Fuel Consumption

[Guest rizla]

beleive me il soon catch up in the consumption stakes

[Guest Russler]

oh i believe you, thats why we are all using whats left of fuel supplies now in this decade

[Guest alan rowe]

Lunatic caught doing 150 mph on M4

 

 

!!!!! I can't afford to get right down to the M4 - it's probably 3 fill ups each way and to do any sort of speed would mean I wouldn't reach the next service station as they are too far apart

 

A

[Guest alan rowe]

Jim - I've finally got the consumption figures sorted as promised and used the day out at Barkston Heath to get the two extreme figures

 

-- cruising up there and keeping well inside the various speed limits I got an incredable 34.6 mpg

-- blasting around the circuit I ended up with 9.1 mpg and with my small tank that means going to the filling station very often

 

Alan

[Big Jim]

That cruising figure would be expected Alan, with all that low down torque, you don't need to touch the accelerator when cruising. "Playing" doesn't come into it.

[Guest alan rowe]

trouble is that I do more playing than cruising and am for ever looking for the next Shell garage

 

A

[Guest FIRSTBUILD]

I used to have a 1760 crossflow Burton stage 2 head cam etc with webbers- the result was 12 mpg if you whipped it 15 mpg if you went steady !!

I really beleive that you need everything sorted before you think about webbers , you need to be lightned balanced polished etc etc then you get the full benifit. I eventually put a twin choke downdraught on the car and put the mpg up to 20ish mpg and hardly noticed the loss of performance but I really missed the sound !!

These days I keep asking myself how do tin top manufactures get 50 + mpg from a car that will do120 mph ??? they all seem to do it now ?

 

Steve

[Peter Bell]

These days I keep asking myself how do tin top manufactures get 50 + mpg from a car that will do120 mph ??? they all seem to do it now ?

 

It is because the engine wasn't designed 40 years ago!

Peter.

[Guest Peejay]

These days I keep asking myself how do tin top manufactures get 50 + mpg from a car that will do120 mph ??? they all seem to do it now ?

 

Also the aerodynamics. Hoods are very poor, Drag coefficient of about 0.7 most tin tops are les than 0.3

 

Pete

[Guest Dredd]

I estimate my non turbo SuperSpec is averaging 27mpg.

[Guest chris brown]

I estimate my non turbo SuperSpec is averaging 27mph.

I bet it doesn’t 12 months down line its not that the engine performance or economy have changed its just that the longer you drive a hood the heaver your right foot gets

[Guest timswait]

Also the aerodynamics. Hoods are very poor, Drag coefficient of about 0.7 most tin tops are les than 0.3

Yes that's true, but it's not quite that bad, since the frontal cross sectional area of a hood is lower than a tin top.

Also a tin top won't do 50mpg when it's doing 120mph!

I was reading an article in my local motorsports club newsletter about an ecomony run which had been organised (petrol tank sealed at the start, cars driven around predefined course, petrol used measured). The results were quite interesting. The winner was a 1.8 Toyota Avensis petrol, a close second was a Focus TDi diesel, both with just over 60mpg. It goes to show that modern diesels may be getting smoother and more powerful, but perhaps it's coming at the expense of economy. Also with a very good result (I think it was around 50mpg) was a 60s Lotus Elite. That's got an ancient engine, but it's aerodynamics are excellent, low Cd and low cross section and is also light weight. There was also a Caterham Superlight, 1.6. I think this did about 40 mpg, and there was a Bugati Type 35 which barely got into double figures.

[Guest alan rowe]

how do you measure the petrol used !!!!!!!!!!

[Guest chris brown]

how do you measure the petrol used !!!!!!!!!!

ALAN stop being childish and immature. Just because only get 9 mpg

[Guest rizla]

but he does have the best music