Club 80-90 Forums

HarryMann wrote:I think a mean mpg figure should go in the Wiki, against Expedition 1.9 Tdi Campers - fully loaded.

For the figures, I basically had the van brimmed each time, a fairly inaccurate science. Did not remember it on all the refills, and refilled from Jerry cans sometimes. Wrote down the mileage since the last brim and the litres filled etc.

The avg for the trip was 30.93 mpg.

Out of curiosity I've measured it for running round town and too and from work this week (10 mile roundtrip). And I'm getting about 35mpg.

Right thansk Jake, will take that figure and if we can get the other two too, then we can have an average too..

Did not remember it on all the refills, and refilled from Jerry cans sometimes. Wrote down the mileage since the last brim and the litres filled etc.

Plotting it out properly it really doesn't matter, as long as you know exactly what went in.
All a non brim-fill will do is put a kink in the fill-to-fill line, but the running mean and consumption-to-date lines will smooth it out no problem. In fact with complete figures, its possible to move the non-brim figure about to smooth it out, without upsetting the accuracy.

The avg for the trip was 30.93 mpg.
Out of curiosity I've measured it for running round town and too and from work this week (10 mile roundtrip). And I'm getting about 35mpg

I'll take the first figure, the second around town sounds highly unlikely, and its based on a much smaller sample... the problem I keep bleating on about

keep the figures running Jake, but don't calculate or bother with single mpgs between fills, its the whole picture thats meaningful.

Mileometer(n) Fuel litres(n)
Mileometer(n+1) Fuel litres(n+1)
Mileometer(n+2) Fuel litres(n+2)
Mileometer(n+x) Fuel litres(n+x)

That's ALL that matters, can then do the sums anytime, in a years time even... provided a fill wasn't missed (and only one miss can be guesstimated very accuraetly with a years figures)

HarryMann wrote:the second around town sounds highly unlikely

If you say so! I am not too fussed about it really as the MPG is by-the-by as I drive it anyway, its me only vehicle. I just know that if I put in £15 I'll get about 130 miles before I need to put anoter £15 in.

For the petrol records too if its useful I did two trips to Corsica in 2003 and 2004 in the 2.1dj Syncro

trip in 2003 without prop
trip in 2004 with new VC and prop

both similar trips over similar routes brimmed to brimmed and recorded fill by fill producing:

2003

2990 Miles 144.51 gallons £500.83 20.69mpg

2004

2744 Miles 131.7 gallons £460.10 20.83mpg

For me this killed off any suggestion that the permanent 4wd reduces your mpg !

Thanks both, now in here... the place for long distance mpg's that are credible, and think both of those figures are very creditable too!

http://wiki.80-90.co.uk/index.php/Fuel_ ... unofficial

Jake ! 35 mpg around town on tarmac without the load is good, just wanted a long distance figure with all the fillups included for the records - sorry, x miles per £y doesn't cut it for me - you know I'm an old fuddy duddy at heart, but were too polite to say

why aren't my mpg's credible clive?

I get the same MPG week in week out on a route with very little variation

50 litres - 290 kms week in week out . . .

Aren't 16" speedo's reputedly more accurate too?

Didn't say they aren't Andy...

Just that when I've actually managed to grab real figures out of someone's mitts, and plotted them, have often found there's a 'catch-up fill' in there somewhere, accompanied by an 'ah well, that's different cos I...' ,

and found this with my own figures as well. Anyway, as I've said before and never been sent a contiguous set of figures - send them along
A nice whole season (winter or summer) or complete year would be good.

Just that when I've actually managed to grab real figures out of someone's mitts, and plotted them, have often found there's a 'catch-up fill' in there somewhere, accompanied by an 'ah well, that's different cos I...' ,

sweeping generalisation, as you say, you've not had my figures in detail to discover this catch up fill, so your just assuming I'm wrong.

Anyway, as I've said before and never been sent a contiguous set of figures

I never said you were wrong Andy...