[Eiki]

Hi everyone  I have before posted a nice fuel economy of my I30 but after today I am so surprised that I must share the latest figure.
My car is 1.6 diesel  115 hp  + chiptuning  it has 53.000 km on the clock and drives better every day.
Today i vent to Germany from Denmark...and home again. Its a flat motorway , I drove 540 km very carfully all day and never exceeded 105 km.h
Fuelconsumtion amazing 2,8 ltr pr. 100 km !
That's equal to  35,7 km pr. ltr. 
A new personal record

[AlanHo]

Your claim equals 101 mpg - which must be an alltime World record for a 1.6 litre diesel car of the weight and size of an i30.....

To get this figure you must have been going slightly downhill all the way with a serious tail wind blowing you along.

I don't want to appear cynical - but I am - I think you need to check how you calculated this figure. If you are quite certain it is correct - then submit the claim to the Guinness Book of World Records and become famous.     

[asathorny]

I don't want to appear rude, nor rain on your parade but  :-     Sorry

[meehalych]

Eiki
If everything is correct - it is amazing.
The minimum petrol consumption I have achieved with my 1.6AT (petrol, 92 grade) is 5.6 l/100km, maintaining 80km/h all the way, with driving either slower or higher than 80 the consumption increases.

[Shambles]

If I'd tried that trip, and recorded those results, I think I'd be back at the dealership having my odometer checked. Unless Danish kilometres have become shorter because of the cold weather

[eye30]

Just to add my 10 pennyworth a litre is not a litre or is it or is it not!

There are different measurements when converting a litre to say USA and imperial pints, see below:

1 liter = 2.11337642 US pints
Or here in the UK,
1 litre = 1.75975326 Imperial pints

Looking at it another way:

1 liquid pint = 0.473 litres
 1 dry pint = 0.550 litres
1 UK pint = 0.568 litres

So I wonder if the litre used in this thread differs?

PS:
same with gallons:

The imperial (UK) gallon defined as 4.54609 Litres
The US liquid gallon defined as 3.785411784 litres

So when comparing UK and USA MPG you have to be aware of the difference.

But a litre is a litre no matter where you are.

[AlanHo]

Just to add my 10 pennyworth a litre is not a litre or is it or is it not!

There are different measurements when converting a litre to say USA and imperial pints, see below:

1 liter = 2.11337642 US pints
Or here in the UK,
1 litre = 1.75975326 Imperial pints

Looking at it another way:

1 liquid pint = 0.473 litres
 1 dry pint = 0.550 litres
1 UK pint = 0.568 litres

So I wonder if the litre used in this thread differs?

PS:
same with gallons:

The imperial (UK) gallon defined as 4.54609 Litres
The US liquid gallon defined as 3.785411784 litres

So when comparing UK and USA MPG you have to be aware of the difference.

THis should clarify matters........

One litre of water has a mass of almost exactly one kilogram when measured at its maximal density, which occurs at about 4 °C. Similarly: 1 millilitre of water has a mass of about 1 g; 1,000 litres of water has about 1000 kg of mass. This relationship holds because the gram was originally defined as the mass of 1 mL of water; however, this definition was abandoned in 1799 because the density of water changes with temperature and, very slightly, with pressure.
 
As you probably know - the density also depends on the isotopic ratios of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in a particular water sample (no - not THAT kind of water sample). Modern measurements of Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water, which is pure distilled water with an isotopic composition representative of the average of the world’s oceans, show it has a density of 0.999975 ±0.000001 kg/L at its point of maximum density (3.984 °C) under one standard atmosphere (760 torr) of pressure.

My method of measuring a litre is to fill two half litre drinking glasses with a good wine - then drink it to avoid it going to waste.................

[rustynutz]

My method of measuring a litre is to fill two half litre drinking glasses with a good wine - then drink it to avoid it going to waste.................

It goes to waste next morning......

Anyhow, getting back to the post by Eiki.....

Was this economy calculated by topping the tank or was it just what the trip computer came up with? 
If it was the trip computer, I suspect the "chiptuning" may have had something to do with it....

If it was the trip computer, I suspect the "chiptuning" may have had something to do with it....

That's a good thought but probably incorrect. Mine is "chiptuned" and the economy stayed pretty much as before (by the trip computer). I found this just as expected, because my driving did not alter either.

However, anything under "3" would be exceptional no matter how it was done. So if that's what was achieved then: well done!

If you have cocked up then equally well done... you had us all scattering anyway...

[Eiki]

Hi all. Yes those figures seem unlikely, and I cant guaranty how accurate they are because I have not filled the tank again. But I have now been using the chip for the last ca. 15000 km and the car drives further pr. liter all the time 
3.0 to 3,4 liter pr.100 km is quite normal and the on-board computer is quite accurate with that  +/-   1 liter on the tank.
This summer  I drove about 2000 km with a caravan ( mobilhome trailer ) (Adria altea that weight about 1000 kg ) and the car  used 5,4 ltr pr 100 km.
There is another person here in Denmark that holds the official record of 3.0 ltr pr. 100 km without tuning,
I will now contact my dealer to learn if there will be a new competition soon.
Then I'm in. 

Hi Eiki, i believe your numbers.
Tho i must say you definitively needed to fill it up after that trip to be sure!

My exp, open road 80-90kph gave me back ~4.2l in real and 3.9l onboard, and mine engine is somewhat obsolete compared to 1.6l crdi.

Good chip tuning, plastic over inflated tires, no wind, steady 100kph in 6-speed, ofc possible! And in the end 2,8l is TC result, add 0,5l even if you wish and thats awesome result for 1350kg+ car!!

 

[Phil №❶]

Eiki

These figures are so interesting. Would you consider doing a trip specifically to prove your claim, that is.

- Fill the tank, including topping off till you can see the fuel sitting in the pipe to the top of your filler tube.
- Reset your trip meter to 0.00
- Drive the car as you did for 2.8
- Drive a known distance, & compare with what the trip computer reports.
- Return to the same station & fill to the top of the filler tube again.
- Calculate your fuel consumption.
- Post all your figures here for others to verify, not that we don't believe you but to make sure there isn't an honest mistake in your calculations.

We are all genuinely interested in your.

PS If you get those figures again, please send me your car, I want it! .

85756 did you notice he has chip tuned car?
Thats the part you are missing if im not mistaken
And i believe german diesel is pure and good compared to for example my country. Worst soup you can get

[2i30s]

hey rusty,don't you get around the 3Lt's per 100km mark? 

[neoto]

If the car has been tuned, I simply can't believe the TC's displayed consumption. And you can't get accurate result by refilling after a 540 km trip. If you believe your numbers, plan a 2000 km route...

[rustynutz]

hey rusty,don't you get around the 3Lt's per 100km mark? 

From memory I may have got into the high three's, but I think that was cruising along a suburban freeway not long after I'd refueled and reset the trip computer... 

[Phil №❶]

xamaxy

No i didn't miss the fact that the car has been chip tuned. That's why I'd like to have the results verified. If the results are proven, my next question will be what kind of chip tune is installed. they are quite expensive to buy (real ones that is), not the trash on ebay which has already been discussed here.

neoto

I wouldn't presume to ask anyone to verify over 2k kms, however I would be interested in the figures obtained through normal usage over that distance. Perhaps a short description each tank to describe the type of driving conditions would be very helpful. 

[rustynutz]

No i didn't miss the fact that the car has been chip tuned. That's why I'd like to have the results verified. If the results are proven, my next question will be what kind of chip tune is installed. they are quite expensive to buy (real ones that is), not the trash on ebay which has already been discussed here.

That has yet to be proven.....

Actually, most tuning chips are quite inexpensive really, ranging from about $110 - $150.....or, if you're really stupid,  you can pay $700 for one on ebay which is currently listed. (and you all reckon the cheapy I posted up on the forum is a scam!!!) 

This is pointless subject
We had once this running around the bush topic

If you add 0,7l measuring fault from Eiki TC due too chip tuning and real result is 3.5l, do you find that very good? good? average? bad?
(i claim that every i30s TC is 99% accurate on open roads without stop and go situations)

My last "proof" 
My last big trip was open road, ~ 290km.  (Neoto, zagreb - osijek)
Average driving speed 50kph through villages, 80kph mostly on open with dozen 100-110kph for overtaking.
Final result was:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/257/zgos1.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/828/zgos2.jpg/

After filling up and math, result was 4,1l.....0,2l difference.
You all know pretty much how your gas indicator behaves, and now you see mine at 286km where is positioned.
-> take into consideration that my car is 2.0 CRDi "old" engine + waaaay more HP than most of you......this is why i believe him since 1.6l CRDi is sci-fi engine for obsolete 2.0 CRDi

Only option left for "proof" is for you to come here and we make a trip, you drive and you fill it up...i only choose destination with excellent food hehe 

[Phil №❶]

I guess I'm interested if chip tuning is all that it claims.
3.5L/100k would be great for me. My best is 6.2 but not on a proper trip.
I would not use tc or fuel gauge as they are not accurate enough.
The only way is to drive a known distance starting with tank full to the top, return & fill to the top again & that is your fuel used, no guesswork this way. 

[neoto]

What do you think about this explanation (is valid only if 'chip' was inserted between fuel pressure sensor and ECU):
All chip tuning (the one mentioned above) solutions increase the fuel pressure. At very light load, the ECU automatically reduces fuel pressure and here the tuning chip can really 'boost' it back up again. So, ECU thinks it feeds 2.8 l/100 km into the engine, however due to higher fuel pressure engine receives way over 3 l/100km.

I would reckon that the 3.5-4.0 l/100 may be a realistic figure for the minimum fuel consumption in our diesels (with start and finish in the same geographical position).
I once came below 4.0 l/100 while cruising at 110 kph at the highway for 10 km, but was going very slightly downhill. On my way to work (65 km of highway, climbing over 300m hill), I could achieve 4.5 l/100 over an entire tank, but in reality DPF regeneration increases that to 4.7 l/100.

[Phil №❶]

neoto

I don't know anything about chip tuning but your 2.8 theory sounds logical. That's why the car's gauges should be ignored until their accuracy is proven by using the consumed fuel method as mentioned above. If the gauges are not being fooled by chip tuning, then they should come up with the same result.

[beerman]

It all depends on the fill, I brim my tank, and would be surprised if the needle had moved much from f at 285.

[Phil №❶]

So even at 285, you fill to the brim at the same station & pump, do your calculations and there you go. Disregard the gauge. 

Neoto, thats exactly what im talking about.
Pointless discussions.

I said 1000 times and no one believes. Without the chip i couldnt do under 5.2l average on open road NO WAY.  With chip i do 4.2l the same road, the same conditions etc.  Simple and clear.

But nevermind i'll just stop wasting time, i'll go back to the "Hypermilers" club with my lies and pretending to do "3000km" on one tank like Instroe nicely put it.

Cheers

[Phil №❶]

xamaxy

I'd check the one on your shoulder pal . 

Meaning?

[Dazzler]

Now, now folks .. lets agree to disagree...

I think the suggestion to do a fill to the brim exercise after a good length drive and then post the calculation on here for all to see is a good way to put this baby to bed..

Thx for clarification Dazz.

What you suggested i did on Reply #19...

Thx for that comment 847563...