some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and the
MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs less
to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer. however,
the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre vs 1.5 litre.

Lancer
$143.00per 1000km
$113.00per fill
weight 1278 Kg
Fuel Consumption Combined
7.4 L/100km
Fuel Consumption Highway
6.1 L/100km
Fuel Consumption City
9.7 L/100km

MG ZS
$137.00per 1000km
$92.00per fill
weight 1255 kg
Fuel Consumption Combined
7.1 L/100km
Fuel Consumption Highway
5.9 L/100km
Fuel Consumption City
9.1 L/100km

--
Have a nice day!..

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
a non-political, fact-based site which examines the ideological
threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom

On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and the
> MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs less
> to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer. however,
> the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre vs 1.5 litre.
>
> Lancer
> $143.00per 1000km
> $113.00per fill
> weight 1278 Kg
> Fuel Consumption Combined
> 7.4 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption Highway
> 6.1 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption City
> 9.7 L/100km
>
>
> MG ZS
> $137.00per 1000km
> $92.00per fill
> weight 1255 kg
> Fuel Consumption Combined
> 7.1 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption Highway
> 5.9 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption City
> 9.1 L/100km
>
>

**Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the manufacturers?

My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of 8.7L/100km.

My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.

The Subaru employs a 197kW, turbo, 2L engine and weighs in at a porky
1,622kg.

FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy between
98RON and 95RON.

Also, FWIW: I found the MG HS to be quite poor WRT economy. Particularly
in light of the fact that the car was not very heavy.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy between
> 98RON and 95RON.

So, you feed it with 98 because.......

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs
>> less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer.
>> however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre
>> vs 1.5 litre.
>>
>> Lancer
>> $143.00per 1000km
>> $113.00per fill
>> weight 1278 Kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.4 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 6.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.7 L/100km
>>
>>
>> MG ZS
>> $137.00per 1000km
>> $92.00per fill
>> weight 1255 kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 5.9 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.1 L/100km
>>
>>
>
> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
> manufacturers?
>
> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
> 8.7L/100km.
>
> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>

Why would Subaru supply figures that are worse, that makes no sense. It
means that your testing is not the same as the strict ADR 81/02 tests
conducted on the vehicle (as per the sticker on the windscreen) and
those are the only ones you should use to compare new vehicles.

> The Subaru employs a 197kW, turbo, 2L engine and weighs in at a porky
> 1,622kg.
>
> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy between
> 98RON and 95RON.

Why would you expect to?

Furthermore why put 98 in it when there is no advantage and it's more
expensive?

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 27/10/2023 5:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and the
> MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs less
> to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer. however,
> the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre vs 1.5 litre.
>
> Lancer
> $143.00per 1000km
> $113.00per fill
> weight 1278 Kg
> Fuel Consumption Combined
> 7.4 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption Highway
> 6.1 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption City
> 9.7 L/100km
>
>
> MG ZS
> $137.00per 1000km
> $92.00per fill
> weight 1255 kg
> Fuel Consumption Combined
> 7.1 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption Highway
> 5.9 L/100km
> Fuel Consumption City
> 9.1 L/100km
>
>
That's not that good, the Mazda 3 a bigger car with a 2.5 litre engine
has a long term average of 6.7 l/100km, on the highway it will go down
to 5.6 l/100km on 91RON. The cost per fill is irrelevant it only depends
on the size of the tank.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs
>> less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer.
>> however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre
>> vs 1.5 litre.
>>
>> Lancer
>> $143.00per 1000km
>> $113.00per fill
>> weight 1278 Kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.4 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 6.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.7 L/100km
>>
>>
>> MG ZS
>> $137.00per 1000km
>> $92.00per fill
>> weight 1255 kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 5.9 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.1 L/100km
>>
>>
>
> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
> manufacturers?

they're from carsales.com.au

>
> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
> 8.7L/100km.
>
> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.

how do you measure it?

>
> The Subaru employs a 197kW, turbo, 2L engine and weighs in at a porky
> 1,622kg.
>
> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
> between 98RON and 95RON.
>
> Also, FWIW: I found the MG HS to be quite poor WRT economy.
> Particularly in light of the fact that the car was not very heavy.
>

mine is a ZS

--
Have a nice day!..

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
a non-political, fact-based site which examines the ideological
threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom

On 27/10/2023 8:44 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 5:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs
>> less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer.
>> however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre
>> vs 1.5 litre.
>>
>> Lancer
>> $143.00per 1000km
>> $113.00per fill
>> weight 1278 Kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.4 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 6.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.7 L/100km
>>
>>
>> MG ZS
>> $137.00per 1000km
>> $92.00per fill
>> weight 1255 kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 5.9 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.1 L/100km
>>
>>
> That's not that good, the Mazda 3 a bigger car with a 2.5 litre engine
> has a long term average of 6.7 l/100km, on the highway it will go down
> to 5.6 l/100km on 91RON. The cost per fill is irrelevant it only depends
> on the size of the tank.

Also depends on the price, to be a valid price comparison they would
both need to be refueled at the same servo on the same day.
The fuel consumption look like they are the manufacturers published
figures which can vary considerably and depend on many factors, even
different drivers of the same car can achieve different numbers.

--
Daryl

On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs
>> less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer.
>> however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre
>> vs 1.5 litre.
>>
>> Lancer
>> $143.00per 1000km
>> $113.00per fill
>> weight 1278 Kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.4 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 6.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.7 L/100km
>>
>>
>> MG ZS
>> $137.00per 1000km
>> $92.00per fill
>> weight 1255 kg
>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>> 7.1 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>> 5.9 L/100km
>> Fuel Consumption City
>> 9.1 L/100km
>>
>>
>
> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
> manufacturers?

Supposedly arrived at using a standard test so the numbers can be used
as a comparison when buying a car.
I don't really think that they are meant to represent real world fuel
economy although many people believe that they are.
>
> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
> 8.7L/100km.
>
> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.

Depends a lot on how its driven, I also usually manage to better the
published figures.

--
Daryl

On 27/10/2023 7:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
>> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>
> So, you feed it with 98 because.......
>
>
I don't know what fuel is available in Trev's area but here I find that
what the servo's have is variable which can determine what fuel you buy.
For example Apco doesn't have 98 but has 95 at the best price, 7/11 has
98 but not 95.
AFAIK the servo you go to has 98 but not 95?
My MB and my wife's Golf use Apco 95, Porsche gets 98 from where ever
its cheapest, sticker inside the Porsche fuel filler says min 96 so
that's why it gets 98.

--
Daryl

On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 08:58:02 UTC+11, Daryl wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 7:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
> > On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
> >> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
> >> between 98RON and 95RON.
> >
> > So, you feed it with 98 because.......
> >
> >
> I don't know what fuel is available in Trev's area but here I find that
> what the servo's have is variable which can determine what fuel you buy.
> For example Apco doesn't have 98 but has 95 at the best price, 7/11 has
> 98 but not 95.
> AFAIK the servo you go to has 98 but not 95?
> My MB and my wife's Golf use Apco 95, Porsche gets 98 from where ever
> its cheapest, sticker inside the Porsche fuel filler says min 96 so
> that's why it gets 98.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
My Jeep runs on 91 which is available everywhere. MPG is probably around 20 highway (on a good day) and bugger all around town. Such is life...;)
>
>
> --
> Daryl

On 28/10/2023 8:57 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 7:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have
>>> not been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>>
>> So, you feed it with 98 because.......
>>
>>
> I don't know what fuel is available in Trev's area but here I find that
> what the servo's have is variable which can determine what fuel you buy.
> For example Apco doesn't have 98 but has 95 at the best price, 7/11 has
> 98 but not 95.

I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in his
area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely zero sense
on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit from it at all.

> AFAIK the servo you go to has 98 but not 95?

I don't know, as I've never looked. Everything I have that runs on
petrol happily uses 91. Everything else is diesel.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/10/2023 8:48 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
>> manufacturers?
>
> Supposedly arrived at using a standard test so the numbers can be used
> as a comparison when buying a car.

Indeed.

> I don't really think that they are meant to represent real world fuel
> economy although many people believe that they are.

That's because people are idiots :)

Everyone's driving habits are different, and the exact same car spread
across a wide cross section of the driving community will achieve
varying results which makes the figures your neighbour may get with the
same car as yours completely irrelevant to you. The only way you can
compare cars on any level is by having a standard test and subjecting
all the various makes and models to the same procedure.

The results of which won't ever tell you how economical a car will be
fore you, but it *will* tell you how good or bad the car does relative
to anything else on the same test.

>> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
>> 8.7L/100km.
>>
>> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
>> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>
> Depends a lot on how its driven, I also usually manage to better the
> published figures.

Mine are a bit mixed, but the ute is still relatively new. Ford cites a
combined average of 8.4l/100km for the V6 diesel, and currently I'm
seeing 9.9 around town and low 8's on the highway with occasional dips
into the high 7's. Average would be in the high 8's which for a 2 and a
half tonne ute is pretty good going in my opinion. By comparison the
previous Navara averaged 9.9 with the same sized engine, but it was a
little lighter and didn't have half the power sapping equipment.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/10/2023 10:56 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 8:48 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
>>> manufacturers?
>>
>> Supposedly arrived at using a standard test so the numbers can be used
>> as a comparison when buying a car.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> I don't really think that they are meant to represent real world fuel
>> economy although many people believe that they are.
>
> That's because people are idiots :)
>
> Everyone's driving habits are different, and the exact same car spread
> across a wide cross section of the driving community will achieve
> varying results which makes the figures your neighbour may get with the
> same car as yours completely irrelevant to you. The only way you can
> compare cars on any level is by having a standard test and subjecting
> all the various makes and models to the same procedure.
>
> The results of which won't ever tell you how economical a car will be
> fore you, but it *will* tell you how good or bad the car does relative
> to anything else on the same test.
>
>>> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
>>> 8.7L/100km.
>>>
>>> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
>>> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>>
>> Depends a lot on how its driven, I also usually manage to better the
>> published figures.
>
> Mine are a bit mixed, but the ute is still relatively new.

My experience with new vehicles is that it takes about 10,000km for the
engine to free up and they start performing at their best.

Ford cites a
> combined average of 8.4l/100km for the V6 diesel, and currently I'm
> seeing 9.9 around town and low 8's on the highway with occasional dips
> into the high 7's. Average would be in the high 8's which for a 2 and a
> half tonne ute is pretty good going in my opinion.

Pretty good for that sort of vehicle.

--
Daryl

On 27/10/2023 7:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
>> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>
> So, you feed it with 98 because.......
>
>

**Because my local Metro servo sells 98RON cheaper than the other local
servo sells 95RON. The Metro doesn't stock 95RON. Also, FWIW: My Nissan
Stagea performs a whole lot better on 98RON.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 27/10/2023 8:21 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs
>>> less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer.
>>> however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre
>>> vs 1.5 litre.
>>>
>>> Lancer
>>> $143.00per 1000km
>>> $113.00per fill
>>> weight 1278 Kg
>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>> 7.4 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>> 6.1 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>> 9.7 L/100km
>>>
>>>
>>> MG ZS
>>> $137.00per 1000km
>>> $92.00per fill
>>> weight 1255 kg
>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>> 7.1 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>> 5.9 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>> 9.1 L/100km
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
>> manufacturers?
>>
>> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
>> 8.7L/100km.
>>
>> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
>> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>>
>
> Why would Subaru supply figures that are worse, that makes no sense. It
> means that your testing is not the same as the strict ADR 81/02 tests
> conducted on the vehicle (as per the sticker on the windscreen) and
> those are the only ones you should use to compare new vehicles.

**Of course. I wanted to know what figures were supplied for the MG.
Having driven an MG HS, I found fuel economy to be terrible.

>
>
>> The Subaru employs a 197kW, turbo, 2L engine and weighs in at a porky
>> 1,622kg.
>>
>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
>> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>
> Why would you expect to?

**I don't. I included the information because my Nissan Stagea
demonstrates significantly better performance on 98RON.

>
> Furthermore why put 98 in it when there is no advantage and it's more
> expensive?
>

**My local, Metro, servo sells 98RON (but not 95RON) cheaper than my
local Shell sells 95RON. In fact, today, the Metro had 98RON at 205.9cpl
and Shell had 95RON at 225.9cpl. Shell 98RON was 248.9cpl! Weirdly, the
all the Shell pumps had no customers. I can't understand why.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 27/10/2023 10:37 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol, costs
>>> less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the Lancer.
>>> however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger engine, 2 litre
>>> vs 1.5 litre.
>>>
>>> Lancer
>>> $143.00per 1000km
>>> $113.00per fill
>>> weight 1278 Kg
>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>> 7.4 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>> 6.1 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>> 9.7 L/100km
>>>
>>>
>>> MG ZS
>>> $137.00per 1000km
>>> $92.00per fill
>>> weight 1255 kg
>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>> 7.1 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>> 5.9 L/100km
>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>> 9.1 L/100km
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
>> manufacturers?
>
> they're from carsales.com.au

**Ah, bullshit manufacturer's data.

>
>>
>> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
>> 8.7L/100km.
>>
>> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
>> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>
> how do you measure it?

**I have a fuel consumption indicator in my car. It resets every 10,000km.

>
>>
>> The Subaru employs a 197kW, turbo, 2L engine and weighs in at a porky
>> 1,622kg.
>>
>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have not
>> been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>>
>> Also, FWIW: I found the MG HS to be quite poor WRT economy.
>> Particularly in light of the fact that the car was not very heavy.
>>
>
> mine is a ZS

**I am aware. Prolly the same shithouse engine though.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 8:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 27/10/2023 7:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 27/10/2023 7:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have
>>>> not been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>>>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>>>
>>> So, you feed it with 98 because.......
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know what fuel is available in Trev's area but here I find
>> that what the servo's have is variable which can determine what fuel
>> you buy.
>> For example Apco doesn't have 98 but has 95 at the best price, 7/11
>> has 98 but not 95.
>
> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in his
> area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely zero sense
> on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit from it at all.

**98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.

>
>> AFAIK the servo you go to has 98 but not 95?
>
> I don't know, as I've never looked. Everything I have that runs on
> petrol happily uses 91. Everything else is diesel.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 28/10/2023 1:45 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 27/10/2023 10:37 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>>>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol,
>>>> costs less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the
>>>> Lancer. however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger
>>>> engine, 2 litre vs 1.5 litre.
>>>>
>>>> Lancer
>>>> $143.00per 1000km
>>>> $113.00per fill
>>>> weight 1278 Kg
>>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>>> 7.4 L/100km
>>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>>> 6.1 L/100km
>>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>>> 9.7 L/100km
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MG ZS
>>>> $137.00per 1000km
>>>> $92.00per fill
>>>> weight 1255 kg
>>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>>> 7.1 L/100km
>>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>>> 5.9 L/100km
>>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>>> 9.1 L/100km
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
>>> manufacturers?
>>
>> they're from carsales.com.au
>
> **Ah, bullshit manufacturer's data.
>

Where is your evidence for that?

Not that they are but you still haven't answered why Subaru would state
economy figures worse than what you're seeing.

That would not be in their interest.

>>
>>>
>>> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
>>> 8.7L/100km.
>>>
>>> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
>>> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>>
>> how do you measure it?
>
> **I have a fuel consumption indicator in my car. It resets every 10,000km.
>

The accuracy of those is quite variable.

>>
>>>
>>> The Subaru employs a 197kW, turbo, 2L engine and weighs in at a porky
>>> 1,622kg.
>>>
>>> FWIW: I feed it with 98RON, though the handbook says 95RON. I have
>>> not been able to detect any variation in performance or fuel economy
>>> between 98RON and 95RON.
>>>
>>> Also, FWIW: I found the MG HS to be quite poor WRT economy.
>>> Particularly in light of the fact that the car was not very heavy.
>>>
>>
>> mine is a ZS
>
> **I am aware. Prolly the same shithouse engine though.
>
>

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 28/10/2023 4:54 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 1:45 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 27/10/2023 10:37 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 27/10/2023 6:49 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> some interesting stuff I discovered about the Mitsubishi Lancer and
>>>>> the MG ZS. despite being a bigger car, the MG uses less petrol,
>>>>> costs less to fill the tank, but is about the same weight as the
>>>>> Lancer. however, the Lancer is more powerful. it has a bigger
>>>>> engine, 2 litre vs 1.5 litre.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lancer
>>>>> $143.00per 1000km
>>>>> $113.00per fill
>>>>> weight 1278 Kg
>>>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>>>> 7.4 L/100km
>>>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>>>> 6.1 L/100km
>>>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>>>> 9.7 L/100km
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MG ZS
>>>>> $137.00per 1000km
>>>>> $92.00per fill
>>>>> weight 1255 kg
>>>>> Fuel Consumption Combined
>>>>> 7.1 L/100km
>>>>> Fuel Consumption Highway
>>>>> 5.9 L/100km
>>>>> Fuel Consumption City
>>>>> 9.1 L/100km
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Are these real figures, or bullshit figures supplied by the
>>>> manufacturers?
>>>
>>> they're from carsales.com.au
>>
>> **Ah, bullshit manufacturer's data.
>>
>
> Where is your evidence for that?
>
> Not that they are but you still haven't answered why Subaru would state
> economy figures worse than what you're seeing.
>
> That would not be in their interest.

**My fuel economy figures are based on my driving, not a standardised
test. That said, I have rarely seen a test performed by a third party on
any car where the fuel economy figures are as good as those posted by
the manufacturer.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My Subaru Levorg, for instance is rated for a combined figure of
>>>> 8.7L/100km.
>>>>
>>>> My real world (60% city/40% highway) figure is 7.6L/100km. That's an
>>>> average over 6 years of ownership. FWIW: I've had it as low as 7.2.
>>>
>>> how do you measure it?
>>
>> **I have a fuel consumption indicator in my car. It resets every
>> 10,000km.
>>
>
> The accuracy of those is quite variable.

**Not in my experience. I've owned several cars with those devices
fitted to them (one I fitted myself to a VL Commodore). I've found that
they are remarkably accurate.

However, if you have evidence to prove that they are inaccurate, I would
be interested in seeing the evidence.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 28/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:

>> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in
>> his area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely zero
>> sense on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit from it at
>> all.
>
> **98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
> local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.

Odd. 98 isn't available everywhere down here, but wherever it is it is
the most expensive fuel you can buy, and usually by a very long way.

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/10/2023 6:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in
>>> his area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely zero
>>> sense on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit from it at
>>> all.
>>
>> **98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
>> local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.
>
> Odd. 98 isn't available everywhere down here, but wherever it is it is
> the most expensive fuel you can buy, and usually by a very long way.
>

Usually yes.
Quite often 95 from Apco in BM is cheaper than 91 elsewhere.

--
Daryl

On 28/10/2023 6:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in
>>> his area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely zero
>>> sense on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit from it at
>>> all.
>>
>> **98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
>> local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.
>
> Odd. 98 isn't available everywhere down here, but wherever it is it is
> the most expensive fuel you can buy, and usually by a very long way.
>
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
Says Darren speaking from experience with a very limited subset of
Australia's fuel stations.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 28/10/2023 6:43 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 6:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 28/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in
>>>> his area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely
>>>> zero sense on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit from
>>>> it at all.
>>>
>>> **98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
>>> local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.
>>
>> Odd. 98 isn't available everywhere down here, but wherever it is it is
>> the most expensive fuel you can buy, and usually by a very long way.
>>
>
>
> Usually yes.
> Quite often 95 from Apco in BM is cheaper than 91 elsewhere.
>
In Europe these days, 95 is the minimum, 98 is always available, and 100
is usually available too.

On 29/10/2023 6:02 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 6:43 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 28/10/2023 6:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable in
>>>>> his area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes absolutely
>>>>> zero sense on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no benefit
>>>>> from it at all.
>>>>
>>>> **98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
>>>> local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.
>>>
>>> Odd. 98 isn't available everywhere down here, but wherever it is it
>>> is the most expensive fuel you can buy, and usually by a very long way.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Usually yes.
>> Quite often 95 from Apco in BM is cheaper than 91 elsewhere.
>>
> In Europe these days, 95 is the minimum, 98 is always available, and 100
> is usually available too.

Possibly because to comply with current emission rules they need higher
quality fuel.

--
Daryl

On 29/10/2023 8:24 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 29/10/2023 6:02 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 28/10/2023 6:43 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2023 6:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 28/10/2023 4:47 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 28/10/2023 10:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know where Trevor lives, but surely 95 isn't unavailable
>>>>>> in his area at a cheaper price than 98. I mean, it makes
>>>>>> absolutely zero sense on any level to use 98 in a car that gets no
>>>>>> benefit from it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> **98RON is cheaper from my local servo, than 95RON is from my other
>>>>> local servo. Sometimes, it is WAY cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> Odd. 98 isn't available everywhere down here, but wherever it is it
>>>> is the most expensive fuel you can buy, and usually by a very long way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Usually yes.
>>> Quite often 95 from Apco in BM is cheaper than 91 elsewhere.
>>>
>> In Europe these days, 95 is the minimum, 98 is always available, and
>> 100 is usually available too.
>
>
> Possibly because to comply with current emission rules they need higher
> quality fuel.
>
Octane rating does not relate to the quality of the fuel, it relates to
the *knock resistance* and that is determined by the additives put in it
before delivery to retail outlets.

The additives give you the ability to run higher compression ratios
without the spontaneous ignition from the heat of compression and
consequent detonation. It also allows the manufacturers to offer a
better performing engine with *reduced* fuel consumption. Reduced fuel
consumption is the big CO2 buzzphrase these days - the only way to
produce less CO2 is to use less fuel - so higher compression ratios and
more *efficient* engines are the answer. Euros have more stringent
sulphur content standards too.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)