Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: comparison of economic cars.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329

    comparison of economic cars.

    The Dutch Organisation ANWB (sort of RAC) made a test to find out what from already famed economic cars, would in fact be the winner.

    so they choose
    A Citroen C1 1.0 liter petrol
    B. VW Polo 1.4 TDi Blue Motion
    C. Ford 1.6 TDci Wagon
    D Toyota Prius

    In spite of giving hardly information about the way they tested the cars, or the distance, the only thing we know is that it was the same for all, so the results do have some meaning...

    So here we go

    1. Polo (3.8 litre per 100 km or 61.9 mpg)
    2. Focus (3.9 litre per 100 km or 60.3 mpg)
    3. Citroen (4.1 litre per 100 km or 57.4 mpg)
    4. Prius (4.6 litre per 100 km or 51.1 mpg)

    The VW, the Citroen and the Focus were all more economical than the factory said (VW, 3.9 litre, Ford 4.8 litre and the Citroen 4.6). Only the Prius could not realise what the factory promised: 4.3 litre, whereby in particular highway traffic results in higher consumption.

    Conclusions: For the same amount of money as the Prius the Focus offers more space and better economy....and if you want. much better performance...
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    5,593
    And there goes the all the excitment about the green car.
    From those results also comes the interesting conclusion that, sometimes, a petrol car can be a better buy from the echonomic point of view, than some diesels. If we think that the C1 must be way less expensive then the 3 cylinder Polo TDI, then it's easy to conclude that it would take a very big mileage to make the diesel choice worthy. And there's also the maintenance costs issue, that probably favours the C1. Besides that, the 3 cylinder TDI, is one of the most annoying diesel engines ever made.
    Money can't buy you friends, but you do get a better class of enemy.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by McReis
    And there goes the all the excitment about the green car.
    From those results also comes the interesting conclusion that, sometimes, a petrol car can be a better buy from the echonomic point of view, than some diesels. If we think that the C1 must be way less expensive then the 3 cylinder Polo TDI, then it's easy to conclude that it would take a very big mileage to make the diesel choice worthy. And there's also the maintenance costs issue, that probably favours the C1. Besides that, the 3 cylinder TDI, is one of the most annoying diesel engines ever made.
    you got a point there.

    Prices of the cars as tested:
    Prius: 32750 Euro (Cheapest version 27920)
    Ford: 27100 (25400)
    VW : 19975 (19975)
    Citroen: 10140 (8490)

    It will be very difficult to recoup the price difference between a C1 and a Polo.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,833
    Then to realise we use twice the amount of fuel on average Time to get a smaller car

    The Focus surprises me quite a lot though. Such a big car,so little fuel...

    PS:
    I dont think they tested the cars on combined city/highway use but just on highway use. I still believe the Prius would then have stood a better chance.

    PPS:
    With V-power the focus would equal the Polo

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    PS:
    I dont think they tested the cars on combined city/highway use but just on highway use. I still believe the Prius would then have stood a better chance.
    they did a sort of combined run, see "de Kampioen" of this month
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    Then to realise we use twice the amount of fuel on average Time to get a smaller car
    Indeed. If there's something that worries me is when I see small young families with huge SUV's or cars like 5 series Touring and usually the car is used by only the driver, or the driver plus a small child lost somewhere on the back seat, burning lots of fuel stuck in traffic. I hate the fact that most executives or any well-earning people have prejudice about small cars or even scooters. The only vehicles that make sense in heavy traffic and that are little less hard on the environment

    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    PS:
    I dont think they tested the cars on combined city/highway use but just on highway use. I still believe the Prius would then have stood a better chance.
    As I had noticed and as Gordon Murray wrote on last month's EVO, hybrid cars have been proving they are a load of marketing BS. They don't offer such a great reduce if fuel consumption and they cost a lot. And in the end, they are still making as much pollution as any smaller car.

    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    PPS:
    With V-power the focus would equal the Polo
    I am still to notice that much advertised economy of premium fuels. I tried them for long periods of time both on the 206 HDI and the MX-5 and, if there's one difference I felt it was the amount I payed for a full tank. Other than that, nothing. Both cars kept the same averages.
    Last edited by McReis; 01-19-2007 at 08:58 AM.
    Money can't buy you friends, but you do get a better class of enemy.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    754
    desiels tend to be way more economical than petrol and way cooler too
    Once fanboyism infects you it impares all your judgement.
    It's like being drunk, you lack common sense and everyone laughs at you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by kigango123
    desiels tend to be way more economical than petrol and way cooler too
    This comparison I made proves that sometimes is the opposite.
    By the way, why cooler? And what's the point of being cool, specialy when talking about economy? And what's cool about a 3 cylinder TDI engine that rattles like hell and has absolutely no torque?
    Last edited by McReis; 01-19-2007 at 10:19 AM.
    Money can't buy you friends, but you do get a better class of enemy.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,833
    Quote Originally Posted by McReis
    Indeed. If there's something that worries me is when I see small young families with huge SUV's or cars like 5 series Touring and usually the car is used by only the driver, or the driver plus a small child lost somewhere on the back seat, burning lots of fuel stuck in traffic. I hate the fact that most executives or any well-earning people have prejudice about small cars or even scooters. The only vehicles that make sense in heavy traffic and that are little less hard on the environment
    We aint a young family. We got a C5 1.8 16V,but because of the limited torque and power we need to rev it up quite a lot. This offcourse is costly regarding the fuel. We drink about 6.5 - 8.5 litres/100 km in ordinary traffic. However I agree,this trend is not very good. Every morning I see huge S-classes,Phaetons,C6's and 7-series with just one person in them Statu prevents these rich dumbasses to buy a Smart

    I am still to notice that much advertised economy of premium fuels. I tried them for long periods of time both on the 206 HDI and the MX-5 and, if there's one difference I felt it was the amount I payed for a full tank. Other than that, nothing. Both cars kept the same averages.
    About a year ago I read an article about them in the well-known Auot,Motor und Sport. They tested a VW Golf 5 with normal petrol and V-power. After a 15.000 km test run they found minimal differences. V-power saved about 0.1 l/100km. Overall they concluded it wasnt worth the money,but DID work a bit

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    About a year ago I read an article about them in the well-known Auot,Motor und Sport. They tested a VW Golf 5 with normal petrol and V-power. After a 15.000 km test run they found minimal differences. V-power saved about 0.1 l/100km. Overall they concluded it wasnt worth the money,but DID work a bit
    Obviously, the VPower wouldn't make much economic gain towards fuel mileage. The only reason I get it every 10 tanks or so is just for the reduced pinging, slightly better performance/mileage and before inspections for emissions and such.
    Rockefella says:
    pat's sister is hawt
    David Fiset says:
    so is mine
    David Fiset says:
    do want

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    We aint a young family.
    I know. There are 2 kinds of people who really need those cars: those who have big families and those who carry ladders.

    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    However I agree,this trend is not very good. Every morning I see huge S-classes,Phaetons,C6's and 7-series with just one person in them Statu prevents these rich dumbasses to buy a Smart
    My point exactly!

    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    About a year ago I read an article about them in the well-known Auot,Motor und Sport. They tested a VW Golf 5 with normal petrol and V-power. After a 15.000 km test run they found minimal differences. V-power saved about 0.1 l/100km. Overall they concluded it wasnt worth the money,but DID work a bit
    EVO did quite an extensive and rather scientific test with a lot of premium fuels and with different cars and they have come to the conclusion there were differences in power output and economy. However, I always failed to notice them on my real world experience. And then there's this amazing think called supermarket fuel.
    Money can't buy you friends, but you do get a better class of enemy.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockefella
    Obviously, the VPower wouldn't make much economic gain towards fuel mileage. The only reason I get it every 10 tanks or so is just for the reduced pinging, slightly better performance/mileage and before inspections for emissions and such.
    Special cars require special fuels.
    Money can't buy you friends, but you do get a better class of enemy.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by kigango123
    desiels tend to be way more economical than petrol and way cooler too
    that really gives me a kick
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    About a year ago I read an article about them in the well-known Auot,Motor und Sport. They tested a VW Golf 5 with normal petrol and V-power. After a 15.000 km test run they found minimal differences. V-power saved about 0.1 l/100km. Overall they concluded it wasnt worth the money,but DID work a bit
    Quote Originally Posted by McReis
    EVO did quite an extensive and rather scientific test with a lot of premium fuels and with different cars and they have come to the conclusion there were differences in power output and economy. However, I always failed to notice them on my real world experience. And then there's this amazing think called supermarket fuel.
    The additives included in the more expensive fuels are not just there for power and economy.
    Thanks for all the fish

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    The additives included in the more expensive fuels are not just there for power and economy.
    Sure. But use them only once in a whyle or use the specific additives (they were sold before the premium fuels came) and you'll do OK.
    Money can't buy you friends, but you do get a better class of enemy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. F1 Technology Overrated?
    By What in forum Technical forums
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-01-2008, 01:06 PM
  2. Anyone rember Group B?
    By Markie Boy in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 03:23 PM
  3. Pixar Cars
    By 90ft in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 08:03 AM
  4. alms
    By my porsche in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 01:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •