drive gently, you\'ll get higher mileage. to-date I get about 8.2-8.4L/100km, about 50/50 highway/city. I shift at 3k-3.5k but don\'t floor the gas pedal.
Printable View
drive gently, you\'ll get higher mileage. to-date I get about 8.2-8.4L/100km, about 50/50 highway/city. I shift at 3k-3.5k but don\'t floor the gas pedal.
WTOM mentioned his milage improved \"with the intake on\" , not sure what that means?
Also what is \"CAI\" ? Had the car only 2 weeks and on the first fill up I got 31MPG 70% highway 30% city. GT, Auto
Thanks
CAI - cold air intake, a modification to the stock sustem that allows for the engine to breathe in (intake) cooler air, thus more air in the chamber (cold air has a lower density so you can cram more in) thus more explosions and more power.Quote:
Originally posted by nifty6
WTOM mentioned his milage improved \"with the intake on\" , not sure what that means?
Also what is \"CAI\" ? Had the car only 2 weeks and on the first fill up I got 31MPG 70% highway 30% city. GT, Auto
Thanks
our car runs rich as it is, the \'intake\' (CAI) help sto lean out the A/F (air-fuel ratio) and allow for better mileage in theory, but with more power more ppl WOT (wide open throttle) it and use more gas. :)
i\'m sure you can use the search to get more answers..
EDIT: pls specify mileage in L/100km next time since there are two types of gallons. Also, 2.0L or 2.3L - it\'ll make a difference
With a full tank I can go about 450km. But I think if I use 94 I can get more km\'s.
what does that mean? does tehlight go on at 450? do you empty your tank and then fill 55L and you make 450? it\'s useless to state w/o more detail.. btw 94 octane will not improve your mileage and most likely deteriorate it (search up on it in the forum). there\'s no need for 94.. just use regular and the car will be happy as well as your pocket.Quote:
Originally posted by cookie
With a full tank I can go about 450km. But I think if I use 94 I can get more km\'s.
Only 450 to a FULL TANK? http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/eek.gifQuote:
Originally posted by cookie
With a full tank I can go about 450km. But I think if I use 94 I can get more km\'s.
Thats insane. You must be beating the snot out of your car bcause I usually hit between 280-300 at HALF TANK
i got 330km on my last tank (it was driven for about 20km afer the light came on) and its a 2.0 ....but im not exhaggerating...that gas pedal is on the floor non-stop :) ...plus just like a dub its a 2.Slow so pretty much that thing gets all the horsies beaten out of it all the time, also i have to keep those rpm\'s up lol
lol im a traffic warrior
ive switched from esso to sunoco on this tank right now....even tho its driven aggressively all the time it shouldnt guzzle that much...
Relax man, no need to pick on the newbies on TM3. If I remember correctly, you didn\'t use the search feature too often either at first. Everyone has their own way of treating their car and different things work for certain people, I really don\'t think you should be discrediting cookie. Maybe you should ask her what engine oil her car uses? She uses synthetic oil (Castrol) and a lot of people have reported better fuel milege with synthetic oil.Quote:
Originally posted by majic
what does that mean? does tehlight go on at 450? do you empty your tank and then fill 55L and you make 450? it\'s useless to state w/o more detail.. btw 94 octane will not improve your mileage and most likely deteriorate it (search up on it in the forum). there\'s no need for 94.. just use regular and the car will be happy as well as your pocket.Quote:
Originally posted by cookie
With a full tank I can go about 450km. But I think if I use 94 I can get more km\'s.
Something to think about next time before you shoot down someone\'s claim.
Another good example of my argument. How the fudge can I only be getting 250km max at halfway point on the fuel gauge?!?!? We both drive similar cars (5MT, not aggressive)... this really bothers me.Quote:
Originally posted by MAZDA Kitten
Only 450 to a FULL TANK? http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/eek.gif
Thats insane. You must be beating the snot out of your car bcause I usually hit between 280-300 at HALF TANK
majic, when someone says they can go 450km on a full tank, that most likely means 450km up to the fuel light coming on. No one in their right mind that I know of would \"empty your tank and then fill 55L and you make 450.\"
i did not discredit cookie - not once i said.. \"that\'s IMPOSSIBLE\"Quote:
Originally posted by RedRaptor
Relax man, no need to pick on the newbies on TM3. If I remember correctly, you didn\'t use the search feature too often either at first. Everyone has their own way of treating their car and different things work for certain people, I really don\'t think you should be discrediting cookie. Maybe you should ask her what engine oil her car uses? She uses synthetic oil (Castrol) and a lot of people have reported better fuel milege with synthetic oil.
Something to think about next time before you shoot down someone\'s claim.
that\'s why i asked questions to get more information to properly compare one\'s mileage. so for those who strive for best fuel economy might want to know what the other members use, and in no way i was \'shooting down\' her claim.. just asking for more clarification and saying that 94 octane won\'t do her any good as other members on other forums have suggested/tried. as always YMMV..
on my current tank i got 280-290 at the 1/2 point. by no means that was HARD driving but here and there it was spirited, but mainly highway cruising 100-120kphQuote:
Originally posted by wtom
Another good example of my argument. How the fudge can I only be getting 250km max at halfway point on the fuel gauge?!?!? We both drive similar cars (5MT, not aggressive)... this really bothers me.
majic, when someone says they can go 450km on a full tank, that most likely means 450km up to the fuel light coming on. No one in their right mind that I know of would \"empty your tank and then fill 55L and you make 450.\"
you\'re right, nobody would empty their tank (and maybe i used teh wrong words in my previous post) but some ppl do say their car\'s \'range\' is say 500, that\'s after calculating fuel used and fuel remaining and _IF_ they used all the fuel they could go THAT far.
EDIT: splleing
GT. AUTO, GFX. first tank 31MPG
second tank 29MPG hope it gets better, not aggressive...yet
50% highway, 50% city.
Ron
ok here are my latest numbers:
auto, 2.0L, 90% city, 10% hwy
21.302L for 239.7KM ~ 8.8L/100km
First time to the light on my GS....I got 600km, so I\'m guessing close to 700km for a full tank...I put in 46L so that\'s about 7.7L/100km or 29.6mpg for the older folk...
I\'m happy!!!
Rich
PS the car has almost 30000km\'s...
Filled up again today, here are the latest #s:
2.0L auto 50% hwy
31.484L, 388.2km => 8.11L/100KM
Not sure about your calculation but 7.7L/100km is 36.69 mpg imperial or 30.55 U.S gallons not 29.6mpg..should make you really happyQuote:
Originally posted by rbart4506
First time to the light on my GS....I got 600km, so I\'m guessing close to 700km for a full tank...I put in 46L so that\'s about 7.7L/100km or 29.6mpg for the older folk...
I\'m happy!!!
Rich
PS the car has almost 30000km\'s...
You sir are correct *laugh*...Quote:
Originally posted by nifty6
Not sure about your calculation but 7.7L/100km is 36.69 mpg imperial or 30.55 U.S gallons not 29.6mpg..should make you really happyQuote:
Originally posted by rbart4506
First time to the light on my GS....I got 600km, so I\'m guessing close to 700km for a full tank...I put in 46L so that\'s about 7.7L/100km or 29.6mpg for the older folk...
I\'m happy!!!
Rich
PS the car has almost 30000km\'s...
I had been doing a rough conversion from kilometres to miles (a factor of 0.6) not the actual conversion. Once I added the actual conversion factor into my spreadsheet it worked out. That means that I\'m averaging close to 32mpg over the life of the car....
I love my 2.0L...And I don\'t baby the thing, but I don\'t drive the piss out of it either...What\'s the point, straight line speed ain\'t fun...In this car it\'s the curvy roads that make me smile...
Rich
With a full tank I normally get around 520 to 570 km which is what I\'d expect.
Btw,
mine is 2.3 engine.
I could be wrong but it seems to me is that the most complains are coming from 2.0 engine owners.
Nope...Not as far as I have seen...It\'s the 2.3L guys that are having the probs...The 2.0L people are pretty consistent at the 7.7L/100km or 30mpg mark...That is unless of course they are constitantly hammering their cars, but I have yet to hear of any really crappy mileage coming from a 2.0L...Now the 2.3L is a different story...Quote:
Originally posted by torpedo20
With a full tank I normally get around 520 to 570 km which is what I\'d expect.
Btw,
mine is 2.3 engine.
I could be wrong but it seems to me is that the most complains are coming from 2.0 engine owners.
Rich
2.3 here and finally TRIED to baby the car (read \"grandma/pa driving styles\") since last fill up. I reached halfway point with about 250kms. Couldn\'t stand it for the last bit though and went back to my normal lead foot driving. :D
Normal driving from fill up I\'d get about 200kms to 220kms.
EDIT: Night of Apr 30 - Looks like I have a serious problem of Lead Foot Syndrome;
Latest fuel economy numbers (with AEM CAI and Draxas cat-back with high-flo cat);
L/100km [MPG]
9.59 [24.54]
10.15 [23.17]
10.00 [23.52]
10.15 [23.17]
10.77 [21.84]
8.84 [26.62] <-- babied for first half of tank, then back to my \"normal driving\" but also did some highway for about quarter of the remaining tank
Quote:
Originally posted by wtom
2.3 here and finally TRIED to baby the car (read \"grandma/pa driving styles\") since last fill up. I reached halfway point with about 250kms. Couldn\'t stand it for the last bit though and went back to my normal lead foot driving. :D
Normal driving from fill up I\'d get about 200kms to 220kms.
EDIT: Night of Apr 30 - Looks like I have a serious problem of Lead Foot Syndrome;
Latest fuel economy numbers (with AEM CAI and Draxas cat-back with high-flo cat);
L/100km [MPG]
9.59 [24.54]
10.15 [23.17]
10.00 [23.52]
10.15 [23.17]
10.77 [21.84]
8.84 [26.62] <-- babied for first half of tank, then back to my \"normal driving\" but also did some highway for about quarter of the remaining tank
Wow you do have a lead foot, After four fill ups I am averaging 30MPG with the 2.3 AT.
You must rev it up close to the red line every chance you get.
Actually I don\'t. With the exhaust system, the cops will be on me like mountain lions. What I do is accelerate hard off the light. Not hard as in race but just harder than needed (ie. car behind me slowly gets smaller and smaller). I don\'t encourage this, of course. :pQuote:
Originally posted by nifty6
Wow you do have a lead foot, After four fill ups I am averaging 30MPG with the 2.3 AT.
You must rev it up close to the red line every chance you get.
For the GT 5-speed, it is rated at 25/32 mpg. For the GT w/automatic, it is rated at 24/29 mpg. It is clear that the automatic shift is not good enough for highway use. A rating like 24/31 mpg is more reasonable. I don\'t know if there something wrong with the tuning of the engine.
Latest fillup on my GS sedan....A bit more highway driving this time...
552km\'s got me to just above the 1/4 tank left...put in 38.5L so that works out to about 7L/100km or 33.7mpg...
I really think that if I did a long highway trip that I could squeeze about 800km\'s from the tank conisdering I probably had a good 150km\'s left in this tank...
Rich
Another fillup, on a GS auto, 10% hwy driving
446.5km in 35.697L => 7.99km/100L
Just be happy your gas gauge WORKS....
I\'m still driving my 91 protege, I just had to replace the gas tank.
The meter is STUCK on 1/2 a tank, my mechanic is busy for now, I think I\'m giving him the car on friday.
I should be getting the three SOON (i mean order it).
my guardian loves the matrix, I think its a total rip... but thats anyother story.
I think I avg 500KM/40Ls. Thats on a 1.5L engine with 200,000KM. and I shift at 2500 rpm though. The car is actually kind of weird, I can stay at 2500RPM until I hit 70km/h where it then drops to below 2000. its like the car has a CVT.