On 12/03/18 10:13, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:18:04 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:


Possibly because none of the contributors so far have a EuroVI diesel?
or maybe they think that ****ing into the tank will give the correct mix
of water and urea

Do modern tractors have Adblue? - it would save on nitrogen costs ) 15l
of Adblue instead of 50kg Urea...

Just joking BTW




My Hyundai Tucson is diesel, Euro VI and no Adblue.

Just for the record... I would have preferred petrol, given the way
things are going but there are no good petrol engines in that model in
the UK (which is weird as I'm pretty sure the US version has a 2l petrol).

Why Hyundai? Big discount available at the time...

In article ,
wrote:
Cars over the years have got much larger and heavier.
And have lots more toys which also consume power. All of this means more
fuel is needed for a given job.

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

If you really think things like air-con don't use fuel, I'll have to lump
you in with Turnip. ;-)

Also, wide tyres and the larger heavier bodywork and trim etc all
contribute to increasing fuel consumption over what it could be. Just as
well engine efficiency has improved a bit too.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over 50
mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman with a
company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind. True there
was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much 'power'
do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 22:54:56 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/03/2018 21:29, tabbypurr wrote:

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a straight engine.

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/toyota/auris-2013

has figures for the Auris in Diesel, petrol and hybrid forms.

Real figures, from real people, not book ones.

Andy

it also has the prius figures, which are no better than a straight
diesel.


A straight diesel what? And under which sort of driving conditions?
Hybrids score in heavy stop start traffic, like in many large towns. But
can be worse on a motorway.

--
*Wood burns faster when you have to cut and chop it yourself.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
All of mine except the latest have smoked if booted hard, and left the
requisite soot stains on the bumper.

Just wait 'till the current one gets some miles under its belt. ;-)

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over 50
mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman with a
company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind. True there
was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much 'power'
do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

ISTR that my Anglia's engine 1200cc was supposed to deliver about 80bhp
(60kW) . In contrast, SWMBO's Skoda with a similar size engine delivers
132kW =- more than double.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over
50 mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman
with a company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind.
True there was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners
etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much
'power' do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very
interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

ISTR that my Anglia's engine 1200cc was supposed to deliver about 80bhp
(60kW) . In contrast, SWMBO's Skoda with a similar size engine delivers
132kW =- more than double.

Don't think Ford claimed anywhere near 80 bhp for a 1200 Anglia. For
guidance, a Mini Cooper S 1275 had 75 (claimed) BHP.

But 2-3 times peak power for the same sized engine in cooking form
wouldn't be far out. Remembering that the way peak power is measured has
changed over the years.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/03/2018 10:13, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:18:04 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
On 11/03/2018 10:22, Andrew wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:20, wrote:
Â* Stamping hard on diesels would of course very much set back the
possible future clean efficient diesel engine.
Ford had lean-burn petrol engines all ready for production, but
canned them when the EU decided that diesel was the 'future'.

They canned them because they couldn't meet the emissions laws while CAT
equipped cars could.

165 now 166 posts and no one has mentioned ADBLUE!


Possibly because none of the contributors so far have a EuroVI diesel?
or maybe they think that ****ing into the tank will give the correct mix
of water and urea

I have a euro vi diesel, it doesn't have adblue.


Or at least it isn't mentioned in the manual and I don't see anywhere to
put it.

On 12/03/18 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

Always trying to put words into the mouths of others.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over
50 mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman
with a company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind.
True there was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners
etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much
'power' do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very
interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

ISTR that my Anglia's engine 1200cc was supposed to deliver about 80bhp
(60kW) . In contrast, SWMBO's Skoda with a similar size engine delivers
132kW =- more than double.

Don't think Ford claimed anywhere near 80 bhp for a 1200 Anglia. For
guidance, a Mini Cooper S 1275 had 75 (claimed) BHP.

you're probably correct - I no longer have any publications of that era. I
do know that after fitting a Minnow carburettor, a rolling road test gacve
63bhp at the rear wheels!

But 2-3 times peak power for the same sized engine in cooking form
wouldn't be far out. Remembering that the way peak power is measured has
changed over the years.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over 50
mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman with a
company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind. True there
was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much 'power'
do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

ISTR that my Anglia's engine 1200cc was supposed to deliver about 80bhp
(60kW) .

Think it would have been lucky to produce 60 bhp, probably nearer 50.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

dennis@home wrote:
On 12/03/2018 10:13, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:18:04 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
On 11/03/2018 10:22, Andrew wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:20, wrote:
Â* Stamping hard on diesels would of course very much set back the
possible future clean efficient diesel engine.
Ford had lean-burn petrol engines all ready for production, but
canned them when the EU decided that diesel was the 'future'.

They canned them because they couldn't meet the emissions laws while CAT
equipped cars could.

165 now 166 posts and no one has mentioned ADBLUE!


Possibly because none of the contributors so far have a EuroVI diesel?
or maybe they think that ****ing into the tank will give the correct mix
of water and urea

I have a euro vi diesel, it doesn't have adblue.


Or at least it isn't mentioned in the manual and I don't see anywhere to
put it.


Generally only bigger engines or higher output variations of smaller
engines that require it.

It obviously costs more to fit and manufacturers will continue to bend over
backwards NOT to fit anything that isnt essential. My wifes 150bhp 2L
diesel has it.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:02:05 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Mark Allread Wrote in message:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:18:04 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
On 11/03/2018 10:22, Andrew wrote:
On 11/03/2018 09:20, wrote:
Stamping hard on diesels would of course very much set back the
possible future clean efficient diesel engine.
Ford had lean-burn petrol engines all ready for production, but
canned them when the EU decided that diesel was the 'future'.

They canned them because they couldn't meet the emissions laws while
CAT equipped cars could.

165 now 166 posts and no one has mentioned ADBLUE!


Possibly because none of the contributors so far have a EuroVI diesel?

We have one, but what about it?

Eu6 engines reduce the amount of Nox emitted. There are ways of
achieving this but, on larger engines, the most frequent method is by
what is known as 'selective catalytic reduction' and this reequires
Adblue to work.

Smaller engines can use Nox traps but these don't work on lots of diesel
engines nor at high temperatures.

I dunno why - but they don't.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:40:09 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

On 12/03/18 10:13, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:18:04 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:


Possibly because none of the contributors so far have a EuroVI diesel?
or maybe they think that ****ing into the tank will give the correct
mix of water and urea

Do modern tractors have Adblue? - it would save on nitrogen costs )
15l of Adblue instead of 50kg Urea...

Just joking BTW




My Hyundai Tucson is diesel, Euro VI and no Adblue.

See my reply to Tim+

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:31:13 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 12/03/2018 10:13, Mark Allread wrote:


Possibly because none of the contributors so far have a EuroVI diesel?
or maybe they think that ****ing into the tank will give the correct
mix of water and urea

I have a euro vi diesel, it doesn't have adblue.


Or at least it isn't mentioned in the manual and I don't see anywhere to
put it.

See my reply to Tim+

In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 12/03/18 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

Always trying to put words into the mouths of others.

Thanks for proving you just jump in without any understanding of a point.

I'll try and explain it to you. Total fuel consumed against total miles
travelled is totally meaningless without knowing the type of journey.

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mark Allread wrote:
Eu6 engines reduce the amount of Nox emitted. There are ways of
achieving this but, on larger engines, the most frequent method is by
what is known as 'selective catalytic reduction' and this reequires
Adblue to work.

Smaller engines can use Nox traps but these don't work on lots of diesel
engines nor at high temperatures.

I dunno why - but they don't.

And this is the problem. Something which works under test conditions may
not work so well or at all in real world use.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over
50 mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman
with a company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind.
True there was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners
etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much
'power' do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very
interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

ISTR that my Anglia's engine 1200cc was supposed to deliver about 80bhp
(60kW) . In contrast, SWMBO's Skoda with a similar size engine delivers
132kW =- more than double.

Don't think Ford claimed anywhere near 80 bhp for a 1200 Anglia. For
guidance, a Mini Cooper S 1275 had 75 (claimed) BHP.

you're probably correct - I no longer have any publications of that era. I
do know that after fitting a Minnow carburettor, a rolling road test gacve
63bhp at the rear wheels!

Hmm, Im still inclined to think that was €œestimated power at the
flywheel€�. 1.2 Ford engines back then were no balls of fire.

Tim


--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 12/03/18 16:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 12/03/18 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

Always trying to put words into the mouths of others.

Thanks for proving you just jump in without any understanding of a point.

It was you not understanding tabby's point.


I'll try and explain it to you. Total fuel consumed against total miles
travelled is totally meaningless without knowing the type of journey.

Irrelevant to what tabby was saying.

Tim+ wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
My father had a Morris Minor in the early 50s which averaged over 50
mpg in the time he had it -about 3 years. And being a salesman with a
company car didn't exactly drive it with economy in mind. True there
was less traffic then, but then roads had more corners etc.

and it had 1/10th the output power. Efficiency has risen greatly.

How much 'power' do you think an early '50s MM had - and how much 'power'
do you think a modern equivalent has? This could prove very interesting...

Oh - and why do you seem to think power is linked to efficiency?

ISTR that my Anglia's engine 1200cc was supposed to deliver about 80bhp
(60kW) .

Think it would have been lucky to produce 60 bhp, probably nearer 50.

Tim


According to this site, even my second guess was optimistic (although close
to the mark).

https://www.carfolio.com/specificati...car/?car=66616

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 11/03/2018 13:52, Tim Streater wrote:
Worse than what? Since new (now 15 months and 14k miles), my Auris has
averaged 55mpg.

My son is getting 60 out of a Civic diesel (picked for that reason - he
does 40k a year on business at a fixed per-mile rate)

Andy

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:12:08 +0000, ARW
wrote:
Do cars exist that will do 700 miles at 70MPH on one tank of fuel?

My works pug 206 1.4HDI often did over 700 miles per tank and if I
could have maintained 70mph I think it would have been close. It was
scrapped at 305k miles after I retired

Current fiesta 1.4 eco does slightly better mpg but smaller tank.

AJH

On 12/03/2018 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

A car suitable for a lot of motorway miles, will generally also be fine
around town, but the opposite is often not true. In our house I have the
large family car, do all the motorway mileage and most family mileage,
but also most town journeys. My wife's small car is fine for her nipping
here and there, but very tiring on a motorway drive and useless for a
week's shopping for a family of five.

SteveW

On 12/03/2018 22:50, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/03/2018 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

A car suitable for a lot of motorway miles, will generally also be fine
around town, but the opposite is often not true. In our house I have the
large family car, do all the motorway mileage and most family mileage,
but also most town journeys. My wife's small car is fine for her nipping
here and there, but very tiring on a motorway drive and useless for a
week's shopping for a family of five.

SteveW

Whoops, forgot to add, mpg in my car pretty well matches hers under town
conditions and is better on the motorway.

SteveW

On Monday, 12 March 2018 11:21:59 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
If the government did absolutely nothing the aging polluting vehicles
will disappear by themselves.

That assumes the emission control continues to work as it should. Which
simply isn't the case.

No it doesn't.


NT

On Monday, 12 March 2018 14:30:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Cars over the years have got much larger and heavier.
And have lots more toys which also consume power. All of this means more
fuel is needed for a given job.

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

If you really think things like air-con don't use fuel, I'll have to lump
you in with Turnip. ;-)

I haven;t claimed that either. Do you understand anything?

Also, wide tyres and the larger heavier bodywork and trim etc all
contribute to increasing fuel consumption

yup. And other factors have reduced it.


NT

On Monday, 12 March 2018 14:40:50 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

go & learn some basic comprehension

On Monday, 12 March 2018 16:39:58 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
On 12/03/18 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

Always trying to put words into the mouths of others.

Thanks for proving you just jump in without any understanding of a point.

Richard got it spot on. You're pretty much just trolling.


I'll try and explain it to you. Total fuel consumed against total miles
travelled is totally meaningless without knowing the type of journey.

At the risk of stating the totally obvious, pretty much every car on the road covers all the usual types of journey. So the figure is always going to be for real world combination of journey types. Sure you can split the figures up, but it's combined fuel use that actually matters. I thought you'd understand that first time it was said.


NT

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/03/2018 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

A car suitable for a lot of motorway miles, will generally also be fine
around town, but the opposite is often not true. In our house I have the
large family car, do all the motorway mileage and most family mileage,
but also most town journeys. My wife's small car is fine for her nipping
here and there, but very tiring on a motorway drive and useless for a
week's shopping for a family of five.

Steve, I was referring to MPG. A car which is ideal for munching miles on
a long journey isn't likely to be the most economical in fuel in heavy
town traffic.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 11:21:59 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
If the government did absolutely nothing the aging polluting vehicles
will disappear by themselves.

That assumes the emission control continues to work as it should. Which
simply isn't the case.

No it doesn't.

See that one has gone over your head too.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 14:30:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Cars over the years have got much larger and heavier.
And have lots more toys which also consume power. All of this means more
fuel is needed for a given job.

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

If you really think things like air-con don't use fuel, I'll have to lump
you in with Turnip. ;-)

I haven;t claimed that either. Do you understand anything?

Also, wide tyres and the larger heavier bodywork and trim etc all
contribute to increasing fuel consumption

yup. And other factors have reduced it.


Seems I need to spell it out to you.

It's true engines have become more efficient. But other changes to cars
over the years - bigger, heavier, more friction in the drive train, more
toys and so on, have produced nothing like the fuel savings that would
have been possible otherwise.

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 00:04:00 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 14:30:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Cars over the years have got much larger and heavier.
And have lots more toys which also consume power. All of this means more
fuel is needed for a given job.

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

If you really think things like air-con don't use fuel, I'll have to lump
you in with Turnip. ;-)

I haven;t claimed that either. Do you understand anything?

Also, wide tyres and the larger heavier bodywork and trim etc all
contribute to increasing fuel consumption

yup. And other factors have reduced it.


Seems I need to spell it out to you.

It's true engines have become more efficient. But other changes to cars
over the years - bigger, heavier, more friction in the drive train, more
toys and so on, have produced nothing like the fuel savings that would
have been possible otherwise.

I see you specialise in stating the obvious too.

On 12/03/18 23:00, wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 14:30:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Cars over the years have got much larger and heavier.
And have lots more toys which also consume power. All of this means more
fuel is needed for a given job.

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

If you really think things like air-con don't use fuel, I'll have to lump
you in with Turnip. ;-)

I haven;t claimed that either. Do you understand anything?

Neither do I: But then TurNiP is a figment of Daves fevered LeftyMind.


Also, wide tyres and the larger heavier bodywork and trim etc all
contribute to increasing fuel consumption

yup. And other factors have reduced it.



Without ecobollox. most engines would be 15% more fuel efficient.

OTOH electronic injection and better materials and turbos have impproved
efficiency by about 20%, from around 20% to maybe nearly 40%.

That is haesd as 'doubling efficiency' by the green PorageMind.

But of course The Green PorageMind only thinks in linear terms. Imn
anpother ten years it will be 80%, and ten years after that 160%. You
just have to think positively, trust the EU and gaze into crystals.


NT



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 12/03/18 23:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/03/2018 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
does it? The Toyota Priapus gets worse combined cycle mpg than a
straight engine.

Even for city driving?

The only thing that counts in the real world is total miles per total
fuel consumed. Splitting it up into bits is of little utility.

So you'd say a car well suited for high speed motorway use will also be
just fine for use in heavy town traffic? And the other way round?

A car suitable for a lot of motorway miles, will generally also be fine
around town, but the opposite is often not true. In our house I have the
large family car, do all the motorway mileage and most family mileage,
but also most town journeys. My wife's small car is fine for her nipping
here and there, but very tiring on a motorway drive and useless for a
week's shopping for a family of five.

Steve, I was referring to MPG.

An blatant lie. At least that's a more honorable approach than your norm.

In article ,
wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 00:04:00 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2018 14:30:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Cars over the years have got much larger and heavier.
And have lots more toys which also consume power. All of this means more
fuel is needed for a given job.

in fact they use less fuel for the job. This is very basic stuff.

If you really think things like air-con don't use fuel, I'll have to lump
you in with Turnip. ;-)

I haven;t claimed that either. Do you understand anything?

Also, wide tyres and the larger heavier bodywork and trim etc all
contribute to increasing fuel consumption

yup. And other factors have reduced it.


Seems I need to spell it out to you.

It's true engines have become more efficient. But other changes to cars
over the years - bigger, heavier, more friction in the drive train, more
toys and so on, have produced nothing like the fuel savings that would
have been possible otherwise.

I see you specialise in stating the obvious too.

Sadly, it seems necessary, given there is so much rubbish given as facts
on here.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Neither do I: But then TurNiP is a figment of Daves fevered LeftyMind.

Sadly not, Turnip. Can't claim to have invented it. Hats off to the one
who did, though. Given the names you just love to call others.


OTOH electronic injection and better materials and turbos have impproved
efficiency by about 20%, from around 20% to maybe nearly 40%.

And that sort of ******** just show why Turnip is such a good name for you.

If the efficiency of an engine improves from 20% to 40% that is a 100%
improvement.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/03/2018 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Neither do I: But then TurNiP is a figment of Daves fevered LeftyMind.

Sadly not, Turnip. Can't claim to have invented it. Hats off to the one
who did, though. Given the names you just love to call others.


OTOH electronic injection and better materials and turbos have impproved
efficiency by about 20%, from around 20% to maybe nearly 40%.

And that sort of ******** just show why Turnip is such a good name for you.

If the efficiency of an engine improves from 20% to 40% that is a 100%
improvement.


If the amount of energy wasted by an engine falls from 80% to 60% that's
only a 25% improvement.

Andy
--
Is your glass half full?

On 15/03/2018 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/03/2018 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Neither do I: But then TurNiP is a figment of Daves fevered LeftyMind.

Sadly not, Turnip. Can't claim to have invented it. Hats off to the one
who did, though. Given the names you just love to call others.


OTOH electronic injection and better materials and turbos have impproved
efficiency byÂ* about 20%, from around 20% to maybe nearly 40%.

And that sort of ******** just show why Turnip is such a good name for
you.

If the efficiency of an engine improves from 20% to 40% that is a 100%
improvement.


If the amount of energy wasted by an engine falls from 80% to 60% that's
only a 25% improvement.

Is your glass always half empty?

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 21:30:36 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/03/2018 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/03/2018 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Neither do I: But then TurNiP is a figment of Daves fevered LeftyMind..

Sadly not, Turnip. Can't claim to have invented it. Hats off to the one
who did, though. Given the names you just love to call others.


OTOH electronic injection and better materials and turbos have impproved
efficiency byÂ* about 20%, from around 20% to maybe nearly 40%.

And that sort of ******** just show why Turnip is such a good name for
you.

If the efficiency of an engine improves from 20% to 40% that is a 100%
improvement.


If the amount of energy wasted by an engine falls from 80% to 60% that's
only a 25% improvement.

Is your glass always half empty?

Yes, as long as it's not my round, if it is my round then my glass his half full.