60mpg?

[Buttons]

Originally Posted by alanwalne

I would be scared between the lorries, as they tailgate for the economy (especially European ones so they can get back to Calais without having to fiil up), they must sit right on your rear bumper to get as close to the lorry in front as possible.

I hate the thought of them using the back of my car as part of their braking system

It's a little nerve-wracking to start with, what I tend to do now is find a French or Polish (Racist, me?) truck on their own, preferably nice and tall and hang about 15 metres back.

The air tunnel effect can strech up to 100 metres behind a truck for a car, it's only really other trucks that need to be so close. There also seems to be a sweet spot about 50 metres behind a large truck, you'll notice on a dusty road or when there is litter etc that a certain distance behind the truck are little whirlwinds of dust and rubbish moving with the truck but not really being affected by 60mph of wind. That is where you want to be!

[alanwalne]

Originally Posted by Buttons

It's a little nerve-wracking to start with, what I tend to do now is find a French or Polish (Racist, me?) truck on their own, preferably nice and tall and hang about 15 metres back.

The air tunnel effect can strech up to 100 metres behind a truck for a car, it's only really other trucks that need to be so close. There also seems to be a sweet spot about 50 metres behind a large truck, you'll notice on a dusty road or when there is litter etc that a certain distance behind the truck are little whirlwinds of dust and rubbish moving with the truck but not really being affected by 60mph of wind. That is where you want to be!

I agree with that, it is the next one coming up and sitting on your bumper that scares me!!

I tried it when towing a caravan (anything to try and eek up the economy), but bottled it when the next one sits glued to my rear end.

Also when you get a lorry with an amended differential that comes past you it didn't half rock the rig.

[KTMMAN]

the reason trucks sit at 55mph is because they are goverened to theat speed (56) nowt to do with fuel economy etc , its basically as fast as they can go !They all travel at the same speed to keep momentum up as tarffic managers tend to run to tight timescales to make any money.

[chee]

I regularly drive from North London to Cheshire to visit friends and family and get over 60mpg if I keep around 60mph-65mph and it definitely does not make much difference time wise to the journey (approx 3.5hours on a 180 mile trip).

[Buttons]

Originally Posted by KTMMAN

the reason trucks sit at 55mph is because they are goverened to theat speed (56) nowt to do with fuel economy etc , its basically as fast as they can go !They all travel at the same speed to keep momentum up as tarffic managers tend to run to tight timescales to make any money.

Chicken and egg, I believe they are set at that speed more for the best balance of economy and driver safety.

[Jack The Lad.]

Did anyone watch ITV at 8pm this evening. ?
Quentin Willson had 5 drivers trying to get more mpg out of their cars.
Dispite using so called better petrol, regular servicing, diesel, so called fuel saving tyres, --- it worked out best by changing ones driving style.
Drop your usual speed on the motorways by 10mph.
Avoid sudden braking at the lights and roundabouts.
If possible, change from 2nd to 4th.
All known stuff, but how many of us do it.

[civicfan]

Originally Posted by Buttons

Sorry for spamming but the last thing I've found is that if your calf muscles can cope, your foot is capable of being much more efficient than cruise with practice.

Well, no, at least not with modern systems. It's simply impossible to attain this level of precision with your foot, and the driver can also not know what the sensors are signaling.

[civicfan]

Originally Posted by alanwalne

I would be scared between the lorries, as they tailgate for the economy (especially European ones so they can get back to Calais without having to fiil up), they must sit right on your rear bumper to get as close to the lorry in front as possible.

I hate the thought of them using the back of my car as part of their braking system

I would forsake 0,5 l/100 km of fuel for a little safety (being crushed between two lorries is not exactly nice). Another problem, if you drive behind a lorry you are breathing in its fumes - for me it's no thanks...

[TTDegs]

wahey - another chance for me to use my photo

this was acheived over the course of 130 ish rather stressful miles, driving at around 55-60 mph.

Yes, tailing lorries where I could
yes, letting gravity speed me down the hills, and slow me down going up them
NO braking at all if I could possibly avoid it
Hardly any throttle
Certainly in 6th all the way (except on long up hill bits when it started to labour a bit)

And no cruise used
no idea if it would have been better or worse with cruise on - but I suspect worse, as it would have tried to maintain 60mph up the hills, whereas I was content to slow down to 50mph if that meant not pushing the gas pedal any further down

[Buttons]

Originally Posted by civicfan

Well, no, at least not with modern systems. It's simply impossible to attain this level of precision with your foot, and the driver can also not know what the sensors are signaling.

I can't provide a reason but that just doesn't hold true with the hybrid.

I think it's because cruise does not use the battery level in it's calculations so doesn't know when to maintain speed up a hill because you've got charge and when to allow the speed to drop because you haven't. Obviously cruise never lets your speed drop which leads to the human driver winning but in possibly a slower over all drive time. Although I think because I let it roll up to 70 and fall as low as 45 whereas cruise would keep it at 57 in my case, the journey time is the same but I make 5mpg better than cruise.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Buttons

With 109g/km CO2, doubt it. Hybrid technology is valid, it's not the ultimate but it is a valid technology. I have the car for money saving reasons as it's only £59 per month on 40% tax whereas the cheapest Passat would be around £200. Petrol is cheaper and cleaner than Diesel and road tax is significantly cheaper. You are in the hybrid forum by the way, thought I'd better check that you knew that

I know I'm in the hybrid forum - I am curious what the big attraction is.

What I am trying to point out is that "IN MY OPINION" the benefits of the hybrid are not quite what the marketing man, or politicians, would have you believe at this time. Ok, if it is more tax efficient for you, fair enough. (I assume that is a company lease scheme fig you quoted which is very good in fairness!)

But I dont believe that it is helping the planet any more so that a regular diesel car. A regular diesel will give better economy, is nicer to drive, and the cradle to grave impact on the environment is a lot less than a battery powered car. Just look at the envioronmental mess Toyota are creating mining out the lithium for the Prius (I dont know what Honda do btw) and then they ship stuff back to Japan to build the car and ship it back to the UK for people to drive around thinking they are saving the planet. Look at the oil wasted in the shipping. The damage through mining. The battery disposal problems at the end of life.

Dont get me wrong, I believe hybrids and alternative fuels are the future, I just think that some of the current breed are not actually doing the world any favours at this time.

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by Jack The Lad.

Did anyone watch ITV at 8pm this evening. ?
Quentin Willson had 5 drivers trying to get more mpg out of their cars.
Dispite using so called better petrol, regular servicing, diesel, so called fuel saving tyres, --- it worked out best by changing ones driving style.
Drop your usual speed on the motorways by 10mph.
Avoid sudden braking at the lights and roundabouts.
If possible, change from 2nd to 4th.
All known stuff, but how many of us do it.

ME! Thats been my style of driving for a while now (mainly cos' I'm a tight s*d ). Also using engine braking more often than your brakes (havn't used mine to slow down for a few days, just by watching ahead). Also gentle taps of the acceerator to keep you moving work well, rather than extended foot down lots in traffic.

Tom

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by Buttons

I can't provide a reason but that just doesn't hold true with the hybrid.

I think it's because cruise does not use the battery level in it's calculations so doesn't know when to maintain speed up a hill because you've got charge and when to allow the speed to drop because you haven't. Obviously cruise never lets your speed drop which leads to the human driver winning but in possibly a slower over all drive time. Although I think because I let it roll up to 70 and fall as low as 45 whereas cruise would keep it at 57 in my case, the journey time is the same but I make 5mpg better than cruise.

Your foot is often invariably better than CC, mainly because you adjust to conditions CC just ploughs on regardless, like TT's post about hills, logical really.

Tom

[KTMMAN]

still cant get more than 50mpg driving like a granny out of my 2.2diesel , honda must be driving down hill in neutral to get the claimed figures.

[alanwalne]

Neutral is worse than leaving in gear going down hill as some fuel has to be used to turn the car over, whereas if you leave the car in gear with no throttle pressed, the wheels turning turn the engine over.

[alanwalne]

Originally Posted by Unknownsoldier

ME! Thats been my style of driving for a while now (mainly cos' I'm a tight s*d ). Also using engine braking more often than your brakes (havn't used mine to slow down for a few days, just by watching ahead). Also gentle taps of the acceerator to keep you moving work well, rather than extended foot down lots in traffic.

Tom

Tom,

Why did you not get the CTDi then???

[GHGH]

Originally Posted by Unknownsoldier

Your foot is often invariably better than CC, mainly because you adjust to conditions CC just ploughs on regardless, like TT's post about hills, logical really.

Tom

Agreed, but the CC stay far more focused than me. Don't see any difference in MPG anymore.

But really - on hilly roads (= Norway) I should be far better than the CC..

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by alanwalne

Tom,

Why did you not get the CTDi then???

Because I hate Turbo's and am not a fan of diesel (especially at the price it is at the moment!!!), I have always hated Turbo's, I don't see why they are even used anymore, when super's are far superior in giving decent acceleration/power across the range of rev's (at least they do in petrol, having little interest in diesel, I don't know whether there is any impracticality in their use).

Also I can get almost as many MPG, as good as if not better performance, and my fuels cheaper than the diesel

ATB,
Tom

[alanwalne]

Tom

But just think what economy you could get out of a Diesel!!!!!!

If you can get high 40's out of a VTEC, you must be able to get 60's out of a CTDi!!!!

Superchargers appear to be going out of fashion, I can only think of Merc still using them. VW have started using Supers and Turbos together. Perhaps the fact that the engine has to turn them means they are not as fuel efficient as a Turbo running on waste gasses.

[GHGH]

Diesels are more costly, and more expensive to service, so you should have quite a mileage per year to save money