i30 Owners Club
GENERAL STUFF => TEST DRIVES & TESTIMONIALS => Topic started by: d3matt on May 04, 2012, 20:59:27
-
I picked up my new i30 today - a Style 1 .6 CRDi 128PS Blue Drive.
I've only driven it for a single trip - 1.25 hours, straight down the M40, so not had much time to try it on different roads or play with it much.
Overall, I am pleased with it, but there's some gripes that immediately were apparent when compared to my 2010 Ceed 3 SW:
Being a Style, it is loaded with kit. However, there's a few things this doesn't have which my Ceed 3 did - lumbar supports on front seats, rear cup holders, rear air vents, rear arm rest, lack of cubby holes with lids. The rear passengers get nothing in the i30 - lack of cup holders will be missed. :mad:
In the Ceed, there are 3 extra storage areas which were very handy for things like credit cards. The only one in the i30 that has a lid is the centre box, which is massive. This is great, but on the Ceed the lid also had a storage area which was ideal for storing pens etc. Overall, while the i30 does have storage, it's far less useful than the Ceed.
The parking sensors (front and back) are poor. Goes from nothing to solid beeping and next to useless.
The steering wheel buttons are awkwardly placed compared to the Ceed and not so easy to use with one finger. Kia use rocker levers for volume and cruise which is much better than buttons too.
The centre console isn't angled towards the driver, so the stereo screen and operation seems a little more awkward than I'm used too. Also having the stereo buttons above the screen to operate the menus is useless as when you're turning the knob to navigate through the menus, you can't see the screen as your hand/arm is in the way! Makes is very awkward to change any sound settings while on the move.
The instant MPG display is useless too. In the Ceed it told you the exact figure.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm moaning too much. I'll post again at the end of the weekend, after I've used the car a bit more and I'm sure I'll be smiling more by then.
On the plus side, the stop/start made me smile - it starts very quickly. It's also very much quieter at low speeds and while quieter at motorway speeds, it still is a little noisy - I was expecting it to be a little better.
The ride/suspension is fantastic. It really does dull out the bumps on rough roads (we live at the end of a 2 mile dead end lane).
Overall, I suppose my expectations were a little too high. If I'd come from a Focus or Astra, then maybe I'd be more impressed. But the Ceed in the '3' spec felt more "special" when I first got it.
-
I was also surprised to see it didn't have a "Blue Drive" badge on it or anything to indicate it was the 'eco' model.
-
I found your initial review most interesting compared with my first impressions with my new 2012 i30 which is the same model as yours. I hope you enjoy the car as much as I have. Because of your good experience with your Ceed, I am surprised that you chose the new i30 rather than wait a couple of months for the new 2012 Ceed - though I am sure you had your reasons.
I entirely agree with you about the front parking sensors - it is a misnomer to call them that because they are not on the front of the car....Why not do as I have and write to Hyundai UK and complain. The more of us that do this - the better the chance of getting a resolution. Have you read through my review of the new car which includes my saga with the front parking sensor problem. See https://www.i30ownersclub.com/forum/index.php?topic=14198.0 (https://www.i30ownersclub.com/forum/index.php?topic=14198.0)
On my car the rear parking sensors are OK - they pick up a hazard at about 110 cms both on the display and by the intermittent beep which increases in frequency as you get closer. However, I will admit that the sensors on my previous i30 were more sensitive and discriminating.
Before I bought my 2010 i30 crdi I had a couple of test drives in the Equivalent Ceed. It was a close call between the cars but I chose the i30 because on balance it suited me better, it had a more compliant suspension, was not as noisy and the seats were far more comfortable. My wife (as passenger) enjoys fiddling with the radio and she found it less convenient in the Ceed because it was angled away from her. The clincher was that I was not impressed with my local KIA dealer and had concerns about ongoing customer service.
I dont find the radio in my new car a problem - because I have pre-tuned all the radio settings. If my wife is with me - she does the radio fiddling. If I am alone I mainly use the steering wheel controls.
My 2012 i30 is a huge step forward in refinement and overall finish compared with my previous i30. However - the much higher gearing in the new model means that it feels less lively and I find myself using the gears more and changing up at higher revs to get the best acceleration. Early indications are that it is much more frugal though.
We often have our grand kids in the back of the car. We find that it is much safer to give the kids bottled drinks rather than cups - and the bottle holders in the large rear door pockets work fine. Hence we have not missed the lack of cup holders.
I had owned 4 Audi cars before I bought my first i30 and for the first week or so with the i30 I kept noticing things that were missing or not as good as on my Audi cars - much like you have done. However - I soon started to notice all the good things about the car and concluded that for a car that cost £4,500 less than my previous Audi A3 I was getting incredible value for money.
It's a good job we don't all have identical tastes - what I find acceptable may not suit others and vice versa. I suppose that if we were all of the same mind cars would all be identical - how boring.
However - I repeat - I find your initial observations most interesting and look forward to your views in a week or two.... :goodjob:
-
Actually, you've just reminded me how sluggish I found it too. My Ceed is 113bhp whereas the new i30 is 126bhp. I'm so glad I didn't get the lower powered model! I know the engine is new and I've only done about 70 miles in it today, but even so, I was expecting it to be a little more lively. I suspect it will improve though. Our Kia Soul and Ceed (both have the same 1.6CDRi) did improve as the mileage knocked up and so did the economy. They got better after about 7,000 miles. I'll do that in about 2.5 months.
If the new Ceed was available now, I would have got that. Not for looks though, as I think the i30 has the edge this time (it didn't on the previous two models), but the interior of the new Ceed looks better and will have more kit for the money. But the Ceed is another month away 'til launch and in reality it would be nearer 3 months until I could have one, so the i30 won. Maybe next time, in 35 months time, I'll get the Ceed. But then I expect it will be an electric vehicle by then or something alone the lines of what the Volt/Ampera is doing.
I'm off to bed now to study this massive i30 owners guide, to see why my bluetooth music wasn't streaming from my phone and learn the voice activation commands. Now that's something my Ceed didn't have. I haven't had that since I owned my Land Rover Discovery 3 in 2006.
-
Matt,your car wont go like a cut cat when its brand new because everything is still tight,and you shouldn't be trying to make it go like a cut cat. :idea: :winker: give it a few thousand kms too free up,the power will improve and also the fuel economy will improve. :razz:
-
I agree that a new car will improve with miles - but the gearing and engine mapping will not alter.
My 2010/11 i30 CRDi would pull quite easily from about 1100 rpm and seemed to pull most strongly between 1500 and 2500 rpm. I used to change up a gear at roughly 2000 rpm
The new car is sluggish - in fact very sluggish below 1500 rpm and pulls most strongly between 1750 rpm and 3000 rpm. It revs freely in this range and feels more like a petrol car. Hence I find myself having to use the gearbox more and spend more time in the lower gears.
In my previous car on an urban 30 mph (48 kph) road I would cruise in 4th gear at about 1400 rpm - or in 5th gear at 1200 rpm. When the speed limit ended the car would accelerate easily without the need to change down.
In the new car 30 mph (48 kph) in 4th gear equals 1200 rpm and 5th gear 1000 rpm - it will just about cruise in 4th gear but doesnt seem to like it. 5th gear at that speed is impossible. When in 4th gear, to accelerate you have to drop down into 3rd gear so around town I now tend to cruise in 3rd gear at 1700 rpm.
I suppose that given time I will get used to it - but at present I yearn for the gearing and engine mapping of the previous car - albeit at the cost of reduced economy. The new car is about 16 HP more powerful than the previous one - but it doesn't show until you use higher revs and lower gears.
Having said that - on a recent trip I was stuck behind a couple of slow cars doing about 30 mph on a 60 mph winding road. There were few opportunities to overtake - but as soon as one came I gunned it in 3rd gear and the acceleration was at least the equal of my previous car - I was still in 3rd gear when I reached 60 mph at about 3500 rpm at which point I was well past the cars and changed into higher gears.
My early impression is that spirited driving in the new car will result in economy figures little better than the previous car - but gentle driving will be far more frugal than I was able to achieve before.
-
My 2010/11 i30 CRDi would pull quite easily from about 1100 rpm <
There's no way I could do that in my 2010 5 speeder....It requires at least 1500rpm, if not more to accelerate without rumbling and grumbling... :undecided:
-
is there much difference in the cars you drove at silverstone compared to your new car Alan?
-
My 2010/11 i30 CRDi would pull quite easily from about 1100 rpm <
There's no way I could do that in my 2010 5 speeder....It requires at least 1500rpm, if not more to accelerate without rumbling and grumbling... :undecided:
Perhaps I should add that whilst my previous car would pull away from 1100 rpm without protesting - acceleration was slow until about 1500 rpm when it kicked in strongly.
In the new car if I try to accelerate from 1100 rpm, no matter how hard I press the throttle it just sits there at the same speed. From 1200 rpm it will accelerate - but under protest.
-
My 2010/11 i30 CRDi would pull quite easily from about 1100 rpm <
There's no way I could do that in my 2010 5 speeder....It requires at least 1500rpm, if not more to accelerate without rumbling and grumbling... :undecided:
Perhaps I should add that whilst my previous car would pull away from 1100 rpm without protesting - acceleration was slow until about 1500 rpm when it kicked in strongly.
In the new car if I try to accelerate from 1100 rpm, no matter how hard I press the throttle it just sits there at the same speed. From 1200 rpm it will accelerate - but jerky and under protest.
but surely that's only because shes new,not because of an extra gear. :Shocked:
-
Maybe using such low revs had something to do with your old car's disappointing fuel economy, Alan? :undecided:
-
Maybe using such low revs had something to do with your old car's disappointing fuel economy, Alan? :undecided:
was his old car a 5 speed box like ours Russ? :confused:
-
is there much difference in the cars you drove at silverstone compared to your new car Alan?
At Silverstone the track and skid pan cars were 1.4 petrol and 1.6 CRDI 110 PS cars.
The road test was in a CRDi 128 PS car similar to the one I bought - but looking back - I probably spent more time concentrating on comfort, bells and whistles and noise levels rather than performance. The route we were given included some fast dual carriageway - but it was very busy with traffic and we were driving in wide spaced convoy with the other visitors so there was only limited scope to test the performance envelope.
The subsequent test drives with the dealership were in the 1.4 petrol and the 1.6 CRDI 110 PS engine. I did notice that this diesel felt sluggish but I put it down to the car being new and of lower power that my previous i30. I expected the higher power car to be more spritely than my old one - but at present it isn't.
I don't want to give the impression that I am not happy with the car - because I am delighted with it. I no longer push my car hard so outright performance is less of an issue than fuel economy and low cabin noise. It is much quieter than my previous car and would appear to be significantly more frugal which should get even better when I pile on the miles.
-
My previous car was a 6 speed manual.
It wasn't my habit to drive the previous car regularly at low revs - but sometimes when the speed limit dropped to 30 mph through a village I would be lazy about changing down for a short distance. This might have had some effect on economy - but it would have been marginal overall.
I only mentioned the low rpm performance to underline the differences in gearing and engine mapping between the cars. The new car is curently sweeter at a higher rev band than the previous one.
-
Reading this thread, and considering a new i30, it has me a bit concerned. :undecided:
I take your point Alan that you are happy with the car, but you would expect an increase in performance when a new model is introduced and to describe it as sluggish worries me a bit.
I don't have the 6 speed old model, I have the 5 speed and I find it's performance to be good for what it is. Very torquey when in the torque band.
I will be watching with interest to see how your car is when it has a few thousand kms on the clock, although as you say, that isn't going to make one iota of difference to the gearing.
-
Maybe using such low revs had something to do with your old car's disappointing fuel economy, Alan? :undecided:
I am wondering about this as well.
In my personal case, my fuel economy has actually improved by trying to keep rpm at around 1900rpm (beginning of the peak torque band) for a whole tank. I wonder if in your attempts to achieve the best fuel economy, whether trying to shift up with as low rpm as possible, and cruising with very low rpm may have done you a disservice.
I have never had the opportunity to put my i30 into a purely highway run, but on my daily work commute which has plenty of stop start as well as a few stretches of motorway, my best tank has been 5.4 L/100km (measured) with an average speed of 38km/hr for that tank.
I'm sure <5.0 would be achievable on a good highway run.
-
Reading this thread, and considering a new i30, it has me a bit concerned. :undecided:
I take your point Alan that you are happy with the car, but you would expect an increase in performance when a new model is introduced and to describe it as sluggish worries me a bit.
I don't have the 6 speed old model, I have the 5 speed and I find it's performance to be good for what it is. Very torquey when in the torque band.
I will be watching with interest to see how your car is when it has a few thousand kms on the clock, although as you say, that isn't going to make one iota of difference to the gearing.
The new car is very torquey when in its torque band - but the torque band appears at much higher revs than the previous car. The previous car was sluggish at below 1250 rpm - the new one below 1500 rpm. The car has only done 800 miles so far - hence the engine is still tight. It will be interesting to see how it feels in a few thousand miles.
According to the brochure figures my new car should accelerate from 0 to 100 kph in 10.9 seconds - the previous car was 11.5 seconds. I just might do a little experiment later and see if I can time it. (Why did I not think of that before). :whistler:
Regarding economy :-
In post #66 https://www.i30ownersclub.com/forum/index.php?topic=14198.60 (https://www.i30ownersclub.com/forum/index.php?topic=14198.60) I detailed the results of driving a set route a couple of times in the new car - one trip driving for economy and the second trip driving at maximum legal speeds. the first trip averaged 64 kph and 4.53 l/100 km, the second trip averaged 71 kph and 5.22 l/100 km.
-
My 2010/11 i30 CRDi would pull quite easily from about 1100 rpm <
There's no way I could do that in my 2010 5 speeder....It requires at least 1500rpm, if not more to accelerate without rumbling and grumbling... :undecided:
Perhaps I should add that whilst my previous car would pull away from 1100 rpm without protesting - acceleration was slow until about 1500 rpm when it kicked in strongly.
In the new car if I try to accelerate from 1100 rpm, no matter how hard I press the throttle it just sits there at the same speed. From 1200 rpm it will accelerate - but jerky and under protest.
but surely that's only because shes new,not because of an extra gear. :Shocked:
Remembering that we are talking diesel here, I think pulling away @ 1200 RPM is a pretty tall ask for a 4 cyl 16.? compression ratio. :exclaim:
-
Been driving the i30 more today and liking it more now.
One thing that is now apparent, is that I've been changing gear too early. I realised I wasn't noticing the gear change indicator much, so I've been driving it a little harder and waiting for the gear change indicator to display before changing up and it now feels a little brisker. However, the gear change indicator is later (i.e. higher revs) than it is on my Ceed. Generally I drive for maximum economy now (because of the price of fuel!) and do take notice of the gear change indicator. The new i30 is quite happy to be driven at much lower revs and if anything I'd say the gear change indicator comes on too late for maximum economy. Still it's early days and the engine has to loosen up yet.
Some things I do really like - the thud of the doors; the lovely gear change (how some reporters can say its "notchy" I don't know); the LED DRLs - (really gets some looks!); the way the indicators in the door mirrors light up a little lens in the end so anyone passing by in your blind spot will see the indicators in the mirror.
-
One thing I'm not impressed with is the bluetooth music streaming. In my Ceed this worked well and was faultless with my Dell Streak (Android) phone. In the new i30, the music will not play by pressing the tune button as indicated on the screen. I have to wake up the phone and go into my music play and kick it off on the phone. Not ideal while driving. And then to make it worse, I can't skip tracks with the button on the steering wheel. All of this worked on the car controls in the Ceed.
So I'll have to resort to putting all my music on USB sticks. No big problem. But I was playing a USB stick today and the song title was coming up in (what I assume) is Korean rather than English :eek:
Yet not all are like this. Another folder/album on the same USB stick displayed properly in English.
-
That Korean? readout is a bit of an odd one. Glad you are finding some more positives though.. Being a Company vehicle you will probably never get as attached as if it were your own I suppose.
Any chance of some photos please? (hosted via photobucket or similar as per welcome thread instructions) :happydance:
-
I also found this connector block loose in the boot of the new car. It was between the carpet and the back seat rest.
Any ideas what this is for or if it should be plugged in somewhere?
-
Any chance of some photos please?
I'll take some tomorrow, but
here's one (https://plus.google.com/photos/109816789596098204778/albums/5739542213920215553)...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WzGO9YPMnMI/T6bzPGWkM-I/AAAAAAAAAYo/mgXKyU2x-NU/w1245-h667-k/DSCN7918.JPG)
-
Thanks Matt (looks great in White) :goodjob: I realise it is just a bigger version of your Avatar but a bit easier to see :goodjob:
-
I also found this connector block loose in the boot of the new car. It was between the carpet and the back seat rest.
Any ideas what this is for or if it should be plugged in somewhere?
I found nothing like that in my new i30.
-
The new i30 is quite happy to be driven at much lower revs and if anything I'd say the gear change indicator comes on too late for maximum economy.
Perhaps instead this might mean that it has indeed been "false economy" to shift too early.
Alan does your car have a shift indicator a well. What revs does it advise you shift to higher gears, eg 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th.
I'd be interested if it was advising so that the higher gear revs end up just at the bottom of the peak torque range.
Is it feasible for you during one of your runs to either follow the shift indicator or else shift such that higher gear ends up at the start of peak torque range and cruise always at whatever gear keeps revs at that value (not necessarily highest gear)
-
Perhaps instead this might mean that it has indeed been "false economy" to shift too early.
Yes that is true if you drive at too low revs. My Ceed has an instant mpg readout (unlike the i30 :rolleyes:) where you can get to compare changing higher/lower or at the time the dash indicates. Too low revs is more thirsty than a low-medium revs.
The new i30 definitely 'recommends' a later gear change than the Ceed did. I'll start driving to the gear change indicator as this should be more accurate than my feeling of when is the most economic.
-
In my previous i30 the instant economy indicator was a numeric value - hence you could see exactly what the fuel consumption was at any time. My experiments with that car proved to me that it was most frugal when cruising at low throttle settings between 1500 to 2000 rpm.
Many a time I have been cruising on a flat road at 45 mph =1500 rpm in 6th gear and changed down to 5th gear = 1800 rpm then 4th gear = 2100 rpm to see fuel consumption increase at each step and stay there.
The new i30 does not have a numeric display of instant fuel economy - instead a stupid bar graph - so it is not possible to do the same experiment.
On the previous car the gear change indicator was quite prominent in the display - not so with the new model where it is quite small and crammed into the instument window between the engine temperature and fuel level displays. I will try to make a record of when it asks you to change gear - but I already know it is not consistent - possibly dependent on throttle opening and other factors the CPU takes into account. I find myself ignoring the display - peering at it in anticipation takes my eyes off the road too much.
Something else I have noticed is that on the previous model the display told you when to change up and when to change down. On the new car I have never seen it suggest when to change down so it seems to work only in one direction which encourages drivers to use low revs when your speed is reducing rather than change down to maintain rpm.
-
According to the brochure figures my new car should accelerate from 0 to 100 kph in 10.9 seconds - the previous car was 11.5 seconds. I just might do a little experiment later and see if I can time it. (Why did I not think of that before). :whistler:
I have just spent an hour on some experiments.
First Test - acceleration.
I wanted to check the 0 to 100 kph time for my car.
I have a sat-nav with speed read-out but it lacks instant response and hence cannot be used when accelerating quickly. The car speedo is fast. So to get an accurate speed reference I first cruised the car at exactly 100 kph on the sat-nav - then stuck some masking tape on the speedo to mark that speed (the speedo was reading about 8% fast).
I tried to use the stopwatch function on my phone to time the test - but it proved to be impossible - even somewhat hazardous. So I switched the phone to voice recorder placed it on the passenger seat and shouted start and stop at the beginning and end of each test. When I got home I played back the recordings and timed them with an internet stopwatch.
I did 5 acceleration tests on a level straight tarmac road. The times were: 11.0 secs, 11.1 secs, 10.9 secs, 11.0 secs and 10.8 secs. Average 10.96 seconds. The Hyundai brochure time for my car is 10.9 seconds so I am amazed that my times were so close - I would like to think it was pure skill - but it was probably a fluke. It is difficult to get an exact time because the car is accelerating so quickly at 100 kph in 3rd gear the speedo neeedle is moving really fast.
When using maximum acceleration and higher revs - the engine noise is quite harsh and very prominent. Part way up the rev band there is additionally a loud hiss like air escaping.
Hence, despite my feeling that the car is not as lively as my previous one - these times prove otherwise.
Second Test - Gear Change Points
The gear change display asks you to change gear between 1800 rpm and 2100 rpm. After several starts fron standstill running up to 70 mph I could not detect a consistent pattern except that on very light throttle the gear change point is lower than when you are using more throttle. This applies to all gears. I also sense that the higher the gear, the lower the gear change point. For example, the need to change to 6th gear tends to be displayed at 1800 rpm fairly consistently whereas changing to 2nd is usually displayed above 2000 rpm.
I can also confirm that there is no indication showing you when to change down - even when in 6th gear and you let the revs fall to 1000 rpm and try and pull away. The car doesn't jerk or rumble - but just refuses to accelerate and the gear change display stays blank.
-
I would like to think it was pure skill - but it was probably a fluke.
I bet it was skill :goodjob2:
So, it's just an illusion then that car appears sluggish? :undecided:
-
Gee Alan .. you are the sharpest Geriatric I have ever seen.. :Shocked: your idea on how to time the acceleration was :brilliant: :happydance:
-
So, it's just an illusion then that car appears sluggish? :undecided:
I used to suffer from illusions of grandeur - it seems that this has been supplanted by illusions of sluggishness. For sure during the acceleration tests the car felt very lively.
I have now come to the conclusion that the car feels less lively because it is better sprung with a more compliant and foregiving ride, it feels more spacious, it feels more solid and refined (even my wife commented that it feels heavier and more like my old Audi A4), the controls and gear change are lighter and it is a lot quieter - hence there are less sensory signals that you are moving fast. For sure I am often surprised when I look at the speedo to find I am travelling much faster than I thought.
So I will take back what I said about it being sluggish - and continue to enjoy a fine car that ticks nearly all my boxes. (just the crappy instant fuel display and crappy front parking sensors knock it back from a perfect score)
-
I can also confirm that there is no indication showing you when to change down...
I wonder why they have not done this. This and the silly MPG display and useless bluetooth streaming, makes me wonder what Hyundai is at.
-
One other thing (really sounds like I'm complaining now!) that isn't perfect is the steering wheel cowl isn't fitted together properly.
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30cowl.JPG)
I've tried to squeeze it together, but it wont move. Not very good quality control. Now I've noticed this, you see this every time I get in!
-
A couple of interesting points on the new i30.....
The wipers - one is tiny!
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30CDRI.JPG)
The door indicators are nice in the way that anyone in beside you can see the indicators.
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30indicators3.jpg)
-
More indicator photos..
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30indicators1.jpg)
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30indicators2.jpg)
-
And now for some pics....
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30-01.JPG)
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30-02.JPG)
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30-03.JPG)
-
And a couple more...
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30drls.jpg)
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30dash.JPG)
-
Matt
Great photos
Take your car to the dealers and show them this so they know what it should be like (but without the dust)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v308/AlanHo1937/i30%20Forum/Binnacle.jpg)
-
Thanks for that photo Alan. I'll get the dealer to fix it when it goes in for its first service.
One more photo....old vs new....
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30+CeedSW3.JPG)
-
Excellent photos Matt..Thanks. Alan has looked after us very well with updates and photos of the new i30. But nice to get one in a different colour (looks stirling in white) :goodjob:
We haven't had the new model released in Oz yet :disapp: (still a month or two away)
-
Thanks for the pics Matt, as Dazz said, we can only dream about them down under.
-
There is defintely an issue with the Czech QC compared to the Korean QC in my opinion, this is one of the reasons why I feel the ix20 is not "screwed together" quite as well as the i30 was, nothing serious just occasional minor gripes that you pick up on as time goes by, I had a door on mine that was sitting slightly higher than the waistline, I discovered some rattling going on in the headlining around the sunroof and found that it was easily fixed by actually attaching the headlining to the car :rolleyes: and some of the trim looks like it has been forced into place, almost as if the body of the car is bigger than the parts they made to put into it.
Nothing I have found has been important enough to be a deal breaker in the first instance, but if you are new to the brand and then discover these type of things over the time of ownership it may well be enough to put you off maintaining a loyalty.
My Korean built i30 had an exceptionally built interior, not really something I can say about the ix20 nor one I have heard being shouted from the rooftops by masses of Czech built i30's unfortunately. :(
The ix20 also has the tiny passenger side wiper, whilst it kinda works, failure to clean the big arc left on the screen at that side is an annoyance for me. I have often said to SWMBO that it would have been better to have Civic style wipers on it, but I see Honda have also gone down this route with the new Civic :undecided:
-
This is a very interesting thread with many good comments and reviews.
I would just like to comment about the acceleration. Maybe it's just the feeling. Maybe it "pulls" a bit different comparing it to the "old" one and is now more "sophisticated" -> for example, like if you are driving 1.6 petrol and 1.6 CRDi. You would always say the CRDi goes better, but when you look at the time (acceleration) you see that they are about the same or the petrol goes even better, but in CRDi you feel the kick.
But mostly, I would advise to wait to reach at least 5,000 km. At around 1,500-2,000 I felt a change (improvement) in my i30, but it seems to me that it "came to life" at around 5,000. I think the best way to test it, is to record the acceleration in certain gears. I did that before tuning my previous i30. After doing that, u will ask one of the members (or few of them) to do the same with their i30's and we'll compare it. Needless to say we all must accelerate in same gear and on "flat" surface.
As for the 128hp engine.. I think the expectations of many are/will be too high in this case. Why? From what I've heard (I don't know if it's true, I got that info. from the salesman, the 128hp wasn't available here anyways), it accelerates about the same as the 115hp engine in old i30's (even in old i30's there was a 128hp option and both - the torque and the acceleration 0-100 was the same). There is supposed to be some minor difference in higher revs (128hp has more power there) and most important - the 128hp had higher top speed (although you can reach that top speed with 115hp too). So it seems to me, that they did some work on higher revs. What I'm trying to say is, that many will be disappointed to see, that even though they have more hp (+12 or +13hp), it goes about the same as their old 115hp model and most will come to conclusion that the 2012 i30 goes worse then the old one. But I think, they would come to the same conclusion if they bought the "old" i30 with 128hp model. I'm also pretty sure that even if you go for the 110hp model, you wont feel much difference.
But I admit..you would expect the new model to be better in all areas and it mostly is. But one of the main (at least for me) areas where it didn't improve, are the performances of the car. It does handle better, it looks more comfortable, etc.., but they didn't improve the acceleration and that is one of the reasons I decided not to wait for the 2012 (not to mention much higher price over here). But nevertheless it's still a great car.
As for Ceed vs i30. From my experiences, people who like(d) the Ceed, don't prefer the i30 and the other way around :)
-
Nice summary there accim and found your comments interesting too Brian :goodjob: (i have suspected that for some time) :winker:
-
Want that Land Rover :D
Congrats with your i30
Any chance of some photos please?
I'll take some tomorrow, but
here's one (https://plus.google.com/photos/109816789596098204778/albums/5739542213920215553)...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WzGO9YPMnMI/T6bzPGWkM-I/AAAAAAAAAYo/mgXKyU2x-NU/w1245-h667-k/DSCN7918.JPG)
-
My i30 is now 1 week old and already 800 miles on the clock.
It is growing on me now. The car is nice to drive and oozes quality, but is a little noisy at motorway speeds. Not from wind noise though, just excessive tyre noise. A different set of tyres will probably help a lot, but I'll have to wait another 30,000 miles or so until I can do that. Still it's quieter at motorway speeds than the Ceed, which in turn is quieter than the Focus.
The voice control for the phone is brilliant and extremely accurate. Much better than the last one I had in a LR3 in 2006. The auto wipers are also very good, particularly when motorway driving with the fine spray from other vehicles.
One thing that is really impressing me is the economy. My commute to work is 66 miles each way (near Didcot to Warwick) and if I keep below 70mph, I get over 70mpg on a trip. When coming down the M40 and A34 the other evening, averaged 74mpg over 1 hour of driving and then it only dropped the average down to 69mpg when I got did the B-road driving. For an engine that hasn't loosened up yet, it is very impressive. But I was driving slow and was one of the slowest cars on the M40 on that trip, as most of the time I was doing 65mpg.
I got 565 miles from the first tank of diesel, which means I averaged about 63mpg overall. I think this new i30 will work about 15mpg better than the Ceed.
I drove in the dark last night for the first time. Wow, the dash lights up nicely and the car looks a mass of small blue lights, particularly on the steering wheel. One thing they haven't got right though is the brightness of the stereo and heating screens. They are just too bright, even with the dash illumination turned down to the lowest setting. One minor thing too is that the stereo screen is slightly brighter than the heater screen. There is a button to turn off the stereo screen, but I'd rather have it dimly lit rather than disabled completely.
The cornering lights worked very well too. They also worked earlier/more frequently than the last time I had these on a car (the Land Rover Discovery) and were probably more effective too.
I'm also finding the seat very comfortable too.
But I'm still finding it a little dull to drive compared to the Ceed. It is quieter and a more solid/refined feel, but it doesn't have the low down pull and acceleration that the Ceed had. This will probably improve when the engine loosens up a bit. The i30 does perform ok if you open up the revs a bit but it seems to take longer to pick up and be ready to give that maximum power. I over-took a car on windy A-road and it did pick up enough pace to feel safe, but doing the same in the Ceed gives you a little reminder that its quite spritely for a 1.6 and sometimes puts a little smile on your face.
But so far, I'm impressed. There are some little niggles which shouldn't be there, as the previous generation Ceed (and probably i30 too) did better, but overall compared to the current Golf, Focus, Astra, Megane etc, I think the i30 is certainly the best car, pound for pound. That might change when the new Ceed comes out in a month or two - not for looks, but for interior design and standard kit.
-
Matt
A great report on a great car. I agree with all your points except road noise. Mine is fine but perhaps the result of me changing the tyres. I also share your impression about the car not being as lively - but will see in an earlier post that I have achieved the brochure 0 to 62 acceleration times. I have little doubt that Hyundai have tuned the throttle response to encourage economic driving and you have to be quite aggressive to sqeeze the performance out of the car using much higher revs than we were used on our previous cars.
When you say you got 565 miles from the first tank - did you use a whole tank or only part of one?. The tank hold 53 litres but you can get 57 litres in when slowly brimming it. You calculate you got 63 mpg which means you used 9 gallons (41 litres) which is well short of a tank.
It was strange that you should post a glowing report about economy on a day when I posted a gloomy report about a problem today with mine. Hence I am keenly interested in how you have calculated your economy figures. It would be even more interesting to learn that they are the result of brim to brim calculations.
-
My 63mpg calculations aren't exact. Just a 41 ltr fill up and then filling the tank again when there was about the same left - i.e. when the light came on. I'm keeping a record of the amount of fuel I put in and as I'll be doing about 3,000 miles a month, I'll soon have an accurate figure. And of course, I'm doing a lot of motorway driving, which is going to give me slightly above average mpg.
-
I gave the car a quick wash this afternoon and took some more photos (outside this time)...
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30-04.JPG)
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30-05.JPG)
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30-06.JPG)
-
Beautiful car, can't wait till I get mine
-
Looks great :goodjob: Like I said to Allan in another thread, looking forward to the Aussie release in the next few weeks :mrgreen:
-
Me too.
June 1st release date here.
That's only 17 more sleeps :happydance:
-
My 63mpg calculations aren't exact. Just a 41 ltr fill up and then filling the tank again when there was about the same left - i.e. when the light came on. I'm keeping a record of the amount of fuel I put in and as I'll be doing about 3,000 miles a month, I'll soon have an accurate figure. And of course, I'm doing a lot of motorway driving, which is going to give me slightly above average mpg.
I have carried out 2 further tests of my car's economy driving the same route that I took doing the previous test recorded in post#66 https://www.i30ownersclub.com/forum/index.php?topic=14198.60 (https://www.i30ownersclub.com/forum/index.php?topic=14198.60)
I drove the route yesterday afternoon when it was warm and sunny, little wind and an air temperature of 14*C. The overall length of the route measured 41.1 miles (66 km) on the odometer and the time taken was 59 minutes. The route comprises 13.9 miles of urban 30 mph roads (34%), the remainder (66%)being motorway. I cruised at 60 to 62 mph on the motorway mainly in 6th gear and at the speed limit in the urban sections - stopping several times at traffic lights.
The car averaged 64.9 mpg (4.35 l/100km) and the overall average speed was 41.6 mph (67 km/hr).
I did exactly the same route at the same speeds in the early hours of this morning. It was dawn, the roads were slightly wet in patches but it wasn't raining and the air temperature was 4*C.
The route length on the odometer was 41.4 miles (66.7 km), overall time 61 minutes, economy 60.1 mpg (4.70 l/100 km) and overall average speed 40.7 mph (65.5 km/hr)
I was a little surprised at the difference in route lengths measured by the odometer because I followed exactly the same route. Would wet versus dry roads be a factor?
I have to assume that the difference in economy between each test is due to air temperature. A difference of 10*C produced a difference of 4.8 mpg (8%).
This may explain why some of our Aussie friends are able to get such high economy compared with most of us in the UK. The average temperature difference between our countries must be at least 15*C
-
Hi Alan I have found my hybrid a little less economical when the roads are wet. I have been wondering if the wet roads cause more rolling resistance (it would not surprise me)
My car doesn't seem to coast as freely when the roads are wet. The Hybrid has low rolling resistance tyres and almost no engine braking so it tends to try and runaway sometimes, but less so when it is wet.
-
Hi Alan I have found my hybrid a little less economical when the roads are wet. I have been wondering if the wet roads cause more rolling resistance (it would not surprise me)
My car doesn't seem to coast as freely when the roads are wet. The Hybrid has low rolling resistance tyres and almost no engine braking so it tends to try and runaway sometimes, but less so when it is wet.
I have edited my text - the roads were only slightly wet - more damp than wet. Not enough to cause any spray and generally dry in the left lane where the overnight lorries had done their thing. I take your point though - but still think that temperature is a factor.
One thing for sure - my previous i30 never ever got close to these figures - the best I ever got was 54 mpg (5.23 l/100km) and the overall average for the 13000 miles I owned it was 49.01 mpg (5.76 l/100 km). Matt has inferred that his KIA Ceed was roughly the same as my old i30 when he says his new car is 15 mpg better.
-
I was a little surprised at the difference in route lengths measured by the odometer because I followed exactly the same route. Would wet versus dry roads be a factor?
You must have wheel spinned a few times on the first run! :)
I drove mine much harder on my commute home (can't say how much - officially 70mpg!) and I still got 50mpg, whereas in the Ceed on the same trip I would have got about 40mpg. The economy of the new engine (in DriveLine models) is pretty impressive. But then nothing better than what other manufacturers are doing. BMW and VW models have been as economic on fuel for many years.
-
I have to assume that the difference in economy between each test is due to air temperature. A difference of 10*C produced a difference of 4.8 mpg (8%).
This may explain why some of our Aussie friends are able to get such high economy compared with most of us in the UK. The average temperature difference between our countries must be at least 15*C
Hi Alan
Colder air should be better than warm air, if I remember correct from the school days of my mechanic apprentice time. If warm air should be better, why would they fit the intercooler on all diesels.. :question:
But the much nicer temps in OZ gives the benefit of not having those cold starts that we vikings face every winter.
-
Interesting about damp/wet roads. I've been doing my 66 mile commute twice a day and in the evening drive back I reset the MPG trip every time. Tonight I averaged 9mpg less over the same journey than previous trips when driving at the same speed for the whole journey - the only difference.... about 4degC cooler and the roads were wet - not wet enough to cause spray and no puddles, but had rained hard about an hour before and much of the day. It makes sense that a wet/damp road increased mpg, but the difference is about 14% less.
All very rough calculations of course, as there are other factors at play.
My car has now done over 1,065 miles and its only 11 days old!
-
Colder air should be better than warm air, if I remember correct from the school days of my mechanic apprentice time. If warm air should be better, why would they fit the intercooler on all diesels.. :question:
But the much nicer temps in OZ gives the benefit of not having those cold starts that we vikings face every winter.
I was under the impression that a few of our members have mentioned that their diesels are less economic in the winter. I know my previous i30 was.
-
I did my little test route again this morning because it was sunny and dry - but the air temperature was 7*C.
The route length on the odometer was 41.2 miles (66.3 km), overall time 60 minutes, economy 61.3 mpg (4.61 l/100 km) and overall average speed 41.2 mph (66.30 km/hr)
So for the same route I have achieved :-
64.9 mpg (4.35 l/100km) 41.6 mph (67.0 km/h) air temperature 14*C Dry
62.3 mpg (4.53 l/100km) 40.0 mph (64.4 km/h) air temperature 10*C Dry
61.3 mpg (4.61 l/100km) 41.2 mph (66.3 km/h) air temperature 07*C Dry
60.1 mpg (4.70 l/100km) 40.7 mph (65.5 km/h) air temperature 04*C Damp
It appears to me that temperature does indeed have an effect on economy.
If you extrapolate these figures and assume that the relationship between temperature and economy is linear (It won't be) you get 73.4 mpg (3.85 l/100 km) at 30*C.
The official economy (combined) is 74.3 mpg (3.8 l/100 km) - perhaps the test lab was extra hot that day....... :whistler:
-
There is no doubt in my mind that air temp is the largest contributing factor to economy if you utilise the same driving methods.
Intercoolers are fitted to maintain an "ambient" temperature and I would suggest that a temp of somewhere between 15-25C is optimum for economy, we unlucky Brits therefore only have a small window of opportunity to get the best economy as shown by Alan's table where he has seen the best figure at 14C.
Lower temperatures mean the ECU decides that more fuel is required, even for tick-over and as such the economy drops, in the i30 1.6 petrol in Winter I often saw my average drop below 30mpg and even the 1.4 petrol ix20 will drop below 35mpg, my current average in the ix20 with temps hovering between 5-10C is 37.
Like Dazz and Alan, my ix20 is also fitted with low resistance Continental tyres and she is also less keen to "run away" in the wet.
-
I was thinking like Bumpkin too. The engine is a thermal device after all, so I suspect that a little more fuel is injected by the ECU and there would be a significant amount of heat loss too. On the other side of the coin, the turbo would be compressing denser air, so the power produced should be more, go figure :Dunno:
-
My fuel economy is worse when it's let's say -10°C then when it's around +20°C. The car (oil..) needs more time to warm up and while it's cold it uses more fuel. In summer i have around 6.2-6.3 lit /100km and in winter 6.8-6.9 lit /100km. The engine is 1.6 CRDi 116hp, but there's a lot of city and highway driving, so that's the reason why it's so high. Though even fast highway driving is much friendlier to fuel economy, comparing it to the driving around the city.
PS: The car looks beautiful on those pictures. And so does the location, where the pictures were taken :goodjob:
d3matt: Wait for at least 5.000 km. I just found a video clip, of my i30, which was taken when the car had 2.500 km on the clock. There is this straight section of the highway, where I "test" and compare the cars. That way, I get the best results. Anyways, I was testing acceleration and top speed in 6th gear and the results are very interesting. For example, the biggest difference I saw was acceleration after 180 km/h. The car barely reached 190 km/h and then slowly gained another 2 km/h, so that means, that at that time, the top speed was 192 km/h. I see I was holding the throttle (max) and it didn't move a bit. But after a while (@ around 5.000 km and later on), the car gained speed much faster and was able to reach 197 km/h on the same section without any problem.
-
Colder air should be better than warm air, if I remember correct from the school days of my mechanic apprentice time. If warm air should be better, why would they fit the intercooler on all diesels.. :question:
But the much nicer temps in OZ gives the benefit of not having those cold starts that we vikings face every winter.
I was under the impression that a few of our members have mentioned that their diesels are less economic in the winter. I know my previous i30 was.
Mine too. But the cold starts at minus degrees and the following longer warm up period cost a lot of fuel. No doubt the engine runs best at the normal operating temperature - 90 C - but the colder air gives the engine a better combustion.
-
One other thing I only noticed yesterday is that the speedo goes up to 160mph. Even cars I've had in the past that could do a much higher top speed than the i30, the speedo normally only went to 140mph. Makes you wonder what models are in the pipeline! :D
(http://d3datacom.co.uk/forums/i30/i30dash2.jpg)
-
You only posted that picture to make me feel inadequate about my fuel economy................ :rofl:
-
You only posted that picture to make me feel inadequate about my fuel economy................ :rofl:
I can unmask the photoshopping he did...
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/ShamblesX/i30dash2.jpg)
-
Alan - Yes. :P
Shambles - I'm not 'that' good at graphics on the computer. It was a genuine photo, while driving down the M40 tonight. However, I had only just reset the mpg a mile or two before!
-
More info on gear change points for my new 2012 i30 1.6 CRDi 128PS changing up when the indicator comes on for each gear.
1st At 2300 rpm = 13 mph (21 kph) change to 2nd - revs drop to 1300 rpm*
2nd At 2200 rpm = 22 mph (35 kph) change to 3rd - revs drop to 1300 rpm*
3rd At 2100 rpm = 37 mph (60 kph) change to 4th - revs drop to 1500 rpm
4th At 1900 rpm = 46 mph (74 kph) change to 5th - revs drop to 1600 rpm
5th At 1900 rpm = 55 mph (88 kph) change to 6th - revs drop to 1600 rpm
6th At 2000 rpm = 69 mph (111 kph) approx legal maximum UK and Australia
*Note : It is difficult to be precise about the gear change point in the lowest 2 gears because the car is accelerating more quickly and the low gear ratios gives it extra umph.
Hence the car gains extra revs after the indicator comes on by the time you actually change gear (reaction time)
-
:goodjob:
-
It makes sense re the cool weather. Just look at how much better engines run at night time.
Anyone who has ridden motorbikes (air-cooled) will know that they are much sweeter running on a cool night than on a warm day.
-
I did a return trip from home (Solihull) to Witney near Oxford vis the M42, M40, A34 and A40. The overall distance was 132 miles - 66 miles each way.
I refuelled the car last evening and this was the first journey on the new tank - hence at the start the fuel economy trip was zero
There were two of us in the car taking some folding tables and a large gazebo down to some pensioner friends who want to borrow them for a garden party they are holding in a few weeks time when they get married. Hence the car was about 110 kg heavier on the way down than on the way back.
Going down at lunch time it was dry, no wind and the temperature was 12*C.
Trip time 71 mins = 56 mph (90 km/h) overall average
Trip economy showed 64.2 mpg (4.4 l/100 km)
Return trip in the evening. Dry, no wind, temperature 7*C
Trip time 73 mins = 54 mph (87 km/h) overall average
Trip economy showed 63.7 mpg (4.4 l/100 km)
Note that I did not zero the trip before the return journey - I do this only when I refuel the car and brim the tank.
Yet again temperature seems to have been a significant factor. The car was 110 kgs lighter on the return journey and average speed was about the same - hence I would have expected it to show better economy . However, the economy trip figure had been reduced on completion of the return journey which means the economy on the return was a little worse than on the drive down. I estimate by about 1 mpg
It so happens that the route I took covers most of the route that Matt uses to commute to work - as he mentions in his post No 46 in this thread. However - despite a much lower average speed than Matt - I didn't achieve the preliminary economy figures he quoted. My lead boots are therefore open to reasonable offers........ :blubber:
-
I had to drive my Ceed today as I've still not sold it. The drive was only for 3 miles and therefore a cold engine all the way, but it instantly felt lively compared to the i30. However, the i30 has grown on me and certainly feels higher quality. But it should do as it is the newer model.
-
Hence the car was about 110 kg heavier on the way down than on the way back.
I just love the way no details are left out, I take it you weighed the load :D
Great report Alan, and I must say I'm getting frustrated by your continuous supply of information. I'm trying to get l/100 fuel figures from my wife's car, but she keeps filling up without me, doesn't brim or reset the trip comp. It's happened twice and takes 2 weeks or more to use a tank. It's been on 5.6 for the last 3 weeks.
I tell myself, Don't stress, don't stress, don't stress :blubber:
BTW, the only thing I can think of regarding you fuel consumption would be the density of the cool air. Even though there was no breeze, the car still has to displace the air it travels through. Perhaps one of our aviators can tell us how much effect this would have. On the flip side though, the turbo should have been working more efficiently and the car was lighter, so :Dunno:
-
I did a return trip from home
You are trying to compare two different trips; one out and one back. The terrain in one direction is not equal to that going in the other direction. :undecided: :Shocked: :confused:
-
I did a return trip from home
You are trying to compare two different trips; one out and one back. The terrain in one direction is not equal to that going in the other direction. :undecided: :Shocked: :confused:
Good point Pip .. No doubt Alan will have an answer to that.. :whistler: (used his GPS for Altitude tests maybe) :winker:
-
Good point Pip .. No doubt Alan will have an answer to that.. :whistler: (used his GPS for Altitude tests maybe) :winker:
I agree that the trip profiles will differ (almost a mirror image give or take a few cms) - but the number of hills, minimum elevation and maximum elevations will be identical. What goes up must come down etc.
These are the vertical profiles for the two trips taken from my Sat-nav which Dazz accurately predicted were available.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v308/AlanHo1937/i30%20Forum/TripProfiles.jpg)
-
That's exactly my point, uphill on the way out and downhill on the way back (overall) and it's almost guaranteed that going up and down a hill one way is not going to use the same fuel going the other way unless the topography of the hill is identical both ways. Like I said, two different trips. That you got similar (or different) economy each way is irrelevant.
What you need to do (and have of course other times) is to compare trips that include an out and back as one data point.
No?
BTW, I'm pleased that you are getting excellent economy with the new car. :goodjob2:
-
I just love the way no details are left out, I take it you weighed the load :D
I'm afraid I cheated.
The gazebo was back in its original boxes which were marked by the manufacturer with the weights. :goodjob:
The metal poles, fittings and guys were in one box marked 56 kg.
The canvas roof and sides were packed in the second box marked 42 kg
I am guilty of guessing the 4 folding chairs at 3 kg each
Hence the total came to 110 kg.
Mind you, I sweated a bit humping it from the garage to the car so I suppose I should really have deducted 1Kg for the perspiration I lost...... :wacko:
-
That's exactly my point, uphill on the way out and downhill on the way back (overall) and it's almost guaranteed that going up and down a hill one way is not going to use the same fuel going the other way unless the topography of the hill is identical both ways. Like I said, two different trips. That you got similar (or different) economy each way is irrelevant.
What you need to do (and have of course other times) is to compare trips that include an out and back as one data point.
No?
BTW, I'm pleased that you are getting excellent economy with the new car. :goodjob2:
Fair comment Pip - As you saw from the profile my home is 150 feet lower than the destination.
The outward journey thus averaged an uphill slope of 1 in 2320
And the trip home averaged a downhill slope of the same amount.
Hence - other things being equal - you would expect the return journey to use less fuel - particularly because the car was much lighter on the way back. However - it actually used more fuel.
I recognise that although each journey contained exactly the same peaks and troughs - the steepness of each change varied. A steep uphill climb in one direction and a slow descent - would be a slow climb and steep descent in the opposite direction which may require a different fuel burn. I was just hoping that the law of averages worked in my favour regarding the overall effect of the peaks and troughs. Hence I attributed the different fuel economies to temperature.
It's all by guess and by God anyway - I have yet to prove that the trip economy recorder is accurate and consistent. I know that the odometer reads 1.8% slow.
However the car is quite definitely overall more economical that my previous i30 when you calculate the figures from brimming the tank each time.
I brimmed the tank on collecting the car with just 8 miles on the odometer
At 367 miles I brimmed the tank with 29.9 litres = 54.1 mpg (5.22 l/100 km)
At 739 miles I brimmed the tank with 33.35 litres = 55.2 mpg (5.12 l/100 km)
At 1391 miles I brimmed the tank with 55.57 litres = 53.1 mpg (5.32 l/100 km)
This compares with my previous i30 which averaged 49.01 mpg (5.76 l/100 km) over 13,000 miles and my previous Audi A3 2.0 TDi which averaged 47.1 mpg (5.99 l/100 km) over 36,000 miles.
What does please me (am I allowed to be smug? :whistler:) is that months ago before I ordered the car I published on the forum my estimate of its overall cost of ownership over 5 years compared with the petrol car. I assumed the new diesel car would average 55 mpg over the life of the car despite the official combined figure of 74.3 mpg. My car seems to be performing to my prediction.
-
Hence - other things being equal - you would expect the return journey to use less fuel - particularly because the car was much lighter on the way back. However - it actually used more fuel.
By any reasonable allowance for error it used the same. I realise I'm arguing against myself here but my point was not related to absolute economy figures but whether "all things were equal" enough to draw such a fine conclusion. As I said, sounds like the figures are finally going your way but you have a way to go before you do as well as I do. :cool:
4.5l/100km for current tank nearly empty. I'm pretty certain that my average/top speeds are significantly less than your though. :wink:
-
Hence - other things being equal - you would expect the return journey to use less fuel - particularly because the car was much lighter on the way back. However - it actually used more fuel.
By any reasonable allowance for error it used the same. I realise I'm arguing against myself here but my point was not related to absolute economy figures but whether "all things were equal" enough to draw such a fine conclusion. As I said, sounds like the figures are finally going your way but you have a way to go before you do as well as I do. :cool:
4.5l/100km for current tank nearly empty. I'm pretty certain that my average/top speeds are significantly less than your though. :wink:
As a point of interest - what are the average air temperatures in your location? I can get 4.5 l/100 km out of this car on a long motorway trip - but throw in more than 10% town driving and it deteriorates.
-
High teens, low 20s for the current tank. Getting into Winter it will be downright cold by Oz standards. Plenty of 14 and 15 max with min never really below zero but close a few times.