[Keith]

My overall trip MPG at the end of the journey was 49.9MPG.

Still think that is remarkable economy.

Nah - that's pretty rubbish for a diesel mate

 

[Dazzler]

Well done Keith (not all Admin are tarred with the same brush  )

[Shambles]

And not all petrol owners post their economies in the Diesel section

[Doggie 1]

Yep, you've gotta love 'em. 

[Keith]

Personally... I think diesel owners would like to know the possible economy of a petrol car, especially in the UK as petrol is so much cheaper, as is servicing.

My point being that diesel is not all of the answer people are seeking when they make their engine choice by Manufacturer & Model.

So stick that somewhere pleasant 

[Phil №❶]

So stick that somewhere pleasant 
[/quote]

Perhaps, in the "Petrol Economy Section" 

[Keith]

So stick that somewhere pleasant 

Perhaps, in the "Petrol Economy Section" 
[/quote]

Yes please, now the diesel heads are aware that they can get economy without the tractor noises :-)

[Doggie 1]

Still wouldn't trade it.

[Phil №❶]

It's all talk / torque 

[Keith]

It's all talk / torque 

Rev iiiiiit!

[eye30]

I still had 70 miles available on my Trip computer.

Be interesting to see if you can actually do the 70 miles before you fill up....

[Keith]

I still had 70 miles available on my Trip computer.

Be interesting to see if you can actually do the 70 miles before you fill up....

Ran it down to 20 miles then lost my cohonas lol!

[Lakes]

Personally... I think diesel owners would like to know the possible economy of a petrol car, especially in the UK as petrol is so much cheaper, as is servicing.

My point being that diesel is not all of the answer people are seeking when they make their engine choice by Manufacturer & Model.

So stick that somewhere pleasant 

I've got a Carbon bicycle thats a whole lot cheaper to run cheap to service too & as a bonus you get fit LOL

[Dazzler]

Personally... I think diesel owners would like to know the possible economy of a petrol car, especially in the UK as petrol is so much cheaper, as is servicing.

My point being that diesel is not all of the answer people are seeking when they make their engine choice by Manufacturer & Model.

So stick that somewhere pleasant 

I've got a Carbon bicycle thats a whole lot cheaper to run cheap to service too & as a bonus you get fit LOL

  Wow! With the Carbon Tax that must have cost a packet 

[Doggie 1]

  Don't tell Juliar.

[mjt57]

Today I filled the car. I put in 44.6l of diesel. Trip distance between fills was 582km. 7.67 l/100km.

It's getting worse and our driving habits haven't changed. Its 15,000 km service is coming up shortly. I'll be asking them to look at it, again (I also questioned its lack of frugality at the 7,500 km service and got a non committal "everything looks ok".

The trip computer readout prior to me resetting it indicated 6.2l/100km. And it's always read different to the actual. I'm not sure what it's supposed to indicate, perhaps an average. Even so, it's a fair way out of what I'm actually getting.

Currently, my fuel usage is such that it's a fair bit cheaper to run a petrol car ($1.35/l v $1.49/l) where I live.

I made up a quick spreadsheet to calculate cost of running and comparing two figures, one, say for a typical i30 2.0 petrol and one for the CRDi. If I could get the mythical 4.5l/100 km that the government figures express I'd save about $4,000 in fuel over the life of the vehicle, more than enough to cover the premium that a diesel engine costs. But at the present rate, I'd be down more than $4k compared to a petrol i30 owner (assuming that they have a manual too, as the auto has a premium cost...)

[ElleB]

I can see your cause of concern....certainly the results are far from what others are getting... even my auto returns way better than that...     

Show the dealers your fuel records and  dont accept the " everything looks OK" reply.
I wonder if a Dyno would show anything up?
No badly adjusted hand brake , no overly warm wheel hubs at the end of a drive....

  What degree of city V's rural driving are you doing...as Lakes said , all that does have a bearing...

 Not having a trip computer in my model, I just go by the  brim to brim refill figures, cant argue with those..

Please keep us all posted.....hang in there

[constipated]

It's getting worse and our driving habits haven't changed. Its 15,000 km service is coming up shortly. I'll be asking them to look at it, again (I also questioned its lack of frugality at the 7,500 km service and got a non committal "everything looks ok".

I think also quote them your average speed for each tank with the calculated fuel economy and kindly point them to this site where people travelling slower than you have gotten better fuel economy. If you don't drive aggressively then it must be something with the car.

I have a Toyota Aurion which despite the sticker saying 9.9L/100km initially we were getting more like 15.5L/100km. Toyota checked it out and found nothing. Have gradually come to accept that for the driving we do, low speed city driving, and air con on all the time, this is to be expected. It is better now, more about 14L/100km and I don't think that's far off the urban figure for the car.

Good luck sorting it out. At one point myself I considered renting a car the same and seeing if it gave better economy figures.

[Just Rick]

mjt57
 forget anything the trip computers in the i30's tell ya,they are only a guide and basically they are an obsolete peice of crap, I am constatly having to reset mine,once the reading goes above 6L/100k it will not come down under six litres per 100, even when coasting down a very long hill with little or no power on the accelorator.

when we first got our SLX we had the very same concerns, the economy was not there, even when we worked out the fuel economy manually, but now that we've done a few miles, we are regularly getting under 4L/100Ks, but to do this you have to be really patient and not be in a hurry, to get these averages you have to be real gentle on the throttle and be prepared to spend extra time getting anywhere, keep your speeds under a 100.

But having said that I'm not that patient most days, I do 1500 kilometres a week and it costs me justa little under $100 so I'm pretty stoked with that, I know someone up ur way with a 2 Ltr Petrol doing similar milage and he is not getting the same figures, it's costing him a little over $150 a week but he's happy with that, my old car was costing me for the same milage $250 week so you can see why I'm not whinging

[ElleB]

Just did a few calculations for Elle B ( 2009CW auto)....for the last 13 fills the average L/100Km was 6.12..or 46.11 MPG. This is mostly rural driving but with a  few days of heavy city (Sydney) driving included.  Car has 72,000Km on the clock... The car is fitted with a Spider "Black Box"..

99% of this distance has been driven by my wife.. and she fills brim to brim..( or else !! )

FYI   

Cheers
   Elle B

[Dazzler]

Thanks Tony, I think you would have to be happy with that for an Auto 

[rustynutz]

forget anything the trip computers in the i30's tell ya,they are only a guide and basically they are an obsolete peice of crap, I am constatly having to reset mine,once the reading goes above 6L/100k it will not come down under six litres per 100, even when coasting down a very long hill with little or no power on the accelorator.

I don't reckon there's anything wrong with the trip computer, it's more that people don't use or understand what the figures it produces mean....
If you want a more accurate guide to your usage, you need to reset it with every fill. Leaving it unset for multiple tanks will of course give you the average fuel consumption over those mulitple tanks. So, any changes to your driving will therefore take ages to actually affect the trip computer's reading.

It's not rocket science and really quite logical if you think about it....

[Just Rick]

forget anything the trip computers in the i30's tell ya,they are only a guide and basically they are an obsolete peice of crap, I am constatly having to reset mine,once the reading goes above 6L/100k it will not come down under six litres per 100, even when coasting down a very long hill with little or no power on the accelorator.

I don't reckon there's anything wrong with the trip computer, it's more that people don't use or understand what the figures it produces mean....
If you want a more accurate guide to your usage, you need to reset it with every fill. Leaving it unset for multiple tanks will of course give you the average fuel consumption over those mulitple tanks. So, any changes to your driving will therefore take ages to actually affect the trip computer's reading.

It's not rocket science and really quite logical if you think about it....

Must just be my trip computer then,all other cars I have been in, even the trip computer in my truck,yes as you say you have to reset it every time you fill the vehicle(which I do)anyhow I digress, all other trip computers I have seen working, the litres per 100k's constantly change either up or down depending on how you are driving,for example when your vehicle is coasting down a hill, without or foot on your accelerater, the litres per 100 should drop,which mine only sometimes does,mine for some reason once it goes over 6 ltrs /100klms, not matter how frugal I drive will not drop below the 6 ltrs/100, when I know I'm not using that sort of fuel, when the manual calculation is done,every manual calculation I've Done(except for the other week when I did  a trip with the trailer) is telling me I am using well under 5.5 ltrs per 100k's,maybe I should take Bruce back in and have the software upgraded.

[Phil №❶]

@Rick-p

I hope you don't mind me asking but when you say reset, you reset every figure, not just the l/100k 

.. Must just be my trip computer then...

No, it's as Rusty said you are misunderstanding how it works. It is an average usage between resets not an instantaneous fuel use. So if you do 500k and show 6l/100km it will not change from that for the next 500k unless your next 500k averages something significantly different. If your second 500k averaged 5l/100km then it would show 5.5l/100km for the 1000km.

[Just Rick]

@Rick-p

I hope you don't mind me asking but when you say reset, you reset every figure, not just the l/100k 

Yeah reset the whole lot, ltrs/100,trip,spd av, another thing my trip computer does, as I fill brim to brim, one time it will tell me there is 850K's to the next fill, on the next fill up it may tell me there is only 645 K's to the next fill, as long as the odometer trip works properly I am not really interested in the rest,but would be nice if it worked the way it should do, I tend to put more confidence in the Nav Bitches calculations, as it is closer to what my manual calculations are,within .1 of a K,next time I get Bruce serviced I will get them to look into it.

[Phil №❶]

@Rick-p

Dazz says that the distance to empty figure after a fill is very conservative but gets closer as the juice is used. Never had to use that function yet. I know there are some cars the measure the fuel being used very accurately by receiving impulses from in line flow sensors but I've go no idea how Hy do it.

Your comments about 6/100 and not changing are strange to me. We live in the Adelaide hills and if I go to MIL's house in  the city, even on a 3.4 used tank the l/100 will rise by .1 or 2 climbing back up the hill to home, then drops on the freeway. This is based on about 500ks already travelled, so ours definitely does move.

[Just Rick]

847563

Thats why I don't think mine is working properly,when I first fill up and reset everything  on flat ground it will shoot up to 25L/100k's, if I stay on even ground it will slowly come back to 3.8 to 4.8, but if I try to climb a matchbox it will shoot up to 6.5 to 7.0 and basically thats where it will stay

[Doggie 1]

847563

Thats why I don't think mine is working properly,when I first fill up and reset everything  on flat ground it will shoot up to 25L/100k's, if I stay on even ground it will slowly come back to 3.8 to 4.8, but if I try to climb a matchbox it will shoot up to 6.5 to 7.0 and basically thats where it will stay

I think it's working properly.

[Phil №❶]

@Rick-p

That's exactly what it is supposed to do. The figure is a calculation of fuel used over distance traveled. As the distance lengthens, the effect of hill climbs or coasting divided over the total distance traveled has a reduced effect. As the tank empties and the distance lengthens, it takes a significant event to make any variation to the average figure displayed.