Green cars in the real world....

[107oc]

Welcome to the 107oc. Please either login or join the community.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

[realist]

http://www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/15534/

[jrl]

According to theses tests, 4car rapidly tends to prove that the official measurement methods used to test consumption are not relevant because some other tests are revealing a significant gap.

If I understand well, the "new" tests should take into account all the factors that make the consumption higher than it should be.

Well, I just don't agree.

These additionnal factors are most human, and a traffic jam should NOT be one of these factors. It would be like accepting that a typical dysfonctionnal behaviour should be referenced ... It's the most stupid thing I ever read. I would be rationalizing things that are wrong when you drive.

I would certainly make the average driver feel better about his gauge, because it would have this guilty feeling that he just burns to much fuel !

I say that the recent evolutions of officlal measures are very well calibrated, and it's always possible to get close to them ... It just takes some learning, adaptation and common sense.

Since 1993, I drove more than 6 cars, only one diesel. If I make a review of my consumptions, I can tell that if my first tanks of petrol were burn a bit too quickly, either because I was not conscious about the need to be calm for instance, either because of some technical problem, my consumption had rapidly stabilized between the suburban cycle figures and the city cycle figures.

Today, I drive a 107 urban lite, and my overall consumption is 60 mpg ... and most of the time, I do more than 64 mpg ! The combined cycle for the 107 is 61.4 mpg ...

... The price of that is a very disciplined driving, choosing the moments where the traffic is lighter, etc ...

The other argument for the existing methods of testing consumption, is that they are reproductible. it means that it's at least reliable to make your own idea of what your are going to make...

For me the combined cycle figures are a very precise target. Even with my Mercedes 190E 2.6l automatic, the combined cycle is worth 31 mpg and it is almost exactly the average figures I could make.

Is that smarter to :

a) keep the existing system : so that it remains meaningul for everyone even if it is a relative approach. (if my mpg is 40% under the combined cycle figures : it's more likely that you should make always the same percentage when replacing your car, assuming that you will drive it the same way)
b) modify our way to drive in order to make these "optimistic" figures a goal to achieve ! We can't expect EVERY one to be able to reach the combined cycle figures, because some factors are totally external : but working harder on the factors we master is a very good start, I think.

Every day, I see a too large proportion of people driving a way they just can't begin to hope their consumption could be normal !

Instead of competing to make the best timing from 0 to 62mph I suggest we begin to compete to make the best mpg !!

Doing this, I know at least 10 members of the Forum Peugeot that have increased their mpg by 5 mpg at least !

As a conclusion : the best way to have an better idea of what to expect, would be to store in a database every figures people get by categorizing it according to their conditions of traffic and their driving ... So that people looking for figures would have to select the most approaching criteria and find out what other people like him could make with the same car.

Sorry for the length ... but this article kind of pissed me off !

[Jordysportracing]

    nice essay lol

[jrl]

  nice essay lol

Thanks ... you just made me realize my message was a bit long !!! sorry !

[turbolag]

It's all crap.  A Land Rover Disco with 5 occupants creates less CO2 per passenger than the new Shart car with 2 occupants.  You can view the argument from about any angle, but everyone fogets that road transport falls far behind home CO2 and aircraft CO2 emissions, and the biggest single 'artificial' producer of greenhouse gas on the planet is cattle farts.  Concentrate on the serious polluters before worrying about fuel consumption figures - i've not owned a car yet where i didn't exceed, sometimes significantly, the manufacturers quoted consumption.  Simple fact is the average driver is shockingly bad in terms of safety, vehicle control, velocity management and (accordingly), fuel consumption.

[qed]

Simple fact is the average driver is shockingly bad in terms of safety, vehicle control, velocity management and (accordingly), fuel consumption.

True


Heres an idea...make the slow lane a tax free zone. Knobends who drive the whole journey in the  middle lane pay £500 per year.


Only flaw in this argument is the middle laners are probably more fuel efficient at 56.2233333333mph for there whole journey

[jrl]

It's all crap.  A Land Rover Disco with 5 occupants creates less CO2 per passenger than the new Shart car with 2 occupants.  You can view the argument from about any angle, but everyone fogets that road transport falls far behind home CO2 and aircraft CO2 emissions, and the biggest single 'artificial' producer of greenhouse gas on the planet is cattle farts.  Concentrate on the serious polluters before worrying about fuel consumption figures - i've not owned a car yet where i didn't exceed, sometimes significantly, the manufacturers quoted consumption.  Simple fact is the average driver is shockingly bad in terms of safety, vehicle control, velocity management and (accordingly), fuel consumption.

I was arguing about the fact that this article was simply saying "We are all average bad drivers : let's change the tests so that we feel better about the consumption figures the manufacturer gives.
It's not because there are other CO2 emission sources that you don't have to worry about decreasing the ones associated with you car !
Any saving is off the overall sum.

Plus, we don't even discuss really the fact that we have to save energy, but the way a manufacturer informs you about the specifications of you car ! It's interestening to have a idea about the less fuel your car needs ... it's all wrong to raise artificially theses figures just to match the bunch of problems that combine bad drivers, excessively dense traffic, etc ...

And allow me to rule out the cattle CO2 emissions : this CO2 is not made from oil or gas ... It's juste a huge amount of CO2 that is a natural part of the CO2 cycle : this one doesn't make the greenhouse effect worse. It's has been more than a century that we have been digging deeply buried Carbon to put it back in our atmosphere : we are changing the balance ... don't blame the cows !!

[turbolag]

Yes, the average driver is pretty dire.  Thats a fair conclusion.

[jrl]

I am about to create a driving school ... to help people drive better ... I am totally persuaded that the simple fact of being conscious of what takes place under the hood is worth 5% off the average consumption !

[turbolag]

To be fair, the governments own advice on economical driving is so over-simplified in order to make it digestible, that it's useless.  They place too much emphasis on engine revs and economy, when engine load is actually the key factor.  To use the 107 as a handy example, the 107 at 30 mph may indeed be turning higher revs in 3rd gear than it would in 4th, but is running on a smaller throttle opening in 3rd and sipping less juice as a consequence.

[jrl]

To be fair, the governments own advice on economical driving is so over-simplified in order to make it digestible, that it's useless.  They place too much emphasis on engine revs and economy, when engine load is actually the key factor.  To use the 107 as a handy example, the 107 at 30 mph may indeed be turning higher revs in 3rd gear than it would in 4th, but is running on a smaller throttle opening in 3rd and sipping less juice as a consequence.

I couldn't agree more. On the Forum Peugeot, I spend much time explaining exactly this ... the engine load is the key factor ... Every sees that the engine is faster, but no one realizes that it does it far less time to get to the same speed. I keep saying that the key to a lower consumption, is to limit the time you drain power from the engine, not to limit the revs !

The other main point of the method I try to teach ... at least share ... is the need to anticipate any change of speed. The inerty is you best friend, the change of inerty is your enemy.
If you know you are soon going to slow down, try not to speed up just before that ... To sum up this idea, is to try not to use the breaks as many times it's possible.

As a result (already wrotten about is this forum) I know at least 10 members who have increased they mpg by a factor greater than 10%, some of them, almost 25% !