Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > Team-BHP Reviews > Long-Term Ownership Reviews


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th February 2007, 18:57   #16
BHPian
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pune
Posts: 487
Thanked: 110 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akroy View Post
Did u do a tank up and checked it? Sometimes the fuel meters plays pranks...unless you tank up full u are never sure, there might be 4-5litres here n there...Anyway, if yes, then its a great avg...

Abhi
Tell me about it, am shocked myself, cause my brand new 800 returned around 18kmpl on the same highway.

I had topped up the tank on my Palio, net net I covered 500kms & the tank was exactly half full, that's 23.5 litres consumed, given the full tank capacity if 47litres.

So basically, I topped up the tank, reset the trip meter & went to Kolhapur & back covering 500kms in total using just 23.5 litres of fuel.

But like I said, there were several factors to the good mileage, no traffic at all, perfect tyre pressure, no load in the car except for me & my wife, & a steady acceleration most of the way, even though I was averagin 100kmph.

I am not claiming that the mileage given is absolutely correct, just sharing facts given the readings I got. Like many said, it could be faulty readings too.
mb_jg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 19:59   #17
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: pune
Posts: 2,088
Thanked: 48 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mb_jg View Post
I had topped up the tank on my Palio, net net I covered 500kms & the tank was exactly half full, that's 23.5 litres consumed, given the full tank capacity if 47litres.
Then unfortunately, it can differ significantly. The fuel gauge reading will not be linear, so you'll never really know how much fuel got consumed.
RX135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 21:48   #18
BHPian
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pune
Posts: 487
Thanked: 110 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RX135 View Post
Then unfortunately, it can differ significantly. The fuel gauge reading will not be linear, so you'll never really know how much fuel got consumed.
Dude, you are on a trip to prove someone wrong man. Accepting your opinion does not mean I am in agreement. The only way to prove this is right\wrong is to post the figures of my next trip. There is a high possibility that the fuel gauge is CORRECT, you can start accepting that just like I accepted that is could be WRONG. CHEERS !!!!
mb_jg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2007, 23:46   #19
BHPian
 
sushanthr77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mangalore / DXB
Posts: 280
Thanked: 4 Times
Default

I've personally verified the FE of the 1.2 both in city and on highways traveling at various speeds. The FE has been calculated by full-tank to full-tank method (Complete top up). Various trips on different highways have resulted in the figures below.

The results are as follows:
(Highway, 5th gear, constant speed, minimal acceleration, No AC)

60 kmph -> 21 - 22 kmpl
80 kmph -> 19.5 - 20 kmpl
100 kmph -> 18 - 19 kmpl (average speed 80)
120 kmph -> 16.5 - 17.5 kmpl (average speed 90)

Reckless acceleration on all gears - 14.5 kmpl.

It is very easy to achieve these figures in a 1.2 . However, the city FE I manage in Bangalore is 12.5 kmpl

sushanthr77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2007, 02:55   #20
BHPian
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pune
Posts: 487
Thanked: 110 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sushanthr77 View Post
I've personally verified the FE of the 1.2 both in city and on highways traveling at various speeds. The FE has been calculated by full-tank to full-tank method (Complete top up). Various trips on different highways have resulted in the figures below.

The results are as follows:
(Highway, 5th gear, constant speed, minimal acceleration, No AC)

60 kmph -> 21 - 22 kmpl
80 kmph -> 19.5 - 20 kmpl
100 kmph -> 18 - 19 kmpl (average speed 80)
120 kmph -> 16.5 - 17.5 kmpl (average speed 90)
Reckless acceleration on all gears - 14.5 kmpl.

It is very easy to achieve these figures in a 1.2 . However, the city FE I manage in Bangalore is 12.5 kmpl
Yep, you said it dude. I agree with you, the city FE will not be anything to write home about, but at the same time if your car is well taken care of & driven sensibly then achieving 19+kmpl is not an issue. Driving fast does not necessarily mean driving rash, both the driving styles have a huge effect of FE. Most people think driving at the speeds of 100kmph is rash & consumes more fuel.
mb_jg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2007, 10:16   #21
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: pune
Posts: 2,088
Thanked: 48 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mb_jg View Post
Dude, you are on a trip to prove someone wrong man. Accepting your opinion does not mean I am in agreement. The only way to prove this is right\wrong is to post the figures of my next trip. There is a high possibility that the fuel gauge is CORRECT, you can start accepting that just like I accepted that is could be WRONG. CHEERS !!!!
Sorry if you think so.

Anyway, I have nothing to gain by proving you wrong. I myself own a Fiat for last 2 years and I love it. But I do know that its fuel gauge is not exactly linear and that's the reason I made that comment. You may be 100% correct, but it will be better if you can check the FE over time using more reliable method (like top off-to-top off). 21 kmpl at average speed of 100kmph sounded somewhat high for me even for 1.2. (I could extract 16kmpl from 1.6).

BTW, I can not exactly recollect the source, but it said, the best efficiency is achieved at 88 kmph and as the speed increases, due to aerodynamic drag forces, the FE starts reducing and at 120 kmph, it drops by upto 30%. (I think, its too generic a statement, but I remember reading this.)

Last edited by RX135 : 15th February 2007 at 10:19.
RX135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2007, 17:06   #22
BHPian
 
omar1310's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 146
Thanked: 7 Times
Default I am amused

Hi! 21kmpl in 1.2 Palio sounds little audacious. However, if you got it, great. But then, right way should have been to top up the tank in stead of reading it from the fuel gauge. In such case, the figures would have been different. However, post the next highway test as well.

I never got more than 16kmpl on the highway on my Santro though!(with 50-60% a/c on)

Regards
omar1310 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2007, 01:04   #23
BHPian
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pune
Posts: 487
Thanked: 110 Times
Default

Will do that on a longer trip considering that the tank was only half empty when I returned from Kolhapur.
mb_jg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Palio 1.2 ELX: 55,000 kms review - Now Sold, A tribute to the Palio iceman7 Long-Term Ownership Reviews 44 2nd February 2012 21:24
Palio V/s palio fight_club Hatchbacks 83 26th October 2006 11:57
Facelifted Palio?????? A completely new PALIO on the way!!!! redcandle The Indian Car Scene 14 7th May 2006 01:42
Palio 1.2 NV or Palio 1.9 D pmishra Hatchbacks 3 4th November 2004 19:10
Palio NV slower than the older Palio? DCEite The Indian Car Scene 2 13th October 2004 00:03


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 21:49.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks