Thread: Small diesel cars - Amazing fuel economy

We have a Passat 125 tdi. Loaded with 4 people on board and the boot full it easily runs at 4.5 litres per 100 ks when cruising. One trip we filled up in Sydney, drove to the Blue Mountains and out to Lithgow then back to Melbourne the next day. My wife then did the school and shopping trips around home for over a week before needing more fuel. It is surprisingly quick as well. We love the thing.
As said, why Holden and Ford did not fit similar motors amazes me. They might still be around if they had. We would have been more than happy t drive a diesel locally made car.

I used to own a Datsun 120 Y station wagon......1978 year model
Only Two valves per Cylinder push rod 1200c motor and a Carburettor.
It was fun to drive with only a 4 speed gearbox simple to fix , not that anything went wrong with it.
It was happy cruising at 100kph.
I never got anything worse than 40 MPG and that being a young bloke at the time.
One time I did a trip and drove the thing for economy and accurately recorded 60 mpg.
All done without electronics including points ignition.
The A12 Nissan motor even as a push rod motor was happy with revs with max torque at 4000rpm and max power at 6000rpm.
The above figures match the modern Diesels..........and using petrol.
We have advanced very little.
40 mpg equals......5.88 litres per 100
60mpg equals ...3.92 litres per 100km

I just handed back a Fiesta Zetec Diesel (I get my cars through work) and without doubt it was the best car I have ever run - overall...
I drive mostly hilly back roads, and do around 800kms/week commuting. I ran the car hard for 35,000kms and it gave me a constant 4.3lt/100. I used to love getting up behind ute drivers and then teasing them into all the corners - no need to slow down in a Fiesta

1 trip to the pumps every week set me back around 50bucks - brilliant!

I now have a Falcon

Originally Posted by 101 Ron

.........The above figures match the modern Diesels..........and using petrol.
We have advanced very little.
40 mpg equals......5.88 litres per 100
60mpg equals ...3.92 litres per 100km

Disagree Ron.

My Golf is officially rated at 3.8l/100km, or 74mpg. Nearly 25% better, than your "drive carefully" economy.

My "drive carefully" economy at 3.3l/100km or 86mpg is nearly 50% better. And has more safety features, better emissions......

Originally Posted by sheerluck

Disagree Ron.

My Golf is officially rated at 3.8l/100km, or 74mpg. Nearly 25% better, than your "drive carefully" economy.

My "drive carefully" economy at 3.3l/100km or 86mpg is nearly 50% better. And has more safety features, better emissions......

And is also a lot heavier.

My son now has a Hyundai I30 - gives around 5l/100km, better than twice the economy of the Commodore that it replaced. But it weighs significantly more than the Commodore, and hence costs more to register. It also has airbags, better aircon, much better performance, better ride, quieter, better brakes, than the Commodore.

John

Hmmm.
My Honda Jazz 1.5 GD regularly gets about 5.5 L per 100 on a long trip at 110 , using unleaded 91 which in cities is about 15-20% cheaper than diesel.

On a recent trip toBowral it did 5.5 for the overall trip and that is uphill all the way there and downhill back and included Pennant Hills Road, arguably the most congested road in Australia. When we bought the car in Bathurst the consumption to the Central Coast was 5.2, and I believe this would be achievable on a 100Kmh say Pacific Highway run. ( 5.2 is the listed country economy)

In the suburbs in a very hilly area , the Central coast of NSW, I get about 6.5, as long as not too many cold starts and short trips.

I have seen it reported that the major European car makers including VW see little future in light duty diesels except in heavy FWD, I guess mainly due to the higher emissions.

So although small diesels give great economy, the cost of operation is not much less than an efficient petrol engine, and you don't get your hands dirty or have to be paranoid about fuel quality or looking after your particulate filter. A friend had a $3000 bill on his Jetta for a DPF plus half of a DSG failure but he still loves it!!!.
On this note I cannot understand why the listed fuel efficiency in Australia do not discriminate by octane requirement. It is far more expensive to run a VW requiring 98 than a jazz running 91 as the cost for 98 is usually about 17 cents a litre more , so IMHO the listed economy should be reduced by at least 10% maybe 15%.
Regards Philip A
BTW, I also own a TD5 so am not biassed against diesels.

Australia is just coming around to the difference in economy of the diesel

I am a rep and I do 70,000ks a year.

In the uk all my company cars were diesel and I did the same sort of k's and here they are all petrol


At the moment I have a brand new Hyundai ix35 and when it was due to be changed before Xmas I asked for a diesel instead if the 2 ltr petrol model.

My company thought it was great idea but went to the parent company and came back No due to the car costing $50 a month more to lease the diesel to the petrol. Would get that back in a week.

Gave up most Australia don't understand the difference in the economy between a petrol and diesel.
Ix35 petrol 450k's a tank, diesel version 750k's a tank.


I just said ok thanks for the extra flybuys points ( as we have to fill up at shell).

Originally Posted by MR LR

Bet you don't get the same smile as when I bury my foot and burn through 17L/100km in my Classic Rangie

You wouldn't know .... You'd only be able to see a rapidly receding view of the back of his head.

For a few months (before the baby was born a couple of years back) my wife has a Citroen C4 ... My mother bought the car new and it has only done 28,xxxkms. The bloody thing was so grunty it was hard not to run over all the traffic around you ( strangely the spec's on them don't read as very fast, or very powerful), but out of the now old technology 1.6 litre diesel it was pumping 260Nm of torque on overboost ( far more than the 3.5litre V8 in my classic). It used to average around 4.2L/100kms Pitty the suspension under it crappy.

That was replaced with a 2litre poogoe 407 sedan. This thing was an ex-company car out of melbourne. A 6spd manual gearbox meant it had only 42,000kms on it from new (even though it's '07 model). Other than riding like a bucket of ****, being so stuipidly low it's forever smashing it's nose into the ground and breaking **** underneath.... it hasn't been bad. It's bloody fast for something that weighs a staggeringly 1.7tons ... the little diesels in them are 340Nm on overboost (likely as much as the 4.2+ litre V8's fitted to the later Classics) yet return < 7.00L/100kms. I'd love to tear it's motor/6spd manual gearbox out and stick it into one of my old Citroens

Now australia has finally caught up with the diesel craze (that the rest of the world has driven for 20years), they are moving away from it back to tiny capacity high pressure injection turbo charged petrol motors.

My sister has just purchased a 900cc Renault Clio .... I couldn't imagine buying anything with such a tiny motor, but my old man test drove it and he reckons it's brilliant. I guess it's 300cc bigger than the motor in there 2cv though

seeya,
Shane L.