And obviously the way it's driven but M/Bs quoted figures are achievable (certainly their MPG figures). How did you obtain your actual CO2 figures from your MPG Mike.
Yes I see it there Mike but how do they corelate the CO2 from the figures members have given. Where are they getting your 30.479 is this an average it is surely not your best mpg but where does the figure 5.216kg come from
All I could find from a search on the web was the emmisions factor for petrol as 2.30 kg CO2/litre and diesel at 2.63 kg CO2/litre ** which does not seem to tie up with any of their figures.
The 30,479 is km travelled, the 2238 is litres of gasoline burned over that distance; the CO2 output is a straightforward calculation based upon those actual figures.
I had a Turbo CVT loaner car while the B was in for its Service C. The Turbo had not been broken in yet, but it still had way too much torque off the line, the ESP was constantly kicking in on the damp roads, from a standstill, especially if turning from a stop.
Anyway, I was only able to get the OBC reading down to 8.2 L/100 km over 180 km of highway driving, which compares to the 6.4 L/100 km on the OBC that my own car got on the same route today, including the service/test drive (with 40 minutes of idling I think) plus a traffic jam on the way home that sank the average speed to date to a tad over 30 km/h.
I was driving both cars the same, at 90 km/h.....some city driving, same as my normal routes. The Turbo engine was undoubtedly tight with only 1100 km on it when I first started driving. Still it's worse fuel economy than I remember from the last Turbo I used, which was "only" about 1.5 L/100 km more thirsty than my own car.
And of course the OBC under-estimates fuel consumption by about 0.4 L/100 km, so I actually got a 6.8 and it got 8.6.
I had a Turbo CVT loaner car while the B was in for its Service C. The Turbo had not been broken in yet, but it still had way too much torque off the line, the ESP was constantly kicking in on the damp roads, from a standstill, especially if turning from a stop.
Anyway, I was only able to get the OBC reading down to 8.2 L/100 km over 180 km of highway driving, which compares to the 6.4 L/100 km on the OBC that my own car got on the same route today, including the service/test drive (with 40 minutes of idling I think) plus a traffic jam on the way home that sank the average speed to date to a tad over 30 km/h.
I was driving both cars the same, at 90 km/h.....some city driving, same as my normal routes. The Turbo engine was undoubtedly tight with only 1100 km on it when I first started driving. Still it's worse fuel economy than I remember from the last Turbo I used, which was "only" about 1.5 L/100 km more thirsty than my own car.
And of course the OBC under-estimates fuel consumption by about 0.4 L/100 km, so I actually got a 6.8 and it got 8.6.
hmmm... my 200t has 13000km now and the avg is 10.2 on the obc. I am not a terribly aggressive driver but will do 110-120 on the hwy... this is Quebec..
I noticed that it generally take about 0.5l/100km more since I put my winter rubbers on .... I guess this is because of the softer rubber causing more friction or the agressive pattern on them ... I'm now at 10.2L/100km after 27000 km, about 50/50 in terms of city / highway driving.
Linear Mode
