the difference between 55mpg and 40mpg about(from memory of rough calc) about £500 a per 10k miles?
Alone this would seem worth the effort although Im willing to admit that I'm getting old and no longer see the attraction in driving with unnecessary speed.
would take me a number of years of saving 500 quid a year to buy a car that i would trust that does 55mpg and it would have to be totally trouble free for a number of years beyond that.
and with all the electrics , ecus , turbos , variable timing etc etc - cars aint getting any more reliable atm - we have passed that peak.
Where did I say that? Can't be bothered looking up consumption figures, but I know that your 43mpg is pretty rubbish even for a big car, which is what I pointed out.
You said I'd be better off with a more conventional estate - like a Mondeo. But in reality I wouldn't (you see I could be bothered to look up consumption figures). 43 mpg may be rubbish for you eco driver types, but it's actually quite good for me, in fact a PB and as I said the engine is not even run in and I'm sure it will get significantly better - maybe even hit 50 mpg. Certainly better than my Mondeo or Volvo ever was. I was just pointing that out too.
and with all the electrics , ecus , turbos , variable timing etc etc - cars aint getting any more reliable atm - we have passed that peak.
You'd have to show some stats for that!
so I'm still not sure what useful contribution you're making here.
Only what I said in my original post and that I'm amazed at what people can actually achieve in cars I've owned myself.
[quote=moshimonster ]You said I'd be better off with a more conventional estate - like a Mondeo.
Try again...
43 mpg may be rubbish for you eco driver types, but it's actually quite good for me, in fact a PB and as I said the engine is not even run in and I'm sure it will get significantly better - maybe even hit 50 mpg. Certainly better than my Mondeo or Volvo ever was. I was just pointing that out too.
Still not seeing how that is "not bad for a decent sized relatively tall crossover". Maybe "not bad for a decent sized relatively tall crossover for somebody with a heavy right foot and no idea how to drive economically". As it was, by quoting that figure you gave no useful information on how frugal it actually is - though as discussed, with a purchase price of £20k one of those is never going to be as frugal as my £4k Mondeo. I'm also intrigued by your expectation of significantly better economy as it gets older.
BTW when did you have a Mondeo, you haven't clarified.
@funkyduncThat is rather good...How does reality compare to the readout? (Our Galaxy is 15% ish out, Touran was 10% ish out)
I would say my BMW >5% out. When I did my trip to scotland and re-filled at the other end, the mpg worked out pretty much correct
our galaxy 2.0 tdci does about 36 mpg combined. The onboard 'puter says 43mpg though!
so - are the mpg's above measured or via flaky computer? (bit like the weighing scale method for weighing bikes on here.............)
So you can afford a new car and coke and hookers? You must be doing a lot better than most of us then. Though I'm a bit confused why you kept your previous car (not a modern Mondeo, which you've also apparently owned) for 9 years in that case.
You got a chip on the shoulder? Just because I happened to have a 9 year old shopping/shit carrying hack doesn't mean I'm poor. I've got 3 other cars, but they are all totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Maybe it's a Ford thing - the computer on mine is usually >10% optimistic (all my quoted figures are from filling the tank).
moshi - you seem to be having a SOH failure, and missing the point that buying a new car is throwing a lot of money away compared to buying a s/h one. Money which could be spent on other things - if you really are in a position where that makes no difference to your finances, then that does make you very wealthy compared to most. We are after all discussing frugality.
As it was, by quoting that figure you gave no useful information on how frugal it actually is - though as discussed, with a purchase price of £20k one of those is never going to be as frugal as my £4k Mondeo. I'm also intrigued by your expectation of significantly better economy as it gets older.BTW when did you have a Mondeo, you haven't clarified.
Why do you give a shit?
moshimonster - Member43 mpg may be rubbish for you eco driver types, but it's actually quite good for me, in fact a PB and as I said the engine is not even run in and I'm sure it will get significantly better - maybe even hit 50 mpg. Certainly better than my Mondeo or Volvo ever was. I was just pointing that out too.
I can beat my mondeo down below 40 but it takes an effort. In normal driving- ie not thrashing it, but not thinking at all about economy either- it averages low 50s, with my economy foot on it can scratch 60 but that's pretty rare. The trip computer's pretty close to accurate,
Course, it then spoils the economy by blowing up about every 5000 miles 😆
moshi - you seem to be having a SOH failure, and missing the point that buying a new car is throwing a lot of money away compared to buying a s/h one. Money which could be spent on other things - if you really are in a position where that makes no difference to your finances, then that does make you very wealthy compared to most. We are after all discussing frugality.
Ah I see now! First I never said buying a new car was a cheap way of motoring. Must have mistaken me for someone else there. But I did point out that a new car in general is a nice thing to own and sometimes people miss that point when doing the math (somebody did ask). It's not throwing money away either, because you do actually have a new car to show for it. It's just more expensive than buying an old car. Only you can decide if it's worth it or not and that will almost certainly depend on your finances.
I can beat my mondeo down below 40 but it takes an effort. In normal driving- ie not thrashing it, but not thinking at all about economy either- it averages low 50s,
That's about in line with the Honest John real mpg figures depending on what Mondeo/engine spec you have. As I said the new Qashqai is even better - although not with my driving style.
[quote=moshimonster ]It's not throwing money away either, because you do actually have a new car to show for it.
The minute you drive out of the showroom it's a s/h car. Cost of those first miles whilst you appreciate the new car smell is huge. I suspect even with your huge wealth you could find something quite fun to spend a few thousands on.
I still reckon coke and hookers beats a new car 😉
with a purchase price of £20k one of those is never going to be as frugal as my £4k Mondeo
Of course not, but I was just pointing out that frugality is not the only factor in deciding what car to drive. Otherwise we'd all be driving £4K Mondeos (I think)
[quote=Northwind ]The trip computer's pretty close to accurate
Is yours a much older one? As I mentioned above, the one on my 08 Mk4 is pretty rubbish.
moshi - it wasn't until after my first reply to you that we established how heavy your right foot is. Oh, and you should probably check the thread title, the OP, and what most of us are discussing.
