Miles Per Gallon

[jimmy]

Sym has it spot on.

The tuning box was way OTT for what I wanted long term, the Superchip is subtle but noticable but above all has increased MPG significantly.

I have also replaced the flexible rubber pipes that connect the rigid air pipes to the intercooler etc as I think the old ones were perished and leaking. I also looked at uprating the intercooler but there is no room for a bigger one. My old one was 2/3 blocked so very inefficient and the cooling fins at the front were corroded so badly that it was disintegrating. So I also have a new intercooler. I think it has made a difference, trouble is when you spend a week of evenings fiddling about you think it 'has' to make a difference!!

Dieselman, I tried to take the turbo off to give it a polish like you did but it is much different than yours, the whole exhaust manifold has to come off so I really didnt fancy it.

 

[V12]

Best - 28MPG
Worst - 19MPG
Average - 25MPG

 

[R2D2]

Glad you are pleased with your Superchip Jimmy. Bet it goes to the Redline in every gear now (should the need arise!)

 

[altreed]

Just returned 28MPG on a 240 mile blast to London and back on the motorway at 80 on cruise, no worries.

No tyre smoke but not hanging about neither, at the lights

 

[scumbag]

The scummermobile manages 28.9mpg around town when i have my baseball cap on backwards. and down the motorway it averages 32.4mpg...must be the peak on the cap.

If I try I can get it up to 36.7 and have seen 42mpg but only on a short stretch.

Now heres one. the scumbags previous tonkatoy was a scoobie. And it use to have scoobie-snacks often. it only managed 26mpg round town. however on a run to Exter to see Sir Elton John at Powderham Castle (Yes I am in the dvd) it manages 31mpg and averaged 67mph. I drove 275miles in that one way trip.

and more amazing. I took it on the scumbag school trip to scumbagsville (Blackpool) It managed 42mpg!!!! I really drove like an old man. even tho i say that, I did laugh. I mean 225HP 4wd and 42mpg....never. Got some Solar Flambe there too.

It went up to scotland for the scumbag annual challenge (climb Ben Nevis for charity Macmillan Cancer relief) and only managed to average 28mpg. Mind you there are some damn big hills and lovely roads to drive on up there. If only I lived there! Job offers welcome,,,or maybe life changing offers?

On the downside...My Grand Cherokee Ltd that was scumbag uniteds tour bus, managed 4mpg while sat in the car park switched off.

so i suppose it depends how you drive and where you drive that adds or disrupts the fuel economy. :bannana:

 

[R2D2]

I did the same long run twice last week. Sticking to the speed limits (ish) I got my car up from its usual 23.5mpg to a vaguely respectable 28.2mpg. BUT on the second trip I brimmed it with Optimax and got 31.2mpg!! Hardly conclusive evidence but you know I'm sure its worth putting Optimax in on a long run but I suspect its not worth spending the extra money to sit in traffic jams.

 

[scumbag]

I did the same long run twice last week. Sticking to the speed limits (ish) I got my car up from its usual 23.5mpg to a vaguely respectable 28.2mpg. BUT on the second trip I brimmed it with Optimax and got 31.2mpg!! Hardly conclusive evidence but you know I'm sure its worth putting Optimax in on a long run but I suspect its not worth spending the extra money to sit in traffic jams.

this had had exhaustive chat on another forum...and the results vary there too.

in my super sceintific test that i did.....and i have the results and reciepts and stuff I can honestly say that optimax made no difference to the SLK performance nor economy. absoltuyt none ata ll. so its sainsbury's for me. 3p a litre off.

The scoob had optimax but i never tested common or garden unleaded in it so i cant comment on that one.

I emailed Top Gear and asked them to do a compariosn to see but I notce that the shell ad's just say cleaner and more responsive they seem not to mention more power or economy anymore...maybe that says something.

 

[sparkyspost]

Just having completed a 1000 mile round trip to lovely (but cold) Scotland over the weekend, I managed an average of about 32 mpg, mainly motorway driving, with some around town stuff.

Took it steady 99% of the time and only gunned it to do overtaking a couple of times.

Re: Cruise Control, I was using this most of the way up from London and made the journey far more relaxing and stress free.

The way back was not so stress free with the M6 and M1 in particular being car park like.

Cheers

Sparky

 

[mercedes lover]

I get around 20-22mpg around london suburbs where i live and 26mpg driving 100mph on the motorway.

 

[xspencex]

The best I've got is 28 mpg The worst 15 mpg but with mixed driving I get around 20 mpg...

 

[cris124]

mpg

have just returned from a 500 mile trip to Canterbury and back to Exeter in my c220 cdi auto. Travelling at 75-80 mph the car returned 43.9 mpg. Very pleased!
Aroung town (ish) about 34.

 

[Tan]

After three years of avoiding it.... I have finally mustered up the courage to calculate my SL's mpg. I got 250 miles from half a tank.

So thats 250 miles on 40 litres of fuel, thus I calculate that is 28.4 MPG. This was on my journey from Home to Work via M25, a journey of approx. 35 miles.

I am quite pleased with that.

 

[blicky_1]

Dualfuel system on W210 E200k : -

Normal unleaded, 300mls per tank (£46) computer shows 31mpg with mixed driving, as low as 24mpg around town.

LPG, 300mls per tank (£23) computer shows 24mpg with mixed driving, as low as 19mpg around town.

Not sure how the fuel computer works out mpg with the LPG system as it turns off the unleaded injectors but looks about right??

 

[BTB 500]

After three years of avoiding it.... I have finally mustered up the courage to calculate my SL's mpg. I got 250 miles from half a tank.

So thats 250 miles on 40 litres of fuel, thus I calculate that is 28.4 MPG. This was on my journey from Home to Work via M25, a journey of approx. 35 miles.

I am quite pleased with that.

Yup my 5 litre SL is more economical than my 2.8 litre VW Sharan!

 

[mercedes lover]

I get 20mpg driving round London Suburbs, 31mpg at 70-80mph and 26mpg crusing at around 100-110mph. Pretty rubbish for a C180 compared to what some of the bigger engined cars are getting.

 

[BTB 500]

Pretty rubbish for a C180 compared to what some of the bigger engined cars are getting.

In the case of my SL, it's pretty low and sleek compared to a saloon ... which I think is why it's reasonably good at motorway speeds. My Sharan is the opposite, fairly streamlined for an MPV but still close to a garden shed on wheels! So the aerodynamic drag at 85-90 must be horrendous compared to the SL.

I suspect motorway fuel consumption on the SL would be a bit worse with the soft top up (compared to the hard top), and sky high with it down!

 

[glojo]

My Sharan is the opposite, fairly streamlined for an MPV but still close to a garden shed on wheels! So the aerodynamic drag at 85-90 must be horrendous compared to the SL.

I would love to know how the Sharan compares with the 2.2CDI powered V-class?

Regards,
John

 

[BTB 500]

I would love to know how the Sharan compares with the 2.2CDI powered V-class?

Regards,
John

The Sharan body is a bit more streamlined than a V-Class. E.g. my V6 one has a max. speed of 135 mph, whereas the V280 (with the same 2.8 litre VW engine) was only 116 mph.

But I would guess a CDI powered V-Class would be more economical. I got my Sharan specifically for the 4WD (towing a caravan in and out of muddy fields), and at the time the only version available with 4Motion was the petrol V6. I only do about 5000 miles a year in it though, so fuel consumption isn't a big issue.

 

[glojo]

The Sharan body is a bit more streamlined than a V-Class. E.g. my V6 one has a max. speed of 135 mph, whereas the V280 (with the same 2.8 litre VW engine) was only 116 mph.

But I would guess a CDI powered V-Class would be more economical. I got my Sharan specifically for the 4WD (towing a caravan in and out of muddy fields), and at the time the only version available with 4Motion was the petrol V6. I only do about 5000 miles a year in it though, so fuel consumption isn't a big issue.

Your vehicle sounds absolutely ideal and I cannot think of a better alternative. The V6 is a thirsty beast, but as you say, 'who cares'

Regards,
John

 

[996jimbo]

Not sure how the fuel computer works out mpg with the LPG system as it turns off the unleaded injectors but looks about right??

It's theoretical anyway - doesn't actully know how much fuel your are usings whatever fuel you are running on. On LPG you're (presumably) having to press the accelerator ever-so-slightly further for any given speed.

I believe Renaults may calculate actual rather then theoretical fuel consumption. This because when I had my previous car converted to LPG I asked about the fuel computer and apparently the Renault ones don't work when running on LPG as somewhere along the line actual petrol consumption feeds in to the calculations.

That's why if you work your avereage fuel consumption by how much petrol you buy v's miles travelled you get a different (and normally slightly lower) figure than the car's computer is telling you.