£80 to fill up!

Lol I have a fiesta (newer one) 1.2 tho and spend roughly £110 a week on fuel as I fill up twice and a full tank for me comes to around £55 here. So £440 on fuel alone it's disgraceful...

But we all know that the fuel will keep going up because they get away with it, and the British people will moan over and over but do nothing.
 
I was shocked when the Focus swallowed just short of £80 the other day.

It is scary to think that when I first started driving (not that long ago, really), fuel was considered expensive when it broke 90p. In fact, I'm sure I remember it being down to sub 80p at one point.
 
MikeHiow said:
I was shocked when the Focus swallowed just short of £80 the other day.

It is scary to think that when I first started driving (not that long ago, really), fuel was considered expensive when it broke 90p. In fact, I'm sure I remember it being down to sub 80p at one point.
Click to expand...

62p / Litre when I started driving 7 years ago :(
 
Crikey, I just looked it up. It was 79p when I started driving, and that was 6 years ago.

The last time it shows fuel being 62p/L was 1999 :confused:
 
LewisStuart said:
£76.39 to fill a empty 55l clio 197 tank @ 138.9p with vpower.

The cost difference between regular & vpower per tank is £4.40 where I am.

£4.40 would get me 22 miles easy in the clio, should I start using regular?
Click to expand...

I am having the same problem! the difference in the price seems to be getting wider, last time i purchased vpower because it was only 3 or 4p more, but the time before that it was almost 8p and purchased unleaded for the first time since i bought the car.
 
Filled up my Supra Twin Turbo last night from fuel warning light to full, was £1.36 a litre for 97RON super at Sainsbury's (So glad my car doesn't need V-Power or anything silly) was £80.16.

Would have been £52 a couple of years ago :(
 
MikeHiow said:
Crikey, I just looked it up. It was 79p when I started driving, and that was 6 years ago.

The last time it shows fuel being 62p/L was 1999 :confused:
Click to expand...

In that case I could be wrong. I am sure it was 62p / litre.. may well have been 72p / litre. Either way it was half price back then :)
 
I get a lift to work which costs nothing and a train back costing me £5.10.
IF i pass my test next week on test runs it will cost me £6 a round trip so thats 90p dif...but for that i get to and from work in half an hour unlike the hour and 1 change it takes on the train, i can leave work when i like and work diff/better hours. well worth the 90p and im already paying tax/insurance. No brainer in my books.
 
VinceB1 said:
In that case I could be wrong. I am sure it was 62p / litre.. may well have been 72p / litre. Either way it was half price back then :)
Click to expand...

When I started driving it was 40p/litre
Then again, 20 B&H were £1.55

I could fill my bike up and buy 20 tabs for a fiver.
 
Hi

I'm getting 37MPG out of a 97 mile motorway cruise at 70mph. If I drive carefully my car's tank will last 410 miles. The reason I'm suprised is because I read that performance cars achieve more than this! For example, Fox stated he took a 335i on a test drive:
[TW]Fox;19066145 said:
I got almost 40mpg out of a 335i on a gentle Motorway cruise on a test drive..
Click to expand...

Yet my car is a poxy 1.6L 4 cylinder non-performance car. Is my car broken? Or has the leap in technology over the last ten years made a better relationship out of performance and economy?
 
Last edited:
Ricochet J said:
Hi

I'm getting 37MPG out of a 97 mile motorway cruise at 70mph. If I drive carefully my car's tank will last 410 miles. The reason I'm suprised is because I read that performance cars achieve more than this! For example, Fox stated he took a 335i on a test drive:


Yet my car is a poxy 1.6L 4 cylinder non-performance car. Is my car broken? Or has the leap in technology over the last ten years made a better relationship out of performance and economy?
Click to expand...

There is that - BMW in particular have developed some fantastic engines. But also, just because an engine is small doesn't mean it will always return good economy. On the motorway, a small engine may well be less economic than a larger one, as it has to be worked harder to achieve high speeds.

I also used to own a 1.6 Focus. It was a great car, pretty much returned 39MPG all the time. It was adequate for motorway use, but a larger engine will have to do less work and so is often more efficient. That's my understanding anyway.
 
Things have come on but it's also a lot about driving style.

I watch as people do say 75 in the outside lane. Then a car pulls out. They rush up to the bumper of the car in front before braking. Then the car moves out the way. They then nail it back to 75mph.

Then they come onto internet forums and declare people who get good economy from bigger cars are liars, and moan about poor fuel economy.

It's about being smooth and progressive - every time you brake, you will need to use fuel to replace the energy you've just wasted. It's about reading the road ahead, throttling off so that you dont come rushing up behind people and need to brake, not nailing it to get back up to 75mph, etc etc.

It's not very exciting but it is pretty smooth and economical and lets face it, Motorway driving will NEVER be exciting and will ALWAYS be dull so why not make the most of it and make it nice and cheap?
 
I averaged 37MPG up to Lowestoft and back in the 182, that was sat at 80 for much of it.

The thing is, on a motorway cruise, bigger/more powerful engines can be more efficient as they are exerting almost no "effort" to keep you moving. Which is why a Yaris at a constant 80MPH cruise only netted around 34MPG, yet a 2.0 Clio manages 37MPG.

Of course there are other things to consider like engine efficiency, rolling resistance, drive train losses, aerodynamics etc.
 
Last edited:
leap in technology i think, I drive my dads Pug 1.6 HDi,(2006 model) and whenever im in it a reach 55mpg average, and per tank we get 52mpg average (with me and my dad driving). But they are quite efficient engines.
 
198498_10150153819198864_584073863_6503254_6133369_n.jpg


:(
 
[TW]Fox;19077402 said:
Things have come on but it's also a lot about driving style.

I watch as people do say 75 in the outside lane. Then a car pulls out. They rush up to the bumper of the car in front before braking. Then the car moves out the way. They then nail it back to 75mph.

Then they come onto internet forums and declare people who get good economy from bigger cars are liars, and moan about poor fuel economy.

It's about being smooth and progressive - every time you brake, you will need to use fuel to replace the energy you've just wasted. It's about reading the road ahead, throttling off so that you dont come rushing up behind people and need to brake, not nailing it to get back up to 75mph, etc etc.

It's not very exciting but it is pretty smooth and economical and lets face it, Motorway driving will NEVER be exciting and will ALWAYS be dull so why not make the most of it and make it nice and cheap?
Click to expand...

This. Accelerating uses fuel, braking wastes it. Keep that in mind and read the road, and I find I can get away with just having to hover over the brake in most situations, rather than use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom