Go to first unread
Back
to top
If I took a 1L car for a drive, then took a 2L car for the EXACT same drive....
Watch
Announcements
... 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'?
What I am trying to get at is 'Does a 2l car use much more petrol than a 1l car'?
0
reply
Report
#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
Report
#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'?
... 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'?
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
Report
#7
(Original post by Mr Tall)
it'll use twice as much
it'll use twice as much
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
Report
#8
(Original post by FXX)
Depends on the car, fuel type and journey.
Depends on the car, fuel type and journey.
the 2.0l might even be more economically since you don't need to rev the nuts off it
0
reply
Report
#9
ll
All other things equal about 33% more for the 2 litre
(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'?
... 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
Report
#10
0
reply
Report
#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?
Really? So how much more do you think it costs me to run my 3.2 compared to my friends 1.0?
0
reply
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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?
Really? So how much more do you think it costs me to run my 3.2 compared to my friends 1.0?
0
reply
Report
#14
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
Report
#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.
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.
Were you thrashing the 1.8 and then 3.5 didn't have to work so hard to keep up ?
0
reply
Report
#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 ?
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 ?
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
Report
#17
1
reply
Report
#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.
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.
(Original post by Maccees)
You really need to stop pulling numbers out of your arse and stating them as fact.
You really need to stop pulling numbers out of your arse and stating them as fact.
0
reply
Report
#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).
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
Report
#20
(Original post by traintracks1995)
What numbers ?
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
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
