If I took a 1L car for a drive, then took a 2L car for the EXACT same drive....

Watch
Runninground
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
... how much more would it cost me in petrol?

What I am trying to get at is 'Does a 2l car use much more petrol than a 1l car'?
0
reply
FXX
Badges: 18
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Depends on the car, fuel type and journey.
0
reply
Mr Tall
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
it'll use twice as much
0
reply
FXX
Badges: 18
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Mr Tall)
it'll use twice as much
It really won't.
0
reply
Harley SMU
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
It would depend on the age of the car(s), whether they're turbocharged or naturally aspirated, auto or manual to name just a few factors
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Runninground)
... how much more would it cost me in petrol?

What I am trying to get at is 'Does a 2l car use much more petrol than a 1l car'?
Depends, it is rather unlikely that there is a car has both a 1.0l and a 2.0l engine as an option to it.

On average a 1.0l Opel Corsa type car should return somewhere between 40-50mpg

A 2.0l Opel Astra should do 25-40mpg.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Mr Tall)
it'll use twice as much
Absolute tosh.

There are so many other factors not least of all fuel efficiency, power to weight ratio, aerodynamic drag, driving conditions, driving style/habbits etc.

Look at the fuel economy specification (distance/litre) for urban, extra urban and combined fuel economy figures and cut them back by 20% because they tend to be inflated by the manufacturer.
0
reply
jusdorange
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by FXX)
Depends on the car, fuel type and journey.
this.

the 2.0l might even be more economically since you don't need to rev the nuts off it
0
reply
traintracks1995
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
ll
(Original post by Runninground)
... how much more would it cost me in petrol?

What I am trying to get at is 'Does a 2l car use much more petrol than a 1l car'?
All other things equal about 33% more for the 2 litre
0
reply
FXX
Badges: 18
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by traintracks1995)
ll

All other things equal about 33% more for the 2 litre
Really? So how much more do you think it costs me to run my 3.2 compared to my friends 1.0?
0
reply
DotDotCurve
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by FXX)
Really? So how much more do you think it costs me to run my 3.2 compared to my friends 1.0?
53%
0
reply
Camoxide
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
Depends.

If you drive it faster than you would the 1.0 liter it's going to use more fuel.

A 2.0 litre is going to be heavier as well so more fuel to use.

It's not going to use twice as much though.

Unless you put your foot down.
0
reply
traintracks1995
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by FXX)
Really? So how much more do you think it costs me to run my 3.2 compared to my friends 1.0?
All things held constant I would estimate a 3.2 litre engine to use 80% more fuel than a 1 litre
0
reply
JC.
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by traintracks1995)
ll

All other things equal about 33% more for the 2 litre
Doesn't work like that.

To use a real wolrd example that I've got experience of... a '75 MGB wityh a 1.8 4 cylinder B series on a run, set up properly, will return about 28mpg.
The same car fitted with a 3.5 litre Rover V8 in standard trim, set up properly, will return about 30-32mpg.

The engine double the size with double the cylinders is MORE economical on the same route, same conditions and at the same speeds.


Similarly, again with real world experience, a 2.9 litre Jaguar XJ40 will consume more fuel than it's 4.0 litre twin cam equivalent.
0
reply
traintracks1995
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by JC.)
Doesn't work like that.

To use a real wolrd example that I've got experience of... a '75 MGB wityh a 1.8 4 cylinder B series on a run, set up properly, will return about 28mpg.
The same car fitted with a 3.5 litre Rover V8 in standard trim, set up properly, will return about 30-32mpg.

The engine double the size with double the cylinders is MORE economical on the same route, same conditions and at the same speeds.


Similarly, again with real world experience, a 2.9 litre Jaguar XJ40 will consume more fuel than it's 4.0 litre twin cam equivalent.
That surprises me. If you drive a set route in say a 1 litre Passat at a comfortable speed, and then drive the same route again in a 2 litre Passat at the same speed and same car weight, I would expect the 1 litre to be more economical. I get that if you were to thrash the 1 litre then the 2 litre wouldn't have to try as hard to keep up and would then be the more economical engine.
Were you thrashing the 1.8 and then 3.5 didn't have to work so hard to keep up ?
0
reply
JC.
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by traintracks1995)
That surprises me. If you drive a set route in say a 1 litre Passat at a comfortable speed, and then drive the same route again in a 2 litre Passat at the same speed and same car weight, I would expect the 1 litre to be more economical. I get that if you were to thrash the 1 litre then the 2 litre wouldn't have to try as hard to keep up and would then be the more economical engine.
Were you thrashing the 1.8 and then 3.5 didn't have to work so hard to keep up ?
If you think about it, the smaller engine has to work harder to lug around the same weight.
Whereas on the other hand, the larger engine is barely ticking over to do the same job.

I don't "thrash" cars on the road... save that for the track.
1
reply
Maccees
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by traintracks1995)
ll

All other things equal about 33% more for the 2 litre
You really need to stop pulling numbers out of your arse and stating them as fact.
1
reply
traintracks1995
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by JC.)
If you think about it, the smaller engine has to work harder to lug around the same weight.
Whereas on the other hand, the larger engine is barely ticking over to do the same job.

I don't "thrash" cars on the road... save that for the track.
I get your first point theoretically, but I would imagine that this doesn't happen in the real world. Otherwise a BMW 750i would use less fuel than a 728i because it's barely ticking over to do the same job. (Granted the 750 weighs slightly more).
(Original post by Maccees)
You really need to stop pulling numbers out of your arse and stating them as fact.
What numbers ?
0
reply
JC.
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by traintracks1995)
I get your first point theoretically, but I would imagine that this doesn't happen in the real world. Otherwise a BMW 750i would use less fuel than a 728i because it's barely ticking over to do the same job. (Granted the 750 weighs slightly more).

Well, going back to my point... an XJ40 with a V12 would use more fuel than both the 2.9 and 4.0 litre AJ6 engine versions of the same car.
Primarily because the V12 can trace its roots back to the 50's...

The point being just because a cars engine has a greater cubic capacity doesn't arbitrarily mean it's going to be more or less fuel efficient.
0
reply
Maccees
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by traintracks1995)
What numbers ?

All things held constant I would estimate a 3.2 litre engine to use 80% more fuel than a 1 litre

All other things equal about 33% more for the 2 litre
Along with all your other insights in other threads :rolleyes:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (398)
56.37%
I don't have everything I need (308)
43.63%

Watched Threads

View All