Drive a Zafira 1.6? Get 7 more mpg!

Jonnycoupe said:
You could bolt deep blue into the boot if you wanted, the resolution of the sensors such as a crank sensor havent really changed so it would make little difference.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that I doubt ECU development had peaked ten years ago. I'm sure it's safe to assume that more emissive control on more modern engines is partly achieved through better resolution, faster processing and more complex control algorithms in the ECU.

Citing what is a more discrete sensor such as a crank sensor as some kind of proof is a bit of a reach, although I'd be intrigued to see what they actually are, even something as mundane as that I would be surprised if the resolution hadn't changed at all. But resolution of a sensors isn't everything, sample rates and complexity of control are all likely to increase on each generation of ECU.

You can see even through remapping how complexity is always improving, with more terms, more dynamic behaviour, and more control algorithms.

I may be wrong, but I really can't see any Euro IV ECU being less complex and having simpler control algorithms to a 1999 ECU from a normalish petrol engine.

But, if you have proof, I'm all ears, I don't have ECU specs of the two engines, but I'm sure someone as adamant as yourself clearly should be fully furnished with the relevant information to clear it up very quickly.

[edit]I've just asked an ex TRW employee that was there up until 2005, and he seems to think it's also more then likely based on stuff he was working on..
 
Last edited:
MikeHiow said:
Where have I claimed it to be anything like a proper scientific test? But the second driver is a constant - always three days a week, always on the same route and always at the same time of day.
Click to expand...

You talk about a constant when it is in fact a massive variable. I can tell you were an arts student. Anyhow back to your extensive testing, let me list a few of these 'constatns as you would call them':

1. So for every tank of fuel, you fill up at exactly the same moment when low and put in exactly the same amount at the pump? No.

2. You never drive the exact same route for these identical fuel loads (point 1). What about all the other trips in the car, popping to the shops etc.

3. Said journeys between the different fuel types are on the same day, at exactly the same time with exactly the same temperature, humidity, pressure, and with (solar gains factored in - Heatsoak etc) no matter how small.

4. Said identical journeys (still encompassing previous 3 points) are all driven in exactly the same manner. That is the exact same time period, with exactly the same traffic conditions, acceleration, deacceleration, changing gear at the same point, changing down at the same point, harshness of braking.

5. Tyre pressures the same? Same weight in the car?



Christ I could go on, and the 5 points above could be broken down further and sub-divided even more. Now you see how your 'constants' are the exact opposite.

Just think about it rather than snapping back with unrelated remarks about your 'experience', 'seeing it with me own eyes'. As I have said before you are starting to sound like these so called 'gurus' who work for What Hi-fi telling us blindly that £20-1000+ HDMI cables give you all manner of wonderful improvements to a tv picture, when science and real experts in the field have the evidence and understanding to prove that completely incorrect.
 
Last edited:
People keep telling me how un-scientific the test is - yes, its not a controlled scientific test, nor have I claimed that it is. But considering all these variables over such a long sample period, do you really think that every variable somehow magically works in favour of SUL, consistently over 8 months?
 
MikeHiow said:
People keep telling me how un-scientific the test is - yes, its not a controlled scientific test, nor have I claimed that it is. But considering all these variables over such a long sample period, do you really think that every variable somehow magically works in favour of SUL, consistently over 8 months?
Click to expand...

Are you telling me you think they published results for every single car they tested and not just those which suited?
 
I'm not speculating on Thorney's tests. I personally don't like John, given his attitude towards myself and activities over on the VXR forums, but I honestly believe the tests could be genuine, but I'm not saying they are or aren't.

The comment above is in relation to my own experience.
 
MikeHiow said:
I'm not speculating on Thorney's tests. I personally don't like John, given his attitude towards myself and activities over on the VXR forums, but I honestly believe the tests could be genuine, but I'm not saying they are or aren't.

The comment above is in relation to my own experience.
Click to expand...

There is far too much variability in the tests even if they where done idependantly and a genuine 'fair' approach was used.

But if paid to do the tests with an aim to promote the fuel, that really pushes the credibility of fairness out the window IMO.

There are too many things you can do to influence the results, but stay well within the parameters of the tests that are laid out that make it really on shaky ground.

I'm happy you will get more MPG with SUL then regular fuel, but to get exact figures, I'd want scientific controlled tests to tell me exact numbers.
 
Disco Boy said:
Your experience is perhaps even less valid scientifically than the rubbish from Thorney and Tesco.
Click to expand...

Ok, please explain to me the reason why NUL always gave me 21MPG (+/- 1) and SUL always gave me 27MPG (+/- 1)?

If my experience is rubbish then surely sometimes it would go the other way (Ie. NUL would show better MPG than SUL), or at least once the gain would have been less (ie. 2-3MPG)?
 
MikeHiow said:
Ok, please explain to me the reason why NUL always gave me 21MPG (+/- 1) and SUL always gave me 27MPG (+/- 1)?
Click to expand...

We've nobodies word but yours that this ever happened?

We've only got your assurances that the driving route never changed.

And if your assurances when you carry out paid work on cars are 'not my problem guv' then I doubt your assurances when dispensing free anecdotes are much cop :D
 
What reason would I possibly have to lie about this? I don't like John/TMS so I've more reason to discredit them than to lie about my results showing similar trends as theirs.

I also claim a ~3MPG increase on my ST - if I was lying, why didn't I claim that was higher?

Edit: Nice edit, and your attempts to discredit what I'm saying in this thread by bringing up references from other threads completely out of context are getting tiresome, if your intelligence is failing you then stop arguing, such crass methods are fooling no one.
 
Last edited:
its not a question of lieing

its a question of whether those figures scientifically prove that you get that much extra MPG from SUL.

I don't think there's any doubt that on some cars it does provide an increase, especially on a mapped VXR where the car is mapped specifically for that fuel, but its impossible to exactly recreate a journey on the open roads. Different traffic levels, traffic lights etc.. all mean that no 2 journeys are identical and thus cant be a scientific test.

Yes they are an OK real world estimate, and still of merit, but the problem is that people arent allowed to use estimates and generalisations when making advertising claims.
 
Disco Boy said:
Your ST has an engine map designed to take advantage of the higher RON fuel. A shopping trolley's map will be optimised for 91/95 ron.
Click to expand...

And a VXR doesn't? Where does the shopping trolley come from? (But you should read the discussion regarding modern ECUs being adaptive).

Have you even read the thread before defaming my posts?

MrLOL said:
its not a question of lieing

its a question of whether those figures scientifically prove that you get that much extra MPG from SUL.

I don't think there's any doubt that on some cars it does provide an increase, especially on a mapped VXR where the car is mapped specifically for that fuel, but its impossible to exactly recreate a journey on the open roads. Different traffic levels, traffic lights etc.. all mean that no 2 journeys are identical and thus cant be a scientific test.

Yes they are an OK real world estimate, and still of merit, but the problem is that people arent allowed to use estimates and generalisations when making advertising claims.
Click to expand...

Well seeing as I've made no claims about the TMS claims other than they may be technically possible, I don't think that is what is being disputed here. People are telling me I didn't experience a 6MPG increase on my VXR - a consistent trend over 8 months.
 
Last edited:
The other day I found that using Shell VPower increased my MPG around town from 20mpg to 30mpg, thus beating the round town MPG of the diesel model, proving once and for all that petrol is better.

This is my personal experience!1!12!"?
 
[TW]Fox;17234947 said:
The other day I found that using Shell VPower increased my MPG around town from 20mpg to 30mpg, thus beating the round town MPG of the diesel model, proving once and for all that petrol is better.

This is my personal experience!1!12!"?
Click to expand...

But was this a trend you found without fail over 8 months, though? No.

You have clearly run out of intelligence to continue this debate sensibly, so why not sit out at this point? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom