ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Oct 28, 2005 9:00:10 GMT 10
duketing, I think yours is quite acceptable... considering most trips are short distance and like what you said.. the car didn't even get to full warm up... considering you do most gear change at 4000rpm and occasionally 6000rpm.. 7 - 8L/100km is quite normal IMO.
Also, having look at your stats.. (if I interpreted the figures correctly...) you have came down to 6.9 occasionally.. which seems normal to me..
I think resetting the ECU has been covered before in the Tech section.. Do a search... (do at your own risk ;D)
|
|
ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Oct 28, 2005 9:09:09 GMT 10
From my last tank... BP 95 RON..
I managed to do 550km when the fuel needle is touching 'E' .
When filled up, I still have 5L to go... 6.7L/100km. I am happy..
If I fill up at 40L (2L to go in the tank).. I could have done 600km.. not too bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on Oct 28, 2005 9:58:52 GMT 10
I guess there's no problem with all the jazz vehicles, (except CVT as it might get interupted the ECU if U disturb the electronic stuff in your car)... just that it's all depend on how U drive the car. while my cousin was here, I always step the pedal harder so that it could gain more speed for the pickup time + more ppl sat in the car + more energy wasted when braking the car.. eventhough the overall speed + distance are merely the same as my lonely driver style, but the fuel consumption might go from 6.2-6.4~! so U can tell it's all depend on how U drive and the physical condition of your car. this fuel rate always remain below 3000rpm (no TEC is on).
|
|
|
|
Post by duketing on Oct 28, 2005 10:06:00 GMT 10
I forgot to mention the fuel used is mostly Shell Normal Unleaded which is 91ron.
Yeah, my last reading was filling up on E mark
and I got similar results.
so, if I use my average of 8.0/100kms (obtained by adding up the numbers and divide it by the number of times I recorded it.)
Fuel left = 42L-37.34 = 4.66L Approx
Calculation = (100kms / 8.0L) x Fuel left = 58.25km left approx.
Yeah, so could have done Just about 560km before run out of petrol.
Oh, forgot to tell you guys the consumption rate on my previous posting was worked out by kms driven since last fuelled up and amount of petrol used - not by the reading in dash console.
The reading in the console is based on trip meter and reading from the 0xygen sensor on the car
|
|
|
|
Post by jezzah on Oct 28, 2005 10:10:41 GMT 10
got some good calculations there mate.
i still cant get lower than 8.2L/100km. (this is me driving like a granning, keeping it at 2500rpm.
i think its because of my power intake and the rims which is dragging me down..
i dont about 450km in the last tank
|
|
|
|
Post by duketing on Oct 28, 2005 10:21:03 GMT 10
got some good calculations there mate. i still cant get lower than 8.2L/100km. (this is me driving like a granning, keeping it at 2500rpm. i think its because of my power intake and the rims which is dragging me down.. i dont about 450km in the last tank I don't think the rims will do alot to the fuel consumption as once you get going it is always rotation so the additional power needed won't be as much compared to normal. I think it might be the power intake...more air going in and if hotter temp .... more fuel needed to cool the combustion chamber. Either the MAP sensor or 02 sensor is playing up. Got any pics of the mod done in the engine bay? |
|
ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Oct 28, 2005 11:53:26 GMT 10
I've got the Simota POD as well.. (Thanks to Jazzpro) and XForce headers... used to have a muffler but sold to someone...
I have put on the original airbox back in and the fuel consumption does not seems to be much different. (same goes to the muffler...)
I reckon it could be the 17" wheels and the type of tyres which contribute to the traction and rolling resistance.. That is why normal VTi with 14" steelies can do mileage than mine...
Once thing I notice though.. if I use CVT 90% of the time, I get better mileage than in 7 speed manual mode.
|
|
ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Jan 2, 2006 23:56:06 GMT 10
Just something to share with you guys... Jazz is a damn good car... I fill up a tank of BP Ultimate on the weekend for a short trip to Mornington and then Ferry to Geelong and back to Melbourne.. We have 4 of us in the car, 2 adult and 2 children.. and the boot was pack with stuff such as luagages, beach gear, 30 - 40litres of water in a container etc.. Can feel the car is quite heavy... I mostly used CVT all the way to maintain the best torque for the drive all the way.. 70% is around 70 - 100km/h and 10% city driving and 20% up and down hill... I am impressed.. at one time, it went as low as 5.9L/100km.. and don't forget, it is a VTi-S.. and due to uphill and coastal driving and I have to use the manual sports mode.. it went slowly up to 6.2 - 6.4L/100km and maintain around there... Cannot imaging what a stock VTi or GLi can do.. The whole trip.. did about 400km and still got half a tank to go.. so.. nothing better than this I reckon..  |
|
|
|
Post by vividjazz on Jan 3, 2006 8:08:37 GMT 10
Basic physics dictates that the amount of force needed to rotate a larger wheel is greater than for a smaller wheel. Add to this increased weight of these larger wheels. But the most important factor is rolling resitance. These larger wheels are wider with stickier tyres usually containing silica compounds (excellent in the wet) which add even more resistance. So the wheels have a huge impact on fuel economy on a light vehicle with limited power/torque.
Its a reasonable tradeoff to expect fuel economy vs cosmetic improvement from large wheels but a trade that those who want fuel economy shouldn't make.
|
|
f**k
Member
Posts: 144
|
Post by f**k on Jan 3, 2006 10:27:05 GMT 10
ahcash....if your trip is always in high speed(over 80km), and no need to always stop, it can save many fuel, i think u understand why.
However, CVT is quite difficult to do under 7L/100km (i mean is whole tank)
|
|
ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Jan 3, 2006 14:20:01 GMT 10
CVT is suppose to be more fuel efficient than the manual mode. At any point in time, the gear ratio maintained by the CVT gearbox will be the highest possible and thus giving the fastest acceleration for the pertinent rpm-speed point.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRoLL on Jan 3, 2006 21:49:51 GMT 10
03 1.5 vti stock
sydney to canberra 5.7
city driving 6.1
|
|
ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Jan 25, 2006 18:52:05 GMT 10
Extracted from www.appostplus.com.auFuel efficient can make cents... ... The AGO estimates that every 1 litre per 100km less that a car consumes in fuel saves the average motorist about $150 a year, assuming a petrol price of $1 a litre and annual mileage of 15,000km.. Fuel Consumption Annual Fuel Cost6L/100km $9008L/100km $120010L/100km $150012L/ 100km $1800So.. aren't you glad you have a good fuel consumption Jazz.. without compromising too much on power.. |
|
|
|
Post by satanoperca on Jan 26, 2006 13:00:16 GMT 10
Just a query? I do not necessarily believe that larger wheels will reduce fuel efficiency in a car or that be it smaller will increase it.
If the stock car wheel is 500mm then wheel circumference is 1570mm. Thus the wheel must rotate 63.7times to do a distance of 100km's.
If you put a large wheel on the car and the diameter increase to say 600mm then the circumference is 1884mm. The wheel must rotate 53 times to do 100km's.
If the Jazz computer mileage gauge is programmed based on the wheel rotating 63.7 times to do 100 kms and you have large wheels you have actually traveled 120km's even though the car gauge are showing 100km. An increase of 20% further in distance and hence I would expect that you mileage reading from the car would be 20% more than with stock wheels as you have traveled 20km further than what the gauge is reading.
This theory should also apply to your speedo.
Is this correct?
Benjamin
|
|
|
|
Post by vividjazz on Jan 26, 2006 13:42:02 GMT 10
This is why you maintain the wheel and tyre diameter when putting larger rims with lower profile tyres so you don't throw out the speedo. To do otherwise would require the recaibration of the speedo.
You can also only go one rim size larger legally and also a max one inch wider than stock. Anything else is defectible. As an added bonus in NSW when they defect your car they are allowed to have it impounded at your expense (towing, impound/storage fees and release fees) on top of any fines and inspections fees.
If you run along the beach near the water on the wet sand is it easier than running up in the soft sand near the sand dunes? Your body and legs are the same in both cases. Sticky wide tyres have the same effect.
The guys with 16" and 17" rims are reporting worse fuel economy than those with 14" and 15". If the wheel and tyre diameter is maintained between the different wheel sizes on the same vehicles then what is the reason for this if the wheels or tyres make no difference? ie. only thing changed is wheels and tyres.
|
|
