Drive a Zafira 1.6? Get 7 more mpg!

Jonnycoupe said:
7mpg is suggesting 99RON jumps to something like 60MJ/kg. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

No its not, it is suggesting that is burns far more consistently and the engine in question can make good use of this, advancing ignition.

[TW]Fox;17225755 said:
Just.. wow.

You don't think that it could have been considerably more scientific if, for example, each car was driven for a set distance with a full tank and then re-brimmed rather than 'waiting for the fuel light', for example?

I am staggered you think the way you do about this. Even when 2 people far closer to the petrochemicals industry than you or I will ever be have also disputed these claims, you STILL think you are right, as is always the case, I guess.
Click to expand...

Because give or take a few Mls, the Petrol light is going to come on at the same level, and even if you didn't, what you are suggesting is that all of these variables inside the test conditions always worked in their favour, this is very unlikely wouldn't you agree? But if they didn't then some results would be going the other way, surely? Like I say, they are not text-book tight scientific test conditions, but the steps they have taken are reasonable.

I've also not said whether I believe they are correct or not, just that significant gains can be had from running SUL.

I consistently got 6MPG more on SUL in my VXR, or am I another one who is blessed by luck and it was simply the variables just happened to work in my favour every time I filled up with SUL?
 
My petrol light has come on with 0 bars showing once and it came on with 4 bars showing once. Using the gauge and light is just wrong.
 
Even if we entertain your idea that I'm clueless, am I also a liar, seeing as I've personally found gains with SUL?

I think you are clueless, as all you've manage to state is "LOL 7MPG, REALLY?", "SOMEONE ELSE DISAGREES", "YOU HAVE NO IDEA", when you haven't managed to show any level of understanding or any reason why you disagree other than the fact that it doesn't sound right to you.

L0rdMike said:
My petrol light has come on with 0 bars showing once and it came on with 4 bars showing once. Using the gauge and light is just wrong.
Click to expand...

That's great, so you are suggesting that the petrol light just came on later on all of their T99 tests out of pure coincidence?
 
Just saying its not the most accurate way of doing it.

There are too many other variables that could make a difference between mpg which are not listed in the report fully.
 
Nobody is saying these are no gains with super. There are. People are simply disputing the size of the gains.

As for whether you are a liar, that is probably a question best left unanswered :)
 
L0rdMike said:
Just saying its not the most accurate way of doing it.

There are too many other variables that could make a difference between mpg which are not listed in the report fully.
Click to expand...

Sure, I completely agree - something I've already stated - but there is still enough evidence to show a worthwhile gain.

[TW]Fox;17226231 said:
Nobody is saying these are no gains with super. There are. People are simply disputing the size of the gains.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, based on it not sounding right. :o
 
No, based on it having more flaws than your average post in motors.

I mean come on, same economy figures for a 1.2 hatch as a 200 bhp Audi?
 
Yes exactly, it doesn't sound right to you.

Well, its not exactly a ridiculous notion - especially if the tests were done over similar routes and similar speeds, its also likely to be at full throttle for longer periods if they are doing similar speeds.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Why would you want less fuel as a set claim considering energy content has nothing to do with RON.

7mpg is suggesting 99RON jumps to something like 60MJ/kg. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

it doesnt need the extra fuel it used to give when you used crap petrol and it will still run more smoothly.
 
Ok, in my ST I can drive a 15 mile distance, average 60-70MPH (cruising speed rather than real average), never use WOT and achieve over 30MPG.

Do the same in the Yaris, and I'll have to use WOT a lot to keep the same pace as the ST - the Yaris will return around 30MPG in this situation.

Another example was the 1.8 Focus hire car I had. That averaged 27MPG, the same figure I used to get out of my VXR.
 
MikeHiow said:
No its not, it is suggesting that is burns far more consistently and the engine in question can make good use of this, advancing ignition.
Click to expand...

Oh okay so now were not changing the calorific value of the fuel instead the engine is now 40% thermally efficieny rather than 30?

The NOx and CO of most engines suggests the 'consistancy' of the burn event is pretty complete. Not sure how you optimise the spark event without spark ionisation monitoring?

I think we need more engineers in powertrain here, fancy a job? There doing it wrong from looks of things.
 
zipp0r said:
it doesnt need the extra fuel it used to give when you used crap petrol and it will still run more smoothly.
Click to expand...

This is the UK, there is no such thing as 'crap' fuel.

Are you suggesting normally unleaded has to be significantly richer than stoich just to maintain cruise and the gains of Super is from running stoichiometric mixture? No didnt think so.
 
MikeHiow said:
Ok, in my ST I can drive a 15 mile distance, average 60-70MPH (cruising speed rather than real average), never use WOT and achieve over 30MPG.

Do the same in the Yaris, and I'll have to use WOT a lot to keep the same pace as the ST - the Yaris will return around 30MPG in this situation.

Another example was the 1.8 Focus hire car I had. That averaged 27MPG, the same figure I used to get out of my VXR.
Click to expand...

Yeah and ill do that and pull 80MPG.

WOT is more efficient on a spark ignition so I dont really see your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom